Badmovies.org Forum

Movies => Bad Movies => Topic started by: Ash on February 03, 2004, 06:56:25 AM



Title: OT: And I Thought We Were All A Little Geeky...
Post by: Ash on February 03, 2004, 06:56:25 AM
I thought that we all here were a little geeky in our own particular ways including myself.

I think that one has to be infected or born with a little geekiness to like B-movies. (If you deny this I wouldn't believe you)
Brother Ragnarok & I had that specific discussion on our road trip last April and we unanimously agreed on it.
We both admitted that we have a little geekiness in us and that we weren't ashamed.
Oh well, what can you do right?

BEHOLD!  
I have found the EPITOME of ULTRA-GEEKDOM.

Go here and read this first:  

http://abcnews.go.com/wire/US/ap20040201_1082.html

Tell me this....What kind of woman would ACTUALLY go along with that!?
What is this s**t?  
Some kind of warped publicity stunt?
Rather than go along with my inherent geekiness and think it's cool, I actually find myself a little peeved about it and I don't know why.
I guess my COOL self and my GEEKY self are at odds over this and my cool self seems to be winning.

I would have to admit that both husband and wife may indeed have some mental problems...I would very well be willing to bet money that a psychiatrist would in fact diagnose them both with a disorder or two or three or four or five...no NORMAL person would do such a thing.

I don't mind geekiness and dorkdom but only in limited quantities is it acceptable...even for other geeks!
This is geekiness to the 500th freaking power!
My God!.

I have this weird urge to beat the father very badly with various assorted objects until he relented and gave that kid a proper f**kin' name!  
(the wife would be strapped into a chair and forced to watch as punishment to her for going along with it all)

I know I know, violence won't solve anything but it sure would feel good!

P.S.  If you actually think that this guy and his wife doing this is cool....give me your address so I can come to your house and beat you with various assorted objects!
Hehe!



Post Edited (02-03-04 17:14)


Title: Re: OT: And I Thought We Were All A Little Geeky...
Post by: Evil Matt on February 03, 2004, 07:39:42 AM
That poor kid is NEVER, EVER going to have sex with a woman unless he pays for it.  His parents are vicious bastards.



Title: Re: OT: And I Thought We Were All A Little Geeky...
Post by: Eirik on February 03, 2004, 08:21:27 AM
I have a place in my heart for most kinds of geeks...  except tech geeks.  The guys I deal with at work are a major pain in the ass and act like I'm imposing every time I have a problem.  When they solve the problem, they explain it to me in jargon like I was a numbskull for not knowing.  Meanwhile, I doubt any of these geeks could write a coherent paragraph, much less do any of the other things required by my job.  And of course they're just there to support me.  They're high and mighty now, but in a generation or two, what they do will have all the cache of being a mechanic.  People will call them keyboard monkies.  So in short, ASHTHECAT, I have no sympathy for tech geeks and I feel your ire here is completely justified.

Additionally, being a geek is one thing, but burdening your kid with a geek name is inexcusable.  A star trek geek who gave his kid a klingon name for example should be shot.  Fortunately, the young Mr. Cusak can always neglect to mention the stupid 2.0 thing.  He can also have it legally "deleted" on his 18th birthday at no cost - he just has to go down to the social security office and fill out a form.


Title: Re: OT: And I Thought We Were All A Little Geeky...
Post by: Mr_Vindictive on February 03, 2004, 08:44:17 AM
I am one of the dreaded tech support that Eirik mentioned in the previous post.  As much as I love computers and dealing with them, I would never  EVER give my child a 2.0 at the end of their name.  That's just sick!

And by the way Eirik, not all of us are so bad. :o)



Title: Re: OT: And I Thought We Were All A Little Geeky...
Post by: Chopper on February 03, 2004, 08:50:22 AM
HAHA!
Isn't there a law somewhere that states this is "cruel and unusual punishment!?"


Title: Re: OT: And I Thought We Were All A Little Geeky...
Post by: Eirik on February 03, 2004, 09:14:36 AM
"And by the way Eirik, not all of us are so bad. :o)"

I'm sure you're not, but at my work they're all just like Jimmy Fallon's caricature of "Nick Burns, Your Company's Computer Guy."  

"And by the way...  YOU'RE WELCOME!!"


Title: Re: OT: And I Thought We Were All A Little Geeky...
Post by: Mr_Vindictive on February 03, 2004, 09:33:16 AM
Heh.

