Review - The Eternity Trap
pbo...@aol.com
ahead. Why on Earth wasn't this one scheduled for last week, and shown
on Halloween?
Ghost stories - people exploring houses where potentially scary things
are going on, investigating and trying to beat the bad guys, running
around and walking through the inevitable secret passages (it's
especially handy when you have a list of secret passages). And kids
love ghost stories. Hmm, what does this sound like?
So, why hasn't Dr Who really given the happy marriage of a haunted
house tale and, well, Dr Who a try before? Yes, yes, Ghost Light, but
that doesn't really count - even fans of the McCoy era can hardly
claim it was high on scares.
John smith complained in my last review that I wasn't taking account
of what kids enjoy. So, if I were to look at this from a kid's
perspective, where would I rank this?
Pretty close to the top, I think. As an adult, my rating wouldn't be
too different. It was, of course, cliche after cliche - hello, it's a
GHOST STORY! But the cliches were delivered well and at the right
moments (though the final one as they left the house was perhaps a
cliche too far) - the first half played out so well I was regretting
the foreknowledge that it would turn out to be Scooby Doo with aliens;
I wanted them to be genuine ghosts.
The only points where I felt the story lagged were with the stilted
exchanges of the lord of the manor and Darkening, though fortunately
that was only a couple of scenes. Darkening himself did a great job of
impersonating Alan Rickman, making exactly the sort of hammy panto
villain the story called for (and yes, he turned up BEHIND YOU!
several times)
Not sure what Professor Rivers was doing in the story, except possibly
being contracted for an annual appearance; why was the Pharos
Institute chasing ghosts? And am I the only one who had her assistant
pegged as a Slitheen (again)?
However, the plotholes were minor and forgiveable - how did Sarah-Jane
get such an indepth knowledge of how the TARDIS worked? Why did
Darkening let her and Toby go when they found his machine? And of
course why was the resolution gibberish - because of the law of
conversion of energy, it follows that when you hit something you
absorb its energy and that lets you beat evil bad guys? Even Aggy
wouldn't buy into that one. At the end of the day, a ghost story is
about the simplest, most familiar trope out there - you can't really
go wrong with the plot; it's only the alien bit the story had the
freedom to screw up.
Really, then, all that leaves is the atmospherics, timing and
performances - most of which were some of the show's best. The writers
even had the sense to leave Luke out of the story altogether (for no
terribly obvious reason, but it works - I suppose they need someone to
stay behind and walk the dog these days).
All in all, a very strong showing and much more like Dr Who than SJA -
my favourite story of the season so far. Next week looks like a
standard monster chase, but then I once said that about the trailer
for Midnight...
Phil
Monsieur Tabernac
<pbo...@aol.com> wrote:
>Really, then, all that leaves is the atmospherics, timing and
>performances - most of which were some of the show's best.
I hope you're only referring to the series regulars. I thought the
guest cast was atrocious. Prof. Rivers... awful. The villain seemed
to be emulating a Dalek mixed with the sing-song voice of the original
Cybermen, and worst of all was the assistant Toby -- a fusion of Rain
Man and Mr. Humphreys.
Just my opinion of course.
Oh, the ghost-actors were ok.
pbo...@aol.com
wrote:
> On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 10:10:18 -0800 (PST), "pbow...@aol.com"
>
> <pbow...@aol.com> wrote:
> >Really, then, all that leaves is the atmospherics, timing and
> >performances - most of which were some of the show's best.
>
> I hope you're only referring to the series regulars.
Well, mostly, I'm referring to the atmopherics and timing... Though I
thought Clyde had some of his better lines, certainly for the last
couple of seasons (and his Ghostbusters references, naturally).
I thought the
> guest cast was atrocious. Prof. Rivers... awful.
Okay, 'performances' was the wrong word, I meant rather
'characterisation'. I liked her character - I could take or leave the
acting.
The villain seemed
> to be emulating a Dalek mixed with the sing-song voice of the original
> Cybermen,
Just like Alan Rickman, then... But he did have a great costume.
and worst of all was the assistant Toby -- a fusion of Rain
> Man and Mr. Humphreys.
Again, characterisation is a more appropriate word than performances -
you're right that he was very poorly-acted (in fact that was the main
reason I said "most"), but he was given a bit of character beyond his
repetition "So, do you still not believe in ghosts?" in the second
half. And I have a feeling that his childhood ghost sighting is going
to be revisited in a future Pharos episode.
> Just my opinion of course.
>
> Oh, the ghost-actors were ok.
The ones who stood around doing nothing, you mean? :-)
Oh, and another plothole: if Darkening's machine only went wrong when
he was attacked, why did the kids vanish in the first place (and why
did he seem to want to take them)? After all, he wasn't attacked until
after they were vanished.
Phil
john smith
<pbo...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:ce752761-bd08-49db...@s15g2000yqs.googlegroups.com...
> Okay, this is the problem you get when BBC schedulers don't think
> ahead. Why on Earth wasn't this one scheduled for last week, and shown
> on Halloween?
>
> Ghost stories - people exploring houses where potentially scary things
> are going on, investigating and trying to beat the bad guys, running
> around and walking through the inevitable secret passages (it's
> especially handy when you have a list of secret passages). And kids
> love ghost stories. Hmm, what does this sound like?
>
> So, why hasn't Dr Who really given the happy marriage of a haunted
> house tale and, well, Dr Who a try before? Yes, yes, Ghost Light,
"Stones of Blood" was pretty close...
but
> that doesn't really count - even fans of the McCoy era can hardly
> claim it was high on scares.
>
> John smith complained in my last review that I wasn't taking account
> of what kids enjoy. So, if I were to look at this from a kid's
> perspective, where would I rank this?
>
How's that possible, when you're an audlt?
> Pretty close to the top, I think. As an adult, my rating wouldn't be
> too different. It was, of course, cliche after cliche - hello, it's a
> GHOST STORY!
You can do *loads* of things with ghost stories! Never read Henry James or
M.R. James or Shirley Jackson? Sheridan Le Fanu? Robert Aikman or Ramsey
Campbell? Or the inestimable Arthur Machen, one of the creepiest ghost
story writers ever?
Now a haunted house story, on the other hand: *that* is a far more
restrictive "subgenre"...
But the cliches were delivered well and at the right
> moments (though the final one as they left the house was perhaps a
> cliche too far) - the first half played out so well I was regretting
> the foreknowledge that it would turn out to be Scooby Doo with aliens;
> I wanted them to be genuine ghosts.
