On Wednesday, March 9, 2016 at 3:35:50 PM UTC-5, danny burstein wrote:   
      
   > to be fair the book is very, very, good. It's just that   
   > the movie is super duper terrific.   
      
   I respectfully disagree.  The only reason I was able to slog through   
   the book was because it was a good _subway_ story and I was interested   
   in that stuff.  But I had to skip past all the junk about the lives of   
   the prostitute and all her clients, ex-motorman, group leader, the   
   pioneer female tower operator, the head cop, mayor, mayor's aide,   
   etc.  Plus, it had _every_ 1970s cliche of NYC being violent and   
   decayed.   
      
   Yes, the movie was great.  I'd love to know some of the technical   
   details about it, such as how they got realistic lighting in the   
   narrow subway car interior.  Movie film, especially then, required   
   substantial lighting.  (A while ago I drove past a movie set   
   and the _outdoor_ lighting was incredibly powerful.)  But then,   
   Hollywood has been lighting sets for 75 years, so they must know   
   what they're doing.  Look at Casablanca.   
      
   (I wondered if actors' eyes are affected from the super bright   
   lights.  I know they don't look directly at them, but sometimes   
   it's unavoidable.  I was on a TV set and the lights hurt my eyes.)   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)