176

(45 replies, posted in Off Topic)

I think the voting via cash for what movie you want to hear is a good idea. I'm a poor college student but I'd pitch in a few bucks to hear a commentary on a movie I loved. Might get some of the listeners who enjoy the show but don't visit the site to come over and check it out also.

I hope the model won't move towards Kickstarter-funded cable programs (which Trey pointed out the flaws of) but towards something like HBO. You pick the channels that produce shows you like and pay for them rather than paying for all of cable. People who subscribe to HBO for the hits - Game of Thrones, True Blood - also prop up the lower rated shows. Which would mean that the artful shows that nobody watched - like Firefly - could exist along with the big hits.

Kyle Monroe wrote:

People still didn't understand him, even with how prevalent his voice is in the final film.

I had trouble with one or two bits during my first viewing, but I think it was less about the sound mixing than the accent. Sean Connery meets Vader was a bit hard to get a handle on.

179

(1,019 replies, posted in Episodes)

Zarban wrote:

He didn't say they're commentaries. He said they're doing Twister and they're doing speed.

When people were suggesting Twister in the chat I honestly thought that they meant the guys should livestream a game of it.

It does sound oddly like a voice over, doesn't it? I felt like there was no sense of distance or volume with his voice.

181

(13 replies, posted in Off Topic)

Very sad. Hope his family can get through this.

182

(991 replies, posted in Off Topic)

Zarban wrote:

I don't know if this is part of the Classic Who mythology, but I like to imagine that part of the tragedy of being the Doctor is that, while each new regeneration retains the memories of the previous ones, they lose emotional attachment to them.

That would explain Nine's half-hearted attempts at humor. the Time War is fresh in his mind, but it's like something he read about in a book—except he's in it.

It explains why none(?) of the Doctors visit past companions (except, as Ten did, his own companions).

And it especially explains Ten's desperate reluctance to regenerate. He knows he will lose his feelings for Rose and the others, and they will become no more to him than acquaintances.

I really wanted Ten to explain that to Wilf when they were having their maudlin conversation at the end of Ten's run. It seemed awfully selfish of the Doctor to lament his imminent regeneration to an 80-year old man.

This works really well for early 10 was going all out with Rose; it's as if he was trying to prove something to her even thought they'd been together for a year.
And you have a point with Wilf but 10 was pretty adept at being an asshole, so...


Okay, I'm relieved you guys do not hate Martha. I for one liked the shift from her idolizing/trying to please the Doctor to realizing that she was brilliant.  It was character growth that worked for me, but I guess YMMV.

183

(991 replies, posted in Off Topic)

STOP THE PRESSES do you guys not like Martha Jones? Martha is my favorite companion!
Donna is my second favorite, followed by Amy and then Rose. I feel weird placing Rose last since Billie Piper was the person who got me into DW in the first place, but her writing got sloppy towards the end of her run.


Zarban wrote:

I actually think he was almost perfect as the Eighth Doctor because he was no good with the humor, which made him seem all the more haunted by the Time War.

I totally agree. Nine always seems to get the short end of the fandom stick, but I thought he was great in the role. I mean, the man just came out of a genocide and he managed to have fun.

Lamer wrote:

All Talia accomplished in that pit was the climb. She didn't have to fight to survive and because we got to spend some time in the pit we know that it wasn't really all that bad to begin with.

Well, her mother was ripped apart in front of her and she had to escape the same fate...

Lamer wrote:
Allison wrote:

I want to respond to a lot of these, but I'l start with this.
Scarecrow was the manifestation of the theme of Batman Begins: fear.  I thought that him making a cameo as Gotham's Robespierre worked because it communicated how fear and chaos and evil had come back to Gotham. Think about it: the Scarecrow could never have been in power in the post-TDK Gotham. There is a sense of relative safety and a serious drop in organized crime. Scarecrow returning communicated how the city is regressing without having to show much else.

Not really. The city's regression is clearly communicated by having rich people dragged onto the streets. After Bane takes over Gotham, threatens everyone with a nuke and declares some bizarre form of martial law we don't really need Crane to show us how the city has taken a turn for the worse. I'm fine with him having a cameo. We didn't really get to see him much in TDK and we don't know what happend to him during those past 8 years. It'd be cool to give him a scene or two just to show what happend to him as a character.

