Breaking down the S5 trailer
Fred
0:01: There seems to be a brown pole or taught rope next to the
TARDIS. It doesn't look natural. Perhaps there is a large tent next
to it?
0:10 Union Jack in the hallway next to a gun rack. Amy is focused
on a laptop seems to have a weird wiry loop attached to it, as if its
been modified to receive some sort of signal. The man getting punched
the the Doctor is wearing a headset.
0:16 Blueprints hanging on a wall above the Dalek, apparently this
is a laboratory or engineering room or some kind.
0:16 Amy kisses the Doctor in front of a doorway. The wall is
covered in photographs. The door has a photograph on it. The door
also has some dark spots on it that could be holes or decorations. A
coat is hanging from a hook on the door. It looks like she kissed him
in a bedroom. Perhaps Amy's bedroom? The TARDIS can be seen behind
the Doctor as well. When she kisses him, he gently places his hand on
the back of her head and together they begin to slide down the TARDIS
towards a floor for a moment before it cuts to the next scene. The
Doctor is also wearing a golden bracelet of some kind on his left
wrist.
0:17 The man behind Amy is dressed in blue scrubs. He probably works
in a hospital.
0:18 The Doctor is standing behind a woman who has no eyes. He is
not looking at her but at some device he is holding in his hand.
After a moment he looks up at the woman and his jaw falls open.
0:19 The chubby Silurian is wearing what appears to be a white chef's
uniform with an apron draped over it. Maybe they are cooking humans
for dinner?
0:19 Amy in a wonderfully short short pair of shorts and brown
leather jacket. She is turning to look behind her as she runs after
an unknown man (possibly the Doctor) who is also running. This man is
wearing a black jacket with white markings on each sleeve, dark pants
and dark shoes.
0:20 Looks like some robot shooting off sparks underneath some metal
machine with a bunch of blue neon tubes. The robot is possibly doing
repairs.
0:21 3 men all dressed alike in front of what looks to be a red and
white striped carnival tent. The 3 men appear to have wind-up keys in
their belly buttons, as if they are clockwork or perhaps the wind up
keys are dangling from chains. They share the same unexpressive blank
face.
0:22 Man in period dress with sword. His mouth is partly open and
you can see two fangs.
0:25 There are 3 blink statues at the end of a tunnel with pipes
running overhead.
0:29 River Song falls down on top of the Doctor. The front of the
TARDIS can be seen next to them and as they hit the floor you see the
bottom of a coatstand which looks much like what was in the TARDIS
during the 4th doctor's reign.
Soze
"Fred" <egop...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:53f5eaba-4a89-4d40...@j19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7tPte4rQMpI
>
> 0:01: There seems to be a brown pole or taught rope next to the
> TARDIS. It doesn't look natural. Perhaps there is a large tent next
> to it?
> 0:10 Union Jack in the hallway next to a gun rack. Amy is focused
> on a laptop seems to have a weird wiry loop attached to it, as if its
> been modified to receive some sort of signal. The man getting punched
> the the Doctor is wearing a headset.
> 0:16 Blueprints hanging on a wall above the Dalek, apparently this
> is a laboratory or engineering room or some kind.
> 0:16 Amy kisses the Doctor in front of a doorway. The wall is
> covered in photographs. The door has a photograph on it. The door
> also has some dark spots on it that could be holes or decorations. A
> coat is hanging from a hook on the door. It looks like she kissed him
> in a bedroom. Perhaps Amy's bedroom? The TARDIS can be seen behind
> the Doctor as well. When she kisses him, he gently places his hand on
> the back of her head and together they begin to slide down the TARDIS
> towards a floor for a moment before it cuts to the next scene. The
> Doctor is also wearing a golden bracelet of some kind on his left
> wrist.
She`s allegedly a kissogram in the first episode which could explain the
kiss.
> 0:17 The man behind Amy is dressed in blue scrubs. He probably works
> in a hospital.
> 0:18 The Doctor is standing behind a woman who has no eyes. He is
> not looking at her but at some device he is holding in his hand.
> After a moment he looks up at the woman and his jaw falls open.
> 0:19 The chubby Silurian is wearing what appears to be a white chef's
> uniform with an apron draped over it. Maybe they are cooking humans
> for dinner?
I hope that isn`t a silurian. I know they`re rumoured for this series but if
that`s them I`m disappointed with the designs...to say the least!
pbo...@aol.com
> I`ve added what may be construed as spoilers in the rest of this...
