Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Daleks - Lovable Monsters?
22 views
Skip to first unread message
FishFood
Apr 8, 2012, 11:31:27 AM4/8/12
to
What happens when our monsters are loved as much as our heroes?
Im i the only one who thinks its odd how the Daleks have over
time become this lovable set piece? A menace in name only.
There's something about their familiarity which now makes them
toothless as monsters, so that they have lost all meaning.
Any future story featuring these cybernetic villains would have
to address the issue of their menace, in a way which repositions
them as objects of loathing.
Otherwise what's the point? Whats the point of the story or the
character, if the audience can't draw obvious line between good
and evil?
I suppose the next generation of DW fans will have a darker
re-imagining of DW to look forward to, the same way comic book
The Batman, is now the Gothic novel Dark knight.
Im i the only one who thinks its odd how the Daleks have over
time become this lovable set piece? A menace in name only.
There's something about their familiarity which now makes them
toothless as monsters, so that they have lost all meaning.
Any future story featuring these cybernetic villains would have
to address the issue of their menace, in a way which repositions
them as objects of loathing.
Otherwise what's the point? Whats the point of the story or the
character, if the audience can't draw obvious line between good
and evil?
I suppose the next generation of DW fans will have a darker
re-imagining of DW to look forward to, the same way comic book
The Batman, is now the Gothic novel Dark knight.
Soze
Apr 8, 2012, 2:43:23 PM4/8/12
to
>"FishFood" wrote in message news:jlsb0d$7dv$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
villain. Particularly a family show such as Dr Who where the good guys
always win. Every time the daleks come back, they get defeated. Inevitably
they'll lose their threat, the audience will see them and just think 'pfff,
it's these clowns again, they get the ass kicked every other year'. I'd say
the cybermen and The Master suffer the same problem, The Master pretty much
from the off when he was scripted to appear in every story in the 8th
series. For a villain to maintain some form of threat he / they have to be
seen to win from time to time.
For all it's faults at least Victory of the Daleks seemed to acknowledge
this. Although The Doctor stops them from blowing up the Earth ( or whatever
they were trying to do, I've forgotten to be honest ) they not only escape
but seem to grow stronger before doing so. I'd like to see them achieve
whatever they're trying to in the next series and then perhaps have The
Doctor go on to defeat them the following year or in whatever the 50th
anniversary story is.
The Doctor
Apr 8, 2012, 5:13:08 PM4/8/12
to
--
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!
https://www.fullyfollow.me/rootnl2k Alberta! Time to dump team extreme right
of either Allison or Danielle and vote for Raj the common man!
Duggy
Apr 8, 2012, 5:14:18 PM4/8/12
to
You play it in the victims' reactions. The viewer liking the villain
doesn't change that.
===
= DUG.
===
Duggy
Apr 8, 2012, 5:16:30 PM4/8/12
to
On Apr 9, 4:43 am, "Soze" <I...@salsbury42.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> For all it's faults at least Victory of the Daleks seemed to acknowledge
> this. Although The Doctor stops them from blowing up the Earth ( or whatever
> they were trying to do, I've forgotten to be honest ) they not only escape
> but seem to grow stronger before doing so.
Their plan was to escape. Blowing up London (but turning all the
> For all it's faults at least Victory of the Daleks seemed to acknowledge
> this. Although The Doctor stops them from blowing up the Earth ( or whatever
> they were trying to do, I've forgotten to be honest ) they not only escape
> but seem to grow stronger before doing so.
lights on during an air raid) was always meant to be a distraction to
keep the Doctor busy.
===
= DUG.
===
The Doctor
Apr 8, 2012, 5:39:45 PM4/8/12
to
Duggy
Apr 8, 2012, 6:40:54 PM4/8/12
to
On Apr 9, 7:39 am, The Doctor <doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
===
= DUG.
===
> Duggy <p.allan.dug...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> : On Apr 9, 4:43?am, "Soze" <I...@salsbury42.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> : > For all it's faults at least Victory of the Daleks seemed to acknowledge
> : > this. Although The Doctor stops them from blowing up the Earth ( or whatever
> : > they were trying to do, I've forgotten to be honest ) they not only escape
> : > but seem to grow stronger before doing so.
>
> : Their plan was to escape. Blowing up London (but turning all the
> : lights on during an air raid) was always meant to be a distraction to
> : keep the Doctor busy.
>
> : On Apr 9, 4:43?am, "Soze" <I...@salsbury42.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> : > For all it's faults at least Victory of the Daleks seemed to acknowledge
> : > this. Although The Doctor stops them from blowing up the Earth ( or whatever
> : > they were trying to do, I've forgotten to be honest ) they not only escape
> : > but seem to grow stronger before doing so.
>
> : Their plan was to escape. Blowing up London (but turning all the
> : lights on during an air raid) was always meant to be a distraction to
> : keep the Doctor busy.
> And the distraction worked too.
True.
===
= DUG.
===
Andrew M
Apr 8, 2012, 7:27:34 PM4/8/12
to
daleks more than most. This is a menace that can now throw up
impenetrable force-fields, fly, multiply at unbelievable rates and
which, apparently, fought the Timelords to the point of desperation.
And again and again one Timelord obliterates thousands of them only for
one to slip away and recreate the menace.
It's a tired concept. The daleks need a long rest - several years in my
opinion - an a long. long rethink
Message has been deleted
Orson Cart
Apr 8, 2012, 11:49:14 PM4/8/12
to
I spoke to a checkout chick at the ABC shop just after Xmas, and
she said that the Steven Moffat new candy lego Daleks were very
poor sellers.
Charles E. Hardwidge
Apr 9, 2012, 5:34:06 AM4/9/12
to
"China Blue Water Navy" <chine...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:chine.bleu-646C2...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> > What happens when our monsters are loved as much as our heroes?
>> >
>> > Im i the only one who thinks its odd how the Daleks have over
>> > time become this lovable set piece? A menace in name only.
>
> I've never been a fan of recurring villians. It's usually a sign the
>> >
>> > Im i the only one who thinks its odd how the Daleks have over
>> > time become this lovable set piece? A menace in name only.
>
> writers lack imagination.
That and non-occurring villains. Whatever happened to those ones in the
first series of Star Trek: TNG that sent an ominous signal into space? All
that duh-duh-dur build up and we never heard of them again. I feel robbed.
--
Charles E. Hardwidge
jack...@bright.net
Apr 9, 2012, 6:05:24 AM4/9/12
to
Among the things Soze wrote:
>>"FishFood" wrote in message news:jlsb0d$7dv$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
>
>>"FishFood" wrote in message news:jlsb0d$7dv$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
>
>>Im i the only one who thinks its odd how the Daleks have over
>>time become this lovable set piece? A menace in name only.
>
>>There's something about their familiarity which now makes them
>>toothless as monsters, so that they have lost all meaning.
>
>>time become this lovable set piece? A menace in name only.
>
>>There's something about their familiarity which now makes them
>>toothless as monsters, so that they have lost all meaning.
>
>>I suppose the next generation of DW fans will have a darker
>>re-imagining of DW to look forward to, the same way comic book
>>The Batman, is now the Gothic novel Dark knight.
>
>Any long running series is going to have the same problem with a recurring
>villain. Particularly a family show such as Dr Who where the good guys
>always win. Every time the daleks come back, they get defeated. Inevitably
>they'll lose their threat, the audience will see them and just think 'pfff,
>it's these clowns again, they get the ass kicked every other year'. I'd say
>the cybermen and The Master suffer the same problem, The Master pretty much
>from the off when he was scripted to appear in every story in the 8th
>series. For a villain to maintain some form of threat he / they have to be
>seen to win from time to time.
There's the Doctor Doom solution:
>>re-imagining of DW to look forward to, the same way comic book
>>The Batman, is now the Gothic novel Dark knight.
>
>Any long running series is going to have the same problem with a recurring
>villain. Particularly a family show such as Dr Who where the good guys
>always win. Every time the daleks come back, they get defeated. Inevitably
>they'll lose their threat, the audience will see them and just think 'pfff,
>it's these clowns again, they get the ass kicked every other year'. I'd say
>the cybermen and The Master suffer the same problem, The Master pretty much
>from the off when he was scripted to appear in every story in the 8th
>series. For a villain to maintain some form of threat he / they have to be
>seen to win from time to time.
He runs his own country, any victory the heroes have is only over a
specific plot of his, it's not a total defeat, and successes can be
implied in the background.
I think this solution was touched upon in "The Dalek Masterplan" and
"Frontier in Space"/"Planet of the Daleks." There's a temptation to
use the scary situation of a monster in the Tube stations that no one
else knows about. But there is also fear in a monster the authorities
know about, and know the location of (see The Bomb) and which the only
answer they have for is to avoid as much as possible.
--
-Jack
Duggy
Apr 9, 2012, 7:41:01 PM4/9/12
to
On Apr 9, 12:29 pm, China Blue Water Navy <chine.b...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
The problem... as Adam implied... it continual defeat.
Often in a series the characters will first meet 1 and it will be a
major issue.
3 seasons later and a fleet of them are destroyed with the wave of a
hand.
Cylons, Daleks, Replicators, Borg, Xenomorphs, etc, etc...
> I thought the first Dalek story with Eccleston was a wonderful way to end them:
> the last surviving Timelord vs the last surviving Dalek, united in their hate
> and their inability to deal with what is over. And a human standing between, not
> bringing them resolution, but such peace as they can have.
Plus, there was real menace in the 1 Dalek was a danger to everyone if
it got out of the bunker.
===
= DUG.
===
wrote:
> I've never been a fan of recurring villians. It's usually a sign the writers
> lack imagination.
Adds continuity.
> lack imagination.
The problem... as Adam implied... it continual defeat.
Often in a series the characters will first meet 1 and it will be a
major issue.
3 seasons later and a fleet of them are destroyed with the wave of a
hand.
Cylons, Daleks, Replicators, Borg, Xenomorphs, etc, etc...
