[I] Tomb Raider Movie Review

44 views
Skip to first unread message

MP

unread,
Jul 7, 2001, 6:46:37 PM7/7/01
to
Where to begin?
Look, it is absolutely awful!
The special effects are quite good, but we've seen them all before. The
plot is _there_, but less believable that Shrek's (and that features a
huge green ogre). Anjelina Jolie is a reasonable Lara, but has no real
purpose - in fact none of the characters do. The only one that had
_anything_ you could empathise with is Lara's geeky sidekick, and that
was mostly because he didn't do much...
Chris Barrie (credited with his full Christopher in the credits) was
good as the butler, but the entire thing was a mish-mash of set-pieces
and contrived jumps ("If I told you, I'd have to kill you") and about 2
hours too long.
Still, I had nothing else to do, and I do get NUS discount, so not a
completely wasted evening...

My rating? 0.5/5
Worth seeing? Only if you _seriously_ like special effects, and don't
care about anything else...

MP (go see Shrek instead. Even if you've already seen it...)

Brian Howlett

unread,
Jul 7, 2001, 8:41:37 PM7/7/01
to
While perusing the newsgroup, I chanced upon the following comment(s)
by MP:

[snip]


> Still, I had nothing else to do, and I do get NUS discount, so not a
> completely wasted evening...
>
> My rating? 0.5/5 Worth seeing? Only if you _seriously_ like special
> effects, and don't care about anything else...
>
> MP (go see Shrek instead. Even if you've already seen it...)
>

Tonight I saw The Dish. What can I say - one of the best movies I've
seen this year. Thoroughly recommended "feelgood" film. Hardly any
special effects - I was surprised to see prosthetics mentioned in the
end titles, as I hadn't noticed anything during the film, and there was
a PDP-9 credited in the titles as well...

IMO the best special effects are the kind where you don't even notice
there are any in the movie...

Lump in the throat time when you see the moon landing - brought back
vague memories of seeing it first time round as a twelve year old.

Gods, I feel old...
--
Brian Howlett
----------------------------------------------------
"Pride is all very well, but a sausage is a sausage"
The Famous Gaspode, Men at Arms, Terry Pratchett

David Sander

unread,
Jul 7, 2001, 9:29:37 PM7/7/01
to
Brian Howlett wrote:
>
> While perusing the newsgroup, I chanced upon the following comment(s)
> by MP:
>
> [snip]
> > Still, I had nothing else to do, and I do get NUS discount, so not a
> > completely wasted evening...
> >
> > My rating? 0.5/5 Worth seeing? Only if you _seriously_ like special
> > effects, and don't care about anything else...
> >
> > MP (go see Shrek instead. Even if you've already seen it...)

I agree - Shrek is great fun.

> Tonight I saw The Dish. What can I say - one of the best movies I've
> seen this year. Thoroughly recommended "feelgood" film. Hardly any
> special effects - I was surprised to see prosthetics mentioned in the
> end titles, as I hadn't noticed anything during the film, and there was
> a PDP-9 credited in the titles as well...

Sam Neil as an old man at the very beginning and end of the film needed prosthetics.

The PDP-9 was in the computer room of the Dish.

> IMO the best special effects are the kind where you don't even notice
> there are any in the movie...

Mwahahaha ... check out *my* film then :-)

> Lump in the throat time when you see the moon landing - brought back
> vague memories of seeing it first time round as a twelve year old.
>
> Gods, I feel old...

I was 10 weeks old ... but apparently wide awake and attentive. Must
explain why I'm a space nut now.


David

yes ... I'm back :-D

Brian Howlett

unread,
Jul 7, 2001, 10:05:11 PM7/7/01
to
While perusing the newsgroup, I chanced upon the following comment(s)
by David Sander:

> Brian Howlett wrote:
>>
[snip]


>> I was surprised to see prosthetics mentioned in the end titles, as I
>> hadn't noticed anything during the film, and there was a PDP-9
>> credited in the titles as well...
>
> Sam Neil as an old man at the very beginning and end of the film
> needed prosthetics.

D'oh! Of course. Last time I "played" an old man I did it all with
make-up ;-)


>
> The PDP-9 was in the computer room of the Dish.

I probably didn't construct the above sentence terribly well - I
realised that, but thought merely to point it out to the computer nuts
around here who might be interested...


>
>> IMO the best special effects are the kind where you don't even notice
>> there are any in the movie...
>
> Mwahahaha ... check out *my* film then :-)

Care to hint at when/where this might be seen?


>
>> Lump in the throat time when you see the moon landing - brought back
>> vague memories of seeing it first time round as a twelve year old.
>>
>> Gods, I feel old...
>
> I was 10 weeks old ... but apparently wide awake and attentive. Must
> explain why I'm a space nut now.
>

Better a space nut than a space cadet :-)
--
Brian Howlett
--------------------------------
"I'm Brian, and so's my wife..."

hippo

unread,
Jul 8, 2001, 2:23:39 AM7/8/01
to

Brian Howlett <Brian_...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:76b398964a.Brian@Brian_Howlett.btinternet.com...
<snip>

> IMO the best special effects are the kind where you don't even notice
> there are any in the movie...
>
> Lump in the throat time when you see the moon landing - brought back
> vague memories of seeing it first time round as a twelve year old.

It was one of the earliest times I can remember being allowed to stay up
late
"Mummy, mummy, can I ?" "Yes, of course,darling"

Its strange that I now sometimes tend to lump people, age-wise
into categories those who sat up with me and watched the TV,
those who were alive at the time and those who were born into
an already lunar age.

In subsequent school days, the whole 'moon race' penetrated the
inquisitive brain, and more strongly than any other event, made me
realise that the kings and queens and wars of history wre 'someones
reality' and not just stories. Tales of growing up during WW II from my
mother and grandmother took on a whole new signifigance, thanks to
Neil and Buzz.

One thing that still puzzles my brain every time I see the re-runs, is the
camera footage from Eagle on the landing approach. Maybe it's lack
of major references points : mountains, roads, airport runway lights <g>
but I can never figure out the attitude of the craft with regard to the
lunar surface, nor the scale of the craters filmed from the window.

