|
Post by Simey on Dec 15, 2011 22:14:16 GMT -5
even if you miss the "but Doctor Who?" sketch ;D Dunno how far back the streaming site goes, but Doctor Who started in 1963. There was one year missed in the mid-eighties and a gap - give or take the odd special thing - between 1989 and 2005, but if you like to be picky (like me) then technically Doctor Who is currently in its, erm....thirty-second series or something? Which is rather good going for sci-fi.
|
|
|
Post by Shadow Crow on Dec 16, 2011 7:22:39 GMT -5
Yes, I checked the wikipedia for the show and found that it's by far the longest sci-fi show still running, with more than 700 episodes!
I'd like very much to be picky but the site I told earlier has only the first season (1963) and then the newest ones (2005-2011) and I can't seem to locate the others.
As for the longevity I suppose it's because while it's basically a sci-fi show the fact that The Doctor and companion can travel in time this open up for a lot of different themed stories (at least for the new seasons, didn't know if this was the trend of the older ones). As for now they seem to like a bit of mystery-horror stories aside by the main sci-fi theme.
|
|
|
Post by Black Cat on Dec 16, 2011 12:33:39 GMT -5
But now, I can consider myself very lucky: the Tintin movie has been released in my province two full weeks before the rest of the continent. I'm planning to go watch it this weekend. Really? I'm amazed that a Spielberg film would be released in Europe first - it's been and gone over here. I wish it was being released about now 'cause I missed it! One reason: Tintin is not as known in North America than he is in Europe. So Spielberg decide to release it there first, then in Quebec (because Hergé's work is very well known here since we speak French) so that it can create a buzz for the American market next.
|
|
|
Post by Doomy on Dec 16, 2011 12:50:37 GMT -5
As for the longevity I suppose it's because while it's basically a sci-fi show the fact that The Doctor and companion can travel in time this open up for a lot of different themed stories That, and the show can carry on quite happily no matter which actors leave.
|
|
|
Post by Beowuuf on Dec 16, 2011 14:11:20 GMT -5
Doctor Who does indeed alter its genre, whilst still staying tre to itself. Heck, the Pertwee era had him tied to Earth full stop, and he was more liek a James Bond style ero who still used his brains, and all the sci fi villains came to him
|
|
|
Post by Simey on Dec 17, 2011 20:34:09 GMT -5
all the sci fi villains came to him Yes, good of them that, wasn't it? I gave up during David Tenant's second series, but I really want to see the Matt Smith stuff, 'cause it sounds as though the tone has changed considerably, likely in a way very much more to my taste. And yeah, Doctor Who's longevity does probably have something to do with the fact that they can change everything about it except the outside of the Tardis, so the possibilities are about as close to infinite as any TV series is likely to get. Dashed cunning! Interesting about Tin-Tin - guess I assumed it was a world-wide (or Western World-wide) phenomenon, but not so in North America? Having said that, I've never read a whole Tin-Tin story myself, so I clearly know nothing! When you see it, BC, do post a non-spoiler review - I wanna know if it's worth catching if there's still the odd showing here or there.
|
|
|
Post by Simey on Feb 10, 2012 11:17:33 GMT -5
Seen a couple of films recently.
I thought Mission Impossible 4 was alright. Not as good as 1, much better than the dire 2 (haven't seen 3). Couple of great falling off high building moments. But I got a bit bored in parts, especially towards the end. Simon Pegg was fun though.
And War Horse was very good. A bit glossy and Spielberg-y (wonder why that is), with the occasional hint of cheese (and over-prettyisation of English village life), but very impressive nevertheless. And a good realisation of WWI No Man's Land is always worth watching, just to see how insane it all was. Points off though for the world's most absurdly Hollywood-tastic sunset.
Tomorrow night: The Muppets! Yaaaaaaay! ;D
|
|
|
Post by Beowuuf on Feb 10, 2012 13:52:43 GMT -5
MI: 3 I thought was worth a watch, it was back to having some intelligent twists and action, instead of the style over substance of 2.