>
Not Silurians - freezing that frame, it's clear there's no third eye,
which was pretty much their characteristic feature. I thought they
looked very familiar, but looking at the freeze-frame I think that's
because someone sneaked into Paramount and nicked the Jem'Hadar masks.
Phil
Soze
<pbo...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:71b1ed30-1aef-4c9e...@21g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
If you freeze the frame where the two are standing together it looks like
the one on the far side of the picture has a third `eye stalk`. The one in
the next frame with the white costume looks nothing like a silurian.
Fred
We can only make out part of the words
_ _ _ _ pie _ _ _ _ lectrica
Magpie Electrica? There is a also an image of a flying bird between
each word.
Google reveals that there is such a thing as a M.A.G.P.I.E. coaxial
laser discharge system. MAGPIE is an acronym for MAGnetically
stabilized, Pulse Ionized, Electrically excited.
Monsieur Tabernac
wrote:
Magpie Electricals.
It's a reference to "The Idiot's Lantern". Check out the picture
here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/doctorwho/s4/episodes/S2_07
The shop where that nasty "Wire" was first hosted was Magpie
Electricals. In a recent interview, Murray Gold (the music composer)
reveals that Mark Gatiss is writing for series 5, all of which means
it looks like we'll be getting a sequel to "The Idiot's Lantern".
Nicely spotted.
Monsieur Tabernac
Here's the link to the Murray Gold interview:
http://www.musicfromthemovies.com/index2.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=67&Itemid=66
Raymond Daley
"Soze" <I...@salsbury42.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:7qf8oo...@mid.individual.net...
> I`ve added what may be construed as spoilers in the rest of this...
> "Fred" <egop...@yahoo.com> wrote
>> 0:16 Amy kisses the Doctor in front of a doorway. The wall is
>> covered in photographs. The door has a photograph on it. The door
>> also has some dark spots on it that could be holes or decorations. A
>> coat is hanging from a hook on the door. It looks like she kissed him
>> in a bedroom. Perhaps Amy's bedroom? The TARDIS can be seen behind
>> the Doctor as well. When she kisses him, he gently places his hand on
>> the back of her head and together they begin to slide down the TARDIS
>> towards a floor for a moment before it cuts to the next scene. The
>> Doctor is also wearing a golden bracelet of some kind on his left
>> wrist.
> She`s allegedly a kissogram in the first episode which could explain the
> kiss.
It explains the ridiculously short skirt on the police womans outfit too.
Ignis Fatuus
<mtab...@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote:
If first impressions are anything to go by he'll likely be calling it
Tardis.
Ignis Fatuus
<mtab...@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote:
So thus far we have
Daleks
The Wire
Silurians
Weeping Angels.
Wonder if there'll be time for anything new.
Monsieur Tabernac
Why's that?
Ignis Fatuus
<mtab...@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote:
... or perhaps just calling Tardis the Idiot's Lantern.
Monsieur Tabernac
<Ig...@fatuusisland.com> wrote:
You've lost me. Am I just thick or are you channelling Yads?
Ignis Fatuus
<mtab...@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote:
First Impressions - we're discussing the Trailer.
Clue - The Tardis is lantern shaped and has one on top. Who's is it?
Monsieur Tabernac
<Ig...@fatuusisland.com> wrote:
Has what on top? A trailer? An idiot? A lantern? This is getting
surreal.
Ignis Fatuus
<mtab...@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote:
Try Lantern.
Monsieur Tabernac
<Ig...@fatuusisland.com> wrote:
The TARDIS is lantern-shaped and has a lantern on top. Therefore,
judging by first impressions, Mark Gatiss's sequel to "The Idiot's
Lantern" will be called "Tardis"?
Fred
> "Soze" <I...@salsbury42.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
>
> news:7qf8oo...@mid.individual.net...
>
> > I`ve added what may be construed as spoilers in the rest of this...
> >>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7tPte4rQMpI
> >> 0:16 Amy kisses the Doctor in front of a doorway. The wall is
> >> covered in photographs. The door has a photograph on it. The door
> >> also has some dark spots on it that could be holes or decorations. A
> >> coat is hanging from a hook on the door. It looks like she kissed him
> >> in a bedroom. Perhaps Amy's bedroom? The TARDIS can be seen behind
> >> the Doctor as well. When she kisses him, he gently places his hand on
> >> the back of her head and together they begin to slide down the TARDIS
> >> towards a floor for a moment before it cuts to the next scene. The
> >> Doctor is also wearing a golden bracelet of some kind on his left
> >> wrist.