>
Did you pick up on Sarah Jane's reference to "the Stone Tape theory"? Not
just a nod in the direction of Nigel Kneale's seminal "The Stone Tape" - but
an actual bona fide reference! Ever seen it?
> The only points where I felt the story lagged were with the stilted
> exchanges of the lord of the manor and Darkening, though fortunately
> that was only a couple of scenes. Darkening himself did a great job of
> impersonating Alan Rickman, making exactly the sort of hammy panto
> villain the story called for (and yes, he turned up BEHIND YOU!
> several times)
>
> Not sure what Professor Rivers was doing in the story, except possibly
> being contracted for an annual appearance; why was the Pharos
> Institute chasing ghosts? And am I the only one who had her assistant
> pegged as a Slitheen (again)?
>
> However, the plotholes were minor and forgiveable - how did Sarah-Jane
> get such an indepth knowledge of how the TARDIS worked? Why did
> Darkening let her and Toby go when they found his machine? And of
> course why was the resolution gibberish - because of the law of
> conversion of energy, it follows that when you hit something you
> absorb its energy and that lets you beat evil bad guys? Even Aggy
> wouldn't buy into that one. At the end of the day, a ghost story is
> about the simplest, most familiar trope out there -
Yeah? What trope is that then? I can think of loads of simpler ones: love
stories; rape/revenge; nature strikes back, etc., etc....
you can't really
> go wrong with the plot;
Story isn't the same as plot which is the same as trope...
it's only the alien bit the story had the
> freedom to screw up.
>
> Really, then, all that leaves is the atmospherics, timing and
> performances - most of which were some of the show's best. The writers
> even had the sense to leave Luke out of the story altogether (for no
> terribly obvious reason, but it works - I suppose they need someone to
> stay behind and walk the dog these days).
>
> All in all, a very strong showing and much more like Dr Who than SJA -
> my favourite story of the season so far. Next week looks like a
> standard monster chase, but then I once said that about the trailer
> for Midnight...
You do like jumping the gun then shooting yourself in the foot with it,
don't ya, Phil? ;-)
>
> Phil
pbo...@aol.com
> <pbow...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
> news:ce752761-bd08-49db...@s15g2000yqs.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Okay, this is the problem you get when BBC schedulers don't think
> > ahead. Why on Earth wasn't this one scheduled for last week, and shown
> > on Halloween?
>
> > Ghost stories - people exploring houses where potentially scary things
> > are going on, investigating and trying to beat the bad guys, running
> > around and walking through the inevitable secret passages (it's
> > especially handy when you have a list of secret passages). And kids
> > love ghost stories. Hmm, what does this sound like?
>
> > So, why hasn't Dr Who really given the happy marriage of a haunted
> > house tale and, well, Dr Who a try before? Yes, yes, Ghost Light,
>
> "Stones of Blood" was pretty close...
I suppose it was, at that - I thought of it more as a vampire-type
story, with the evil character in the manor seeking the blood of
virgins etc. Still, maybe that's partly why it's among my favourite
original series storied.
> but
>
> > that doesn't really count - even fans of the McCoy era can hardly
> > claim it was high on scares.
>
> > John smith complained in my last review that I wasn't taking account
> > of what kids enjoy. So, if I were to look at this from a kid's
> > perspective, where would I rank this?
>
> How's that possible, when you're an audlt?
Well, a good start's thinking of the sort of story I'd have wanted to
see when I was a kid. I'd have *loved* it if Dr Who had done anything
like this at the time (thought it would have been the right period, I
don't remember seeing Ghost Light that long ago - but Ghost Light was
more about trying to send a message about evolution than doing an
honest-to-goodness tension-filled ghost story). Kids today get
spoiled. :-(
> > Pretty close to the top, I think. As an adult, my rating wouldn't be
> > too different. It was, of course, cliche after cliche - hello, it's a
> > GHOST STORY!
>
> You can do *loads* of things with ghost stories! Never read Henry James or
> M.R. James or Shirley Jackson? Sheridan Le Fanu? Robert Aikman or Ramsey
> Campbell? Or the inestimable Arthur Machen, one of the creepiest ghost
> story writers ever?
No to all, but I think you can take it from my above summary that in
this context I was treating 'ghost story' as a synonym for 'haunted
house tale'. This was, after all, Scooby Who - right down to bringing
SJA in in her role as reporter investigating the story.
> But the cliches were delivered well and at the right
>
> > moments (though the final one as they left the house was perhaps a
> > cliche too far) - the first half played out so well I was regretting
> > the foreknowledge that it would turn out to be Scooby Doo with aliens;
> > I wanted them to be genuine ghosts.
>
> Did you pick up on Sarah Jane's reference to "the Stone Tape theory"? Not
> just a nod in the direction of Nigel Kneale's seminal "The Stone Tape" - but
> an actual bona fide reference! Ever seen it?
Never seen it or heard the name, but I've run across the idea - it
jarred a bit with SJ's focus on science in the rest of the story that
she described it as 'plausible', though. What I liked at least as much
were the references to real-life ghost stories I heard about as a kid
- such as the Roman soldiers walking up to their knees.
> > The only points where I felt the story lagged were with the stilted
> > exchanges of the lord of the manor and Darkening, though fortunately
> > that was only a couple of scenes. Darkening himself did a great job of
> > impersonating Alan Rickman, making exactly the sort of hammy panto
> > villain the story called for (and yes, he turned up BEHIND YOU!
> > several times)
>
> > Not sure what Professor Rivers was doing in the story, except possibly
> > being contracted for an annual appearance; why was the Pharos
> > Institute chasing ghosts? And am I the only one who had her assistant
> > pegged as a Slitheen (again)?
>
> > However, the plotholes were minor and forgiveable - how did Sarah-Jane
> > get such an indepth knowledge of how the TARDIS worked? Why did
> > Darkening let her and Toby go when they found his machine? And of
> > course why was the resolution gibberish - because of the law of
> > conversion of energy, it follows that when you hit something you
> > absorb its energy and that lets you beat evil bad guys? Even Aggy
> > wouldn't buy into that one. At the end of the day, a ghost story is
> > about the simplest, most familiar trope out there -
>
> Yeah?
Okay, a haunted house story, if you insist. And I'd venture it's a bit
more familiar to kiddie viewers than rape stories...
