I did enjoy watching The Lord of The Rings even with it's discrepancies. The basis of the story was there
I never watched a movie that truly captured the depth of the book it was based on.
This is why, if I can, I never read the book the first, I watch the movie first, then I read the book.
I must say that the LotR extended edition by Peter Jackson did a hell of a job keeping with the books.
I don’t believe that version will ever be done better if ever done again at all.
I think it’s Timeless.
The Hobbit on the other hand…
Breaking the hobbit into 3 movies was just a exercize in milking an IP for more milk than it ever had in it.
And a big FU to Amazon Prime that has the first 2 Hobbit movies included but you need to pay extra to watch the 3rd one. Oddly fitting that they are also trying to milk it.
Wow! I had not heard about this.
I'm glad I left Amazon 2 years ago
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse. - FARGIN_WAR
Strangely enough I don't recall Doctor Who being mentioned yet so here goes. In the world of campy action sci-fi it's right on up there on the popularity list. I'm curious what opinions posters have of the franchise.
Personally it's hit and miss for me. Much of the classics don't resonate with me, but like the modern series I think it really depends on the writers.
My favorite Doctor is Tenet and I loved the Bad Wolf storyline, but I think Matt Smith (my second favorite) has the best storyline of all. Both I think made the best Doctors (and had great assistants) but it was their writers that made them look so good.
I think Capaldi and Whittaker are excellent actors that got hamstrung with a horrible writing staff. It isn't just that the narratives didn't resonate with me, but I don't think the writers wrote The Doctor to fit those actors very well at all. That's unfortunate.
While Doctor Who is often very campy it also has some great stories and explores interesting personal and interpersonal themes. The science is light (that's probably being kind) and is more pure fantasy with a coat of "sciency" looking paint.
Another issue I have with the series is the BBC itself which shamelessly markets any and all of their IPs for what seems like a quick buck (see the EVE crossover for example). They seem primarily invested in Doctor Who as a ratings, advertising, and merchandising machine rather than a beloved IP to explore. So, Doctor Who as an IP with stories to tell hasn't been given the respectful treatment it deserves by the BBC and as a result has suffered a bit for that.
Here I display my ignorance of Dr. Who
PBS (Public Broadcasting System) was America's "window to British TV", back in the day (early to mid seventies for me). This is where I was exposed to Monty Python, Red Dwarf, and Dr. Who. It is still a major source for British TV for Americans to this day.
When I first saw Dr. Who, I was a young teen(?). I believe the first Doctor I saw was Tom Baker(?). At that time, the show was so over my head I never religiously watched it. I never have. I did catch an episode here and there. I did enjoy the snot of Monty Python and Red Dwarf, though
I have heard LOTS of discussions about Dr. Who, though. The episodes I saw were basically fun romps through time. As for "best Dr. Who?" Tom Baker is who I associate with the role, simply because he was the first one for me. I need to find the David Tenet episodes because I enjoyed how he portrayed "The Purple Man" in the Jessica Jones Netflix series.
OK... My incoherent ramblings are over
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse. - FARGIN_WAR
Strangely enough I don't recall Doctor Who being mentioned yet so here goes. In the world of campy action sci-fi it's right on up there on the popularity list. I'm curious what opinions posters have of the franchise.
Personally it's hit and miss for me. Much of the classics don't resonate with me, but like the modern series I think it really depends on the writers.
My favorite Doctor is Tenet and I loved the Bad Wolf storyline, but I think Matt Smith (my second favorite) has the best storyline of all. Both I think made the best Doctors (and had great assistants) but it was their writers that made them look so good.
I think Capaldi and Whittaker are excellent actors that got hamstrung with a horrible writing staff. It isn't just that the narratives didn't resonate with me, but I don't think the writers wrote The Doctor to fit those actors very well at all. That's unfortunate.
While Doctor Who is often very campy it also has some great stories and explores interesting personal and interpersonal themes. The science is light (that's probably being kind) and is more pure fantasy with a coat of "sciency" looking paint.
Another issue I have with the series is the BBC itself which shamelessly markets any and all of their IPs for what seems like a quick buck (see the EVE crossover for example). They seem primarily invested in Doctor Who as a ratings, advertising, and merchandising machine rather than a beloved IP to explore. So, Doctor Who as an IP with stories to tell hasn't been given the respectful treatment it deserves by the BBC and as a result has suffered a bit for that.
I find this agreeable. Though personally, I think modern Who died with the Ponds. That's roughly when writers changed and the inherent energy of the show largely left. Moffatt didn't have quite the same spirit, and the show suffered, but it was still watchable if inferior under the rest of Smith and Capaldi. Then they changed writers again, and Chibnall proved to be a thoroughly joyless hack that ruined Whittaker's run.
Personally, I think the talent of the actors is largely irrelevant for DW because of how camp it is. A comically bad actor in the role can lend it just as much fun as a great one. But the show can't endure bad or, more importantly, unimaginative writing, as it thrives on the exploration of wild new plotlines in brave new worlds.
