hi all, I have one question ; why a differents autocards of Gillian Anderson (x files) cost many money ? probably because is limited ? or others reason ? thanks

The continuing popularity of "X-Files" and the possibility there will be more of it someday, plus that she is considered good at acting and is beautiful are an excellent combination for an autograph subject.

In addition to that, it took her a while to finally sign cards, and when she did, she didn't sign very many of them. All of those things add up to the current values for her cards.

I find that 'attractive' ladies always tend to make for the most expensive autographed trading cards, and unlike the Jessica Alba's and Jennifer Garner's, Gillian Anderson is actually a very good actress.

As chesspieceface said, her cards were always the rarest in the X-Files sets and they were never easy pulls. Not knowing Inkworks box runs I always got the impression her cards were very rare.
When Inkworks went out of business and dumped all their inventory, we didn't see any more Gillian cards hit the market. Even where X-Files card values have dipped across the board, her cards still do very well.

She also has more of an international profile, having done several projects outside of the US, and is still doing quality work.

I think that there are more Anderson autographs available now because she does do signings, but as stated, the certified signed cards do appear to be fairly limited and will stay that way unless another X-Files set is made. The demand should hold up her prices unless something changes to decrease her popularity or significantly increase the supply.

quote:

Originally posted by Raven:
The demand should hold up her prices unless something changes to decrease her popularity...

Well, sure, that Stephen Collins Star Trek Movies autograph card seems to go for around $70 these days, but some better deals on that card could be coming soon...for those who still want one, that is.
I'll leave it at that. Ugh...

many thanks to all for your information

quote:

Originally posted by chesspieceface:

quote:

Originally posted by Raven:
The demand should hold up her prices unless something changes to decrease her popularity...

Well, sure, that Stephen Collins Star Trek Movies autograph card seems to go for around $70 these days, but some better deals on that card could be coming soon...for those who still want one, that is.
I'll leave it at that. Ugh...

Oh you would be surprised CPF, I'll bet that there are some people looking to up the value of that card and sell it because he is back in the news. And there are some people never interested before, that now want it.

What is it that they say, any publicity is good publicity? OJ's autograph as a football star had leveled off until he got back in the public eye for the wrong reason, then people wanted it again.

Now Mark McGwire's autograph took a big hit because his "crime" dirently related to his career. So I guess if you are going to do something wrong and ruin your reputation, you should do something really wrong and make the front page.

I didn't need Collin's autograph card before and I sure don't need it now.

OJ in particular was one of my childhood heroes, among my favorite people on Earth, especially after he finished his career on the field and eased into broadcasting and roles like Nordberg in the classic "Naked Gun" comedy movie series.
But then, thanks to what he did, OJ instantly became a comedy killer, no pun intended. I wish they'd just digitally replace him in those "Naked Gun" movies, so I could enjoy them again. It turns my stomach to look at him.
I might still have a couple of his cards in my older sets, but I would never actively pursue another card with him on it. Whenever I do my searches for Simpsons TV show trading cards, I have to put "-O.J." in the search box, and even then, it still brings up some his cards. You even see people wearing his jersey once in a while, the USC ones more often the the Bills one since I'm out West. Either way, pretty disgusting.

Just finished watching The Fall and it certainly was a well acted piece by Anderson. It's one of those crime stories that aren't really easy watching, even while you keep coming back for more. Unfortunately, or fortunately, there will be a Season 2 of The Fall airing this November.

quote:

Originally posted by Raven:
Just finished watching The Fall and it certainly was a well acted piece by Anderson. It's one of those crime stories that aren't really easy watching, even while you keep coming back for more. Unfortunately, or fortunately, there will be a Season 2 of The Fall airing this November.

Gillian Anderson is one of those fan-favourite 'beautiful' actresses but unlike most, she has brains and actual acting ability. For saying she never gets a bad review I'd expect her to be better known. I've had the pleasure of meeting her twice and she is a classy lady in real life too.

SPOILERS AHEAD

I loved The Fall and I thought it was a very brave move to end the last episode the way they did when a second series was not confirmed. I suppose leaving the audience desperate for more was the best way to get series 2 greenlit. It was a great and tense slow-burner and all the way through I kept wondering how they could wrap up the story in only 5 episodes, and as it turned out, of course they couldn't. The series was too quality to be a rush-job.

If we had only got the one series it would have been one of the most ambitious but frustrating series finales I think I have ever seen. It was strong, gritty stuff, and not for the faint of heart, but the tone fit the genre and it is a finely made show made even better precisely because it pulled no punches.

Very much looking forward to the new series.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: X,

I think I paid in the neighborhood of $60-75 when I met her.