> I thought the first Dalek story with Eccleston was a wonderful way to end them:
> the last surviving Timelord vs the last surviving Dalek, united in their hate
> and their inability to deal with what is over. And a human standing between, not
> bringing them resolution, but such peace as they can have.
Plus, there was real menace in the 1 Dalek was a danger to everyone if
it got out of the bunker.
===
= DUG.
===
Duggy
Apr 9, 2012, 7:44:44 PM4/9/12
to
> >>"FishFood" wrote in messagenews:jlsb0d$7dv$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
Also in "Victory of the Daleks" on "escape" isn't a strong victory.
===
= DUG.
===
===
= DUG.
===
The Doctor
Apr 9, 2012, 7:47:20 PM4/9/12
to
In article <c33340b5-2005-4aae...@t2g2000pbg.googlegroups.com>,
Duggy <p.allan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Apr 9, 12:29=A0pm, China Blue Water Navy <chine.b...@yahoo.com>
>wrote:
>> I've never been a fan of recurring villians. It's usually a sign the writ=
> them:
>> the last surviving Timelord vs the last surviving Dalek, united in their =
>hate
>> and their inability to deal with what is over. And a human standing betwe=
>=3D DUG.
>=3D=3D=3D
Dalek vs Cybermen please.
Duggy <p.allan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Apr 9, 12:29=A0pm, China Blue Water Navy <chine.b...@yahoo.com>
>wrote:
>> I've never been a fan of recurring villians. It's usually a sign the writ=
>ers
>> lack imagination.
>
>Adds continuity.
>
>The problem... as Adam implied... it continual defeat.
>
>Often in a series the characters will first meet 1 and it will be a
>major issue.
>3 seasons later and a fleet of them are destroyed with the wave of a
>hand.
>
>Cylons, Daleks, Replicators, Borg, Xenomorphs, etc, etc...
>
>> I thought the first Dalek story with Eccleston was a wonderful way to end=
>> lack imagination.
>
>Adds continuity.
>
>The problem... as Adam implied... it continual defeat.
>
>Often in a series the characters will first meet 1 and it will be a
>major issue.
>3 seasons later and a fleet of them are destroyed with the wave of a
>hand.
>
>Cylons, Daleks, Replicators, Borg, Xenomorphs, etc, etc...
>
> them:
>> the last surviving Timelord vs the last surviving Dalek, united in their =
>hate
>> and their inability to deal with what is over. And a human standing betwe=
>en, not
>> bringing them resolution, but such peace as they can have.
>
>Plus, there was real menace in the 1 Dalek was a danger to everyone if
>it got out of the bunker.
>
>=3D=3D=3D
>> bringing them resolution, but such peace as they can have.
>
>Plus, there was real menace in the 1 Dalek was a danger to everyone if
>it got out of the bunker.
>
>=3D DUG.
>=3D=3D=3D
Dalek vs Cybermen please.
Duggy
Apr 9, 2012, 7:43:56 PM4/9/12
to
On Apr 9, 7:34 pm, "Charles E. Hardwidge" <nos...@nospam.invalid>
wrote:
out off a planet) turned out the be the Borg (although their first
appearance suggested they were a long way from this Quadrant not
already visiting). Also that turned out to be a forgotten gimmick as
they didn't seem to ever do much colony carving after that.
===
= DUG.
===
wrote:
> That and non-occurring villains. Whatever happened to those ones in the
> first series of Star Trek: TNG that sent an ominous signal into space? All
> that duh-duh-dur build up and we never heard of them again. I feel robbed.
True. At least the threat from the previous episode (carved a colony
> first series of Star Trek: TNG that sent an ominous signal into space? All
> that duh-duh-dur build up and we never heard of them again. I feel robbed.
out off a planet) turned out the be the Borg (although their first
appearance suggested they were a long way from this Quadrant not
already visiting). Also that turned out to be a forgotten gimmick as
they didn't seem to ever do much colony carving after that.
===
= DUG.
===
The Doctor
Apr 9, 2012, 8:26:06 PM4/9/12
to
In article <c789ad98-1512-4e6a...@t2g2000pbg.googlegroups.com>,
Duggy <p.allan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Apr 9, 7:34=A0pm, "Charles E. Hardwidge" <nos...@nospam.invalid>
>l
>> that duh-duh-dur build up and we never heard of them again. I feel robbed=
>=3D DUG.
>=3D=3D=3D
Borg vs Cybermen ... I wonder .
Duggy <p.allan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Apr 9, 7:34=A0pm, "Charles E. Hardwidge" <nos...@nospam.invalid>
>wrote:
>> That and non-occurring villains. Whatever happened to those ones in the
>> first series of Star Trek: TNG that sent an ominous signal into space? Al=
>> That and non-occurring villains. Whatever happened to those ones in the
>l
>> that duh-duh-dur build up and we never heard of them again. I feel robbed=
>.
>
>True. At least the threat from the previous episode (carved a colony
>out off a planet) turned out the be the Borg (although their first
>appearance suggested they were a long way from this Quadrant not
>already visiting). Also that turned out to be a forgotten gimmick as
>they didn't seem to ever do much colony carving after that.
>
>=3D=3D=3D
>
>True. At least the threat from the previous episode (carved a colony
>out off a planet) turned out the be the Borg (although their first
>appearance suggested they were a long way from this Quadrant not
>already visiting). Also that turned out to be a forgotten gimmick as
>they didn't seem to ever do much colony carving after that.
>
>=3D DUG.
>=3D=3D=3D
Borg vs Cybermen ... I wonder .
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
The Doctor
Apr 12, 2012, 8:16:59 PM4/12/12
to
In article <slrnjoepp...@pjr.no-ip.org>,
Peter J Ross <peadar...@gmx.com> wrote:
>In rec.arts.drwho on Mon, 9 Apr 2012 10:34:06 +0100, Charles E.
>And what happened to the Wirrn? They've been very quiet recently
>(except in a couple of typically tedious Big Finish rip-offs).
>
>"I am a Wirrn."
>
>No you're not, you're Wee Nicky Briggs using the same voice you use
>for all the other monsters but with marginally different settings on
>your precious antique ring modulater.
>
>
>
Care to be a Wirrn?
Peter J Ross <peadar...@gmx.com> wrote:
>In rec.arts.drwho on Mon, 9 Apr 2012 10:34:06 +0100, Charles E.
>(except in a couple of typically tedious Big Finish rip-offs).
>
>"I am a Wirrn."
>
>No you're not, you're Wee Nicky Briggs using the same voice you use
>for all the other monsters but with marginally different settings on
>your precious antique ring modulater.
>
>
>
Care to be a Wirrn?
Your Name
Apr 12, 2012, 9:25:44 PM4/12/12
to
> Daleks - Lovable Monsters?
They apparently are if you're a teenage Japanese girl ...
Hello Kitty Dalek
<http://nerdapproved.com/misc-weirdness/hello-kitty-dalek-made-of-more-awesome-than-dalekanium/>
<http://nerdapproved.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/dalek-350x515.jpg>
Hello Kitty Dalek 2
<http://26.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m1pmjnJ8Ck1r5svk0o1_500.jpg>
;-)
Message has been deleted
The Doctor
Apr 13, 2012, 10:05:17 AM4/13/12
to
The Doctor
Apr 13, 2012, 10:05:46 AM4/13/12
to
In article <chine.bleu-8C7D1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
>how badass these extraterristrials appear to be, everytime they include humans
>in their games, it's the humans that win. Acid blood is no match for a nuclear
>explosion.
>
>--
>My name Indigo Montoya. | R'lyeh 38o57'6.5''S 102o51'16''E.
>You flamed my father. | I'm whoever you want me to be.
>Prepare to be spanked. | Annoying Usenet one post at a time.
>Stop posting that! | At least I can stay in character.
And then you have the Gallifreyan Death Zone.
> Peter J Ross <p...@example.invalid> wrote:
>
>> In rec.arts.drwho on Mon, 9 Apr 2012 10:34:06 +0100, Charles E.
>> Hardwidge <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> >
>
>> In rec.arts.drwho on Mon, 9 Apr 2012 10:34:06 +0100, Charles E.
>> Hardwidge <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> And what happened to the Wirrn? They've been very quiet recently
>> (except in a couple of typically tedious Big Finish rip-offs).
>>
>> "I am a Wirrn."
>>
>> No you're not, you're Wee Nicky Briggs using the same voice you use
>> for all the other monsters but with marginally different settings on
>> your precious antique ring modulater.
>
>I heard a comment about Aliens, Predators, Aliens vs Predators, etc: no matter
>> (except in a couple of typically tedious Big Finish rip-offs).
>>
>> "I am a Wirrn."
>>
>> No you're not, you're Wee Nicky Briggs using the same voice you use
>> for all the other monsters but with marginally different settings on
>> your precious antique ring modulater.
>
>how badass these extraterristrials appear to be, everytime they include humans
>in their games, it's the humans that win. Acid blood is no match for a nuclear
>explosion.
>
>--
>My name Indigo Montoya. | R'lyeh 38o57'6.5''S 102o51'16''E.
>You flamed my father. | I'm whoever you want me to be.
>Prepare to be spanked. | Annoying Usenet one post at a time.
>Stop posting that! | At least I can stay in character.
And then you have the Gallifreyan Death Zone.
solar penguin
Apr 13, 2012, 11:31:48 AM4/13/12
to
The Doctor wrote:
> In article <chine.bleu-8C7D1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> China Blue Water Navy <chine...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >I heard a comment about Aliens, Predators, Aliens vs Predators, etc: no matter
> >how badass these extraterristrials appear to be, everytime they include humans
> >in their games, it's the humans that win. Acid blood is no match for a nuclear
> >explosion.
> >
> >--
>
> And then you have the Gallifreyan Death Zone.
> --
I thought it was the other way round. The Gallifreyan Death Zone came
> --
first, before the "Aliens vs Predators" franchise.
