|
|
Post by Bayne on Feb 15, 2005 0:52:20 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Ashe Raven on Feb 15, 2005 1:06:59 GMT
Thats disgusting
Orsons version was fantastic, but no way did it hold the horror of the orginal. Just becasue it scared a few yanks. I think even Orson would be rather upset if he knew that his tirbute to what he openly describe as one of the most influential books of the time was beating the orginal classic.
I wonder how many Americans have actually bothered to read the book, everything else is based on modern day media, like, film radio and TV.
A SS is in the vote too and no ones even seen the damn thing.
|
|
|
|
Post by Happy Chappy on Feb 15, 2005 1:13:17 GMT
It doesn't even have an option for the Jeff Wayne version!!
FOOKERS!! (Sorry for the language...but I feel it was justified!)
|
|
|
|
Post by EvilNerfherder on Feb 15, 2005 1:18:04 GMT
God DAMN them and their stupid remake every classic movie and put Dean Cain as the star in it bullsh!t. I voted HG...  |
|
|
|
Post by malfunkshun on Feb 15, 2005 1:30:27 GMT
ok i've done my duty, voted for HG
|
|
|
|
Post by Bayne on Feb 15, 2005 1:33:36 GMT
[glow=red,2,300]Note they never mention Pendragons films.
I even emailed them about that and recieved no reply.
I have to admit I'm becoming worried about the journalistic integrity of the site.
[/glow]
|
|
|
|
Post by BrutalDeluxe on Feb 15, 2005 1:54:01 GMT
Keep on them Bayne!
I voted for HG early on in the game and even then Orson had broken away to a fair lead. Maybe people don't read as much as they should ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by Topaz on Feb 15, 2005 2:09:05 GMT
One more vote for Mr. Wells, as opposed to Mr. Welles! I certainly enjoy listening to the radio broadcast, but it doesn't hold a candle to the book. Unfortunately, SciFi has been making really strange decisions the last couple of years. Farscape out, Tremors, The Series in, etc. Blech! The monstrosity of 'Reality' programming known as Scare Tactics. From what I've read, the recent mini-series of Legend of EarthSea was such a hatchet-job that the author of the books denounced it in the media. Then again, we get good stuff like the revamped Battlestar Galactica and continuing good series of Stargate SG-1 and SG Atlantis. Now they're advertising a movie called Chubacabra: Dark Seas which looks to be another travesty of filmmaking, and they've put a quasi-reality show called Ripley's Believe It or Not on in primetime some weeknights. What that has to do with science fiction I don't know, but when I tried (repeatedly over the course of days) to send in an e-mail to their 'viewer comment' address, it was strangely 'disabled' every time.  I suspect that the only reason SciFi.com actually has a 'news' section is to steer more people towards their programming. As for how many of us Americans "actually bother" to read the book, Raven, it's commonly used here in schools (amongst other classics) during the 'English Literature' classes. You folks really need to look beyond the way we're portrayed in your media. Really.  |
|
|
|
Post by FALLINGSTAR on Feb 15, 2005 2:11:11 GMT
Bunch of ignoramuses. I mean how can anyone say that Welles radio broadcast was better than the original book. It's most probably fixed anyway. Bet Spielbergs will soon be at the top.
I can't see where it says to post your vote. There's just a blank screen appearing next to the interview for me.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bayne on Feb 15, 2005 2:34:46 GMT
[glow=red,2,300]The original Ripleys believe it or not (with Jack Palance as host) was an awesome show when I was a kid.. the new one was soooo bad.
Too much stupid stunts and not enough historical oddities etc.
