Info and forum posts by 'Professor H'

Joined on: Monday, 30th March 2015, 11:46, Last used: Monday, 30th March 2015, 11:46

Access Level: Harmless

About this user: This user has chosen not to submit a description :(

This user has posted a total of 10 messages. On average, since joining, this user has posted 0 messages a day, or 0.02 messages a week. In the last 30 days, this user has posted 0 messages, which is on average 0 messages a day.

Recent Messages Posted:

RE: [VIDEO] The Clangers... boldly going?

Mark & Bandicoot - my humble apologies no offence intended did not wish to ruffle your feathers just a bit of left-field (and probably dis-jointed) humour; ah yes now - "Clangon" now you're talking - well in a manner of speaking... that'll teach me to jump in and stick my nose in without testing the water first - carry on chaps... FYI just me on the one account have not duplicated you can rest easy and no intention to steal your thunder; you are all doing quite fine... not that you need my approval! - now then has anyone seen my Blue Peter colouring in kit...

RE: The Clangers... boldly going?

Mark... are you sure you weren't watching the Bonzo Dog DooDah Band...?

RE: Any Fleetwood Mac fans?

oh now why did I just know someone would latch onto that...? - I knew someone would take the bait but clearly am behind the times you'll have to decode for me...

RE: The Clangers... boldly going?

... perhaps she got a Froglet stuck in her throat...?

RE: Any Fleetwood Mac fans?

Alfie... thats very unkind.... naughty... even though it was a kinda infuriatingly "catchy" tune... well then, me thinks you'd better go and "Jack" while we "FM"... in this particular case I think I know who's gonna be having a better time...

RE: Any Fleetwood Mac fans?

Am tempted to say a bit like mentioning Sgt Pepper is (perhaps) the Beatles' most famous LP and what others could be recommended..? - but I won't 'coz that would be unkind (although as a FabFan I would be happy to suggest them)... it's a question of understanding how they have evolved to be what most people know of them today - and to do that I would humbly suggest to get started, you could try:

Fleetwod Mac ('68)
Then Play On ('69)
Future Time ('71)
Bare Trees ('72)
Tusk ('79)
Mirage ('82)
Tango in the Night ('87)

- not including the various "Best ofs" that are around...

With apologies to the purer "fans" who may slate me for missing some of the other "honest" efforts in the earlier years; when you hear some of their very early material you will say: "oh I didn't know they did THAT...!" have fun and enjoy...

images.reviewer.co.uk/smileys/smiley-cool.gif

RE: The Clangers... boldly going?

Bandicoot... indeed... that soup was heady stuff; although for myself I must say that the Magic Roundabout (no; not the Hanger Lane Gyratory System or Elephant & Castle) held a warm attraction too... perhaps it was Dylan's magic mushrooms...? well actually it had me when Florence suggested it was time for bed; but perhaps she meant something different to what I had in mind... mmm, yeah on reflection it was probably the mushrooms...

"... you bet your sweet bippy..." images.reviewer.co.uk/smileys/smiley-cool.gif

RE: [VIDEO] Top Gear really is back!

Bandicoot... we seem to share similar profiles; well in some aspects:

Part of the 50-club (just); tick
Dress (well I prefer man stuff actually but ahem); well it depends on the occasion but... those very nice people at Zara, Next, River Island for the office, with some Paul Smith, D&G/Dior for a night on the town... (all depends if TK Maxx have a deal going...)
Waist; well last time I looked (yesterday) it was 30" which hasn't changed since '74 - er... when it was 29"
Attitude; definitely stopped growing up when I was about 6... '67 was such a fun time I thought why on earth change it...? (unless I get upset and then I become a right stroppy GOM - I don't believe it!)
Sports car; oh yes indeedy
Driving in the country; lovely with the top down... jolly fine show
Crumpet (er sorry; intelligent pretty GF) by my side; oohh I say ding-dong I'm not wrong... tick,tick, tick, tick...
(you left this part of your entry out; shurely shome mishtake...?)

Happy motoringimages.reviewer.co.uk/smileys/smiley-cool.gif

RE: [VIDEO] Thunderbirds are Go 2015

Thank you to Mr. Admin for letting my posting in... and thankfully no I won't be stooping to swearing - well not yet anyway.

Thanks for the compliment Bandicoot; perhaps you and I should submit a suggestion or 7 to the well intentioned folk in NL etc... and Jitendar: love your Brains' accent analogy! ha-ha (I guess he could also be trying to peddle no-fault accident claims? - you know: "... have YOU had a rescue that didn't go according to plan...?" etc...)...and um er Welsh - no there's a thing see; I'd neVER av thought about it like thAT... oops sorry...