Any one found any diagram or simulation that might help ?

hippo
--

David Sander

unread,
Jul 8, 2001, 8:11:51 AM7/8/01
to
Brian Howlett wrote:
>
> While perusing the newsgroup, I chanced upon the following comment(s)
> by David Sander:
>
> > Brian Howlett wrote:
> >>
> [snip]
> >> I was surprised to see prosthetics mentioned in the end titles, as I
> >> hadn't noticed anything during the film, and there was a PDP-9
> >> credited in the titles as well...
> >
> > Sam Neil as an old man at the very beginning and end of the film
> > needed prosthetics.
>
> D'oh! Of course. Last time I "played" an old man I did it all with
> make-up ;-)
> >
> > The PDP-9 was in the computer room of the Dish.
>
> I probably didn't construct the above sentence terribly well - I
> realised that, but thought merely to point it out to the computer nuts
> around here who might be interested...
> >
> >> IMO the best special effects are the kind where you don't even notice
> >> there are any in the movie...
> >
> > Mwahahaha ... check out *my* film then :-)
>
> Care to hint at when/where this might be seen?

On DVD, in retail stores, by Christmas (fingers crossed)

http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/surfacesrendered/MCSHomepage.html

> >> Lump in the throat time when you see the moon landing - brought back
> >> vague memories of seeing it first time round as a twelve year old.
> >>
> >> Gods, I feel old...
> >
> > I was 10 weeks old ... but apparently wide awake and attentive. Must
> > explain why I'm a space nut now.
> >
> Better a space nut than a space cadet :-)

Yup - one of them, too :-P


David

Arwen Lune

unread,
Jul 8, 2001, 8:24:11 AM7/8/01
to
And lo! On the day of Sat, 07 Jul 2001 23:46:37 +0100, MP
mpet...@softhome.net said in alt.fan.pratchett:

<Tomb Raider review>

> MP (go see Shrek instead. Even if you've already seen it...)

In hindsight, even seeing The Mummy Returns for the third time
would have been more enjoyable than seeing Tomb Raider.

What I wrote about it in my journal:

Tomb Raider
Is the film we saw in the cinema today. Don't go, it's really not
worth it.
It's like watching someone else play a videogame. Lara is chased,
shot at and fought by a variety of uninteresting creatues. She also
spends a large amount of time shooting said creatures to bits.
There is very little plot, but (and some may see this as a plus
point) plenty of over-sized tits. (digitally.. ah, enhanced)

If you get free tickets, sure. But think twice about paying 10 UKP
to see it.

Cheers,
Arwen Lune
--
http://www.cuteandfluffy.co.uk/
Journal, photo's, quotes, best-of-AFP files..

Kalle Lintinen

unread,
Jul 8, 2001, 8:43:40 AM7/8/01
to
Arwen Lune wrote:

> And lo! On the day of Sat, 07 Jul 2001 23:46:37 +0100, MP
> mpet...@softhome.net said in alt.fan.pratchett:
>
> <Tomb Raider review>
>
> > MP (go see Shrek instead. Even if you've already seen it...)
>
> In hindsight, even seeing The Mummy Returns for the third time
> would have been more enjoyable than seeing Tomb Raider.
>
> What I wrote about it in my journal:
>
> Tomb Raider
> Is the film we saw in the cinema today. Don't go, it's really not
> worth it.
> It's like watching someone else play a videogame. Lara is chased,
> shot at and fought by a variety of uninteresting creatues. She also
> spends a large amount of time shooting said creatures to bits.
> There is very little plot, but (and some may see this as a plus
> point) plenty of over-sized tits. (digitally.. ah, enhanced)
>
> If you get free tickets, sure. But think twice about paying 10 UKP
> to see it.

The odd thing is that I loved to watch my brother play Tomb Raider. I
bought the game as soon as it came out and played it some while. But as
I'm not that great a fan of shooters I layed the game down for a while.
Then my brother started playing it and for some reason I was hooked. I
spent an unbelievable amount of time just watching him play, solving the
puzzles and shooting jurassic monsters. For some reason it has been one
of my favourite gaming moments. So I perhaps I'll watch the movie when
it comes on DVD. That way it seems I'm watching my brother play it
again.

KalEl


Quantum Moth

unread,
Jul 8, 2001, 8:43:18 AM7/8/01
to
David Sander <sur...@bigpond.net.au> said...

> > While perusing the newsgroup, I chanced upon the following comment(s)
> > by MP:
> >

> > > MP (go see Shrek instead. Even if you've already seen it...)
>
> I agree - Shrek is great fun.
>

I have to say something at this point. Shrek is... entertaining. Don't
get me wrong, I was smiling for most of the movie. But there's something
missing there, right enough. A solid villain, for a start; folks, if
you've seen the trailer, you've seen Lord Farquaad's role. The ending is
incredibly pat, and somewhat disappointing... this isn't going to be
spoiler, filled, though, so I'll skip over that.

It's a kids movie, and, unfortunately, it's a kids movie in the way that
Toy Story, say, wasn't. Toy Story really does have jokes that adults can
enjoy, not simply because the kids won't get them , but because they're
damn funny. Children will laugh at Mrs Potato Head packing Mr Potato
Head's "Angry Eyes" in TS2, but I guarantee that adults will laugh
harder. Then think of the jokes in Shrek which are aimed at adults.
"Hur, hur, is he compensating for something, having a big castle, hur,
hur" - sheesh, this is *easy*[1]. But the younger members of the
audience will look blank, and you have to wonder "Who is this film
for?". The poorly-executed fart jokes and the easy sentimentality are
too unsophisticated and peurile for even the most childish adult[2], and
at times I felt uncomfortable, like I'd walked into the wrong
auditorium.

