Cycling UK Forum

Mick F wrote:

Spinners wrote:

'A Boy, A Girl And A Bike' (1949) starring John McCallum, Honor Blackman, Patrick Holt and Diana Dors.

Found it.
We'll watch it later or tomorrow!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VmAfqNnEA4g

Diana Dors, Thora Hird, Honor Blackman. As my mum would have said: Oh it’s got good stars in it!

YouTube is a gold mine for terrible 1950/60's Sci-Fi.

On Saturday I watched "The First Spaceship on Venus" which was truly awful but compelling viewing, followed by "The Giant Behemoth" a film I'd seen as a child and could still remember scenes from as I watched it.

(I'm trying to remember the name of the film that had brains wondering round sucking peoples brains out, that's definitely down for a re-watch)

Nothing yet beats my all time favourite crap film "Starcrash" of 1979 vintage and intended to cash in on Star Wars.
Starring Christopher Plummer, David Hassleoff and Caroline Monroe none of whom is likely to put it on their CV. It's a great drinking game, one drink for every continuity error and if you fancy getting drunk faster then include logical fallacies and you probably won't make it more than 10 minutes in.

The Expanse season 4 now here.

mercalia wrote:The Expanse season 4 now here.

I watched Ep 1 last night.

I think it may just be the best Sci-Fi series ever...

kwackers wrote:

mercalia wrote:The Expanse season 4 now here.

I watched Ep 1 last night.

I think it may just be the best Sci-Fi series ever...

I've now watched all 10 eps. I am in two minds about season 4. Not enough aliens. Had to wait until the last 2 episodes, really. A bit slow, maybe.

mercalia wrote:

kwackers wrote:

mercalia wrote:The Expanse season 4 now here.

I watched Ep 1 last night.

I think it may just be the best Sci-Fi series ever...

I've now watched all 10 eps. I am in two minds about season 2. Not enough aliens. Had to wait until the last 2 episodes, really. A bit slow, maybe.

Season 2?

Have you read the books? There's an awful lot in the books, tbh if I had a criticism it's the amount missing from the books and the slightly foot-to-the-floor feel of the TV series as they try to squeeze a lot of writing into a 10 hour season.

Mind you I'm in a room full of millennials, if there hasn't been a fight within the first 5 minutes then they're glued to their phone for the duration and don't have a clue what they've watched.

kwackers wrote:

mercalia wrote:

kwackers wrote:I watched Ep 1 last night.

I think it may just be the best Sci-Fi series ever...

I've now watched all 10 eps. I am in two minds about season 2. Not enough aliens. Had to wait until the last 2 episodes, really. A bit slow, maybe.

Season 2?

Have you read the books? There's an awful lot in the books, tbh if I had a criticism it's the amount missing from the books and the slightly foot-to-the-floor feel of the TV series as they try to squeeze a lot of writing into a 10 hour season.

Mind you I'm in a room full of millennials, if there hasn't been a fight within the first 5 minutes then they're glued to their phone for the duration and don't have a clue what they've watched.

season 4: thru the ring Amazon makes them all available at the same time unlike other places. So I watched them all in 2 evenings. The drama is as good as ever, just hoped there would be more alienness.

Being a long-ago-lapsed astrophysicist, the science in The Expanse occasionally makes me wince (efficiency makes spaceships go? Spin up multiply-fractured Eros? And I get the impression that they occasionally confuse a planet with its orbit, e.g. to get from Saturn to Earth they seem to go via Jupiter and Mars rather than intersecting their orbits, not that I can put a finger on an instance right now) but I can get over that speed-bump and quite enjoy it. Unfortunately it disappeared from Netflux and I haven't got Amazon Prime so I haven't been beyond Season 2, but if someone were to give me the DVDs I wouldn't recycle them.

Meanwhile, having read the book and knowing Edward Norton to be an excellent actor, I want to see Motherless Brooklyn. Funny that he transposed it from the present day to the 1950s, but that was probably to allow him to borrow the style of Bogie films, and could be good.