The Doctor
Apr 13, 2012, 6:34:27 PM4/13/12
to
Mr.Smartypants
Apr 13, 2012, 11:30:57 PM4/13/12
to
On Apr 13, 8:05 am, doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) wrote:
> In article <YourName-1304121325440...@203-118-187-25.dsl.dyn.ihug.co.nz>,
Aggy the cat botherer may well take a liking to them.
> In article <YourName-1304121325440...@203-118-187-25.dsl.dyn.ihug.co.nz>,
>
> Your Name <YourN...@YourISP.com> wrote:
>
> >> Daleks - Lovable Monsters?
>
> >They apparently are if you're a teenage Japanese girl ...
>
> >Hello Kitty Dalek
> ><http://nerdapproved.com/misc-weirdness/hello-kitty-dalek-made-of-more...>
> Your Name <YourN...@YourISP.com> wrote:
>
> >> Daleks - Lovable Monsters?
>
> >They apparently are if you're a teenage Japanese girl ...
>
> >Hello Kitty Dalek
> ><http://nerdapproved.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/dalek-350x515.jpg>
>
> >Hello Kitty Dalek 2
> ><http://26.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m1pmjnJ8Ck1r5svk0o1_500.jpg>
>
> >;-)
>
> Mr>SmartyPAnts might like.
> --
Cartoon character cats don't do anything for me. On the other hand
>
> >Hello Kitty Dalek 2
> ><http://26.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m1pmjnJ8Ck1r5svk0o1_500.jpg>
>
> >;-)
>
> Mr>SmartyPAnts might like.
> --
Aggy the cat botherer may well take a liking to them.
The Doctor
Apr 14, 2012, 8:28:00 AM4/14/12
to
In article <8029349d-de8a-49f2...@z3g2000pbn.googlegroups.com>,
Mr.Smartypants <bunghol...@lycos.com> wrote:
Mr.SmartyPants is a luser lurker stalker.
Mr.Smartypants <bunghol...@lycos.com> wrote:
>On Apr 13, 8:05=A0am, doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) wrote:
>> In article <YourName-1304121325440...@203-118-187-25.dsl.dyn.ihug.co.nz>,
>>
>> Your Name <YourN...@YourISP.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> Daleks - Lovable Monsters?
>>
>> >They apparently are if you're a teenage Japanese girl ...
>>
>> >Hello Kitty Dalek
>> ><http://nerdapproved.com/misc-weirdness/hello-kitty-dalek-made-of-more..=
>> In article <YourName-1304121325440...@203-118-187-25.dsl.dyn.ihug.co.nz>,
>>
>> Your Name <YourN...@YourISP.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> Daleks - Lovable Monsters?
>>
>> >They apparently are if you're a teenage Japanese girl ...
>>
>> >Hello Kitty Dalek
>.>
>> ><http://nerdapproved.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/dalek-350x515.jpg>
>>
>> >Hello Kitty Dalek 2
>> ><http://26.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m1pmjnJ8Ck1r5svk0o1_500.jpg>
>>
>> >;-)
>>
>> Mr>SmartyPAnts might like.
>> --
>
>
>Cartoon character cats don't do anything for me. On the other hand
>Aggy the cat botherer may well take a liking to them.
Lies chronic liar and satanic illuminati anti-Semitic bigot Mr.Smartypants .
>> ><http://nerdapproved.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/dalek-350x515.jpg>
>>
>> >Hello Kitty Dalek 2
>> ><http://26.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m1pmjnJ8Ck1r5svk0o1_500.jpg>
>>
>> >;-)
>>
>> Mr>SmartyPAnts might like.
>> --
>
>
>Cartoon character cats don't do anything for me. On the other hand
>Aggy the cat botherer may well take a liking to them.
Mr.SmartyPants is a luser lurker stalker.
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
The Doctor
Apr 14, 2012, 5:29:54 PM4/14/12
to
In article <chine.bleu-3D71A...@news.x-privat.org>,
>You don't want humans in your alien gladitorial death zone games. Improvised
>diamond cannons are for wimpy starship captains. Give a real human a few days,
>and they'll have the native fauna armed with flintlocks and tactical nuclear
>missiles.
China Blue Screen of Death <chine...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>In article <7db373be-8807-4c33...@n5g2000vbf.googlegroups.com>,
> solar penguin <solar....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>In article <7db373be-8807-4c33...@n5g2000vbf.googlegroups.com>,
> solar penguin <solar....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>diamond cannons are for wimpy starship captains. Give a real human a few days,
>and they'll have the native fauna armed with flintlocks and tactical nuclear
>missiles.
>
>--
>My name Indigo Montoya. | R'lyeh 38o57'6.5''S 102o51'16''E.
>You flamed my father. | I'm whoever you want me to be.
>Prepare to be spanked. | Annoying Usenet one post at a time.
>Stop posting that! | At least I can stay in character.
Good Skaro!
>--
>My name Indigo Montoya. | R'lyeh 38o57'6.5''S 102o51'16''E.
>You flamed my father. | I'm whoever you want me to be.
>Prepare to be spanked. | Annoying Usenet one post at a time.
>Stop posting that! | At least I can stay in character.
meowmix
Apr 15, 2012, 10:05:11 AM4/15/12
to
On Thu, 12 Apr 2012 23:38:52 +0000 (UTC), Peter J Ross <p...@example.invalid> wrote:
>In rec.arts.drwho on 9 Apr 2012 04:49:14 +0100, Orson Cart
>Were the inflatable Amy Ponds doing any better?
i was looking at an imdb page of the the hotest <ali g> punani </ali g> in film and tv. she made it into the top 10.
>In rec.arts.drwho on 9 Apr 2012 04:49:14 +0100, Orson Cart
i was looking at an imdb page of the the hotest <ali g> punani </ali g> in film and tv. she made it into the top 10.
meowmix
Apr 15, 2012, 10:19:03 AM4/15/12
to
On Sun, 08 Apr 2012 16:31:27 +0100, FishFood <do...@home.com> wrote:
>What happens when our monsters are loved as much as our heroes?
>
>Im i the only one who thinks its odd how the Daleks have over
>time become this lovable set piece? A menace in name only.
they're now a parrody, or do i mean pantomime, of themselves.
>What happens when our monsters are loved as much as our heroes?
>
>Im i the only one who thinks its odd how the Daleks have over
>time become this lovable set piece? A menace in name only.
>There's something about their familiarity which now makes them
>toothless as monsters, so that they have lost all meaning.
>Any future story featuring these cybernetic villains would have
>to address the issue of their menace, in a way which repositions
>them as objects of loathing.
look shit. as for the new cybermen, evertime i see one i just think megaman from the nintendo games.
>Otherwise what's the point? Whats the point of the story or the
>character, if the audience can't draw obvious line between good
>and evil?
orogin and need to see the daleks in thier true evil colours.
>I suppose the next generation of DW fans will have a darker
>re-imagining of DW to look forward to, the same way comic book
>The Batman, is now the Gothic novel Dark knight.
them anymore. in the old days when the daleks turned up it was something special. now its just 'oh, look, its the daleks
again this week'.
the beeb is about to fuck up once again with the weeping angels (i seem to recal the beeb won a hugo for them), they're going
to be in the next series.
meowmix
Apr 15, 2012, 10:20:38 AM4/15/12
to
On Sun, 8 Apr 2012 19:43:23 +0100, "Soze" <I...@salsbury42.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>>"FishFood" wrote in message news:jlsb0d$7dv$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
>
>
>
>>"FishFood" wrote in message news:jlsb0d$7dv$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
>
>>What happens when our monsters are loved as much as our heroes?
>
>>Im i the only one who thinks its odd how the Daleks have over
>>time become this lovable set piece? A menace in name only.
>
>
>>Im i the only one who thinks its odd how the Daleks have over
>>time become this lovable set piece? A menace in name only.
>
>>There's something about their familiarity which now makes them
>>toothless as monsters, so that they have lost all meaning.
>
>>toothless as monsters, so that they have lost all meaning.
>
>>Any future story featuring these cybernetic villains would have
>>to address the issue of their menace, in a way which repositions
>>them as objects of loathing.
>
>>to address the issue of their menace, in a way which repositions
>>them as objects of loathing.
>
>>Otherwise what's the point? Whats the point of the story or the
>>character, if the audience can't draw obvious line between good
>>and evil?
>
>>character, if the audience can't draw obvious line between good
>>and evil?
>
>>I suppose the next generation of DW fans will have a darker
>>re-imagining of DW to look forward to, the same way comic book
>>The Batman, is now the Gothic novel Dark knight.
>
>>re-imagining of DW to look forward to, the same way comic book
>>The Batman, is now the Gothic novel Dark knight.
>
>Any long running series is going to have the same problem with a recurring
>villain. Particularly a family show such as Dr Who where the good guys
>always win. Every time the daleks come back, they get defeated. Inevitably
>they'll lose their threat, the audience will see them and just think 'pfff,
>it's these clowns again, they get the ass kicked every other year'. I'd say
>the cybermen and The Master suffer the same problem, The Master pretty much
>from the off when he was scripted to appear in every story in the 8th
>series. For a villain to maintain some form of threat he / they have to be
>seen to win from time to time.
or at least a stalemate where there is no clear winner or looser.
>villain. Particularly a family show such as Dr Who where the good guys
>always win. Every time the daleks come back, they get defeated. Inevitably
>they'll lose their threat, the audience will see them and just think 'pfff,
>it's these clowns again, they get the ass kicked every other year'. I'd say
>the cybermen and The Master suffer the same problem, The Master pretty much
>from the off when he was scripted to appear in every story in the 8th
>series. For a villain to maintain some form of threat he / they have to be
>seen to win from time to time.
