|
Sprinkler Systems
Uhaul move
Lawn care
Roses and trees
Ford Parts
Chrysler Parts
Lake Powell
New IPod Touch Apps
New IPhone Apps
IPhone Apps
IPad Information
IPad Apps
Android APPS
Android Games APPS
Android Systems
Android Tablets APPS and Beyond
Smartphone Apps
Smartphone Games Apps Repair and Tools
Tablet PC
Car Sharing Car Leasing
Tabler Pc
Fly Fishing
Toyota Cars
Vacation Rentals
Stock market
NYSE
SSE Stock
Freight & Shipping News
Gluten
Lactose
Gout
My Coupon Life
Campgrounds Check
Outdoor
Kitchen Design and Redoo
Bath Remodeling
Palm Springs
Las Vegas Vacation Tipps
Lake Powell Boating
Homes for lease
Electric and green Car Blog
Pearls and diamonds
Whatsapp and forget SMS Blog, What is Whatsapp App
Solar Panel Solar Energie Sun Power Blog
|
Fantasy » alt.fan.pratchett » [I] Verdana (was Re: [M] Afp content)
| [I] Verdana (was Re: [M] Afp content) [message #288812] |
Sa, 17 Juni 2006 21:42 |
|
on 17/06/2006 12:31 esmi said the following:
<snip>
> Font-variant?
Sorry - brain hiccup alert! That should have been "font-size-adjust?".
esmi
(just finished watching an excellent Dr Who episoide and still
half-absorbed in the story-line)
|
|
|
| Re: [I] Verdana (was Re: [M] Afp content) [message #288816 ] |
Sa, 17 Juni 2006 22:07 |
|
esmi wrote:
> on 17/06/2006 12:31 esmi said the following:
> <snip>
>
>> Font-variant?
>
> Sorry - brain hiccup alert! That should have been "font-size-adjust?".
>
> esmi
> (just finished watching an excellent Dr Who episoide and still
> half-absorbed in the story-line)
I still don't know whether it was excellent or not. I think I need Daibh to
tell me what to think. (Apart from about the sex with a flagstone bit. I
already know what to think about /that/).
--
Tiny
|
|
|
| Re: [I] Verdana (was Re: [M] Afp content) [message #288826 ] |
Sa, 17 Juni 2006 22:46 |
|
The time: 17 Jun 2006. The place: alt.fan.pratchett. The
speaker: "Tiny Bulcher" <RSGD9000 [at] aol.com>
> esmi wrote:
>> (just finished watching an excellent Dr Who episoide and
>> still half-absorbed in the story-line)
>
> I still don't know whether it was excellent or not. I think
> I need Daibh to tell me what to think. (Apart from about
> the sex with a flagstone bit. I already know what to think
> about /that/).
As one of the former regulars on rec.arts.drwho used to say
about *everything*, I would describe Love & Monsters as a
"flawed classic"...
The important thing to remember is that much of it is
*supposed* to be quite broad comedy. This isn't a Series 17
script, where Douglas Adams looks on in despair as the cast
ham it up in all the wrong places[1]. In this one the cast
are hamming it up in the *right* places and (usually) toning
it down in the right places as well. There is still a case to
be made that they're hamming it up *too much* in the comedy
scenes (the Scooby Doo chase at the start, f'rinstance) but
that's a judgement call.
[1] "I hate the expresion 'tongue-in-cheek'; that means 'It's
not really funny, but we aren't going to do it properly.'"
- DNA
--
Dave
Official Absentee of EU Skiffeysoc
http://www.eusa.ed.ac.uk/societies/sesoc
Suggs against sexism. It's Madness gone
politically correct.
Jon Holmes, The Now Show 26/5/06
|
|
|
| Re: [I] Verdana (was Re: [M] Afp content) [message #288850 ] |
Sa, 17 Juni 2006 23:31 |
|
esmi esmi [at] lspace.org wrote in <e71m4s$1udg$1 [at] mud.stack.nl>:
> on 17/06/2006 12:31 esmi said the following:
> <snip>
>
> > Font-variant?
>
> Sorry - brain hiccup alert! That should have been "font-size-adjust?".
>
I like to keep things simple. By and large I just avoid using Verdana even
though I don't personally object to anyone else specifying it on the web,
so long as they are aware of the issues.
> (just finished watching an excellent Dr Who episoide and still
> half-absorbed in the story-line)
>
Was that the Mark Warren lined up for the cast of Hogfather?
It was exceptionally entertaining.
--
eric
www.ericjarvis.co.uk
"live fast, die only if strictly necessary"
|
|
|
| [I] Dr Who: Love & Monsters (was Re: [I] Verdana) [message #288852 ] |
So, 18 Juni 2006 00:11 |
|
on 17/06/2006 21:46 Daibhid Ceanaideach said the following:
> As one of the former regulars on rec.arts.drwho used to say
> about *everything*, I would describe Love & Monsters as a
> "flawed classic"...
Isn't that rather like having your classic and eating^Wcriticising it?
> The important thing to remember is that much of it is
> *supposed* to be quite broad comedy. This isn't a Series 17
> script, where Douglas Adams looks on in despair as the cast
> ham it up in all the wrong places[1]. In this one the cast
> are hamming it up in the *right* places and (usually) toning
> it down in the right places as well.
There were some lovely touches of subtle humour too. Even the parodies
seemed to be crafted with a certain amount of love for the subject and
the characters. Laughing with them rather than at them, IYKWIM.
> There is still a case to
> be made that they're hamming it up *too much* in the comedy
> scenes (the Scooby Doo chase at the start, f'rinstance) but
> that's a judgement call.
I have a 6 year old here who would beg to differ. :-) What did suprise
me was that it held his attention completely from start to finish
despite the fact that it was low in many of the elements that he
categorises as "proper Dr Who". For my part, what struck me was that,
under all of the humour and scifi, it was a very human story which has
always seemed to me to make all the difference between a good scifi
story and a great one.
Maybe it was because a lot of the narrative was via a video diary but it
even kept reminding me of Alan Ayckbourn.
esmi
|
|
|
| Re: [I] Verdana (was Re: [M] Afp content) [message #288863 ] |
So, 18 Juni 2006 00:40 |
|
Tiny Bulcher wrote:
> sex with a
> flagstone
What?
--
4th swordswoman of the afpocalypse, AFPMinister of Flexible Weapons,
Bondage-happy predator, Speaker-To-Students, SadoMangoist,
AFPMistress to peachy, 8'FED's AFPDeliciousSnack, AFPFiance to A.
Nevill , Graycat's Guttersnipe
|
|
|
| Re: [I] Dr Who: Love & Monsters (was Re: [I] Verdana) [message #288865 ] |
So, 18 Juni 2006 00:45 |
|
The time: 17 Jun 2006. The place: alt.fan.pratchett. The
speaker: esmi <esmi [at] lspace.org>
> on 17/06/2006 21:46 Daibhid Ceanaideach said the following:
>
>> As one of the former regulars on rec.arts.drwho used to
>> say about *everything*, I would describe Love & Monsters
>> as a "flawed classic"...
>
> Isn't that rather like having your classic and
> eating^Wcriticising it?
Absoutely 8-).
>> There is still a case to
>> be made that they're hamming it up *too much* in the
>> comedy scenes (the Scooby Doo chase at the start,
>> f'rinstance) but that's a judgement call.
>
> I have a 6 year old here who would beg to differ. :-) What
> did suprise me was that it held his attention completely
> from start to finish despite the fact that it was low in
> many of the elements that he categorises as "proper Dr
> Who".
Same with my 5yo neice. I thought it was losing her a bit
towards the end, but it wasn't, she was just thinking about
it, and getting ready to ask me something.