RE: [VIDEO] Thunderbirds are Go 2015

Oh deary me; how the mighty have fallen...
clearly a lot of time, effort and investment has been put in but:

Let's get the OK stuff out of the way shall we:
- getting David Graham to re-voice Parker; FAB
- using some real physical 3D sets/models etc; FAB
- the individual launch sequences; credible efforts for the most part;
(but see below too)

... and now for the stuff that has to be corrected if it has any chance of earning contemporary respect. And before any of you say ah yes well he's clearly stuck in the past; it's almost impossible not to compare with the original, but with all the technical and production resources now available it is surely a huge disappointment that something more meaningful can't be delivered:

One of the biggest challenges is the progress of technology in 50 years means that most of what was being depicted in '64/'65 has in fact happened or is about to. However that shouldn't matter if the inventiveness and humanistic qualities can be handled correctly...mmm; let's look at the key ingredients of what you have to have:

1) MUSIC; we all agree you can't really improve on the original score, the signature, the intro, incidental links they all had their place; you could tell where you were in the story etc. NONE of the new stuff as any sense of drama, emotion or memorable hook to it; that is essential to ramp up the spectacle and fit the mood of the story being visually shown - it's all just so much generic homogenous stock tv action; over energetic and instantly forgetable.
So hands up who can hum the new tune then? - anyone? thought so.

2) CHARACTERISATION; in the original, every character was individual and they all came across as grown ups; close your eyes and you knew exactly who was talking (brilliant testimony to the voicing to blend americanised and English types so that it er sounded well; real...) and how they were feeling, what they were doing; the delivery was based in reality so it was convincing and credible. And the voices matched the personalities they sounded how's expect them too it all seemed quite natural. The current collection are closer to a group of boy-band wannabes with little to tell them apart so it all comes across as a comic-book approach; some effort has been made to transplant a degree of facial recognition to the originals yet it's a pointless exercise if you don't get a better degree of separation; yep video-gaming clones... and what in God's name has happened to the Hood?; no menace; no sense of real evil; just a comic brit(ish) accent that makes him so weak and feeble - adversary? do me a favour... and Lady P; Rosamund Pike has a great voice for a contemporary Lady P but that is NOT what is being shown here; what we have is a good-time fashionista but without the good taste and bordering (but stopping just short) on "bimboland". If you want to have a more independent feisty Lady P fine then do it. What in God's name is Brain's accent...? am not gonna say more otherwise will get arrested for being un-PC but come on guys...

3) PACE; real life and real situations vary in pace and intensity; replicating that conveys a sense of reality and authenticity - helps you believe it; the original had that attention to timing etc. so while you knew it was originally created for "kids" it was so brilliant in its vision that it was able to say: you may not be grown up yet but you can enjoy the adventure of the grown up world etc. Sadly the re-boot is almost all at 200mph so just feels like a supersonic skateboard bubble-gum-ride... no build-up to the emergency situation from a seemingly everyday event to a potentially life-threatening one... the launches become to hurried, no attempt to depict the drama of a build up as you would get in reality (or close to it - this is supposed to be 2060-ish after all)

4) EMOTION; the original created scenes and situations of genuine peril and tension; together with cheesy humour too; but that was part of the charm.
The current is treated as really just a jolly jaunt so you get no sense of "...how ARE they gonna get out of THAT...?" - (and knowing that they will) followed by
"...OMG that's incredible...!..."

5) REPETITION; if used correctly it can be OK e.g. using small snippets to refresh the viewer etc. or accent a dramatic sequence; but if used wholesale (as in launches etc.) it's just comes over as er; hang on we just saw all that 4mins ago... so makes it look cheap.

6) TB2 LAUNCH; the iconic moment when the palm trees sway back and lilt is a very very (very) clever piece of visual romance that STILL captures a sigh from anyone who's never seen it - it's almost the coolest launch moment (expect for those of you lucky enough to have a rocket beneath your ahem jacuzzi...) the trees bounce and bend and the leaves swash in the wind. The current set looks like 20 rent-a-trees have been glued to a pice of carpet underlay and peeled back with an elastic band

7) SOUND FX; in the original, real jet sounds were mixed with rocket sound tracks to give a unique and powerful audio punch; they sounded real and believable. While nobody would wish to copy exactly what went before you would have thought a better effort could be done in the re-boot; especially TB2 (sorry guys but a vacuum cleaner will always sound like a vacuum cleaner unless you tweek at better)...

8) CGI RENDER; the quality is simply not high enough and that am afraid is down to cost; but I do feel it's more about the art direction and characterisations...

I could go on but expect I will get banned...

So to sumaraise; so many MISSED opportunities; but if anyone out there in could get a message to them or they see this there may be some hope, but I suspect sadly, not. And what **** decided to schedule it at 8am on a Saturday morning? that says all you need to know about what ITV think of it.

Dr.Who is a great example of how to contemporise a format and capture new audiences whilst having enough of the original ingredients to keep its provenance... look and learn people...

I'm 54 and like many grew up with the original - no am not looking at stuff through rose-tinted spex etc but there is really no excuse in this modern age for not getting it right; especially given all the past knowledge etc.

Rant over let's go and make a cup of tea now...