>For all it's faults at least Victory of the Daleks seemed to acknowledge
>this. Although The Doctor stops them from blowing up the Earth ( or whatever
>they were trying to do, I've forgotten to be honest ) they not only escape
>but seem to grow stronger before doing so. I'd like to see them achieve
>whatever they're trying to in the next series and then perhaps have The
>Doctor go on to defeat them the following year or in whatever the 50th
>anniversary story is.
meowmix
Apr 15, 2012, 10:24:25 AM4/15/12
to
On Mon, 9 Apr 2012 00:27:34 +0100, Andrew M <andrew_...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>On 2012-04-08 15:31:27 +0000, FishFood said:
>
>> What happens when our monsters are loved as much as our heroes?
>>
>> Im i the only one who thinks its odd how the Daleks have over
>> time become this lovable set piece? A menace in name only.
>>
>> There's something about their familiarity which now makes them
>> toothless as monsters, so that they have lost all meaning.
>>
>> Any future story featuring these cybernetic villains would have
>> to address the issue of their menace, in a way which repositions
>> them as objects of loathing.
>>
>> Otherwise what's the point? Whats the point of the story or the
>> character, if the audience can't draw obvious line between good
>> and evil?
>>
>> I suppose the next generation of DW fans will have a darker
>> re-imagining of DW to look forward to, the same way comic book
>> The Batman, is now the Gothic novel Dark knight.
>
>This is a problem of any recurring menace, but one which afflicts the
>daleks more than most. This is a menace that can now throw up
>impenetrable force-fields, fly, multiply at unbelievable rates and
>which, apparently, fought the Timelords to the point of desperation.
>And again and again one Timelord obliterates thousands of them only for
>one to slip away and recreate the menace.
>
>It's a tired concept. The daleks need a long rest - several years in my
>opinion - an a long. long rethink
i couldn't agree more. they have been way over used and abused.
this thing where they where in the second world war, wouldn't it have helped add to thier credibility as evil if they where
on the germans side? a missed opportunity if ever there was one.
>On 2012-04-08 15:31:27 +0000, FishFood said:
>
>> What happens when our monsters are loved as much as our heroes?
>>
>> Im i the only one who thinks its odd how the Daleks have over
>> time become this lovable set piece? A menace in name only.
>>
>> There's something about their familiarity which now makes them
>> toothless as monsters, so that they have lost all meaning.
>>
>> Any future story featuring these cybernetic villains would have
>> to address the issue of their menace, in a way which repositions
>> them as objects of loathing.
>>
>> Otherwise what's the point? Whats the point of the story or the
>> character, if the audience can't draw obvious line between good
>> and evil?
>>
>> I suppose the next generation of DW fans will have a darker
>> re-imagining of DW to look forward to, the same way comic book
>> The Batman, is now the Gothic novel Dark knight.
>
>daleks more than most. This is a menace that can now throw up
>impenetrable force-fields, fly, multiply at unbelievable rates and
>which, apparently, fought the Timelords to the point of desperation.
>And again and again one Timelord obliterates thousands of them only for
>one to slip away and recreate the menace.
>
>It's a tired concept. The daleks need a long rest - several years in my
>opinion - an a long. long rethink
i couldn't agree more. they have been way over used and abused.
this thing where they where in the second world war, wouldn't it have helped add to thier credibility as evil if they where
on the germans side? a missed opportunity if ever there was one.
meowmix
Apr 15, 2012, 10:26:14 AM4/15/12
to
On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 00:26:06 +0000 (UTC), doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) wrote:
>In article <c789ad98-1512-4e6a...@t2g2000pbg.googlegroups.com>,
>Duggy <p.allan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>On Apr 9, 7:34=A0pm, "Charles E. Hardwidge" <nos...@nospam.invalid>
>>wrote:
>>> That and non-occurring villains. Whatever happened to those ones in the
>>> first series of Star Trek: TNG that sent an ominous signal into space? Al=
>>l
>>> that duh-duh-dur build up and we never heard of them again. I feel robbed=
>>.
>>
>>True. At least the threat from the previous episode (carved a colony
>>out off a planet) turned out the be the Borg (although their first
>>appearance suggested they were a long way from this Quadrant not
>>already visiting). Also that turned out to be a forgotten gimmick as
>>they didn't seem to ever do much colony carving after that.
>>
>>=3D=3D=3D
>>=3D DUG.
>>=3D=3D=3D
>
>Borg vs Cybermen ... I wonder .
i was wondering the same thing the other day.
>In article <c789ad98-1512-4e6a...@t2g2000pbg.googlegroups.com>,
>Duggy <p.allan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>On Apr 9, 7:34=A0pm, "Charles E. Hardwidge" <nos...@nospam.invalid>
>>wrote:
>>> That and non-occurring villains. Whatever happened to those ones in the
>>> first series of Star Trek: TNG that sent an ominous signal into space? Al=
>>l
>>> that duh-duh-dur build up and we never heard of them again. I feel robbed=
>>.
>>
>>True. At least the threat from the previous episode (carved a colony
>>out off a planet) turned out the be the Borg (although their first
>>appearance suggested they were a long way from this Quadrant not
>>already visiting). Also that turned out to be a forgotten gimmick as
>>they didn't seem to ever do much colony carving after that.
>>
>>=3D=3D=3D
>>=3D DUG.
>>=3D=3D=3D
>
>Borg vs Cybermen ... I wonder .
Message has been deleted
meowmix
Apr 15, 2012, 1:04:51 PM4/15/12
to
On Sun, 15 Apr 2012 08:31:21 -0700, "In a very dark China Blue, China Blue condition." <chine...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>In article <kjmlo71rbnlb62n9c...@4ax.com>,
>If I had a mind to
>I wouldn't want to think like you
>And if I had time to
>I wouldn't want to talk to you
>
>I don't care
>What you do
>I wouldn't want to be like you
i feel so tainted and dirty right now. normaly i like you, now i think you're just a bully. <hoists pettyskirt and skirt and
flounces off>
>In article <kjmlo71rbnlb62n9c...@4ax.com>,
>I wouldn't want to think like you
>And if I had time to
>I wouldn't want to talk to you
>
>I don't care
>What you do
>I wouldn't want to be like you
i feel so tainted and dirty right now. normaly i like you, now i think you're just a bully. <hoists pettyskirt and skirt and
flounces off>
The Doctor
Apr 15, 2012, 5:19:19 PM4/15/12
to
Message has been deleted
meowmix
Apr 16, 2012, 6:05:34 PM4/16/12
to
On Sun, 15 Apr 2012 17:34:39 -0700, "In a very dark China Blue, China Blue condition." <chine...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>In article <qqvlo7httu3avnhgf...@4ax.com>,
>I blame Alan Parsons.
the dirty rat bastard. sadly he was nowhere near as big here as everywhere else.
>I'll say any damn thing that you want me to
>'Cause it don't mean a thing to me
>
>Well, you lie down with dogs, you fall in with thieves
>You're gonna catch something but you do as you please
>You're scratchin' an itch that nothing can ease
>You lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas
i'm tempted to go dig out some of the old stuff and give it a spin. i've not listend to any for a hell of a long time. i'm
still trying to work out which version of the first king krimson lp to dl after ah was talking about it a few weeks back.
>In article <qqvlo7httu3avnhgf...@4ax.com>,
the dirty rat bastard. sadly he was nowhere near as big here as everywhere else.
>I'll say any damn thing that you want me to
>'Cause it don't mean a thing to me
>
>Well, you lie down with dogs, you fall in with thieves
>You're gonna catch something but you do as you please
>You're scratchin' an itch that nothing can ease
>You lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas
i'm tempted to go dig out some of the old stuff and give it a spin. i've not listend to any for a hell of a long time. i'm
still trying to work out which version of the first king krimson lp to dl after ah was talking about it a few weeks back.
meowmix
Apr 16, 2012, 6:08:00 PM4/16/12
to
On Sun, 15 Apr 2012 21:19:19 +0000 (UTC), doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) wrote:
>In article <kjmlo71rbnlb62n9c...@4ax.com>,
>meowmix <meow.mix@FUCK_OFF_SPAMMER_meow.org> wrote:
>>On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 00:26:06 +0000 (UTC), doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) wrote:
>>
>>>In article <c789ad98-1512-4e6a...@t2g2000pbg.googlegroups.com>,
>>>Duggy <p.allan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>On Apr 9, 7:34=A0pm, "Charles E. Hardwidge" <nos...@nospam.invalid>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>> That and non-occurring villains. Whatever happened to those ones in the
>>>>> first series of Star Trek: TNG that sent an ominous signal into space? Al=
>>>>l
>>>>> that duh-duh-dur build up and we never heard of them again. I feel robbed=
>>>>.
>>>>
>>>>True. At least the threat from the previous episode (carved a colony
>>>>out off a planet) turned out the be the Borg (although their first
>>>>appearance suggested they were a long way from this Quadrant not
>>>>already visiting). Also that turned out to be a forgotten gimmick as
>>>>they didn't seem to ever do much colony carving after that.
>>>>
>>>>=3D=3D=3D
>>>>=3D DUG.
>>>>=3D=3D=3D
>>>
>>>Borg vs Cybermen ... I wonder .
>>
>>i was wondering the same thing the other day.
>
>Cybermen convert, Borg upgrade.
i wonder why paramount didn't have the balls to go the whole hog and call 7 of 9 6 of 9?
>In article <kjmlo71rbnlb62n9c...@4ax.com>,
>meowmix <meow.mix@FUCK_OFF_SPAMMER_meow.org> wrote:
>>On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 00:26:06 +0000 (UTC), doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) wrote:
>>
>>>In article <c789ad98-1512-4e6a...@t2g2000pbg.googlegroups.com>,
>>>Duggy <p.allan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>On Apr 9, 7:34=A0pm, "Charles E. Hardwidge" <nos...@nospam.invalid>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>> That and non-occurring villains. Whatever happened to those ones in the
>>>>> first series of Star Trek: TNG that sent an ominous signal into space? Al=
>>>>l
>>>>> that duh-duh-dur build up and we never heard of them again. I feel robbed=
>>>>.
