Ok, so its the natural progression from "Walking with...", but WHY do we
have to have Charles fn Wooley doing a voice over??? And is this an
Aussie production? Or was Wooley's voice added for the Aussie
screening? Or... what?! I found it incredibly annoying...
"cosmichobo" <not.worth@the.spam> wrote in message
news:not.worth-628378.19400420082006@news-vip.optusnet.com.au...
> Ok, so its the natural progression from "Walking with...", but WHY do we
> have to have Charles fn Wooley doing a voice over??? And is this an
> Aussie production? Or was Wooley's voice added for the Aussie
> screening? Or... what?! I found it incredibly annoying...
You're better off watching Peggy Bunter on all star BBQ showdown on digital
channel 116
cosmichobo wrote:
> Ok, so its the natural progression from "Walking with...", but WHY do we
> have to have Charles fn Wooley doing a voice over??? And is this an
> Aussie production? Or was Wooley's voice added for the Aussie
> screening? Or... what?! I found it incredibly annoying...
I'd say so.
Remember Negus' emotive VO replacing Robert Powell's straight reading on
Great Crimes and Trials of the Twentieth Century?
Hmmm.
--
http://sfsa.org.au/, the South Australian Doctor Who Fan Club, Inc.
In article <not.worth-628378.19400420082006@news-vip.optusnet.com.au>,
cosmichobo <not.worth@the.spam> wrote:
> Ok, so its the natural progression from "Walking with...", but WHY do we
> have to have Charles fn Wooley doing a voice over??? And is this an
> Aussie production? Or was Wooley's voice added for the Aussie
> screening? Or... what?! I found it incredibly annoying...
I found Charles Wooley's narration strange and very annoying as well.
The original is narrated by David Jason from Frost.
The meteorite striking earth was very cool, but the show is so dumbed
down I won't be continuing. It was a perfect lead-in to 42 Minutes.
On Sun, 20 Aug 2006 21:37:24 +1000, Deltic <nospam@nospam.com.au>
wrote:
Or... what?! I found it incredibly annoying...
>
>I found Charles Wooley's narration strange and very annoying as well.
>The original is narrated by David Jason from Frost.
>
>The meteorite striking earth was very cool, but the show is so dumbed
>down I won't be continuing. It was a perfect lead-in to 42 Minutes.
What, you didn't believe the "time-portal" ? The SMH TV guide mentions
the David Jason version. The following T-Rex show on SBS (part of a
series) was better.....
On Sun, 20 Aug 2006 21:37:24 +1000, Deltic wrote:
> In article <not.worth-628378.19400420082006@news-vip.optusnet.com.au>,
> cosmichobo <not.worth@the.spam> wrote:
>
>> Ok, so its the natural progression from "Walking with...", but WHY do we
>> have to have Charles fn Wooley doing a voice over??? And is this an
>> Aussie production? Or was Wooley's voice added for the Aussie
>> screening? Or... what?! I found it incredibly annoying...
>
> I found Charles Wooley's narration strange and very annoying as well.
> The original is narrated by David Jason from Frost.
>
> The meteorite striking earth was very cool, but the show is so dumbed
> down I won't be continuing. It was a perfect lead-in to 42 Minutes.
It was far too cute. I'd rather a straight documentary than this too cute
faux documentary style.
--
"Read less, more TV" - House
cosmichobo wrote:
> Ok, so its the natural progression from "Walking with...", but WHY do we
> have to have Charles fn Wooley doing a voice over??? And is this an
> Aussie production? Or was Wooley's voice added for the Aussie
> screening? Or... what?! I found it incredibly annoying...
I enjoyed the other one much better on the other channel (what ever it was called).
They actually showed how they come to those conclusions rather than
just saying, well there is is and that's how it lived.
snot wrote:
> cosmichobo wrote:
> > Ok, so its the natural progression from "Walking with...", but WHY do we
> > have to have Charles fn Wooley doing a voice over??? And is this an
> > Aussie production? Or was Wooley's voice added for the Aussie
> > screening? Or... what?! I found it incredibly annoying...
>
> I enjoyed the other one much better on the other channel (what ever it was called).
> They actually showed how they come to those conclusions rather than
> just saying, well there is is and that's how it lived.
The channel 9 version assumed that the viewers possess a basic
education level of a five year of age or higher, so they didn't feel
the need to spell out the basics. Obviously they didn't take YOU into
account. Sad really.
TG'sFM wrote:
> snot wrote:
>> cosmichobo wrote:
>>> Ok, so its the natural progression from "Walking with...", but WHY do we
>>> have to have Charles fn Wooley doing a voice over??? And is this an
>>> Aussie production? Or was Wooley's voice added for the Aussie
>>> screening? Or... what?! I found it incredibly annoying...
