And lo on Mon, 18 Feb 2008 18:48:12 -0000, Jim Henderson  
<nos### [at] nospamcom> did spake, saying:

> On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 14:42:17 +0000, Phil Cook wrote:
>
>>> The weird thing is that it's something of an anomaly for Carter's
>>> works. He managed to build a mythology that worked, even though it had
>>> some inconsistencies; it wasn't planned out at all, but it worked.  The
>>> Lone Gunmen could've been good, but he tried not planning that as well,
>>> and it just kinda flopped.
>>
>> The Lone Gunmen were never front-room people; they were always better in
>> the background.
>
> Yeah, I think that's part of the reason it failed.  Of course, his other
> program - Harsh Realm, I think it was called - total flop.

Was that one of his, I can't a preview and thought it sounded interesting  
never got broadcast on terrestrial here though.

>>> Yes, that was certainly true.  But the thing that I really like about
>>> it is that it's not clear-cut on some morality issues.  The good guys
>>> don't always behave in a way that's consistent with being the good
>>> guys.  They make bad decisions sometimes.
>>
>> But then that's always been a part of BSG
>
> True enough.  But compared to the 1970's series, this one is I think a
> lot better.  I tried watching the old series, and just couldn't get into
> it (though I remember really liking it, in spite of the fact that they
> had only 3 battle "scenes").

Sorry in context that should have read as 'always been a part of the new  
BSG'

> But then again, there was also Galactica 1980, here's hoping we don't see
> a remake of that again.
>
> Last night, we watched the remake of Knight Rider.  Utter crap.  There's
> 2 hours of my life I'm not getting back.

They remade Knight Rider - sacrilege ;-)

> The effects weren't bad, but
> they call *that* acting?  Shit, my cats can act better than that.  And it
> got a bit too preachy for my tastes - well, it starts off with scenes
> that looked like they could be out of Baywatch, then cut to an apparent
> lesbian scene between one of the main characters and some throwaway bimbo
> - but then we get scripture quoted at us partway through the programme.
> Oh, and marriage/divorce statistics.  Ho hum.  If I wanted a morality
> tale, I'd have gone to church instead.

But would you have got the lesbian scene at church?

>>> I like shows like that.  Spooks is another that I *really* liked.  How
>>> cool is it that they were perfectly fine killing off main characters?
>>
>> Went off it after season... 3 I think it was, just started to seem to
>> repeat itself with bigger and more ridiculous storylines; a bit like 24.
>
> Well, yeah, I did prefer the earlier seasons, but I have to admit that
> series 6 was pretty good - they were talking about doing more
> disconnected stories, but instead they went the other direction and built
> a real story arc.
>
> I have watched 24 - the thing about that one is that it's *so* farfetched
> it shorts my brain out and I can actually sit back and just watch and
> enjoy the explosions.  The tech is *so* far from the real world that it
> actually kinda works for me, because I can't sit and nitpick the stuff
> that's wrong because it's ALL wrong.

I have the opposite reaction for the same reasons you cite. Also perhaps  
because it's so American; I had similar problems with The West Wing.

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 09:09:20 +0000, Phil Cook wrote:

>> Yeah, I think that's part of the reason it failed.  Of course, his
>> other program - Harsh Realm, I think it was called - total flop.
> 
> Was that one of his, I can't a preview and thought it sounded
> interesting never got broadcast on terrestrial here though.

I believe it was - Yep, IMDB shows that it was created by Carter.

>> True enough.  But compared to the 1970's series, this one is I think a
>> lot better.  I tried watching the old series, and just couldn't get
>> into it (though I remember really liking it, in spite of the fact that
>> they had only 3 battle "scenes").
> 
> Sorry in context that should have read as 'always been a part of the new
> BSG'

:-)

>> But then again, there was also Galactica 1980, here's hoping we don't
>> see a remake of that again.
>>
>> Last night, we watched the remake of Knight Rider.  Utter crap. 
>> There's 2 hours of my life I'm not getting back.
> 
> They remade Knight Rider - sacrilege ;-)

What's more "The Hoff" was part of it.  He really should have known 
better. ;-)

>> The effects weren't bad, but
>> they call *that* acting?  Shit, my cats can act better than that.  And
>> it got a bit too preachy for my tastes - well, it starts off with
>> scenes that looked like they could be out of Baywatch, then cut to an
>> apparent lesbian scene between one of the main characters and some
>> throwaway bimbo - but then we get scripture quoted at us partway
>> through the programme. Oh, and marriage/divorce statistics.  Ho hum. 
>> If I wanted a morality tale, I'd have gone to church instead.
> 
> But would you have got the lesbian scene at church?