It's become pretty much accepted these days that movies for kids will -
if they've got any sense - work on more than one level, and be
entertaining for the grown-ups dragged along to watch them. Watching
Shrek, however, I noticed that the cinema was full of adults. Hardly any
children were in attendance. Shrek is a movie for kids, with a load of
jokes for grown-ups crammed in any old how. Fine if you're a parent
taking a kid along and don't want to be bored out of your skull, but
should roving gangs of adults *really* be spending their Saturday night
watching a movie aimed at 8 year olds? Toy Story *was* quantatively
different, in that it was aimed at everyone, and any age group could
appreciate all it had to offer. But I felt like I was waiting for the
jokes for *us*, while the stuff for *them* was going on.

Social commentary aside, back to the movie. Now, as has been
mentioned elsewhere, the animation was very, very pretty indeed. But,
then, so was the animation for Antz, and that just wasn't a
terribly good movie. Dreamworks animation is still in the shadow of
Disney; Pixar seem to know that what makes an animated movie *live*.
Interesting characters, good performances and fantastic rendering are
apparent in both studio's work, but Disney take it all further. Their
characters live, the jokes sparkle, the whole is more than the sum of
its parts.

Here's hoping - desperately hoping - that their rendering of the
Bromeliad marks the point at which they get their act together and start
producing the stuff they're clearly capable of. All they need is a
scriptwriter who understands that an audience is an audience, not a
demographic.

Hmm... this should probably have been in the "Shrek movie reviews"
thread, but sod it, eh?

[1]Having said that, Eddie Murphy's Donkey gets a ton of great lines and
steals every single scene he appears in, though it does occasionally
seem like he was a donkey *just* so they could make a load of "ass"
jokes..
[2]And I should know
--
thom willis - sc...@mostly.com - Corinne's Worse Half
**movie- http://afpmovie.orcon.net.nz**
well, thank goodness we've got someone competent on the script.
what? it's *me*? we're doomed.

Torak

unread,
Jul 8, 2001, 8:48:45 AM7/8/01
to
> If you get free tickets, sure. But think twice about paying 10 UKP
> to see it.

You'd pay a tenner to go to the cinema? I wait until I'm on the
Newcastle-Ijmuiden ferry, and watch 3 or 4 films for £3.50 each!


Kincaid

unread,
Jul 8, 2001, 7:34:52 AM7/8/01
to
In article <9i8ud1$7kv$1...@neptunium.btinternet.com>,
hippo <mda...@btinternet.com> wrote:


> One thing that still puzzles my brain every time I see the re-runs, is
> the camera footage from Eagle on the landing approach. Maybe it's lack
> of major references points : mountains, roads, airport runway lights <g>
> but I can never figure out the attitude of the craft with regard to the
> lunar surface, nor the scale of the craters filmed from the window.

That's one of the problems they had - the craters all look pretty much the
same at any size, so you can't use them to judge altitude. Radar
altimeters are your friend...

--
Kincaid Labs
Tampering in God's domain since 1975

Mary Messall

unread,
Jul 8, 2001, 9:50:24 AM7/8/01
to
Quantum Moth wrote:
> Social commentary aside, back to the movie. Now, as has been
> mentioned elsewhere, the animation was very, very pretty indeed. But,
> then, so was the animation for Antz, and that just wasn't a
> terribly good movie. Dreamworks animation is still in the shadow of
> Disney; Pixar seem to know that what makes an animated movie *live*.
> Interesting characters, good performances and fantastic rendering are
> apparent in both studio's work, but Disney take it all further. Their
> characters live, the jokes sparkle, the whole is more than the sum of
> its parts.

Shrek was great fun; Toy Story may have been better; Antz is severely
under appreciated, and possibly my favorite of the three. 'Cause Antz
wasn't really a children's movie at all, except in the sense that
anything animated is apparently a children's movie. It's got Woody Allen
and Sharon Stone and Sylvester Stallone, for heaven's sake. We start in
a therepist's office with a nod to Woody Allen's other parts (which
children wouldn't know) do a whole bunch of jokes about working, and
then move to a bar where the humor comes from the usual patheticness of
singlehood. After the princess and the pleb get together, it turns into
a classic forties romantic comedy for a while (the kind where Clark
Gable starts every scene with an insult and the girl falls hopelessly in
love with him for it) and then becomes very military, convincingly sad
and scary and horrible.

It's smart, and funny, and does a good job of being serious and silly at
once.

-Mary (This should probably go in the Antz movie review thread...)

David Sander

unread,
Jul 8, 2001, 10:08:26 AM7/8/01
to
hippo wrote:
>
<snip>

>
> One thing that still puzzles my brain every time I see the re-runs, is
> the camera footage from Eagle on the landing approach. Maybe it's lack
> of major references points : mountains, roads, airport runway lights <g>
> but I can never figure out the attitude of the craft with regard to the
> lunar surface, nor the scale of the craters filmed from the window.
>
> Any one found any diagram or simulation that might help ?

We discuss it all the time on sci.space.history, and occasionally a
decent reference arises. There's even a couple of guys who've come up
with sim games in the past (don't ask me - I don't play games).

This reminds me of something that happened just the other day, too - I
was showing a guy who'd never really taken much notice before a
photograph taken on the lunar surface of the Apollo 15 landing site. The
LM is situated centre frame, with Jim Irwin on the left saluting the
flag and the LRV to the right. In the background is what looks like a
low hill. It took a little explaining to my friend, but that "hill" is a
mountain 18,000 ft high. With no atmosphere or surface features to cue
just how far away the darn thing was, it looked like just a low hill. I
showed him a view of the area the Apollo 15 LM "Falcon" landed in from
orbit, and pointed to that very mountain - it looked like a small pimple
compare to other features.

I showed him another image - of low, rolling hills and maybe the odd
crater or two. He commented that yes, it was hard to get an idea of how
big things are. I then pointed out a tiny blotch which was in fact the
LM, and he gasped. Shortly after, he explained he was beginning to come
to terms with scale and his appreciation for what was in the surface
photos grew markedly.

I was doing this as I'm re-creating the lunar surface in my film, and am
aiming for decent accuracy, so this issue is very important to me at
this time.