Nick Burns is my hero.

"Yeah, well I know a lot about computers! I'm on the internet!"

"I bet you use AOL don't you?"

"Yeah, what's wrong with that?"

"It only doesn't support javascript!" ~snicker~

"Wha...."

"Oh my God that would be so funny...well if any of you knew anything about computers"

/Nick 0wnz



Title: Re: OT: And I Thought We Were All A Little Geeky...
Post by: AndyC on February 03, 2004, 02:33:30 PM
Funny, I never thought Jr. or II or 2.0 would be an official part of the name. I figured they were just used to clarify when father and son have the same name. In any case, at least he'll probably just be known as Jon (although Jon Cusack is kind of amusing in itself). I agree that applying computer jargon to anything but computers is annoying, and giving kids weird names from hobbies, jobs and TV shows is just baffling, but this could have been much, much worse. His parents could have named him Photoshop or something, instead of just tacking the 2.0 onto an otherwise normal name. I'd consider it a mild example.

All tech geekery aside, I always found it kind of egotistical (and not particularly imaginative) to just name a kid after yourself, as this guy has done. I mean, maybe give him your first name as a middle name, or name him after a grandfather or a rich bachelor uncle or something. Nothing wrong with family names, but let him have a little individuality. At the very least, it clears up confusion when people call on the phone. I'll admit it makes a certain amount of sense to pass on a name if it is an important and recognized name that will be of value to the kid in the future, as in some wealthy families, but that's about the only excuse I can think of.



Post Edited (02-03-04 14:30)


Title: Re: OT: And I Thought We Were All A Little Geeky...
Post by: trekgeezer on February 03, 2004, 02:57:30 PM
Dear Mr. Eirik,

I have been one of those Tech Geeks for 25 years and  would I not berate them if I were you.  Most of them act  the ways they do towards end users because a lot of end users are helpless dumbasses. We get tired of showing people the same stuff a million times and they still can't do it themselves.

I' m p**sed, so I am going to reign myself in a bit here and not totally toast your ass. But, aren't you doing the same thing you're accusing those  'computer guys' of and painting them all with the same brush?

I also wouldn't be looking down my  nose at  mechanics either. If you are so damned smart  why don't you fix things yourself?

I consider myself some what a geek, but  I draw the line at naming my kids after characters from from  Star Trek or wearing a  Starfleet  uniform to work.  I like TV and movies but they are not my life (neither are computers).



Title: Re: OT: And I Thought We Were All A Little Geeky...
Post by: wickednick on February 03, 2004, 03:04:40 PM
Wow, I feel for that kid. I my self was named after the golfer Jack Nicklaus.My dad is a huge golf fan, I most dissapoint him becuase I hate the sport.
But to tell you the truth I have met geekyer people.I had a friend who loved D&D and actually changed his name to his D&D charector. So now he is known as Rudecar. And have you people ever delt  with the super Star Trek geeks who actually live by the rules of the federation? I have two cousins who are like that, and always bring up there Star Trek philosophie at family gatherings. Its hard not to revert to my dork beating up days when I'm around them.



Title: Re: OT: And I Thought We Were All A Little Geeky...
Post by: Velvet Brotha on February 03, 2004, 03:46:48 PM
My friends know me as the chic geek! ; ) No.... not chick... (sheek)


Title: Re: OT: And I Thought We Were All A Little Geeky...
Post by: Vermin Boy on February 03, 2004, 03:57:22 PM
I think he can have it changed before then, if he can convince his parents. That's what happened to Dweezil Zappa-- the nurse refused to help if they named their son Dweezil, so Frank came up with a "proper" name, then just called him Dweezil. When the 8-year-old Dweezil found out that wasn't technically his real name, he insisted they get it legally changed.

And I dunno about the "never getting laid" part. If I were him, I could totally use "John Cusack 2.0" to my advantage. ;)



Title: Re: OT: And I Thought We Were All A Little Geeky...
Post by: Brian Ringler on February 03, 2004, 05:11:11 PM
I don't think its such a big deal.  I've jokingly tried to get my wife to agree to 5-6 middle names for a kid (whenever we have one, hopefully not soon, too many student loans still) so that the initials spell out a word and then use that for a secret code name for the kid.

PS I'm tempted by your offer of beating with various objects, but if you want to do that you can look me up in South Dakota so it wouldn't be that long of a trip for you ash.