She might be brainy and classy as you say, but her answers to questions on the convention made her sound like she spent the entire run of the X-Files stoned.

quote:

Originally posted by X:

quote:

Originally posted by Raven:
Just finished watching The Fall and it certainly was a well acted piece by Anderson. It's one of those crime stories that aren't really easy watching, even while you keep coming back for more. Unfortunately, or fortunately, there will be a Season 2 of The Fall airing this November.

Gillian Anderson is one of those fan-favourite 'beautiful' actresses but unlike most, she has brains and actual acting ability. For saying she never gets a bad review I'd expect her to be better known. I've had the pleasure of meeting her twice and she is a classy lady in real life too.

I loved The Fall and I thought it was a very brave move to end the last episode the way they did when a second series was not confirmed. I suppose leaving the audience desperate for more was the best way to get series 2 greenlit. It was a great and tense slow-burner and all the way through I kept wondering how they could wrap up the story in only 5 episodes, and as it turned out, of course they couldn't. The series was too quality to be a rush-job.

If we had only got the one series it would have been one of the most ambitious but frustrating series finales I think I have ever seen. It was strong, gritty stuff, and not for the faint of heart, but the tone fit the genre and it is a finely made show made even better precisely because it pulled no punches.

Very much looking forward to the new series.

Well I tried not to mention that spoiler in my vague post, but as you brought it out X, anyone who wants to see The Fall should not read further.

I thought the ending was a classic cop out. I totally agree that the story was too detailed and drawn out to fit into 5 episodes, but why didn't they plan it out for 7 or 8 to begin with? Most UK series seem to run about 10 episodes per season, as most US cable shows run 12 - 13 episodes per season.

This story needed closure because it was so intense. That ending was just designed to make sure that they got another season out of it and it wasn't even an original idea. It is almost a repeat of The Silence of the Lambs ending when Hanibal Lecter gets away and calls Clarisse, except that the movie did have some closure because the killer they were after was found and the victim saved.

The Fall has no such ending or justice and considering the mistakes made, there is no guarantee that Dornan's character can be stopped within another 5 episodes. Plus if it is 5 more episodes dedicated to him, than it is drawing it all out way too long. So no, I didn't like the ending and didn't think it brave. It was a big letdown to me.

But speaking of Dornan, he was terrific. I had never seen him before and I know he is playing the lead in Fifty Shades of Grey, which is a very silly piece of junk to me. It's nice to know that he is a good actor no matter what happens with that potboiler.

quote:

Originally posted by Tattoox:
I think I paid in the neighborhood of $60-75 when I met her.

She might be brainy and classy as you say, but her answers to questions on the convention made her sound like she spent the entire run of the X-Files stoned.

Judging by some of the big reveals she's made in various interviews over the years, you might not be too far from the truth.

But at least she goes to conventions and makes time for fans, so give her credit for that.

Raven, on the one hand you're saying series 1 should have run for a good 10 episodes, and on the other, if the remaining 5 episodes focus on Dornan it will be drawn out "way too long"... isn't either scenario exactly the same thing.

SPOILERS AHEAD
I see a massive distinction between your Silence of the Lambs analogy. Even if the phone call idea is cribbed, the narrative of Lambs is open ended only so much in that you might wonder what further exploits Lecter will get up to. Beyond that, he not the main antagonist even if he steals the film, and the narrative is resolved.

With the Fall however, the phone call at the end is a complete reversal of the Lambs situation. Lecter was never not in control, whereas what gets off Dornan's character is that he thinks he is. Clarice can all but listen helplessly whereas Anderson's DCI Gibson takes the upper hand and is exactly what makes you scream at the TV that the show has ended, possibly never to return, whereas with Lambs, you're left thinking "that's a good ending!".

The Fall was a phenomenal hit for the BBC but had it not been watched, which could easily have been the case, there would be no second series, cliffhanger or not. When the creative team believe in the show to the extent that they gamble the possibility of NOT wrapping things up when they know series 2 might never happen, that is a ballsy move. They could have just as easily done a couple more episodes, toned it down and given us a less dense, more streamlined version, but they chose not to and that is what I see as 'brave'.
Given the horrors of what the viewer is put through, I think the lack of "ending and justice" is exactly what upset most viewers who didn't like the way the show ended (and there were many!). I think too many people in the UK/US are used to neat TV formats and character arcs that never exist beyond one season, that is, if and antagonist's 'story' even gets past one episode!

X, from both of our posts I think it would be fair to say that we are at about 95% agreement on everything about The Fall. The only real disagreement is that you appreciated the unresolved ending, whereas I did not.

What I said was that 7 or 8 episodes were necessary to adequately to conclude this very detailed story in one season. Ten episodes would be too long and drawn out, which is why I said that dedicating the whole of another series to getting this same serial killer would be excessively hard to watch.