> For my part, what struck me was that, under all of
> the humour and scifi, it was a very human story which has
> always seemed to me to make all the difference between a
> good scifi story and a great one.
Yep. Contrasting, The Idiot's Lantern had a rather heavy
handed human story dumped *on top* of the sci-fi, with no
concern as to whether it related to the alien invasion at all,
and The Satan Pit's humans seemed to exist purely because a
Base Under Seige needs someone to be beseiged...
--
Dave
Official Absentee of EU Skiffeysoc
http://www.eusa.ed.ac.uk/societies/sesoc
Suggs against sexism. It's Madness gone
politically correct.
Jon Holmes, The Now Show 26/5/06
|
|
|
| Re: [I] Verdana (was Re: [M] Afp content) [message #288868 ] |
So, 18 Juni 2006 00:46 |
|
The time: 17 Jun 2006. The place: alt.fan.pratchett. The
speaker: Eric Jarvis <eric [at] ericjarvis.co.uk>
> Was that the Mark Warren lined up for the cast of
> Hogfather?
It is indeed. Good, isn't he?
--
Dave
Official Absentee of EU Skiffeysoc
http://www.eusa.ed.ac.uk/societies/sesoc
Suggs against sexism. It's Madness gone
politically correct.
Jon Holmes, The Now Show 26/5/06
|
|
|
| [I] Doctor Who: The flagstone (was Re: [I] Verdana (was Re: [M] Afp content)) [message #288891 ] |
So, 18 Juni 2006 01:08 |
|
The time: 17 Jun 2006. The place: alt.fan.pratchett. The
speaker: "Anastasia" <house_damodred [at] yahoo.com>
> Tiny Bulcher wrote:
>> sex with a flagstone
>
> What?
Ohboy, this one takes some explanation...
In the latest episode of Doctor Who, nice everyman character
Elton Pope (who is also narrating the story to a camcorder)
sees his girlfriend, Ursula, get absorbed by an alien
Abzorbaloff, existing only as a face poking out of its skin.
The various people who have been absorbed by the Abzorbaloff
manage to defeat it, at Ursula's encouragement, by all pulling
in different directions, causing the Abzorbaloff go into
overload and get absorbed by the Earth. The last thing we see
is Ursula's face saying goodbye to Elton as it sinks into the
flagstones.
Later, as Elton concludes his story, he mentions that the
Doctor did manage one last trick, and we see the Doctor
running sonic screwdriver over the flagstones. Back at the
camcorder narration, Elton produces a flagstone with Ursula's
face. He mentions that they still have a lovelife, and she
isn't sure that's suitable for the tape...
--
Dave
Official Absentee of EU Skiffeysoc
http://www.eusa.ed.ac.uk/societies/sesoc
Suggs against sexism. It's Madness gone
politically correct.
Jon Holmes, The Now Show 26/5/06
|
|
|
| Re: [I] Verdana (was Re: [M] Afp content) [message #288911 ] |
So, 18 Juni 2006 02:03 |
|
Daibhid Ceanaideach daibhidchenedelh [at] aol.com wrote in
<Xns97E5F1E86BF17daibhid [at] 130.133.1.4>:
> The time: 17 Jun 2006. The place: alt.fan.pratchett. The
> speaker: Eric Jarvis <eric [at] ericjarvis.co.uk>
>
> > Was that the Mark Warren lined up for the cast of
> > Hogfather?
>
> It is indeed. Good, isn't he?
>
So I'd heard, and now I've seen.
--
eric
www.ericjarvis.co.uk
"live fast, die only if strictly necessary"
|
|
|
| Re: [I] Dr Who (Was: Verdana (was Re: [M] Afp content)) [message #288962 ] |
So, 18 Juni 2006 10:50 |
|
[no spoilers in this, but if anybody gets more specific on what is or has
been going on, please add a bit of spoiler space for those who haven't
seen it yet]
On Sat, 17 Jun 2006 20:42:06 +0100, esmi
<esmi [at] lspace.org> wrote:
<snip>
>(just finished watching an excellent Dr Who episoide and still
>half-absorbed in the story-line)
I can only assume that the BBC broadcsat two slightly different episodes
of Dr Who last night, as followups seem to indicate you weren't talking
about one from a previous series.
Now, this may just be me, but in my opinion an episode of Dr Who should
have the Dr in it for more than about 2 minutes. This is not Blake's 7.
On the other hand, it should have less references to Torchwood. Yes,
Russel, we *know* you're working on a spin-off series, you don't need to
hammer it home with such horribly obvious comments. Having a character
saying "looking at the Torchwood files" once would have been enough,
including the word 'Torchwood' the second time was unneccesary. Check how
it was mentioned in passing in a couple of the earlier episodes. You might
also want to *stop going back to bloody London*. The Tardis can go
anywhere and anywhen, use it.
This series, even more than the last, feels like fan-fic. and last night's
episode felt like bad Mary-Sue fan-fic.
Please, BBC, stop letting RTD write the scripts, and let somebody who's at
least half good at it do them.
--
Andy Brown
Q: Why do PCs have a reset button on the front?
A: Because they are expected to run Microsoft operating systems.
|
|
|
| Re: [I] Dr Who: Love & Monsters (was Re: [I] Verdana) [message #288991 ] |
So, 18 Juni 2006 13:13 |
|
esmi wrote:
> I have a 6 year old here who would beg to differ. :-) What did suprise me was
> that it held his attention completely from start to finish despite the fact
> that it was low in many of the elements that he categorises as "proper Dr
> Who".
Proper Dr Who is not intended for children younger than eight, though.
The first DW story I ever watched was "Monster of Peladon" at eight
years old, and I would say that I was only just old enough for it - as
in, at the time, it was *almost* too scary.
Actually, Doctor Who suddenly became a lot less scary when I found out
the Doctor could regenerate, after which I no longer needed to tremble
in fear for his life.
Adrian.
|
|
|
| Re: [I] Dr Who: Love & Monsters (was Re: [I] Verdana) [message #288997 ] |
So, 18 Juni 2006 13:24 |
|
"8'FED" <dragon [at] netyp.com.au> wrote in message
news:e73cf6$4tu$1 [at] mud.stack.nl...
> esmi wrote:
>
>> I have a 6 year old here who would beg to differ. :-) What did
>> suprise me was that it held his attention completely from start to
>> finish despite the fact that it was low in many of the elements that
>> he categorises as "proper Dr Who".
>
> Proper Dr Who is not intended for children younger than eight, though.
>
> The first DW story I ever watched was "Monster of Peladon" at eight
> years old, and I would say that I was only just old enough for it - as
> in, at the time, it was *almost* too scary.
>
Since when? It always use to be shown here at around tea-time, when you
can guarantee that the majority of the family would be able to watch,
from the baby to the Great-Grandparents. As a 3 year old I use to
enjoy it immensely according to my folks - that was until the Cybermen
were being killed, around when I was 4, when apparently my mother found
me sitting there crying, because I didn't want them to die. She stopped
me watching it for a short while, but I was back in front of the TV
again watching before I was 6.
Steve
|
|
|
| Re: [I] Dr Who (Was: Verdana (was Re: [M] Afp content)) [message #288998 ] |
So, 18 Juni 2006 13:27 |
|
The time: 18 Jun 2006. The place: alt.fan.pratchett. The
speaker: jester <usenet [at] jester.nu>
> [no spoilers in this, but if anybody gets more specific on
> what is or has been going on, please add a bit of spoiler
> space for those who haven't seen it yet]
>
> On Sat, 17 Jun 2006 20:42:06 +0100, esmi
> <esmi [at] lspace.org> wrote:
> <snip>
>>(just finished watching an excellent Dr Who episoide and
>>still half-absorbed in the story-line)
>
> I can only assume that the BBC broadcsat two slightly
> different episodes of Dr Who last night, as followups seem
> to indicate you weren't talking about one from a previous
> series.