Title: Re: OT: And I Thought We Were All A Little Geeky...
Post by: Brother Ragnarok on February 03, 2004, 06:02:58 PM
That is intensely stupid.

Brother R



Title: Re: OT: And I Thought We Were All A Little Geeky...
Post by: AndyC on February 03, 2004, 06:03:37 PM
Brian Ringler wrote:
> I've jokingly tried to get
> my wife to agree to 5-6 middle names for a kid (whenever we
> have one, hopefully not soon, too many student loans still) so
> that the initials spell out a word and then use that for a
> secret code name for the kid.

Actually, my wife and I have discussed the idea of a proper first and second name, and a third name that is a little more creative, taken from history or literature. That way, we could have something interesting without saddling the kid with an oddball name. I still think it would be kind of cool to have a son named Archimedes - Archie for short. Although it would be really ironic if he sucked at math.



Title: Re: OT: And I Thought We Were All A Little Geeky...
Post by: Neon Noodle on February 03, 2004, 10:22:02 PM
If I ever named my kid version 2.0, I would expect to wake up during their teenage years with a chainsaw cleaving me in half.


I would never punish my kids with completely alienating names like that.



Title: Re: OT: And I Thought We Were All A Little Geeky...
Post by: Susan on February 04, 2004, 09:16:48 PM
the question is...will a little sibling be "reloaded"?

Here is the answer to all your questions
Are you a Geek? Find out just how much (http://www.innergeek.us/geek.html)

I rank: 27.61341% - Total Geek

And you?



Post Edited (02-04-04 20:26)


Title: Re: OT: And I Thought We Were All A Little Geeky...
Post by: Ash on February 04, 2004, 10:52:25 PM
Funny test Susan...
Where do you find this stuff?

I took the test and here's my rank:  

14.20118% - Geekish Tendencies

Then again I already knew that!
Hehe!


Title: Re: OT: And I Thought We Were All A Little Geeky...
Post by: Vermin Boy on February 04, 2004, 11:10:22 PM
I only got around 20% - Geek. Which is surprising, because I listen to every single band they list (except Weezer).



Title: Re: OT: And I Thought We Were All A Little Geeky...
Post by: Susan on February 04, 2004, 11:20:32 PM
ASHTHECAT wrote:

> Funny test Susan...
> Where do you find this stuff?
>

I guess my score tells it all..i find alot of odd things on the net due to my geekiness ;-)



Title: Re: OT: And I Thought We Were All A Little Geeky...
Post by: ulthar on February 04, 2004, 11:59:51 PM
I got  24.65483% - GEEK.

As many boxes as I was checking, I thought it'd be highter.  Never got into D&D and roleplaying stuff, so I guess that's where I got saved.



Title: Re: OT: And I Thought We Were All A Little Geeky...
Post by: Neon Noodle on February 05, 2004, 01:05:10 AM
30.96647% - Total Geek - not a huge surprise, considering how many of the "geek films" I own on DVD...



Title: Re: OT: And I Thought We Were All A Little Geeky...
Post by: wickednick on February 05, 2004, 05:04:51 AM
Total geek. Ya I have played D&D, so whats it to you.Come on want to fight?Just let me get my +5 sword and my +4 armor with special can't be charmed inchantments.



Title: Re: OT: And I Thought We Were All A Little Geeky...
Post by: Mr_Vindictive on February 05, 2004, 09:33:57 AM
43%-Major Geek

I need another profession.  Gotta get rid of some of this geekness.

Only downside to the test is that it asked if I could write C++ but didn't ask about Perl.



Title: Re: OT: And I Thought We Were All A Little Geeky...
Post by: Eirik on February 05, 2004, 10:41:53 AM
15.5% geek (rounded down because I think I deserve credit for rounding to the tenth).  I was betrayed by my AD&D past and the fact that I kept those books, although in the end, my computer/Star Trek illiteracy saved me.

The test totally neglects certain kinds of geeks however.  Anyone ever meet an historical battle reenactor?  Sorry, Trekkies, but you've got nothing on them!  Also, what about parenting geeks?  Anyone else know what a "boppy" is used for.

It also neglects my favorite geeks - the kind that don't know they're geeks.  Picture a 5'6" 111 pound white suburban kid wearing a t-shirt with any of the following slogans:

"No Fear!"
Anything with the word "whupass"
Calvin p**sing on anything
Anything with "No whiners"
A basketball player and the words "I'm sorry.  I thought you could play!"
"Back the F#@* Up!"  (the word f**k is written like that)

Yeah, for my money, there's nothing better than a phony-tough teenage geek who acts like he's ready to step to you because he knows for sure that as a grown up don't want to go to jail for beating his face in.