> it's only the alien bit the story had the
>
> > freedom to screw up.
>
> > Really, then, all that leaves is the atmospherics, timing and
> > performances - most of which were some of the show's best. The writers
> > even had the sense to leave Luke out of the story altogether (for no
> > terribly obvious reason, but it works - I suppose they need someone to
> > stay behind and walk the dog these days).
>
> > All in all, a very strong showing and much more like Dr Who than SJA -
> > my favourite story of the season so far. Next week looks like a
> > standard monster chase, but then I once said that about the trailer
> > for Midnight...
>
> You do like jumping the gun then shooting yourself in the foot with it,
> don't ya, Phil? ;-)
Just pointing out that it's been known for me to be wrong before.
Rarely... Plus, in fairness Midnight must rank as the least typical Dr
Who story ever written - I could hardly have anticipated it being
quite that unusual, especially given the author.
So, to recap, so far this season we've seen a story where an alien kid
kidnaps other kids because she's lonely, a story where an alien left
on Earth by himself goes mad and creates a "haunted house", and next
week we get a story in which aliens are apparently planning to steal
the Mona Lisa.
Gotta love these original plots they're coming up with...
Phil
AlanZarbury
> Okay, this is the problem you get when BBC schedulers don't think
> ahead. Why on Earth wasn't this one scheduled for last week, and shown
> on Halloween?
>
They DO think ahead, but SJA isn't high up their considerations. Sorry,
but not everyone is a Whovian.
AlanZarbury
Presumably it's all new to the CHILDREN it's aimed at Phil.
pbo...@aol.com
So what were they showing on Halloween? The Vampire Grand Prix? It
seems pretty logical that if they have new material that tells a ghost
story they could readily schedule it accordingly - especially since,
IIRC, SJA is repeated on Saturdays. All it would take is switching
last week's and this week's SJAs around.
Phil
pbo...@aol.com
At least some of those will have seen Fear Her, since it was
apparently aimed at an audience about half the age of the kids most
Who's targeted at. Of course, Mad Woman in the Attic is so far
superior to Fear Her I can't imagine anyone would mind seeing it
despite the same premise - it's just that (more-or-less) ripping off
Fear Her and Ghost Light in the *same season*, and then following it
with something that appears to be based around a core plot element
used in City of Death is a bit much. Of course, there's no such thing
as a truly original plot, but even within the restrictions the SJA
monster-chase formula sets, surely they can find other things to pinch
plots from other than Dr Who past?
I suppose most kids won't have seen Ghost Light since McCoy isn't
repeated that often; in any case, as I said above, I think most kids
would find Eternity Trap a much more enjoyable story than Ghost Light-
if there wasn't a keen audience for stories like this, Scooby Doo
wouldn't be on permanent repeat on kids' channels and timeslots, and
this was just a very well-done Scooby Doo story (shame there weren't
any Scooby references - after all, they do have a dog).
Phil
AlanZarbury
Phil, programme schedulers don't care. It doesn't matter. Those are
facts of life, sorry.
AlanZarbury
> On 7 Nov, 23:34, AlanZarbury <aza...@yahoo.cachoo> wrote:
>> pbow...@aol.com wrote:
>>
>>> Gotta love these original plots they're coming up with...
>>> Phil
>> Presumably it's all new to the CHILDREN it's aimed at Phil.
>
> At least some of those will have seen Fear Her, since it was
> apparently aimed at an audience about half the age of the kids most
> Who's targeted at. Of course, Mad Woman in the Attic is so far
> superior to Fear Her I can't imagine anyone would mind seeing it
> despite the same premise - it's just that (more-or-less) ripping off
> Fear Her and Ghost Light in the *same season*, and then following it
> with something that appears to be based around a core plot element
> used in City of Death is a bit much. Of course, there's no such thing
> as a truly original plot, but even within the restrictions the SJA
> monster-chase formula sets, surely they can find other things to pinch
> plots from other than Dr Who past?
>
Does it matter? Was it entertaining as it was? If so, it worked. Did the
kids enjoy it? If so, it worked. Whovians think too deeply about this
stuff. As long as SJA entertains the audience it's aimed at, that's all
that matters.
The Doctor
Zarbitroll trolls again!
--
Member - Liberal International This is doc...@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doc...@nl2k.ab.ca
God, Queen and country! Never Satan President Republic! Beware AntiChrist rising!
http://twitter.com/rootnl2k http://www.myspace.com/502748630
For the latest World News go to http://www.cuttingedge.org/ - Lest we forget 2009 .
The Doctor
The Doctor
john smith
<pbo...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:68de948f-9162-4e61...@j4g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
No to all,
***So you know fuck all about ghost stories then! I'll add it to the
(slowly-growing) "List of Horror Ideas That Phil Doesn't Get"!***
but I think you can take it from my above summary that in
this context I was treating 'ghost story' as a synonym for 'haunted
house tale'. This was, after all, Scooby Who - right down to bringing
SJA in in her role as reporter investigating the story.
***You should've been more specific then! And why've you snipped my
comments about "haunted house stories"?***
> But the cliches were delivered well and at the right
>
> > moments (though the final one as they left the house was perhaps a
> > cliche too far) - the first half played out so well I was regretting
> > the foreknowledge that it would turn out to be Scooby Doo with aliens;
> > I wanted them to be genuine ghosts.
>
> Did you pick up on Sarah Jane's reference to "the Stone Tape theory"? Not
> just a nod in the direction of Nigel Kneale's seminal "The Stone Tape" -
> but
> an actual bona fide reference! Ever seen it?
Never seen it or heard the name,
***Philistine! That's going on The List too!***
***Your mention of "rape" is totally out of context, since you've snipped my
comments. You seem to do that a lot when you get caught out by your own
sweepingly inaccurate generalisations - I've noticed!***
> it's only the alien bit the story had the
>
> > freedom to screw up.
>
> > Really, then, all that leaves is the atmospherics, timing and
> > performances - most of which were some of the show's best. The writers
> > even had the sense to leave Luke out of the story altogether (for no
> > terribly obvious reason, but it works - I suppose they need someone to
> > stay behind and walk the dog these days).
>
> > All in all, a very strong showing and much more like Dr Who than SJA -
> > my favourite story of the season so far. Next week looks like a
> > standard monster chase, but then I once said that about the trailer
> > for Midnight...
