Messages

Zombie Strippers

Dear me.

It was rubbish and boobies but entertaining rubbish and boobies. And rather gross in places.

A much darker episode this week, with a [spoiler]grim ending. Even grimmer if you consider what the main character's comment implies at the end "They should be together".[/spoiler]

It was very different from last week's episode. Actually it was rather different from all the others in this series, apart from the underlying dark comedy, which is part of what makes this series so good.

[spoiler]It starts with what seems to be an amusing obsession, that gets rather embarassing. Then it goes to a very sad place before becoming rather grim. Not the nasty grim of The Riddle of the Sphinx, it's all implied, but dark for all that.[/spoiler]

A very interesting journey.

I read a review afterwards, and I'm ashamed to say [spoiler] I missed all the pairings in the house. Then again, I wasn't really looking for them.[/spoiler]

I don't know anything about this type of work, but if there's flying bits, I'd suggest goggles too.

I know, that's probably pretty obvious.

And yes, please post updates!

Don't forget Judge Dredd!

http://www.alternity.co.uk/3000%20ad.html

Okay, maybe we should all forget Judge Dredd.

Heh! First time I've seen her.

I guess Sigourney Weaver would be an obvious one. You can get four Alien films* and two Ghostbusters** films out of that.

And Avatar too, if you like. I found it overrated when it first came out, yet not as unlikable as many people made out after watching it. Despite the amazing CGI world brought to life, the story was actually pretty decent... albeit done a couple of times before.  (I'd sooner watch A Man Called Horse though, even with the eye-watering stuff with the extreme piercings and such, but that doesn't feature Sigourney, that I remember.)

*It helps that I quite like the last two that others tend to think of as bad.

** It helps that I'm rather fond of the Ghostbusters sequel, which is maligned in some quarters. Oh, it perhaps lacks originality when comparing it with it's predecessor, but I thought it a fun film overall.

why isn't she just a grown woman, with a tick? Why the hybridisation?

Because this is way, way cooler. When I turned the page and saw the abomination she's become, it was quite shocking. It would have had much less impact if she'd just looked normal, with a tick she could conceal under clothing.

Oh, there was shock factor, I agree. It particularly made me squirm a bit as I've a bit of a fear of bugs and inverterbrates in general. (I wouldn't call it a real phobia. Insects don't bother me much when they're around, but seeing them up close 'zoomed in' in those nature documentaries used to freak me out as a child. I can watch them now, even appreciate them in a way, but I'm not entirely comfortable.)

I wasn't criticising the story, just voicing my puzzlement and speculating. The answer may be forthcoming after all.

If you need an in-story reason for it, then I'll float this idea and see if it withstands the withering scrutiny of the other boarders. Why shouldn't the tick grow bigger as it gets older, just as she did? When we first saw the ticks, they could all have been babies. The people who all had them just assumed that they wouldn't get bigger, but they'd only recently become infected, so they didn't know. If they hadn't all been wiped out, the whole lot of them could have ended up like her.

Interesting. I did wonder if they just merged into one being as the tick grew, but then I wondered why that hadn't happened to the older folk in her village when Gene visited. That was because I hadn't quite twigged, (or I forgot) that it was a recent infestation. Good theory.

I'll admit, I'm not much of a Nintendo* person (actually I'm not really much of a gamer at all, although I've been known to get really into certain games in the past) gravitating more to Sony stuff. (Still in past generations with that actually, owning a PS2 and PS3 super slim.)

The Switch really does look like a lovely bit of kit though. I just love the idea of changing the mode, and clipping bits together to change the operation, etc, and continuing a game wherever you are. I don't have the funds at the moment, but I think this is the first time I've found Nintendo tempting. (The games are so expensive though!)

I read a review yesterday which was largely positive, but mentioned some major issues with the left controller losing the signal. I'd be curious to learn if any Switch users here have had that problem. Hopefully Nintendo will sort it out soon.

*To explain: I don't think Nintendo products are bad. In the past my interest in Playstations has mainly been the fact they're also good film-media machines (actually I use them for that far more than the games, although I'd like to get back into gaming.) and I found their type of games more appealing. The majority of Nintendo games seem to have a cutesy cartoony thing going on - not a bad thing in itself to be fair. I'm more a 3rd person action role-player in taste, and while the Zelda games look like they fit that MO the look of them puts me off a bit. If I really got into the games, maybe I'd change my mind.

Hunger Games

I've never been bothered to watch this in the past as the synopsis have me the impression it was a rip off of Battle Royale (BR), but it was on tonight, so i thought I'd give it a go.

I'm glad I did. It was a bit predictable and it was a bit silly in places, but overall it was very enjoyable. The basic premise was similar to BR, but tonally it was very different.

Considering it involved a show where youngsters kill each other for the masses entertainment it was surprisingly positive.

I also thought the first shot of Kevin Spacey at the start was Ray Winstone.

Hah! Me too!

As for the Wonderwoman trailer - it was okay. I thought they put a bit too much emphasis on the 'magic sword' though. I will admit that I haven't read much of the comics, and I do know she uses a sword on occasion (although I get the impression she's more about the punching and twirling her Lassoo of truth) but I'm sure the sword isn't a big thing for her. It's like they're trying to blend in a bit of the King Arthur legend too, but her powers are from elsewhere. As a set up for the gag at the end of the trailer it kind of works, though.

Edgar Wright's new film, Baby Driver

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=byb2eJ_lLes

Ooh! I recognise that lady from the From Dusk Til Dawn series...* Not the waitress. The saucy looking minx cosying up to the gangster type.