Title: Re: OT: And I Thought We Were All A Little Geeky...
Post by: Mr_Vindictive on February 05, 2004, 10:45:30 AM
A boppy is used for when the child is not able to sit up by themselves.  It's a comfortable looking little ass donut that you place your child in so that they cannot move.

My wife convinced me to buy one for our daughter for about 30.00

Only used maybe twice

Currently sitting on my floor with no purpose

LOL



Title: Re: OT: And I Thought We Were All A Little Geeky...
Post by: ulthar on February 05, 2004, 10:51:21 AM
Skaboi wrote:


>
> Only downside to the test is that it asked if I could write C++
> but didn't ask about Perl.
>

It did mention cgi, iirc, and I thought of that as sort of a catch-all ....



Title: Re: OT: And I Thought We Were All A Little Geeky...
Post by: Eirik on February 05, 2004, 10:56:01 AM
"Only used maybe twice"

LMAO!  For the record, you name the item's secondary use.  It's main purpose is to fit around the woman's waist and then she rests the child on it while breast feeding.  My wife wore out her first one and is on her second (our 3rd kid is almost 3 months now).


Title: Re: OT: And I Thought We Were All A Little Geeky...
Post by: ulthar on February 05, 2004, 11:40:01 AM
Eirik wrote:

>
> LMAO!  For the record, you name the item's secondary use.  It's
> main purpose is to fit around the woman's waist and then she
> rests the child on it while breast feeding.

We had two, and used them both for both purposes...they do wear out pretty easily!



Title: Re: OT: And I Thought We Were All A Little Geeky...
Post by: Ash on February 05, 2004, 05:13:37 PM
Ahem!
It's a TREKKER....not a TREKKIE!

Hehe!


Title: Re: OT: And I Thought We Were All A Little Geeky...
Post by: JohnL on February 06, 2004, 01:07:29 AM
I got 24.45759% - Geek

Probably would have been higher as there are a lot of things on the list that I would do, but haven't ever had the opportunity to, like going to a sci-fi con.


Title: Re: OT: And I Thought We Were All A Little Geeky...
Post by: Eirik on February 06, 2004, 09:04:14 PM
"Ahem!
It's a TREKKER....not a TREKKIE!"

ASHTHECAT, your score just went up by 1.0%!


Title: Re: OT: And I Thought We Were All A Little Geeky...
Post by: Susan on February 07, 2004, 12:05:57 AM
ASHTHECAT wrote:

> Ahem!
> It's a TREKKER....not a TREKKIE!
>
> Hehe!


The Lite Hearted Trekker vs Trekkie List.

A Trekker wears a starfleet uniform to a convention because it's fun.
A Trekkie wears a starfleet uniform to a convention because s/he has
   heard that it is in style at the academy.

A Trekker has a Starfleet Academy window sticker on his car.
A Trekkie is cramming for the entrance exams.

A Trekker meets Marina Sirtis/Gates McFadden at a convention, tells
   her how pretty he thinks she is, that it is too bad she is
   married or he would ask her out.
A Trekkie meets Deanna Troi/Dr. Crusher at a convention, tells her how
   pretty he thinks she is, and asks her if she is still seeing Riker
   (Picard, some alien patient, et al).

A Trekker loves watching the show, nitpicking and discussing it with
   friends.
A Trekkie loves watching those documentaries filmed aboard the
   Enterprise.

A Trekker thinks Wil Wheaton was a lucky kid who got to play a kid on
   Star Trek.
A Trekkie thinks that Wesley Crusher was a lucky kid who got to sit on
   the bridge.

A Trekker thinks that it is a shame that the show is coming to an end.
A Trekkie thinks that it is a shame that the crew is being reassigned
   and the Enterprise is being decomissioned.

A Trekker knows that there are gaping holes in the technology, but
   ignores them and enjoys the show.
A Trekkie can't wait for the price to come down on those home food
   replicator units.

A Trekker buys pips for the rank s/he wants to be.
A Trekkie wonders why he is constantly passed over for promotion.

A Trekker tells his/her new girl/boyfriend that s/he really likes Star Trek.
A Trekkie's new girl/boyfriend is an underclassman at the academy.

A Trekker wonders what sex in zero g would be like.
A Trekkie wonders what sex would be like.