> > She`s allegedly a kissogram in the first episode which could explain the
> > kiss.
>
> It explains the ridiculously short skirt on the police womans outfit too.
She's not wearing the police outfit in the kiss scene. The Doctor is
also not wearing Tennant's suit but is in his own outfit. I think by
the time this kiss scene occurs, she's already his companion.
Fred
> On Mon, 04 Jan 2010 18:57:15 -0500, Monsieur Tabernac
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Mon, 4 Jan 2010 15:26:54 -0800 (PST), Fred <kokol...@gmail.com>
> >wrote:
>
> >>There is a sign above the 3 men in front of the red and white tent.
> >>We can only make out part of the words
>
> >>_ _ _ _ pie _ _ _ _ lectrica
>
> >>Magpie Electrica? There is a also an image of a flying bird between
> >>each word.
>
> >>Google reveals that there is such a thing as a M.A.G.P.I.E. coaxial
> >>laser discharge system. MAGPIE is an acronym for MAGnetically
> >>stabilized, Pulse Ionized, Electrically excited.
>
> >Magpie Electricals.
>
> >It's a reference to "The Idiot's Lantern". Check out the picture
> >here:
>
> >http://www.bbc.co.uk/doctorwho/s4/episodes/S2_07
>
> >The shop where that nasty "Wire" was first hosted was Magpie
> >Electricals. In a recent interview, Murray Gold (the music composer)
> >reveals that Mark Gatiss is writing for series 5, all of which means
> >it looks like we'll be getting a sequel to "The Idiot's Lantern".
>
> >Nicely spotted.
>
> So thus far we have
> Daleks
> The Wire
> Silurians
> Weeping Angels.
>
> Wonder if there'll be time for anything new.
There is also a period piece involving vampires, although it could be
something to do with the Great Vampires last seen in State of Decay.
Fred
wrote:
> On Mon, 4 Jan 2010 15:26:54 -0800 (PST), Fred <kokol...@gmail.com>
Thanks. Boy its been so long since I've seen the Idiot's Lantern that
I completely forgot the store was Magpie Electricals. I just saw "_ _
_ pie" and the bird symbol and started thinking bird names.
Monsieur Tabernac
wrote:
>On Jan 4, 5:15�pm, Ignis Fatuus <Ig...@fatuusisland.com> wrote:
I don't think the reptile people are Silurians. As for the vampires,
it does seem too obscure a villain to resurrect ("obscure" meaning
classic Who that doesn't involve massively popular aliens, like the
Daleks). If so, however, I don't like the sound of that -- like Iggy,
I feel Who starts to get pretty poor when it begins to reference its
past too much. Better to have new creatures, ideas and scenarios or
the whole thing gets stale.
The Weeping Angels worry me a bit -- their story was a perfect
"one-off", I feel, with no need to bring them back.
But.. too soon to tell anything at the point!
Ignis Fatuus
<mtab...@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote:
Take it easy.. You're getting there.
Ignis Fatuus
I do hope you're right; but the gun thingy looks horribly familiar.
wasn't it supposed to be some kind of sonic device?
>As for the vampires,
>it does seem too obscure a villain to resurrect ("obscure" meaning
>classic Who that doesn't involve massively popular aliens, like the
>Daleks). If so, however, I don't like the sound of that -- like Iggy,
>I feel Who starts to get pretty poor when it begins to reference its
>past too much. Better to have new creatures, ideas and scenarios or
>the whole thing gets stale.
I forgot about the Vashta Nerada. No doubt he'll want to resurrect
them.
pbo...@aol.com
He looks rather surprised by the kiss. I don't think we can read
anything into the outfit - I don't see any reason to suppose he'll
wear Tennant's outfit in any of his stories.
Phil
Monsieur Tabernac
Ignis Fatuus
<mtab...@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote:
Quitter.
pbo...@aol.com
It's at least as likely to be the vampires from Curse of Fenric - but
it's much more likely to a new group of vampires. Weren't there
werewolves in classic Who? Those weren't related to the Tooth & Claw
werewolf. This one, I am looking forward to - I like vampire stories.