Russel T. Davis is returning so people must agree with us that the new showrunner wasn't cutting it @Aeander
Yes, and I'm interested. But having to watch all that mediocrity to catch up is a huge barrier to entry or re-entry. It seems to me like they need to reboot the reboot.
I did enjoy watching The Lord of The Rings even with it's discrepancies. The basis of the story was there
I never watched a movie that truly captured the depth of the book it was based on.
This is why, if I can, I never read the book the first, I watch the movie first, then I read the book.
'The Prestige' has done a pretty good job. Then there are movies that are better than the books. For instance 'The Shining', movie is a masterpiece while the book is Stephen King. I can think of more Stephen King stuff; The Shawshank Redemption, Stand by Me, The Green Mile, The Dead Zone, The Mist, and Misery. All of which I believe movies are better than the books.
Scot mentioned word bloat in modern fiction. I like to refer to that as Stephen King syndrome. Part way through most of his novels there is this long dry spot where he goes on and on into minutiae.
Gunslinger is a good example. At some point you begin wondering what he's talking about, where he's going with it, and why he's getting sidetracked into these seemingly irrelevant details. Then you may be tempted to give him the benefit and think it will all tie together soon. Then 250 pages later you're going bloody hell he just on and on and on.
Pet Semetary was as good as the movie but the movie was also excellent. Shawshank was an awesome movie, but the cast also made that show. The classic "The Stand" miniseries was excellent too. I'd like watch the modern remake at some point.
You can't blame Stephen King for the world's modern publishing trend for word bloat. What next, shall will blame Agatha Christie for the popularisation of the paperback novel as The Mysterious Affair At Styles was one of the first ten books Penguin published as paperbacks and it became a roaring success?
Yes he is an offender for excessive padding, but still great works of fiction. The fault for this lays at the door of publishing houses.
I don't blame him for the trend, but I think he exemplifies it and has been a trendsetter in this regard which is why I refer to it by his name. For decades now he's done that and it really makes reading some of his stuff a drag. He's rich and popular enough that he could buck that trend if he wanted to whereas lesser know and struggling authors may not have much of a choice if their publisher pressures them.
I suspect that editors are very reluctant to actually edit Stephen King. He could publish his childhood crayon scribbles and it would sell. Talked to a NYT bestselling author once, and he decried losing his original editor, who would ride him hard. Said the new editors were too circumspect, too respectful, too fearful, to make hard editing passes.
I quit reading King decades ago, mostly due to his uninteresting bloat.
I was going to mention this, what publicist is going to say today "Stephen, that whole chapter it has to go." But if that were true his early books would be shorter than his latest ones:
1st four Carrie 60k words. Salem's Lot 152k The Shinning 160k The Stand 472k
Strangely enough I don't recall Doctor Who being mentioned yet so here goes. In the world of campy action sci-fi it's right on up there on the popularity list. I'm curious what opinions posters have of the franchise.
Personally it's hit and miss for me. Much of the classics don't resonate with me, but like the modern series I think it really depends on the writers.
My favorite Doctor is Tenet and I loved the Bad Wolf storyline, but I think Matt Smith (my second favorite) has the best storyline of all. Both I think made the best Doctors (and had great assistants) but it was their writers that made them look so good.
I think Capaldi and Whittaker are excellent actors that got hamstrung with a horrible writing staff. It isn't just that the narratives didn't resonate with me, but I don't think the writers wrote The Doctor to fit those actors very well at all. That's unfortunate.
While Doctor Who is often very campy it also has some great stories and explores interesting personal and interpersonal themes. The science is light (that's probably being kind) and is more pure fantasy with a coat of "sciency" looking paint.
Another issue I have with the series is the BBC itself which shamelessly markets any and all of their IPs for what seems like a quick buck (see the EVE crossover for example). They seem primarily invested in Doctor Who as a ratings, advertising, and merchandising machine rather than a beloved IP to explore. So, Doctor Who as an IP with stories to tell hasn't been given the respectful treatment it deserves by the BBC and as a result has suffered a bit for that.
I find this agreeable. Though personally, I think modern Who died with the Ponds. That's roughly when writers changed and the inherent energy of the show largely left. Moffatt didn't have quite the same spirit, and the show suffered, but it was still watchable if inferior under the rest of Smith and Capaldi. Then they changed writers again, and Chibnall proved to be a thoroughly joyless hack that ruined Whittaker's run.
Personally, I think the talent of the actors is largely irrelevant for DW because of how camp it is. A comically bad actor in the role can lend it just as much fun as a great one. But the show can't endure bad or, more importantly, unimaginative writing, as it thrives on the exploration of wild new plotlines in brave new worlds.
Russel T. Davis is returning so people must agree with us that the new showrunner wasn't cutting it @Aeander
Yes, and I'm interested. But having to watch all that mediocrity to catch up is a huge barrier to entry or re-entry. It seems to me like they need to reboot the reboot.
Honestly I have always looked at Doctor Who in the lense of, When a new doctor comes in is the best time to jump on, as long as they bring in a new doctor with the new showrunner I will check it out
The only Doctor Who I know was the original.
