Jayne ,'Serenity'
A topic for the discussion of Farscape, Smallville, and Due South. Beware possible invasions of Stargate, Highlander, or pretty much any other "genre" show that captures our fancy. Expect Adult Content and discussion of the Big Gay Sex.
Whitefont all unaired in the U.S. ep discussion, identifying it as such, and including the show and ep title in blackfont.
Blackfont is allowed after the show has aired on the east coast.
This is NOT a general TV discussion thread.
Dr. Who spoiler, of sorts -- er, actually it's a spoiler for the teaser at the end of "The Christmas Invasion": Did anyone else think they saw ASH in the trailers? It probably wasn't, because it's not in his IMDB, but I would like to know I wasn't the only one who thought so.
And come to think of it, it's not even that -- it's something I thought I saw but am almost sure I'm wrong about seeing, so it's about as unspoilery a spoiler as you can get.
Emily, it definitely *is* ASH
It's not a spoiler anyway, if you're not talking about what role he's playing.
I take it Tony Head played the character Jimmy Stewart played in Hitchcock's movie - which role did AD play, the John Dahl or the Farley Granger (or was he the other pal invited to the party)?
I've never seen the movie version, oddly. It's one of the weird missing pieces in my Hitchcock viewing. (I've been half-heartedly looking for the play in used bookstores, but it's a PITA to find, so if I want it, I'll have to look online again--I hear it's fairly different from the movie, but again, I've never seen the movie. Of course, I'm lazy, so, you know...)
It's one of the weird missing pieces in my Hitchcock viewing.
Well it's not considered one of his top shelf movies, but I rather like it myself. The visual style was an interesting experiment, but it's also rather showy.
I'd also have to say that Jimmy Stewart was either miscast, or the script needed to better delineate how he intended his cheerful misanthropy to be interpreted by his students, but it is interesting to watch him in the part.
the script needed to better delineate how he intended his cheerful misanthropy to be interpreted by his students
Yeah, that confused me.
Also, with the movie you can play "spot the edits." The movie appears as if it was filmed as one continuous take, but in fact the film reels were not long enough for that. So every so often (I think every 15 minutes) the camera goes somewhere black or plain or something, so an edit can be made unobtrusively.
I think every 15 minutes
Standard 35mm reels are 900 feet long, or about 10 minutes.
Also, with the movie you can play "spot the edits." The movie appears as if it was filmed as one continuous take, but in fact the film reels were not long enough for that. So every so often (I think every 15 minutes) the camera goes somewhere black or plain or something, so an edit can be made unobtrusively.
Actually, there's one deliberate (at least it feels very deliberate as opposed to an oversight), regular edit at one point when one of the two says something that's a give away and there's a blatant cut to Jimmy Stewart realizing what's what. It actually makes quite a great "Aha!" impact since up to then all the edits have been "hidden".
It's not a spoiler anyway, if you're not talking about what role he's playing.
I've certainly seen people spoiler-font for casting spoilers. Not that this would be one that gives away any plot, or... okay, it was a totally unnecessary spoiler-fonting. You hear that, people? Highlight at will -- I give nothing of any interest away.
Also, thanks, Tom.
Yeah--that's the guideline--if the casting tells you nothing about plot, not a spoiler.