I do recognize the difference in tone in the phone call between the hunter and the hunted in the Silence of the Lambs and The Fall. Gibson is in control here, but only in so far as she knows all the answers without actually getting her man. Isn't that the most important part?

As you yourself concede, Silence had a good ending even though Lectar escaped because Clarice did at least succeed in finding her man. Also Lecter's crimes were mainly done before the movie started, so we as an audience didn't have to sit through the gory details of his many murders. We could therefore almost admire Hopkin's sly character in SOL, but there is no such feeling for Dornan's character. His actions are almost too despicable to watch and the audience wants him to be caught.

Yet Dornan gets away despite Gibson's best efforts only a bit worse for the wear and we know he won't stop until she stops him.

There is no satisfaction for me in that ending and no feeling that justice was done, which we also agree on, only you thought it ballsy to leave it like that, perhaps forever. I happen to think there should have been that neatly wrapped up ending this season and another case the next season if it came back. Remember that this story is fiction and it is supposed to provide some measure of enjoyment for the people that are investing hours looking at it. Stay tuned everyone is not a good ending. What would happen if the writers did the same thing next series? What would happen if the writers decided to make Gibson one of his victims next series? Would that be a ballsy move too, or would it be rubbish?

If we're talking 8 episodes vs. 10, I think we're splitting hairs when all is said and done. Depending on the way you want to look at it - you could even call it a two-part series or a modern US series with mid-season pause.

I dare not ask what you thought of the ending to The Sopranos Another ending I thought was brilliant but had people up in arms!

I liked the ending of The Fall because it wasn't neat and tidy, and because it was faithful to the nail-biting tone of the show. Every week you think we might be edging closer and closer to a resolution, Dornan's crimes are so despicable you really want him caught. It was scary because the police were always just that one step behind and to have Gibson play her trump card and reveal to him what she knows was a real curve ball, and a small victory for the audience to enjoy in an otherwise deceptively downbeat ending.

Had the story been resolved I would be tuning in to see series 2 simply because it was a good show and I am hoping for more of the same. Because it was open ended, I'd not really say a cliffhanger, I am far more excited to see what happens next. I was invested and a year later I still am. At only 5 episodes in I don't have viewer fatigue.

I could bang on about how much I love The Silence of the Lambs until the cows come home, it is one of the best films ever made IMO. I think you've hit the nail on the head, in that the audience do like Hannibal in a way they can't with Dornan, but I don't think that has anything to do with Lecters crimes being less 'seen'. Hannibal is a monster no doubt, but cannibalism
is so rare it's becomes something of a 'fascinating' crime whereas the crimes in The Fall are more disturbing because they are far more commonplace. Similarly, we're not upset when Hannibal gets away because of the way he's been portrayed. Ignoring the phenomenal performance from Anthony Hopkins, he is a charming, witty intellectual with some wildly distorted ethics which work in the heroines' favour. He is nice to his favourite guard Barney and we feel sympathy towards him due to his treatment at the hands of his vile jailer Dr Chiltern. We want him to get out and he's a serial murderer too!
Dornan had none of that flair. He's your average workaday guy next door you'd never expect, which is why it's all so unsettling.

As for series 2, a similar ending would be gimmicky so I would hope for a different climax. If I think about the usual way first seasons end, they're usually always quite 'limp'. The Fall subverted that usual convention and I think it threw a lot of people.

I know what you're saying about needing to get enjoyment when investing your time in a show Raven but I think to say tidy ending always enhance that enjoyment oversimplifies the case and dismisses the other qualities of the show. If that is what you like, fair enough but it was a real ratings winner and critical darling. Not only that but it had that rare buzz about it. I watched it on airing - it was always in the papers, reported about online and friends and colleagues were watching and talking about it, and even with the strong nature of the material and the open ending.

So now that we have totally highjacked this thread X, I think its time to let it return to the topic. However not before I say that I always enjoy our conversations and regard all your opinions as valid and well thought out, even when I think the opposite.

And for the record, I was not a big Sopranos watcher, but had no problem with the ending. I always took the "fade to black" to mean that Tony was whacked at the diner. The creator of the show recently said that it was not his idea to kill Tony at all. If James Gandolfini had not died himself, some version of the Sopranos may have been been resurrected at some point.

So that goes to prove how much I know.

Maybe the topic has been hijacked, but the new topic is compelling so why not address it more?