>
> Now, this may just be me, but in my opinion an episode of
> Dr Who should have the Dr in it for more than about 2
> minutes.
Each to their own. Personally, I liked it when Doctor Who gets
a bit experimental. (And the Doctor appeared in this story a
lot more than he did in 1965's Mission to the Unknown.)
And the idea of backgrounding the hero in favour of looking at
an ordinary person has a bit of a pedigree, at least in comics
(Batman: Gotham Knights, Marvels, Superman: Day of Doom).
The Truth might also be considered an example. Basically, it's
a Watch novel with the Watch on the sidelines...
--
Dave
Official Absentee of EU Skiffeysoc
http://www.eusa.ed.ac.uk/societies/sesoc
Suggs against sexism. It's Madness gone
politically correct.
Jon Holmes, The Now Show 26/5/06
|
|
|
| Re: [I] Dr Who: Love & Monsters (was Re: [I] Verdana) [message #289001 ] |
So, 18 Juni 2006 13:39 |
|
The time: 18 Jun 2006. The place: alt.fan.pratchett. The
speaker: "8'FED" <dragon [at] netyp.com.au>
> esmi wrote:
>
>> I have a 6 year old here who would beg to differ. :-) What
>> did suprise me was that it held his attention completely
>> from start to finish despite the fact that it was low in
>> many of the elements that he categorises as "proper Dr
>> Who".
>
> Proper Dr Who is not intended for children younger than
> eight, though.
Hmm. The first episode I have a distinct memory of is "Mawdryn
Undead". I'd have been just shy of my seventh birthday. And I
already knew enough about the series for my memory to include
a fair bit of background detail.
--
Dave
Official Absentee of EU Skiffeysoc
http://www.eusa.ed.ac.uk/societies/sesoc
Suggs against sexism. It's Madness gone
politically correct.
Jon Holmes, The Now Show 26/5/06
|
|
|
| [I] Doctor Who, love and monsters (was Re: [I] Verdana (was Re: [M] Afp content)) [message #289007 ] |
So, 18 Juni 2006 14:00 |
|
In article <e71m4s$1udg$1 [at] mud.stack.nl>, esmi esmi [at] lspace.org wibbled...
[Snip]
> (just finished watching an excellent Dr Who episoide and still
> half-absorbed in the story-line)
<look away now if you thought that episode was the best thing since
sliced bread>
Hmmm... to me it came across as a badly put-together rip of Buffy's
"Storyteller" with added "humour" aimed at 5 year olds (cartoon corridor
gags, etc) and smacked of a "we need to fill in as the main two
characters aren't available for most of this episode's filming". It
wouldn't have been too bad programme as such if it had been a complete
standalone and not billed as Dr Who, but it _wasn't_ "Dr Who". The only
reason we didn't turn off after 5 minutes was that we thought it might
get better, but it didn't.
We cleansed ourselves later in the evening by watching "Doctor Who:
Inferno" - now _that_ was real Dr Who - scary in parts, proper depth of
story and characters and more than 45 minutes long (7 episodes) <g>.
Suzi
|
|
|
| Re: [I] Dr Who (Was: Verdana (was Re: [M] Afp content)) [message #289023 ] |
So, 18 Juni 2006 14:35 |
|
"Daibhid Ceanaideach" <daibhidchenedelh [at] aol.com> wrote in message
news:Xns97E67EB68F37Cdaibhid [at] 130.133.1.4...
> The time: 18 Jun 2006. The place: alt.fan.pratchett. The
> speaker: jester <usenet [at] jester.nu>
>
> > [no spoilers in this, but if anybody gets more specific on
> > what is or has been going on, please add a bit of spoiler
> > space for those who haven't seen it yet]
> >
> > On Sat, 17 Jun 2006 20:42:06 +0100, esmi
> > <esmi [at] lspace.org> wrote:
> > <snip>
> >>(just finished watching an excellent Dr Who episoide and
> >>still half-absorbed in the story-line)
> >
> > I can only assume that the BBC broadcsat two slightly
> > different episodes of Dr Who last night, as followups seem
> > to indicate you weren't talking about one from a previous
> > series.
> >
> > Now, this may just be me, but in my opinion an episode of
> > Dr Who should have the Dr in it for more than about 2
> > minutes.
>
> Each to their own. Personally, I liked it when Doctor Who gets
> a bit experimental. (And the Doctor appeared in this story a
> lot more than he did in 1965's Mission to the Unknown.)
Yes, but Mission to the Unknown had Daleks in it instead. If it had been
Daleks rather than Peter Kay, possibly the most unfunniest man on the planet
after George Formby, I for one wouldn't be complaining.
> And the idea of backgrounding the hero in favour of looking at
> an ordinary person has a bit of a pedigree, at least in comics
> (Batman: Gotham Knights, Marvels, Superman: Day of Doom).
>
That's why we had Mickey. Then he developed a character and had to leave.
Mickey provided us with the outsider's view of the Doctor and Rose, and did
a much better job.
--
Rhiannon_s:
Just a scientific experiment gone horribly wrong.
|
|
|
| Re: [I] Dr Who (Was: Verdana (was Re: [M] Afp content)) [message #289030 ] |
So, 18 Juni 2006 15:07 |
|
Daibhid Ceanaideach <daibhidchenedelh [at] aol.com> wrote:
>
> And the idea of backgrounding the hero in favour of looking at
> an ordinary person has a bit of a pedigree, at least in comics
> (Batman: Gotham Knights, Marvels, Superman: Day of Doom).
Don't forget Green Lantern, which did this on a regular basis.
> The Truth might also be considered an example. Basically, it's
> a Watch novel with the Watch on the sidelines...
The Tiffany Aching novels. Everybody knows that the *real* hero is Granny
Weatherwax -- Tiffany is just the protagonist...
Regards,
--
*Art
|
|
|
| Re: [I] Dr Who: Love & Monsters (was Re: [I] Verdana) [message #289049 ] |
So, 18 Juni 2006 15:53 |
|
In article <e73cf6$4tu$1 [at] mud.stack.nl>,
"8'FED" <dragon [at] netyp.com.au> wrote:
>esmi wrote:
>
>> I have a 6 year old here who would beg to differ. :-) What did suprise me was
>> that it held his attention completely from start to finish despite the fact
>> that it was low in many of the elements that he categorises as "proper Dr
>> Who".
>
>Proper Dr Who is not intended for children younger than eight, though.
I must respectfully offer the honourable dragon this finely crafted set of
*bollocks*.
>The first DW story I ever watched was "Monster of Peladon" at eight
>years old, and I would say that I was only just old enough for it - as
>in, at the time, it was *almost* too scary.
The first Doctor Who story I remember watching all the way through and
anticipating each episode for the whole week preceding it was Planet of the
Spiders (Jon Pertwee's last story), when I would have been around 5 1/2.
Yes, it scared me silly, but I would have bawled the house down had I been
forced to miss it.
I certainly remember playing Doctor Who and Daleks with my new friends when
I started school, so that puts my regular watching back at least another
six months. (Maybe a year, as my DW TV Companion guide tells me that the
last Dalek story before I started school was in May '73.) I would certainly
have seen Monster of Peladon, but I don't remember it as being scary. (It
had Sarah Jane Smith in it and I knew even at that age that the Doctor
would never let any harm come to her...)
Cat.
--
Jazz-Loving Soul Mate and Tolerable Frog to CCA
"There's no point in being grown up if you can't be childish sometimes."
