| Re: Second "X-Files" pic moving toward production [message #237137 is a reply to message #237133] |
Tue, 24 July 2007 22:25   |
RichA
Messages: 15
Registered: May 2012
Karma: 0
|
Junior Member |
|
|
On Jul 24, 9:51 am, trotsky <gmsi...@email.com> wrote:
> moviePig wrote:
>> On Jul 24, 6:38 am, trotsky <gmsi...@email.com> wrote:
>
>>> moviePig wrote:
>
>>>> On Jul 23, 9:40 pm, trotsky <gmsi...@email.com> wrote:
>
>>>> >moviePig wrote:
>
>>>> >>On Jul 23, 12:50 pm, "Victor Velazquez" <victhr...@notnow.com> wrote:
>
>>>> >>>"PV" <pv+use...@pobox.com> wrote in message
>
>>>> >>>news:13a9jd3bo3ace8f@news.supernews.com...
>
>>>> >>>>BigOleBadAssBob <tarbcccvagcsc...@hvotmail.com> writes:
>
>>>> >>>>>uhhh..... no, not really. I could name any number of shows that have
>>>> >>>>>done that.
>
>>>> >>>>Give it up, the fanboys are never going to stop. It's not good enough that
>>>> >>>>the show had some quality seasons, it has to have changed the world too.
>
>>>> >>>Well, for those "fanboys," it did.
>
>>>> >>>Why they assume that must be true for the rest of us is an exercise best
>>>> >>>left to someone with a lot of time on their hands.
>
>>>> >>Too much hubris coming out here. For anyone attuned to sci-fi
>>>> >>thrillers, 'X-Files' was a kickass tv series... maybe not as
>>>> >>groundbreaking as, e.g., 'Star Trek', but on a very short list
>>>> >>nevertheless.
>
>>>> >I think you're overlooking one important aspect, and that was it's
>>>> >elements of horror were more well done than most movies, and,
>>>> >egads--they probably wouldn't have garnered more than a PG-13!
>
>>>> An appropriate correction ...except, of course, for implying that
>>>> those well-done horror elements couldn't all have been further
>>>> enhanced with a little 'R'-tistry...
>
>>> Sure, and I'm sure you have some examples, too.
>
>> Not in my hip pocket, strangely. But here's the opening of the first
>> episode I just googled randomly from a nice site
>> (xfiles.wearehere.net):
>
>> "When a partially eaten homeless man is discovered in the New
>> Jersey Woods, Mulder links it to an old X-files of a similar incident
>> back in 1947 when a motorist was attacked while changing a flat tire.
>> Police found him dead with his arm gnawed off and later shot and
>> killed a half man, half beast creature they tracked to a cave. Mulder
>> believes it could be the mythical Jersey Devil and begins to
>> investigate. ..."
>
>> Seems clear to me that script *should* be punctuated with shots above
>> the PG-13 threshold (even without wallowing in latex gore and
>> violence)... not to mention an epithet or two...
>
> Well, that's certainly been the norm since the days of grindhouse films,
> but, the question remains what is actually the most effective, being
> explicit, or being suggestive and letting your imagination do the rest.
> If you look at the tricks directors use, especially foley work to make
> it *sound* like something horrendous is happening, I think you'll find
> it can be quite clever and effective. I think gore has to be done
> creatively, too, because to just be as explicit as possible is a turn
> off to most viewers. I'm mostly open minded about such things, but some
> stuff just sounds too disgusting to take a look at. To wit:
>
> http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0410332/
>
> BTW, have you read any Michael Slade yet?
I'm surprise you would. He reads like a poor man's "Brett Easton
Ellis."
|
|
|
|
| Re: Second "X-Files" pic moving toward production [message #237138 is a reply to message #237136] |
Tue, 24 July 2007 23:17 |
moviePig
Messages: 17
Registered: February 2012
Karma: 0
|
Junior Member |
|
|
On Jul 24, 10:15 pm, trotsky <gmsi...@email.com> wrote:
> moviePig wrote:
>> On Jul 24, 9:51 am, trotsky <gmsi...@email.com> wrote:
>
>>> moviePig wrote:
>>>> Seems clear to me that script *should* be punctuated with shots above
>>>> the PG-13 threshold (even without wallowing in latex gore and
>>>> violence)... not to mention an epithet or two...
>
>>> Well, that's certainly been the norm since the days of grindhouse films,
>>> but, the question remains what is actually the most effective, being
>>> explicit, or being suggestive and letting your imagination do the rest.
>>> If you look at the tricks directors use, especially foley work to make
>>> it *sound* like something horrendous is happening, I think you'll find
>>> it can be quite clever and effective. I think gore has to be done
>>> creatively, too, because to just be as explicit as possible is a turn
>>> off to most viewers. I'm mostly open minded about such things, but some
>>> stuff just sounds too disgusting to take a look at. To wit:
>
>>> http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0410332/
>
>> (I'd have to watch anything that's potentially iconic... but that
>> one's not available... which may be as good an indicator as any...)
>
> There's a copy up on ebay at the moment.
(You're not recommending it, are you?)
>> I'm not claiming that gore is the (or even *an*) answer... and I
>> certainly agree that the goal is overall intensity, which explicit
>> gore and violence can frequently deflect. But, re 'X-Files' and PG-13
>> ceilings... if a skillful horror-director maximizes intensity (whether
>> by adding or subtracting), the censors will do their thing. I.e.,
>> regardless of what you show, on tv you can't make it too "scary".
>> Yes, I know 'X-Files' pushed that envelope adroitly... but, of course,
>> they could never ignore it...
>
> Again, I would like an example of something that's been done better in
> movies than X-Files. In particular this one:
>
> http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0751137/
In principle, I'd *always* prefer the filmmakers were unfettered.
But, yes, I remember that episode well enough to agree that tinkering
with whatever environment spawned it might be considered ungrateful...
>>> BTW, have you read any Michael Slade yet?
>
>> I read 'Headhunter' ...and it was too procedural for my tastes.
>
> Right--a thread about X-Files and a complaint about something being "too
> procedural". What other possible critiques were there on the dart board
> you threw at?
Back at you... if only I knew what you meant...
--
- - - - - - - -
YOUR taste at work...
http://www.moviepig.com
|
|
|
|
| Re: Second "X-Files" pic moving toward production [message #237139 is a reply to message #237137] |
Wed, 25 July 2007 07:59 |
trotsky
Messages: 37
Registered: February 2012
Karma: 0
|
Member |
|
|
RichA wrote:
> On Jul 24, 9:51 am, trotsky <gmsi...@email.com> wrote:
>
>> moviePig wrote:
>>
>>> On Jul 24, 6:38 am, trotsky <gmsi...@email.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> moviePig wrote:
>>
>>>> >On Jul 23, 9:40 pm, trotsky <gmsi...@email.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> >>moviePig wrote:
>>
>>>> >>>On Jul 23, 12:50 pm, "Victor Velazquez" <victhr...@notnow.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> >>>>"PV" <pv+use...@pobox.com> wrote in message
>>
>>>> >>>>news:13a9jd3bo3ace8f@news.supernews.com...