Imho you really had to be on some good drugs to come up with some of that stuff
Strangely enough I don't recall Doctor Who being mentioned yet so here goes. In the world of campy action sci-fi it's right on up there on the popularity list. I'm curious what opinions posters have of the franchise.
Personally it's hit and miss for me. Much of the classics don't resonate with me, but like the modern series I think it really depends on the writers.
My favorite Doctor is Tenet and I loved the Bad Wolf storyline, but I think Matt Smith (my second favorite) has the best storyline of all. Both I think made the best Doctors (and had great assistants) but it was their writers that made them look so good.
I think Capaldi and Whittaker are excellent actors that got hamstrung with a horrible writing staff. It isn't just that the narratives didn't resonate with me, but I don't think the writers wrote The Doctor to fit those actors very well at all. That's unfortunate.
While Doctor Who is often very campy it also has some great stories and explores interesting personal and interpersonal themes. The science is light (that's probably being kind) and is more pure fantasy with a coat of "sciency" looking paint.
Another issue I have with the series is the BBC itself which shamelessly markets any and all of their IPs for what seems like a quick buck (see the EVE crossover for example). They seem primarily invested in Doctor Who as a ratings, advertising, and merchandising machine rather than a beloved IP to explore. So, Doctor Who as an IP with stories to tell hasn't been given the respectful treatment it deserves by the BBC and as a result has suffered a bit for that.
I find this agreeable. Though personally, I think modern Who died with the Ponds. That's roughly when writers changed and the inherent energy of the show largely left. Moffatt didn't have quite the same spirit, and the show suffered, but it was still watchable if inferior under the rest of Smith and Capaldi. Then they changed writers again, and Chibnall proved to be a thoroughly joyless hack that ruined Whittaker's run.
Personally, I think the talent of the actors is largely irrelevant for DW because of how camp it is. A comically bad actor in the role can lend it just as much fun as a great one. But the show can't endure bad or, more importantly, unimaginative writing, as it thrives on the exploration of wild new plotlines in brave new worlds.
Russel T. Davis is returning so people must agree with us that the new showrunner wasn't cutting it @Aeander
Yes, and I'm interested. But having to watch all that mediocrity to catch up is a huge barrier to entry or re-entry. It seems to me like they need to reboot the reboot.
Honestly I have always looked at Doctor Who in the lense of, When a new doctor comes in is the best time to jump on, as long as they bring in a new doctor with the new showrunner I will check it out
The only Doctor Who I know was the original.
I personally liked David Tennant's doctor a lot. And some Dr Who geeks I know seem to agree.
Respect, walk, what did you say? Respect, walk Are you talkin' to me? Are you talkin' to me? - PANTERA at HELLFEST 2023
Tom Holland is a fine actor, and plays Peter Parker well, but the MCU Peter Parker is easily the most forgettable Peter, and faces the least amount of actual problems compared to Toby/Garfield.
Tom Holland is a fine actor, and plays Peter Parker well, but the MCU Peter Parker is easily the most forgettable Peter, and faces the least amount of actual problems compared to Toby/Garfield.
I feel this way but with Toby. I hated his spider-man and peter parker. He isn't great in the role at all and his movies are held up by his villains just like The Joker holds up The Dark Knight.
I'm not entirely certain that the Rhino held up much of anything in the Garfield movies. The Lizard and Electro were good, but for me the real reason to watch any of the Garfield movies was Stacy Gwen.
For the McGuire movies, it was definitely Doc Ock and Sandman. I'm a lot more indifferent to Green Goblin or Venom.
Regardless of the actor in the suit, the best part has been J. Jonah.
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
So the data does not suggest that, it is very mixed. If you ask me bloattitis started in the 70's and has been with us ever since.
Like I mentioned to Sovrath I don't blame him for the trend. I don't think he bloats his works intentionally. I just think he goes on and on. When I was writing review articles for Bill and Suzie I had a real struggle keeping within the maximum word limit. Sometimes there is a lot to say and doing it succinctly is a challenge. I do blame the industry for what I perceive as them chasing after a success formula based on his style and works like the gaming industry flopped and twitched trying to recreate World of Warcraft.
Could we have posters on here with word bloat? Is that even possible? On a thread that's on only its tenth page...never.
Strangely enough I don't recall Doctor Who being mentioned yet so here goes. In the world of campy action sci-fi it's right on up there on the popularity list. I'm curious what opinions posters have of the franchise.
Personally it's hit and miss for me. Much of the classics don't resonate with me, but like the modern series I think it really depends on the writers.
My favorite Doctor is Tenet and I loved the Bad Wolf storyline, but I think Matt Smith (my second favorite) has the best storyline of all. Both I think made the best Doctors (and had great assistants) but it was their writers that made them look so good.
I think Capaldi and Whittaker are excellent actors that got hamstrung with a horrible writing staff. It isn't just that the narratives didn't resonate with me, but I don't think the writers wrote The Doctor to fit those actors very well at all. That's unfortunate.
While Doctor Who is often very campy it also has some great stories and explores interesting personal and interpersonal themes. The science is light (that's probably being kind) and is more pure fantasy with a coat of "sciency" looking paint.