The Doctor, Ark In Space
|
|
|
| Re: [I] Dr Who (Was: Verdana (was Re: [M] Afp content)) [message #289053 ] |
So, 18 Juni 2006 16:05 |
|
The time: 18 Jun 2006. The place: alt.fan.pratchett. The
speaker: "Rhiannon S" <mddestiny [at] hotmail.co.uk>
>
> "Daibhid Ceanaideach" <daibhidchenedelh [at] aol.com> wrote in
> message news:Xns97E67EB68F37Cdaibhid [at] 130.133.1.4...
>> The time: 18 Jun 2006. The place: alt.fan.pratchett. The
>> speaker: jester <usenet [at] jester.nu>
>>
>> > [no spoilers in this, but if anybody gets more specific
>> > on what is or has been going on, please add a bit of
>> > spoiler space for those who haven't seen it yet]
>> >
>> > On Sat, 17 Jun 2006 20:42:06 +0100, esmi
>> > <esmi [at] lspace.org> wrote:
>> > <snip>
>> >>(just finished watching an excellent Dr Who episoide and
>> >>still half-absorbed in the story-line)
>> >
>> > I can only assume that the BBC broadcsat two slightly
>> > different episodes of Dr Who last night, as followups
>> > seem to indicate you weren't talking about one from a
>> > previous series.
>> >
>> > Now, this may just be me, but in my opinion an episode
>> > of Dr Who should have the Dr in it for more than about 2
>> > minutes.
>>
>> Each to their own. Personally, I liked it when Doctor Who
>> gets a bit experimental. (And the Doctor appeared in this
>> story a lot more than he did in 1965's Mission to the
>> Unknown.)
>
> Yes, but Mission to the Unknown had Daleks in it instead.
> If it had been Daleks rather than Peter Kay, possibly the
> most unfunniest man on the planet after George Formby, I
> for one wouldn't be complaining.
Fair point.
>> And the idea of backgrounding the hero in favour of
>> looking at an ordinary person has a bit of a pedigree, at
>> least in comics (Batman: Gotham Knights, Marvels,
>> Superman: Day of Doom).
>
> That's why we had Mickey. Then he developed a character
> and had to leave. Mickey provided us with the outsider's
> view of the Doctor and Rose, and did a much better job.
Not in the way I mean, though. Mickey was *part* of it all,
albeit a reluctant part. And there was never a story from his
viewpoint.
In Marvels, the main character is a news-photographer who I
don't think ever knowingly speaks to a superhero. In Day of
Doom, the main character's only direct contact with Superman
comes right at the end. That's the sort of thing I though L&M
was going for. Not companion, wannabe companion or person who
gets inextricably tied into the Doctor's adventures against
his will. But just some guy who met the Doctor once, and
nothing was the same.
--
Dave
Official Absentee of EU Skiffeysoc
http://www.eusa.ed.ac.uk/societies/sesoc
Suggs against sexism. It's Madness gone
politically correct.
Jon Holmes, The Now Show 26/5/06
|
|
|
| Re: [I] Dr Who (Was: Verdana (was Re: [M] Afp content)) [message #289054 ] |
So, 18 Juni 2006 16:09 |
|
The time: 18 Jun 2006. The place: alt.fan.pratchett. The
speaker: "Arthur Hagen" <art [at] broomstick.com>
> Daibhid Ceanaideach <daibhidchenedelh [at] aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> And the idea of backgrounding the hero in favour of
>> looking at an ordinary person has a bit of a pedigree, at
>> least in comics (Batman: Gotham Knights, Marvels,
>> Superman: Day of Doom).
>
> Don't forget Green Lantern, which did this on a regular
> basis.
>
>> The Truth might also be considered an example. Basically,
>> it's a Watch novel with the Watch on the sidelines...
>
> The Tiffany Aching novels. Everybody knows that the *real*
> hero is Granny Weatherwax -- Tiffany is just the
> protagonist...
I'm afraid I don't agree with this one. Granny Weatherwax has
no influence on WFM at all, and while I can see there's a
better argument for it in HFOS, I think the fact Tiff's
already been a heroine without Granny tips it into borderline
country.
--
Dave
Official Absentee of EU Skiffeysoc
http://www.eusa.ed.ac.uk/societies/sesoc
Suggs against sexism. It's Madness gone
politically correct.
Jon Holmes, The Now Show 26/5/06
|
|
|
| Re: [I] Dr Who (Was: Verdana (was Re: [M] Afp content)) [message #289060 ] |
So, 18 Juni 2006 16:16 |
|
The time: 18 Jun 2006. The place: alt.fan.pratchett. The
speaker: Daibhid Ceanaideach <daibhidchenedelh [at] aol.com>
> And the idea of backgrounding the hero in favour of looking
> at an ordinary person has a bit of a pedigree, at least in
> comics (Batman: Gotham Knights, Marvels, Superman: Day of
> Doom).
Whoops! Gotham Knights was a reworking of the old Batman
Family book, so the main characters were still costumed
heroes. I meant the earlier miniseries Gotham *Nights*, which
focused on the ordinary people of Gotham.
--
Dave
Official Absentee of EU Skiffeysoc
http://www.eusa.ed.ac.uk/societies/sesoc
Suggs against sexism. It's Madness gone
politically correct.
Jon Holmes, The Now Show 26/5/06
|
|
|
| Re: [I] Dr Who (Was: Verdana (was Re: [M] Afp content)) [message #289086 ] |
So, 18 Juni 2006 17:10 |
|
jester wrote:
> Please, BBC, stop letting RTD write the scripts, and let somebody who's at
> least half good at it do them.
Simultaneously the strength and the weakness of classic Doctor Who was
that so many different people, with varying levels of expertise, wrote
scripts.
There was a time, in my childhood, when I aspired to writing one or
two myself.
Adrian.
|
|
|
| Re: [I] Dr Who (Was: Verdana (was Re: [M] Afp content)) [message #289103 ] |
So, 18 Juni 2006 17:45 |
|
Daibhid Ceanaideach daibhidchenedelh [at] aol.com wrote in
<Xns97E67EB68F37Cdaibhid [at] 130.133.1.4>:
> The time: 18 Jun 2006. The place: alt.fan.pratchett. The
> speaker: jester <usenet [at] jester.nu>
>
> > [no spoilers in this, but if anybody gets more specific on
> > what is or has been going on, please add a bit of spoiler
> > space for those who haven't seen it yet]
> >
> > On Sat, 17 Jun 2006 20:42:06 +0100, esmi
> > <esmi [at] lspace.org> wrote:
> > <snip>
> >>(just finished watching an excellent Dr Who episoide and
> >>still half-absorbed in the story-line)
> >
> > I can only assume that the BBC broadcsat two slightly
> > different episodes of Dr Who last night, as followups seem
> > to indicate you weren't talking about one from a previous
> > series.
> >
> > Now, this may just be me, but in my opinion an episode of
> > Dr Who should have the Dr in it for more than about 2
> > minutes.
>
> Each to their own. Personally, I liked it when Doctor Who gets
> a bit experimental. (And the Doctor appeared in this story a
> lot more than he did in 1965's Mission to the Unknown.)
>
> And the idea of backgrounding the hero in favour of looking at
> an ordinary person has a bit of a pedigree, at least in comics
> (Batman: Gotham Knights, Marvels, Superman: Day of Doom).
>
Spiderman. There's one comic told entirely from the POV of Jonah Jameson
in which Spiderman isn't actually drawn at any point but in involved in
the story all the way through.
> The Truth might also be considered an example. Basically, it's
> a Watch novel with the Watch on the sidelines...
>
Still my favourite of the DW novels.
