|
Bit of a tangent, but I just got done watching some Thunderbirds with a friend who had never seen it before, and I maintain it's aged exceptionally well. Especially now that retro-future is somewhat in vogue again with Fallout and Bioshock and whatnot.
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2011 01:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 20, 2024 02:38 |
|
|
Dr Snofeld posted:Bit of a tangent, but I just got done watching some Thunderbirds with a friend who had never seen it before, and I maintain it's aged exceptionally well. Especially now that retro-future is somewhat in vogue again with Fallout and Bioshock and whatnot. dont think video-games have ever made anything "in-vogue"
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2011 01:30
|
|
|
LE0N posted:dont think video-games have ever made anything "in-vogue" I know what I meant, I just can't articulate it. EDIT: Actually on reflection I don't know. My point is, you're not bothered that all the computers are reel to reel and that the Hood's secret camera is in a big hat and what have you. Dr Snofeld fucked around with this message at 01:36 on Feb 8, 2011 |
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2011 01:31
|
|
|
I loathed all those Supermarionation shows as a kid. Stingray, Thunderbirds, Captain Scarlett, I found them deathly dull and completely uninteresting, and would turn the TV over when they came on. I still have no desire to ever watch them
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2011 01:36
|
|
|
Fatkraken posted:I loathed all those Supermarionation shows as a kid. Stingray, Thunderbirds, Captain Scarlett, I found them deathly dull and completely uninteresting, and would turn the TV over when they came on. I still have no desire to ever watch them What did you make of the "reimagined" Captain scarlett that was on a while back? if you saw it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2011 01:44
|
|
|
Fatkraken posted:I loathed all those Supermarionation shows as a kid. Stingray, Thunderbirds, Captain Scarlett, I found them deathly dull and completely uninteresting, and would turn the TV over when they came on. I still have no desire to ever watch them That would be because they are, were, and forever shall be poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2011 01:47
|
|
|
Ouch, that kid in Outcasts is quite painful to watch. He has a voice that belongs in a 1970s Public Information film talking to Charly the cat. Right now he's standing at a lakeside with Apollo and I'm waiting for a serious-sounding "Stay away from the water" voiceover to kick in.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2011 01:50
|
|
|
Rapey Joe Stalin posted:That would be because they are, were, and forever shall be poo poo. Well bear in mind I grew up in Dundee, where the alternative entertainment is watching two neds get into a shouting match over a Gregg's pastie, so you have to get fun wherever you can find it. Could be worse though, you could have voluntarily watched the 2004 movie. I wish I could go back and save past me the pain.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2011 02:05
|
|
|
Dr Snofeld posted:Well bear in mind I grew up in Dundee, where the alternative entertainment is watching two neds get into a shouting match over a Gregg's pastie, so you have to get fun wherever you can find it. Dundee isn't all that bad. If you keep your eyes closed.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2011 02:08
|
|
|
John_Anon_Smith posted:Dundee isn't all that bad. If you keep your eyes closed. No, cos you can still smell it and might walk into something.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2011 02:10
|
|
|
MisterLizard posted:Ouch, that kid in Outcasts is quite painful to watch. He has a voice that belongs in a 1970s Public Information film talking to Charly the cat. Right now he's standing at a lakeside with Apollo and I'm waiting for a serious-sounding "Stay away from the water" voiceover to kick in. "JIMMMEEEEEH!!" Remember kids, don't throw frisbees into power substations. And yeah Outcasts was poo poo. I probably would have kept watching if they hadn't killed Apollo, god drat bbc, will you EVER make a good sci fi?