Another issue I have with the series is the BBC itself which shamelessly markets any and all of their IPs for what seems like a quick buck (see the EVE crossover for example). They seem primarily invested in Doctor Who as a ratings, advertising, and merchandising machine rather than a beloved IP to explore. So, Doctor Who as an IP with stories to tell hasn't been given the respectful treatment it deserves by the BBC and as a result has suffered a bit for that.
Doctor Who has been a personal favorite since the late 70s. The local PBS station was run out of college and they opened their office for viewings every Friday night. They had a large screen setup (rare back then) and put the broadcast of Doctor Who. No admission. Far easier to make the walk across campus than to try to wrangle the dorm's pathetic TV from whatever drek was on. A fond remembrance of the Tom Baker years. I went from there to watch the older seasons as well.
While I appreciate the 'new' Who, it deviated greatly from the original formula. The emergence of 'empowered' companions (Rose, Amy Pond, Clara) who saves the universe (literally, and on a couple of occasions) doesn't sit well with me. The New Series has had a couple of great stories, but they have been too hit-and-miss. Bad-to-dreadful script writing, coupled with some curious production issues; the wobbly sets of the 1960s seem to have been replaced with inconsistent sound editing in the 2010s.
The BBC (and BBCA) have both mistreated and undervalued the show. Even the current stories (Eve of the Daleks) lists the wrong cast on multiple US cable networks.
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
Unpopular.. I like F2P, Enjoy Item Shops, and think that Subs were a waste.. There I said it.
I agree with you honestly. I don't mind paying a sub but I like trying a game first. Like Albion. I played for 4 days and put 16 hours into it which is rare for me so I subbed for a month. If I burn it I will cancel but hey I am enjoying it now. I also have no problem dropping money on an item shop if the game is free or B2P and cheap.
To be honest, I like B2P as well.
I fully support optional sub based games, like LotRO, DDO, and many others.
I fully support the idea of F2P/B2P game systems, that will have paid and free content, in fact, I feel that the idea of buying content is about the most honest approach that a game company can make, you like the game, you buy more of the game, it's an honest, simple, and straightforward exchange.
If you don't like the game, feel free to screw around for a bit, play the free stuff and then move on, hopefully to a game you enjoy more.
But I despise the Sub based system, simply because that makes it so that I am always renting access to what should be my character. I could pay that sub for 20 years, and if I want to even so much as look at my character sheet or just take a stroll in game, I will need to pay that sub again, and truth be told, to me, I think that whole plan sucks.
Nothing against the people that like that plan, I just think it's stupid and it sucks.
You convinced me on this, originally subs were designed with the intent to continue making content and making the game better. What ending up happening is the sub got baked into the price and these games charged for DLC's anyways. The games declined in quality in most cases.
I agree B2P with paid content DLC's is my preferred option now. Make them earn their money and continue making quality products or leave the game as it is and make a completely new product. Either way I think the players are better for it this way.
And people wonder why the mmorpg landscape is so bad right now. You really think developers are earning there money now versus the subscription model? I'll let you in on a secret, if subs were better for the companies (less work, more money), they would still be in style. And I find it interesting you use the term DLC as that was not a thing in the prime sub days. There were expansions that actually had content, rather than a DLC with a new questline and some bobbles in the cash shop.
The quality didn't begin to suffer due to the nature of subs, it has suffered due to introduction of monetization, an influx of new players with no attention span and the mutation of the genre to show traits of all the other genres. It's amazing what the appearance of freedom can do to some people. Thank goodness we have a world of Smedley's so we can all play our way.
So the data does not suggest that, it is very mixed. If you ask me bloattitis started in the 70's and has been with us ever since.
Like I mentioned to Sovrath I don't blame him for the trend. I don't think he bloats his works intentionally. I just think he goes on and on. When I was writing review articles for Bill and Suzie I had a real struggle keeping within the maximum word limit. Sometimes there is a lot to say and doing it succinctly is a challenge. I do blame the industry for what I perceive as them chasing after a success formula based on his style and works like the gaming industry flopped and twitched trying to recreate World of Warcraft.
Could we have posters on here with word bloat? Is that even possible? On a thread that's on only its tenth page...never.
As I sit here in my pajamas drinking my coffee with cream and sugar, I find I may be falling into this rut of "over explaining" my positions. Maybe just a click on a "like/insightful/lol" would work better?
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse. - FARGIN_WAR
So the data does not suggest that, it is very mixed. If you ask me bloattitis started in the 70's and has been with us ever since.
Like I mentioned to Sovrath I don't blame him for the trend. I don't think he bloats his works intentionally. I just think he goes on and on. When I was writing review articles for Bill and Suzie I had a real struggle keeping within the maximum word limit. Sometimes there is a lot to say and doing it succinctly is a challenge. I do blame the industry for what I perceive as them chasing after a success formula based on his style and works like the gaming industry flopped and twitched trying to recreate World of Warcraft.
Could we have posters on here with word bloat? Is that even possible? On a thread that's on only its tenth page...never.