Title: Re: Trekker v. Trekkie Post
Post by: Cullen on February 07, 2004, 12:25:28 AM
Ouch.  Ouch ouch.

A neat little post.

But really.  Ouch.

Makes me glad I'm a Whovian.




Title: Re: Trekker v. Trekkie Post
Post by: Grumpy Guy on February 07, 2004, 05:38:34 AM
Cullen wrote:

> Ouch.  Ouch ouch.
>
> A neat little post.
>
> But really.  Ouch.
>
> Makes me glad I'm a Whovian.
>
>

Yeah - me, too.  Although, you could easily make a similar list of differences between Whovians and Whoites.

Really, you could.

And what are you saying "ouch" for?  Last I checked you didn't really like Star Trek - none of that stuff even comes close to being related to applying to you.

Or do you have a secret crush on Dr. Crusher?

C'mon, man.  You can tell me.  I'm your brother.

I'll only laugh a little bit.



Title: Re: OT: And I Thought We Were All A Little Geeky...
Post by: Rombles on February 07, 2004, 06:10:20 AM
31% - Total Geek (even after I went back and took out the ones I exagerated about).  Would have been more but we don't have the damn Sci-fi Channel here in Australia....

I'm pretty happy with that result :-)


Geeks rule.


Does having a long debate with my very geeky brother about the difference between a geek and a nerd make me more of a geek?

Can anyone else give a decent definition of the difference between a geek and a nerd?


Title: Re: OT: And I Thought We Were All A Little Geeky...
Post by: Cricket21a on February 07, 2004, 06:28:51 AM
>A Trekker wonders what sex in zero g would be like.
>A Trekkie wonders what sex would be like.
>Quoted from Susan

check out this webb site.  I can't believe they actually made a movie about that.




http://www.space.com/sciencefiction/movies/uranus_experiment_000516.html



Title: Re: Grumpy Guy's reply
Post by: Cullen on February 07, 2004, 10:05:24 AM
Grumpy Guy wrote:
 
> Yeah - me, too.  Although, you could easily make a similar list
> of differences between Whovians and Whoites.
>
> Really, you could.

I deny the existance of Whoites.   I deny it.

NOPE.  DENIED.
 
> And what are you saying "ouch" for?  Last I checked you didn't
> really like Star Trek - none of that stuff even comes close to
> being related to applying to you.

That doesn't mean I can't feel their pain.  I'm not cold and insensitive like you are.

Ya big meanie.
 
> Or do you have a secret crush on Dr. Crusher?
>
> C'mon, man.  You can tell me.  I'm your brother.
>
> I'll only laugh a little bit.

Low blow.  As if anyone one on that cast could hold a candle to Sarah.  Or Leela.  Or Romana (either one).  Or...

Er.

Excuse me.

Doesn't matter.  You wouldn't understand, anyways.  

You and your Captain Janeway wallpaper.




Title: Re: OT: And I Thought We Were All A Little Geeky...
Post by: susanv on February 07, 2004, 11:01:10 PM
Rombles wrote:


> Does having a long debate with my very geeky brother about the
> difference between a geek and a nerd make me more of a geek?
>
> Can anyone else give a decent definition of the difference
> between a geek and a nerd?

TO me anyone can be a geek in disguise, it's all about your secret little hobbies, talents and lifestyle.  Geeks are the clark kent that can easily blend in with society. A geek is proud to be a geek.

A nerd, however, cannot pass for the average joe but yearns to be just like everyone else (as where the geek finds inner peace at being different)...., and a nerd isn't always the brightest bulb in the socket


Title: Re: OT: And I Thought We Were All A Little Geeky...
Post by: ulthar on February 08, 2004, 01:52:34 AM
Historically, the term geek was very much a strong insult.  It has only recently come to use as a term that people embrace.  Carnivals and such used to have 'geeks' that people paid money to see.  Geeks had physical deformities as well as behavioral 'issues.'  They were the ones who bit the heads off chickens and the like.

Not sure, but I don't think nerd has ever been used to imply 'something is wrong' like geek was.  I always thought nerd was more of a social descriptor...like if one not 'cool' (very subjective), one is a 'nerd.'

Haven't studied it though..just my perceptions.



Title: Re: OT: And I Thought We Were All A Little Geeky...
Post by: JohnL on February 08, 2004, 03:39:52 AM
>Low blow. As if anyone one on that cast could hold a candle to Sarah. Or Leela.
>Or Romana (either one). Or...