>>
>>>> >>>>>BigOleBadAssBob <tarbcccvagcsc...@hvotmail.com> writes:
>>
>>>> >>>>>>uhhh..... no, not really. I could name any number of shows that have
>>>> >>>>>>done that.
>>
>>>> >>>>>Give it up, the fanboys are never going to stop. It's not good enough that
>>>> >>>>>the show had some quality seasons, it has to have changed the world too.
>>
>>>> >>>>Well, for those "fanboys," it did.
>>
>>>> >>>>Why they assume that must be true for the rest of us is an exercise best
>>>> >>>>left to someone with a lot of time on their hands.
>>
>>>> >>>Too much hubris coming out here. For anyone attuned to sci-fi
>>>> >>>thrillers, 'X-Files' was a kickass tv series... maybe not as
>>>> >>>groundbreaking as, e.g., 'Star Trek', but on a very short list
>>>> >>>nevertheless.
>>
>>>> >>I think you're overlooking one important aspect, and that was it's
>>>> >>elements of horror were more well done than most movies, and,
>>>> >>egads--they probably wouldn't have garnered more than a PG-13!
>>
>>>> >An appropriate correction ...except, of course, for implying that
>>>> >those well-done horror elements couldn't all have been further
>>>> >enhanced with a little 'R'-tistry...
>>
>>>> Sure, and I'm sure you have some examples, too.
>>
>>> Not in my hip pocket, strangely. But here's the opening of the first
>>> episode I just googled randomly from a nice site
>>> (xfiles.wearehere.net):
>>
>>> "When a partially eaten homeless man is discovered in the New
>>> Jersey Woods, Mulder links it to an old X-files of a similar incident
>>> back in 1947 when a motorist was attacked while changing a flat tire.
>>> Police found him dead with his arm gnawed off and later shot and
>>> killed a half man, half beast creature they tracked to a cave. Mulder
>>> believes it could be the mythical Jersey Devil and begins to
>>> investigate. ..."
>>
>>> Seems clear to me that script *should* be punctuated with shots above
>>> the PG-13 threshold (even without wallowing in latex gore and
>>> violence)... not to mention an epithet or two...
>>
>> Well, that's certainly been the norm since the days of grindhouse films,
>> but, the question remains what is actually the most effective, being
>> explicit, or being suggestive and letting your imagination do the rest.
>> If you look at the tricks directors use, especially foley work to make
>> it *sound* like something horrendous is happening, I think you'll find
>> it can be quite clever and effective. I think gore has to be done
>> creatively, too, because to just be as explicit as possible is a turn
>> off to most viewers. I'm mostly open minded about such things, but some
>> stuff just sounds too disgusting to take a look at. To wit:
>>
>> http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0410332/
>>
>> BTW, have you read any Michael Slade yet?
>
>
> I'm surprise you would. He reads like a poor man's "Brett Easton
> Ellis."
That's just about the stupidest fucking thing I've ever heard. And
Brett Easton Ellis is the name of an author, so the quotation marks just
show you to be the illiterate piece of dogshit that you are.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Second "X-Files" pic moving toward production [message #237140 is a reply to message #237138] |
Wed, 25 July 2007 08:04 |
trotsky
Messages: 37
Registered: February 2012
Karma: 0
|
Member |
|
|
moviePig wrote:
> On Jul 24, 10:15 pm, trotsky <gmsi...@email.com> wrote:
>
>> moviePig wrote:
>>
>>> On Jul 24, 9:51 am, trotsky <gmsi...@email.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> moviePig wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >Seems clear to me that script *should* be punctuated with shots above
>>>> >the PG-13 threshold (even without wallowing in latex gore and
>>>> >violence)... not to mention an epithet or two...
>>
>>>> Well, that's certainly been the norm since the days of grindhouse films,
>>>> but, the question remains what is actually the most effective, being
>>>> explicit, or being suggestive and letting your imagination do the rest.
>>>> If you look at the tricks directors use, especially foley work to make
>>>> it *sound* like something horrendous is happening, I think you'll find
>>>> it can be quite clever and effective. I think gore has to be done
>>>> creatively, too, because to just be as explicit as possible is a turn
>>>> off to most viewers. I'm mostly open minded about such things, but some
>>>> stuff just sounds too disgusting to take a look at. To wit:
>>
>>>> http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0410332/
>>
>>> (I'd have to watch anything that's potentially iconic... but that
>>> one's not available... which may be as good an indicator as any...)
>>
>> There's a copy up on ebay at the moment.
>
>
> (You're not recommending it, are you?)
No, if I was recommending it I would've seen it myself. I was just
calling you on your copout.
>>> I'm not claiming that gore is the (or even *an*) answer... and I
>>> certainly agree that the goal is overall intensity, which explicit
>>> gore and violence can frequently deflect. But, re 'X-Files' and PG-13
>>> ceilings... if a skillful horror-director maximizes intensity (whether
>>> by adding or subtracting), the censors will do their thing. I.e.,
>>> regardless of what you show, on tv you can't make it too "scary".
>>> Yes, I know 'X-Files' pushed that envelope adroitly... but, of course,
>>> they could never ignore it...
>>
>> Again, I would like an example of something that's been done better in
>> movies than X-Files. In particular this one:
>>
>> http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0751137/
>
>
> In principle, I'd *always* prefer the filmmakers were unfettered.
> But, yes, I remember that episode well enough to agree that tinkering
> with whatever environment spawned it might be considered ungrateful...
>
>
>
>>>> BTW, have you read any Michael Slade yet?
>>
>>> I read 'Headhunter' ...and it was too procedural for my tastes.
>>
>> Right--a thread about X-Files and a complaint about something being "too
>> procedural". What other possible critiques were there on the dart board
>> you threw at?
>
>
> Back at you... if only I knew what you meant...
The X-Files has a large amount of procedural elements, so to complain
about this on a thread about the X-Files is hypocritical, as well as not
being very believable.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Second "X-Files" pic moving toward production [message #237141 is a reply to message #237140] |
Wed, 25 July 2007 08:36 |
moviePig
Messages: 17
Registered: February 2012
Karma: 0
|
Junior Member |
|
|
On Jul 25, 8:04 am, trotsky <gmsi...@email.com> wrote:
> moviePig wrote:
>> On Jul 24, 10:15 pm, trotsky <gmsi...@email.com> wrote:
>
>>> moviePig wrote:
>
>>>> On Jul 24, 9:51 am, trotsky <gmsi...@email.com> wrote:
>
>>>> >moviePig wrote:
>
>>>> >>Seems clear to me that script *should* be punctuated with shots above
>>>> >>the PG-13 threshold (even without wallowing in latex gore and
>>>> >>violence)... not to mention an epithet or two...