Audax67 wrote:Being a long-ago-lapsed astrophysicist, the science in The Expanse occasionally makes me wince (efficiency makes spaceships go? Spin up multiply-fractured Eros? And I get the impression that they occasionally confuse a planet with its orbit, e.g. to get from Saturn to Earth they seem to go via Jupiter and Mars rather than intersecting their orbits, not that I can put a finger on an instance right now) but I can get over that speed-bump and quite enjoy it. Unfortunately it disappeared from Netflux and I haven't got Amazon Prime so I haven't been beyond Season 2, but if someone were to give me the DVDs I wouldn't recycle them.

I found a guy on YouTube at some point.
He uses a bit of software that correctly models ship travel in the solar system. He uses the numbers quoted to work out paths and times and it comes out not far from what's actually quoted (in the books at any rate).
Shouldn't be too big a surprise, it originally came from an online RPG and those guys are sticklers for things being "right".

Obviously the engines have no basis in real world (although I don't know what you mean by "efficiency makes spaceships go"). The engines are just engines that throw mass (water?) out of the back for propulsion, although they can maintain massive accelerations for months at a time.
(I *assume* they throw it out *very fast* otherwise it wouldn't last very long.)

kwackers wrote:

Audax67 wrote:Being a long-ago-lapsed astrophysicist, the science in The Expanse occasionally makes me wince (efficiency makes spaceships go? Spin up multiply-fractured Eros? And I get the impression that they occasionally confuse a planet with its orbit, e.g. to get from Saturn to Earth they seem to go via Jupiter and Mars rather than intersecting their orbits, not that I can put a finger on an instance right now) but I can get over that speed-bump and quite enjoy it. Unfortunately it disappeared from Netflux and I haven't got Amazon Prime so I haven't been beyond Season 2, but if someone were to give me the DVDs I wouldn't recycle them.

I found a guy on YouTube at some point.
He uses a bit of software that correctly models ship travel in the solar system. He uses the numbers quoted to work out paths and times and it comes out not far from what's actually quoted (in the books at any rate).
Shouldn't be too big a surprise, it originally came from an online RPG and those guys are sticklers for things being "right".

Obviously the engines have no basis in real world (although I don't know what you mean by "efficiency makes spaceships go"). The engines are just engines that throw mass (water?) out of the back for propulsion, although they can maintain massive accelerations for months at a time.
(I *assume* they throw it out *very fast* otherwise it wouldn't last very long.)

"Efficiency" was the answer "Corey" gave when asked what "his" ships ran on. Scott Manley goes into it a bit more deeply:

https://youtu.be/JWZqp0QoXcw

Re the ships not having vast heat-radiation fins, there is honourable precedent in Kubrick's 2001: the Discovery would also have melted without them but having 'wings' was thought uncool so Arthur C. Clarke agreed that they could leave them out.

Audax67 wrote:"Efficiency" was the answer "Corey" gave when asked what "his" ships ran on. Scott Manley goes into it a bit more deeply:

https://youtu.be/JWZqp0QoXcw

Re the ships not having vast heat-radiation fins, there is honourable precedent in Kubrick's 2001: the Discovery would also have melted without them but having 'wings' was thought uncool so Arthur C. Clarke agreed that they could leave them out.

Ah right, now I understand.

As an aside it's one of the things that many folk never seem to realise about space - it's not cold.
It's a vacuum so the problem is dumping heat and if you're in the sun...

Cats got one star in the Grauniad, someone wrote that it was about yeast extract, one doesnae know what to think, might have to see it myself
..
The Lighthouse looks interesting, rather horrible, but I recently decided to concentrate on happy films, maybe I should make an exception

Cyril Haearn wrote:Cats got one star in the Grauniad, someone wrote that it was about yeast extract, one doesnae know what to think, might have to see it myself

James Cordon on BBC Radio 2 when asked about Cats:-

I haven’t seen it but I’ve heard it’s terrible

....and he's in it
I haven't seen the Musical and the film doesn't appeal to me either
They're apparently sending out a re-edited version as there's some terrible CGI mistakes in the current version.

I read on the BBC that they intend to redo some of it. Maybe more furry breasts