You could show him in an apartment somewhere minding his own business. Indicate that he's now a (seemingly) reformed man. Then he gets attacked by the angry mob and he immediatly feargasses the crap out of them. Then he turns around and walks away. You could play into the 'gotham would always need Batman' theme by having him 'out there'. He'd still have a cameo and it wouldn't feel like he's being shoehorned into the movie.

Is the 'bizarre form of martial law' actually communicated in other ways? Besides having Bane's folks walk around with guns? I think Crane showed the city regressing and the absolute power Bane and his cronies had. There was no getting around that court because of the way Bane had infected the mind of the populace. I liked the Committe for Public Safety parallel and it added some depth for me. I guess we'll agree to disagree. 

Lamer wrote:
Allison wrote:

Maybe he wants to cover up Talia's identity. Maybe he wants to intimidate Batman. People can lie. I interpreted that line as truth though. Talia doesn't have to be the only child born in the pit. Or perhaps Bane wasn't born in the pit but had a similarly hopeless upbringing, which led to him doing whatever he did that landed him in the prison in the first place.

That's what I meant by saying "So Bane is either lying or his mother gave birth to him at night when the electric grid was down." However, it doesn't have any meaning in the context of the movie and  makes him a weaker character. Disconnecting Bane from what we thought was his backstory at the end of the movie is like explaining who the Joker was at the end of TDK. 'Yeah, his name is Steve, he used to be an accountant but he fell down some steps and went insane".

How does it make him a weaker character to say he was used to darkness? We thought his back story was one thing and then were shown it's something else. I don't think it has any affect on the way his character is developed/used..

Lamer wrote:

Bane biulds a tunnel under Wayne Enterprises and steals Batman's tech.

He doesn't build the tunnel. He's in the sewers. It's pretty explicitly stated in Batman Begins that the sewer lines converge right underneath Wayne Tower. It was central to the League's plan.

ETA: I just want to add that I don't think the film was perfect. But the only major thing that bugged me was Catwoman's 180 on her politics (and the politics of the film in general) and Blake's discovery of who Batman was.

186

(991 replies, posted in Off Topic)

Some arcs work well - like the crack in time - because the arc is merely a backdrop for the episodic stuff.  You should be able to watch the show without knowing about the arcs and still have fun.

Any thoughts on the new companion?

187

(2,061 replies, posted in Episodes)

Hunger Games would bring up really interesting Plinkett test and storytelling discussions.

188

(991 replies, posted in Off Topic)

I am still not over the fact that they explicitly stated that River Song was a worse war criminal than Hitler, and then just moved on and never looked back.

189

(991 replies, posted in Off Topic)

Zarban wrote:

Matt Smitt under Steven Moffat was a wonderful breath of fresh air that is only just starting to go a little stale after last year's season-long shaggy dog story.

I totally agree. I think that series 5 is probably the best and most consistent of New Who, but series 6 really went off the rails. I think someone needs to sit Moffat down and explain that more complicated plots aren't always smarter plots.

Lamer wrote:

Scarecrow is in this movie for no goddamn reason.

I want to respond to a lot of these, but I'l start with this.
Scarecrow was the manifestation of the theme of Batman Begins: fear.  I thought that him making a cameo as Gotham's Robespierre worked because it communicated how fear and chaos and evil had come back to Gotham. Think about it: the Scarecrow could never have been in power in the post-TDK Gotham. There is a sense of relative safety and a serious drop in organized crime. Scarecrow returning communicated how the city is regressing without having to show much else.

Lamer wrote:

During the fight with Bane Batman kills the lights. Bane tells him he was born in darknes, (I assume) referring to the story of a child born in the prison-holiday-resort I've mentioned earlier. Later we find out that the legendary child is Talia, not Bane. So Bane is either lying or his mother gave birth to him at night when the electric grid was down.

Well, first of, Bane lying and saying he was born in darkness isn't exactly a plot hole. Maybe he wants to cover up Talia's identity. Maybe he wants to intimidate Batman. People can lie.
I interpreted that line as truth though. Talia doesn't have to be the only child born in the pit. Or perhaps Bane wasn't born in the pit but had a similarly hopeless upbringing, which led to him doing whatever he did that landed him in the prison in the first place. Some of your criticism is valid, but that one really sounds nitpicky.


