Good TV Shows

[Son of Mathonwy]

Why not have Churchill as a woman, or Hitler as a good guy? I get frustrated all the time when historical fact is ignored by to and film makers. The ethnicity of an actor matters not a jot in a fictional piece but it does undermine credibility when historical characters are totally misportrayed. Why not put an African historical figure in there and maybe teach British audiences that history happened everywhere.

Why does it matter? It's a 5 line cameo that I'm pretty sure was inserted into that script so RTD could cast his Asian mate specifically to upset the kind of people on the internet who would say, "Why not have Churchill be a woman or Hitler as a good guy?"

Puja

Going out of your way to get a negative reaction, welcome to modern Britain. Why look to get a negative reaction at all? For what point? It’s cheap point scoring to get noticed, nothing more.

Since having this conversation, something else occurred to me.

Colour-blind casting and cultural appropriation are not the same thing but there's definitely some overlap between the concepts, and whether you have Tom Cruise playing 'The Last Samurai' or Nathaniel Curtis playing Newton or Michael Gough as the original, mandarin-like Toymaker (which is something that Russell T Davies was concerned about), these things can annoy people.

I don't think taking on the appearance of someone from another culture is necessarily right or wrong but I'd say it ought to be handled with care and done for some purpose. If it's just to stoke the culture wars and piss off some of the potential audience, I'd say, maybe focus your creative time in another area, like writing good stories and good characters.

[Sandydragon]

Why does it matter? It's a 5 line cameo that I'm pretty sure was inserted into that script so RTD could cast his Asian mate specifically to upset the kind of people on the internet who would say, "Why not have Churchill be a woman or Hitler as a good guy?"

Puja

Going out of your way to get a negative reaction, welcome to modern Britain. Why look to get a negative reaction at all? For what point? It’s cheap point scoring to get noticed, nothing more.

Since having this conversation, something else occurred to me.

Colour-blind casting and cultural appropriation are not the same thing but there's definitely some overlap between the concepts, and whether you have Tom Cruise playing 'The Last Samurai' or Nathaniel Curtis playing Newton or Michael Gough as the original, mandarin-like Toymaker (which is something that Russell T Davies was concerned about), these things can annoy people.

I don't think taking on the appearance of someone from another culture is necessarily right or wrong but I'd say it ought to be handled with care and done for some purpose. If it's just to stoke the culture wars and piss off some of the potential audience, I'd say, maybe focus your creative time in another area, like writing good stories and good characters.

Completely agree, although I’m curious at the Tom Cruise point. Wasn’t he playing a western person in that film who I believe historically was French?

With sci-fi you have a great opportunity to mix things up. Perhaps in an alternative universe, Albert Einstein would be Alberta Einstein, but at least the pretext had been set and it would make sense.

And yes, if your purpose is just to annoy people then think again. There’s enough bile in modern society without injecting more just for shits and giggles.

[Son of Mathonwy]

Going out of your way to get a negative reaction, welcome to modern Britain. Why look to get a negative reaction at all? For what point? It’s cheap point scoring to get noticed, nothing more.

Since having this conversation, something else occurred to me.

Colour-blind casting and cultural appropriation are not the same thing but there's definitely some overlap between the concepts, and whether you have Tom Cruise playing 'The Last Samurai' or Nathaniel Curtis playing Newton or Michael Gough as the original, mandarin-like Toymaker (which is something that Russell T Davies was concerned about), these things can annoy people.

I don't think taking on the appearance of someone from another culture is necessarily right or wrong but I'd say it ought to be handled with care and done for some purpose. If it's just to stoke the culture wars and piss off some of the potential audience, I'd say, maybe focus your creative time in another area, like writing good stories and good characters.

Completely agree, although I’m curious at the Tom Cruise point. Wasn’t he playing a western person in that film who I believe historically was French?

With sci-fi you have a great opportunity to mix things up. Perhaps in an alternative universe, Albert Einstein would be Alberta Einstein, but at least the pretext had been set and it would make sense.

And yes, if your purpose is just to annoy people then think again. There’s enough bile in modern society without injecting more just for shits and giggles.

You may be right about The Last Samurai. I try not to watch Tom Cruise films, so I have no idea what happens in it. The film poster is the epitome of cultural appropriation though, even if the film is defensible.

[Sandydragon]

Just binge watched Andor. Definitely one of the better offering from the Star Wars stable.

Yep. The second season will be the last (sadly) but that's because the story ends there, not that it's run out of steam.

Rogue One is one of my favourite Star Wars films and I like the grittiness that Andor brings. After the underwhelming Obi Wan Kenobi spin off, this was a genuinely good series.

[Puja]

Completely agree, although I’m curious at the Tom Cruise point. Wasn’t he playing a western person in that film who I believe historically was French?

With sci-fi you have a great opportunity to mix things up. Perhaps in an alternative universe, Albert Einstein would be Alberta Einstein, but at least the pretext had been set and it would make sense.

And yes, if your purpose is just to annoy people then think again. There’s enough bile in modern society without injecting more just for shits and giggles.