>>>>
>>>>True. At least the threat from the previous episode (carved a colony
>>>>out off a planet) turned out the be the Borg (although their first
>>>>appearance suggested they were a long way from this Quadrant not
>>>>already visiting). Also that turned out to be a forgotten gimmick as
>>>>they didn't seem to ever do much colony carving after that.
>>>>
>>>>=3D=3D=3D
>>>>=3D DUG.
>>>>=3D=3D=3D
>>>
>>>Borg vs Cybermen ... I wonder .
>>
>>i was wondering the same thing the other day.
>
>Cybermen convert, Borg upgrade.
The Doctor
Apr 16, 2012, 6:17:46 PM4/16/12
to
Aunt the Agony of Six of Nine or Half-dozen of the Other of the Borg
Apr 16, 2012, 6:46:59 PM4/16/12
to
In article <706po7pnhfoetg41e...@4ax.com>,
Or half-dozen of the other?
--
Aren't you special. Tell me your problems.
--
Aren't you special. Tell me your problems.
The Doctor
Apr 16, 2012, 6:51:33 PM4/16/12
to
meowmix
Apr 21, 2012, 8:13:20 AM4/21/12
to
meowmix
Apr 21, 2012, 8:13:14 AM4/21/12
to
The Doctor
Apr 21, 2012, 8:28:17 AM4/21/12
to
In article <s295p79dgocne4fpi...@4ax.com>,
Make a guess.
--
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://www.fullyfollow.me/rootnl2k Alberta! Time to dump team extreme right
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!
The Doctor
Apr 21, 2012, 8:28:54 AM4/21/12
to
In article <m295p75v7d0o5uiai...@4ax.com>,
I got you.
--
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://www.fullyfollow.me/rootnl2k Alberta! Time to dump team extreme right
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!
Duggy
Apr 21, 2012, 9:13:34 AM4/21/12
to
On Apr 17, 8:08 am, meowmix <meow.mix@FUCK_OFF_SPAMMER_meow.org>
wrote:
===
= DUG.
===
wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Apr 2012 21:19:19 +0000 (UTC), doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) wrote:
> >In article <kjmlo71rbnlb62n9cdtnd140jndvmhk...@4ax.com>,
> >meowmix <meow.mix@FUCK_OFF_SPAMMER_meow.org> wrote:
> >>On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 00:26:06 +0000 (UTC), doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) wrote:
>
> >>>In article <c789ad98-1512-4e6a-844a-a4cefb6b3...@t2g2000pbg.googlegroups.com>,
> >>On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 00:26:06 +0000 (UTC), doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) wrote:
>
> >>>Duggy <p.allan.dug...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>On Apr 9, 7:34=A0pm, "Charles E. Hardwidge" <nos...@nospam.invalid>
> >>>>wrote:
> >>>>> That and non-occurring villains. Whatever happened to those ones in the
> >>>>> first series of Star Trek: TNG that sent an ominous signal into space? Al=
> >>>>l
> >>>>> that duh-duh-dur build up and we never heard of them again. I feel robbed=
> >>>>.
>
> >>>>True. At least the threat from the previous episode (carved a colony
> >>>>out off a planet) turned out the be the Borg (although their first
> >>>>appearance suggested they were a long way from this Quadrant not
> >>>>already visiting). Also that turned out to be a forgotten gimmick as
> >>>>they didn't seem to ever do much colony carving after that.
>
> >>>>=3D=3D=3D
> >>>>=3D DUG.
> >>>>=3D=3D=3D
>
> >>>Borg vs Cybermen ... I wonder .
>
> >>i was wondering the same thing the other day.
>
> >Cybermen convert, Borg upgrade.
>
> i wonder why paramount didn't have the balls to go the whole hog and call 7 of 9 6 of 9?
The same reason they changed the girl agent's name to 99 in Get Smart.
> >>>>On Apr 9, 7:34=A0pm, "Charles E. Hardwidge" <nos...@nospam.invalid>
> >>>>wrote:
> >>>>> That and non-occurring villains. Whatever happened to those ones in the
> >>>>> first series of Star Trek: TNG that sent an ominous signal into space? Al=
> >>>>l
> >>>>> that duh-duh-dur build up and we never heard of them again. I feel robbed=
> >>>>.
>
> >>>>True. At least the threat from the previous episode (carved a colony
> >>>>out off a planet) turned out the be the Borg (although their first
> >>>>appearance suggested they were a long way from this Quadrant not
> >>>>already visiting). Also that turned out to be a forgotten gimmick as
> >>>>they didn't seem to ever do much colony carving after that.
>
> >>>>=3D=3D=3D
> >>>>=3D DUG.
> >>>>=3D=3D=3D
>
> >>>Borg vs Cybermen ... I wonder .
>
> >>i was wondering the same thing the other day.
>
> >Cybermen convert, Borg upgrade.
>
> i wonder why paramount didn't have the balls to go the whole hog and call 7 of 9 6 of 9?
===
= DUG.
===
meowmix
Apr 21, 2012, 10:21:21 AM4/21/12
to
meowmix
Apr 21, 2012, 10:21:26 AM4/21/12
to
>===
>= DUG.
>===
The Doctor
Apr 21, 2012, 6:14:52 PM4/21/12
to
Duggy
Apr 21, 2012, 7:52:52 PM4/21/12
to
On Apr 22, 12:21 am, meowmix <meow.mix@FUCK_OFF_SPAMMER_meow.org>
wrote:
===
= DUG.
===
wrote:
> On Sat, 21 Apr 2012 06:13:34 -0700 (PDT), Duggy <p.allan.dug...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >The same reason they changed the girl agent's name to 99 in Get Smart.
>
> i haven't seen it or know what it is.
You don't know "Get Smart"?
> >The same reason they changed the girl agent's name to 99 in Get Smart.
>
> i haven't seen it or know what it is.
===
= DUG.
===
meowmix
Apr 27, 2012, 7:40:27 AM4/27/12
to
>===
>= DUG.
>===
solar penguin
Apr 27, 2012, 8:09:33 AM4/27/12
to
sixties American sitcoms in the 5pm post-Countdown slot) and on UK
Gold in the nineties.
meowmix
Apr 27, 2012, 8:14:13 AM4/27/12
to
On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 05:09:33 -0700 (PDT), solar penguin <solar....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>meowmix wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 21 Apr 2012 16:52:52 -0700 (PDT), Duggy <p.allan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Apr 22, 12:21?am, meowmix <meow.mix@FUCK_OFF_SPAMMER_meow.org>
>
>meowmix wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 21 Apr 2012 16:52:52 -0700 (PDT), Duggy <p.allan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >wrote:
>> >> On Sat, 21 Apr 2012 06:13:34 -0700 (PDT), Duggy <p.allan.dug...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> >The same reason they changed the girl agent's name to 99 in Get Smart.
>> >>
>> >> i haven't seen it or know what it is.
>> >
>> >You don't know "Get Smart"?
>>
>> fraid not. i don't recal it being on british tv.
>>
>
>IIRC it was on Channel 4 in the eighties (when they regularly had old
>sixties American sitcoms in the 5pm post-Countdown slot) and on UK
>Gold in the nineties.
my guess is that it didn't catch my attention as interesting and worth watching. i didn't get sky until the early naughties
>> >> On Sat, 21 Apr 2012 06:13:34 -0700 (PDT), Duggy <p.allan.dug...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> >The same reason they changed the girl agent's name to 99 in Get Smart.
>> >>
>> >> i haven't seen it or know what it is.
>> >
>> >You don't know "Get Smart"?
>>
>> fraid not. i don't recal it being on british tv.
>>
>
>IIRC it was on Channel 4 in the eighties (when they regularly had old
>sixties American sitcoms in the 5pm post-Countdown slot) and on UK
>Gold in the nineties.
as i wasn't botherd about having it before then.
Your Name
Apr 27, 2012, 6:53:18 PM4/27/12
to
In article <fc1lp7lohk14nrhsm...@4ax.com>, meowmix
wasn't any near as good (although had fewer silly changes than most
"remakes").
Don Adams who played the bumbling spy in the original 1960's Get Smart
series also did the voice for the animated Inspector Gadget (another
bumbling spy, although this time with robotic enhancements).
<meow.mix@FUCK_OFF_SPAMMER_meow.org> wrote:
> On Sat, 21 Apr 2012 16:52:52 -0700 (PDT), Duggy
<p.allan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Apr 22, 12:21 am, meowmix <meow.mix@FUCK_OFF_SPAMMER_meow.org>
> >wrote:
> >> On Sat, 21 Apr 2012 06:13:34 -0700 (PDT), Duggy
<p.allan.dug...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> >The same reason they changed the girl agent's name to 99 in Get Smart.
> >>
> >> i haven't seen it or know what it is.
> >
> >You don't know "Get Smart"?
>
> fraid not. i don't recal it being on british tv.
There was a recent-ish movie version, but like all movie-ised versions it
> On Sat, 21 Apr 2012 16:52:52 -0700 (PDT), Duggy
<p.allan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Apr 22, 12:21 am, meowmix <meow.mix@FUCK_OFF_SPAMMER_meow.org>
> >wrote:
> >> On Sat, 21 Apr 2012 06:13:34 -0700 (PDT), Duggy
<p.allan.dug...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> >The same reason they changed the girl agent's name to 99 in Get Smart.
> >>
> >> i haven't seen it or know what it is.
> >
> >You don't know "Get Smart"?
>
> fraid not. i don't recal it being on british tv.
wasn't any near as good (although had fewer silly changes than most
"remakes").
Don Adams who played the bumbling spy in the original 1960's Get Smart
series also did the voice for the animated Inspector Gadget (another
bumbling spy, although this time with robotic enhancements).
Michael Black
Apr 27, 2012, 7:07:31 PM4/27/12
to
did better in Europe because Sylvia Kristel was in it.
But then "Get Smart", the movie, with Anne Hathaway as Agent 99, came out
a few years ago (I think more than a few at this point), but seemed to
sink pretty fast.