>
>>>> >Well, that's certainly been the norm since the days of grindhouse films,
>>>> >but, the question remains what is actually the most effective, being
>>>> >explicit, or being suggestive and letting your imagination do the rest.
>>>> > If you look at the tricks directors use, especially foley work to make
>>>> >it *sound* like something horrendous is happening, I think you'll find
>>>> >it can be quite clever and effective. I think gore has to be done
>>>> >creatively, too, because to just be as explicit as possible is a turn
>>>> >off to most viewers. I'm mostly open minded about such things, but some
>>>> >stuff just sounds too disgusting to take a look at. To wit:
>
>>>> >http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0410332/
>
>>>> (I'd have to watch anything that's potentially iconic... but that
>>>> one's not available... which may be as good an indicator as any...)
>
>>> There's a copy up on ebay at the moment.
>
>> (You're not recommending it, are you?)
>
> No, if I was recommending it I would've seen it myself. I was just
> calling you on your copout.
'Copout'... hmm. Well, indeed I wouldn't walk hot coals to see that
movie. Nor buy it. To me, 'available' pretty much means bijou,
library, or Netflix.
>>>> >BTW, have you read any Michael Slade yet?
>
>>>> I read 'Headhunter' ...and it was too procedural for my tastes.
>
>>> Right--a thread about X-Files and a complaint about something being "too
>>> procedural". What other possible critiques were there on the dart board
>>> you threw at?
>
>> Back at you... if only I knew what you meant...
>
> The X-Files has a large amount of procedural elements, so to complain
> about this on a thread about the X-Files is hypocritical, as well as not
> being very believable.
'X-Files' wasn't nearly as procedural as 'Headhunter', percentage-
wise. Moreover, re the latter, I'm certainly not about to try to
prove that you and a few hundred thousand others didn't enjoy it...
--
- - - - - - - -
YOUR taste at work...
http://www.moviepig.com
|
|
|
|
| Re: Second "X-Files" pic moving toward production [message #237142 is a reply to message #237141] |
Thu, 26 July 2007 08:11 |
trotsky
Messages: 37
Registered: February 2012
Karma: 0
|
Member |
|
|
moviePig wrote:
> On Jul 25, 8:04 am, trotsky <gmsi...@email.com> wrote:
>
>> moviePig wrote:
>>
>>> On Jul 24, 10:15 pm, trotsky <gmsi...@email.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> moviePig wrote:
>>
>>>> >On Jul 24, 9:51 am, trotsky <gmsi...@email.com> wrote:
>>>> >>BTW, have you read any Michael Slade yet?
>>
>>>> >I read 'Headhunter' ...and it was too procedural for my tastes.
>>
>>>> Right--a thread about X-Files and a complaint about something being "too
>>>> procedural". What other possible critiques were there on the dart board
>>>> you threw at?
>>
>>> Back at you... if only I knew what you meant...
>>
>> The X-Files has a large amount of procedural elements, so to complain
>> about this on a thread about the X-Files is hypocritical, as well as not
>> being very believable.
>
>
> 'X-Files' wasn't nearly as procedural as 'Headhunter', percentage-
> wise. Moreover, re the latter, I'm certainly not about to try to
> prove that you and a few hundred thousand others didn't enjoy it...
The McDonald's argument? You have got to be kidding me.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Second "X-Files" pic moving toward production [message #237145 is a reply to message #237142] |
Thu, 26 July 2007 15:57 |
moviePig
Messages: 17
Registered: February 2012
Karma: 0
|
Junior Member |
|
|
On Jul 26, 8:11 am, trotsky <gmsi...@email.com> wrote:
> moviePig wrote:
>> On Jul 25, 8:04 am, trotsky <gmsi...@email.com> wrote:
>
>>> moviePig wrote:
>
>>>> On Jul 24, 10:15 pm, trotsky <gmsi...@email.com> wrote:
>
>>>> >moviePig wrote:
>
>>>> >>On Jul 24, 9:51 am, trotsky <gmsi...@email.com> wrote:
>>>> >>>BTW, have you read any Michael Slade yet?
>
>>>> >>I read 'Headhunter' ...and it was too procedural for my tastes.
>
>>>> >Right--a thread about X-Files and a complaint about something being "too
>>>> >procedural". What other possible critiques were there on the dart board
>>>> >you threw at?
>
>>>> Back at you... if only I knew what you meant...
>
>>> The X-Files has a large amount of procedural elements, so to complain
>>> about this on a thread about the X-Files is hypocritical, as well as not
>>> being very believable.
>
>> 'X-Files' wasn't nearly as procedural as 'Headhunter', percentage-
>> wise. Moreover, re the latter, I'm certainly not about to try to
>> prove that you and a few hundred thousand others didn't enjoy it...
>
> The McDonald's argument? You have got to be kidding me.
I'm not sure how the McDonald's argument would apply here (...or even
who'd be making it). But what I'm saying is: although the book
didn't jubilee *my* cherries, it did yours, and in one or more
apparently "valid" ways... so what would be the point of me detailing
*my* negativity about a book you've already read and liked? (...given
that this isn't a book-ng)
But, speaking of buns with cheese, the new Lindsay Lohan horror-flick
wasn't screened for critics. So, it's probably super... let me
know...
--
- - - - - - - -
YOUR taste at work...
http://www.moviepig.com
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Second "X-Files" pic moving toward production [message #237167 is a reply to message #237117] |
Mon, 30 July 2007 21:19 |
|
|
Originally posted by: XXXXgizzieXXXX
"trotsky" <gmsingh@email.com> wrote in message
news:Y80pi.19692$Xa3.8536@attbi_s22...
> BigOleBadAssBob wrote:
>
>>>> - First show to combine stand-alone episodes with long-running
>>>> storylines.
First show to have a movie while it was still on the air.
XXXXXXgizzieXXXXXX
************************************************************ **********
I love dogs. They live in the moment and don't care about
anything except food and affection. They're loyal and happy.
Humans are just too damn complicated.
David Duchovny
************************************************************ **********
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Second "X-Files" pic moving toward production [message #237179 is a reply to message #237178] |
Tue, 31 July 2007 01:54 |
anim8rFSK
Messages: 215
Registered: July 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
In article <13atcf87koc109a@corp.supernews.com>,
Michael Bowker <mikeb@blueneptune.com> wrote:
> moviePig wrote:
>> On Jul 30, 9:19 pm, "XXXXgizzieXXXX" <xxgizzi...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>> "trotsky" <gmsi...@email.com> wrote in message
>>>
>>> news:Y80pi.19692$Xa3.8536@attbi_s22...
>>>
>>>> BigOleBadAssBob wrote:
>>>> >>> - First show to combine stand-alone episodes with long-running
>>>> >>> storylines.