Speaking of which, if john smith or anyone else who's interested is on
this thread, Being Human's back on Sunday.
Phil
The Doctor
Silurians? YES!!
--
Member - Liberal International This is doc...@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doc...@nl2k.ab.ca
God, Queen and country! Never Satan President Republic! Beware AntiChrist rising!
http://twitter.com/rootnl2k http://www.myspace.com/502748630
Born 29 Jan 1969 Redhill,Surrey,England UK
The Doctor
Ryan P.
> On Tue, 05 Jan 2010 07:13:52 -0500, Monsieur Tabernac
>>>> The TARDIS is lantern-shaped and has a lantern on top. Therefore,
>>>> judging by first impressions, Mark Gatiss's sequel to "The Idiot's
>>>> Lantern" will be called "Tardis"?
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Take it easy.. You're getting there.
>>
>> Nah. I give up.
>
> Quitter.
I'm still stuck on "The TARDIS is lantern-shaped." Maybe I need to
still frame through the trailer, but the TARDIS looked police box-shaped
to me...
Ignis Fatuus
Just a conceit of mine.I suggested that in light of the trailer, a
sequel to The Idiot's Lantern might be called Tardis.
Bazza
<pbo...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:d373082f-68a8-403e...@c3g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
I do wonder if that is some new Auton at 15 seconds in to the clip? Also the
part where Matt is attacking the Dalek...the dalek appears to be grey but
I'm guessing its olive drab to match the military feel of this story (based
during WWII I believe). Its also wearing ammunition pouches. This scene
appears to take place in a laboratory. There are other Dalek parts lying
around including two sections and a shoulder section directly behind the red
pillar.
Approx 21 seconds in we see a close up of a new type of Dalek dome..its
white, has a new eye ball and no cowl on the dome. Probably the latest Dalek
"boss" .
Baz
The Doctor
New Autins?? Maybe new Ice Warriors will do it for me!
Soze
"Monsieur Tabernac" <mtab...@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote in message
news:l7b6k5tpsp627iq7m...@4ax.com...
This little subset of the thread has tickled my funny bone...thanks!
Why though are we getting a sequel to a story everyone thought was crap?
Monsieur Tabernac
I thought it was okay, although that was mostly due to the setting,
atmosphere and people with no faces. Everything else was kind of
crap, though.
Ignis Fatuus
<I...@salsbury42.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
Magpie Electricals has a banner in one of the clips. The shop occupied
by the Wire was Magpie Electricals. Gattis is writing a story for the
new season. It May be a sequel to The Idiot's Lantern if it features
Magpie Electricals...
AlanSailsbury
> He looks rather surprised by the kiss. I don't think we can read
> anything into the outfit - I don't see any reason to suppose he'll
> wear Tennant's outfit in any of his stories.
>
> Phil
Location shots show that Matt Smith is wearing Tennant's outfit while
he's running around in his first episode. Sans jacket, which he uses
to try and put out the fire on the console after the TARDIS crashes in
1993.
AlanSailsbury
> <pbow...@aol.com> wrote in message
Possibly.
>Also the
> part where Matt is attacking the Dalek...the dalek appears to be grey but
> I'm guessing its olive drab to match the military feel of this story (based
> during WWII I believe).
Could it be the lighting in that scene making it look grey?
>Its also wearing ammunition pouches.
Which the Dalek couldn't possibly reach or put on itself so presumably
it's being used by someone.
>This scene
> appears to take place in a laboratory. There are other Dalek parts lying
> around including two sections and a shoulder section directly behind the red
> pillar.
> Approx 21 seconds in we see a close up of a new type of Dalek dome..its
> white, has a new eye ball and no cowl on the dome. Probably the latest Dalek
> "boss" .
>
> Baz
I'm guessing someone found a dead Dalek from the1930s and is building
his own in WW2? Or not. It doesn't sound very plausible.
The Doctor
AlanSailsbury <alansa...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
1993? SM has a sense of peotic vengeance!
john smith
"Monsieur Tabernac" <mtab...@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote in message
Didn't a throwaway line in "End of Time" suggest the Weeping Angels were
originally Time Lords?
john smith
<pbo...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:b65a9e81-3e0a-4c25...@z41g2000yqz.googlegroups.com...