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2011 02:14
|
|
|
I'm only 20 minutes through this but right now it's suffering massively from telling far too much instead of showing. It's just blah blah, we're this, we're that, we're doing this, we're doing that, we've got this, we've got that, this is what we are, and this, this, this and this. Does that end up end up drifting off a bit or is the entire episode basically this dribble.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2011 02:51
|
|
|
NaDy posted:"JIMMMEEEEEH!!" Well I love Doctor Who but that's more fantasy than sci-fi really. I didn't even bother with Survivors so the only recent BBC sci-fi show I've seen has been the first couple of episodes of The Deep, before deciding I'd be better off renting Mega-Shark vs Giant Octopus. Anyway, Outcasts: The first episode of a show like this has several important criteria that should be met. Traditionally, we should be introduced to the primary characters, hopefully finding at least one that we can relate to. No need for too much backstory at this point; that can wait until they've been established in our minds as people we can form an emotional bond with. Outcasts prefers the approach of dumping a bunch of unlikeable nonentities upon us along with spurious amounts of background detail about them that we don't care about because we've yet to establish any kind of empathy with them. For a sci-fi show, you need to establish the world it inhabits. Tell us about this future - its technology and the impact it has had on mankind. Give us some clues about what future-life is like and maybe drop a few teasers about how the human race got from 2011 to whatever year the show is set in. Outcasts shuns this method in favour of showing us 1/2-second cutaways of a spaceship combined with some bloke sitting behind a shiny desk talking to some flatscreen monitors. You heard it first on the BBC; in the future people will have TVs that are so flat they're only a few inches thick. The next point is maybe frivolous but it really got on my nerves in the later part of this episode. Our uninvolving cast are out in the depths of space on an alien world - how should this be portrayed onscreen? Moorland and pine trees wouldn't be my first choice, but then I live outside the M25 so landscapes like that aren't as alien to me as they are to the producers of this show. Visualising a remote human outpost on an alien world should require more than an outside broadcast shoot in the Brecon Beacons (or the Lake District, or the Scottish Highlands or whatever godforsaken spot without free wifi coverage they chose). Even 1970s Doctor Who made the effort to find a suitable quarry rather than pointing a camera at some non-London scenery and assuming viewers would find it appropriately alien. Back to the story and I'm not sure what I'm supposed to tune in for next week. Right now the trend for shows in this genre is to drop a few tasty morsels that hint at an overarching plot which will carry the rest of the series. Lost popularised it, BSG did it with the Cylon philosophy and "they have a plan". Even the BBC's own Doctor Who has pulled it off with the season-long Cracks in Time and the pan-season Silence Will Fall themes. How does Outsiders introduce this element to the show?  TIGERS TIGERS TIGERS SEE HOW WE MADE THE AWKWARD STAGE SCHOOL KID REPEAT THAT A LOT? THAT'S A STORY ARC THAT IS. Because whenever an irritating kid repeatedly harps on about something that bares no relation to the rest of the show you better take note. I realise quite a lot of my rant can and will be refuted by people who liked it, and some of it is probably unduly harsh. I don't care; I've been subjected to hype for this show for ages, trumpeting it as the next great British sci-fi. I watched it and got what seemed to be a filler episode of Holby City set in a future-space that looked a lot like a National Trust commercial forestry plantation (before the dystopian future where they've all been sold to global megacorps).
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2011 03:33
|
|
|
It's a good rant. We had Corrie on in the background today and the kid kept going on about bowling alleys. I forsee explosive bowling balls (WITH GHOSTS) in the near future.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2011 04:00
|
|
|
Despite no evidence to support this I am convinced that the BBC could make a BSG quality sci-fi if they really wanted to. They try to hard to please everyone at the moment and I don't quite know who it ends up actually appealing to.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2011 07:58
|
|
|
I actually thought it was about a million times better than the Deep and I quite enjoyed it, except for the annoying child and the retarded "THIS IS THE BAD GUY" ending. Calling the weird ghost aliens as being the children that the colony had to expel because of illness.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2011 09:12
|
|
|
