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 - Mardroid

#4621
General / Re: Clickwheel troubles
08 May, 2010, 02:20:22 PM
Yes.
#4622
General / Re: Clickwheel troubles
06 May, 2010, 11:50:41 PM
Quote from: Grant Goggans on 05 May, 2010, 11:00:03 AM
I signed in okay, but got that same error when I tried to buy prog 1682.

Me too, yesterday and tonight!
#4623
Film & TV / Re: Dr Who 01/05/10: Flesh and Stone
03 May, 2010, 10:15:24 PM
Quote from: Tiplodocus on 03 May, 2010, 10:02:44 PM
Enjoyed that. Alex Kingston looked so fruity in those last scenes.  I liked it when we saw [spoiler]the statues move[/spoiler], Tiny Tips thought it weakened them.
I actually liked seeing them move too. They did it in a way that was suitably creepy. That being said, they are stated to move fast, but being able to move fast doesn't mean they have to. Slow looked creepy.

QuoteThe main bit I didn't like was the rather stupid [spoiler]"they can't move if they THINK they are being watched" which was a change from the act of observation is a quantum event that locks them in position.[/spoiler]
Yeah, that bugged me a bit too. I wish they had stuck with the original Angels nature and  powers overall. That includes the idea you mustn't look into their eyes. It's a creepy concept that they can still get you through the back door* so to speak, yet wasn't an issue in Blink! at all. I suppose it could be argued that those ones were much weaker an incapable of that. It did lead to the creepy scene of Amy having to walk through angels with her eyes closed, but that still could have been instigated another way.

*Oo-er. I'm sure you know what I mean.
#4624
Film & TV / Re: Dr Who 01/05/10: Flesh and Stone
01 May, 2010, 07:44:42 PM
Okay new thread. I just posted in the last one before I noticed but it's probably better off here:


Mixed feelings although I thought it was good overall.

[spoiler]I found it a bit convenient that the space/time crack suddenly turned up at the right place and time developing vacuum qualities though. At least it's been a thread throughout the series though. I didn't expect it to become so prominent this early though![/spoiler]

That sexy end bit was all rather pantomime though wasn't it? Mind you if you're going to turn up the sexuality in a pre-watershed show, that's probably the best route to take.
#4625
Film & TV / Re: Dr Who 'The Time of Angels'
01 May, 2010, 07:41:06 PM
That sexy end bit was all rather pantomime though wasn't it?

As for the rest of the episode... largely good I think. [spoiler]I found it a bit convenient that the space/time crack suddenly turned up at the right place and time developing vacuum qualities though. At least it's been a thread throughout the series though. I didn't expect it to become so prominent this early though![/spoiler]
#4626
Film & TV / Re: Thor
01 May, 2010, 01:15:28 PM
I don't think [spoiler]Thor's hammer should be found in New Mexico. I know these are an American adaption of an American series, but Thor is based on an 'old-world' character. What's wrong with good old Norway, at least to start with?[/spoiler]
#4627
Quote from: the shutdown man on 27 April, 2010, 01:41:32 PM
I'd like to nominate Human Centipede for this title (as well as "Dumbest concept for a horror film"):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9wmTv2nqTHo

Heh. I actually found that funny.
#4628
Announcements / Re: 3A Toys/Rebellion Press Release
29 April, 2010, 10:01:34 PM
Quote from: Noisybast on 29 April, 2010, 01:37:25 PM
$80? As in £52 real money? For an action figure?

I thought that too. But then I noticed from an earlier post... 1/6 scale. That's big. And not unusual for that size.  Although I'm not sure I could justify paying it just the same. I'd be happier with a smaller scale model. (Not that I'm particularly interested in a Tharg, but I'm interested in the ABC warriors and Dredds.)
#4629
I read elsewhere it would be set 30 years before. And the company will be Weyland, before joining to form Weyland-Yutani.

I also read on Den of Geek that there will be two prequels.

Here's the source of their info.
And here.
#4630
Books & Comics / Re: Whats everyone reading?
25 April, 2010, 01:42:31 AM
I've finally got hold of A Storm of Swords 2: Blood and Gold. Trouble is, it's been a while since I read the last book so I've forgotten some of what's happened before, although the general gist is easy enough to pick up.

Good read though.