[/glow]
|
|
|
|
Post by Topaz on Feb 15, 2005 6:30:03 GMT
Yes, I agree, about both shows! Even if they brought back the old one, it's an odd fit for the 'SciFi' channel though, wouldn't you say?  |
|
|
|
Post by paco417 on Feb 15, 2005 10:58:00 GMT
done my bit and voted for HG Wells version. come on everyone lets get that percentage as high as possible!
|
|
|
|
Post by timeship2 on Feb 15, 2005 14:31:00 GMT
Funny enough my wife who is a teacher aide asked to borrow my copy of the Orsan Wells broadcast for a teacher who was going over the HGWells novell. I remember her being surprised as the literature book they were using was mainly American Authors.
Having said that, maybe the reason that the Orson Welles version beats the original is because the original wasn't made in the USA and people identify with it more here? It does seem that people in the USA have a hard time relating to other countries and locations at times. Of course I realise not everyone is that way in the USA but it we're talking average joe here.
I voted the original book since I find the Orsan Welles broadcast a bit jarring at times. The Orchestra etc. was obviosuly part of the effect at its time of broadcast but now it justs halts the 'flow' for me. You can get 'lost' in a book while sitting there in bed, or in a comfy chair with your Tea/Coffee/hot chocolate or whatever which you can't do with this broadcast.
|
|
|
|
Post by Anthony on Feb 15, 2005 14:46:13 GMT
Who did it best? Why have they put Spielbergs version in, no one has seen it.
|
|
|
|
Post by timeship2 on Feb 15, 2005 16:30:06 GMT
Even if it had already been shown, these polls are often meaningless if music polls are anything to go by. Whenever there is a poll of the 100 greatest songs etc, you invariably get very recent songs and bands very high up simply because that is what the average younger person in the street identifies with most regardless of whether it really deserves to be there.
|
|
|
|
Post by Carioca on Feb 15, 2005 16:57:33 GMT
Alas, this is another tragic case of pop culture (hype) over substance... I voted for Wells, of course... Carioca |
|
|
|
Post by Bayne on Feb 16, 2005 3:42:33 GMT
[glow=red,2,300]And yet their polls have an effect... as the last one has prompted the creator of Babylon 5 to try and re-start hiss attempts to be involved in the new star trek series!
[/glow]
|
|
|
|
Post by theheatray on Feb 16, 2005 3:53:06 GMT
Its amazing that a channel specialising in sci-fi is run by people not in the least interested in sci-fi, thats crazy.
You can tell from the programming, the same stuff over and over again, half of its rubbish! But they aint interested.
If they were Pendragon would be there or Spielberg wouldnt be. Its both or none.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bayne on Feb 16, 2005 4:54:16 GMT
[glow=red,2,300]I've just sent them another email... lets see if the new one gets a response?
[/glow]
|
|
|
|
Post by Topaz on Feb 16, 2005 19:13:30 GMT
Its amazing that a channel specialising in sci-fi is run by people not in the least interested in sci-fi, thats crazy. You can tell from the programming, the same stuff over and over again, half of its rubbish! But they aint interested. Make no mistake at all, the SciFi Channel exists for one purpose, and one purpose only: To make a profit. Unfortunately, the current thinking in cable-TV programming these days seems to be a cut-throat, put on only what generates instant ratings and to heck with our stated theme sort of hucksterism. The marketing departments have them convinced that if they don't grab tonight's ratings by any means possible, advertisers will flock elsewhere. Sticking to something like a 'theme' is viewed as 'unrealistically restrictive' by that lot. Thus we get no music on MTV, nothing but home improvement and motorcycle chopping on Discovery and TLC, and now a similar sort of 'supe-up different cars every week' show on the History Channel for cryin' out loud. Sci-Fi started down that path with 'Scare Tactics' and it's getting worse and worse. It's starting to be 'Tabloid Television' on every single channel. As Bayne and I were discussing, this new version of Ripley's Believe It Or Not is beyond belief, if you'll pardon the pun. Somehow, a woman shooting a bow and arrow with her feet now qualifies as 'SciFi'. And to think we used to moan about sit-coms. *sigh* Bitter, party of one, redux. That's how it is here in the US, anyway. Is it the same in Europe and 'Down Under'? |
|
