Where did that Being Human blurb come from? Is that BBC America's nonsense or i09's?
"Following the terrible events in London..."???????
NO!
"Following the terrible events in BRISTOL!"
Bristol, people! there's no London involved.
Regards
Proud Bristolian
"Following the terrible events in London..."???????
NO!
"Following the terrible events in BRISTOL!"
Bristol, people! there's no London involved.
Regards
Proud Bristolian
"And a romantic moment between Caprica Six and Baltar is interrupted by "the last two people they ever expected to see.""
Head Six and Head Baltar?
Head Six and Head Baltar?
@Crash303: Ark*, sorry, late...
Anyone notice the Arc of the Covenant being loaded onto Wat Tambor's ship?
@ollie: Still tihkn Penny dies too, Ben needs Des to return too, what better way than to get Des to seek revenge.
What we want is Total Recall 2070 back!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I think it is Penny who dies, or is already dead.
She's Widmore's daughter, and Ben owed him one. He turned up covered in blood saying he had fulfilled a promise.
She's Widmore's daughter, and Ben owed him one. He turned up covered in blood saying he had fulfilled a promise.
This sounds like the press are making more out of the situation than is there.
Surely the cost or rewriting and refilming is vastly more than just buying another old bus?
Surely the cost or rewriting and refilming is vastly more than just buying another old bus?
I really wouldn't call it a comedy there are funny moments but there is more supernatural drama (and regular drama)elements.
I really enjoyed it (not just because I'm Bristolian!) but I think I preferred the guy who played the Vampire in last years Pilot though.
I really enjoyed it (not just because I'm Bristolian!) but I think I preferred the guy who played the Vampire in last years Pilot though.
It makes me laugh, the switching of opinions with regard to this movie. One the one hand people are all "It worries me that he is staying so close to the comic...that's not film making, that's copying" and then its "It was understated in the comic so it should be understated in them movie"
No.
They are different mediums, with a comic you can let your eyes linger over each and every panel and allow yourself to absorb the full impact of what's being depicted as those moments are frozen in time.
No so with a movie, if the scene was as understated (or quick) as it was in the comic then 30 minutes later, when the full ramifications of the scene come to pass, Joe-Moviegoer will be going "Wait...what..oh yeah, didn't this dude try to rape her mom or something earlier".
We, the viewer, really need to understand what a brutal and abhorrent man he was to buy into Laurie's pain and disbelief and feeling of betrayal and disgust at her own mother (at her own existence!) later in the movie. We need to feel that with her.
C'mon, I doubt even Zach Snyder would make a rape scene 'gratuitous'.
No.
They are different mediums, with a comic you can let your eyes linger over each and every panel and allow yourself to absorb the full impact of what's being depicted as those moments are frozen in time.
No so with a movie, if the scene was as understated (or quick) as it was in the comic then 30 minutes later, when the full ramifications of the scene come to pass, Joe-Moviegoer will be going "Wait...what..oh yeah, didn't this dude try to rape her mom or something earlier".
We, the viewer, really need to understand what a brutal and abhorrent man he was to buy into Laurie's pain and disbelief and feeling of betrayal and disgust at her own mother (at her own existence!) later in the movie. We need to feel that with her.
C'mon, I doubt even Zach Snyder would make a rape scene 'gratuitous'.
Well, some people like the Science, some people like the FICTION...
Sheesh, now I feel like a troll :(
Sheesh, now I feel like a troll :(
Really, though, if you are a person of belief (and most people of a belief would agree that what they believe in has no basis in fact or evidence, that's what makes it 'faith'...that what it is to have 'faith' and they see that as important to their religion) then that's all well and good, whatever works for you in your life is your own business, but you can't expect everyone else to pander to your worldview. That's just arrogant.
If you don't like the turn of phrase used by a particular blogger, then don't read the blog. Annalee wasn't inciting hatred or violence and so can say what she flippin' well pleases, it's not like you pay to read i09.
Just 'cos you have belief (as in YOU BELIEVE) doesn't mean anyone else does, or has to. So what right do you have to impose your sensibilities on anyone else. This is why some people see religion as fascistic.