Major spoilers! Don't highlight unless you've read the book. [spoiler]What a shocker though! I expected treachery at the Frey castle (things seemed to be going too well) but I didn't expect that to happen. I've read George R R Martin is renowned for killing of main characters but it's still quite a shock when it happened to characters that main. I say characters, Robb has taken rather a back seat after the first book, taking part in major events behind the scenes but with no POV, so I suppose its not that surprising he'd die in hindsight. The other character though...?

I'm just hoping that what happened to Arya was a bit of misdirection. (Don't tell  me, I'm only about a quarter through so far.)[/spoiler]
#4631
Film & TV / Re: Batman and Robin: a queston
24 April, 2010, 11:51:39 PM
Quote from: Adrian Bamforth on 22 April, 2010, 04:24:28 PM
I also dislike Tim Burton's slightly 'dark fairytale' take on the story,  thought the third probably the best of the original films, and found Batman and Robin quite good fun

Hmm. Most people seem to dislike that run of films from Batman Forever onwards. I found it good fun too,  although I thought the last film Batman and Robin was terrible, although Uma Thurman's Poison Ivy was... interesting. I liked Tim Burton's first Batman though and think dark certainly fits better with the concept of a superhero modelled on a bat than camp.
#4632
Film & TV / Re: Dr Who 'The Time of Angels'
24 April, 2010, 11:41:55 PM
Good so far. [spoiler]I wondered at the idea that those two headed aliens had created one headed statues before the Doctor picked up on it (although my mind didn't take that extra step further, mainly due to lack of wings).[/spoiler]

I'm not so sure of the extra [spoiler]'don't look in their eyes' power though. After all, for monsters that you have to stare at to keep stationary it's natural you'd look at their eyes, right? Sure, maybe that's the point, an extra defence mechanism, and it's an extra bit of fear factor knowing they can still get at you through the back door, so to speak, but it obviously wasn't an issue during the Blink! episode. I guess that could be put down to the fact they were scavengers and not at full power. And they haven't been exposed to lots of radiation grub too.

That's another thing, they eat destinies, right? Isn't that how people get moved through time? Still I guess it's possible they can eat different things as long as it's energy of a sort.[/spoiler]

Those things I've mentioned aren't really plot holes or contradictions though. A cool freaky episode. Part of me would like to see them move when others aren't looking, but on the other hand I think it's best they remain just how they are. Kind of brings us in on the gag if they don't move when we're looking either. Just be sure not to record the programme and play it back on loop afterwards. :)
#4633
Film & TV / Re: Terminator Salvation New Trailer
24 April, 2010, 03:03:11 PM
I watched it pretty late and I actually rather liked it.

I don't disagree with a lot of the criticisms though. I do think it fell rather flat in some areas and could certainly do with more heart. I thought the overall story was quite interesting though (and of course the action scenes). I wasn't that keen on the ending although I think I would have disliked the supposed original ending even more*.

As for the [spoiler]T-800 at the end, I actually liked the cameo and thought it looked okay, although you can sort of tell if you look up close. It's convenient he didn't pick up that T-600 mini gun though isn't it? Maybe this prototype model doesn't have the intelligence of the versions from the first two films but I don't quite buy that. Also, from what I understand about atomic devices (which granted isn't enough) setting off explosives near them would just destroy the device/bomb. It wouldn't set off a nuclear explosion. But then maybe Connor's self-rigged bomb was a nuclear trigger.[/spoiler] There are certainly holes that should have been thought through and explained more.

Overall I thought it was decent enough and an improvement on Terminator 3 though.


*Supposedly the original ending idea (and I say 'supposedly' as I'm not certain for sure, but I've read quite a lot of posts on a terminator forum concerning it.) was that [spoiler]John Connor actually dies at the end. Then his face is grafted onto Sam Worthington's character. The idea being, John Connor as an icon is as important as the actual person. Not an uninteresting concept but taking into account all the character (and his mother) goes through in the first three films, that twist would piss off a lot of people. Plus the grafting idea is silly.[/spoiler].
#4634
Announcements / Re: 3A Toys/Rebellion Press Release
22 April, 2010, 10:16:24 PM
There was an ad actually, but nothing specific. Mainly a teaser for Tharg's head. (That sounds funny.)
#4635
General / Re: Clickwheel
20 April, 2010, 09:59:23 PM
Quote from: updatatr0n on 20 April, 2010, 04:07:07 PM
... just as an enquiry, are you chaps finding the Progs to be okay?

I've only been buying 2000 AD from clickwheel for a short whiel but all my issues turned up fine.