At the start of this trailer, I wasn't too taken... but by the end, yeah, I think that could be an interesting film, particularly having Edgar Wright as director.

As for the  Deadpool trailer, what can I say? I enjoy a dark-humoured fourth wall breaking Superman parody with a big chunk of silliness. [spoiler]Zip it, Stan Lee![/spoiler]

*In the Salma Hayek role. Except they give this version much more to do... much as I like the original film.)

Love that strontium dog! I really liked Harrison's strontium dog back in the day too..

Yes. I found the stuff he drew ... unsettling*.. to read, but his art was always interesting and dynamic, and his depiction of Johnny Alpha was very good.

*This isn't necessarily a bad thing, concerning the subject matter and the resolution to that arc. It gave me a real sense of depression. Strangely, the artwork of Colin MacNeil on the same arc did not make me feel that way despite the writer being the same, and the ending being [spoiler]even more depressing if anything.[/spoiler] This is not a criticism of Mr. MacNeil's work at all, as his artwork was just as beautiful and I actually found it easier to read, because it felt less oppressive, despite the dark story matter.

Both artists worked in their own way, but it really brought home to me how the artwork can alter the tone of the story, even though the writer is the same.

This story arc/2017 - there has been a few people scratching heads as to why on this run it's not had a cover - until now. I'm still wondering why we didn't get a current Gene/story cover though, rather than hisself as was a few stories back.

...if that makes sense   

It does. When I looked at the cover, I thought, "Great cover, but he isn't using those blades in this story!" Actually, he didn't use them last time, either, did he? I seem to remember him swiping around a great big sword, in that one.

I guess if you're gonna draw an archetypal image of Gene, those would be the blades he's use, though as they were the ones he started with and used the most. I guess that's what they were going for, although I'd have preferred something relating to the current story as well.

Speaking of Kingdom, I'm a bit puzzled by the giant tick Leezee. Early on she says:

"The masters brought me here. They could not detach me from the tick in my flesh."

This suggests, this is the original. But if that's the case, why isn't she just a grown woman, with a tick? Why the hybridisation?

It would make more sense if she were an earlier clone who came out wrong due to mixing the human and tick DNA, who turned out to be an accidental asset due to her connection with the ticks. Or alternatively she was genetically engineered that way with the intention of breeding the weaponised ticks and influencing the other human clone, in the first place.

Later on she does say: "They made me too. Me and my kind."

That would support my theory, but it contradicts her earlier statement. Of course she likely inherited the memories of the original, so she still thinks of herself as her, (in which case, is she still around) or she was lying to get Gene on her side. It's interesting that she sees the ticks as 'her kind'.

Anyway, the story isn't quite over yet, so hopefully there will be a bit more explanation later. I'm enjoying this a lot. I am enjoying the whole Prog. I find The Order a bit confusing, but it's okay.

I thought the Whedon dialogue between characters one of the best things about the programme, but I can understand it being a bit much at times, and not to everyone's taste.

I liked Buffy a lot. When it first came out I found myself groaning inside a bit, thinking it was aimed at the hip teen crowd. (That was a large portion of the audience to be fair, although it's possibly aimed even more at the 'not so hip' teen crowd..) However, when I gave it a chance, I found it to be a very interesting show. The character are all rather likeable. There is a lot of humour in the show, some of which was hilarious, but it also has that dark edge that you would expect from a horror show, and there were some episodes (Hush stands out in this regards) which are actually rather chilling. And it's not afraid to be very serious and poignant at times.

There is also a lot of complexity in the characters. They will play with certain stereo-types ('archetypes', might be a better word) , then do something to subvert them. Without spoiling too much, Giles, the stereotypical foppish English librarian* would be a good example of that. Cordelia the spoilt arrogant pretty cheerleader is another good example of an archetype that is subverted.

The secondary characters are also almost as important (if not as important) to the show as Buffy herself. They are very much the heart of the show.

I don't like everything about it. I sometimes felt they were being a bit overly raunchy and shocking for the sake of it in later series (they'd moved to a different network with more relax rules I think, so they decided to be 'more adult') , but I know many would disagree. (There isn't a lot of that, to be fair, even there, but I guess those little bits stood out, for that reason.)

Also, one of the romantic threads which I disliked, I know is largely loved by many, so obviously these things are a matter of opinion. And it did pay off later...

I think the positives of the show far outweigh the negatives, however, and I regard it as one of the best programmes that has been created. Angel isn't bad, either, although I thought it got a bit silly with the Cordelia/Connor arc, but again with the opinions.

Strangely, I never did buy the box-set of this show. Maybe I should rectify that, at some point.

*the type of character- not always a librarian to be fair - who is seen as quintessentially English by the Americans, who we actually don't see much of here in real world England, although I'm sure there are plenty of his type about.

Yes good points but I don't see why you would make a series that could only last 2 seasons. For example DS9 was only getting good at that point and the later series were by far the best.

When the news first came out that new Star Trek series were in production, I got the impression there would actually be a few programmes each set in different time periods of finite length. (My impression was actually one series each, although two might develop things better.) So when we got the news of Discovery, I figured this was the first of these and that there will be other Star Trek shows following different characters in other times and places. So maybe one or two series of Discovery, in prequel territory, a couple of others between Original series and Next Gen*, another after Voyager, etc.

So definitely more than two series in total, but only 1 or 2 of each timer period/story, if that makes sense.

It's very possible they changed their minds in the meantime though, or I misunderstood.

*This is me just giving an example off the top of my head, not based on any news I've heard.