-
Posts
1505 -
Joined
-
-
I'd agree that The Prisoner probably just squeezes in to Sci-Fi.
Actually, I say it's more Sci-Fi than Quantum Leap. -
I suppose it's the general inference that since it wasn't successful in the US, it's success was small and the only way to have great success is to be successful in the US.
I'd like to find viewing figures for Star Trek actually, but I can't.
Edit: Not that I want to get involved in this argument particularly, I love Star Trek too! -
Quote:That's arguable, since Doctor Who was shipped to many countries in it's original run and still is to this day.ummmm, then you would only be considering the UK, where as Star Trek has a MUCH bigger following world wide. i personally prefer the Doctor, but if we're going to pick nits, then lets pick them right.
Additionally, the Guinness Book of World Records gave it the record of most successful Sci-Fi show of all time based on "broadcast ratings, DVD sales, book sales and iTunes traffic."
As for whether Time Travel makes something Sci-Fi. No. No it doesn't, especially if the means for Time Travel isn't a machine of some sort, but rather a vague supernatural effect.
There is far more magic that "science" in Lost. -
-
Why is Lost included in Sci-Fi all the time (it's not just this list). It's generally a straight forward action-drama with the occasional bit of mysticism. There's almost no science fiction in it at all.
-
The first two videos are clearly fakes, probably some viral marketing campaign. It's interesting that the first two videos are both shot in crystal clear 720p and that there is a lack of amateur video (As in, from phones and the like) from something that was clearly seen by many people.
The 3rd video seems to be an entirely different phenomenon but moves like something that's easily terrestrial in nature.
So, yeah. -
I couldn't finish Silmarillion.
I should try again some day, now I'm a bit older. -
Just something I've ben thinking, not aimed at anyone in this thread, just a general musing.
Quote:A lot of people who point out "problems" with the book or films often say "Why don't they just hide the Ring somewhere impossible to get to, like in the middle of the sea" or something.As it is, he still could not be defeated short of destroying the Ring.
What they seem to forget is that Sauron had already raised one hell of an army, it stopped Sauron acting directly, or regaining most of his power, but his armies could still kill off a huge number of people or even win.
Oh and by the way, got mah Blu-Rays this morning -
Quote:As far as I am aware the Blu-Rays, both Theatrical and Extended additions, have all the same extras as their DVD counterparts.I haven't heard much about the Blu Ray stuff for Lord of the Rings... is there going to be much extra from the DVDs? I don't have a Blu Ray player (and I wouldn't want to sink more money into yet another version of those films), but I am curious.
The main advantage is simply that you can now watch the films themselves in glorious 1080p. -
Have you been watching the trailers? Howard's been in them a bit and been referred to by name.
-
-
To be honest, I always thought it was a bit weird in the Hobbit. The Necromancer is kind of built up via foreshadowing and then never materialises. Later Gandalf is all like "Yeah, got caught up fighting him, that's why I haven't been around." and it's like "Huh... okay."
You almost get the feeling Tolkien was going to have something with him then forgot.
I don't have a problem with them following Gandalf's story in the film, rather than Bilbo's exclusively.
Having said that, I'd have preferred if they'd got all of the Hobbit out of the way in one film and made the second film about other things, such as Gandalf's trip and what not. -
Nah, I think that goes to Michael Chiklis as the Thing.
Quote:"When we did 'Captain America,' you're the only superhero on set," but when he saw the other stars in their costumes [on the set of 'The Avengers'] it was "the first time I really kind of geeked out." -
-
-
-
-
Quote:Woo!
with Robert Downey Jr. returning to the role of Tony Stark/Iron Man. -
I'm prepared to say that the first half is okay, with everyone in the bunker, then it just kind of all falls apart once the "new" Daleks turn up, with their horrible designs and a bomb that disarms itself with the power of love.
-
Another thing you have to remember is that NuWho's episodes are longer than classic Who, plus Classic Who could certainly buy time a lot (a lot of 6 parters could easily have been 4 parters if they cut out a lot of stuff).
I'd like to see a nice mix of the two styles one day. -
Quote:Hmm, I don't know about that...They work better in an atmosphere of extended suspense, in which their implacable plotting mounts, e.g. Dalek Invasion of Earth, Genesis of the Daleks, rather than delivering shocks, e.g. Victory of the Daleks, Daleks in Manhattan.
While I certainly agree with you to a degree, I'm not sure about your examples.
Dalek Invasion of Earth certainly has it's "shock" moments, such as the Dalek rising from the Thames (a truly iconic moment), the Dalek spaceship trying to kill Barbara in a van and the final assault on the Dalek base. Also, Genesis of the Daleks, ironically was barely even a Dalek story, with Davros completely stealing the show. The Daleks were basically just background props for that story.
I also think Daleks in Manhattan gets a lot of undue flack and I would consider it to be pretty close to a classic Dalek story, with the Daleks working from behind the scenes on an unknown plan in part 1 and then the backstabbing in part 2.
Everyone agrees that Victory of the Daleks was pretty bad though. -
I dunno, I consider NuWho to have some genuine nightmare fuel, the Ganger's episodes are a good example of this I feel. If kids weren't scared by those monsters, I worry for this generation.