A brief look at the background and a look at the fall and rise of the classic 1925 film The Lost World. Tongue-in-Cheek look at the film: • A Look at The Lost Wor...
the geraint wynn jones version of conan doyle in murdoch mysteries seems to have been very physically accurate.. well done, show i can't decide if i like or not...
@@christopherwall2121 well let's be honest, tennant's a stretch. Anyway he's in the past, we're talking about the future. i've never heard of that other one, are you telling me they've already announced Fourteen? and it's a fella? well hot damn. Never been so glad to be wrong. i assume from that name he's an african of some kind? that's going to limit a few of the places in earth history he can plausibly go without sticking out, but only a few. I'm in.. Not that Jodie wasn't okay too, she did fine.
@@KairuHakubi Oh, you didn't hear? Russell T. Davies has been given a second shot in the big chair, and he's decided to start things off with a mystery; the Doctor has regenerated into David Tennant again, but this incarnation is being called "the Fourteenth Doctor" so I'm assuming he'll have a slightly different personality. And the mystery is why has the Doctor gone back to this familiar face? And yes, Ncuti Gatwa is Rwandan-Scottish
I am curious (not enough to google) about the giant rat of Sumatra, as this was also the subject of Peter Jackson's horror movie Dead Alive, as it started a zombie outbreak. Is a giant Sumatran rat a trope of some kind?
Giant Rat of Sumatra was an odd sort of "noodle incident/missing adventure" for Holmes and Watson in Doyles original canon of Sherlock Holmes stories. It was a case that Holmes mentions off handedly in the Adventure of the Sussex Vampire where Holmes mentions it as being a story that the world just isn't ready for. Doyle never wrote a story about it. So it's become something of a fun reference for people to talk about "What the Giant Rat of Sumatra was about"? It's been total Fan-Fiction fodder for nearly 100 years.
You'd be surprised! A lot of movies around that time period clock in at just over an hour. But even at the time, the notion that 90 minutes was too long was rather unusual. My guess is that it had less to do with audience attention span and more to do with "how many times can we show this in a day?"
@@KairuHakubi It got sure more interesting since then. As I've said I am sure every society, every civilization and every age had it's "concerned citizens" or something. I guess they are just less obvious at the time. But as lifelong lover of history who actually considered academic pursuit along that line this rewriting of history and cultural legacy really ruffles my feathers. I have two Robinson Crusoe books at home as a bit of a metaphor. The original one and soviet era translation. The second one's bout half a size and every time i read and hear about this type of nonsense I glance at that bookshelf. That might seem as a a bit of a jump and bout 5 years ago I would still probably agree.
Sorry SF debris. This video does have some pretty intelligent discussion on the background of the series. And the use of AI generated images is quite small. But I cannot in right mind excuse its use for the time being. Currently, the entire AI image generation industry is based on the appropriation and theft of the creative labor of hundreds of thousands of poor and middle class artists, and on the use of unconsensual data mining, all done to replace artists, and also done with no care of the risk mass producing fake news with this technology. So I cannot give support to the use of such technology, under any circumstance.
absolute twaddle you repeated from a convincing shyster somewhere. People are allowed to look at other people's art and try to recreate it, why wouldn't a computer be allowed? as long as you aren't profiting from it, which would only happen if somehow people were allowed _exclusive rights_ to the use of an AI program, which would be completely baffling. How can you possibly hold such a monolithic opinion banning the use of a technology, how is THAT not something you 'can't support under any circumstance' eh? How many times do you have to be proven wrong by history?
@@KairuHakubi People have the right to look. These programs are not people, and they dont loom at anything the way a human would. They are not sapient. They are mindless pattern fitting algorithms. They were made by companies. They are used for the express purpose of replacing artists, and to do so, they have been build using the intelectual and creative labor of the very artists they are meant to replace.