David

David Sander

unread,
Jul 8, 2001, 10:16:59 AM7/8/01
to
Quantum Moth wrote:
>
> David Sander <sur...@bigpond.net.au> said...
>
> > > While perusing the newsgroup, I chanced upon the following comment(s)
> > > by MP:
> > >
> > > > MP (go see Shrek instead. Even if you've already seen it...)
> >
> > I agree - Shrek is great fun.
> >
> I have to say something at this point. Shrek is... entertaining. Don't
> get me wrong, I was smiling for most of the movie. But there's something
> missing there, right enough.

<snip dissertation>

I think I have to agree with you on pretty much every point. I described
Shrek as "fun" as I was not quite prepared to describe it as
"sensational", "brilliant" or "a work of genius". To me, it lacks oomph,
and while its allusions are great fun to try and pick out, I felt it
ended too simply and lacked overall depth (and a unique, unpredictable ending).

Disney's had a gravy train ride with John Lasseter and the Pixar films.
His early, pre-Disney stuff *is* sheer genius, and I'm nervously hoping
his up-and-coming Monsters Inc maintains his style and flair (while
resisting total Disneyfication).


David

Sandriana

unread,
Jul 8, 2001, 10:46:11 AM7/8/01
to
On Sun, 08 Jul 2001 12:11:51 GMT, David Sander
<sur...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:

>Brian Howlett wrote:
>>
>> While perusing the newsgroup, I chanced upon the following comment(s)
>> by David Sander:
>>
>> >

>On DVD, in retail stores, by Christmas (fingers crossed)
>
>http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/surfacesrendered/MCSHomepage.html
>
>> >>

Thanks David, that is *gorgeous*.

--


Sandriana
---------
"Take Two Parts Sand, One Part Girl, And Stir"
SJ Perelman, 'The Most of SJ Perelman'


Brian Howlett

unread,
Jul 8, 2001, 11:41:25 AM7/8/01
to
While perusing the newsgroup, I chanced upon the following comment(s)
by Mary Messall:

> Quantum Moth wrote:
>> Social commentary aside, back to the movie. Now, as has been
>> mentioned elsewhere, the animation was very, very pretty indeed. But,
>> then, so was the animation for Antz, and that just wasn't a terribly
>> good movie.

[snip relative animation quality, which is subjective anyway...]


>
> Shrek was great fun; Toy Story may have been better; Antz is severely
> under appreciated, and possibly my favorite of the three. 'Cause Antz
> wasn't really a children's movie at all, except in the sense that
> anything animated is apparently a children's movie.

[snip]


>
> It's smart, and funny, and does a good job of being serious and silly
> at once.

What she said... Antz is definitely not a movie aimed at younger
children, unlike the Pixar offerings, although it won't _all_ go over
the heads of, say, 8 to 10 year olds. Definitely not aimed at pre-school
kids, though.


>
> -Mary (This should probably go in the Antz movie review thread...)
>

I've changed the thread title (again...!)
--
Brian Howlett
-----------------------------------------------
If you shoot a mime, should you use a silencer?

Suzi

unread,
Jul 8, 2001, 3:10:29 PM7/8/01
to
In article <NEY17.31256$Lk7.9...@news.chello.be>, Torak <torak@andrew-
perry.com> wibbled...

I'll probably go see it when it hits the local cinema... it's £3.00 for
the most expensive seats in the place :-)

Suzi
(and yes, it's a proper screen... and yes, it's dolby sound)

Barry R

unread,
Jul 8, 2001, 7:03:02 PM7/8/01
to
Article <MPG.15b2bcf52...@nntp.netcomuk.co.uk> in my
spool of alt.fan.pratchett, shows Suzi as saying...

>Suzi
>(and yes, it's a proper screen... and yes, it's dolby sound)

and yes, it's 8 months out of date... ;)

Barry 'Of course, I'm joking' R

Flesh-eating dragon

unread,
Jul 8, 2001, 10:28:29 PM7/8/01
to
Mary Messall <mmes...@ups.edu> wrote:

> Shrek was great fun; Toy Story may have been better; Antz is severely
> under appreciated, and possibly my favorite of the three. 'Cause Antz
> wasn't really a children's movie at all, except in the sense that
> anything animated is apparently a children's movie.

Well, as long as you don't pretend that it's a biological authority,
that it tells you anything about ants...

Ants don't have an authority figure telling them what to do; studies
show they have a clever little scheme that ensures work is distributed
according to demand. An ant changes its odour according to whether
it's currently nest-repairing, foraging, or whatever, and the more
ants doing a particular job, the more demand there must be for that
job. So an ant that meets a critical number of subsequent job X'ers
along its way, it will itself go and do job X. It's a very effective
distributed decision algorithm.

It also contradicts just about everything in the movie...

Oh, and another thing. People who divide the world into 'things for
children' and 'things for adults' ... pthht! Extra ppthhhht to people
who think 'adult' and 'sexual' are synonyms.

Adrian.

Mary Messall

unread,
Jul 9, 2001, 10:01:25 AM7/9/01
to
Flesh-eating dragon wrote:

> Mary Messall <mmes...@ups.edu> wrote:
> <Antz>
> > wasn't really a children's movie at all, except in the sense that
> > anything animated is apparently a children's movie.
> Oh, and another thing. People who divide the world into 'things for
> children' and 'things for adults' ... pthht!

Only in the sense that there are some things it's not fair to spring on
children unprepared. Jokes and references they won't get being in that
category. Also scenes of suffering or terror they aren't yet inured to.
(Antz, I think, actually has a bit of that too. At least, I thought the
scene after the war, with the battlefield strewn with bodies and body
parts, was pretty brutal.) Also too much heavy breathing and naked bits,
again mainly because they won't understand except on an "ew gross
<snigger>" level.

It's just unfair to present children with stuff they can't enjoy,
because they haven't had time to get the proper background yet,
especially if it might really upset them. Someone who's scared of the
Smurfs, that is, shouldn't watch a Stephen King movie.

-Mary (yes, I was afraid of the Smurfs, why?)

Flesh-eating dragon

unread,
Jul 9, 2001, 10:47:20 AM7/9/01
to
Mary Messall wrote, quoting myself:

> > Oh, and another thing. People who divide the world into 'things for
> > children' and 'things for adults' ... pthht!
>
> Only in the sense that there are some things it's not fair to spring on
> children unprepared.