Sarah was always my favorite, followed by Nyssa. Jo was kind of cute also.


Title: WHat the hell are you talking about?
Post by: Grumpy Guy on February 08, 2004, 02:34:13 PM
Cullen wrote:

> Low blow.  As if anyone one on that cast could hold a candle to
> Sarah.  Or Leela.  Or Romana (either one).  Or...
>
> Er.
>
> Excuse me.
>
> Doesn't matter.  You wouldn't understand, anyways.  
>
> You and your Captain Janeway wallpaper.
>

What the hell are you talking about?  I've never had Janeway wall paper.

I'm much more likely to have T'pal wall paper.

Or Nyssa.  Or Romana (either one).

But, as you well know, I'm MUCH more likely to have Anime wallpaper.  Like the current desktop consisting of the girls from Love Hina.

:-P



Title: Re: OT: And I Thought We Were All A Little Geeky...
Post by: Grumpy Guy on February 08, 2004, 02:45:59 PM
Leela and Romana (both) are tied for the position of My Favorite Companion, but I found Sara the easiest to look at.  That's Sara Jane Smith, not Sarah Kingdom.  

Going back a ways, Zoe was easy on the eyes, too.

Am I actually having this discussion?  Yes.  Yes I am.

I am a Geek, and I am proud.



Title: O Really?
Post by: Cullen on February 08, 2004, 04:22:28 PM
Me thinkith he doth protest too much.

Sure there's Love Hina there.  Now.  But before...

Sadness.

Not that I'm that much better.  I had Daleks as my wallpaper for a time.

How sad is that?




Title: Re: OT: And I Thought We Were All A Little Geeky...
Post by: Cullen on February 08, 2004, 04:25:59 PM
Grumpy Guy wrote:

> I found Sara the easiest to look at.
> That's Sara Jane Smith, not Sarah Kingdom.  
[snip]
> I am a Geek, and I am proud.

A geek, maybe, but not a true Doctor Who fan.  It's SARAH Jane Smith.  Sarah with an H.

What makes this especially gigglesome is that Kingdom's name is spelt Sara.  You got 'em reversed!

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!

(I'm probably sad for knowing that.  Or for caring.)




Title: Re: O Really?
Post by: Grumpy Guy on February 08, 2004, 06:46:00 PM
Before Love Hina was Gir from Invader Zim.  Before that was Love Hina.

Again, what the hell are you talking about?



Title: Re: O Really?
Post by: Cullen on February 08, 2004, 08:02:57 PM
Go ahead.  Play it off.  It's not as if having Captain Janeway wallpaper is a crime or anything.  Nothing to be embarassed about.




Title: Re: Trekker v. Trekkie Post
Post by: ulthar on February 09, 2004, 12:25:44 AM
Do Whovians live in Whoville?



Title: Whoville & Whovians
Post by: Ash on February 09, 2004, 12:55:53 AM
Ulthar said:  "Do Whovians live in Whoville?"

Hehe!
I was gonna ask the same thing.

What the heck is a Whovian?

Ah!  Now you got that Whoville song stuck in my head!
"Ba-hoo-doray
Ba-hoo-doray welcome Christmas bring your cheer"  
(I think that's how it goes)

Now I won't be able to sleep!



Post Edited (02-09-04 01:02)


Title: Re: OT: And I Thought We Were All A Little Geeky...
Post by: Ash on February 09, 2004, 01:53:34 AM
Neon Noodle said:   "I would expect to wake up during their teenage years with a chainsaw cleaving me in half".

Hey didn't that happen in a Tales From the Crypt episode?

It was about two twins who always wanted to "share" a man.
Who starred in that one?


Title: Re: Whoville & Whovians
Post by: ulthar on February 09, 2004, 02:50:47 AM
ASHTHECAT wrote:


> What the heck is a Whovian?
>

I'm guessing one who's into Dr. Who, kinda like a trekkie/trekker.

I used to like Dr. Who, but have not seen it in a very long time.  I certainly was not conversant enough to be called by any nickname   ;)



Title: Dr. Who
Post by: Ash on February 09, 2004, 02:58:42 AM
Ah.

I myself have never seen even a single episode of Dr. Who which is brought up quite frequently on this board.

What is Dr. Who about and where & when was it produced?