Phil
Brilliant! Thanks, Phil! The trailer looks great too!
pbo...@aol.com
> "Monsieur Tabernac" <mtaber...@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:gpa5k5trtusm1p85m...@4ax.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mon, 4 Jan 2010 18:55:16 -0800 (PST), Fred <kokol...@gmail.com>
I missed the Weeping Angels comment altogether, but according to the
episode's Wikipedia entry it was meant as a condescending label for
the dissenters - not to imply any relationship with the actual Weeping
Angels.
Phil
Ignis Fatuus
Rassilon compares the dissenters to the weeping angels of old.
The Doctor
The Face of Po
Monsieur Tabernac got out a spraycan and scrawled the following:
Have you lost your lantern?
--
Happiness will prevail
Soze
"john smith" <the_jo...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:h3r1n.16260$Mq5....@newsfe29.ams2...
Heard a lot of good things about this show...should I tune in tomorrow or
would I really need to catch up on the previous series first?
pbo...@aol.com
> "john smith" <the_johnsm...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
>
> news:h3r1n.16260$Mq5....@newsfe29.ams2...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > <pbow...@aol.com> wrote in message
It looks like there's going to be quite a bit of lead-in from the
previous series (and season one finished with a cliffhanger) - BBC3
repeats them interminably, including last week, so they may all be up
on iPlayer.
Phil
john smith
<pbo...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:8841c471-17b2-4667...@34g2000yqp.googlegroups.com...
Phil
They were up on it last week...
pbo...@aol.com
Hmm, so, season 2. Not really loving the new villains yet - a bit too
2D at this point, though the exorcist (or whatever he is) and his
experiments are a neat idea. Ivan's a dull thug, so I'm glad he stayed
in the background - but what's up with George making out with Daisy
when he already has a girlfriend? It's not as though Daisy treated him
very well...
Some strong stuff with Nina, though, and Annie's job was fun.
Phil
john smith
<pbo...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:b8d238a6-3f84-4041...@e27g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
I thought all that stuff was just terrible cliched wank! God-bothering
scientists doing experiments on the "supernaturals"? It's been done to
death! They gonna say they're under the auspices of the Vatican or
something? The Channel 4 series "Ultraviolet" did that more than 10 years
ago - and with much more style and cleverness and subtlety!
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0169501/
(It's a hugely underrated and highly influential TV series that hardly
anyone seems to remember!)
Of course, this being series 2, it's necessary to expand on the mythology
they've already established. But Toby Whitehouse's knowledge of horror
genre conventions seems sadly lacking... Still, it's only Ep. 1. Let's see
what they're up to, eh?
Ivan's a dull thug, so I'm glad he stayed
> in the background - but what's up with George making out with Daisy
> when he already has a girlfriend? It's not as though Daisy treated him
> very well...
>
And how come George is so dim as to not realise he's turned his girlfriend
into a wrewolf? Surely his were-senses would've been tingling? On the
whole: I'm glad it's back but I hope it's not going to relinquish its
particularly idiosyncratic Brittish lo-fi approach and just turn into
another "Buffy" or "Angel" clone with the Chuch V. Monsters... >Yawn<...
(And I'm speaking as someone guilty of this myself for the last 20 years or
so!)
> Some strong stuff with Nina, though, and Annie's job was fun.
>
> Phil
Yeah. What is it with ghosts in pubs, eh? Every pub needs one!
pbo...@aol.com
I was actually thinking of it as an allegory for the efforts of
religious extremists to 'cure' homosexuality using brutal means.
Though it would be more interesting if it looked as though these
people were actually trying to find 'cures' rather than putting them
in the werewolf equivalent of a gas chamber. And that, so far, is the
problem - even though you always knew Herrick was a baddie, he was
always able to come across as having less transparently evil motives
than, in fact, he did. Not getting any sense of that with any of the
characters this time - and Daisy's just a retread of Lauren.
> Of course, this being series 2, it's necessary to expand on the mythology
> they've already established. But Toby Whitehouse's knowledge of horror
> genre conventions seems sadly lacking... Still, it's only Ep. 1. Let's see
> what they're up to, eh?
Not everyone has to be a horror addict, John... It's not as though
Whithouse is doing a horror series just because it's got
"supernaturals" in it (yes, I hated George calling them
"supernaturals" as well).
> Ivan's a dull thug, so I'm glad he stayed
>
> > in the background - but what's up with George making out with Daisy
> > when he already has a girlfriend? It's not as though Daisy treated him
> > very well...