You didn't think my comment was aimed at you, did you? :-)

It's more aimed at the sort of nitwits who dismiss anything that isn't
positively rife with sexual references as "for kids".

As for children and horror, my views are a *lot* more liberal than
most of the media around here. I think fear is supposed to happen
occasionally, it's part of life, and that children should be allowed
to learn from experience that some things make them uncomfortable (on
TV, of course, not in the cinema). That way the kids will *choose* not
to watch certain things, whereas if violent shows are forbidden
outright they'll only be curious, and possibly resentful.

Adrian.

Suzi

unread,
Jul 9, 2001, 11:00:19 AM7/9/01
to
Flesh-eating dragon <morgan...@netyp.com.au> wrote in message
news:9icg14$1u0$1...@library.lspace.org...
[Snip]

> I think fear is supposed to happen
> occasionally, it's part of life, and that children should be allowed
> to learn from experience that some things make them uncomfortable (on
> TV, of course, not in the cinema).

:-)
My parents obviously had the same sort of views as you do - I was
allowed to stay up to watch the Saturday night (no school the next day)
Horror double bill that ran for a long time on BBC2 when I was young. My
parents wouldn't watch with me (preferring instead to go off to bed), as
they don't like horror movies <g>.

Contrary to what the Mary Whitehouse's of this world would have everyone
believe should happen in these circumstances, it has not turned me into
an axe-wielding crazed psychopath who sees danger in every shadow. Most
of the horror movies that were shown were an awful lot less scary than
some of the episodes of Doctor Who I watched at the same age (and that
was designed for children)!

My parents seemed to operate a policy of "if she doesn't run screaming
and enjoys the stuff, why not let her watch it (as long as we don't have
to watch it too)". On reflection, in some ways my parents were very
liberal as they let me read and watch pretty much whatever I wanted to
read or watch (as long as what I wanted to watch didn't clash with Dad's
soccer or westerns), figuring (I think) that if I was old enough to
understand it then that was fine, and if I wasn't old enough to
understand it then no harm done :-)

Suzi


Mary Messall

unread,
Jul 9, 2001, 11:13:47 AM7/9/01
to
Suzi wrote:
> My parents seemed to operate a policy of "if she doesn't run screaming
> and enjoys the stuff, why not let her watch it (as long as we don't have
> to watch it too)".

Definitely depends on the kid more than the age, methinks... I mean, I
*was* scared of the Smurfs.

-Mary (It's possible I still am.)

Flesh-eating dragon

unread,
Jul 9, 2001, 11:16:21 AM7/9/01
to
Suzi wrote:

> :-)
> My parents obviously had the same sort of views as you do - I was
> allowed to stay up to watch the Saturday night (no school the next day)

I basically remember what my opinions were as a kid... My family never
expressely forebade me to watch anything, but sometimes there was a news
story about some scary movie or other, and I remember thinking, I want
to see what the fuss is all about.

> of the horror movies that were shown were an awful lot less scary than
> some of the episodes of Doctor Who I watched at the same age (and that
> was designed for children)!

The ABC haven't screened any Doctor Who since it ceased production. The
first Doctor Who I seriously watched were the final Pertwee episodes,
and that was in 1986 I think, which was the *last* time that the ABC
screened any Pertwee. Ever. 'Course, I've got the videos.

Adrian (who updated fandom section of website today...)

pia

unread,
Jul 9, 2001, 12:24:08 PM7/9/01
to

"Flesh-eating dragon" <morgan...@netyp.com.au> wrote

<snip: Antz, a good film>

> Well, as long as you don't pretend that it's a biological authority,
> that it tells you anything about ants...

Indeedy. For a biologist the most obvious blunder was the sex of
the workers. In real ants they all are females. But Hollywood probably
is not ready yet for a major lesbian love story.

Still, I enjoyed Antz immensely, and remember being quite pleasantly
surprised that I wasn't bothered by the numerous bio-howlers. A good
film makes you to suspend your disbelief almost against your will.

pia


Suzi

unread,
Jul 9, 2001, 3:18:05 PM7/9/01
to
In article <9ichne$3sd$1...@library.lspace.org>, Flesh-eating dragon
<morgan...@netyp.com.au> wibbled...

[Snip]

> The ABC haven't screened any Doctor Who since it ceased production. The
> first Doctor Who I seriously watched were the final Pertwee episodes,
> and that was in 1986 I think, which was the *last* time that the ABC
> screened any Pertwee. Ever. 'Course, I've got the videos.

Ah - you were watching repeats :-)

I was watching the originals at time of broadcast <g>

(earlier ones not shown as not relevant to this discussion)
Jon Pertwee 1970-74
Tom Baker 1974-81
Peter Davison 1982-84
Colin Baker 1984-86
Sylvester McCoy 1987-96

Suzi

Daibhid Chiennedelh

unread,
Jul 9, 2001, 3:49:01 PM7/9/01
to
>From: ptr...@youbastard.co.uk (Suzi)
>Date: 09/07/01 19:18 GMT
>Message-id: <MPG.15b408a2c...@nntp.netcomuk.co.uk>
Er, if you watched Sylv in '96 then surely Paul should be on the list.

--
Dave, child of the Davison era

Elected for a second glorious term as Official Absentee of EU Skiffeysoc
http://www.ed.ac.uk/~sesoc
There are only two kinds of people in the world: The kind who think there are
only two kinds of people in the world, and the kind who don't.

Julia Jones

unread,
Jul 9, 2001, 3:59:39 PM7/9/01
to
In article <9icgum$leq$1...@taliesin2.netcom.net.uk>, Suzi
<Su...@lspace.org> writes

>My parents obviously had the same sort of views as you do - I was
>allowed to stay up to watch the Saturday night (no school the next day)
>Horror double bill that ran for a long time on BBC2 when I was young. My
>parents wouldn't watch with me (preferring instead to go off to bed), as
>they don't like horror movies <g>.
>
>Contrary to what the Mary Whitehouse's of this world would have everyone
>believe should happen in these circumstances, it has not turned me into
>an axe-wielding crazed psychopath who sees danger in every shadow. Most
>of the horror movies that were shown were an awful lot less scary than
>some of the episodes of Doctor Who I watched at the same age (and that
>was designed for children)!