Getting a different perspective on a familiar character is always a risky
experiment. Generally I love it when it can be pulled off. In this case I
thought it was. By all means object to it on the grounds that it didn't
fit the usual "formula" for a Doctor Who episode, but please accept that
many of us don't like a series to become entirely hidebound and
predictable. It was entirely from a different perspective so there are no
grounds for complaint that it had a different "tone" than most of the last
two series, that's a feature not a bug. I can't see how anyone can
justifiably complain about the standard of performance, the production
values, or even the standard of writing (somebody bumbling along mostly
failing to do anything useful except purely by accident is not a Mary Sue
character). I think it's reasonable to object that the recent series has
too many episodes set in London (though I consider that preferable to
setting them all in the same gravel pit), and there's a good case to be
made that recent episodes have been long on mysticism and short on
science, but those are problems with the series and not last night's show.
I thought it was excellent and will stick in my mind for a long time at
the very least.
--
eric
www.ericjarvis.co.uk
"live fast, die only if strictly necessary"
|
|
|
| Re: [I] Verdana (was Re: [M] Afp content) [message #289105 ] |
So, 18 Juni 2006 18:07 |
|
esmi <esmi [at] lspace.org> writes:
> on 17/06/2006 12:31 esmi said the following:
> <snip>
>
> > Font-variant?
>
> Sorry - brain hiccup alert! That should have been "font-size-adjust?".
>
> esmi
> (just finished watching an excellent Dr Who episoide and still
> half-absorbed in the story-line)
Damn. I should wake up more before reading. That came across as
"Someone wrote a Dr Who episode about using CSS on web pages." Now,
given that Dr Who tends towards the horror side of S.F., I can quite
see how such an idea would be enitrely apposite, but...
I mean, it's a bit esoteric for your general public really.
Matthew
--
Dr Matthew J Seaman MA, D.Phil. 7 Priory Courtyard
Flat 3
PGP: http://www.infracaninophile.co.uk/pgpkey Ramsgate
Kent, CT11 9PW
|
|
|
| Re: Dr Who: Love & Monsters (was Re: [I] Verdana) [message #289106 ] |
So, 18 Juni 2006 18:10 |
|
Daibhid Ceanaideach wrote:
> The time: 17 Jun 2006. The place: alt.fan.pratchett. The
> speaker: esmi <esmi [at] lspace.org>
>
> > on 17/06/2006 21:46 Daibhid Ceanaideach said the following:
> >
> >> As one of the former regulars on rec.arts.drwho used to
> >> say about *everything*, I would describe Love & Monsters
> >> as a "flawed classic"...
> >
> > Isn't that rather like having your classic and
> > eating^Wcriticising it?
>
> Absoutely 8-).
>
> >> There is still a case to
> >> be made that they're hamming it up *too much* in the
> >> comedy scenes (the Scooby Doo chase at the start,
> >> f'rinstance) but that's a judgement call.
> >
> > I have a 6 year old here who would beg to differ. :-) What
> > did suprise me was that it held his attention completely
> > from start to finish despite the fact that it was low in
> > many of the elements that he categorises as "proper Dr
> > Who".
>
> Same with my 5yo neice. I thought it was losing her a bit
> towards the end, but it wasn't, she was just thinking about
> it, and getting ready to ask me something.
The chase bit is definitely an early departure from seriousness and
from realism. I suppose that just tells us that Unreliable Narrator
Week came around again. What we see is not necessarily what happened,
throughout. At the end of the story it turns out that our narrator has
a horrific spiritual wound that hasn't been referred to, that he hasn't
remembered, or that he doesn't associate with the Doctor.
> > For my part, what struck me was that, under all of
> > the humour and scifi, it was a very human story which has
> > always seemed to me to make all the difference between a
> > good scifi story and a great one.
>
> Yep. Contrasting, The Idiot's Lantern had a rather heavy
> handed human story dumped *on top* of the sci-fi, with no
> concern as to whether it related to the alien invasion at all,
> and The Satan Pit's humans seemed to exist purely because a
> Base Under Seige needs someone to be beseiged...
I dunno. The Satan Pit crew had relationships, I think, in and outside
the mission - people they'd left behind, relationships acted rather
than shown (how close were the two women?) In one way, they were too
ordinary for far-future people - don't we expect things to be different
in the future? For instance, if we have extended longevity (as we may
do), are family relationships, marriages, friendships perhaps, regarded
as for a limited term rather than conventionally for life...
I don't think it's been made clear on what basis TARDIS destinations
are chosen, navigation has been established as not quite accurate, but
probably it can detect interesting situations. In this case, the scene
where the TARDIS didn't want to land, Rose suggested to the Doctor that
they could just get back inside and go somewhere less problematical,
and then they both laughed their heads off - I think they were thumbing
their noses at us...
I do think that Russell T Davies sometimes lets out too juvenile a
sense of humour in the show - that meeting Queen Victoria is not
special if your immediate reaction is to try to get her to say "We are
not amused", which I believe was originally said to be her line when a
party acquaintance was making fun of a war hero - that and the fact
that after her husband died she took grief and mourning to the point of
self-indulgence. Davies spoiled that whole episode there. I think
that if he is allowed to do whatever he likes, it's a problem.
Everyone needs an editor. Oh, and Victoria's Torchwood Institute
speech was rubbish.
I think "The Idiot's Lantern" made a pretty good portrayal of what I
think wasn't then yet called a dysfunctional family, if that's what you
mean to refer to. But it really was a different world back then. (I
myself go by "The Glums" in _Take It From Here_, occasionally repeated
on BBC 7 digital radio.) It was quite important to that story that the
characters were who they were - and it would begin to be tedious if
only happy well-adjusted families ever fell into science-fiction horror
stories. There was one paradox which also appears in Harry Potter -
the kid brought up in a fractured home is somehow still well-adjusted
and civil and confident, for the most part - and maybe the reason is
the same in each case...
In the latest story, what worried me about Ursula was that I wasn't at
all sure how old she was at first - but then the story takes place over
a long time. As for the "love life", you can take that either as a
coarse suggestion that needs no explanation, or else open to other
interpretations - something more reciprocal. We don't really have
enough information about the state of being that is involved (which in
practical terms is a lot like Stephen Hawking's), and really it's
better left that way. In fact maybe they just go out to the cinema
every week.
My other reservation about the story as a whole was that I didn't
particularly want to spend time with these people at all, but perhaps
that's my own deficiency.
|
|
|
| Re: Dr Who: Love & Monsters (was Re: [I] Verdana) [message #289112 ] |
So, 18 Juni 2006 18:32 |
|
The time: 18 Jun 2006. The place: alt.fan.pratchett. The
speaker: "Robert Carnegie" <rja.carnegie [at] excite.com>
> Daibhid Ceanaideach wrote:
>> The time: 17 Jun 2006. The place: alt.fan.pratchett. The
>> speaker: esmi <esmi [at] lspace.org>
>> > For my part, what struck me was that, under all of
>> > the humour and scifi, it was a very human story which
>> > has always seemed to me to make all the difference
>> > between a good scifi story and a great one.
>>
>> Yep. Contrasting, The Idiot's Lantern had a rather heavy
>> handed human story dumped *on top* of the sci-fi, with no
>> concern as to whether it related to the alien invasion at
>> all, and The Satan Pit's humans seemed to exist purely
>> because a Base Under Seige needs someone to be beseiged...
>
> I dunno. The Satan Pit crew had relationships, I think, in
> and outside the mission - people they'd left behind,
> relationships acted rather than shown (how close were the
> two women?)
I've no idea. I don't even remember if they spoke to each
other...
