The unveiling.
Nov. 11th, 2005 09:29 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
If you know nothing at all about the new series of Doctor Who - and I mean not even what the BBC have been saying in all their press releases, even I'm trying to avoid the stuff which has been leaked from behind the scenes - then you may wish to look away. (This is what we used to call in the old days a "spoiler warning".)
There's been a lot of nay-saying about the new look Cybermen, finally revealed on the BBC web site today. In fact there have been some very rude things said - that it (Cybermen are, after conversion, technically without gender, despite the masculine posturing and voices) looks like Metal Mickey (bollocks!), that it's Tweaky from Buck Rogers' big brother (they're both silver metal humanoids is about as far as it goes), and so on.
Well I say yah sucks boo to the lot of them; the new Cyberman is awesome. It looks like it could take on the Terminator and win, and the subtle bulk of the costume really suggests the strength they've always had (remember the gruesome scene in Attack where they torture Lytton just by squeezing his arms, crushing them until they bleed?) it could certainly crush you in one hand if it wanted to ("That would be illogical; it would damage the specimen and prevent the conversion process.") And they've got it just right, I reckon, as with the Dalek update (though more different obviously) - recognising the soundness of the original design and updating it, giving an overall more menacing and powerful effect.
Now I'm itching to see them in action; truth be told, I probably like Cybermen better than Daleks, so I'm super excited even if other rumours about their two-part episode are a little disappointing. (Don't worry, I'm not going to mention them here.) March/April just can't come soon enough; hopefully the ABC will jump on board right away this year!
PS - I originally screwed up this post by accidentally using the non-existent tag <awesome> and frankly, I think it's a crime that it doesn't exist.
There's been a lot of nay-saying about the new look Cybermen, finally revealed on the BBC web site today. In fact there have been some very rude things said - that it (Cybermen are, after conversion, technically without gender, despite the masculine posturing and voices) looks like Metal Mickey (bollocks!), that it's Tweaky from Buck Rogers' big brother (they're both silver metal humanoids is about as far as it goes), and so on.
Well I say yah sucks boo to the lot of them; the new Cyberman is awesome. It looks like it could take on the Terminator and win, and the subtle bulk of the costume really suggests the strength they've always had (remember the gruesome scene in Attack where they torture Lytton just by squeezing his arms, crushing them until they bleed?) it could certainly crush you in one hand if it wanted to ("That would be illogical; it would damage the specimen and prevent the conversion process.") And they've got it just right, I reckon, as with the Dalek update (though more different obviously) - recognising the soundness of the original design and updating it, giving an overall more menacing and powerful effect.
Now I'm itching to see them in action; truth be told, I probably like Cybermen better than Daleks, so I'm super excited even if other rumours about their two-part episode are a little disappointing. (Don't worry, I'm not going to mention them here.) March/April just can't come soon enough; hopefully the ABC will jump on board right away this year!
PS - I originally screwed up this post by accidentally using the non-existent tag <awesome> and frankly, I think it's a crime that it doesn't exist.
no subject
Date: 2005-11-10 11:05 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-11-10 11:11 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-11-11 12:10 am (UTC)And count me in as another vote for liking the Cybermen better as well, although I suspect I like the idea behind them better than their overall execution.
cheers
dave
no subject
Date: 2005-11-11 04:00 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-11-11 01:36 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-11-11 01:38 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-11-11 08:05 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-11-11 01:52 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-11-11 01:56 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-11-12 04:34 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-11-11 04:39 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-11-14 01:29 pm (UTC)Oh, I'm sorry, I'm thinking of someone else.
no subject
Date: 2005-11-14 04:06 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-11-12 02:47 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-11-14 01:27 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-11-14 12:21 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-11-14 01:26 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-11-16 05:33 am (UTC)