Yes, but Mary Whitehouse complained about Doctor Who as well... The
Deadly Assassin was one of the ones she kicked up a row about
(successfully).

I watched the late night Hammer double bill as well for a few months
when I happened to be in the right country to watch the BBC. I was 11 at
the time. I haven't noticed being an axe-wielding crazed psychopath
myself - and I did think that some of the Doctor Who on at the time was
a lot scarier. They were going through a horror-influenced period at the
time. Talons of Weng-Chien, anyone?
--
Julia Jones
Redemption 03, 21-23 February 2003, Ashford, Kent
Celebrating 25 years of Blake's 7 and 10 years of Babylon 5
http://www.smof.com/redemption

Jeremy C B Nicoll

unread,
Jul 9, 2001, 4:30:06 PM7/9/01
to
On 09 Jul in alt.fan.pratchett, Julia Jones
<jajon...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:

> In article <9icgum$leq$1...@taliesin2.netcom.net.uk>, Suzi
> <Su...@lspace.org> writes
> >My parents obviously had the same sort of views as you do - I was
> >allowed to stay up to watch the Saturday night (no school the next
> >day) Horror double bill that ran for a long time on BBC2 when I was
> >young. My parents wouldn't watch with me (preferring instead to go off
> >to bed), as they don't like horror movies <g>.
> >
> >Contrary to what the Mary Whitehouse's of this world would have
> >everyone

> Yes, but Mary Whitehouse complained about Doctor Who as well...

But that was probably because she didn't want all those kids growing
afraid of British quarries...

--
Jeremy C B Nicoll - my opinions are my own.

Suzi

unread,
Jul 9, 2001, 5:32:26 PM7/9/01
to
In article <20010709154901...@ng-fe1.aol.com>, Daibhid
Chiennedelh <daibhidc...@aol.comedy> wibbled...

[Snip]


> >(earlier ones not shown as not relevant to this discussion)
> >Jon Pertwee 1970-74
> >Tom Baker 1974-81
> >Peter Davison 1982-84
> >Colin Baker 1984-86
> >Sylvester McCoy 1987-96
> >
> Er, if you watched Sylv in '96 then surely Paul should be on the list.

Sorry -
1. I'm only relating the real TV series timeline here, not the movies
2. I don't count Paul as a real Dr Who. That movie was absolute penc,
and should be forgotten as soon as is human(e)ly possible.

Suzi

MP

unread,
Jul 9, 2001, 7:05:35 PM7/9/01
to
Mary Messall wrote:
<snip>

> Someone who's scared of the
> Smurfs, that is, shouldn't watch a Stephen King movie.
>
> -Mary (yes, I was afraid of the Smurfs, why?)

How are we supposed to know?

MP (I know!)

Flesh-eating dragon

unread,
Jul 9, 2001, 8:03:51 PM7/9/01
to
Julia Jones wrote:

> Yes, but Mary Whitehouse complained about Doctor Who as well... The
> Deadly Assassin was one of the ones she kicked up a row about
> (successfully).

Actually, even Tom Baker was disturbed by the violence in The Deadly
Assassin. There's some interesting information about his views on
violence on the "Tom Baker Years" video.

Adrian.

"As you know, violence and the failure of the imagination are closely
bound up" -- Tom Baker.

Mary Sophia Novak

unread,
Jul 9, 2001, 8:48:44 PM7/9/01
to
Mary Messall wrote:
<snip>
> Someone who's scared of the
> Smurfs, that is, shouldn't watch a Stephen King movie.

Oddly, that doesn't always follow. Beginning about age eight, my
younger sister spent her formative years watching every horror movie
ever made. She and her best friend played "Office" only it was
"Freddy Krueger's Office." They scheduled appointments so he'd have
more convenient access to his victims. I, on the other hand, am the
greatest horror movie coward of all time, and simply haven't seen 98%
of what's out there because the 2% I've caught (including certain
X-Files and Stephen King's IT) haunt me to this day. I have next to
no visual imagination or memory, and *that's* the stuff that sticks.

However, she is and always has been distinctly uneasy in the presence
of Muppets, where I had loved them from the first time I saw them aged
three or so.

I also remember my toddler brother seeing _Land of the Lost_ for the
first time and standing utterly transfixed and petrified for the
duration of the episode. It scared him, too, but on the spot he
conceived a lifelong passion for dinosaurs that he's never lost.

Mary Sophia Novak
ms_n...@hotmail.com

Siobhan

unread,
Jul 9, 2001, 10:05:23 PM7/9/01
to

"Flesh-eating dragon" <morgan...@netyp.com.au> wrote:
> Actually, even Tom Baker was disturbed by the violence in The Deadly
> Assassin. There's some interesting information about his views on
> violence on the "Tom Baker Years" video.
*snip*

> "As you know, violence and the failure of the imagination are closely
> bound up" -- Tom Baker.

And this is the man who wrote "The Boy Who Kicked Pigs"?????

Ye gods.

Siobhan


Flesh-eating dragon

unread,
Jul 9, 2001, 11:50:01 PM7/9/01
to

Siobhan wrote, quoting myself:

> > Actually, even Tom Baker was disturbed by the violence in The Deadly
> > Assassin. There's some interesting information about his views on
> > violence on the "Tom Baker Years" video.
> *snip*
> > "As you know, violence and the failure of the imagination are closely
> > bound up" -- Tom Baker.
>
> And this is the man who wrote "The Boy Who Kicked Pigs"?????
>
> Ye gods.

OK, more detail.

After the controversial drowning scene in The Deadly Assassin was
made, Tom was disturbed and wanted to see how it had been cut. To
this end he knocked at the door of some total strangers and asked,
"Do you watch Doctor Who here?" ... the family were, of course,
most welcoming (an aspect of the part that Tom always enjoyed).