As I sit here in my pajamas drinking my coffee with cream and sugar, I find I may be falling into this rut of "over explaining" my positions. Maybe just a click on a "like/insightful/lol" would work better?
I have just been watching a programme about how likes and retweets in social media have changed the nature of social discourse on the internet. "likes" are even more insidious than I already realised they were. So no, keep typing.
Egotism is the anesthetic that dullens the pain of stupidity, this is why when I try to beat my head against the stupidity of other people, I only hurt myself.
I would prefer to not play a guessing game but he was mis-posting threads in the Pub a lot. If that's all it is I assume the ban must be temporary. But we never see all the posts he may have gone ballistic about something.
I LOVE the Conan stories by the original author Robert E. Howard.
I LOVE the first two books of Harry Potter. After that though, Rowling lost "it". And the movies are just superflous, sorry.
I LOVE Buffy the vampire slayer. Best long running tv show I know. It starts slow and doesnt kick into speed until the second half of the second season. But from the very first episode we have these fantastic dialogues.
I LOVE Firefly. Best tv show I know. And I cant even usually stand western. Even with Firefly, the western elements keep annoying me. But still, best tv show I know. Again many fantastic dialogues.
I LOVE The Fifth Element. One of the most original and funny movies I've ever seen.
I like Doctor Who. My favorite doctors are #4 Tom Bakeer and #11 Matt Smith. I'm sad NuWho is ending now.
With Lord of the Rings, I far prefer the movies over the books. Sure, there are important elements sadly missing. But the books are so damn super long and NOT too well written.
With 2001, I prefer the book by far over the movie. The movie is great in many regards, but horrendously slow.
My favorite game of all times is Baldurs Gate 2: Shadows of Amn.
My favorite MMO is Vanguard: Saga of Heroes.
My favorite game without a party, where you play a single character, is Vampire: The Masquerade: Bloodlines. Especially with the fanmade plus patch, which raises it to an even higher level.
I prefer Terminator II: Judgement Day over The Terminator. The improvements in technology really helped. I dont like any other Terminator material, not even the tv show, which was however better than all other things Terminator.
I've read a few the Witcher books, but not in proper sequence or completely. They are however so much better than the games. The only episode of The Witcher tv series that I've watched so far was S02E01, and it was decent enough. People seem to love it in general.
Well, I like The Expanse. It does many things right that every other show gets wrong. Really nice for physics in movies to actually make sense. And theres some good storytelling going on, too.
But it clearly has run for too long. The writers have run out of ideas. Too bad, since so much is not yet really wrapped up.
I like Discworld, but its been a while since I've read them. Still, the books are very funny.
I've read the first four books of A Song of Fire and Ice, but frankly its been a while, and they arent that great. The tv show of course was a very, lets say mixed experience. Some uber actors. Some really lazy producers that destroyed the show in the end.
I like all of Star Trek, up to and including Enterprise.
My least favorite of old Star Trek is actually DS9. For the full Star Trek experience you have to be able to cherrypick the best episodes. But DS9 makes exactly that impossible, you have to watch DS9 in sequence to get the story. And that story is not worth it. DS9 also has the most useless characters. Even Worf is boring on DS9.
Babylon 5 is the same as DS9, you have to watch all episodes in sequence. And its much cheaper produced than DS9. But after its slow and boring start it really rewards you big time for keeping watching it. I like B5 much better than DS9.
I consider both the movie "Galaxy Quest" as well as the tv show "The Orville" to be honorably part of Star Trek. Galaxy Quest is absolutely genius and The Orville is maybe not too experimental and off the beaten track, but very well done.
I hated the first Jar Jar Abrams Star Trek movie so much I didnt bother to watch anything else of that. The only appropiate comment to Star Trek Discovery is really just projectile puking. "Picard" is the best so far of NuTrek, but it started quite weak and got worse very quickly, up to the point when absolutely nothing made sense at all anymore.
Star Wars:
Original triology - OK. The first movie is a bit slow to progress, the second and third movie are better in this regard. I especially love the idealism of Luke when he fights Vader.
Prequels - OK. I dont really buy Anakin as a character too much, and I find the whole midichloridian deal quite stupid, but otherwise its still fun. Oh, and I dont mind Yar Yar Binks much.
The Knights of the Old Republic - my favorite Star Wars thing ever. Not a flawless game by any means, but its story was great. The second game was a mess and I never tried the MMO.
Clone Wars tv show - Fun enough
The Mandalorian - Not perfect, but enjoyable enough.
Any cinematic Star Wars movie by Disney - Various levels of godawful. Rogue One was the least offensive, but still perfectly superflous, not a story that was necessary to tell, or well told. Solo was brutally inconsistent with what we know about the past of Han Solos character and storywise not interesting at all either. I especially hated the sterotypical ending.
I really hate Avatar with a passion. Its by one of my favorite directors, and it started really, really strong. But then it totally collapsed on itself, ending in nothing but inconsistencies, predictability, and poor oneliners.
I like Xena. The show starts nice, but gets worse and worse, until its unwatchable.
I never really liked Blade. The first movie started really great but then Blade entered the scene and killed it. Why, thanks Blade ! The rest of the movie was crap, so was the second. The third of the movies was the best one, but still not great.