>>> First show to have a movie while it was still on the air.
>>
>> If true, that's a good one...
>>
>> --
>>
>> - - - - - - - -
>> YOUR taste at work...
>> http://www.moviepig.com
>>
>
> Don't think that's true. The 1960's Batman had a Movie and a show, I think?
Indeed it did.
McHale's Navy had 2 movies while it was on the air (earlier than Batman).
The Man From U.N.C.L.E. had something like half a dozen of them,
although they were expanded episodes, not original theatrical material
like Batman and McHale.
Off the top of my head, there's also Dark Shadows (2 movies), probably
Thunderbirds depending on the release dates, The Monkees, Dr. Who,
Secret Agent . . .
X-Files isn't even close in this category.
--
"No man ever notices a woman's shoes, unless they have boobs on them."
-- Mark Nobles
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Second "X-Files" pic moving toward production [message #237183 is a reply to message #237179] |
Tue, 31 July 2007 10:31 |
moviePig
Messages: 17
Registered: February 2012
Karma: 0
|
Junior Member |
|
|
On Jul 31, 1:54 am, Anim8rFSK <ANIM8R...@cox.net> wrote:
> In article <13atcf87koc1...@corp.supernews.com>,
> Michael Bowker <mi...@blueneptune.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>> moviePig wrote:
>>> On Jul 30, 9:19 pm, "XXXXgizzieXXXX" <xxgizzi...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>> "trotsky" <gmsi...@email.com> wrote in message
>
>>>> news:Y80pi.19692$Xa3.8536@attbi_s22...
>
>>>> > BigOleBadAssBob wrote:
>>>> >>>> - First show to combine stand-alone episodes with long-running
>>>> >>>> storylines.
>>>> First show to have a movie while it was still on the air.
>
>>> If true, that's a good one...
>
>>> --
>
>>> - - - - - - - -
>>> YOUR taste at work...
>>> http://www.moviepig.com
>
>> Don't think that's true. The 1960's Batman had a Movie and a show, I think?
>
> Indeed it did.
>
> McHale's Navy had 2 movies while it was on the air (earlier than Batman).
>
> The Man From U.N.C.L.E. had something like half a dozen of them,
> although they were expanded episodes, not original theatrical material
> like Batman and McHale.
>
> Off the top of my head, there's also Dark Shadows (2 movies), probably
> Thunderbirds depending on the release dates, The Monkees, Dr. Who,
> Secret Agent . . .
>
> X-Files isn't even close in this category.
Then... how about first theatrical movie(s) both during and after
series run? The envelope, please...
--
- - - - - - - -
YOUR taste at work...
http://www.moviepig.com
|
|
|
|
| Re: Second "X-Files" pic moving toward production [message #237184 is a reply to message #237183] |
Tue, 31 July 2007 11:34 |
anim8rFSK
Messages: 215
Registered: July 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
In article <1185892275.730302.3650@o61g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
> On Jul 31, 1:54 am, Anim8rFSK <ANIM8R...@cox.net> wrote:
>> In article <13atcf87koc1...@corp.supernews.com>,
>> Michael Bowker <mi...@blueneptune.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> moviePig wrote:
>>>> On Jul 30, 9:19 pm, "XXXXgizzieXXXX" <xxgizzi...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>> > "trotsky" <gmsi...@email.com> wrote in message
>>
>>>> >news:Y80pi.19692$Xa3.8536@attbi_s22...
>>
>>>> >> BigOleBadAssBob wrote:
>>>> >>>>> - First show to combine stand-alone episodes with long-running
>>>> >>>>> storylines.
>>>> > First show to have a movie while it was still on the air.
>>
>>>> If true, that's a good one...
>>
>>>> --
>>
>>>> - - - - - - - -
>>>> YOUR taste at work...
>>>> http://www.moviepig.com
>>
>>> Don't think that's true. The 1960's Batman had a Movie and a show, I
>>> think?
>>
>> Indeed it did.
>>
>> McHale's Navy had 2 movies while it was on the air (earlier than Batman).
>>
>> The Man From U.N.C.L.E. had something like half a dozen of them,
>> although they were expanded episodes, not original theatrical material
>> like Batman and McHale.
>>
>> Off the top of my head, there's also Dark Shadows (2 movies), probably
>> Thunderbirds depending on the release dates, The Monkees, Dr. Who,
>> Secret Agent . . .
>>
>> X-Files isn't even close in this category.
>
> Then... how about first theatrical movie(s) both during and after
> series run? The envelope, please...
Still not X-Files. We'd have to check dates, but even if X-Files DOES
do that, which it hasn't yet, I believe Dark Shadows has that
distinction. Possibly Thunderbirds as well.
--
"No man ever notices a woman's shoes, unless they have boobs on them."
-- Mark Nobles
|
|
|
|
| Re: Second "X-Files" pic moving toward production [message #237185 is a reply to message #237184] |
Tue, 31 July 2007 11:50 |
moviePig
Messages: 17
Registered: February 2012
Karma: 0
|
Junior Member |
|
|
On Jul 31, 11:34 am, Anim8rFSK <ANIM8R...@cox.net> wrote:
> In article <1185892275.730302.3...@o61g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
>
>
>
>
>
> moviePig <pwall...@moviepig.com> wrote:
>> On Jul 31, 1:54 am, Anim8rFSK <ANIM8R...@cox.net> wrote:
>>> In article <13atcf87koc1...@corp.supernews.com>,
>>> Michael Bowker <mi...@blueneptune.com> wrote:
>
>>>> moviePig wrote:
>>>> > On Jul 30, 9:19 pm, "XXXXgizzieXXXX" <xxgizzi...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>> >> "trotsky" <gmsi...@email.com> wrote in message
>
>>>> >>news:Y80pi.19692$Xa3.8536@attbi_s22...
>
>>>> >>> BigOleBadAssBob wrote:
>>>> >>>>>> - First show to combine stand-alone episodes with long-running
>>>> >>>>>> storylines.
>>>> >> First show to have a movie while it was still on the air.
>
>>>> > If true, that's a good one...
>
>>>> > --
>
>>>> > - - - - - - - -
>>>> > YOUR taste at work...
>>>> > http://www.moviepig.com
>
>>>> Don't think that's true. The 1960's Batman had a Movie and a show, I
>>>> think?
>
>>> Indeed it did.
>
>>> McHale's Navy had 2 movies while it was on the air (earlier than Batman).
>
>>> The Man From U.N.C.L.E. had something like half a dozen of them,
>>> although they were expanded episodes, not original theatrical material
>>> like Batman and McHale.
>
>>> Off the top of my head, there's also Dark Shadows (2 movies), probably
>>> Thunderbirds depending on the release dates, The Monkees, Dr. Who,
>>> Secret Agent . . .
>
>>> X-Files isn't even close in this category.