Uncertain Frog posted:Despite no evidence to support this I am convinced that the BBC could make a BSG quality sci-fi if they really wanted to. They try to hard to please everyone at the moment and I don't quite know who it ends up actually appealing to. I maintain that all it needed was someone to rewrite all the dialogue. The Things That Happened aspect of the script was FINE, a little hokey maybe but perfectly acceptable for a show of this type. I thought the scenery/setting wasn't a problem: they didn't just rock up down the road to Wales, most of the location filming was done in South Arfica, and was no less believable than BSG/Stargates greater Vancouver area or Farscapes Australia. In fact, the settlement reminded me a fair bit of a slightly more robust New Caprica and noone was complaining about that. Barring the kid (NO BBC! BAD! Child Actors are the devil!) the acting was acceptable, they did their best with the flaccid script. The only insurmountable problem I could see was the characters were absolutely flat and dull. There's no Gaias Baltar fawning and plotting, no Starbuck pissing people off. No Chriton cracking wise, No John Hannah chewing the scenery, or Ian McKellen swearing about prostitutes. Everyone in it, EVEN THE VILLAINS, was earnest, plodding and dull dull dull. I only saw it yesterday and I was paying attention, and I can't remember the name of a single loving character. I bet if someone did a "garble the dialogue, subtitle with a better script" edit like that Phantom Menace one that's floating around, you could make the show 5 times more enjoyable.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2011 11:24
|
|
|
Fatkraken posted:Ian McKellen swearing about prostitutes. I think you mean Ian McShane but that's a lovely image anyway.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2011 12:55
|
|
|
Unkempt posted:I think you mean Ian McShane but that's a lovely image anyway. ...yeah, that
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2011 13:11
|
|
|
drat that was poo poo. As bad as both the Survivors reboot and the Day of the Triffids. However, whoever edited the Outcasts wikipedia page is a saint.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2011 16:34
|
|
|
Unkempt posted:I think you mean Ian McShane but that's a lovely image anyway. Sir Ian, Sir Ian, Sir Ian, Sir Ian ACTION COWBOY TELL THE WHORES IF THEIR LEGS AIN'T IN THE AIR THEY'D BETTER BE OFF THEIR ASSES CUT! ...Sir Ian, Sir Ian, Sir Ian.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2011 16:46
|
|
|
Squalitude posted:We had Corrie on in the background today and the kid kept going on about bowling alleys. A similar thing happened a few months ago, everyone kept saying "Did you hear, the mayor's got angina!" Never did figure out what that was supposed to be about. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2011 17:06
|
|
|
MisterLizard posted:
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2011 19:00
|
|
|
Is Holby meant to be a comedy?
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2011 21:59
|
|
|
ono her daughter totally got captured by the people with ghost alien split personalities living in their heads
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2011 22:15
|
|
|
BLAAAAA BLAAAAAA BLAAAAAAA BLAAAAAA sooooooooooooooooooo loving boring!
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2011 22:23
|
|
|
am I the only one watching? SUFFER WITH ME
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2011 22:32
|
|
|
Outcasts still poo poo?
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2011 22:37
|
|
|
Brown Moses posted:Outcasts still poo poo? yes 
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2011 22:41
|
|
|
Never mind, Charlie Brooker in a minute!
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2011 22:48
|
|
|
at least the scenery is pretty
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2011 22:52
|
|
|
Speaking of poo poo - I made the mistake of watching Starship Troopers 3 last night. That's a well-deserved 1-star. Radio Times was on the money:quote:Anything good from Robert A Heinlein's classic sci-fi novel has long since been wrung out of the franchise I may have to get it on DVD on the offshot Verhoven is crying on the commentary.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2011 22:54
|
|
|
Kerbtree posted:Speaking of poo poo - I made the mistake of watching Starship Troopers 3 last night. That's a well-deserved 1-star. Radio Times was on the money: is that the one with like the cult leader or something?
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2011 22:54
|
|
|
Fatkraken posted:is that the one with like the cult leader or something? I think it was something to do with the singing not-a-nazi being psychic bug-buddies with one of those brain things and then a load of bollocks happened. Also, I think there was some sort of subtext, far, far too subtle for me to pick up that Paul Verhoven might not like religion. What definitely didn't happen was a bunch of space marines in battlemechs spent most of the movie stomping across a planet distributing explosions with gleeful abandon. That, might have been a good movie.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2011 23:10
|
|
|
Tastes like something left in a kettle after the fire-bombing of Dresden!
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2011 23:10
|
|
|
That 'Sweet 16' thing isn't real... is it? Please tell me it isn't...
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2011 23:19
|
|
|
The US Sweet 16 was a genuinely horrifying display of wealthy brats. The UK version was a hilarious embarrassingly display of anti-glamour.
Pablo Bluth fucked around with this message at 23:27 on Feb 8, 2011 |
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2011 23:24
|
|
|
There are no words.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2011 23:31
|
|
|
It may have been a blatant rehash of past Screenwipe segments but they were the best segments so it's all fine by me. Sweet 16 UK was amazing. Absolutely none of it made sense.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2011 23:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 20, 2024 02:38 |
|
|
Pablo Bluth posted:The US Sweet 16 was a genuinely horrifying display of wealthy brats. The UK version was a hilarious embarrassingly display of anti-glamour. Oddly enough, when the girl screamed that her mother had ruined her life, I kind of agreed with her.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2011 23:35
|
|