He explains that sometimes he would argue that certain scenes should
be *more* violent: "it should be violent on an operatic scale, because
then violence takes on a quality of the ridiculous, which violence
frequently is. Because, as you know, violence and the failure of the
imagination are closely bound up".

Adrian.

Jacqui

unread,
Jul 10, 2001, 2:47:09 AM7/10/01
to
Jeremy C B Nicoll wrote:
> Julia Jones wrote:

> > Yes, but Mary Whitehouse complained about Doctor Who as well...
>
> But that was probably because she didn't want all those kids growing
> afraid of British quarries...

There was a surreal moment (for me) on tv back when they were showing
Beau Geste. We had videoed Dr Who and were watching it on Sunday
evening, an episode with lots of Cybermen in a quarry. Switched off the
video and there were Benedict Taylor et al roaming around in exactly the
same place. Cue little brother shouting "watch out for the Cybermen" all
through the episode and spoiling it completely.

Jac

Terry Pratchett

unread,
Jul 10, 2001, 4:32:27 AM7/10/01
to
In article <un16dv...@nokia.com>, Darin Johnson <da...@usa.net>
writes
>I find there's a severe lack of screening by parents about what their
>kids see at the movies, such that ratings are practically useless.
>I'm not talking about kids seeing American Pie, I'm talking about
>Lion King and Jurassic Park and the like.
>
>Basically, the kids whine about how they have to see the movie, and
>the parents give in. The result is toddlers crying unconsolably when
>the lion king dies, and slightly older kids freaking out when the
>lawyer gets eaten by the previously cute and cool dinosaurs. Very
>annoying when you're trying to watch the movie and realize that all
>the parents had to do was think "if it's PG-13, maybe I won't take my
>5 year old to see it", or "even though it's a cartoon maybe that PG
>rating means it's not completely benign".

Exactly. There should be a notice ahead of the movie that says 'This
movie is PG. Can you read? You are a Parent. Do you understand what
Guidance is? Or are you just another stupid toddler who thinks they're
an adult simple because they've grown older and, unfortunately, have
developed fully-functioning sexual organs? Would you like some
committee somewhere to decide *everything* for you? Get a damn grip,
will you? And shut the wretched kid up !'
--
Terry Pratchett

Richard Bos

unread,
Jul 10, 2001, 4:53:25 AM7/10/01
to
"pia" <piage...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> "Flesh-eating dragon" <morgan...@netyp.com.au> wrote
>
> <snip: Antz, a good film>
>
> > Well, as long as you don't pretend that it's a biological authority,
> > that it tells you anything about ants...
>
> Indeedy. For a biologist the most obvious blunder was the sex of
> the workers. In real ants they all are females. But Hollywood probably
> is not ready yet for a major lesbian love story.

Well, yeah, but if it'd been biologically accurate there wouldn't have
_been_ a love story between two workers...

Richard

The Flying Hamster

unread,
Jul 10, 2001, 5:00:05 AM7/10/01
to
On Mon, 09 Jul 2001 20:27:00 GMT, Darin Johnson <da...@usa.net> wrote:
> Mary Messall <mmes...@ups.edu> writes:
>
>> It's just unfair to present children with stuff they can't enjoy,
>> because they haven't had time to get the proper background yet,
>> especially if it might really upset them. Someone who's scared of the
>> Smurfs, that is, shouldn't watch a Stephen King movie.
>
> I find there's a severe lack of screening by parents about what their
> kids see at the movies, such that ratings are practically useless.

There's nothing wrong with the ratings, is it the fault of the ratings
system that some people choose to ignore them?



> Basically, the kids whine about how they have to see the movie, and

"welcome to planet earth, I am not here to be your friend, I am here
to be your parent and you are not seeing this because _I_ think it
will upset you at the moment, deal."

--
The Flying Hamster <ham...@suespammers.org> http://hamster.wibble.org/
I am Homer of Borg! Prepare to be...OOooooo! Donuts!!!

Colin Rosenthal

unread,
Jul 10, 2001, 5:09:34 AM7/10/01
to

I felt _very_ sorry for the young girl I saw being led out about halfway
through "Sixth Sense" by her father (just after the bit with
the boy with the back of his head blown off). Then again, my parents
took me to see Jaws for my 12th birthday and look how I turned out.

--
Colin Rosenthal
Astrophysics Institute
University of Oslo

The Flying Hamster

unread,
Jul 10, 2001, 5:05:28 AM7/10/01
to
On Tue, 10 Jul 2001 09:32:27 +0100, Terry Pratchett <tprat...@unseen.demon.co.uk> wrote:
[...]

> Exactly. There should be a notice ahead of the movie that says 'This
> movie is PG. Can you read? You are a Parent.

Unfortunately these two don't always go hand in hand. This rule also
applies to common sense and self-preservation instincts.

> Do you understand what
> Guidance is? Or are you just another stupid toddler who thinks they're
> an adult simple because they've grown older and, unfortunately, have
> developed fully-functioning sexual organs? Would you like some
> committee somewhere to decide *everything* for you? Get a damn grip,
> will you? And shut the wretched kid up !'

No no no you completely misunderstand, we should give kids everything
they ask for without question otherwise they won't like or love us.
My take on this (with a mighty four years[1] of kid is that I'm here
to make sure that they are

o fed/watered
o clothed
o healthy
o protected (as far as I see necessary)
o educated (both on the accademic front and in the ways of the
real-world)
o can relate to and deal with people both singly and in groups in a
well mannered way
o Give them limits on what they can and can't do and explain _why_
o etc etc etc

I'm not here to be their best buddy (they've already got those) I'm
here to make sure they can function and survive in this world.

Mark

[1] Yup, completely buggerall compared with lots of people.

Discoveries are made by not following instructions.

elfin

unread,
Jul 10, 2001, 9:15:31 AM7/10/01
to
"The Flying Hamster" wrote
[snipping Terry]

> No no no you completely misunderstand, we should give kids everything
> they ask for without question otherwise they won't like or love us.
> My take on this (with a mighty four years[1] of kid is that I'm here
> to make sure that they are
>
> o fed/watered
> o clothed
> o healthy
> o protected (as far as I see necessary)
> o educated (both on the accademic front and in the ways of the
> real-world)
> o can relate to and deal with people both singly and in groups in a
> well mannered way
> o Give them limits on what they can and can't do and explain _why_
> o etc etc etc
>
> I'm not here to be their best buddy (they've already got those) I'm
> here to make sure they can function and survive in this world.