Not yet, but who knows, maybe that's coming in the series, if they 
continue it.

>> I have watched 24 - the thing about that one is that it's *so*
>> farfetched it shorts my brain out and I can actually sit back and just
>> watch and enjoy the explosions.  The tech is *so* far from the real
>> world that it actually kinda works for me, because I can't sit and
>> nitpick the stuff that's wrong because it's ALL wrong.
> 
> I have the opposite reaction for the same reasons you cite. Also perhaps
> because it's so American; I had similar problems with The West Wing.

Now that's certainly true (about it being "so American") - hadn't thought 
of that.  But I find it really really funny that the counter-terrorist 
unit in LA is one of the least secure facilities on the planet.  Kinda 
like Torchwood being the least secret secret organisation in the 
world. ;-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 01:11:16 -0300, nemesis wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 08:54:36 +0000, Phil Cook wrote:
>>> And lo on Thu, 14 Feb 2008 21:23:24 -0000, Jim Henderson
>>> <nos### [at] nospamcom> did spake, saying:
>>>> On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 15:07:32 -0500, nemesis wrote: I have Seinfeld
>>> Never got on with that.
>> Ditto.  I've watched it a few times, and it just seemed unfunny to me.
> 
> I'm not surprised.  You guys seem not funny at all.  *ducks*

<throws nearby object at Nemesis - and scores!>

Jim

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Tue, 19 Feb 2008 16:23:54 -0000, Jim Henderson  
<nos### [at] nospamcom> did spake, saying:

> On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 09:09:20 +0000, Phil Cook wrote:
>
>>> Yeah, I think that's part of the reason it failed.  Of course, his
>>> other program - Harsh Realm, I think it was called - total flop.
>>
>> Was that one of his, I can't a preview and thought it sounded
>> interesting never got broadcast on terrestrial here though.
>
> I believe it was - Yep, IMDB shows that it was created by Carter.

Now what am I thinking of... oh yeah Dark Skies; basically an Invaders  
knock-off, but of lower quality.

>>> Last night, we watched the remake of Knight Rider.  Utter crap.
>>> There's 2 hours of my life I'm not getting back.
>>> The effects weren't bad, but
>>> they call *that* acting?  Shit, my cats can act better than that.  And
>>> it got a bit too preachy for my tastes - well, it starts off with
>>> scenes that looked like they could be out of Baywatch, then cut to an
>>> apparent lesbian scene between one of the main characters and some
>>> throwaway bimbo - but then we get scripture quoted at us partway
>>> through the programme. Oh, and marriage/divorce statistics.  Ho hum.
>>> If I wanted a morality tale, I'd have gone to church instead.
>>
>> But would you have got the lesbian scene at church?
>
> Not yet, but who knows, maybe that's coming in the series, if they
> continue it.

I always thought if they threw in more sex scenes during church services  
attendance would rise.

>>> I have watched 24 - the thing about that one is that it's *so*
>>> farfetched it shorts my brain out and I can actually sit back and just
>>> watch and enjoy the explosions.  The tech is *so* far from the real
>>> world that it actually kinda works for me, because I can't sit and
>>> nitpick the stuff that's wrong because it's ALL wrong.
>>
>> I have the opposite reaction for the same reasons you cite. Also perhaps
>> because it's so American; I had similar problems with The West Wing.
>
> Now that's certainly true (about it being "so American") - hadn't thought
> of that.

We've only got an hour before X happens...

Spooks: 'Set-up a survellance unit, hack into his email accounts and tap  
his phones'
24: 'Go and beat him up'

I exaggerate of course, sort of :-)

> But I find it really really funny that the counter-terrorist
> unit in LA is one of the least secure facilities on the planet.  Kinda
> like Torchwood being the least secret secret organisation in the
> world. ;-)

"Bloody Torchwood" Train of thought - did you ever get Ultraviolet over  
there? No not the film with Mila Whosavitch, the series staring Jack  
Davenport whom you should know from Spooks.

Ah hah http://www.amazon.com/Ultraviolet-Jack-Davenport/dp/B00005KA70/  
didn't recognise the cover there. It's only 6 one-hour episodes and they  
never made a second series, but it's quite deep in tone.

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 17:15:07 +0000, Phil Cook wrote:

>> I believe it was - Yep, IMDB shows that it was created by Carter.
> 
> Now what am I thinking of... oh yeah Dark Skies; basically an Invaders
> knock-off, but of lower quality.

Oh, yes, I don't think I've seen that one, but I've heard of it.

