Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Funt Solo

Pages: 1 ... 621 622 [623] 624 625 ... 646
General / Re: Fantasy Line Up...
« on: 29 March, 2005, 09:10:08 PM »
I joined an encyclopedia sales team once (I only lasted 2 days as it was akin to having my soul sucked from my body by razor toothed hounds of hell).

Anyway, these guys had been together a while:  so they'd covered pretty much all the topics you could think of to do with door to door sales (person tells you to piss off, person sets dog on you, person propositions you, person pisses on you, person sets fire to you and then refuses to piss on you etc).

So, they had a rule.  If a "newbie" started a conversation that they'd already had, they got told to shut up because that conversation had already happened.

I'm glad it's not like that here.

General / Fantasy Line Up...
« on: 29 March, 2005, 06:24:50 PM »
If YOU were editor of 2000AD, what would your fantasy line up of thrills be?

(Assuming 5 core thrills per prog.)

Here's mine:

Judge Dredd:  "The Taking Of Black Atlantic Tunnel Zoom 123"
ABC Warriors: "AWOL"
Ukko The Thief:  "The Wilderness Years"
Family:  "Origins"
Nikolai Dante:  "Usurper"

(Droid Life:  "Downtime")

General / Re: Kull the Conqueror, yes or no?...
« on: 29 March, 2005, 03:12:17 PM »
If you want to watch the worst fantasy movie ever made, then Dungeons & Dragons has a lot going for it.

For example, Speed 2: Cruise Control is actually good fun from an "oh my god, I can't believe they made this" point of viewing.

Put it this way, I'd rather watch D&D than Kull...did they not know about Krull?  Tut.

D&D...emaciated Dwarf...tut...Tom Baker playing an Elf...tut...1000 Dragons with no personality..tut...no Dungeons...tut...

General / Re: Has 2000AD Taken Retro Too Far...
« on: 31 March, 2005, 11:30:36 PM »
...plus, of course, it would not be what it is without the groundwork of all that had gone before:  it heavily references a multitude of features from the early stories.

I think Rogue Trooper (before the climactic resolution with the traitor general) had a definite arc that was completed.

The reason Cinnabar worked for me was that it went back into that timeline and told a finite story.  That could work again.  But to try and do too much:  to resurrect the character in the long-term, I think, is a poor proposition.  To reinvent him again would be to do him (& us) a diservice.

General / Has 2000AD Taken Retro Too Far?
« on: 29 March, 2005, 05:10:54 AM »
I've nicked this question from another thread, but what does everyone think:

Should 2000AD continue to re-invent past thrills (Robohunter, Rogue Trooper, Strontium Dog, The VC's, Invasion), shore up long running thrills (Nikolai Dante, Sinister Dexter, Slaine) or concentrate on fresher characters (The Read Seas, Lobster Random, Caballistics)?

General / Re: Is it BAD?
« on: 29 March, 2005, 03:56:59 PM »
Notice how when De Racine fires his arm the sound effect is "kak".  Coincidence?  I think not.

General / Re: Is it BAD?
« on: 29 March, 2005, 05:02:07 AM »
Thrax was a really sinister presence:  once he was dead, what was the point?  After that it should have been re-named "Slightly Troublesome Company".

General / Re: Is it BAD?
« on: 29 March, 2005, 02:57:48 AM »
The original series is one of the best strips ever.

Book II was only okay in comparison.

Everything else was forced.

Help! / Re: CSS, IE6, & Firefox 1....
« on: 28 March, 2005, 03:14:28 AM »
The following produces the same results in both Firefox and IE:

#nav li{
   background-image: url(french_bttn.jpg);
   list-style-type: none;

   padding-top: 10px;
   padding-right: 5px;
   padding-bottom: 10px;
   padding-left: 0px;

   text-indent: 10px;

#nav a:link, a:visited{
   font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;
   color: #000000;
   font-size: 16px;
   font-style: normal;
   font-weight: bold;
   text-decoration: none;

#nav a:hover{
   color: #FF6600;

   padding: 5px;

NB:  I've replaced the menu{} style with a #nav{} style because Firefox behaves oddly with the menu{} style.

I've removed repeat style instructions where they weren't having any effect because they were being over-ridden by more specific styles.

