Jump to content

Atom

Members
  • Content Count

    48
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Atom

  • Rank
    Member
  • Birthday 30/12/1965

core_pfieldgroups_99

  • Location
    Queensland, Australia
  1. Indeed the original plot they made was set in LA and had a completely different cast (besides the main character.) It didn't go down well, so they re-made it in NY and re-cast. Don't think much of it myself - the original doesn't require remaking.
  2. The trailer at the end of the Xmas episode was the best bit of course. Sontarans Yay! I'm somewhat bothered by all the BBC announcements about companions this year - we have Donna, Martha, Jack & Rose appearing this season? I guess a companions episode could be the Doctor lite ep this year but I am worried that it's more likely to mean a cast change for The Doctor himself.
  3. I've been doing my utmost to avoid getting spoiled so I'm not sure exactly what's been said aside from she's going to appear in the new season. I agree that it's a very bad idea if they were to bring her back on a regular "current timeline" basis, but one thing I saw being discussed was that the next "Doctor Lite" episode (like Love & Monsters or Blink) would be a companions tale - so a few former companion's stories could be told without breaking Rose out of her exile. That would be the best of both worlds I think. (Pun intentional )
  4. I thought it was brilliant. Typically sharp writing from Moffat. Yes Tennant has said elsewhere that Baker was "his Doctor", but perhaps it was meant from Moffat? (Anyway there is an argument for it not being "ooc".)
  5. I love Matheson's book and shudder to think what will be done with it by Hollywood this time.
  6. Life on Mars? That was brilliant!
  7. Yeah plus Eve Myles in Moonlight, Michele Ryan in Bionic Woman, Hugh Laurie in House .... etc etc. Good to see someone else here is watching Pushing Daisies - best new show by a wide margin. Emerson Cod rules!
  8. I've been watching from the US, so have seen about 8 episodes now. It's alright and they at least are evolving the story a bit to keep me watching. My main problem is McKidd having to do an American accent - there's so many British actors in leading US roles atm and they all have to put on accents unnecessarily. Grrrr.
  9. Well I'll start by pointing out that it's been a couple of years since I last read this, so I apologise if I get something wrong. The book is written in differing layers of consciousness and I thought that "the dream within the dream" was basically the lowest level of Lennox's sub-conscious. Remember Banks studied psychology. I figured the barbarian is Lennox’s and Orr’s most basic desires, the id. The familiar is Lennox’s ego and superego and obviously annoys the barbarian because it tries to stop him doing all the things he wants to. For the healing process to begin these parts of the subconscious need to be ... resolved? This happens in the desert when John Orr encounters the barbarian and the barbarian falls into John and disappears. Some of the other things mentioned here seemed pretty obvious to me as affects of outside stimuli - for instance the airplanes were something he heard outside flying over the hospital where he's really lying and the bridge fights back because he's not yet ready to leave his dream construct. Two things - I realised I used his name Lennox above even though it's not said explicitly. However there is a reference to him being asked if he's related to the singer from the Eurythmics. Also for real fans of Banks you can actually find out his name and what happened after The Bridge by reading Complicity - this I can't claim as my discovery. Banks mentioned it at some book readings. Also for fans of Banks' other work - I don't believe it's Braille .... it's Marain. (Not an unreasonable thought given the knife missile that's with the barbarian.)
  10. I always loved Levin's books, it's a shame there won't be more.
  11. True, people have spoken out about it. However I've seen very little even vaguely approximating actual science on the subject. It's the same people who want to ban movies and burn books - it's rarely safe to take them seriously.
  12. A really terrific book and so much more than the film. I'm a great fan of Welsh's work. Filth I think is his most powerful, making you concerned for such an awful character.
  13. I agree. I think that 20/20 will become another popular variant just as ODIs have become, neither will ever take away from Test cricket however imo. I'm not a follower of the Rugby Union, but I was happy to see the English beat our Australian team this weekend. Rugby, like cricket has become something that the general Australian populace (and the press) have become horrendously arrogant about. I'm one Aussie who's glad to see them eat a bit of humble pie.
  14. No, that's the one thing he can't do. As I said originally, the problem is that you can't change the mind of people who don't think rationally with a rational argument. It's a worthwhile attempt, but doomed to failure. Anything that requires unthinking "faith" as it's central tenent can't be argued with effectively.
  15. They are enjoyable books. When I first heard of the radio shows being planned I was somewhat put off by Harry Enfield apparently being cast as Gently. Is that who it was?
×
×
  • Create New...