>> I enjoyed the other one much better on the other channel (what ever it was called).
>> They actually showed how they come to those conclusions rather than
>> just saying, well there is is and that's how it lived.
>
> The channel 9 version assumed that the viewers possess a basic
> education level of a five year of age or higher, so they didn't feel
> the need to spell out the basics. Obviously they didn't take YOU into
> account. Sad really.
>
unlike you and just accepts everything put in front of you, now that sad.
snot wrote:
> TG'sFM wrote:
> > snot wrote:
> >> cosmichobo wrote:
> >>> Ok, so its the natural progression from "Walking with...", but WHY do we
> >>> have to have Charles fn Wooley doing a voice over??? And is this an
> >>> Aussie production? Or was Wooley's voice added for the Aussie
> >>> screening? Or... what?! I found it incredibly annoying...
> >> I enjoyed the other one much better on the other channel (what ever it was called).
> >> They actually showed how they come to those conclusions rather than
> >> just saying, well there is is and that's how it lived.
> >
> > The channel 9 version assumed that the viewers possess a basic
> > education level of a five year of age or higher, so they didn't feel
> > the need to spell out the basics. Obviously they didn't take YOU into
> > account. Sad really.
> >
>
> unlike you and just accepts everything put in front of you, now that sad.
Like most people, I have a high level of understanding of these
animals, and so I don't have to accept what is put in front of me.
That's the advantage of having an education. You should try it
sometime.
TG'sFM wrote:
> snot wrote:
>> TG'sFM wrote:
>>> snot wrote:
>>>> cosmichobo wrote:
>>>>> Ok, so its the natural progression from "Walking with...", but WHY do we
>>>>> have to have Charles fn Wooley doing a voice over??? And is this an
>>>>> Aussie production? Or was Wooley's voice added for the Aussie
>>>>> screening? Or... what?! I found it incredibly annoying...
>>>> I enjoyed the other one much better on the other channel (what ever it was called).
>>>> They actually showed how they come to those conclusions rather than
>>>> just saying, well there is is and that's how it lived.
>>> The channel 9 version assumed that the viewers possess a basic
>>> education level of a five year of age or higher, so they didn't feel
>>> the need to spell out the basics. Obviously they didn't take YOU into
>>> account. Sad really.
>>>
>> unlike you and just accepts everything put in front of you, now that sad.
>
> Like most people, I have a high level of understanding of these
> animals, and so I don't have to accept what is put in front of me.
> That's the advantage of having an education. You should try it
> sometime.
>
So your beliefs are based on old information and theories, therefore
are not willing to accept any new findings. You should try opening
up your mind sometime.
That is all.
cosmichobo wrote:
> Ok, so its the natural progression from "Walking with...", but WHY do we
> have to have Charles fn Wooley doing a voice over??? And is this an
> Aussie production? Or was Wooley's voice added for the Aussie
> screening? Or... what?! I found it incredibly annoying...
The dino chaser is a total tosser. He goes after dangerous animals
*alone* - sheesh.
The Meerkat wrote:
> cosmichobo wrote:
>> Ok, so its the natural progression from "Walking with...", but WHY do we
>> have to have Charles fn Wooley doing a voice over??? And is this an
>> Aussie production? Or was Wooley's voice added for the Aussie
>> screening? Or... what?! I found it incredibly annoying...
>
> The dino chaser is a total tosser. He goes after dangerous animals
> *alone* - sheesh.
It would have been funnier with Steve Irwin...
snot wrote:
> The Meerkat wrote:
> > cosmichobo wrote:
> >> Ok, so its the natural progression from "Walking with...", but WHY do we
> >> have to have Charles fn Wooley doing a voice over??? And is this an
> >> Aussie production? Or was Wooley's voice added for the Aussie
> >> screening? Or... what?! I found it incredibly annoying...
> >
> > The dino chaser is a total tosser. He goes after dangerous animals
> > *alone* - sheesh.
>
> It would have been funnier with Steve Irwin...
Er, Steve is contracted to the Canberra Raiders for the next two years.
TG'sFM wrote:
> snot wrote:
>> The Meerkat wrote:
>>> cosmichobo wrote:
>>>> Ok, so its the natural progression from "Walking with...", but WHY do we
>>>> have to have Charles fn Wooley doing a voice over??? And is this an
>>>> Aussie production? Or was Wooley's voice added for the Aussie
>>>> screening? Or... what?! I found it incredibly annoying...
>>> The dino chaser is a total tosser. He goes after dangerous animals
>>> *alone* - sheesh.