Hmmmm....maybe I'll have to check 'em out sometime.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Cullen on February 09, 2004, 07:48:45 AM
Doctor Who is the longest running Science Fiction series ever, running from 1963 to 1989.  Produced in Great Britain, it began life as semi educational programming, where the heroes would go to various time periods and learn about the people and events there.  Before the first season was over, however, it had mutated into something much more than that.  Over the next twenty years, it continued to change, until it became much more of an adult show.

(Adult meaning mature rather than XXX)

Even though it has be off the air for over a decade, it, like Star Trek has never gone away.  There have been a wide variety of books, comics, and audio dramas devoted to the character.  Word has it that a new TV series is in the works, though whether it continues the original series or begins something new has yet to be determined.

Now, as to who Doctor Who the character is, that's a little bit more detailed.  The short of it is that he's an alien, a Time Lord to be precise.  He fled his home planet in a erratic Time/Space Machine known as the TARDIS in order to see the Universe.  Calling himself the Doctor (and, odd as it may be, almost never referring to himself as Doctor Who)  he slowly changed as he traveled, until he became a defender of life throughout the cosmos.  During the series run, he has battled evil geniuses, struggled against alien races bent on world conquest, and even dealt with powerful, godlike beings.

Sounds simple enough.  However, in 1966, the original actor playing the Doctor, William Hartnell, became too ill to continue playing the role.  So they replaced him with another actor, Patrick Troughton.  They explained the change as part of a Time Lords nature, that if a Time Lord is too hurt, becomes too ill, or the like, he can regenerate into a new body.  Since Hartnell's departure, there have been eight other actors playing the part of the Doctor.

Doctor Who is noted for some really excellent writing, but it is probably best known for its dire special effects.  I mean, Dire with a capital D.  I've been a fan of the series for over twenty five years, and I can defend most every aspect of the series save the F/X.

The problem stemmed from the BBC, who considered Doctor Who a children's show and budgeted it accordingly.  Building convincing alien worlds is hard enough without severe money issues.  The producers did the best they could with what little they had.  More often than not they failed, but when they did succeed, they did so in an amazing fashion.

This is but the tip of the iceberg, really.  Doctor Who is to Great Britain what Star Trek is to us in the US.  There are several sites to go to where more can be learned (assuming, of course, I haven't driven everyone away with the description).  Among the best are Outpost Gallifrey (http://www.gallifreyone.com/) and the series main webpage (http://www.bbc.co.uk/cult/doctorwho/) at BBC.co.uk.

This is my favorite TV series.  It is what made me who I am today.  Now, I don't blame the series for that, so you shouldn't either.

Really, it's a great show.  Give it a chance.




Title: Re: OT: And I Thought We Were All A Little Geeky...
Post by: JohnL on February 10, 2004, 01:11:28 AM
It should also be mentioned that Dr. Who has all but disappeared from American stations since the BBC started insisting on some restrictive licensing conditions. If I remember correctly, I think they insisted that stations license ALL the episodes, which is like 7-8 months worth of shows rather than just the ones they wanted. Since this is a big commitment, not to mention more expensive, most stations, the SciFi channel included declined to keep showing them.

At first it was syndicated in certain parts of the country, starting with Tom Baker's (the 4th Doctor) episodes, but it was taken off partway through his run. It then showed up on PBS where they showed all the episodes, or most of them (I never saw the last Doctor at all). SciFi played it for a while, but then they dropped it. A few years ago, there was a US TV movie that was officially a continuation of the show (it started with the last Doctor transforming into a new actor), but it was completely different in tone from the series and most fans, myself included, hated it.

Also, many of the older episodes are lost, possibly forever. At the time, the BBC didn't consider the episodes worth keeping, so the tapes were recorded over. In more recent years, the BBC has asked that anyone who has any of the missing episodes contact them so that they can make copies, no questions asked. So far they've recovered several episodes and parts of others, but many are still missing.

Each episode is a half hour, but each story is made up of 2 to 10 episodes. Some of the seasons had an overall story arc, but most were composed of stand-alone stories. Besides the Doctor, there were usually 1-3 other people travelling with him as 'companions', who would come and go as the series progressed.

There were also two British made theatrical movies starring Peter Cushing. The first one, Doctor Who and the Daleks was a retelling of the first story from the series. The second,  Daleks Invasion Earth: 2150 A.D.  was a new story. Both movies borrowed the basic idea from the show, but were mostly separate from it.