>
>> Then... how about first theatrical movie(s) both during and after
>> series run? The envelope, please...
>
> Still not X-Files. We'd have to check dates, but even if X-Files DOES
> do that, which it hasn't yet, I believe Dark Shadows has that
> distinction. Possibly Thunderbirds as well.
I just tried to check dates... but quickly gave up. Interesting
tidbit, though: one of the movies, CURSE OF DARK SHADOWS, ran a little
over 90 minutes... with a "director's cut" clocking in at 2 hours and
10 minutes. In that gap, whole characters must've been born and
died...
--
- - - - - - - -
YOUR taste at work...
http://www.moviepig.com
|
|
|
|
| Re: Second "X-Files" pic moving toward production [message #237186 is a reply to message #237185] |
Tue, 31 July 2007 12:57 |
anim8rFSK
Messages: 215
Registered: July 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
In article <1185897047.371867.30170@r34g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>,
moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
> On Jul 31, 11:34 am, Anim8rFSK <ANIM8R...@cox.net> wrote:
>> In article <1185892275.730302.3...@o61g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> moviePig <pwall...@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>> On Jul 31, 1:54 am, Anim8rFSK <ANIM8R...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>> In article <13atcf87koc1...@corp.supernews.com>,
>>>> Michael Bowker <mi...@blueneptune.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> > moviePig wrote:
>>>> > > On Jul 30, 9:19 pm, "XXXXgizzieXXXX" <xxgizzi...@comcast.net>
>>>> > > wrote:
>>>> > >> "trotsky" <gmsi...@email.com> wrote in message
>>
>>>> > >>news:Y80pi.19692$Xa3.8536@attbi_s22...
>>
>>>> > >>> BigOleBadAssBob wrote:
>>>> > >>>>>> - First show to combine stand-alone episodes with long-running
>>>> > >>>>>> storylines.
>>>> > >> First show to have a movie while it was still on the air.
>>
>>>> > > If true, that's a good one...
>>
>>>> > > --
>>
>>>> > > - - - - - - - -
>>>> > > YOUR taste at work...
>>>> > > http://www.moviepig.com
>>
>>>> > Don't think that's true. The 1960's Batman had a Movie and a show, I
>>>> > think?
>>
>>>> Indeed it did.
>>
>>>> McHale's Navy had 2 movies while it was on the air (earlier than
>>>> Batman).
>>
>>>> The Man From U.N.C.L.E. had something like half a dozen of them,
>>>> although they were expanded episodes, not original theatrical material
>>>> like Batman and McHale.
>>
>>>> Off the top of my head, there's also Dark Shadows (2 movies), probably
>>>> Thunderbirds depending on the release dates, The Monkees, Dr. Who,
>>>> Secret Agent . . .
>>
>>>> X-Files isn't even close in this category.
>>
>>> Then... how about first theatrical movie(s) both during and after
>>> series run? The envelope, please...
>>
>> Still not X-Files. We'd have to check dates, but even if X-Files DOES
>> do that, which it hasn't yet, I believe Dark Shadows has that
>> distinction. Possibly Thunderbirds as well.
>
> I just tried to check dates... but quickly gave up. Interesting
> tidbit, though: one of the movies, CURSE OF DARK SHADOWS, ran a little
> over 90 minutes... with a "director's cut" clocking in at 2 hours and
> 10 minutes. In that gap, whole characters must've been born and
> died...
>
> --
>
> - - - - - - - -
> YOUR taste at work...
> http://www.moviepig.com
I have no idea what CURSE OF DARK SHADOWS is. The two theatrical movies
released during (and maybe just after) the series are HOUSE OF DARK
SHADOWS and NIGHT OF DARK SHADOWS.
Checking . . .
oh, CURSE is an alternate title for NIGHT.
Yeah, supposedly there's a much longer, and actually good, version of
NIGHT, but I don't know if it actually exists, or, if it ever existed,
still exists.
Okay, IMDb says it has a release date of 4 August 1971
And Dark Shadows, the series, final airdate is Original Air Date: 2
April 1971 -- 2 days before the movie came out.
So
Dark Shadows holds the title for "first theatrical movie(s) both during
and after series run"
Sorry X-Files. Not sure what else they can even try for. Maybe "most
number of movies made with original cast" -- they only have to make 6
more movies to tie that one. :)
--
"No man ever notices a woman's shoes, unless they have boobs on them."
-- Mark Nobles
|
|
|
|
| Re: Second "X-Files" pic moving toward production [message #237191 is a reply to message #237167] |
Tue, 31 July 2007 13:43 |
|
|
Originally posted by: Sean Carroll
XXXXgizzieXXXX wrote:
> "trotsky" <gmsingh@email.com> wrote
>> BigOleBadAssBob wrote:
>>>> >- First show to combine stand-alone episodes with long-running
>>>> >storylines.
> First show to have a movie while it was still on the air.
Also, first show to have a prominent, organised, online fandom during
its original run, who were actually mentioned by the creators as having
had an influence on their creative decisions.
--
--Sean
http://spclsd223.livejournal.com/
Wilson: That smugness of yours really is an attractive quality.
House: Thank you. It was either that or get my hair highlighted.
Smugness is easier to maintain.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Second "X-Files" pic moving toward production [message #237192 is a reply to message #237179] |
Tue, 31 July 2007 13:49 |
|
|
Originally posted by: Sean Carroll
Anim8rFSK wrote:
> Michael Bowker <mikeb@blueneptune.com> wrote:
>> Don't think that's true. The 1960's Batman had a Movie and a show, I think?
> McHale's Navy had 2 movies while it was on the air (earlier than Batman).
>
> The Man From U.N.C.L.E. had something like half a dozen of them,
> although they were expanded episodes, not original theatrical material
> like Batman and McHale.
>
> Off the top of my head, there's also Dark Shadows (2 movies), probably
> Thunderbirds depending on the release dates, The Monkees, Dr. Who,
> Secret Agent . . .
>
> X-Files isn't even close in this category.
You're right, it isn't. It doesn't even deserve to be mentioned in the
same breath.
After all, people actually WATCHED the XF movie, and still remember it!
PS: 'The Monkees' did NOT have a movie during its run. 'Head' did not
come out until AFTER the series was cancelled, and it was not really
connected to it, being an entirely separate project that the band
themselves had creative control over. In fact, they intentionally made
the movie as much UNLIKE the series as they possibly could.
--
--Sean
http://spclsd223.livejournal.com/
Wilson: That smugness of yours really is an attractive quality.
House: Thank you. It was either that or get my hair highlighted.