>> It would have been funnier with Steve Irwin...
>
> Er, Steve is contracted to the Canberra Raiders for the next two years.
>
Did somebody rattle your cage again
snot wrote:
> TG'sFM wrote:
> > snot wrote:
> >> The Meerkat wrote:
> >>> cosmichobo wrote:
> >>>> Ok, so its the natural progression from "Walking with...", but WHY do we
> >>>> have to have Charles fn Wooley doing a voice over??? And is this an
> >>>> Aussie production? Or was Wooley's voice added for the Aussie
> >>>> screening? Or... what?! I found it incredibly annoying...
> >>> The dino chaser is a total tosser. He goes after dangerous animals
> >>> *alone* - sheesh.
> >> It would have been funnier with Steve Irwin...
> >
> > Er, Steve is contracted to the Canberra Raiders for the next two years.
> >
>
> Did somebody rattle your cage again
Oh the ironing. The expression is "rattle your chain", not "rattle
your cage". It's not much fun when the shoes on the other finger is it?
On Mon, 21 Aug 2006 16:44:34 +1000, snot wrote:
> The Meerkat wrote:
>> cosmichobo wrote:
>>> Ok, so its the natural progression from "Walking with...", but WHY do we
>>> have to have Charles fn Wooley doing a voice over??? And is this an
>>> Aussie production? Or was Wooley's voice added for the Aussie
>>> screening? Or... what?! I found it incredibly annoying...
>> The dino chaser is a total tosser. He goes after dangerous animals
>> *alone* - sheesh.
> It would have been funnier with Steve Irwin...
The guy is a sort of Steve Irwin, he's been in dangerous animal docos
before.
--
"Read less, more TV" - House
Quoth The Raven; snot <snot.me@gmail.com> in
<4kt334Fd9pf4U2@individual.net>
> The Meerkat wrote:
>> cosmichobo wrote:
>>> Ok, so its the natural progression from "Walking with...", but WHY
>>> do we have to have Charles fn Wooley doing a voice over??? And is
>>> this an Aussie production? Or was Wooley's voice added for the
>>> Aussie screening? Or... what?! I found it incredibly annoying...
>>
>> The dino chaser is a total tosser. He goes after dangerous animals
>> *alone* - sheesh.
>
> It would have been funnier with Steve Irwin...
wuch me stick me thum up this raptors bum and reely piss im orf! cricky!
--
Remove the _CURSING to reply to me
If I save time, when do I get it back ?
TG'sFM wrote:
> snot wrote:
>> TG'sFM wrote:
>>> snot wrote:
>>>> The Meerkat wrote:
>>>>> cosmichobo wrote:
>>>>>> Ok, so its the natural progression from "Walking with...", but WHY do we
>>>>>> have to have Charles fn Wooley doing a voice over??? And is this an
>>>>>> Aussie production? Or was Wooley's voice added for the Aussie
>>>>>> screening? Or... what?! I found it incredibly annoying...
>>>>> The dino chaser is a total tosser. He goes after dangerous animals
>>>>> *alone* - sheesh.
>>>> It would have been funnier with Steve Irwin...
>>> Er, Steve is contracted to the Canberra Raiders for the next two years.
>>>
>> Did somebody rattle your cage again
>
> Oh the ironing. The expression is "rattle your chain", not "rattle
> your cage". It's not much fun when the shoes on the other finger is it?
>
No, I meant cage
snot wrote:
> TG'sFM wrote:
> > snot wrote:
> >> TG'sFM wrote:
> >>> snot wrote:
> >>>> The Meerkat wrote:
> >>>>> cosmichobo wrote:
> >>>>>> Ok, so its the natural progression from "Walking with...", but WHY do we
> >>>>>> have to have Charles fn Wooley doing a voice over??? And is this an
> >>>>>> Aussie production? Or was Wooley's voice added for the Aussie
> >>>>>> screening? Or... what?! I found it incredibly annoying...
> >>>>> The dino chaser is a total tosser. He goes after dangerous animals
> >>>>> *alone* - sheesh.
> >>>> It would have been funnier with Steve Irwin...
> >>> Er, Steve is contracted to the Canberra Raiders for the next two years.
> >>>
> >> Did somebody rattle your cage again
> >
> > Oh the ironing. The expression is "rattle your chain", not "rattle
> > your cage". It's not much fun when the shoes on the other finger is it?
> >
>
> No, I meant cage
Yes, I know you meant cage. I was merely pointing out your error. If
you even had a BASIC education, you'd know that "rattle your cage" is
wrong, and "rattle your chain" is write. Hope that helps.
Posting Permissions
For your PC needs
Reply With Quote