Don Adams also played the bumbling grocery store manager in "Check it
Out", a sitcom set in a grocery store, some of Canada's finest tv.
Michael
The Doctor
Apr 27, 2012, 7:24:25 PM4/27/12
to
In article <Pine.LNX.4.64.12...@darkstar.example.net>,
Michael Black <et...@ncf.ca> wrote:
> This message is in MIME format. The first part should be readable text,
> while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools.
>
>--8323328-1399440470-1335568051=:4283
>Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=X-UNKNOWN; format=flowed
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE
>=2E
>=20
>a few years ago (I think more than a few at this point), but seemed to=20
>sink pretty fast.
>
>Don Adams also played the bumbling grocery store manager in "Check it=20
Smart and interesting.
Michael Black <et...@ncf.ca> wrote:
> This message is in MIME format. The first part should be readable text,
> while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools.
>
>--8323328-1399440470-1335568051=:4283
>Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=X-UNKNOWN; format=flowed
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE
>
>On Sat, 28 Apr 2012, Your Name wrote:
>
>> In article <fc1lp7lohk14nrhsm...@4ax.com>, meowmix
>> <meow.mix@FUCK_OFF_SPAMMER_meow.org> wrote:
>>> On Sat, 21 Apr 2012 16:52:52 -0700 (PDT), Duggy
>> <p.allan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Apr 22, 12:21=A0am, meowmix <meow.mix@FUCK_OFF_SPAMMER_meow.org>
>On Sat, 28 Apr 2012, Your Name wrote:
>
>> In article <fc1lp7lohk14nrhsm...@4ax.com>, meowmix
>> <meow.mix@FUCK_OFF_SPAMMER_meow.org> wrote:
>>> On Sat, 21 Apr 2012 16:52:52 -0700 (PDT), Duggy
>> <p.allan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 21 Apr 2012 06:13:34 -0700 (PDT), Duggy
>> <p.allan.dug...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> The same reason they changed the girl agent's name to 99 in Get Smart=
>>>>> On Sat, 21 Apr 2012 06:13:34 -0700 (PDT), Duggy
>> <p.allan.dug...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>=2E
>>>>>
>>>>> i haven't seen it or know what it is.
>>>>
>>>> You don't know "Get Smart"?
>>>
>>> fraid not. i don't recal it being on british tv.
>>
>> There was a recent-ish movie version, but like all movie-ised versions it
>> wasn't any near as good (although had fewer silly changes than most
>> "remakes").
>>
>>
>> Don Adams who played the bumbling spy in the original 1960's Get Smart
>> series also did the voice for the animated Inspector Gadget (another
>> bumbling spy, although this time with robotic enhancements).
>>
>The Nude Bomb from about 30 years ago was a theatrical release, maybe it=20
>>>>> i haven't seen it or know what it is.
>>>>
>>>> You don't know "Get Smart"?
>>>
>>> fraid not. i don't recal it being on british tv.
>>
>> There was a recent-ish movie version, but like all movie-ised versions it
>> wasn't any near as good (although had fewer silly changes than most
>> "remakes").
>>
>>
>> Don Adams who played the bumbling spy in the original 1960's Get Smart
>> series also did the voice for the animated Inspector Gadget (another
>> bumbling spy, although this time with robotic enhancements).
>>
>did better in Europe because Sylvia Kristel was in it.
>
>But then "Get Smart", the movie, with Anne Hathaway as Agent 99, came out=
>
>=20
>a few years ago (I think more than a few at this point), but seemed to=20
>sink pretty fast.
>
>Don Adams also played the bumbling grocery store manager in "Check it=20
>Out", a sitcom set in a grocery store, some of Canada's finest tv.
>
> Michael
>
>--8323328-1399440470-1335568051=:4283--
>
> Michael
>
Smart and interesting.
--
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://www.fullyfollow.me/rootnl2k Alberta! VOTE!
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!
anim8rFSK
Apr 27, 2012, 8:08:47 PM4/27/12
to
> On Sat, 28 Apr 2012, Your Name wrote:
>
> > In article <fc1lp7lohk14nrhsm...@4ax.com>, meowmix
> > <meow.mix@FUCK_OFF_SPAMMER_meow.org> wrote:
> >> On Sat, 21 Apr 2012 16:52:52 -0700 (PDT), Duggy
> > <p.allan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Apr 22, 12:21İam, meowmix <meow.mix@FUCK_OFF_SPAMMER_meow.org>
>
> > In article <fc1lp7lohk14nrhsm...@4ax.com>, meowmix
> > <meow.mix@FUCK_OFF_SPAMMER_meow.org> wrote:
> >> On Sat, 21 Apr 2012 16:52:52 -0700 (PDT), Duggy
> > <p.allan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> wrote:
> >>>> On Sat, 21 Apr 2012 06:13:34 -0700 (PDT), Duggy
> > <p.allan.dug...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>> The same reason they changed the girl agent's name to 99 in Get Smart.
> >>>>
> >>>> i haven't seen it or know what it is.
> >>>
> >>> You don't know "Get Smart"?
> >>
> >> fraid not. i don't recal it being on british tv.
> >
> > There was a recent-ish movie version, but like all movie-ised versions it
> > wasn't any near as good (although had fewer silly changes than most
> > "remakes").
> >
> >
> > Don Adams who played the bumbling spy in the original 1960's Get Smart
> > series also did the voice for the animated Inspector Gadget (another
> > bumbling spy, although this time with robotic enhancements).
> >
> The Nude Bomb from about 30 years ago was a theatrical release, maybe it
> did better in Europe because Sylvia Kristel was in it.
Sigh. A movie called "The Nude Bomb" with no nudity in it, trying to
> >>>> On Sat, 21 Apr 2012 06:13:34 -0700 (PDT), Duggy
> > <p.allan.dug...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>> The same reason they changed the girl agent's name to 99 in Get Smart.
> >>>>
> >>>> i haven't seen it or know what it is.
> >>>
> >>> You don't know "Get Smart"?
> >>
> >> fraid not. i don't recal it being on british tv.
> >
> > There was a recent-ish movie version, but like all movie-ised versions it
> > wasn't any near as good (although had fewer silly changes than most
> > "remakes").
> >
> >
> > Don Adams who played the bumbling spy in the original 1960's Get Smart
> > series also did the voice for the animated Inspector Gadget (another
> > bumbling spy, although this time with robotic enhancements).
> >
> The Nude Bomb from about 30 years ago was a theatrical release, maybe it
> did better in Europe because Sylvia Kristel was in it.
cash in on "Get Smart" without bothering to use the name, and they
wonder why it flopped.
>
> But then "Get Smart", the movie, with Anne Hathaway as Agent 99, came out
> a few years ago (I think more than a few at this point), but seemed to
> sink pretty fast.
You skipped the actual Get Smart reunion movie as well as the horrendous
> But then "Get Smart", the movie, with Anne Hathaway as Agent 99, came out
> a few years ago (I think more than a few at this point), but seemed to
> sink pretty fast.
reunion series.
>
> Don Adams also played the bumbling grocery store manager in "Check it
> Out", a sitcom set in a grocery store, some of Canada's finest tv.
>
> Michael
--
> Don Adams also played the bumbling grocery store manager in "Check it
> Out", a sitcom set in a grocery store, some of Canada's finest tv.
>
> Michael
So we're all agreed that Clod is as stupid as Charlie Sheen?
Raymond Daley
Apr 28, 2012, 7:13:56 AM4/28/12
to
>> >> >The same reason they changed the girl agent's name to 99 in Get
>> >> >Smart.
>> >> i haven't seen it or know what it is.
>> >You don't know "Get Smart"?
>> fraid not. i don't recal it being on british tv.
It was very awful because all jokes were very much forced on you whether
they worked or not.
It does explain why Americans now find people like Steve Carrell, Will
Ferrell and Adam Sandler funny.
I can personally recall watching about 5 or so episodes.
I believe it aired on Channel 4.
meowmix
Apr 28, 2012, 8:18:45 AM4/28/12
to
meowmix
Apr 28, 2012, 8:20:46 AM4/28/12
to
> Michael
meowmix
Apr 28, 2012, 8:38:52 AM4/28/12
to
way through the first season.
anim8rFSK
Apr 28, 2012, 10:59:07 AM4/28/12
to
In article <NkQmr.6584$Bx1....@fx11.am4>,
Sandler remotely funny.
"Raymond Daley" <raymon...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> >The same reason they changed the girl agent's name to 99 in Get
> >> >> >Smart.
> >> >> i haven't seen it or know what it is.
> >> >You don't know "Get Smart"?
> >> fraid not. i don't recal it being on british tv.
>
> Get Smart has aired on British tv, in the late 80's and early 90's.
> It was very awful because all jokes were very much forced on you whether
> they worked or not.
> It does explain why Americans now find people like Steve Carrell, Will
> Ferrell and Adam Sandler funny.
I liked Get Smart. I don't find Steve Carrell, Will Ferret, or Adam
>
> >> >> >The same reason they changed the girl agent's name to 99 in Get
> >> >> >Smart.
> >> >> i haven't seen it or know what it is.
> >> >You don't know "Get Smart"?
> >> fraid not. i don't recal it being on british tv.
>
> Get Smart has aired on British tv, in the late 80's and early 90's.
> It was very awful because all jokes were very much forced on you whether
> they worked or not.
> It does explain why Americans now find people like Steve Carrell, Will
> Ferrell and Adam Sandler funny.
Sandler remotely funny.
Michael Black
Apr 28, 2012, 1:17:52 PM4/28/12
to
On Sat, 28 Apr 2012, Raymond Daley wrote:
>
>> >> >The same reason they changed the girl agent's name to 99 in Get
>>>>>> Smart.
>>>>> i haven't seen it or know what it is.
>>>> You don't know "Get Smart"?
>>> fraid not. i don't recal it being on british tv.