AOL!

Now if only someone would explain that to the kids.

elfin
--
Art, OE Help, Beginners Guide and much more at
http://www.elfden.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/

Yannick Larvor

unread,
Jul 10, 2001, 11:20:05 AM7/10/01
to
elfin wrote:

> "The Flying Hamster" wrote [snipping Terry]

>> I'm not here to be their best buddy (they've already got those) I'm


>> here to make sure they can function and survive in this world.

> AOL!

> Now if only someone would explain that to the kids.

Oh, someone possibly will, eventually. *Their* kids. So, maybe it'll be
a bit late from your point of view, but better late than never, no? :-)

--
Yannick

Yannick Larvor

unread,
Jul 10, 2001, 11:28:25 AM7/10/01
to
Suzi wrote:

> Contrary to what the Mary Whitehouse's of this world would have
> everyone believe should happen in these circumstances, it has not
> turned me into an axe-wielding crazed psychopath who sees danger in
> every shadow.

Instead, you're an axe-wielding crazed psychopath who fears no shadow,
right? Somehow, it doesn't reassure me. <g,d&r>

--
Yannick

Daibhid Chiennedelh

unread,
Jul 10, 2001, 12:37:36 PM7/10/01
to
>From: ptr...@youbastard.co.uk (Suzi)
>Date: 09/07/01 21:32 GMT
>Message-id: <MPG.15b430a83...@nntp.netcomuk.co.uk>

>
>In article <20010709154901...@ng-fe1.aol.com>, Daibhid
>Chiennedelh <daibhidc...@aol.comedy> wibbled...
>
>[Snip]
>> >(earlier ones not shown as not relevant to this discussion)
>> >Jon Pertwee 1970-74
>> >Tom Baker 1974-81
>> >Peter Davison 1982-84
>> >Colin Baker 1984-86
>> >Sylvester McCoy 1987-96
>> >
>> Er, if you watched Sylv in '96 then surely Paul should be on the list.
>
>Sorry -
>1. I'm only relating the real TV series timeline here, not the movies

Then McCoy's tenure finished in '89 8-).

>2. I don't count Paul as a real Dr Who. That movie was absolute penc,
>and should be forgotten as soon as is human(e)ly possible.
>

I try not to get involved in this discussion on rec.arts.drwho. (because
certain people would hunt me down and kill me) but, although the movie was bad
on many levels and wrong on a few more, McGann was pretty good. And to the
obsessive Who fan McGann must count 'cos of the books and audios (assuming they
are Canon; another perennial radw argument I avoid).

Personally, not only would I count McGann, but also Atkinson, Grant, Broadbent,
Grant and Lumley. If I said *that* on radw they'd be chanting "Heretic!" and
searching for the matches 8-).

--
Dave

Melody S-K

unread,
Jul 10, 2001, 1:15:11 PM7/10/01
to

Darin Johnson <da...@usa.net> wrote in message
news:un16dv...@nokia.com...

> Mary Messall <mmes...@ups.edu> writes:
>
> > It's just unfair to present children with stuff they can't enjoy,
> > because they haven't had time to get the proper background yet,
> > especially if it might really upset them. Someone who's scared of
the
> > Smurfs, that is, shouldn't watch a Stephen King movie.
>
> I find there's a severe lack of screening by parents about what
their
> kids see at the movies, such that ratings are practically useless.
> I'm not talking about kids seeing American Pie, I'm talking about
> Lion King and Jurassic Park and the like.

By *Some* parents , please do not tar us all with the same brush eh?


>
> Basically, the kids whine about how they have to see the movie, and
> the parents give in. The result is toddlers crying unconsolably
when
> the lion king dies, and slightly older kids freaking out when the
> lawyer gets eaten by the previously cute and cool dinosaurs. Very
> annoying when you're trying to watch the movie and realize that all
> the parents had to do was think "if it's PG-13, maybe I won't take
my
> 5 year old to see it", or "even though it's a cartoon maybe that PG
> rating means it's not completely benign".

I *must* be an old fashioned parent I guess. If the rating is PG ,
hubby and I will see if first and decide if it is suitable for my 2
youngest (8 and 10). I do not let them stay up past 7.30 and 8.00
respectively , nor do I let them have free rein with the video / dvd
machines. Afaik , it is called being a parent aka spoilsport.

Could I ask are you a parent yet? It is *exceedingly* difficult to
withstand the pressure that a whining 5 year old can place upon you
when *everyone* else at school has seen a movie and they are the
*only* ones to be denied it. However , it only takes about 18 years of
training and then they get the idea :o) HTH

Melody

--
Ku Klux Gran

Melody S-K

unread,
Jul 10, 2001, 1:16:11 PM7/10/01
to

Jeremy C B Nicoll <Jer...@omba.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4a978958...@omba.demon.co.uk...

>
> > Yes, but Mary Whitehouse complained about Doctor Who as well...
>
> But that was probably because she didn't want all those kids growing
> afraid of British quarries...

ARGHHHHHHHHHHH!

Don't mention the quarries!

Melody

--
Ku Klux Gran - one who remembers the very first episode of Dr Who


Jeremy C B Nicoll

unread,
Jul 10, 2001, 1:36:35 PM7/10/01
to
On 10 Jul in alt.fan.pratchett, The Flying Hamster <ham...@vom.tm> wrote:

> On Mon, 09 Jul 2001 20:27:00 GMT, Darin Johnson <da...@usa.net> wrote:

> > I find there's a severe lack of screening by parents about what their
> > kids see at the movies, such that ratings are practically useless.

> There's nothing wrong with the ratings, is it the fault of the ratings


> system that some people choose to ignore them?

That and the fact that the cinemas simply don't enforce the issue.

Daibhid Chiennedelh

unread,
Jul 10, 2001, 2:19:37 PM7/10/01