>
> You do like jumping the gun then shooting yourself in the foot with it,
> don't ya, Phil? ;-)
Just pointing out that it's been known for me to be wrong before.
Rarely...
***Inflated ego noted!***
Plus, in fairness Midnight must rank as the least typical Dr
Who story ever written - I could hardly have anticipated it being
quite that unusual, especially given the author.
So, to recap, so far this season we've seen a story where an alien kid
kidnaps other kids because she's lonely, a story where an alien left
on Earth by himself goes mad and creates a "haunted house", and next
week we get a story in which aliens are apparently planning to steal
the Mona Lisa.
Gotta love these original plots they're coming up with...
***I didn't even watch the story. Might watch it on the red button, if I
can be arsed...***
Phil
john smith
<pbo...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:778447fc-add9-4dbc...@k17g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
***I thought last week's was Part 2 of a two-parter? (The one with the
Doctor in it?) In which case: how would that have worked?***
pbo...@aol.com
They have to set the schedule in the first place, so they have to
settle on *some* order for the programmes. And normally programme
schedulers love putting themed programmes on at Halloween and the like
- you don't find the Simpsons scheduling their Halloween specials for
August, say, or anyone showing their Christmas shows on New Year's
Day. They tend to like it all the more so if it takes no additional
effort on their part, such as a ghost story that's already been
written.
Phil
pbo...@aol.com
> <pbow...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
> news:68de948f-9162-4e61...@j4g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
> On 7 Nov, 20:37, "john smith" <the_johnsm...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> but I think you can take it from my above summary that in
> this context I was treating 'ghost story' as a synonym for 'haunted
> house tale'. This was, after all, Scooby Who - right down to bringing
> SJA in in her role as reporter investigating the story.
>
> ***You should've been more specific then!
Like, say, starting a paragraph with "ghost story - " and then
defining said story as one which involves people running round a
haunted house? Oh, hold on, I already did that...
And why've you snipped my
> comments about "haunted house stories"?***
Your only comment about haunted house stories was to concede that
they're more restrictive, so it didn't seem to add anything to what I
was saying. Preserve bandwidth, kids!
> > But the cliches were delivered well and at the right
>
> > > moments (though the final one as they left the house was perhaps a
> > > cliche too far) - the first half played out so well I was regretting
> > > the foreknowledge that it would turn out to be Scooby Doo with aliens;
> > > I wanted them to be genuine ghosts.
>
> > Did you pick up on Sarah Jane's reference to "the Stone Tape theory"? Not
> > just a nod in the direction of Nigel Kneale's seminal "The Stone Tape" -
> > but
> > an actual bona fide reference! Ever seen it?
>
> Never seen it or heard the name,
>
> ***Philistine! That's going on The List too!***
Okay, how do I slot a Dad's Army joke in here?
> > > The only points where I felt the story lagged were with the stilted
> > > exchanges of the lord of the manor and Darkening, though fortunately
> > > Not sure what Professor Rivers was doing in the story, except possibly
> > > being contracted for an annual appearance; why was the Pharos
> > > Institute chasing ghosts? And am I the only one who had her assistant
> > > pegged as a Slitheen (again)?
>
> > > However, the plotholes were minor and forgiveable - how did Sarah-Jane
> > > get such an indepth knowledge of how the TARDIS worked? Why did
> > > Darkening let her and Toby go when they found his machine? And of
> > > course why was the resolution gibberish - because of the law of
> > > conversion of energy, it follows that when you hit something you
> > > absorb its energy and that lets you beat evil bad guys? Even Aggy
> > > wouldn't buy into that one. At the end of the day, a ghost story is
> > > about the simplest, most familiar trope out there -
>
> > Yeah?
>
> Okay, a haunted house story, if you insist. And I'd venture it's a bit
> more familiar to kiddie viewers than rape stories...
>
> ***Your mention of "rape" is totally out of context, since you've snipped my
> comments.
I snipped nothing except your examples of simple plots - this seems to
be a complaint about snipping context in the Aggy sense. And since I
said "about" rather than making a categorical statement, other
examples of simple plots are rather beside the point.
You seem to do that a lot when you get caught out by your own
> sweepingly inaccurate generalisations - I've noticed!***
You appear to resort to pedantry and deliberately overliteral
interpretations in an attempt to catch me out - I've noticed!
> Plus, in fairness Midnight must rank as the least typical Dr
> Who story ever written - I could hardly have anticipated it being
> quite that unusual, especially given the author.
>
> So, to recap, so far this season we've seen a story where an alien kid
> kidnaps other kids because she's lonely, a story where an alien left
> on Earth by himself goes mad and creates a "haunted house", and next
> week we get a story in which aliens are apparently planning to steal
> the Mona Lisa.
>
> Gotta love these original plots they're coming up with...
>
> ***I didn't even watch the story. Might watch it on the red button, if I
> can be arsed...***
Red button? Get with the times! I used this newfangled thing called an
iPlayer.
Definitely worth a look; my favourite of the season so far. The you
can judge for yourself how well it does the haunted house plot.
Phil
Agamemnon
<pbo...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:ce752761-bd08-49db...@s15g2000yqs.googlegroups.com...
> Okay, this is the problem you get when BBC schedulers don't think
> ahead. Why on Earth wasn't this one scheduled for last week, and shown
> on Halloween?
>
> Ghost stories - people exploring houses where potentially scary things
> are going on, investigating and trying to beat the bad guys, running
> around and walking through the inevitable secret passages (it's
> especially handy when you have a list of secret passages). And kids
> love ghost stories. Hmm, what does this sound like?
>
> So, why hasn't Dr Who really given the happy marriage of a haunted
> house tale and, well, Dr Who a try before? Yes, yes, Ghost Light, but
> that doesn't really count - even fans of the McCoy era can hardly
> claim it was high on scares.
The Ghosts of N-Space with Jon Pertwee and Liz Sladen again. The Unquiet
Dead. The Horror of Fang Rock. The Mask of Mandragora possibly?
Yes, closest story to old Doctor Who so far.
AlanZarbury
Yes but in this case they obviously didn't care did they?
pbo...@aol.com
Or possibly they didn't think ahead, as I suggested in the first
place... I suspect it was just the BBC's habit of following a formula
rigidly - SJA seasons always have returning Who monster in first and
final stories, and IIRC always have the Trickster in story 3.
And how much extra effort would it have been to put in an exchange
like the following at the end?