>
> And how come George is so dim as to not realise he's turned his girlfriend
> into a wrewolf? Surely his were-senses would've been tingling?
Yes, I wondered out loud while watching it why he couldn't detect it
in her smell - but then, he could tell what Tully was either, could
he? I think we just have to put it down to the fact that, yes, George
is pretty dim...
On the
> whole: I'm glad it's back but I hope it's not going to relinquish its
> particularly idiosyncratic Brittish lo-fi approach and just turn into
> another "Buffy" or "Angel" clone with the Chuch V. Monsters... >Yawn<...
Well, the final episodes last year were pretty Buffyish. At least
Annie doesn't seem to be turning into Willow any more.
Phil
Stephen Wilson
Presumably he found her sexy. He wasn't getting any, and cuoldn't control
himself.
> On the whole: I'm glad it's back but I hope it's not going to relinquish
> its particularly idiosyncratic Brittish lo-fi approach and just turn into
> another "Buffy" or "Angel" clone with the Chuch V. Monsters... >Yawn<...
>
> (And I'm speaking as someone guilty of this myself for the last 20 years
> or so!)
It does feel like it's struggling a little more this series to justify
itself.
>
>> Some strong stuff with Nina, though, and Annie's job was fun.
>>
>> Phil
>
>
> Yeah. What is it with ghosts in pubs, eh? Every pub needs one!
Was I the only one who cringed at the pub scenes? Not only did it seem out
of character for Annie, but I couldn't imagaine *any* woman acting that way.
pbo...@aol.com
<stephen.wilson2004nos...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> "john smith" <the_johnsm...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
>
Does anyone behave like that in reality? I haven't noticed random
strangers jumping on each other in the street.
> >> Some strong stuff with Nina, though, and Annie's job was fun.
>
> >> Phil
>
> > Yeah. What is it with ghosts in pubs, eh? Every pub needs one!
>
> Was I the only one who cringed at the pub scenes? Not only did it seem out
> of character for Annie, but I couldn't imagaine *any* woman acting that way.
I took it that the idea was that Annie's only knowledge of pubs came
from TV portrayals - it seemed in character for her to be ditzy, more
than a bit dim and easily influenced by pop culture...
Phil
Stephen Wilson
<pbo...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:b1e8e73c-a964-444c...@u41g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > Of course, this being series 2, it's necessary to expand on the
>> > mythology
>> > they've already established. But Toby Whitehouse's knowledge of horror
>> > genre conventions seems sadly lacking... Still, it's only Ep. 1. Let's
>> > see what they're up to, eh?
>>
>> > Ivan's a dull thug, so I'm glad he stayed
>> >> in the background - but what's up with George making out with Daisy
>> >> when he already has a girlfriend? It's not as though Daisy treated him
>> >> very well...
>>
>> > And how come George is so dim as to not realise he's turned his
>> > girlfriend
>> > into a wrewolf? Surely his were-senses would've been tingling?
>>
>> Presumably he found her sexy. He wasn't getting any, and cuoldn't control
>> himself.
>
>Does anyone behave like that in reality? I haven't noticed random
>strangers jumping on each other in the street.
It happens, but not usually in the street. But don't forget: this isn't
reality. And we're also talking about characters who may be aroused more
easily. Especially if she's giving off lots of pheramones, and George has a
heightened sense of smell...
>> >> Some strong stuff with Nina, though, and Annie's job was fun.
>>
>> >> Phil
>>
>> > Yeah. What is it with ghosts in pubs, eh? Every pub needs one!
>>
>> Was I the only one who cringed at the pub scenes? Not only did it seem
>> out
>> of character for Annie, but I couldn't imagaine *any* woman acting that
>> way.
>
>I took it that the idea was that Annie's only knowledge of pubs came
>from TV portrayals - it seemed in character for her to be ditzy, more
>than a bit dim and easily influenced by pop culture...
She wasn't always dead. In fact, she was alive until not so long ago. And
she seemed to know a fair bit about the pubs - they'd have been her locals
when she was alive. Ditzy is one thing - but she went right OTT.
pbo...@aol.com
<stephen.wilson2004nos...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> <pbow...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
> news:b1e8e73c-a964-444c...@u41g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >> > Of course, this being series 2, it's necessary to expand on the
> >> > mythology
> >> > they've already established. But Toby Whitehouse's knowledge of horror
> >> > genre conventions seems sadly lacking... Still, it's only Ep. 1. Let's
> >> > see what they're up to, eh?