> I do think that Russell T Davies sometimes lets out too
> juvenile a sense of humour in the show - that meeting Queen
> Victoria is not special if your immediate reaction is to
> try to get her to say "We are not amused", which I believe
> was originally said to be her line when a party
> acquaintance was making fun of a war hero - that and the
> fact that after her husband died she took grief and
> mourning to the point of self-indulgence. Davies spoiled
> that whole episode there. I think that if he is allowed to
> do whatever he likes, it's a problem. Everyone needs an
> editor. Oh, and Victoria's Torchwood Institute speech was
> rubbish.
Agreed on the second part. As far as the first part goes I
think it illustrates that Rose sees Victoria as a historical
character rather than a person, only to have it firmly pointed
out to her how insensitive she's being. I'm less sure about
the Doctor taking part though.
> I think "The Idiot's Lantern" made a pretty good portrayal
> of what I think wasn't then yet called a dysfunctional
> family, if that's what you mean to refer to. But it really
> was a different world back then. (I myself go by "The
> Glums" in _Take It From Here_, occasionally repeated on BBC
> 7 digital radio.) It was quite important to that story
> that the characters were who they were - and it would begin
> to be tedious if only happy well-adjusted families ever
> fell into science-fiction horror stories. There was one
> paradox which also appears in Harry Potter - the kid
> brought up in a fractured home is somehow still
> well-adjusted and civil and confident, for the most part -
> and maybe the reason is the same in each case...
It was just done (IMO) so cak-handedly. You mention Harry
Potter, can you imagine the Thursleys saying "No-one's ever
explained to us we aren't being nice to Harry; now that
someone's stood up to us, we'll stop immediately, and vacate
the premesis"? And if you *can*, can you imagine Harry, even
with encouragement from the same people who brought this
watershed about saying "No need for that, Uncle Vernon. I
Forgive You"?
Coupled with that, I thought Eddie Connolly was even more of a
cartoony cliche than the Thursleys - he even had his own
catchphrase!
--
Dave
Official Absentee of EU Skiffeysoc
http://www.eusa.ed.ac.uk/societies/sesoc
Suggs against sexism. It's Madness gone
politically correct.
Jon Holmes, The Now Show 26/5/06
|
|
|
| Re: [I] Dr Who (Was: Verdana (was Re: [M] Afp content)) [message #289114 ] |
So, 18 Juni 2006 18:35 |
|
On 18 Jun 2006 11:27:19 GMT, Daibhid Ceanaideach
<daibhidchenedelh [at] aol.com> wrote:
>
>Each to their own. Personally, I liked it when Doctor Who gets
>a bit experimental. (And the Doctor appeared in this story a
>lot more than he did in 1965's Mission to the Unknown.)
Before my time, and I don't recall ever seeing it.
>
>And the idea of backgrounding the hero in favour of looking at
>an ordinary person has a bit of a pedigree, at least in comics
>(Batman: Gotham Knights, Marvels, Superman: Day of Doom).
Yeah, and I'm not a fan of those, either.
--
Andy Brown
Things should be as simple as possible, but not simpler.
-- Albert Einstein
|
|
|
| Re: [I] Dr Who (Was: Verdana (was Re: [M] Afp content)) [message #289128 ] |
So, 18 Juni 2006 19:02 |
|
On Sun, 18 Jun 2006 16:45:13 +0100, Eric Jarvis
<eric [at] ericjarvis.co.uk> wrote:
>
>but please accept that
>many of us don't like a series to become entirely hidebound and
>predictable.
Indeed I don't, which is why this series has been disappointing in that
I've been able to guess the deus-ex-machina of the week every time.
>I can't see how anyone can
>justifiably complain about the standard of performance,
I'll give you that one, the acting was acceptable.
>the production values,
I'm still having trouble adapting to a BBC sci-fi series with a budget.
8-)
>or even the standard of writing (somebody bumbling along mostly
>failing to do anything useful except purely by accident is not a Mary Sue
>character).
No, but a character that gets to meet the hero and ends up saving the
day (who broke the artifact that defeated the monster?) is.
Admittedly, to be a true Sue the character should be a badly disguised
self-insert for the author, who's also brilliant and heroic and noble.
Such as not falling for temptation when thrown in the character's face by
a well established character acting differently to how you'd expect from
canon (such as in the section that nearly turned into a bad 'confessions
of...' film).
Quite frankly, I'd like some original, innovative sci-fi, not a badly
written soap. All (or at least most) of the other writers manage it, RTD
just doesn't get it right as far as I'm concerned.
There's absolutely no way that episode can ever stand up to The Empty
Child/The Doctor Dances.
--
Andy Brown
"If Bill Gates had a dime for every time a Windows box crashed...
..... Oh, wait a minute, he already does."
|
|
|
| Re: Dr Who (Was: Verdana (was Re: [M] Afp content)) [message #289186 ] |
So, 18 Juni 2006 21:34 |
|
jester wrote:
> >
> >And the idea of backgrounding the hero in favour of looking at
> >an ordinary person has a bit of a pedigree, at least in comics
> >(Batman: Gotham Knights, Marvels, Superman: Day of Doom).
>
> Yeah, and I'm not a fan of those, either.
Well, how about Kurt "Marvels" Busiek's _Astro City_ series? It's even
Discworld-ish in that it takes a familiar setting (fantasy or superhero
story) but gives people problems that either don't belong in the
fantasy/superhero domain or that are addressed with an out-of-genre
solution.
Of course that really started when Spider-Man still had to cope with
being bullied in high school, or when Batman and Robin got too much
attention from social services...
|
|
|
| Re: [I] Dr Who (Was: Verdana (was Re: [M] Afp content)) [message #289188 ] |
So, 18 Juni 2006 21:44 |
|
On Mon, 19 Jun 2006 00:40:21 +0930, "8'FED" <dragon [at] netyp.com.au> wrote:
>jester wrote:
>
>> Please, BBC, stop letting RTD write the scripts, and let somebody who's at
>> least half good at it do them.
>
>Simultaneously the strength and the weakness of classic Doctor Who was
>that so many different people, with varying levels of expertise, wrote
>scripts.
>
>There was a time, in my childhood, when I aspired to writing one or
>two myself.
People who grew up watching DW are now the ones making it. It's highly
likely that the current writers wrote DW fanfic at some point (although
this may have been before it would have been recognised as such).
This process - of fans becoming involved in the production of the media
they like - has recently ramped up stupendously. Part of this may be
attributed to the internet, where a connected and collective fanbase can
assemble astonishingly rapidly once a show has debuted (and sometimes even
beforehand). The barriers between the people making the stuff and those
consuming it, especially in SF/F, have thinned almost to nonexistence.
One example I like comes from Babylon 5, where Jeff Conaway, a fan of the
first season, ended up playing a character on the show in the second
season.
Another fandom I occasionally wander into has had the following events:
(1) Fan artists hired as permanent staff to produce official work.
(2) At least one fan 'oracle' - the people who seem to know _everything_
about their favorite show - hired as a show consultant.
(3) The chief designer for the show and associated action figure line
spent some time as an semi-anonymous 'oracle' figure on one of the
fandom's main watering holes.
(4) Fan-run conventions were eventually accepted as official by the
corporate body producing the media, and gained access to licenced works
and sponsored appearances by actors and production staff.
(5) At least one fanartist's webcomic (revolving occasionally around the
show) is read by most of the production team.
Even in Discworld, look no further the Stephen Briggs, the Pearsons, fan
cameos in the books, the dedication in _Hogfather_, and Terry's own
presence on afp.
The ivory tower is dead, or at least a relic which is slowly disappearing
from the information and entertainment landscapes. In fifty years it'll
probably be nothing more than a curiosity.