Rivers: So, Darkening was using the life energy of the people he
captured to extend his own life?
Clyde: And he'd have got away with it too if it wasn't for us pesky
kids.
Phil
AlanZarbury
I suspect you're the one one who cares about this perceived wrong, Phil.
pbo...@aol.com
What "perceived wrong"? Are you suggesting the BBC doesn't or
shouldn't care about marketing? Or shouldn't script its products to
maximise entertainment value? I pointed out nothing more than that the
BBC missed a marketing opportunity for this story by a week; if they
want to ignore PR that's entirely up to them. After all, the story
with David Tennant was going to attract viewers whenever it was
screened by virtue of having the Doctor in it; a "Halloween story"
would likely obtain higher viewers than normal and stick better in
people's minds than a ghost story on November 5, just as IIRC the
Simpsons and Buffy Halloween episodes do/did.
Phil
AlanZarbury
Fair enough. What was the BBC's take on it? Did they reply to you?
>After all, the story
> with David Tennant was going to attract viewers whenever it was
> screened by virtue of having the Doctor in it; a "Halloween story"
> would likely obtain higher viewers than normal and stick better in
> people's minds than a ghost story on November 5, just as IIRC the
> Simpsons and Buffy Halloween episodes do/did.
>
> Phil
Maybe so, but why are you so concerned about it? SJA receives good
enough viewing figures and a fourth series is definitely coming (and a
fifth, so I hear).
pbo...@aol.com
You tell me - you seem to be getting worked up enough about a
throwaway comment that I take it you work for them?
> >After all, the story
> > with David Tennant was going to attract viewers whenever it was
> > screened by virtue of having the Doctor in it; a "Halloween story"
> > would likely obtain higher viewers than normal and stick better in
> > people's minds than a ghost story on November 5, just as IIRC the
> > Simpsons and Buffy Halloween episodes do/did.
>
> > Phil
>
> Maybe so, but why are you so concerned about it?
What gives you the impression I'm concerned about it at all? It was
one sentence opening my review - I quite often start my reviews with
trivial asides like that.
Phil
john smith
<pbo...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:e98225f1-7a91-4ce9...@n35g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
On 8 Nov, 01:30, "john smith" <the_johnsm...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> <pbow...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
> news:68de948f-9162-4e61...@j4g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
> On 7 Nov, 20:37, "john smith" <the_johnsm...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> but I think you can take it from my above summary that in
> this context I was treating 'ghost story' as a synonym for 'haunted
> house tale'. This was, after all, Scooby Who - right down to bringing
> SJA in in her role as reporter investigating the story.
>
> ***You should've been more specific then!
Like, say, starting a paragraph with "ghost story - " and then
defining said story as one which involves people running round a
haunted house? Oh, hold on, I already did that...
***Your knowledge of ghost stories comes from "Scooby Doo"? What
perspicacity! And as you've snipped your own comments as well as mine, I
can't go back and check WHAT you said. I'm certainly not gonna trawl Google
groups: I'm not THAT pedantic!***
And why've you snipped my
> comments about "haunted house stories"?***
Your only comment about haunted house stories was to concede
***"Concede"? I didn't concede anything! I simply pointed out YOUR
restrictive and limited POV of ghost stories!****
that
they're more restrictive, so it didn't seem to add anything to what I
was saying. Preserve bandwidth, kids!
***That's a bullshit excuse and you know it! You're just try to obfuscate
the point that over-generalised...***
***Which isn't "nothing"; that was the whole point I was making...***
this seems to
be a complaint about snipping context in the Aggy sense.
***That's a cheap shot for you! But yeah - you did snip the context - in
YOUR favour. You're simply distorting the facts to suit your own
argument...***
And since I
said "about" rather than making a categorical statement, other
examples of simple plots are rather beside the point.
***By snipping again, I've no idea what point you were making. Didn't you
say ghost stories had the simplest plot? I gave you examples of even more
simple ones. Surely that's relevant?***
You seem to do that a lot when you get caught out by your own
> sweepingly inaccurate generalisations - I've noticed!***
You appear to resort to pedantry and deliberately overliteral
interpretations in an attempt to catch me out - I've noticed!
***That's because it works when you're coming out with bullshit, Phil!
Sorry you don't like it being pointed out!***
> Plus, in fairness Midnight must rank as the least typical Dr
> Who story ever written - I could hardly have anticipated it being
> quite that unusual, especially given the author.
>
> So, to recap, so far this season we've seen a story where an alien kid
> kidnaps other kids because she's lonely, a story where an alien left
> on Earth by himself goes mad and creates a "haunted house", and next
> week we get a story in which aliens are apparently planning to steal
> the Mona Lisa.
>
> Gotta love these original plots they're coming up with...
>
> ***I didn't even watch the story. Might watch it on the red button, if I
> can be arsed...***
Red button? Get with the times! I used this newfangled thing called an
iPlayer.
***It's the same fucking thing, numbnuts! I press the red button on my
remote control - and lo and behold! BBC's iPlayer/catch-up thingy pops up
on my TV!***
Definitely worth a look; my favourite of the season so far. The you
can judge for yourself how well it does the haunted house plot.
Phil
***Watched it last night. It had every haunted house cliche in the book
(except for swarms of flies everywhere - maybe they're saving that for Part
2). It was exceptionally mediocre, with a John Dee-type as the lead
villain... But the kids may have liked it, I suppose!***
john smith
<pbo...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:17137e5d-8b2b-4ddc...@t2g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
Because it's lame?
john smith
"AlanZarbury" <aza...@yahoo.cachoo> wrote in message
news:0vGdndHeAYk7bWvX...@bt.com...
I think he fancies Clyde! ;-)
AlanZarbury
> On 8 Nov, 16:25, AlanZarbury <aza...@yahoo.cachoo> wrote:
>> Fair enough. What was the BBC's take on it? Did they reply to you?
>
> You tell me - you seem to be getting worked up enough about a
> throwaway comment that I take it you work for them?
No. So you didn't actually write to them about it?
> What gives you the impression I'm concerned about it at all?
Because you've been on about it ever since?
>It was
> one sentence opening my review - I quite often start my reviews with
> trivial asides like that.
>
> Phil
No offence Phil, but your whole review is trivial, as are all reviews by
fans, - unless you're a professional journalist?
pbo...@aol.com
I did warn you. I also said they were well-done/timed.