I dont like Dune. Its horribly limited in scope and very full of itself. I understand the new movie is a two parter.
I havent read Wheel of Time, but the tv show was so horrible I simply stopped watching and have no inkling to ever continue watching.
I dont like Blade Runner. I mean sure theres interesting elements, but at its core its a crime story and I just dont like those.
Big Bad Evil Guys (BBEG) that HAVE to soliloquy about how much stronger they are compared to you after running you through their gauntlet of "minions" and "under captains." I want an option to laugh in their face as I point to the hundreds of dead bodies littering the floor.
"Really? Would you (BBEG) like a rest before I rip your guts out, too"
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse. - FARGIN_WAR
If you take movies, I honestly don't like them at all. In games it's very good. Well, if you take the scientific point of view and really learn something unusual, then I love it.
MMORPG is one of the worst genre despite being one of my favorites. I dislike 80% of MMORPG smh.
WoW made questing worst gaming wide with it becoming the default quest. Basically just going through the motions. No more investigation to solve problems.
I miss the false hope of vaporware MMORPG. Reality sucks and talking about hopeful fresh MMORPG was enjoyable. Even if they were never seeing the light of day.
Elves are overdone races.
The Orville is a better Star Trek than newer Star Trek shows and movies.
The Expanse is not captivating.
Cartoons are the superior medium for fantasy/Scifi.
I kind of dislike a lot of how different extra terrestrials are modeled. I understand it's impossible to actually know what they do look like, but I doubt most of them are bipedal with comparable limbs and height. Or at least, they shouldn't look like that
I kind of dislike a lot of how different extra terrestrials are modeled. I understand it's impossible to actually know what they do look like, but I doubt most of them are bipedal with comparable limbs and height. Or at least, they shouldn't look like that
I had a biology professor (who was also a huge scifi nerd) who refered to it as Star Trek syndrome. The belief that aliens resemble humans in funny suits.
I thought Andy Weir did a great job in describing the extra terrestrials in his novel Project Hail Mary and getting away from the usual trope of how aliens and alien cultures are described.
Never really been a fan of sci-fi.....Didnt like Star Trek, Star Wars, or any of the other things that we are supposed to like....As far as gaming goes, I think the only sci-fi game I liked was Anarchy Online and it plays more like a fantasy....You dont really travel in space and everything takes place on one planet....THe professions are really just fantasy classes in disguise..
I kind of dislike a lot of how different extra terrestrials are modeled. I understand it's impossible to actually know what they do look like, but I doubt most of them are bipedal with comparable limbs and height. Or at least, they shouldn't look like that
It was explained once to me that it was about efficiency, most lifeforms will not have a body that uses more energy than necessary, so as they evolve, they will follow a form follows function approach.
We also note that most animals in our planet have 4 limbs, so this becomes a base model, or put another way, a generic minimum, which is why in high fantasy and some sci-fi, the more apex predator, the more powerhouse the monster, invariably, the more limbs/appendages they have, because they were able to consume the additional resources to make that form viable.
This is why Dragons have 4 legs/arms, and 2 wings, which put them at 50% more development than other normal animals, this is a mark of how much more an apex predator they are, above normal animals, and a tribute to the fact that they can in fact hunt and consume enough to support that additional energy need.
With that in mind, since the stories are created by humans, who feel that they are somehow on the top of evolutionary ladder, it would stand to reason in their mind, outside some kind of hybrid, that the same kind of evolution process that created humans, would also happen other planets, assuming the primary species was non-insectoid.
Egotism is the anesthetic that dullens the pain of stupidity, this is why when I try to beat my head against the stupidity of other people, I only hurt myself.
I kind of dislike a lot of how different extra terrestrials are modeled. I understand it's impossible to actually know what they do look like, but I doubt most of them are bipedal with comparable limbs and height. Or at least, they shouldn't look like that
It was explained once to me that it was about efficiency, most lifeforms will not have a body that uses more energy than necessary, so as they evolve, they will follow a form follows function approach.
We also note that most animals in our planet have 4 limbs, so this becomes a base model, or put another way, a generic minimum, which is why in high fantasy and some sci-fi, the more apex predator, the more powerhouse the monster, invariably, the more limbs/appendages they have, because they were able to consume the additional resources to make that form viable.
This is why Dragons have 4 legs/arms, and 2 wings, which put them at 50% more development than other normal animals, this is a mark of how much more an apex predator they are, above normal animals, and a tribute to the fact that they can in fact hunt and consume enough to support that additional energy need.
With that in mind, since the stories are created by humans, who feel that they are somehow on the top of evolutionary ladder, it would stand to reason in their mind, outside some kind of hybrid, that the same kind of evolution process that created humans, would also happen other planets, assuming the primary species was non-insectoid.
Just tossing in some comment on RL evolution.
Fist, remember that some animals are very small versions of a specific type, due to evolving later stages on small islands. That's because of food availability, the smaller ones could survive when the larger ones starved out. So inch by inch, over centuries, they got smaller and smaller. All things evolution are based on energy and efficiency.