>
> >> > Ivan's a dull thug, so I'm glad he stayed
> >> >> in the background - but what's up with George making out with Daisy
> >> >> when he already has a girlfriend? It's not as though Daisy treated him
> >> >> very well...
>
> >> > And how come George is so dim as to not realise he's turned his
> >> > girlfriend
> >> > into a wrewolf? Surely his were-senses would've been tingling?
>
> >> Presumably he found her sexy. He wasn't getting any, and cuoldn't control
> >> himself.
>
> >Does anyone behave like that in reality? I haven't noticed random
> >strangers jumping on each other in the street.
>
> It happens, but not usually in the street.
Just in car parks?
But don't forget: this isn't
> reality.
It's meant to give the impression it is - it normally tries.
> >> >> Some strong stuff with Nina, though, and Annie's job was fun.
>
> >> >> Phil
>
> >> > Yeah. What is it with ghosts in pubs, eh? Every pub needs one!
>
> >> Was I the only one who cringed at the pub scenes? Not only did it seem
> >> out
> >> of character for Annie, but I couldn't imagaine *any* woman acting that
> >> way.
>
> >I took it that the idea was that Annie's only knowledge of pubs came
> >from TV portrayals - it seemed in character for her to be ditzy, more
> >than a bit dim and easily influenced by pop culture...
>
> She wasn't always dead. In fact, she was alive until not so long ago. And
> she seemed to know a fair bit about the pubs - they'd have been her locals
> when she was alive.
Hadn't she and Owen only recently moved in? Do we know if she ever
went pubbing?
Ditzy is one thing - but she went right OTT.
I think they made the humour a bit more blatant than usual because
Annie's scenes were the only jokes of the episode, but I don't think
that's necessarily out of character. This, after all, is a character
who goes over the top with domestics all the time.
Phil
john smith
<pbo...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:e0ec6ccd-fe78-4072...@j24g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
***You would! <grin>***
Though it would be more interesting if it looked as though these
people were actually trying to find 'cures'
***Maybe they are. I hadn't thought of it that way, actually. That might
be a pretty good spin on the whole Van Helsing/vampire slayer angle. I
wasn't quite sure what to make of Spooky Religious Guy's comments regarding
tides and werewolves either. Not sure whether it's a clever little twist or
just daft! Again, we'll have to wait and see... Maybe they want to use
vampires and wrewolves as organ donors or for genetic research or something?
And Spooky Religious Guy's probably Church of England rather than Catholic.
That - in itself - would tickle me...***
rather than putting them
in the werewolf equivalent of a gas chamber. And that, so far, is the
problem - even though you always knew Herrick was a baddie, he was
always able to come across as having less transparently evil motives
than, in fact, he did. Not getting any sense of that with any of the
characters this time - and Daisy's just a retread of Lauren.
> Of course, this being series 2, it's necessary to expand on the mythology
> they've already established. But Toby Whitehouse's knowledge of horror
> genre conventions seems sadly lacking... Still, it's only Ep. 1. Let's see
> what they're up to, eh?
Not everyone has to be a horror addict, John... It's not as though
Whithouse is doing a horror series just because it's got
"supernaturals" in it (yes, I hated George calling them
"supernaturals" as well).
***Groan! Here we go again! ;-) If this series is going to continue the
full-on horror theme he should do his bloody homework! And yes, I remember
your long debate with Aggy last year about how it wasn't a soap or a horror
series, but it IS a comedy-drama based around the supernatural. Actually,
thinking about it, I don't know why I'm complaining so much. That's one of
the things I *like* about it! It took me a while to get round to watching
series 1 - mainly because of all the praise you heaped on it (so cheers!) -
but I'd never have given it the time of day if it was just a bog standard
flat-sharing sitcom...***
john smith
<pbo...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:b1e8e73c-a964-444c...@u41g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
***You've never been to Manchester's Canal Street on a Saturday night, have
you? ;-) ***
john smith
"Stephen Wilson" <stephen.wils...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:vV13n.1151$kD7...@newsfe19.ams2...