Lol, we finally get the Muppets over here? Cool!
|
|
|
Post by Simey on Mar 15, 2012 9:00:14 GMT -5
Forgot to say this over a month ago: The Muppets was great! Not up there with The Muppets' Christmas Carol for me, but a really good fun, big smile-inducing film. And saw The Woman in Black last week, which was very good. A good number of effective jump moments, plenty of tension and atmosphere and an overall solid story - very pleasantly surprised.
|
|
|
Post by Simey on Apr 30, 2012 12:38:54 GMT -5
Anyone else seen Avengers Assemble? Does it make any more sense if you've seen the other films leading up to it?
|
|
|
Post by Doomy on Apr 30, 2012 13:29:03 GMT -5
Haven't seen it yet as I didn't fancy my chances of getting near a screening on opening weekend. Maybe Sunday.
|
|
|
Post by Beowuuf on Apr 30, 2012 15:51:00 GMT -5
Yes I have! And wow, yes, it will make so much less sense if you haven't seen the individual films leading up to it There was so much to balance I think letting this be the film that introduces five superheros was a little much. I mean you get the basics re-iterated, but information flies thick and fast if that's your first introduction to it. Just so people who have seen the rest don't get annoyed with it. Definitely give it another chance after a) seeign the other films, or b) in an environment where you can relaxe and catch every reference to earlier films and backstories. I think after seeing it once you'll have weeded out all the new plot stuff, and can recognise backstory references better. What did you think of it other than that? I liked it. Plenty opf action, a fun way of dropping these heroes in with each other, some trademark Joss Whedon-y things like the humour, Loki was cool as a villain (there's some good transition from Thor), the Hulk stuff was cool, I liked how the different power levels of the heroes and how they would work together was done so well (it's like an RPG game played out before your eyes!). Not being a huge comic book nerd, I hadn't appreciated the identity of the post-credit villain until I googled it. I like that the post credit reveal was affter the first flashy credits, and not the main credit scrawl!
|
|
|
Post by Simey on May 1, 2012 5:22:58 GMT -5
Kind of as I suspected. The humour was so good that I thought probably the rest of it was better than I was appreciating, but having only see the Hulk films beforehand (and Mark Ruffalo should have been in the second one instead of Edward Norton) I had nooooo clue what was going on, so was quite bored outside the funny stuff. When films go all CGI-tastic, I tend to lose interest anyway, so I really needed the character hooks to stay with it, but they will all have come from the earlier films, I guess. I didn't even know the names of two of them until something like the last ten minutes - I was quite surprised the bloke with the bow and arrow was a main character, 'cause I thought he was just a background grunt until he was still there near the end. One thing I thought - that was unaffected by the lack of lead up - was the 3D was pretty poor. Don't like 3D anyway, but it was so ropey - and frequently non-existent - that I watched 95% of the film with the glasses off and it was better like that. But yeah, loved the laughs and reckon it's probably rather good if you have any idea who anybody is, what they're doing, what's going on, etc. EDIT: Having said that, one of the people I saw it with had seen possibly none of the previous films and still loved it. Though he is a Joss Whedon freak. There was general agreement that 2D would've been better though.
|
|
|
Post by Beowuuf on May 1, 2012 16:17:50 GMT -5
I deliberately went with 2D the first time I watched it, knowing that dealing with 3D would spoil paying attention to the wacky fun of the rest of it. Saw the 3D version for the second sitting, and meh...it didn't add anything, you are right!
Thor would be the best film to watch - I'd say you need to watch it - to undersdtand Loki bettre and THor's involvement. Hawkeye was kinda a 'blink and you miss him' cameo in Thor, this was actually you meeting his character now, and really it was through him being someone Black Widow cared about you'd maybe latch on to him. Black Widow featured heavily in Iron Man 2, though really this was the film her character was properly explained.
Agent Phil has been in all the films - Sam Jackson just cameoing, sometimes at the very end - so was the reason he was sited as a strong link for the group.
Definitely if you get the chance, watch Iron Man, Thor and Captain America (and Iron Man 2) and then Avengers again. It should link up far better.
And yes, Mark Ruffalo was great as the Hulk and Bruce. I liked the little moemnt when he touched the baby cradle when he mentioned having to make sacrifgices, or something...some nice little character moments like that.
And obviously, Hulk got to of the funniest bitys of physicl comedy in the film. Both were unexpected and great.
|
|
|
Post by Doomy on May 1, 2012 16:44:48 GMT -5
So... not worth the 3D premium, then. Good to know. Might as well catch it in a smaller, less crowded cinema. Which, thanks to my network of contacts, opens up the possibility of free tickets.
|
|