As far as aliens, and we're talking about technically advanced aliens, that all applies to them just as it did to our own evolution.
Think about this. How does a species evolve into a technologically advanced critter like we did? They had to start somewhere as tool users, and they had to evolve into advanced tool users, and then into advanced technology. There are three things that are absolutely required. Hands, or something that works as well as hands, and brains which comes naturally as soon as hands evolve, robbing from the physical and requiring more brains for survival. And the third is standing upright, to free those hands up for more advanced use. This goes along with the evolution of brains, I would think (robbing from the physical, as I said).
So there you have it. Evolution of "intelligent" and technical species will almost always be of 4 limbs (the most efficient in most cases), bipedal walking, and large capable brains.
Octopi are highly intelligent thinkers. But they don't have hands, so they can't make the jump to advanced tools and then technology. Crows will figure out puzzles (check YouTube for proof), but they don't have hands so they can't make that jump either.
In short, most aliens visiting Earth will be similar to us.
A lot of positive mentions of The Expanse... IMO - the current season is a slog for me... really boring. I haven't even pushed myself to finish it.
Last season only had six episodes and was done early. It was just a messy wrap-up. The seasons up to that were great though.
The first season was just so good with the Noir Scifi detective plot. Second season continued it a bit. Highly recommend.
This season, daddy has issues with a out of control son and it's mostly about politics (oversimplified). Meh.
And tzervo, I try not to look at total episode count in advance... but I think I'm on 4 of the six you mentioned... 2 episodes to go, I think I'm going to be disappointed.
Comments
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR
1st four
Carrie 60k words.
Salem's Lot 152k
The Shinning 160k
The Stand 472k
4 ending in 2015
11/22/63 274k
Mr Mercedes 137
Finders Keepers 124
Joyland 82k
So the data does not suggest that, it is very mixed. If you ask me bloattitis started in the 70's and has been with us ever since.
Imho you really had to be on some good drugs to come up with some of that stuff
I mean that in a good way. Quite the imaginations
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
I personally liked David Tennant's doctor a lot. And some Dr Who geeks I know seem to agree.
Respect, walk
Are you talkin' to me? Are you talkin' to me?
- PANTERA at HELLFEST 2023
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
The quality didn't begin to suffer due to the nature of subs, it has suffered due to introduction of monetization, an influx of new players with no attention span and the mutation of the genre to show traits of all the other genres. It's amazing what the appearance of freedom can do to some people. Thank goodness we have a world of Smedley's so we can all play our way.
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR
I LOVE the first two books of Harry Potter. After that though, Rowling lost "it". And the movies are just superflous, sorry.
I LOVE Buffy the vampire slayer. Best long running tv show I know. It starts slow and doesnt kick into speed until the second half of the second season. But from the very first episode we have these fantastic dialogues.
I LOVE Firefly. Best tv show I know. And I cant even usually stand western. Even with Firefly, the western elements keep annoying me. But still, best tv show I know. Again many fantastic dialogues.
I LOVE The Fifth Element. One of the most original and funny movies I've ever seen.
I like Doctor Who. My favorite doctors are #4 Tom Bakeer and #11 Matt Smith. I'm sad NuWho is ending now.
With Lord of the Rings, I far prefer the movies over the books. Sure, there are important elements sadly missing. But the books are so damn super long and NOT too well written.
With 2001, I prefer the book by far over the movie. The movie is great in many regards, but horrendously slow.
My favorite game of all times is Baldurs Gate 2: Shadows of Amn.
My favorite MMO is Vanguard: Saga of Heroes.
My favorite game without a party, where you play a single character, is Vampire: The Masquerade: Bloodlines. Especially with the fanmade plus patch, which raises it to an even higher level.
I prefer Terminator II: Judgement Day over The Terminator. The improvements in technology really helped. I dont like any other Terminator material, not even the tv show, which was however better than all other things Terminator.
I've read a few the Witcher books, but not in proper sequence or completely. They are however so much better than the games. The only episode of The Witcher tv series that I've watched so far was S02E01, and it was decent enough. People seem to love it in general.
Well, I like The Expanse. It does many things right that every other show gets wrong. Really nice for physics in movies to actually make sense. And theres some good storytelling going on, too.
But it clearly has run for too long. The writers have run out of ideas. Too bad, since so much is not yet really wrapped up.
I like Discworld, but its been a while since I've read them. Still, the books are very funny.
I've read the first four books of A Song of Fire and Ice, but frankly its been a while, and they arent that great. The tv show of course was a very, lets say mixed experience. Some uber actors. Some really lazy producers that destroyed the show in the end.
I like all of Star Trek, up to and including Enterprise.
My least favorite of old Star Trek is actually DS9. For the full Star Trek experience you have to be able to cherrypick the best episodes. But DS9 makes exactly that impossible, you have to watch DS9 in sequence to get the story. And that story is not worth it. DS9 also has the most useless characters. Even Worf is boring on DS9.
Babylon 5 is the same as DS9, you have to watch all episodes in sequence. And its much cheaper produced than DS9. But after its slow and boring start it really rewards you big time for keeping watching it. I like B5 much better than DS9.