If i09 starts taking god 'fans' into consideration when writing where does it stop? Next time another shitty episode of Knight Rider airs, do we all have to say it's good so as not to upset Knight Rider 'fans'? It seems a lot of people like True Blood, do I now have to stop saying it's retarded rubbish so as not to upset people who BELIEVE it's good?
I'm going to sigh now....
I don't think that's a mohawk, I think it's just the toy representation of the 'flesh' being ripped off either side of his head, if you look at the back of his head he has hair there which is coming round the side. So 'mowhawk' and Macus probably are the same figure.
I wonder if this being a MySpace exclusive, and MySpace being owned by Fox means anything?
@worsethannormal: You're right, it probably is a lot less cut and dry than either of us are making out.
I work for WB so most of my information comes from what I hear about the place (I don't work in legal or anything though) so what I know probably isn't the most unbiased stuff ;)
I still think, though, that if Fox wanted to protect their properties (rather than making 'free' cash at the expense of a competitor) they would have been shutting down the production from the start. Even if they DID mention it to WB in 2005, where were the injunctions or lawsuits then?
Again, just 'cos it isn't illegal and 'business is business' doesn't mean I don't wish companies could conduct themselves in a more...well...honourable way.
Me-Naïve, I know...
I work for WB so most of my information comes from what I hear about the place (I don't work in legal or anything though) so what I know probably isn't the most unbiased stuff ;)
I still think, though, that if Fox wanted to protect their properties (rather than making 'free' cash at the expense of a competitor) they would have been shutting down the production from the start. Even if they DID mention it to WB in 2005, where were the injunctions or lawsuits then?
Again, just 'cos it isn't illegal and 'business is business' doesn't mean I don't wish companies could conduct themselves in a more...well...honourable way.
Me-Naïve, I know...
@Purple Dave: I'm not saying that Fox aren't within their rights to protect property they own, but the fact that they waited until WB has all but completed the movie, spending millions on it, to bring their claim was premeditated.
Obviously, in business, you want to get one up on and 'crush' your competitors so I understand why they did this, but, whilst not in any way illegal, it's a really dirty way to conduct your business.
...and I know business IS dirty, but it doesn't make it right.
Obviously, in business, you want to get one up on and 'crush' your competitors so I understand why they did this, but, whilst not in any way illegal, it's a really dirty way to conduct your business.
...and I know business IS dirty, but it doesn't make it right.
@worsethannormal: Fox absolutly did not approach Warner Bros. until the movie was all but completed.
Warners made the movie with a production company that Fox 'leased' the right to in the 80's, Fox now claim the they never received any payment for the leasing of the rights and hence they still own the property.
From what I gather Warners were unaware of the situation between Fox and the production company until Fox piped up a couple of months ago.
I mean, c'mon, they're not stupid enough to plough millions into a movie they think belongs to someone else!
Fox's action have been nothing short of conniving.
Warners made the movie with a production company that Fox 'leased' the right to in the 80's, Fox now claim the they never received any payment for the leasing of the rights and hence they still own the property.
From what I gather Warners were unaware of the situation between Fox and the production company until Fox piped up a couple of months ago.
I mean, c'mon, they're not stupid enough to plough millions into a movie they think belongs to someone else!
Fox's action have been nothing short of conniving.
Yeah, in the UK 'The Proms' are nothing whatsoever to do with your 'High School Prom' or whatever.
'The Proms' are a classical/contemporary-classical music concert (The Doctor Who one featuring, I believe, some of the soundtrack performed and some special video featuring DT)
Which kinda' makes the lead-in to this article pretty shoddy journalism really.
'The Proms' are a classical/contemporary-classical music concert (The Doctor Who one featuring, I believe, some of the soundtrack performed and some special video featuring DT)
Which kinda' makes the lead-in to this article pretty shoddy journalism really.
This is f'ing ridiculous! It was the radio for christ's sake!
Read the Daily Fail article:
[www.dailymail.co.uk]
With each sentence it becomes less and less of a story!
Read the Daily Fail article:
[www.dailymail.co.uk]
With each sentence it becomes less and less of a story!
@jimmytheguy: Also, it's name is SuperioN (not Superior)
I gotta' say, this was the first episode (including the movie) where I didn't want to kill Ahsoka.