I did not see The Fall, but I find the cliff hanger endings on extended mini-series to be money based and not creative at all. They did the same thing on Twin Peaks and it ruined the series, because they padded it out to cash in on its success instead of delivering on its promise to have real answers. And I Don't think it was brave either, because like Twin Peaks, they could have always tacked on an ending with a feature length movie (Fire Walk With Me, which was actually quite good-- but they had raised too many questions by that point to answer in a 100 minute movie.) The problem is greed and the fear their next project won't catch on or be as clever or good, so they cop out and drag out the current story rather than wind it up. That might work for Peter Falk in The Princess Bride, but you'll notice that was still one movie with no sequel. The real brave artists are the ones who deliver their best work every single time, as if each piece is their final masterpiece. And that is what keeps the audience coming back, not stalling to drag it out like a soap opera. Norm Saunders also warned other artists to deliver their best art each time, and he clearly practiced what he preached. (He wasn't talking about tv per se but the same concept applies.) The one Tv exception to this "rule" would be the British show, The Prisoner, which was expanded from 7 to 13, then to 15 episodes (If I remember the math correctly). But each episode still had its own separate story concluded (except for th last two) and the moving of the locality forced them to come up with some VERY clever alternative storylines.

BTW, has anybody noticed that Dexter was similar to Lecter in that both targeted killers who deserved to be killed (or corrupt cops). It sounds like the Dorman guy goes after anyone. That's a pretty big difference because it makes the audience feel one type of killer is more like a vigilante, and kind of a hero, while the other is just cruel and bloodthirsty.

You really should take a look at The Fall if you like this time of drama, but just be aware that it is a contination series and, unlike Dexter and Hannibal, there is nothing the least bit redeemable about Dorman's killer.

You and I see eye to eye on these types of endings, be it for a single film and even worse when it's a an entire mini-series or TV show season that you have invested your time in. It is done for the money. It is also done because the creators are lazy and don't really have a good ending, so let's put it off till next time. As a mystery writer, anyone can come up with a compelling and intricate puzzle, but to solve the thing with a sensible and satisfying ending that wraps up all the elements is the hard part. Some writers avoid the problem by never ending it until the show gets cancelled on its own. Who cares if the audience has been cheated.

It's a great topic to talk about because there are so many examples, Dexter, The Killing, even something as old as the Buffy series had an open-ended ending and let's not even get started with Lost and Battlestar. All of it just proves that it is very easy to be sucked into good programs that don't know what to do with their plots.

Funny you should say "let's not get started with LOST, because that was next on my poopy list. I loved the series but stopped watching it when I got the distinct impression they were starting to string me along. They kept adding new, seemingly unsolvable mysteries, before answering any of the earlier ones. I figured they were planning to cheat me with some BS ending like they did with DALLAS, when they decided to bring back a dead charactor by simply saying the last season or two was a dream. So I said to myself, "Myself, we're living in the modern age of jet packs and DVDs (minus the jet packs), Why not wait til the series is over and if it has a decent conclusion, reward the producers and buy the series to watch in its entirety. But if it gets cancelled or it turns out to be another contrived scam on the viewer, let 'em waste everyone else's time, but not yours." Myself, being the smartass that he is, responded, "But don't you know how Hollywood keeps idiots watching silly shows every week?" Curious, I took the bait and asked how. Myself, being the smartass that he is, answered, "I'll tell you next week."

Sure enough, several seasons later, the big Lost ending airs and without any spoiler hints, I ask one of the loyal LOST-ites, "well, which was it... a dream ending or were they all in heaven or hell?" She answered, "Do you really want to know?" And I myself (being the smartass that I am) responded, "Unless the answer is 'neither' then no, I don't really want to know." And so, all my dreams of finding out what the smoke monster really was went up in smoke. And I resolved never to watch the series until I had endless amounts of time on my hands to waste on such Tom Foolery-- like if I'm hit on my motorbike and put in a coma, they can pipe it into my dreams the way they did with Tom Cruise in "Vanilla Sky". Or if I'm killed in said motorbike crash, while I'm bored out of my gourd in heaven, then what the hell? Why not watch it then? (I only ignore the more likely third option because if I wind up there, I'll be two busy dodging pitch fork jabs and trying to put the fires out in my hair. (Male pattern baldness, where are you when you're needed?)) Either way, I'm sure The Lost ending is gonna give me a creepy feeling of Deja vu all over again. (Especially if I'm in hell, because that's where the preachers say The Lost all wind up. Get it? The Lost? That would kind of be clever and bring it full circle with a twist on the title but the sponsors don't like downbeat endings (and we've already established that the plot is driven mainly by money) so it's the least likely of the Holywood deus ex machina endings.)

Sigh! When am I ever going to learn? If you really want entertainment that improves your mind, you should turn off the telly and twiddle your thumbs. (Or use them to sort trading cards, natch!)

This message has been edited. Last edited by: monsterwax,