>
> Get Smart has aired on British tv, in the late 80's and early 90's.
> It was very awful because all jokes were very much forced on you whether
> they worked or not.
> It does explain why Americans now find people like Steve Carrell, Will
> Ferrell and Adam Sandler funny.
>
I wonder if your reaction to it was made worse because you saw it later.
>
>> >> >The same reason they changed the girl agent's name to 99 in Get
>>>>>> Smart.
>>>>> i haven't seen it or know what it is.
>>>> You don't know "Get Smart"?
>>> fraid not. i don't recal it being on british tv.
>
> Get Smart has aired on British tv, in the late 80's and early 90's.
> It was very awful because all jokes were very much forced on you whether
> they worked or not.
> It does explain why Americans now find people like Steve Carrell, Will
> Ferrell and Adam Sandler funny.
>
At least some of the humor came from the period, and maybe doesn't travel
so well later.
Those of us who saw it when it originally aired, seeing it later is a
remembrance of those times.
Michael
David Barnett
Apr 28, 2012, 6:21:21 PM4/28/12
to
In article <anim8rfsk-D88A8F.07590728042012
@news.easynews.com>, anim...@cox.net says...
I agree, & I have watched some episodes of Get Smart 3 or
more times. The only other show I have watched episodes
more than once deliberately is The Vicar of Dibley.
My favorite phrase from the show is "missed it by that
much".
--
David Barnett
@news.easynews.com>, anim...@cox.net says...
more times. The only other show I have watched episodes
more than once deliberately is The Vicar of Dibley.
My favorite phrase from the show is "missed it by that
much".
--
David Barnett
Your Name
Apr 28, 2012, 9:14:39 PM4/28/12
to
In article <MPG.2a07186b9...@news.bigpond.com>, David Barnett
Adam Sandler and co and immature idiots well over 30 years old who still
think fart jokes are funny. Get Smart is on an infinitely higher level on
the comedy scale.
think fart jokes are funny. Get Smart is on an infinitely higher level on
the comedy scale.
Estrogen
Apr 29, 2012, 12:18:07 AM4/29/12
to
On 28/04/2012 8:38 AM, meowmix wrote:
> it would appear i dodged a bullet. so much american tv is complete
> crap and goes on for years, yet quality tv is cancled half
> way through the first season.
That's about the size of it.
> it would appear i dodged a bullet. so much american tv is complete
> crap and goes on for years, yet quality tv is cancled half
> way through the first season.
meowmix
Apr 29, 2012, 12:41:14 PM4/29/12
to
Micky DuPree
May 2, 2012, 1:41:48 AM5/2/12
to
David Barnett <dbar...@bigpond.net.au> writes:
> In article <anim8rfsk-D88A8...@news.easynews.com>,
>> I don't find Steve Carrell, Will Ferret, or Adam Sandler remotely
>> funny.
Me neither.
> I agree, & I have watched some episodes of Get Smart 3 or more times.
It may be an age-related thing. Mel Brooks' style of Borscht Belt humor
used to be in the center of American mainstream pop culture, but it's
been a long time since he came up a brand-new idea that's really taken
off. I think that people who were too young to see _Young Frankenstein_
when it was first-run just never took to his material.
-Micky
> In article <anim8rfsk-D88A8...@news.easynews.com>,
> anim...@cox.net says...
>> In article <NkQmr.6584$Bx1....@fx11.am4>, "Raymond Daley"
>> <raymon...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>>> Get Smart has aired on British tv, in the late 80's and early 90's.
>>> It was very awful because all jokes were very much forced on you
>>> whether they worked or not. It does explain why Americans now find
>>> people like Steve Carrell, Will Ferrell and Adam Sandler funny.
>>
>> I liked Get Smart.
Me too.
>> In article <NkQmr.6584$Bx1....@fx11.am4>, "Raymond Daley"
>> <raymon...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>>> Get Smart has aired on British tv, in the late 80's and early 90's.
>>> It was very awful because all jokes were very much forced on you
>>> whether they worked or not. It does explain why Americans now find
>>> people like Steve Carrell, Will Ferrell and Adam Sandler funny.
>>
>> I liked Get Smart.
>> I don't find Steve Carrell, Will Ferret, or Adam Sandler remotely
>> funny.
> I agree, & I have watched some episodes of Get Smart 3 or more times.
used to be in the center of American mainstream pop culture, but it's
been a long time since he came up a brand-new idea that's really taken
off. I think that people who were too young to see _Young Frankenstein_
when it was first-run just never took to his material.
-Micky
Micky DuPree
May 2, 2012, 2:11:59 AM5/2/12
to
Michael Black <et...@ncf.ca> writes:
> On Sat, 28 Apr 2012, Raymond Daley wrote:
>> Get Smart has aired on British tv, in the late 80's and early 90's.
>> It was very awful because all jokes were very much forced on you
>> whether they worked or not. It does explain why Americans now find
>> people like Steve Carrell, Will Ferrell and Adam Sandler funny.
>
> I wonder if your reaction to it was made worse because you saw it
> later. At least some of the humor came from the period, and maybe
> doesn't travel so well later.
Especially since it came out soon after, and in response to, the
> On Sat, 28 Apr 2012, Raymond Daley wrote:
>> Get Smart has aired on British tv, in the late 80's and early 90's.
>> It was very awful because all jokes were very much forced on you
>> whether they worked or not. It does explain why Americans now find
>> people like Steve Carrell, Will Ferrell and Adam Sandler funny.
>
> I wonder if your reaction to it was made worse because you saw it
> later. At least some of the humor came from the period, and maybe
> doesn't travel so well later.
earliest James Bond films. You can't recapture that sense of topical
spoof for a younger audience: "Control is the best-known secret agency
in the world"; the pompous bad guys; the high-tech spy gadgets that
never quite worked as well as James Bond's gadgets; the episode titles
that were plays on James Bond ("Pussycats Galore") and other recent pop
culture artifacts ("Tequila Mockingbird").
-Micky
Duggy
May 2, 2012, 4:42:17 AM5/2/12
to
On May 2, 3:41 pm, MDuP...@theworld.com.snip.to.reply (Micky DuPree)
wrote:
> David Barnett <dbar3...@bigpond.net.au> writes:
> > In article <anim8rfsk-D88A8F.07590728042...@news.easynews.com>,
> > anim8r...@cox.net says...
> >> In article <NkQmr.6584$Bx1.1...@fx11.am4>, "Raymond Daley"
his first bad one.
===
= DUG.
===
wrote:
> David Barnett <dbar3...@bigpond.net.au> writes:
> > In article <anim8rfsk-D88A8F.07590728042...@news.easynews.com>,
> > anim8r...@cox.net says...
> >> In article <NkQmr.6584$Bx1.1...@fx11.am4>, "Raymond Daley"
> >> <raymond.da...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> >>> Get Smart has aired on British tv, in the late 80's and early 90's.
> >>> It was very awful because all jokes were very much forced on you
> >>> whether they worked or not. It does explain why Americans now find
> >>> people like Steve Carrell, Will Ferrell and Adam Sandler funny.
>
> >> I liked Get Smart.
>
> Me too.
>
> >> I don't find Steve Carrell, Will Ferret, or Adam Sandler remotely
> >> funny.
>
> Me neither.
>
> > I agree, & I have watched some episodes of Get Smart 3 or more times.
>
> It may be an age-related thing. Mel Brooks' style of Borscht Belt humor
> used to be in the center of American mainstream pop culture, but it's
> been a long time since he came up a brand-new idea that's really taken
> off. I think that people who were too young to see _Young Frankenstein_
> when it was first-run just never took to his material.
I always say that I'm not sure if Spaceballs was his last good film or
> >>> Get Smart has aired on British tv, in the late 80's and early 90's.
> >>> It was very awful because all jokes were very much forced on you
> >>> whether they worked or not. It does explain why Americans now find
> >>> people like Steve Carrell, Will Ferrell and Adam Sandler funny.
>
> >> I liked Get Smart.
>
> Me too.
>
> >> I don't find Steve Carrell, Will Ferret, or Adam Sandler remotely
> >> funny.
>
> Me neither.
>
> > I agree, & I have watched some episodes of Get Smart 3 or more times.
>
> It may be an age-related thing. Mel Brooks' style of Borscht Belt humor
> used to be in the center of American mainstream pop culture, but it's
> been a long time since he came up a brand-new idea that's really taken
> off. I think that people who were too young to see _Young Frankenstein_
> when it was first-run just never took to his material.
his first bad one.
===
= DUG.
===
Michael Black
May 2, 2012, 9:56:32 AM5/2/12
to
On Wed, 2 May 2012, Duggy wrote:
>> It may be an age-related thing. Mel Brooks' style of Borscht Belt humor
>> used to be in the center of American mainstream pop culture, but it's
>> been a long time since he came up a brand-new idea that's really taken
>> off. I think that people who were too young to see _Young Frankenstein_
>> when it was first-run just never took to his material.
>
> I always say that I'm not sure if Spaceballs was his last good film or
> his first bad one.
>
Didn't "Men in TIghts" come after that?
>> It may be an age-related thing. Mel Brooks' style of Borscht Belt humor
>> used to be in the center of American mainstream pop culture, but it's
>> been a long time since he came up a brand-new idea that's really taken
>> off. I think that people who were too young to see _Young Frankenstein_
>> when it was first-run just never took to his material.
>
> I always say that I'm not sure if Spaceballs was his last good film or
> his first bad one.
>
I think one difference was that his early films were generic. Blazing
Saddles made fun of westerns, no specific one in mind. Young Frankenstein
made fun of a specific story, but one which had been copied and made into
numerous films, so it was a whole thing being made fun of.
"Spaceballs" was too much a copy of "Star Wars". That didn't work so
well. Yes, other bits were tossed in, but he could have been more generic
and likely it would have been a better film.
I rewatched "Life Stinks" last year, and it's actually better than I
remember, though not as good as his prime.
