![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
alexsarllFree with today's Sunday Times - a ten track punk compilation CD. Who's spinning faster in their graves, the team from the 1976 Sunday Times or the 1976 punks?
Last night's Doctor Who managed the remarkable feat of making me nostalgic for 'Evolution of the Daleks'. What utter, utter rubbish.
- A spaceship seemingly designed by the same shipwrights as in Galaxy Quest, to maximise dramatic peril without any regard to plausibility. Oh, and it's also the universe's one piece of sonic screwdriver-resistant tech, because otherwise we'd have no plot - so instead the doors are operated by a pub quiz machine. And one requiring answers from the early 21st century, at that. And when Martha needs to check the answers to this inexplicable system, she doesn't ring a mate, or her sis - no, she rings her mum, the one person guaranteed to give her grief.
- Riffing off old episodes? Fair enough if you're talking old series, but don't rip off one from last year, especially not when that was a classic and all you're going to do is detract.
- Cyclops from the X-Men minus his personality does not make a good antagonist.
- If you're going to do real-time, do it properly, and if you're calling the episode '42' at least make some kind of effort at a 24 pastiche rather than just leaving it hanging.
- The big reveal was slightly less atrocious than what had come before, but "you should have run tests"? Seriously, Doctor, what kind of lifescan would pick up on something like a sentient star? And as regards the old sentient-star-doesn't-like-being-used-for-fuel bit - I wasn't expecting Star Maker but even Venus on the Half-Shell did it better, and that was the fairly talentless Philip Jose Farmer doing an extended and inexplicable Kurt Vonnegut in-joke.
Inexcusably bad.
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
pippaalice has cats. Cats who peer. The manner of the peering suggests that they are either plotting, silently judging humanity, or attempting to physically alter the world with their mighty feline brains. They alarm me.
For the particular attention ofaugstone - http://www.funnyordie.com, a site with loads of toot but also exclusive online Will Ferrell goodness.
Last night's Doctor Who managed the remarkable feat of making me nostalgic for 'Evolution of the Daleks'. What utter, utter rubbish.
- A spaceship seemingly designed by the same shipwrights as in Galaxy Quest, to maximise dramatic peril without any regard to plausibility. Oh, and it's also the universe's one piece of sonic screwdriver-resistant tech, because otherwise we'd have no plot - so instead the doors are operated by a pub quiz machine. And one requiring answers from the early 21st century, at that. And when Martha needs to check the answers to this inexplicable system, she doesn't ring a mate, or her sis - no, she rings her mum, the one person guaranteed to give her grief.
- Riffing off old episodes? Fair enough if you're talking old series, but don't rip off one from last year, especially not when that was a classic and all you're going to do is detract.
- Cyclops from the X-Men minus his personality does not make a good antagonist.
- If you're going to do real-time, do it properly, and if you're calling the episode '42' at least make some kind of effort at a 24 pastiche rather than just leaving it hanging.
- The big reveal was slightly less atrocious than what had come before, but "you should have run tests"? Seriously, Doctor, what kind of lifescan would pick up on something like a sentient star? And as regards the old sentient-star-doesn't-like-being-used-for-fuel bit - I wasn't expecting Star Maker but even Venus on the Half-Shell did it better, and that was the fairly talentless Philip Jose Farmer doing an extended and inexplicable Kurt Vonnegut in-joke.
Inexcusably bad.
pippaalice has cats. Cats who peer. The manner of the peering suggests that they are either plotting, silently judging humanity, or attempting to physically alter the world with their mighty feline brains. They alarm me. For the particular attention of
augstone - http://www.funnyordie.com, a site with loads of toot but also exclusive online Will Ferrell goodness.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2007-05-20 11:39 am (UTC)Re: your title
Date: 2007-05-20 11:42 am (UTC)'Thousands have people have been logging on to a website to find Maddy'
'She's not on the bloody internet - she can't stumbled into a post-millennial remake of Tron', I thought to myself.
no subject
Date: 2007-05-20 11:45 am (UTC)Re: your title
Date: 2007-05-20 11:48 am (UTC)But I think what annoys me most is the 'Maddy' thing. That's not what her family call her, that's what the tabloids have decided she should be called. Quite nauseating.
Everyone just wants a piece of the emotion, don't they?
no subject
Date: 2007-05-20 11:53 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-05-20 11:57 am (UTC)Re: your title
Date: 2007-05-20 12:00 pm (UTC)Oh dear. Please don;t kill me, British public.
Didn't Beckham also campaign for Holly and Jessica's return? It's not exactly a cheery precedent.
Re: your title
Date: 2007-05-20 12:05 pm (UTC)Holly & Jessica were wearing footballist garb in the official picture, so a) there was at least some connection and b) I had no interest in their survival. Madeleine, otoh, does seem fairly sweet and all that, but a sense of proportion or at least of what might have some utility would be good.
no subject
Date: 2007-05-20 04:03 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-05-20 05:35 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-05-20 06:32 pm (UTC)And stealing the monsters from "The Empty Child" was piss poor too. I have more hope for the scarecrows next week. that could be quite good...
no subject
Date: 2007-05-21 07:00 am (UTC)TBH, I'm sceptical of the whole idea of retooling a (very good) book as a TV story, but we shall see.
Fair point also about the star, I hadn't even thought of that - the other stories I mentioned were both yer proper large-scale stellar manipulation, so the stars had more reason to be irked.
no subject
Date: 2007-05-21 07:01 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-05-21 07:02 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-05-21 09:20 am (UTC)Urgh...
Good morning sa cats:
Date: 2007-05-21 09:21 am (UTC)Re: Good morning sa cats:
Date: 2007-05-21 06:09 pm (UTC)