>> Not yet, but who knows, maybe that's coming in the series, if they
>> continue it.
> 
> I always thought if they threw in more sex scenes during church services
> attendance would rise.

Hehehehehehe.

>> Now that's certainly true (about it being "so American") - hadn't
>> thought of that.
> 
> We've only got an hour before X happens...

True....Probably has something to do with there being an hour's worth of 
program. :-)

> Spooks: 'Set-up a survellance unit, hack into his email accounts and tap
> his phones'
> 24: 'Go and beat him up'
> 
> I exaggerate of course, sort of :-)

But not really.  That was the nice thing about the last series of Spooks, 
though - because it wasn't constrained to the 1-hour format.  It became 
more of a serial - there was a plot to solve in each show, but they all 
were tied together very nicely.  Oh, and a main character or three was 
killed off before the end.

>> But I find it really really funny that the counter-terrorist unit in LA
>> is one of the least secure facilities on the planet.  Kinda like
>> Torchwood being the least secret secret organisation in the world. ;-)
> 
> "Bloody Torchwood" Train of thought - did you ever get Ultraviolet over
> there? No not the film with Mila Whosavitch, the series staring Jack
> Davenport whom you should know from Spooks.

Surely you mean Coupling, not Spooks.  Jack didn't appear in Spooks. :-P

> Ah hah http://www.amazon.com/Ultraviolet-Jack-Davenport/dp/B00005KA70/
> didn't recognise the cover there. It's only 6 one-hour episodes and they
> never made a second series, but it's quite deep in tone.

I'll have to check it out - I don't think it did ever show over here, at 
least not on my stations.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Tue, 19 Feb 2008 18:32:03 -0000, Jim Henderson  
<nos### [at] nospamcom> did spake, saying:

> On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 17:15:07 +0000, Phil Cook wrote:
>> "Bloody Torchwood" Train of thought - did you ever get Ultraviolet over
>> there? No not the film with Mila Whosavitch, the series staring Jack
>> Davenport whom you should know from Spooks.
>
> Surely you mean Coupling, not Spooks.  Jack didn't appear in Spooks. :-P

You're right, I keep mistaking him for the guy who played Tom in the first  
series.

>> Ah hah http://www.amazon.com/Ultraviolet-Jack-Davenport/dp/B00005KA70/
>> didn't recognise the cover there. It's only 6 one-hour episodes and they
>> never made a second series, but it's quite deep in tone.
>
> I'll have to check it out - I don't think it did ever show over here, at
> least not on my stations.

I don't even think it got more then one broadcasting here so I'm not  
surprised. Worth adding to any rental queue you might have if possible.

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>   Compare the scenery of HL2 to, for example, the scenery of Doom3 or
> Quake4. There just isn't comparison. We are talking about this:

One thing I noticed recently is just how much non-repeating textures 
improve scenery. Even if you don't notice them consciously, I think 
having the same rust stain on the concrete wall every 10 feet makes it 
look unrealistic.

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     On what day did God create the body thetans?

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> They got sued because they tried to *change* it to deliberately make it 
> incompatible. 

No, that wasn't my understanding. What I read during that timeframe was 
they added features to let Java invoke Windows stuff natively with much 
more ease than JNI, and the IDE generated code from the wizards to 
invoke that by default, unless you said "no, really, generate JNI 
instead." But you could take an existing Java program and compile and 
run it on MS's Java without a problem.

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     On what day did God create the body thetans?

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> Invisible wrote:
>> They got sued because they tried to *change* it to deliberately make 
>> it incompatible. 
> 
> No, that wasn't my understanding. What I read during that timeframe was 
> they added features to let Java invoke Windows stuff natively with much 
> more ease than JNI, and the IDE generated code from the wizards to 
> invoke that by default, unless you said "no, really, generate JNI 
> instead." But you could take an existing Java program and compile and 
> run it on MS's Java without a problem.

Well, perhaps you're right. All I know is that we started ending up with 
lots of "Java" programs which only actually work with the M$ JVM. And 
that rather subverts the entire point of Java - portability.

I was also told - I haven't verified this personally, but I was told - 
that most of the changes weren't "better" or "worse", just "different 
for the sake of being different". IOW, to subvert the standard.

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> Well, perhaps you're right. All I know is that we started ending up with 
> lots of "Java" programs which only actually work with the M$ JVM.

I've seen very few Java programs that work correctly on multiple Java 
interpreters, myself. I think I have 3 JVMs installed at work (under 
Linux) to support the three different java-based libraries I'm using 
from different parts of my program.

If you want your Java portable, don't use proprietary libraries. It's 
pretty easy.

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     On what day did God create the body thetans?

Post a reply to this message