"Men in Tights" works (again, Robin Hood has become part of the culture,
rather than a specific film or book), but then it's a rehashing "Back in
the Days When Things Were Rotten".
Michael
Michael Black
May 2, 2012, 10:07:35 AM5/2/12
to
specific.
But you're right, the show wouldn't have happened without James Bond (or
The Man from Uncle for that matter).
And yes, it did make reference to films, which were big at the time but
may have faded with time. "The Ship of Fools" that I remember well.
There was a multi-part episode where they were in a concentration camp,
references to those POW films that were big at the time. An episode or
two that referenced 1930s criminal types like Al Capone.
The jokes wouldn't work if you were unaware of the real material, and a
lot of that has faded into the past.
Michael
anim8rFSK
May 2, 2012, 10:40:29 AM5/2/12
to
> On Wed, 2 May 2012, Duggy wrote:
>
> >> It may be an age-related thing. Mel Brooks' style of Borscht Belt humor
> >> used to be in the center of American mainstream pop culture, but it's
> >> been a long time since he came up a brand-new idea that's really taken
> >> off. I think that people who were too young to see _Young Frankenstein_
> >> when it was first-run just never took to his material.
> >
> > I always say that I'm not sure if Spaceballs was his last good film or
> > his first bad one.
I'm going with 'first bad'
>
> >> It may be an age-related thing. Mel Brooks' style of Borscht Belt humor
> >> used to be in the center of American mainstream pop culture, but it's
> >> been a long time since he came up a brand-new idea that's really taken
> >> off. I think that people who were too young to see _Young Frankenstein_
> >> when it was first-run just never took to his material.
> >
> > I always say that I'm not sure if Spaceballs was his last good film or
> > his first bad one.
> >
> Didn't "Men in TIghts" come after that?
Yeah, about 5 years later.
> Didn't "Men in TIghts" come after that?
>
> I think one difference was that his early films were generic. Blazing
> Saddles made fun of westerns, no specific one in mind. Young Frankenstein
> made fun of a specific story, but one which had been copied and made into
> numerous films, so it was a whole thing being made fun of.
>
> "Spaceballs" was too much a copy of "Star Wars". That didn't work so
> well. Yes, other bits were tossed in, but he could have been more generic
> and likely it would have been a better film.
Also maybe if it had come sooner. Or possibly years later. The 10 year
> I think one difference was that his early films were generic. Blazing
> Saddles made fun of westerns, no specific one in mind. Young Frankenstein
> made fun of a specific story, but one which had been copied and made into
> numerous films, so it was a whole thing being made fun of.
>
> "Spaceballs" was too much a copy of "Star Wars". That didn't work so
> well. Yes, other bits were tossed in, but he could have been more generic
> and likely it would have been a better film.
mark just seemed wrong.
>
> I rewatched "Life Stinks" last year, and it's actually better than I
> remember, though not as good as his prime.
Doesn't that have Squish's mom in it?
> I rewatched "Life Stinks" last year, and it's actually better than I
> remember, though not as good as his prime.
>
> "Men in Tights" works (again, Robin Hood has become part of the culture,
> rather than a specific film or book), but then it's a rehashing "Back in
> the Days When Things Were Rotten".
When Things Were Rotten was waaay better than Men In Tights.
> "Men in Tights" works (again, Robin Hood has become part of the culture,
> rather than a specific film or book), but then it's a rehashing "Back in
> the Days When Things Were Rotten".
Duggy
May 2, 2012, 4:56:35 PM5/2/12
to
On May 2, 11:56 pm, Michael Black <et...@ncf.ca> wrote:
> On Wed, 2 May 2012, Duggy wrote:
> > I always say that I'm not sure if Spaceballs was his last good film or
> > his first bad one.
> Didn't "Men in TIghts" come after that?
Yes. And that one I know I didn't like.
> On Wed, 2 May 2012, Duggy wrote:
> > I always say that I'm not sure if Spaceballs was his last good film or
> > his first bad one.
> Didn't "Men in TIghts" come after that?
> I think one difference was that his early films were generic. Blazing
> Saddles made fun of westerns, no specific one in mind. Young
> Frankenstein
> made fun of a specific story, but one which had been copied and made into
> numerous films, so it was a whole thing being made fun of.
> "Spaceballs" was too much a copy of "Star Wars". That didn't work so
> well. Yes, other bits were tossed in, but he could have been more generic
> and likely it would have been a better film.
And after that it became the current "if it looks the same it's funny"
style of parody.
> I rewatched "Life Stinks" last year, and it's actually better than I
> remember, though not as good as his prime.
> "Men in Tights" works (again, Robin Hood has become part of the culture,
> rather than a specific film or book), but then it's a rehashing "Back in
> the Days When Things Were Rotten".
===
= DUG.
===
Duggy
May 2, 2012, 5:00:50 PM5/2/12
to
On May 3, 12:40 am, anim8rFSK <anim8r...@cox.net> wrote:
> In article <Pine.LNX.4.64.1205020952390.10...@darkstar.example.net>,
And "Spaceballs: The Animated Series" is worse still.
> Also maybe if it had come sooner. Or possibly years later. The 10 year
> mark just seemed wrong.
That's true.
> > "Men in Tights" works (again, Robin Hood has become part of the culture,
> > rather than a specific film or book), but then it's a rehashing "Back in
> > the Days When Things Were Rotten".
> When Things Were Rotten was waaay better than Men In Tights.
Hadn't heard of it until today.
===
= DUG.
===
> In article <Pine.LNX.4.64.1205020952390.10...@darkstar.example.net>,
> Michael Black <et...@ncf.ca> wrote:
> > > I always say that I'm not sure if Spaceballs was his last good film or
> > > his first bad one.
> I'm going with 'first bad'
I liked it when it first came out, but have grown to dislike it.
> > > I always say that I'm not sure if Spaceballs was his last good film or
> > > his first bad one.
> I'm going with 'first bad'
And "Spaceballs: The Animated Series" is worse still.
> Also maybe if it had come sooner. Or possibly years later. The 10 year
> mark just seemed wrong.
> > "Men in Tights" works (again, Robin Hood has become part of the culture,
> > rather than a specific film or book), but then it's a rehashing "Back in
> > the Days When Things Were Rotten".
> When Things Were Rotten was waaay better than Men In Tights.
===
= DUG.
===
meowmix
May 5, 2012, 11:40:36 AM5/5/12
to
> Michael
Duggy
May 5, 2012, 3:51:59 PM5/5/12
to
On May 6, 1:40 am, meowmix <meow.mix@FUCK_OFF_SPAMMER_meow.org> wrote:
> >"Men in Tights" works (again, Robin Hood has become part of the culture,
> >rather than a specific film or book), but then it's a rehashing "Back in
> >the Days When Things Were Rotten".
> i thought it was his worst film.
Agreed.
> >"Men in Tights" works (again, Robin Hood has become part of the culture,
> >rather than a specific film or book), but then it's a rehashing "Back in
> >the Days When Things Were Rotten".
> i thought it was his worst film.
> one of my faves by him is the producers, that film still makes me laugh.
===
= DUG.
===
Micky DuPree
May 14, 2012, 10:34:46 PM5/14/12
to
fair moments, but the only scene that really stood out for me was the
one where Brooks' character pointed out the importance of merchandising.
I'm also not sure how well Borscht Belt humor travels outside the U.S.
or Ashkenazi Jewish enclaves either. It used to be mainstream in the
U.S. I'm not sure how well one could say there is a mainstream to
American humor nowadays. Tastes and styles have fragmented a lot, much
as TV audiences have, although the humorists getting paid the most
usually leave me cold. I've seldom found _Saturday Night Live_ funny,
even when it was brand-new with the original cast, yet it seems to exert
a strong influence over older adolescents and young adults in each
subsequent generation.
-Micky
Duggy
May 14, 2012, 11:17:21 PM5/14/12
to
On May 15, 12:34 pm, MDuP...@theworld.com.snip.to.reply (Micky DuPree)
wrote:
funny (we're told).
> I'm also not sure how well Borscht Belt humor travels outside the U.S.
American media dominance means that we're used to American humour. It
works in Australia nearly as well as it works outside of NY.
>It used to be mainstream in the
> U.S. I'm not sure how well one could say there is a mainstream to
> American humor nowadays.
That is true.
> Tastes and styles have fragmented a lot, much
> as TV audiences have, although the humorists getting paid the most
> usually leave me cold. I've seldom found _Saturday Night Live_ funny,
> even when it was brand-new with the original cast, yet it seems to exert
> a strong influence over older adolescents and young adults in each
> subsequent generation.
Agreed.
===
= DUG.
===
wrote:
> Duggy <p.allan.dug...@gmail.com> writes:
> > I always say that I'm not sure if Spaceballs was his last good film or
> > his first bad one.
> I finally saw that one about 15 years after it came out. It had some
> fair moments, but the only scene that really stood out for me was the
> one where Brooks' character pointed out the importance of merchandising.
That moment stood out for Lucas, too. It's the bit he didn't find
> > I always say that I'm not sure if Spaceballs was his last good film or
> > his first bad one.
> I finally saw that one about 15 years after it came out. It had some
> fair moments, but the only scene that really stood out for me was the
> one where Brooks' character pointed out the importance of merchandising.
funny (we're told).
> I'm also not sure how well Borscht Belt humor travels outside the U.S.
works in Australia nearly as well as it works outside of NY.
>It used to be mainstream in the
> U.S. I'm not sure how well one could say there is a mainstream to
> American humor nowadays.
> Tastes and styles have fragmented a lot, much
> as TV audiences have, although the humorists getting paid the most
> usually leave me cold. I've seldom found _Saturday Night Live_ funny,
> even when it was brand-new with the original cast, yet it seems to exert
> a strong influence over older adolescents and young adults in each
> subsequent generation.
===
= DUG.
===
meowmix
May 25, 2012, 12:32:08 PM5/25/12
to
at night here.
>===
>= DUG.
>===
0 new messages