> (except for swarms of flies everywhere - maybe they're saving that for Part
> 2).
That's for mummy stories, isn't it?
It was exceptionally mediocre, with a John Dee-type as the lead
> villain...
Still think he was trying to be Alan Rickman.
But the kids may have liked it, I suppose!***
What does that imply about me, I wonder? Bear in mind that you've got
a niche interest in horror/ghost stories generally - I suspect I'm
more representative of a general public without that interest but an
expectation that a good haunted house story will trot out all the
cliches familiar from our own childhoods - it was unashamedly a
nostalgia trip for me, certainly.
Phl
The Doctor
The Doctor
The Doctor
Said lame troll john smith.
The Doctor
>on my TV!***
>
>
>
>
>Definitely worth a look; my favourite of the season so far. The you
>can judge for yourself how well it does the haunted house plot.
>
>Phil
>
>
>
>
>***Watched it last night. It had every haunted house cliche in the book
>(except for swarms of flies everywhere - maybe they're saving that for Part
>2). It was exceptionally mediocre, with a John Dee-type as the lead
>villain... But the kids may have liked it, I suppose!***
>
>
john smith trolls again.
pbo...@aol.com
> <pbow...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
> news:e98225f1-7a91-4ce9...@n35g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
> On 8 Nov, 01:30, "john smith" <the_johnsm...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
> > <pbow...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:68de948f-9162-4e61...@j4g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
> > On 7 Nov, 20:37, "john smith" <the_johnsm...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
> > but I think you can take it from my above summary that in
> > this context I was treating 'ghost story' as a synonym for 'haunted
> > house tale'. This was, after all, Scooby Who - right down to bringing
> > SJA in in her role as reporter investigating the story.
>
> > ***You should've been more specific then!
>
> Like, say, starting a paragraph with "ghost story - " and then
> defining said story as one which involves people running round a
> haunted house? Oh, hold on, I already did that...
>
> ***Your knowledge of ghost stories comes from "Scooby Doo"? What
> perspicacity!
Actually, I've almost never watched Scooby Doo. It was a cliche long
before a cartoon dog got involved...
And as you've snipped your own comments as well as mine, I
> can't go back and check WHAT you said. I'm certainly not gonna trawl Google
> groups: I'm not THAT pedantic!***
It's a thread I started, so you don't need to check the whole thread,
just the original post - it's in that one.
> And why've you snipped my
>
> > comments about "haunted house stories"?***
>
> Your only comment about haunted house stories was to concede
>
> ***"Concede"? I didn't concede anything! I simply pointed out YOUR
> restrictive and limited POV of ghost stories!****
A point I'd made myself by defining ghost stories the way I did...
> that
> they're more restrictive, so it didn't seem to add anything to what I
> was saying. Preserve bandwidth, kids!
>
> ***That's a bullshit excuse and you know it!
It's a joke and you know it!
You're just try to obfuscate
> the point that over-generalised...***
You invented an overgeneralisation in order to try and score cheap
points, as far as I can gather. I started off by defining the
restrictive way I was referring to 'ghost stories' in the second
paragraph of my review - what more would you expect?
> > > > The only points where I felt the story lagged were with the
stilted
> > > > exchanges of the lord of the manor and Darkening, though fortunately
> > > > Not sure what Professor Rivers was doing in the story, except possibly
> > > > being contracted for an annual appearance; why was the Pharos
> > > > Institute chasing ghosts? And am I the only one who had her assistant
> > > > pegged as a Slitheen (again)?
>
> > > > However, the plotholes were minor and forgiveable - how did Sarah-Jane
> > > > get such an indepth knowledge of how the TARDIS worked? Why did
> > > > Darkening let her and Toby go when they found his machine? And of
> > > > course why was the resolution gibberish - because of the law of
> > > > conversion of energy, it follows that when you hit something you
> > > > absorb its energy and that lets you beat evil bad guys? Even Aggy
> > > > wouldn't buy into that one. At the end of the day, a ghost story is
> > > > about the simplest, most familiar trope out there -
>
> > > Yeah?
>
> > Okay, a haunted house story, if you insist. And I'd venture it's a bit
> > more familiar to kiddie viewers than rape stories...
>
> > ***Your mention of "rape" is totally out of context, since you've snipped
> > my
> > comments.
>
> I snipped nothing except your examples of simple plots -
>
> ***Which isn't "nothing"; that was the whole point I was making...***
An example isn't a point. The point was that there are plenty of
simple plots out there - which, since I'd never suggested otherwise,
seems entirely immaterial.
> this seems to
> be a complaint about snipping context in the Aggy sense.
>
> ***That's a cheap shot for you! But yeah - you did snip the context - in
> YOUR favour.
Then I'll ask the question oft-asked of Aggy: how was snipping
examples (not the point, which indeed I acknowledged) snipping any
actual context, let alone in my favour (which itself seems odd since
we don't actually seem to be disagreeing about anything - so surely
any snip would equally be in your favour?).
> And since I
> said "about" rather than making a categorical statement, other
> examples of simple plots are rather beside the point.
>
> ***By snipping again, I've no idea what point you were making. Didn't you
> say ghost stories had the simplest plot?
No, I said "about the simplest" - those precise words.
I gave you examples of even more
> simple ones. Surely that's relevant?***
Not when I didn't actually claim ghost stories (or even haunted house
stories) categorically had the simplest plot. I could, if you like,
take issue with your specific examples - "nature strikes back", for
instance, is a soundbite, the plots it inspires can be highly varied
and require basic questions - how is nature manifested? What's it
striking back against? A haunted house is just that - we know what a
house is, we know that ghosts haunt things.
> You seem to do that a lot when you get caught out by your own
>
> > sweepingly inaccurate generalisations - I've noticed!***
>
> You appear to resort to pedantry and deliberately overliteral
> interpretations in an attempt to catch me out - I've noticed!
>
> ***That's because it works when you're coming out with bullshit, Phil!
It never works to invent strawman arguments to attack. But if it works
for you to rail against words you've put into my mouth, knock yourself
out.
> > Gotta love these original plots they're coming up with...
>
> > ***I didn't even watch the story. Might watch it on the red button, if I
> > can be arsed...***
>
> Red button? Get with the times! I used this newfangled thing called an
> iPlayer.
>
> ***It's the same fucking thing, numbnuts! I press the red button on my
> remote control - and lo and behold! BBC's iPlayer/catch-up thingy pops up
> on my TV!***
You really need to get the hang of this sense of humour thing, you
know.