-SteveD
|
|
|
| Re: Dr Who: Love & Monsters (was Re: [I] Verdana) [message #289193 ] |
So, 18 Juni 2006 21:56 |
|
Daibhid Ceanaideach wrote:
> The time: 18 Jun 2006. The place: alt.fan.pratchett. The
> speaker: "Robert Carnegie" <rja.carnegie [at] excite.com>
> >
> > I think "The Idiot's Lantern" made a pretty good portrayal
> > of what I think wasn't then yet called a dysfunctional
> > family, if that's what you mean to refer to. But it really
> > was a different world back then. (I myself go by "The
> > Glums" in _Take It From Here_, occasionally repeated on BBC
> > 7 digital radio.) It was quite important to that story
> > that the characters were who they were - and it would begin
> > to be tedious if only happy well-adjusted families ever
> > fell into science-fiction horror stories. There was one
> > paradox which also appears in Harry Potter - the kid
> > brought up in a fractured home is somehow still
> > well-adjusted and civil and confident, for the most part -
> > and maybe the reason is the same in each case...
>
> It was just done (IMO) so cak-handedly. You mention Harry
> Potter, can you imagine the Thursleys saying "No-one's ever
> explained to us we aren't being nice to Harry; now that
> someone's stood up to us, we'll stop immediately, and vacate
> the premesis"? And if you *can*, can you imagine Harry, even
> with encouragement from the same people who brought this
> watershed about saying "No need for that, Uncle Vernon. I
> Forgive You"?
One of us misread the programme. As I see it, whatever the problems in
the family relationships, Mrs Connolly had all sorts of reasons to keep
the household together as a unit - in the context of 1950s society -
and what changed her mind there was the betrayal by Eddie (as she saw
it).
In fact the whole business of not only the establishment, but members
of the community, hushing up the business - and being able to do so -
was very 1950s-or-earlier.
Alistair Cooke used to mention the scarcity of pictures of Franklin D.
Roosevelt in any pose that suggested he was not physically fit...
As for Eddie's son's attitude, I don't think he understood at the end
why the girl who makes you think of a bouncy castle was telling him to
make up with his dad, but if I had hormones like he probably has just
kicking in then I'd make up with a sabre-toothed tiger if she told me
to...
> Coupled with that, I thought Eddie Connolly was even more of a
> cartoony cliche than the Thursleys - he even had his own
> catchphrase!
And somewhat a similar build.
They do cater for a young audience, and sometimes paint with a broad
brush.
Are you sure you don't have catchphrases...
I'd prefer to see more "villain" characters redeemed, but on the whole
the balance is pretty good.
...._The Satan Pit_, do you think if they /had/ shot Toby at the end of
part one then the trouble would have been all over? I don't!
|
|
|
| Re: Dr Who: Love & Monsters (was Re: [I] Verdana) [message #289195 ] |
So, 18 Juni 2006 22:04 |
|
The time: 18 Jun 2006. The place: alt.fan.pratchett. The
speaker: "Robert Carnegie" <rja.carnegie [at] excite.com>
> Daibhid Ceanaideach wrote:
>> The time: 18 Jun 2006. The place: alt.fan.pratchett. The
>> speaker: "Robert Carnegie" <rja.carnegie [at] excite.com>
>> >
>> > I think "The Idiot's Lantern" made a pretty good
>> > portrayal of what I think wasn't then yet called a
>> > dysfunctional family, if that's what you mean to refer
>> > to. But it really was a different world back then. (I
>> > myself go by "The Glums" in _Take It From Here_,
>> > occasionally repeated on BBC 7 digital radio.) It was
>> > quite important to that story that the characters were
>> > who they were - and it would begin to be tedious if only
>> > happy well-adjusted families ever fell into
>> > science-fiction horror stories. There was one paradox
>> > which also appears in Harry Potter - the kid brought up
>> > in a fractured home is somehow still well-adjusted and
>> > civil and confident, for the most part - and maybe the
>> > reason is the same in each case...
>>
>> It was just done (IMO) so cak-handedly. You mention Harry
>> Potter, can you imagine the Thursleys saying "No-one's
>> ever explained to us we aren't being nice to Harry; now
>> that someone's stood up to us, we'll stop immediately, and
>> vacate the premesis"? And if you *can*, can you imagine
>> Harry, even with encouragement from the same people who
>> brought this watershed about saying "No need for that,
>> Uncle Vernon. I Forgive You"?
>
> One of us misread the programme. As I see it, whatever the
> problems in the family relationships, Mrs Connolly had all
> sorts of reasons to keep the household together as a unit -
> in the context of 1950s society - and what changed her mind
> there was the betrayal by Eddie (as she saw it).
Yes. And then Eddie went away quietly like a good boy, because
she was right and he was wrong, something he'd been utterly
incapable of seeing until the plot required it.
> In fact the whole business of not only the establishment,
> but members of the community, hushing up the business - and
> being able to do so - was very 1950s-or-earlier.
Agreed. (Or, indeed, later.) Nice idea, but could have done
with being delivered in a less panto-ish style.
> Alistair Cooke used to mention the scarcity of pictures of
> Franklin D. Roosevelt in any pose that suggested he was not
> physically fit...
>
> As for Eddie's son's attitude, I don't think he understood
> at the end why the girl who makes you think of a bouncy
> castle was telling him to make up with his dad, but if I
> had hormones like he probably has just kicking in then I'd
> make up with a sabre-toothed tiger if she told me to...
Oh, come on! The kid was gay, even *I* could see that!
--
Dave
Official Absentee of EU Skiffeysoc
http://www.eusa.ed.ac.uk/societies/sesoc
Suggs against sexism. It's Madness gone
politically correct.
Jon Holmes, The Now Show 26/5/06
|
|
|
| Re: Dr Who (Was: Verdana (was Re: [M] Afp content)) [message #289196 ] |
So, 18 Juni 2006 21:50 |
|
On 18 Jun 2006 12:34:31 -0700, Robert Carnegie
<rja.carnegie [at] excite.com> wrote:
>jester wrote:
>> >
>> >And the idea of backgrounding the hero in favour of looking at
>> >an ordinary person has a bit of a pedigree, at least in comics
>> >(Batman: Gotham Knights, Marvels, Superman: Day of Doom).
>>
>> Yeah, and I'm not a fan of those, either.
>
>Well, how about Kurt "Marvels" Busiek's _Astro City_ series? It's even
>Discworld-ish in that it takes a familiar setting (fantasy or superhero
>story) but gives people problems that either don't belong in the
>fantasy/superhero domain or that are addressed with an out-of-genre
>solution.
Not a fan of traditional superhero (or 'underwear pervert'[1]) comics or
other stories at all really.
Probably the closest I get is Watchmen.
[1] see <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super-hero#Trademark_status> and
< http://www.boingboing.net/2006/03/18/marvel_comics_steali.ht ml>
--
Andy Brown
C, n.: A programming language that is sort of like Pascal except more
like assembly except that it isn't very much like either one, or
anything else. It is either the best language available to the art
today, or it isn't. -- Ray Simard
|
|
|
| Re: [I] Dr Who (Was: Verdana (was Re: [M] Afp content)) [message #289199 ] |
So, 18 Juni 2006 22:21 |
|
The time: 18 Jun 2006. The place: alt.fan.pratchett. The
speaker: usenet [at] vo.id.au
> On Mon, 19 Jun 2006 00:40:21 +0930, "8'FED"
> <dragon [at] netyp.com.au> wrote:
>
>>jester wrote:
>>
>>> Please, BBC, stop letting RTD write the scripts, and let
>>> somebody who's at least half good at it do them.
>>
>>Simultaneously the strength and the weakness of classic
>>Doctor Who was that so many different people, with varying
>>levels of expertise, wrote scripts.
