@digitaldraco: Maybe they didn't set out to change his race. Maybe they just thought he did a kick ass Heimdall at the audition.
Besides, it seems as if they are setting them up to be powerful aliens who were worshiped as gods by the Norse. It's typical of cultures to portray religious icons with their own racial slant. It's sort of like, I don't know, like Renaissance artists painting Jesus to look like a white European.
Besides, it seems as if they are setting them up to be powerful aliens who were worshiped as gods by the Norse. It's typical of cultures to portray religious icons with their own racial slant. It's sort of like, I don't know, like Renaissance artists painting Jesus to look like a white European.
@Arken: "Needs more rippling manflesh."
In order to reach 100?
In order to reach 100?
@Srynerson: Not to mention casting a black Don Pedro in Much Ado About Nothing. I like the idea of just casting actors and who cares if they don't look like they sprang from the same mother.
@KEPinion: So....you're saying you have no taste? :-)
I have to disagree a little Charlie. I thought this was one of the strongest episodes of the season. Mainly because the B-plot was actually the A-plot.
Olivia was in survival mode in alt-u so she never really stopped to consider what her life would be like when she got back. Her inability to deal with her clothes, her bedsheets, her mail really showed that what she endured was more akin to rape than identity theft.
And the best all out scene aside from the last Olivia/Peter scene, was the first Olivia/Peter scene where he tells her about his relationship with Fauxlivia.
Watching her face slip ever so slightly as it dawns on her that they were a couple was incredible to watch and it really set up their confontation later.
And even though the Marionette aspect of the show may have felt like a throwaway, I wonder if the science of it might end up becoming a major plot development later.
Olivia was in survival mode in alt-u so she never really stopped to consider what her life would be like when she got back. Her inability to deal with her clothes, her bedsheets, her mail really showed that what she endured was more akin to rape than identity theft.
And the best all out scene aside from the last Olivia/Peter scene, was the first Olivia/Peter scene where he tells her about his relationship with Fauxlivia.
Watching her face slip ever so slightly as it dawns on her that they were a couple was incredible to watch and it really set up their confontation later.
And even though the Marionette aspect of the show may have felt like a throwaway, I wonder if the science of it might end up becoming a major plot development later.
@TwiceDead: See, that doesn't make sense to me. I can't see Romana as President. I mean she was stuffy and officious when she first met the Doctor, and then their time together really opened up her sense of fun. I saw her as having more in common with the Doctor than she did with the other timelords.
Can't they just bring back Romana for the series. I'd take that over an action figure. Hell, of any of the timelords, she has to be the easiest of them (including the Master) to bring back since she was in E-space the whole time and so missed that whole time war thing.
And how about the Fang Rock monster? God I love me my Leela episodes.
And how about the Fang Rock monster? God I love me my Leela episodes.
@Dr Emilio Lizardo: Romana I always seemed a bit intimidating; she was very tall as I remember. However, when Nyssa came on the show, I was just about the same age (or it seemed that way) so she definitely merits mention for my puberty list.
But you never forget your first, and for me that's Leela all the way.
But you never forget your first, and for me that's Leela all the way.
@thebluepill: It's also the honored place of the dead for heroes in Roman mythology. Like Valhalla.
@antonchigurh: Hmm. A weed comment that was vague. There's a first. :-)
@jamesryan: From the article you linked:
"A star vehicle whose first gay erotic moment shows Mr. Carrey engaged in loud anal sex is asking for trouble. "
That's hardly two guys kissing.
"A star vehicle whose first gay erotic moment shows Mr. Carrey engaged in loud anal sex is asking for trouble. "
That's hardly two guys kissing.
@Valkyrie607 of the lady-ghetto: You mistake me. I wasn't defending the MPAA at all. Neither did I say the goal was to get everyone on board. I merely pointed out that if the sex and violence IS crucial to the story, then own it. That's why R rated films get made in the first place. Every studio knows that they potentially truncate their audience, but the film maker or even the studio believe that the movie would be worse if cut to PG standards.
"you're making unfounded assumptions and generalizations."
Huh? My only assumption was to assume that the STORY was good. How is that assumption unfounded? Is it not reasonable to assume that somewhere, someone wrote a good story? You may not agree with my conclusions, and that's your prerogative, but my assumption was neither unfounded nor generalized.
Movies, good movies. Hell, GREAT movies had been made for decades without the kind of violence and sex that would garner an R rating. Instead of the flash, they gave us story and dialog.
Violence and sex in cinema is mainly a stylistic choice of the film maker. In the 40s and 50s, films didn't have an MPAA rating, they were all judged and if found too violent or sexual, they were blocked from even being released. They were, in essence, banned. Compared to that, the ratings system is preferable since the rating doesn't mandate anything, it merely informs (accuracy notwithstanding).
Another thing. R ratings do nothing to the distribution and marketing of a film. R films are shown alongside PG, and G films. They are advertised just as other films are. I don't have to walk down an alley and know the secret knock to get into the place that's showing an R rated film.
Plus, in this age of internet tix purchases, just how is the R rating meant to keep anyone actually away? The lone line of defense is a guy making just over min wage ripping ticket stubs.