Catwoman's costume is a topic for another day, but for now I'l say that it works for the image she's painting of herself.

191

(4 replies, posted in Off Topic)

Gregory Harbin wrote:

The show is essentially sex scenes strung together with good acting and set dressing. The books are full of incredibly deep and fascinating history.

Very true. I've been disappointed with how season two has handled the arcs of people like Cat and Daenerys. They seem to opt for simplifying their situations (making them look incompetent) to make room for more sex scenes.

192

(52 replies, posted in Episodes)

Invid wrote:

I think Frank Oz said casting had been over for awhile before they realized they should see if Rick Moranis could even sing. While it worked out there, all too often it doesn't. Mind you, things could improve if vocal dubbing came back in style (and wouldn't be mentioned in the press).

I am still stunned that the cast of the upcoming Les Mis film did all their singing live on set. Even Chicago, where the leads did all their own dancing and singing, lip synced to a pre recorded track.  Hopefully it works out and doesn't turn into a Pierce Brosnan in Mamma Mia situation.


Oh, and I have a correction to make: the distinction between operas and musicals are not necessarily that musicals are songs and scenes and operas are free of spoken lines. There are musicals that have absolutely no separate dialogue (Jesus Christ Superstar, Les Mis, The Last 5 Years). They are sung-through shows, as opposed to book musicals, where if you removed the songs you would still have something resembling a story.

I went back and read some of the discussion on page 5 and I think the complaints about Lisbeth's character in the movie vs. the books isn't really valid. The movie didn't make Lisbeth more mysterious than the source since the reader doesn't find out what her whole deal was until well into the second novel. The movie actually gave more explanation since they bring up Lisbeth's father.  And I am glad that they cut out a lot of Micke's relationships.  Him sleeping with nearly every female character got a little silly.  I agree that there were flaws in the way the film handled the reveal, but I don't think David hindered what the story was trying to do at all. 

I wish there was a sequel coming, because when you look at the series as a whole it's way less problematic when it comes to characters and pacing.  I think that the first book is the weakest of the three when it comes to juggling plot lines and characters and the last two would be more suited to good adaptations.  And, really, let's think about the Zalachenko barn confrontation directed by Fincher. I want that.

But, if I remember correctly, a sequel might not happen since it didn't do as well as MGM had hoped.

What key event changes were you not happy with?  I'm a fan of the book series and the Swedish film (although I've only seen the first one) and I really liked Fincher's take.

195

(133 replies, posted in Off Topic)

Now that I'm reading these reactions, I'm thinking I don't have to run out and see it before I leave for DC. Do any of you think I shouldn't wait a week and should catch it now?

1. Star Wars Episode V
2. Star Wars Episode VI

No need to expand the list, I think. Those two are embarassing enough.

Zarban wrote:
Allison wrote:

While we're on the topic of bad films: I saw The Raven last night and it was even worse than I expected.

Oh, that's too bad. I had high hopes for that.

/crosses "write Nathanial Hawthorne-based thriller" off to-do list

That's probably for the best, a someone beat you to it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Scarle … 2004_film)

While we're on the topic of bad films: I saw The Raven last night and it was even worse than I expected.

199

(44 replies, posted in Episodes)

To be fair, the movie itself didn't really know where it wanted to be on this issue, so you can pretty much form an opinion without really seeing it.

I feel like the film could have improved if they did comment on the fact that the only real conflict is between beauty and not, you know, ability to rule a country. They were so close when they had the queen say that she and Snow White were exactly the same, and then they just knocked the idea off the table.

200

(44 replies, posted in Episodes)

Jimmy B wrote:
Mr. Pointy wrote:

Maybe this is retcon, but I think of "fairest" as not being the prettiest (hottest, Charlize is clearly that), but the youngest, most virginal (the Queen has gone through a few guys so far right?), innocent. I know they mention "true beauty" or something like that, but couldn't that be more than just physical loks (beauty on the inside?)

Fair means pale-skinned, like a porcelain doll which many would consider to be 'beautiful'. So, it would actually make more sense if Emily Browning was cast as she looks like a doll. The reason she has pale skin is why Snow White is given that name in the book. She also has prominent red lips which, again, would make more sense if Browning was cast in a Snow White film smile

I feel like the movie was trying to say that fairest also meant pure and good and right.  The white hart blessing/endorsing Snow White gave me that impression, at least.