Main Menu
Menu

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.

Show posts Menu

Messages - Eric Plumrose

#1276
Film & TV / Re: ..NEW Dr Who TONIGHT, 'VOYAGE...
28 December, 2007, 09:45:32 PM
Heh. I'm not saying that Kylie is unattractive. And, if we're to use those two photos in comparison then, admittedly, La Minogue is more pleasing to my dancing eyes.

But she's nothing special. And prior to her plastification, I preferred Danii, too.

Random choice: Sylvia Sims. She was, what, 38 years old when she appeared in Asylum (1972) with Richard Todd?

Now THAT'S attractive. Without the need to resort to Sellotape or kinky boots.
#1277
Film & TV / Re: ..NEW Dr Who TONIGHT, 'VOYAGE...
28 December, 2007, 09:02:35 PM
Nope. Don't rate Planet of the Spiders. And I FUCKING HATE Genesis of the Daleks, even when I first saw it.

I don't have a favourite Who story that belongs only in my imagination. I can pick various serials from the first seven eras that don't cause me to channel the patience of Georges Gilles de la Tourette. For all its flaws, it's the basic premise of the show that interests me. It can be anything, any where, at any time.

Once RTD took hold of the reigns, however, it became 'generic soap opera', UK, the date on your video recorder.
#1278
Film & TV / Re: ..NEW Dr Who TONIGHT, 'VOYAGE...
28 December, 2007, 08:33:17 PM
>> I find a lot of 40-ish women look damn good to me, but Kylie... well, corr.

Nope. Can't see it. I've never been able to see it. And even wearing footwear that appeals to my appreciation of boots, I STILL CAN'T SEE IT.
#1279
Film & TV / Re: ..NEW Dr Who TONIGHT, 'VOYAGE...
28 December, 2007, 08:14:22 PM
>> And, yes, 'The kids like it' is a legitamet defence of a family programme.

If Doctor Who was a kids' show, I still wouldn't agree. But as you say, it's a family programme, therefore it should work for all ages, surely?

I'm quite happy for new Who to be undemanding fun. I don't, however, expect it to insult my intelligence even when I've not been giving it my full attention.

And that's the problem for me. Even at it's most superficial, new Who doesn't work. I'm of the opinion that only one third of the original show is any good, so I like to think that any criticism I make of new Who is based on what I perceive to be entertaining drama, if not QUALITY drama. As much as I may think that the Doctor as a wannabe Casanova is a complete betrayal of everything that has gone before (and that's taking into account his snogging of Grace in the McGann TV movie), I could still accept this new facet of his character (NOT his personality) IF he didn't fall in love every fourth episode from the last time.

And as much as the plot holes of new Who do annoy me, it's RTD's mistaken belief that his trite soap operatics constitute good (melo)drama that really gets on my tits. Unfortunately, the cliched conventions of soap operas are what seem to inform TV audiences these days so it's hardly surprising that that viewing majority isn't as critical as the Watcher or Jim.

Yes, RTD IS completely contemptuous of new Who's audience but you know what? They fucking deserve it.

That's why I'm prepared to miss out on what is, reportedly, a brilliant episode (Blink) if it means that I don't have to subject myself to the utter shite that is Aliens of London/World War Three/The Long Game/Bad Wolf/The Parting of the Ways/The Christmas Invasion/New Earth/The Rise of the Cybermen/The Age of Steel/Army of Ghosts/Doomsday/The Runaway Bride. That's why I haven't bothered with new Who since The Shakespeare Code, despite enjoying that particular episode, albeit superficially.

I watched Voyage of the Damned not because it was Doctor Who but because it was a Christmas special. Ever the arrogant fucker, RTD has likened the new Who Crassmas specials to those of Morcambe and Wise. Unfortunately, the only thing the two have in common is their illogic:  the difference, however, is that Eric's was near genius whereas Russell's is yet another plot hole.