Phil
The Doctor
2 megatrolls does it again.
pbo...@aol.com
> <pbow...@aol.com> wrote in message
Come on, kids love that sort of referential humour (so do I, as it
happens) - and since this story owed more to Scooby Doo than, say,
Ghostbusters, the absence of references was a little odd. Besides,
most of the kids watching are more likely to know Scooby Doo than
Ghostbusters.
Phil
pbo...@aol.com
> pbow...@aol.com wrote:
> > On 8 Nov, 16:25, AlanZarbury <aza...@yahoo.cachoo> wrote:
> >> Fair enough. What was the BBC's take on it? Did they reply to you?
>
> > You tell me - you seem to be getting worked up enough about a
> > throwaway comment that I take it you work for them?
>
> No. So you didn't actually write to them about it?
Why would I?
> > What gives you the impression I'm concerned about it at all?
>
> Because you've been on about it ever since?
? I've mentioned it only in response to your specific comments about
that line. That tends to be the way conversations work.
> >It was
> > one sentence opening my review - I quite often start my reviews with
> > trivial asides like that.
>
> > Phil
>
> No offence Phil, but your whole review is trivial, as are all reviews by
> fans, - unless you're a professional journalist?
It's Dr Who, everything about it is trivial. But it's nonsense to say
that something's somehow less trivial because the writer's getting
paid for it. A review by anyone is just an opinion, after all, and
like any opinion valid points or well-supported contentions can
potentially be raised by anyone. The world's full of examples of
amateurs who do certain jobs as well as or better than the people who
actually get paid for them.
Phil
AlanZarbury
> The world's full of examples of
> amateurs who do certain jobs as well as or better than the people who
> actually get paid for them.
>
> Phil
We covered this before. A professional has certain skill sets that a fan
lacks. As John Smith (a professional writer) has demonstrated in
deconstructing your amateur review. No offense intended, but that's the
truth.
The Doctor
pbo...@aol.com
> pbow...@aol.com wrote:
> > The world's full of examples of
> > amateurs who do certain jobs as well as or better than the people who
> > actually get paid for them.
>
> > Phil
>
> We covered this before. A professional has certain skill sets that a fan
> lacks.
If you aren't careful John will come down on you for
overgeneralisation any moment... A professional photographer, say, has
no skills that an amateur photographer who wins awards lacks - they
just happen to have the inclination to make those skills their primary
source of income. Some of the best taxonomists are unpaid and often
not university-trained in wildlife identification; the Natural History
Museum has had access to world experts in this or that group of
animals who don't do it for a living, but who professional scientists
will revert to to ID their finds. Etc. etc.
If I were to take a job as a journalist, I wouldn't suddenly manifest
new skills - nor would I if I wrote freelance for income, and so
become a professional writer. I'd just be applying those particular
skills to make a living rather than the scientific skills I apply to
achieve that objective now. Come to that, I've worked professionally
and semi-professionally in various fields before (including
journalism, as it happens) - I don't suddenly become any less skilled
because I'm no longer a professional in that field.
As John Smith (a professional writer) has demonstrated in
> deconstructing your amateur review. No offense intended, but that's the
> truth.
I'm making a general point, not a specific claim that I'm necessarily
the ideal case study of an amateur writing better reviews than a
professional. Though since you bring up the example, I'd point out
that John's made no attempt to "deconstruct" anything or to contest my
essential points about the story (indeed he made the same point I did,
that it was heavy on cliches) - instead he complained about
overgeneralisations when a look at my original wording is sufficient
to show the care I took to define my terms and avoid categorical
statements of the sort he's busy ascribing to me.
It's a good example, but not quite for the reason you had in mind -
take away john's apparent desire to score points off me for no very
clear reason, and what the professional writer and the amateur had to
say about the actual episode is essentially identical.
Phil
john smith
<pbo...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:9e472ce6-2517-47fc...@a31g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
You're setting up your own straw man arguments - comparing it to
"Ghostbusters", which nobody else did - then knocking them down by saying
kids "are more likely to know Scooby Doo than Ghostbusters". Stupid
argument!
john smith
<pbo...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:aff9f82b-542e-4f08...@t2g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
***I'm not trying to score points. Why should I? There's no fucking prize
to be won, is there? It just bugs me when people make lame comparisons
about stuff that they aren't really qualified to make: to whit, you know
nothing about ghost stories beyond, apparently, "Scooby Doo". I'm sure if I
started spouting bullshit about ecology - which I'm quite capable of! -
you'd be the first one to point out my lack of relevant knowledge. The
ghost story has a long and respectable history; I simply thought that your
comments belittled and trivialised that particular (sub?)genre.
***But what the fuck! It was a kid's TV show! I've seen it now and thought
it was crap! At least you turned me on to "Being Human", so I'll shut the
fuck up now... till we start all over again discussing "Waters of Mars", eh?
(Which you'll no doubt compare to something equally crappy and pop cultural
and very, very recent!)***
john smith
<pbo...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:f509ae55-c6aa-4624...@j19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
****>Groan< Here we go again...
Is it? What mummy stories are you thinking of? The recent "Mummy"
films with Brendan Fraser, no doubt? (And by the way - they weren't flies,
they were scarab beetles.) Most mummy stories/films *don't* feature flies,
no, Phil. Quite a few ghost story/haunted house films do: see "Ghost
Story"; "Poltergeist"; "The Amityville Horror" series; "Drag Me to Hell";
"The Disappeared"; "The Willies"; "Four Flies on Grey Velvet"... off the top
of my head...****
It was exceptionally mediocre, with a John Dee-type as the lead
> villain...
Still think he was trying to be Alan Rickman.
***But he *looked* like John Dee - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Dee -
and he had all the magical traits and costume of John Dee. We didn't get to
see enough of him to compare him with Alan Rickman - which, by the way - in
MY opinion - he was nothing like. You're basing your comparison on the
recent "Harry Potter" films, aren't you?***
But the kids may have liked it, I suppose!***
What does that imply about me, I wonder? Bear in mind that you've got
a niche interest in horror/ghost stories generally -
***"Niche"? Where have you been for the last twenty years?***
I suspect I'm
more representative of a general public without that interest
***Well duh! You do love your circular arguments, don't ya?***
but an
expectation that a good haunted house story will trot out all the
cliches familiar from our own childhoods - it was unashamedly a
nostalgia trip for me, certainly.