>>
>>There was a time, in my childhood, when I aspired to
>>writing one or two myself.
>
> People who grew up watching DW are now the ones making it.
> It's highly likely that the current writers wrote DW fanfic
> at some point (although this may have been before it would
> have been recognised as such).
I'd be absoultely amazed if, at the very least, Gatiss, Moffat
and RTD himself hadn't.
Unfortunately, if they did it was pre-internet, and I never
got into the fanzine scene, so I don't know.
--
Dave
Official Absentee of EU Skiffeysoc
http://www.eusa.ed.ac.uk/societies/sesoc
Suggs against sexism. It's Madness gone
politically correct.
Jon Holmes, The Now Show 26/5/06
|
|
|
| Re: [I] Verdana (was Re: [M] Afp content) [message #289303 ] |
Mo, 19 Juni 2006 12:21 |
|
"Matthew Seaman" <m.seaman [at] infracaninophile.co.uk> wrote in message
news:86psh678hh.fsf [at] happy-idiot-talk.infracaninophile.co.uk...
> Damn. I should wake up more before reading. That came across as
> "Someone wrote a Dr Who episode about using CSS on web pages." Now,
> given that Dr Who tends towards the horror side of S.F., I can quite
> see how such an idea would be enitrely apposite, but...
Oh, how I wish I could have watched *that* instead of "L&M".
Paul
|
|
|
| Re: [I] Dr Who (Was: Verdana (was Re: [M] Afp content)) [message #289339 ] |
Mo, 19 Juni 2006 16:00 |
|
on 18/06/2006 09:50 jester said the following:
> [no spoilers in this, but if anybody gets more specific on what is or has
> been going on, please add a bit of spoiler space for those who haven't
> seen it yet]
> I can only assume that the BBC broadcsat two slightly different episodes
> of Dr Who last night, as followups seem to indicate you weren't talking
> about one from a previous series.
*grin* That would be just like those two version of LOTR that people
seem to have read.
> Now, this may just be me, but in my opinion an episode of Dr Who should
> have the Dr in it for more than about 2 minutes. This is not Blake's 7.
Admittedly, this did bother me initially but I found it less bothersome
as I came more interested in the other characters.
> On the other hand, it should have less references to Torchwood. Yes,
> Russel, we *know* you're working on a spin-off series, you don't need to
> hammer it home with such horribly obvious comments. Having a character
> saying "looking at the Torchwood files" once would have been enough,
> including the word 'Torchwood' the second time was unneccesary.
Do you think two mentions were really OTT? I didn't find them especially
intrusive but I'd also agree that, had they been left out, there
wouldn't have been any problem either. Perhaps there was concern that
this particular episode was almost too different and the Powers-That-Be
felt that additional tie-ins were necessary. The 'I've got a web site on
The Doctor' has been done before, so that might have come across again
as rather lame (although there were references to it). How else could a
continuity be established?
It's also possible that the BBC is trying to drum up as much continuing
interest as possible in Torchwood and that they see these references
as 'teasers'. Either way, I don't think it can be assumed that they were
added by the writer in the original script or that they were intended as
a bit of personal PR.
> Check how
> it was mentioned in passing in a couple of the earlier episodes.
I must have missed them but then I don't think I listened as intently to
some of the earlier episodes.
> You might
> also want to *stop going back to bloody London*. The Tardis can go
> anywhere and anywhen, use it.
Ah - but will furriners accept that? ;-)
> This series, even more than the last, feels like fan-fic. and last night's
> episode felt like bad Mary-Sue fan-fic.
I'll agree that it was less 'out and out' scifi than most Dr Who
episodes but I actually rather liked the change of pace. It seemed to me
to be rather similar to the Mme Pompadour episode but, this time, from
the perspective of the affected character(s) rather than the Doctor's.
> Please, BBC, stop letting RTD write the scripts, and let somebody who's at
> least half good at it do them.
Aww... can't we compromise on letting him write the odd one?
esmi
|
|
|
| Re: [I] Doctor Who: The flagstone (was Re: [I] Verdana (was Re: [M]Afp content)) [message #289341 ] |
Mo, 19 Juni 2006 15:45 |
|
on 18/06/2006 00:08 Daibhid Ceanaideach said the following:
<snip>
> Back at the
> camcorder narration, Elton produces a flagstone with Ursula's
> face. He mentions that they still have a lovelife, and she
> isn't sure that's suitable for the tape...
You forgot to mention that, at this point, the flagstone was on Elton's
lap with Ursula facing him...
Sorry but I thought the visuals were a fairly integral part of the joke. :-)
esmi
|
|
|
| Re: [I] Dr Who (Was: Verdana (was Re: [M] Afp content)) [message #289355 ] |
Mo, 19 Juni 2006 17:06 |
|
The time: 19 Jun 2006. The place: alt.fan.pratchett. The
speaker: esmi <esmi [at] lspace.org>
> on 18/06/2006 09:50 jester said the following:
>> [no spoilers in this, but if anybody gets more specific on
>> what is or has been going on, please add a bit of spoiler
>> space for those who haven't seen it yet]
>> On the other hand, it should have less references to
>> Torchwood. Yes, Russel, we *know* you're working on a
>> spin-off series, you don't need to hammer it home with
>> such horribly obvious comments. Having a character saying
>> "looking at the Torchwood files" once would have been
>> enough, including the word 'Torchwood' the second time was
>> unneccesary.
>
> Do you think two mentions were really OTT? I didn't find
> them especially intrusive but I'd also agree that, had they
> been left out, there wouldn't have been any problem either.
> Perhaps there was concern that this particular episode was
> almost too different and the Powers-That-Be felt that
> additional tie-ins were necessary.
> It's also possible that the BBC is trying to drum up as
> much continuing
> interest as possible in Torchwood and that they see these
> references
> as 'teasers'. Either way, I don't think it can be assumed
> that they were added by the writer in the original script
> or that they were intended as a bit of personal PR.
Thing is, RTD *is* one of the PTB, and the "Bad Wolf" stuff
last year were his idea, so it seems logical that the
Torchwood references are as well. Personally, I've not been
bothered by them.
--
Dave
Official Absentee of EU Skiffeysoc
http://www.eusa.ed.ac.uk/societies/sesoc
Suggs against sexism. It's Madness gone
politically correct.
Jon Holmes, The Now Show 26/5/06
|
|
|
| Re: [I] Dr Who (Was: Verdana (was Re: [M] Afp content)) [message #289359 ] |
Mo, 19 Juni 2006 17:25 |
|
"esmi" <esmi [at] lspace.org> wrote in message news:e76ao3$2cm1$1 [at] mud.stack.nl...
> on 18/06/2006 09:50 jester said the following:
>> Now, this may just be me, but in my opinion an episode of Dr Who should
>> have the Dr in it for more than about 2 minutes. This is not Blake's 7.
>
> Admittedly, this did bother me initially but I found it less bothersome as
> I came more interested in the other characters.
I'm with Jester. I'm trying to minimise the amount of time I spend ranting
about "Love and Monsters" because frankly there aren't enough hours in the
day.
>> Please, BBC, stop letting RTD write the scripts, and let somebody who's
>> at
>> least half good at it do them.
>
> Aww... can't we compromise on letting him write the odd one?
That's the problem. He writes all of the odd episodes. I want less odd ones,
and more good stuff like "The Girl in the Fireplace" and "The Impossible
Planet/The Satan Pit".
Paul
|
|
|
Gehe zu:
aktuelle Zeit: Sa Mai 26 08:43:30 CEST 2012
Insgesamt benötigte Zeit, um die Seite zu erzeugen: 0,07725 Sekunden |