>> As for Kylie's casting, trust me, she wasn't a bad point int he show.( I'm not a fan of her music by the way, so this really is a non partial point of view.) Her acting was actually pretty good . . .

I'm as indifferent to Kylie as you claim to be but, despite what you say, I thought her performance poor. It may not have been the WORST thing about the episode but, having asked if she'd been cast prior to RTD typing stuff (or so I presume, just to pre-empt Pedant Boy, AKA Master Bamforth), I did wonder if Kylie had been cast because of whom she is, not because she was right for the role.

Stunt-casting. Isn't that the kind of shit that JN-T is slagged off for?
#1280
Film & TV / Re: ..NEW Dr Who TONIGHT, 'VOYAGE...
27 December, 2007, 08:31:00 PM
Is it true that Kylie had been cast prior to RTD writing the script?
#1281
Film & TV / Re: ..NEW Dr Who TONIGHT, 'VOYAGE...
26 December, 2007, 10:21:48 AM
If I'd only had the sense to do the same. There would have been less soap, for starters.
#1282
Film & TV / Re: ..NEW Dr Who TONIGHT, 'VOYAGE...
26 December, 2007, 08:02:14 AM
If the teaser tailer for Season 4 is anything to go by, it's gonna be worse than any panto JN-T inflicted on us in the 1980s.

Bloody Christ, but that was tedious. One set of trite heroics followed by another, Darth Mini-Maul, the Snorebots of Death (for the third year running), a plywood Kylie in an extended cameo, Bernard Cribbens pointing out plot holes, yet more lame news broadcasts, the Doctor falling in love (again) . . .

. . . AND THAT FINAL FUCKING SCENE WITH THE QUEEN THANKING THE DOCTOR AS HE FLIES OVERHEAD.

FUCK OFF AND GOOD NIGHT.
#1283
General / Re: Things-that-everyone-else-like...
23 December, 2007, 07:48:57 AM
I'm also forgetting the obvious:

Vinegarrgh and Laguhh.
#1284
General / Re: Things-that-everyone-else-like...
22 December, 2007, 03:41:55 PM
Red Dwarf VI. I'd completely forgotten what lasy shite that was. IIRC, Every other joke involved Kryten correcting Rimmer's misremembering a space corp directive.
#1285
General / Re: Things-that-everyone-else-like...
20 December, 2007, 04:42:21 PM
>> Unless of course he already had it in his bookmarks...

Where's Cosmic Ray when I need him to explain confuser jargon?
#1287
General / Re: Things-that-everyone-else-like...
20 December, 2007, 03:48:26 PM
Yup, Buffy I find unwatchable due in no small part to Joss Whedon's sub-ironic dialogue that rarely seems to amount to little more than a verbose "Well, duh!". Gellar and her lipgloss are a major turn off also.

Despite periodic attempts at it, The Dark Knight Returns leaves me cold. I don't think I've made it much further than the second chapter. I'm not sure why, it may have something to do with the fact I was ten years too late when I first tried reading it. By that time, the Watchmen effect had long since exhausted my patience for so-called adult superheroics.

And as for 2000 AD . . .

Any post-'Oz' outings for Chopper,  ESPECIALLY 'Soul on Fire' and 'Song of the Surfer'. The former is a lame and unnecessary re-match, the latter a sentimental retread of 'Oz' with added sex wax and violence.
#1288
Film & TV / Re: IMDb Top 250 - The Quest!........
08 December, 2007, 08:35:11 AM
At 97 and 130 respectively, Braveheart and The Sixth Sense have been rated far too highly. The mind boggles also at how M and The Thing scraped in at a lowly 44 and 181.
#1289
Film & TV / Re: Doctor Who: Children in Need S...
21 November, 2007, 01:19:33 PM
It was fun, although I could have done without the piss-taking of Davison's tenure (from Tennant, of all Doctors).

The fact that Davison didn't recognize his older self gives me hope that Tennant isn't actually the Doctor.
#1290
Film & TV / Re: Watchmen update...
23 December, 2007, 08:05:08 AM
Or something.