Stephen Hart
2005-12-25 01:20:11 UTC
Hi Don,
SH> were missing, which killed some of the story's quirkiness for me.
SH> ...and to echo that which I've heard all over the place, Marvin was
SH> utterly wrong except for perhaps having Alan Rickman handle his voice.
Thanks for the assessment. I think I'll wait for it to hit TV and
give it a "test drive" before buying. (That, or try to get around the
silly ID hassles that go with renting DVDs.) I'm getting the same
feeling I had when reading reviews of the new "BattleStar Galactica"
series -- while I might really like it, the odds are only fifty-fifty.
In passing, I bought "Serenity" the SF movie "sequel" to the "Firefly"
TV series. It delivered the goods for the fans, and may even have
created more "Firefly" fans. The only trouble there is that the movie
ties-up or cuts-off several "plot arcs" that Whedon never had a chance
to develop before the series was canceled. So, the movie being made
was a triumph and gave some "closure" for fans, but it may make things
awkward for new fans who try to go back and watch the TV series.
...Oh, yes. I noticed that while "Serenity" could serve as an
ending, there is also the possibility of another sequel.
Whoops! Sorry for going on like that. Just watched the movie last
night, eh?
SH> Even if I had only ever read the book instead of also watching the
SH> television series, my mind's eye pictures Marvin as a large, lethargic,
SH> hulking Cray with arms & legs. Not a waddling, spherical dwarf with
a
SH> giant globular head.
Ick! It was a long time ago, but I think I saw the television
series before reading the books. Anyroad, I too would find the new
Marvin a little jarring.
SH> market than anything else. The last time I remember seeing a readily
SH> available television channel air the series, I was in my pre-teens.
SH> Conversely the HGTTG "trilogy" is a nearly constant presence in book
SH> stores, usually in a pretty new package on a prominent display once
a
SH> year.
Good point. With all the cable channels available, I guess I assumed
that it was still being televised on some North American channels.
Come to think of it, I suppose all the old "Dr. Who" series have also
pretty much disappeared.
This shakes one of the theories some people put forth, as cable
bandwidth increased and satellite television networks proliferated.
Many people though that actors and shows might become "timeless" as
they picked-up entire new generations of fans through syndication.
Lord knows, I thought they were right when I heard that 1960s shows
like "The Partridge Family" were being broadcast again on the Much
Music cable channel. I guess the rule doesn't always apply, tho.
TTYL, ...Steve
-
If it's tourist season, why can't we shoot them?
Which reminds me to ask how you liked the movie.
SH> Refreshing, but excessively compressed. Many of the tangential sidebarsSH> were missing, which killed some of the story's quirkiness for me.
SH> ...and to echo that which I've heard all over the place, Marvin was
SH> utterly wrong except for perhaps having Alan Rickman handle his voice.
Thanks for the assessment. I think I'll wait for it to hit TV and
give it a "test drive" before buying. (That, or try to get around the
silly ID hassles that go with renting DVDs.) I'm getting the same
feeling I had when reading reviews of the new "BattleStar Galactica"
series -- while I might really like it, the odds are only fifty-fifty.
In passing, I bought "Serenity" the SF movie "sequel" to the "Firefly"
TV series. It delivered the goods for the fans, and may even have
created more "Firefly" fans. The only trouble there is that the movie
ties-up or cuts-off several "plot arcs" that Whedon never had a chance
to develop before the series was canceled. So, the movie being made
was a triumph and gave some "closure" for fans, but it may make things
awkward for new fans who try to go back and watch the TV series.
...Oh, yes. I noticed that while "Serenity" could serve as an
ending, there is also the possibility of another sequel.
Whoops! Sorry for going on like that. Just watched the movie last
night, eh?
SH> Even if I had only ever read the book instead of also watching the
SH> television series, my mind's eye pictures Marvin as a large, lethargic,
SH> hulking Cray with arms & legs. Not a waddling, spherical dwarf with
a
SH> giant globular head.
Ick! It was a long time ago, but I think I saw the television
series before reading the books. Anyroad, I too would find the new
Marvin a little jarring.
screen. Not once did I hear any mention of the classic television
series. This omission made me wonder whether they were afraid of
possible comparisons, but that was probably just my cynicism rearing
it's ugly head. :-/
SH> It may also have been a matter of familiarity within the North Americanseries. This omission made me wonder whether they were afraid of
possible comparisons, but that was probably just my cynicism rearing
it's ugly head. :-/
SH> market than anything else. The last time I remember seeing a readily
SH> available television channel air the series, I was in my pre-teens.
SH> Conversely the HGTTG "trilogy" is a nearly constant presence in book
SH> stores, usually in a pretty new package on a prominent display once
a
SH> year.
Good point. With all the cable channels available, I guess I assumed
that it was still being televised on some North American channels.
Come to think of it, I suppose all the old "Dr. Who" series have also
pretty much disappeared.
This shakes one of the theories some people put forth, as cable
bandwidth increased and satellite television networks proliferated.
Many people though that actors and shows might become "timeless" as
they picked-up entire new generations of fans through syndication.
Lord knows, I thought they were right when I heard that 1960s shows
like "The Partridge Family" were being broadcast again on the Much
Music cable channel. I guess the rule doesn't always apply, tho.
TTYL, ...Steve
-
If it's tourist season, why can't we shoot them?