Smugness is easier to maintain.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Second "X-Files" pic moving toward production [message #237194 is a reply to message #237191] |
Tue, 31 July 2007 14:45 |
anim8rFSK
Messages: 215
Registered: July 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
In article <TvKri.9270$Uz4.4162@newsfe19.lga>,
Sean Carroll <seanc130@hotmail.com> wrote:
> XXXXgizzieXXXX wrote:
>> "trotsky" <gmsingh@email.com> wrote
>>> BigOleBadAssBob wrote:
>
>>>> >>- First show to combine stand-alone episodes with long-running
>>>> >>storylines.
>
>> First show to have a movie while it was still on the air.
>
> Also,
First, there's no 'also' because that one's not even close to being true.
first show to have a prominent, organised, online fandom during
> its original run, who were actually mentioned by the creators as having
> had an influence on their creative decisions.
Nope.
--
"No man ever notices a woman's shoes, unless they have boobs on them."
-- Mark Nobles
|
|
|
|
| Re: Second "X-Files" pic moving toward production [message #237195 is a reply to message #237192] |
Tue, 31 July 2007 14:49 |
anim8rFSK
Messages: 215
Registered: July 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
In article <7BKri.9272$Uz4.7276@newsfe19.lga>,
Sean Carroll <seanc130@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Anim8rFSK wrote:
>> Michael Bowker <mikeb@blueneptune.com> wrote:
>
>>> Don't think that's true. The 1960's Batman had a Movie and a show, I think?
>
>> McHale's Navy had 2 movies while it was on the air (earlier than Batman).
>>
>> The Man From U.N.C.L.E. had something like half a dozen of them,
>> although they were expanded episodes, not original theatrical material
>> like Batman and McHale.
>>
>> Off the top of my head, there's also Dark Shadows (2 movies), probably
>> Thunderbirds depending on the release dates, The Monkees, Dr. Who,
>> Secret Agent . . .
>>
>> X-Files isn't even close in this category.
>
> You're right, it isn't. It doesn't even deserve to be mentioned in the
> same breath.
>
> After all, people actually WATCHED the XF movie, and still remember it!
Yawn. People watched and remember Dark Shadows. It spawned a movie
during it's run and a movie after it's run, books, conventions, record
albums, a revival series, a truly astonishing number of VHS and now DVD
releases, and a new revival movie is in the works.
>
> PS: 'The Monkees' did NOT have a movie during its run. 'Head' did not
> come out until AFTER the series was cancelled, and it was not really
> connected to it, being an entirely separate project that the band
> themselves had creative control over. In fact, they intentionally made
> the movie as much UNLIKE the series as they possibly could.
Okay, so only several series beat X-Files, not several plus 1.
Look, I liked much of the X-Files, and enjoyed the movie. But claiming
phony records for it doesn't do anything but make it's fan base look
desperate.
--
"No man ever notices a woman's shoes, unless they have boobs on them."
-- Mark Nobles
|
|
|
|
| Re: Second "X-Files" pic moving toward production [message #237196 is a reply to message #237194] |
Tue, 31 July 2007 15:23 |
|
|
Originally posted by: Sean Carroll
Anim8rFSK wrote:
> Sean Carroll <seanc130@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> first show to have a prominent, organised, online fandom during
>> its original run, who were actually mentioned by the creators as having
>> had an influence on their creative decisions.
> Nope.
Don't you usually have a bunch of examples of shows that technically
beat XF to an achievement, but were never anywhere near as important or
influential, to back yourself up? Or is it 'nope' just because you say so?
--
--Sean
http://spclsd223.livejournal.com/
Wilson: That smugness of yours really is an attractive quality.
House: Thank you. It was either that or get my hair highlighted.
Smugness is easier to maintain.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Second "X-Files" pic moving toward production [message #237197 is a reply to message #237195] |
Tue, 31 July 2007 15:33 |
|
|
Originally posted by: Michael Bowker
Anim8rFSK wrote:
> In article <7BKri.9272$Uz4.7276@newsfe19.lga>,
> Sean Carroll <seanc130@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Anim8rFSK wrote:
>>> Michael Bowker <mikeb@blueneptune.com> wrote:
>>>> Don't think that's true. The 1960's Batman had a Movie and a show, I think?
>>> McHale's Navy had 2 movies while it was on the air (earlier than Batman).
>>>
>>> The Man From U.N.C.L.E. had something like half a dozen of them,
>>> although they were expanded episodes, not original theatrical material
>>> like Batman and McHale.
>>>
>>> Off the top of my head, there's also Dark Shadows (2 movies), probably
>>> Thunderbirds depending on the release dates, The Monkees, Dr. Who,
>>> Secret Agent . . .
>>>
>>> X-Files isn't even close in this category.
>> You're right, it isn't. It doesn't even deserve to be mentioned in the
>> same breath.
>>
>> After all, people actually WATCHED the XF movie, and still remember it!
>
> Yawn. People watched and remember Dark Shadows. It spawned a movie
> during it's run and a movie after it's run, books, conventions, record
> albums, a revival series, a truly astonishing number of VHS and now DVD
> releases, and a new revival movie is in the works.
>> PS: 'The Monkees' did NOT have a movie during its run. 'Head' did not
>> come out until AFTER the series was cancelled, and it was not really
>> connected to it, being an entirely separate project that the band
>> themselves had creative control over. In fact, they intentionally made
>> the movie as much UNLIKE the series as they possibly could.
>
> Okay, so only several series beat X-Files, not several plus 1.
>
> Look, I liked much of the X-Files, and enjoyed the movie. But claiming
> phony records for it doesn't do anything but make it's fan base look
> desperate.
>
The first several seasons of X-files were really good. As for the rest
of Anim's statement, yep, what he said.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Second "X-Files" pic moving toward production [message #237198 is a reply to message #237196] |
Tue, 31 July 2007 15:45 |
anim8rFSK
Messages: 215
Registered: July 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
In article <AZLri.114454$wG2.47768@newsfe17.lga>,
Sean Carroll <seanc130@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Anim8rFSK wrote:
>> Sean Carroll <seanc130@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> first show to have a prominent, organised, online fandom during
>>> its original run, who were actually mentioned by the creators as having
>>> had an influence on their creative decisions.
>
>> Nope.
>
> Don't you usually have a bunch of examples of shows that technically
> beat XF to an achievement, but were never anywhere near as important or
> influential, to back yourself up? Or is it 'nope' just because you say so?
Got bored. So far none of the benchmarks you guys have come up with are
even remotely true. And of course you're wrong about the important and
influential part. In fact, you're wrong about absolutely everything.
The sad part is, I doubt that's a personal best.
Yawn.
--
"No man ever notices a woman's shoes, unless they have boobs on them."
-- Mark Nobles
|
|
|
|
| Re: Second "X-Files" pic moving toward production [message #237199 is a reply to message #237198] |
Tue, 31 July 2007 16:57 |
|
|
Originally posted by: Sean Carroll
Anim8rFSK wrote:
> Sean Carroll <seanc130@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Don't you usually have a bunch of examples of shows that technically
>> beat XF to an achievement, but were never anywhere near as important or
>> influential, to back yourself up? Or is it 'nope' just because you say so?