My url for the image is different because I was testing this on my desktop.

text-indent was set on one location to 20 and on another to -20, which oddly caused different results on the two browsers.  I've set it to 10 in one location and set the padding-right to 5, which seems to give the effect you want.

background-repeat set to no-repeat, because that seems more sensible.

Hope that helps.

Help! / Re: CSS, IE6, & Firefox 1....
« on: 28 March, 2005, 01:41:38 AM »
There will be a way to get the same result in both browsers:  but without a clearly defined problem (ie a look at the source) I can't help.

Film & TV / Re: NEW DR WHO TONIGHT (26/3/05) W...
« on: 28 March, 2005, 10:35:04 PM »
I love the logic that Doctor Who is partly great simply because of what it is not.

It is not 4 back-to-back re-run episodes of Friends followed by 4 back-to-back re-run episodes of The Simpsons.

It is not reality celebrity gardening makeover jungle pop star, on 7 nights a week and repeated in various forms 7 afternoons a week with a cable channel dedicated to a 24-hour viewing of said banality.

So, in essence, an hour of a turd floating through space would be a winner compared with all the earthly turds we've been subjected to in the era of reality tv.

Film & TV / Re: NEW DR WHO TONIGHT (26/3/05) W...
« on: 27 March, 2005, 07:01:25 PM »
This whole "regeneration" thing is interesting:

I'm ignorant here, but I'm assuming that the very first Doctor was not the first incarnation, and that we were not treated to an explanation of regeneration until some point later on, when it became obvious that different actors would reprise the same role.

Given that, it's perfectly acceptable to start a new series off with no overt reference to it.  The older fans are already aware of it, there was a nod to it in the mirror scene and there's no need (as yet) to bother a younger audience with that particular aspect of the story.

Imagine this was the first time you'd ever seen Doctor Who:  you're getting used to this bizarre character in the same way that Piper's character is:  you really don't need to know that he's had n other faces.

Hopefully, this series will be such a startling success that a few years down the line we'll get a new Doctor: then regeneration will be there for all to see.

Film & TV / Re: NEW DR WHO TONIGHT (26/3/05) W...
« on: 27 March, 2005, 05:57:31 AM »
I managed to miss Graham Norton interupting things, which is good (hurrah for cable).

I really enjoyed it:  forgiving Eccleston settling into the role and being a lot more hyperactive than anything else I've seen him in.

I also forgive dodgy CGI, on the grounds that Doctor Who has always had crap special effects:  anyone who complains about them now but didn't as a child needs to book themselves into the "willing suspension of disbelief" clinic at the earliest opportunity.

The dramatic tension of both the wheelie bin scene and the "teetering on the brink waiting for help" scene were stretched, but those are minor gripes.

Prog / Re: PROG 1432... CASUALTIES OF WA...
« on: 01 April, 2005, 07:14:33 PM »
"crucially, many of the writers, artists and editors keep reading them"

Well, in that case, I loved Tiger Sun Dragon Moon and you've left me hungry for more.  I thought that the relaxed pace of the story (in that a single fight lasted two progs) was a breath of fresh air and the minimalist dialogue entirely inkeeping with the wushu theme.

As one of the most original strips to hit the prog in recent times, I savoured every frame.  Please, Thargipops, give us more.

Descent is excellent so far:  Boo Cook is the lushmeister:  loving all the little details with the Judges rad-cloaks and the crash sequence and - ooh - I've just noticed the nod to Fight Club.  I'll not say anything about the script because I know that droid frequents the board and he'll not fit his head out of cyberspace if we all wax lyrical.

I really enjoy the VCs script, but (as always) I find the art pretty hit and miss.  The frame with the arlington maze and the birds, that's lovely...but generally I find this style off-putting, which I think detracts from the story.

American Gothic:  I'm just all vampired out after years of Buffy, Angel & Blade.  It does look like an enjoyable story, with the requisite gritty artwork but, well, it just doesn't hit the button for me.

Of course, the story is "vampire hires down-on-luck wagon master to transport the rest of the vampires across the wilderness, but it doesn't go quite according to plan".  Helltrekkers with Vampires!  Hrmn...the jury's out.

Prog / Re: PROG 1432... CASUALTIES OF WA...
« on: 31 March, 2005, 05:23:38 PM »
2000AD has failed to reach the shops this week in my town...boo wahhh!

Tis always here on a Thursday...oh whatever shall I do?

Pages: 1 ... 621 622 [623] 624 625 ... 646