"you're making unfounded assumptions and generalizations."
Huh? My only assumption was to assume that the STORY was good. How is that assumption unfounded? Is it not reasonable to assume that somewhere, someone wrote a good story? You may not agree with my conclusions, and that's your prerogative, but my assumption was neither unfounded nor generalized.
Movies, good movies. Hell, GREAT movies had been made for decades without the kind of violence and sex that would garner an R rating. Instead of the flash, they gave us story and dialog.
Violence and sex in cinema is mainly a stylistic choice of the film maker. In the 40s and 50s, films didn't have an MPAA rating, they were all judged and if found too violent or sexual, they were blocked from even being released. They were, in essence, banned. Compared to that, the ratings system is preferable since the rating doesn't mandate anything, it merely informs (accuracy notwithstanding).
Another thing. R ratings do nothing to the distribution and marketing of a film. R films are shown alongside PG, and G films. They are advertised just as other films are. I don't have to walk down an alley and know the secret knock to get into the place that's showing an R rated film.
Plus, in this age of internet tix purchases, just how is the R rating meant to keep anyone actually away? The lone line of defense is a guy making just over min wage ripping ticket stubs.
@emilysbrother: Well smoking on TV doesn't make me cough or make my clothes and hair smell so I got no problem with it either.
My favorite smoker in modern TV and film has got to be Dr. Cottle. I love how when Adama got shot, he waltzed into sickbay with half a cigarette, plucked it out of his mouth, and tossed it in the corner before putting his scrubs on to go open his patient. His idiosyncrasies were delightfully ironic.
My favorite smoker in modern TV and film has got to be Dr. Cottle. I love how when Adama got shot, he waltzed into sickbay with half a cigarette, plucked it out of his mouth, and tossed it in the corner before putting his scrubs on to go open his patient. His idiosyncrasies were delightfully ironic.
@Valkyrie607 is epistemically responsible: "The fact is that we don't get to see movies precisely because they are rated R, or, god forbid, NC-17."
Unless you're under 17, nothing is stopping you from seeing an R rated film. Adults with children, usually younger children, are the ones who shy away from R rated films. I'm not saying that's a proper parenting technique, but it is what seems to happen.
With tentpole film costs spiraling out of control, it's not surprising that studios are attempting to appeal to all 4 quadrants, if only to hedge their bets.
But if the story is good, it doesn't have to have ultra-violence or gratuitous sex. And having those things doesn't necessarily make the film better.
I think back to older films and I don't find myself thinking that White Heat would have been better if they'd shown the guy's head getting blown off, or Citizen Kane really needed a BJ scene. Hell, I was pretty amazed back in 81 when Empire Strikes Back showed a guy getting his hand severed, and still kept their PG rating. Fast forward to 300, and the limb severing is slowed down to 20 percent so you can see the bone and tendons, and the blood splatters on the camera.
I'll never suggest that a film maker's artistic vision be compromised by a ratings board. Put out the movie you want I say, but don't expect everyone to be on board.
Unless you're under 17, nothing is stopping you from seeing an R rated film. Adults with children, usually younger children, are the ones who shy away from R rated films. I'm not saying that's a proper parenting technique, but it is what seems to happen.
With tentpole film costs spiraling out of control, it's not surprising that studios are attempting to appeal to all 4 quadrants, if only to hedge their bets.
But if the story is good, it doesn't have to have ultra-violence or gratuitous sex. And having those things doesn't necessarily make the film better.
I think back to older films and I don't find myself thinking that White Heat would have been better if they'd shown the guy's head getting blown off, or Citizen Kane really needed a BJ scene. Hell, I was pretty amazed back in 81 when Empire Strikes Back showed a guy getting his hand severed, and still kept their PG rating. Fast forward to 300, and the limb severing is slowed down to 20 percent so you can see the bone and tendons, and the blood splatters on the camera.
I'll never suggest that a film maker's artistic vision be compromised by a ratings board. Put out the movie you want I say, but don't expect everyone to be on board.
@antonchigurh: I actually see the opposite. Far fewer people smoke that I've noticed, but there's been a recent resurgence of smoking in film and TV. It was practically gone there in the mid-90s, early 2k.
@LittleBigSteve: It looks like a Tijuana stripper on Halloween.
@DrForbidden: Really? I'm not aware of any movies that were rated R because of guys kissing in it. Not that Americans can't be uptight, I just haven't heard of a film getting slapped with R for guys kissing each other.
@gdodd12: Disney actually played the original last year at D23 (their version of comic-con). From a story perspective, it's a convoluted mess. I'm sure pre-releasing Tron would have had the opposite affect on mainstream audiences that they were looking for.
@Hedgeworth: You realize that argument makes no sense don't you? Zombies ARE fictional. The credibility of the series hinges on a suspension of disbelief, not overt belief. That suspension of disbelief can be maintained in my eyes at least whether it's explained or not so long as the explanation isn't hackneyed.
And I'm not suggesting it be fully explained either. 28 days later explains where the infection comes from without getting into it too far.
And I'm not suggesting it be fully explained either. 28 days later explains where the infection comes from without getting into it too far.
But if you tell everyone, it won't exactly be MASS extinction now will it?
