Rigel wrote:We're actually the only people I know who preferred Sigourney Weaver narrating... my wife pointed out something about the parts where animals die or get eaten, how Weaver actually sounds sad about it, while that British guy rolls it off like the afternoon weather.
There's a version narrated by Sigourney Weaver?? I'd like to see/hear that one. Mind you, I'm perfectly happy with Attenborough's narration - stiff upper lip and all.
BTW, that Galapagos series I mentioned earlier was narrated by Tilda Swinton. I thought she did a fine job, too.
Loremaster wrote:I watched Terminator 2 two nights ago. It's better than the first movie, but I have a couple of issues with it. Where is the T-1000's energy source? One needs energy to do things such as move, morph, damage, etc, even think, so it begs the question where the liquid metal machine gets it power from. There are several times where you see it flat on the ground, so you have to assume that its power source is incredibly compact (and evidently distributed, if you note that the T-1000 can function independently when parts of it are separated). I realise the movie is action, but it's also science fiction. Maybe I just find it harder to suspend disbelief.
Great observation, Lore. I didn't pay attention to the T-1000's energy source, maybe because the movie did so well at explaining other aspects of the machine. I did have one niggly issue with the T-1000 which revolved around its vision. I mean, how does liquid metal "see" the world? How does an optical system work in such a fluid mass? When it assumes the form of a human, it apparently can only see as much as a human can. But why should that be so? Those aren't "real" eyeballs on the T-1000, just a surface fascimile, right? If anything, I would think the T-1000 would have 360-degree vision of some kind, in line with its amorphous, anything-is-possible shapeshifting nature. Or is it "blind" until it assumes a particular form? Or am I totally off base?
)