> Got bored. So far none of the benchmarks you guys have come up with are
> even remotely true. And of course you're wrong about the important and
> influential part. In fact, you're wrong about absolutely everything.
> The sad part is, I doubt that's a personal best.
Oooh, shifting from the issue to personal attacks. That really ups your
credibility! *rolls eyes*
--
--Sean
http://spclsd223.livejournal.com/
Wilson: That smugness of yours really is an attractive quality.
House: Thank you. It was either that or get my hair highlighted.
Smugness is easier to maintain.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Second "X-Files" pic moving toward production [message #237203 is a reply to message #237195] |
Wed, 01 August 2007 09:25 |
Alan McHurshman
Messages: 1009
Registered: May 2013
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Jul 31, 3:49 pm, Anim8rFSK <ANIM8R...@cox.net> wrote:
> In article <7BKri.9272$Uz4.7...@newsfe19.lga>,
> Sean Carroll <seanc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Yawn. People watched and remember Dark Shadows.
Well I watched it briefly. And I remember it as an
enormously bad pice of junk. Bad writing and some
of the worst acting ever to appear on US TV.
> Look, I liked much of the X-Files, and enjoyed the movie. But claiming
> phony records for it doesn't do anything but make it's fan base look
> desperate.
True enough. The X-Files has enough real records.
--
AlanH
|
|
|
|
| Re: Second "X-Files" pic moving toward production [message #237204 is a reply to message #237194] |
Wed, 01 August 2007 09:30 |
trotsky
Messages: 37
Registered: February 2012
Karma: 0
|
Member |
|
|
Anim8rFSK wrote:
> In article <TvKri.9270$Uz4.4162@newsfe19.lga>,
> Sean Carroll <seanc130@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>> XXXXgizzieXXXX wrote:
>>
>>> "trotsky" <gmsingh@email.com> wrote
>>>
>>>> BigOleBadAssBob wrote:
>>
>>>> >>>- First show to combine stand-alone episodes with long-running
>>>> >>>storylines.
>>
>>> First show to have a movie while it was still on the air.
>>
>> Also,
>
>
> First, there's no 'also' because that one's not even close to being true.
>
> first show to have a prominent, organised, online fandom during
>
>> its original run, who were actually mentioned by the creators as having
>> had an influence on their creative decisions.
>
>
> Nope.
Why are so many Usenet weasels threatened by the X-Files?
|
|
|
|
| Re: Second "X-Files" pic moving toward production [message #237205 is a reply to message #237198] |
Wed, 01 August 2007 09:34 |
trotsky
Messages: 37
Registered: February 2012
Karma: 0
|
Member |
|
|
Anim8rFSK wrote:
> In article <AZLri.114454$wG2.47768@newsfe17.lga>,
> Sean Carroll <seanc130@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>> Anim8rFSK wrote:
>>
>>> Sean Carroll <seanc130@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> first show to have a prominent, organised, online fandom during
>>>> its original run, who were actually mentioned by the creators as having
>>>> had an influence on their creative decisions.
>>
>>> Nope.
>>
>> Don't you usually have a bunch of examples of shows that technically
>> beat XF to an achievement, but were never anywhere near as important or
>> influential, to back yourself up? Or is it 'nope' just because you say so?
>
>
> Got bored. So far none of the benchmarks you guys have come up with are
> even remotely true. And of course you're wrong about the important and
> influential part. In fact, you're wrong about absolutely everything.
> The sad part is, I doubt that's a personal best.
>
> Yawn.
Interesting: critically acclaimed, publically acclaimed, and yet a
couple of Usenet anonymice are *certain* the X-Files doesn't deserve the
praise heaped on it. Hey, here's a question: has any TV series ever
spawned as many feature film writers and directors?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Second "X-Files" pic moving toward production [message #237209 is a reply to message #237207] |
Wed, 01 August 2007 11:51 |
anim8rFSK
Messages: 215
Registered: July 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
In article <13b19brep25qg9e@news.supernews.com>,
pv+usenet@pobox.com (PV) wrote:
> Sean Carroll <seanc130@hotmail.com> writes:
>> Don't you usually have a bunch of examples of shows that technically
>> beat XF to an achievement, but were never anywhere near as important or
>
> Why bother? You'll just make up more bullshit "firsts". *
What Paul said.
Serious question: Do they, or did they ever, have dedicated X-Files
cons? Not an X-Files panel at a generic con, but an X-Files specific
con, the way they had, and still have, Trek and, yes, Dark Shadows cons?
--
"No man ever notices a woman's shoes, unless they have boobs on them."
-- Mark Nobles
|
|
|
|
| Re: Second "X-Files" pic moving toward production [message #237210 is a reply to message #237209] |
Wed, 01 August 2007 12:15 |
|
|
Originally posted by: Victor Velazquez
"Anim8rFSK" <ANIM8Rfsk@cox.net> wrote in message
news:ANIM8Rfsk-3D6A92.08510701082007@news.phx.highwinds-media.com...
> In article <13b19brep25qg9e@news.supernews.com>,
> pv+usenet@pobox.com (PV) wrote:
>
>> Sean Carroll <seanc130@hotmail.com> writes:
>>> Don't you usually have a bunch of examples of shows that technically
>>> beat XF to an achievement, but were never anywhere near as important or
>>
>> Why bother? You'll just make up more bullshit "firsts". *
>
> What Paul said.
>
> Serious question: Do they, or did they ever, have dedicated X-Files
> cons? Not an X-Files panel at a generic con, but an X-Files specific
> con, the way they had, and still have, Trek and, yes, Dark Shadows cons?
I went to an X-Con here in Chicago but it turned out to mostly be an ad for,
IIRC, the then-new Dodge Intrepid.
Although it was cool getting a photo of me sitting at Mulder's desk (but not
like "park at Navy Pier" cool).
|
|
|
|
| Re: Second "X-Files" pic moving toward production [message #237211 is a reply to message #237180] |
Wed, 01 August 2007 13:24 |
|
|
Originally posted by: jayembee
Anim8rFSK <ANIM8Rfsk@cox.net> wrote:
> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>
>> On Jul 30, 9:19 pm, "XXXXgizzieXXXX" <xxgizzi...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> First show to have a movie while it was still on the air.
>>
>> If true, that's a good one...
>
> Not true. Not even remotely close to being true.
Weeeelllllll....depends on how you want to look at it. If you want to
say that it's the first show *in 25 years* to have a movie while it
was still on the air, then it's true. :-)
Anyway, they probably won't just take our word for that, so...
(In the close-but-not-quite department)
MUNSTER, GO HOME was released on 6 June 1966, just three weeks after
the final new episode of the TV series aired (12 May 1966).