Yes, she was a bit OTT, wasn't she? Maybe she was just excited to get out
of the house properly? Looks like the landlord's gonna be a possible love
interest next episode so we'll have to see if she mellows out a bit...
pbo...@aol.com
> <pbow...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
> news:e0ec6ccd-fe78-4072...@j24g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
> On 12 Jan, 02:41, "john smith" <the_johnsm...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > <pbow...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:b8d238a6-3f84-4041...@e27g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > On 11 Jan, 06:28, "john smith" <the_johnsm...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> > >> <pbow...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
> > >>news:8841c471-17b2-4667...@34g2000yqp.googlegroups.com...
> > >> On 10 Jan, 00:43, "Soze" <I...@salsbury42.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > >> > "john smith" <the_johnsm...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
>
> > >> >news:h3r1n.16260$Mq5....@newsfe29.ams2...
>
> > >> > > <pbow...@aol.com> wrote in message
> > >> > >news:b65a9e81-3e0a-4c25...@z41g2000yqz.googlegroups.com...
> > >> > > On 5 Jan, 02:55, Fred <kokol...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> > >> On Jan 4, 5:15 pm, Ignis Fatuus <Ig...@fatuusisland.com> wrote:
>
> > >> > >> > On Mon, 04 Jan 2010 18:57:15 -0500, Monsieur Tabernac
>
> > >> > >> > <mtaber...@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote:
> > >> > >> > >On Mon, 4 Jan 2010 15:26:54 -0800 (PST), Fred
> > >> > >> > ><kokol...@gmail.com>
> > >> > >> > >wrote:
> Though it would be more interesting if it looked as though these
> people were actually trying to find 'cures'
>
> ***Maybe they are.
Maybe, but if so why kill the werewolf? At the very least it would
have preserved the ambiguity of their motives if they'd stopped the
experiment when they found it wasn't working.
I hadn't thought of it that way, actually. That might
> be a pretty good spin on the whole Van Helsing/vampire slayer angle. I
> wasn't quite sure what to make of Spooky Religious Guy's comments regarding
> tides and werewolves either. Not sure whether it's a clever little twist or
> just daft!
I think it was just intended as a 'clever' way of saying it's brought
on by the moon...
> rather than putting them
> in the werewolf equivalent of a gas chamber. And that, so far, is the
> problem - even though you always knew Herrick was a baddie, he was
> always able to come across as having less transparently evil motives
> than, in fact, he did. Not getting any sense of that with any of the
> characters this time - and Daisy's just a retread of Lauren.
>
> > Of course, this being series 2, it's necessary to expand on the mythology
> > they've already established. But Toby Whitehouse's knowledge of horror
> > genre conventions seems sadly lacking... Still, it's only Ep. 1. Let's see
> > what they're up to, eh?
>
> Not everyone has to be a horror addict, John... It's not as though
> Whithouse is doing a horror series just because it's got
> "supernaturals" in it (yes, I hated George calling them
> "supernaturals" as well).
>
> ***Groan! Here we go again! ;-) If this series is going to continue the
> full-on horror theme he should do his bloody homework!
*What* full-on horror theme?
And yes, I remember
> your long debate with Aggy last year about how it wasn't a soap or a horror
> series, but it IS a comedy-drama based around the supernatural.
Quite. Not horror. As you say, horror is a theme, not a set of props -
something doesn't have to have 'supernaturals' in it to be horror, and
conversely something doesn't become horror just by virtue of having
supernatural elements - there are legions of shows out there that
aren't horror that have these things in - Buffy, Supernatural,
Twilight (I imagine, never seen it) etc. etc. Horror's just one way of
using them, and having these things in horror is passe anyway. Being
Human uses them to explore isolation, not to make people scared of
them.
Actually,
> thinking about it, I don't know why I'm complaining so much. That's one of
> the things I *like* about it! It took me a while to get round to watching
> series 1 - mainly because of all the praise you heaped on it (so cheers!) -
> but I'd never have given it the time of day if it was just a bog standard
> flat-sharing sitcom...***
Me neither, but not just for the props (although tha was what piqued
my interest initially) - the whole tone and the themes of the show
would have to be very different without some kind of 'tortured soul'
angle. The first couple of episodes in season 1 could probably have
been done as a conventional sitcom, but nothing since.
Phil
pbo...@aol.com
> "Stephen Wilson" <stephen.wilson2004nos...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
>
> news:vV13n.1151$kD7...@newsfe19.ams2...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>> >news:njR2n.26$kD...@newsfe19.ams2...
Maybe that's why she only had one customer...?
Phil