I consider both the movie "Galaxy Quest" as well as the tv show "The Orville" to be honorably part of Star Trek. Galaxy Quest is absolutely genius and The Orville is maybe not too experimental and off the beaten track, but very well done.
I hated the first Jar Jar Abrams Star Trek movie so much I didnt bother to watch anything else of that. The only appropiate comment to Star Trek Discovery is really just projectile puking. "Picard" is the best so far of NuTrek, but it started quite weak and got worse very quickly, up to the point when absolutely nothing made sense at all anymore.
Star Wars:
Original triology - OK. The first movie is a bit slow to progress, the second and third movie are better in this regard. I especially love the idealism of Luke when he fights Vader.
Prequels - OK. I dont really buy Anakin as a character too much, and I find the whole midichloridian deal quite stupid, but otherwise its still fun. Oh, and I dont mind Yar Yar Binks much.
The Knights of the Old Republic - my favorite Star Wars thing ever. Not a flawless game by any means, but its story was great. The second game was a mess and I never tried the MMO.
Clone Wars tv show - Fun enough
The Mandalorian - Not perfect, but enjoyable enough.
Any cinematic Star Wars movie by Disney - Various levels of godawful. Rogue One was the least offensive, but still perfectly superflous, not a story that was necessary to tell, or well told. Solo was brutally inconsistent with what we know about the past of Han Solos character and storywise not interesting at all either. I especially hated the sterotypical ending.
I really hate Avatar with a passion. Its by one of my favorite directors, and it started really, really strong. But then it totally collapsed on itself, ending in nothing but inconsistencies, predictability, and poor oneliners.
I like Xena. The show starts nice, but gets worse and worse, until its unwatchable.
I never really liked Blade. The first movie started really great but then Blade entered the scene and killed it. Why, thanks Blade ! The rest of the movie was crap, so was the second. The third of the movies was the best one, but still not great.
I dont like Dune. Its horribly limited in scope and very full of itself. I understand the new movie is a two parter.
I havent read Wheel of Time, but the tv show was so horrible I simply stopped watching and have no inkling to ever continue watching.
I dont like Blade Runner. I mean sure theres interesting elements, but at its core its a crime story and I just dont like those.
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR
WoW made questing worst gaming wide with it becoming the default quest. Basically just going through the motions. No more investigation to solve problems.
I miss the false hope of vaporware MMORPG. Reality sucks and talking about hopeful fresh MMORPG was enjoyable. Even if they were never seeing the light of day.
Elves are overdone races.
The Orville is a better Star Trek than newer Star Trek shows and movies.
The Expanse is not captivating.
Cartoons are the superior medium for fantasy/Scifi.
I thought Andy Weir did a great job in describing the extra terrestrials in his novel Project Hail Mary and getting away from the usual trope of how aliens and alien cultures are described.
We also note that most animals in our planet have 4 limbs, so this becomes a base model, or put another way, a generic minimum, which is why in high fantasy and some sci-fi, the more apex predator, the more powerhouse the monster, invariably, the more limbs/appendages they have, because they were able to consume the additional resources to make that form viable.
This is why Dragons have 4 legs/arms, and 2 wings, which put them at 50% more development than other normal animals, this is a mark of how much more an apex predator they are, above normal animals, and a tribute to the fact that they can in fact hunt and consume enough to support that additional energy need.
With that in mind, since the stories are created by humans, who feel that they are somehow on the top of evolutionary ladder, it would stand to reason in their mind, outside some kind of hybrid, that the same kind of evolution process that created humans, would also happen other planets, assuming the primary species was non-insectoid.
Fist, remember that some animals are very small versions of a specific type, due to evolving later stages on small islands. That's because of food availability, the smaller ones could survive when the larger ones starved out. So inch by inch, over centuries, they got smaller and smaller.
All things evolution are based on energy and efficiency.
As far as aliens, and we're talking about technically advanced aliens, that all applies to them just as it did to our own evolution.
Think about this. How does a species evolve into a technologically advanced critter like we did?
They had to start somewhere as tool users, and they had to evolve into advanced tool users, and then into advanced technology.
There are three things that are absolutely required.
Hands, or something that works as well as hands, and brains which comes naturally as soon as hands evolve, robbing from the physical and requiring more brains for survival.
And the third is standing upright, to free those hands up for more advanced use. This goes along with the evolution of brains, I would think (robbing from the physical, as I said).
So there you have it. Evolution of "intelligent" and technical species will almost always be of 4 limbs (the most efficient in most cases), bipedal walking, and large capable brains.
Octopi are highly intelligent thinkers. But they don't have hands, so they can't make the jump to advanced tools and then technology.
Crows will figure out puzzles (check YouTube for proof), but they don't have hands so they can't make that jump either.
In short, most aliens visiting Earth will be similar to us.
Once upon a time....
This season, daddy has issues with a out of control son and it's mostly about politics (oversimplified). Meh.
And tzervo, I try not to look at total episode count in advance... but I think I'm on 4 of the six you mentioned... 2 episodes to go, I think I'm going to be disappointed.