FLIPPER'S NEW ADVENTURE, sequel to the original movie, was released
in May 1964, just four months prior to the beginning of the TV show.
(In the definite department)
HOUSE OF DARK SHADOWS, released on 9 September 1970, the same day
that episode #1098 of the TV series aired. The second movie, NIGHT
OF DARK SHADOWS, was released on 4 August 1971, just four months
after the last new episode of the series aired (#1245, 2 April 1971).
BATMAN, released in August 1966, between the first and second seasons
of the TV series.
McHALE'S NAVY, released in July 1964, between the second and third
seasons of the TV series. Followed by McHALE'S NAVY JOINS THE AIR
FORCE, released in June 1965, between the third and fourth seasons
of the TV series.
(Unless I'm missing something, McHALE'S NAVY is still the only TV
series that had *two* movies released while the series was still
on the air. DARK SHADOWS came close, though.)
THE LONE RANGER, released in February 1956, between the fourth and
fifth seasons of the TV series.
DRAGNET, released in September 1954, just after the start of the
fourth season of the TV series.
And this is *not* including the TV series that had fix-up features
(films comprised of TV episodes strung together) released while
the series was still on the air, such as THE MAN FROM U.N.C.L.E.
and the Ron Ely TARZAN.
-- jayembee
|
|
|
|
| Re: Second "X-Files" pic moving toward production [message #237212 is a reply to message #237186] |
Wed, 01 August 2007 13:57 |
|
|
Originally posted by: jayembee
Anim8rFSK <ANIM8Rfsk@cox.net> wrote:
>>>> Then... how about first theatrical movie(s) both during and after
>>>> series run? The envelope, please...
>>>
>>> Still not X-Files. We'd have to check dates, but even if X-Files
>>> DOES do that, which it hasn't yet, I believe Dark Shadows has that
>>> distinction. Possibly Thunderbirds as well.
THUNDERBIRDS (which I forgot in my previous reply), kinda sorta. The
first movie, THUNDERBIRDS ARE GO was first released (in the UK) on
15 December 1966. The last new episode first aired (in the UK) 10
days after that. But it's one of those situations where the vast bulk
of the episodes aired from fall 1965 to spring 1966, with the last
six having scattered airings in the fall of 1966. The last episode
might've been deliberately held back until after the film release,
given that the penultimate episode aired two months earlier.
> Okay, IMDb says it has a release date of 4 August 1971
>
> And Dark Shadows, the series, final airdate is Original Air Date: 2
> April 1971 -- 2 days before the movie came out.
That's four months, not two days. :-)
> Dark Shadows holds the title for "first theatrical movie(s) both
> during and after series run"
Nope. As I mentioned in my other reply, there was a Lone Ranger film
(with Clayton Moore and Jay Silverheels) released in 1956, during
the run of the TV series. There was also a second film, THE LONE
RANGER AND THE LOST CITY OF GOLD (also with Moore & Silverheels)
released in June 1958, a year after the last new episode of the
TV series.
And by the way, another early TV series that had a movie released
while the series was still airing: OUR MISS BROOKS. But just barely.
The last three episodes of the series aired after the movie's
release.
> Sorry X-Files. Not sure what else they can even try for. Maybe
> "most number of movies made with original cast" -- they only
> have to make 6 more movies to tie that one. :)
First series not from the 1950s or 1960s to have a theatrical movie
released while the series was still on. :-)
It's like I was saying way earlier in this discussion: people are
just making up factoids about THE X-FILES to prove how important
the series was, without (apparently) making even a token attempt
to to find out beforehand whether the factoids are even true. When
others point out that the factoids are wrong, they try contorting
the specifics to make them at least partially true.
And like you and Paul (and others), I *liked* THE X-FILES, but
don't see why people have to make up stuff to try and make the
show seem more special than it is.
-- jayembee
|
|
|
|
| Re: Second "X-Files" pic moving toward production [message #237213 is a reply to message #237209] |
Wed, 01 August 2007 14:26 |
|
|
Originally posted by: Michael Bowker
Anim8rFSK wrote:
> In article <13b19brep25qg9e@news.supernews.com>,
> pv+usenet@pobox.com (PV) wrote:
>
>> Sean Carroll <seanc130@hotmail.com> writes:
>>> Don't you usually have a bunch of examples of shows that technically
>>> beat XF to an achievement, but were never anywhere near as important or
>> Why bother? You'll just make up more bullshit "firsts". *
>
> What Paul said.
>
> Serious question: Do they, or did they ever, have dedicated X-Files
> cons? Not an X-Files panel at a generic con, but an X-Files specific
> con, the way they had, and still have, Trek and, yes, Dark Shadows cons?
>
Actually Anim, they did. They weren't numerious and they were top down,
not bottom up cons (Studio not fan based events). But I went to one
that they had in an old hanger on Treasure Island in SF. As I recall it
was in the third season of X-Files. It was well attended, but they
didn't catch on (don't really know why). They key is Trek fandom are
fan based and have lasted for 40 years (same can be said for Dark
Shadows, I guess). X-files (allthough it was a good show) doesn't have
the same legs and depth as some of the other fannish shows, it's more
on the level with B5 than Trek.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Second "X-Files" pic moving toward production [message #237214 is a reply to message #237213] |
Wed, 01 August 2007 17:43 |
anim8rFSK
Messages: 215
Registered: July 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
In article <13b1k3k92rtl346@corp.supernews.com>,
Michael Bowker <mikeb@blueneptune.com> wrote:
> Anim8rFSK wrote:
>> In article <13b19brep25qg9e@news.supernews.com>,
>> pv+usenet@pobox.com (PV) wrote:
>>
>>> Sean Carroll <seanc130@hotmail.com> writes:
>>>> Don't you usually have a bunch of examples of shows that technically
>>>> beat XF to an achievement, but were never anywhere near as important or
>>> Why bother? You'll just make up more bullshit "firsts". *
>>
>> What Paul said.
>>
>> Serious question: Do they, or did they ever, have dedicated X-Files
>> cons? Not an X-Files panel at a generic con, but an X-Files specific
>> con, the way they had, and still have, Trek and, yes, Dark Shadows cons?
>>
>
> Actually Anim, they did.
k, cool. I never knew of one, but I suspected there might have been one
someplace. Thanks!
They weren't numerious and they were top down,
> not bottom up cons (Studio not fan based events). But I went to one
> that they had in an old hanger on Treasure Island in SF. As I recall it
> was in the third season of X-Files. It was well attended, but they
> didn't catch on (don't really know why). They key is Trek fandom are
> fan based and have lasted for 40 years (same can be said for Dark
> Shadows, I guess). X-files (allthough it was a good show) doesn't have
> the same legs and depth as some of the other fannish shows, it's more
> on the level with B5 than Trek.
--
"No man ever notices a woman's shoes, unless they have boobs on them."
-- Mark Nobles
|
|
|
|
|
|
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