***Fairy nuff! Job done for you then!***
Phl
The Doctor
Phil and IF has a higher intellect than you js.
john smith
<pbo...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:b61c8faf-f8bf-4d4e...@d21g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
On 8 Nov, 20:29, "john smith" <the_johnsm...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> <pbow...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
> news:e98225f1-7a91-4ce9...@n35g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
> On 8 Nov, 01:30, "john smith" <the_johnsm...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
> > <pbow...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:68de948f-9162-4e61...@j4g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
> > On 7 Nov, 20:37, "john smith" <the_johnsm...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
> > but I think you can take it from my above summary that in
> > this context I was treating 'ghost story' as a synonym for 'haunted
> > house tale'. This was, after all, Scooby Who - right down to bringing
> > SJA in in her role as reporter investigating the story.
>
> > ***You should've been more specific then!
>
> Like, say, starting a paragraph with "ghost story - " and then
> defining said story as one which involves people running round a
> haunted house? Oh, hold on, I already did that...
>
> ***Your knowledge of ghost stories comes from "Scooby Doo"? What
> perspicacity!
Actually, I've almost never watched Scooby Doo. It was a cliche long
before a cartoon dog got involved...
***There you go then! You've admitted it! And this is what bugs me about
your points! You compare something to something else you haven't watched
and know nothing about, when there are people out there who are better
informed to make those distinctions. Why do you do that? Okay, so you want
us all to know what a clever bloke you are, but that's just a daft thing to
do...***
And as you've snipped your own comments as well as mine, I
> can't go back and check WHAT you said. I'm certainly not gonna trawl
> Google
> groups: I'm not THAT pedantic!***
It's a thread I started, so you don't need to check the whole thread,
just the original post - it's in that one.
***Still not arsed trawling Google. You shouldn't have snipped it!***
> And why've you snipped my
>
> > comments about "haunted house stories"?***
>
> Your only comment about haunted house stories was to concede
>
> ***"Concede"? I didn't concede anything! I simply pointed out YOUR
> restrictive and limited POV of ghost stories!****
A point I'd made myself by defining ghost stories the way I did...
> that
> they're more restrictive, so it didn't seem to add anything to what I
> was saying. Preserve bandwidth, kids!
>
> ***That's a bullshit excuse and you know it!
It's a joke and you know it!
***HAHAHA! Got me!***
***And you call ME pedantic?***
I gave you examples of even more
> simple ones. Surely that's relevant?***
Not when I didn't actually claim ghost stories (or even haunted house
stories) categorically had the simplest plot.
***As I recall, yes you did...***
I could, if you like,
take issue with your specific examples - "nature strikes back", for
instance, is a soundbite,
***Is it? If you say so... I'd go with "idea", actually...***
the plots it inspires can be highly varied
and require basic questions - how is nature manifested? What's it
striking back against?
***Another big DUH! Maybe... "man"? There aren't many nature vs. nature
films that I can think of...***
A haunted house is just that - we know what a
house is, we know that ghosts haunt things.
***But what are ghosts? That's the question "The Stone Tape" addresses - in
quite a scientific fashion actually (you'd probably like it! - especially
since you liked "Stones of Blood", which ripped off many of its ideas) as do
many "ghost stories". They're often much more about the psychological state
of the protagonist than they are about the "spirits of the dead".***
> You seem to do that a lot when you get caught out by your own
>
> > sweepingly inaccurate generalisations - I've noticed!***
>
> You appear to resort to pedantry and deliberately overliteral
> interpretations in an attempt to catch me out - I've noticed!
>
> ***That's because it works when you're coming out with bullshit, Phil!
It never works to invent strawman arguments to attack. But if it works
for you to rail against words you've put into my mouth, knock yourself
out.
> > Gotta love these original plots they're coming up with...
>
> > ***I didn't even watch the story. Might watch it on the red button, if I
> > can be arsed...***
>
> Red button? Get with the times! I used this newfangled thing called an
> iPlayer.
>
> ***It's the same fucking thing, numbnuts! I press the red button on my
> remote control - and lo and behold! BBC's iPlayer/catch-up thingy pops up
> on my TV!***
You really need to get the hang of this sense of humour thing, you
know.
***It's a bit hard to work out one from the other with you, Phil, since you
always come across as being so serious and po-faced and analytical! Plus
you never use smileys... ;-) ***
Phil
Psychotic Chicken
<the_jo...@ntlworld.com> writes
Take a hike mike.
You are annoying the regulars.
--
Psychotic Chicken
Psychotic Chicken
<the_jo...@ntlworld.com> writes
>
Do you enjoy being one of life's parasites ?
--
Psychotic Chicken
pbo...@aol.com
Uh, what? You saw the thing, right? Catch the Ghostbusters references?
I counted at least three. Hence the comment in relation to referential
humour - why reference a film in a kids' show that most of them
probably won't have heard of, and not a programme that not only are
they more likely to be familiar with, but which is more reminiscent of
the story we saw? Of course someone mentioned Ghostbusters - Clyde and
Rani.
Phil
Psychotic Chicken
<3b5be706-668d-4f78...@v25g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>,
"pbo...@aol.com" <pbo...@aol.com> writes
I wouldn't make any ambitious assumptions regarding his intelligence.
--
Psychotic Chicken
The Doctor
The Doctor
john smith
<pbo...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:3b5be706-668d-4f78...@v25g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
Phil
Yeah - sorry about that! Didn't quite follow why you brought up
"Ghostbusters" all of a sudden - I meant, in this conversation, not in the
programme. Noticed the references there, yeah... although they weren't
really references... I seem to remember they mentioned it directly, didn't
they? Funny thing is there's a sequence in "Zombieland" where they go and
visit Bill Murray and the lead character screens "Ghostbusters" for the
youngest girl. She'd never seen it either - so I take your point...
Anyway, I'm unlikely to watch Part 2, so can we drop it now? Pretty please?
The Doctor
I can't wait for those Part 2 reviews.
pbo...@aol.com
Hmm...I think the most obvious ones were in part 2, so that might
explain why you weren't sure what I was getting at. The only one that
springs to mind from part one is Clyde's "I ain't afraid of no ghost".
Phil
john smith
<pbo...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:15ae04bb-e53c-48ed...@d5g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
Phil
Yeah - that was the line I noticed...