BTW, you may never have seen Dr. Who, but you've probably seen a dalek before;

Dalek Extermination Page (http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/grahamwalters/dalek_fr.htm)


Title: Re: O Really?
Post by: Grumpy Guy on February 10, 2004, 04:51:36 AM
Jesus H. Christ!!!!!

Look, my problem here is that you're telling outright lies to these people.  About me.  That grates a little.  I like Star Trek.  I even like Voyager after the crappy first season.

But I have never liked any ST series enough to look at any of the characters every time I turn on the computer.

My apologies to anyone who was offended by my reference to JC above.



Title: Holy Crap!
Post by: Grumpy Guy on February 10, 2004, 05:11:26 AM
Damn.  And I mean that.

I just took that Geek test.  holy s**t.

45.56213% - Super Geek

That kinda stung...

What really bugs me is that there's hardly anything about Anime there, nothing about Dr. Who, and nothing about furries.

I'm actually geekier than the test even thinks I am.  Holy Crap.



Post Edited (02-10-04 04:12)


Title: Re: OT: And I Thought We Were All A Little Geeky...
Post by: Grumpy Guy on February 10, 2004, 05:15:31 AM
Cullen wrote:

> A geek, maybe, but not a true Doctor Who fan.  It's SARAH Jane
> Smith.  Sarah with an H.
>
> What makes this especially gigglesome is that Kingdom's name is
> spelt Sara.  You got 'em reversed!


You know, you might be suprised at how much I just don't care.



Title: Re: O Really?
Post by: Cullen on February 10, 2004, 07:35:14 AM
Boy, are you taking this too personally.


Title: Re: OT: And I Thought We Were All A Little Geeky...
Post by: Cullen on February 10, 2004, 07:36:37 AM
Grumpy Guy wrote:

> You know, you might be suprised at how much I just don't care.

No, no, I don't think I would be.

Just thought it was funny.

Geez.


Title: Re: OT: And I Thought We Were All A Little Geeky...
Post by: Cullen on February 10, 2004, 07:38:21 AM
Further word from the good JohnL.  I have a feeling I should have left the whole matter to you.  Not bad, not bad at all...




Title: Re: OT: And I Thought We Were All A Little Geeky...
Post by: trekgeezer on February 10, 2004, 11:46:11 AM
I was like 24.7% or something like that on the geek test.  


I've seen episodes featuring every  Doctor  Who..

Most people in the U.S. always associate Tom Baker with the role and he did play the Doctor  longer than anyone else.  Jon Pertwee  is my favorite because he was the most action oriented  of the Doctors. Exiled on Earth for breaking the Timelords rules he worked for a United Nations organization called UNIT.  He used Venusian karate and was the first  Doctor to use the sonic screwdriver, plus he had a couple of  verhicles, Bessie and the Whomobile.

It was very interesting  how the Doctor  evolves in each of his regenerations.  One thing remained the same in all incarnations, he is arrogant. The regeneration thing itself was a gimmick to get around the fact that the actor (William Hartnell ) who played the Doctor was too frail to continue.  

BBC is in the process of  beginning production on a new Doctor Who series.  Real Whovians will know this already, but  here is the link to the BBC's cult page about  Doctor Who.  It includes a 1,200 page episode guide.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/cult/doctorwho/index.shtml



By the way, is this geeky enough for you ?



Title: Re: OT: And I Thought We Were All A Little Geeky...
Post by: JohnL on February 11, 2004, 01:06:14 AM
>Further word from the good JohnL. I have a feeling I should have left the whole
>matter to you. Not bad, not bad at all...

The more the merrier! :)

>BBC is in the process of beginning production on a new Doctor Who series.
>Real Whovians will know this already, but here is the link to the BBC's cult page
>about Doctor Who. It includes a 1,200 page episode guide.

Hopefully the BBC will have the good sense not to mess with the formula too much and will just let them get back to making new episodes. Also hopefully, they'll ignore the US made movie and start with Sylvestor McCoy's regeneration into a new doctor. Unfortunately, they'll probably want to "update" it, or "put a new spin" on it and destroy the appeal that the original had.


Title: Re: O Really?
Post by: Grumpy Guy on February 12, 2004, 04:34:21 AM
Lies.  All LIES.

Yeah, I probably am.  Hence the name.

How long have you known me?



Title: Re: O Really?
Post by: Cullen on February 12, 2004, 12:04:27 PM
Grumpy Guy wrote:

> How long have you known me?

If you have to ask, you don't need to know, Grompy.

And that was intentional.  Drip.