You may be right about The Last Samurai. I try not to watch Tom Cruise films, so I have no idea what happens in it. The film poster is the epitome of cultural appropriation though, even if the film is defensible.

I believe the issue with The Last Samurai is less cultural appropriation and more the white saviour trope.

Puja

[Son of Mathonwy]

Completely agree, although I’m curious at the Tom Cruise point. Wasn’t he playing a western person in that film who I believe historically was French?

With sci-fi you have a great opportunity to mix things up. Perhaps in an alternative universe, Albert Einstein would be Alberta Einstein, but at least the pretext had been set and it would make sense.

And yes, if your purpose is just to annoy people then think again. There’s enough bile in modern society without injecting more just for shits and giggles.

You may be right about The Last Samurai. I try not to watch Tom Cruise films, so I have no idea what happens in it. The film poster is the epitome of cultural appropriation though, even if the film is defensible.

I believe the issue with The Last Samurai is less cultural appropriation and more the white saviour trope.

Puja

I expect there's quite a lot of both.

But do you see my point - there's overlap between colour-blind casting and cultural appropriation, and both can piss people off for similar reasons? (Not denying that there are other, unreasonable excuses to be pissed off)

[Sandydragon]

Completely agree, although I’m curious at the Tom Cruise point. Wasn’t he playing a western person in that film who I believe historically was French?

With sci-fi you have a great opportunity to mix things up. Perhaps in an alternative universe, Albert Einstein would be Alberta Einstein, but at least the pretext had been set and it would make sense.

And yes, if your purpose is just to annoy people then think again. There’s enough bile in modern society without injecting more just for shits and giggles.

You may be right about The Last Samurai. I try not to watch Tom Cruise films, so I have no idea what happens in it. The film poster is the epitome of cultural appropriation though, even if the film is defensible.

I believe the issue with The Last Samurai is less cultural appropriation and more the white saviour trope.

Puja

So a film with a genuine historical aspect should t be made because it might be seen as white saviour? That’s overly sensitive. I’d have thought that the role of the Cruise character, based on a historical character, was worth telling given the struggles against modernity of the Samurai?

Since Cruises character undergoes a significant change in the film and becomes sympathetic to the samurai, fighting alongside them and wining their respect against the US armed and trained Japanese army, it’s difficult to suggest that Cruise is a white saviour. More that the American officers training the Japanese army take on that role and come off badly as a result.

The alternative would have been to ignore the character of the western officer fighting alongside the Samurai and remove the role of one of Hollywoods biggest actors, which would have reduced the viewing figures substantially.

[Sandydragon]

Maybe the views of the leading Japanese actor in the Last Samurai should be considered. Noting also that the film did well in Japanese cinemas and there was far less negative reaction than there was in the west.

https://www.indiewire.com/features/gene ... 234726312/

[Puja]

You may be right about The Last Samurai. I try not to watch Tom Cruise films, so I have no idea what happens in it. The film poster is the epitome of cultural appropriation though, even if the film is defensible.

I believe the issue with The Last Samurai is less cultural appropriation and more the white saviour trope.

Puja

So a film with a genuine historical aspect should t be made because it might be seen as white saviour? That’s overly sensitive. I’d have thought that the role of the Cruise character, based on a historical character, was worth telling given the struggles against modernity of the Samurai?

Since Cruises character undergoes a significant change in the film and becomes sympathetic to the samurai, fighting alongside them and wining their respect against the US armed and trained Japanese army, it’s difficult to suggest that Cruise is a white saviour. More that the American officers training the Japanese army take on that role and come off badly as a result.

The alternative would have been to ignore the character of the western officer fighting alongside the Samurai and remove the role of one of Hollywoods biggest actors, which would have reduced the viewing figures substantially.

Haven't actually seen it, have no opinions on it - just was correcting what the furore was about, rather than judging the film.

Puja

[Sandydragon]

I believe the issue with The Last Samurai is less cultural appropriation and more the white saviour trope.

Puja

So a film with a genuine historical aspect should t be made because it might be seen as white saviour? That’s overly sensitive. I’d have thought that the role of the Cruise character, based on a historical character, was worth telling given the struggles against modernity of the Samurai?

Since Cruises character undergoes a significant change in the film and becomes sympathetic to the samurai, fighting alongside them and wining their respect against the US armed and trained Japanese army, it’s difficult to suggest that Cruise is a white saviour. More that the American officers training the Japanese army take on that role and come off badly as a result.

The alternative would have been to ignore the character of the western officer fighting alongside the Samurai and remove the role of one of Hollywoods biggest actors, which would have reduced the viewing figures substantially.

Haven't actually seen it, have no opinions on it - just was correcting what the furore was about, rather than judging the film.

Puja

Fair enough.

[Son of Mathonwy]

Various shows I've seen in the last 12 months:

Midnight Mass
A Mike Flanagan (Hill House, House of Usher) show. Mostly excellent one-season horror story, let down a little by a slightly anticlimactic ending.

► Show Spoiler

It treads some of the same ground as Salem's Lot, so I loved it.

The Midnight Club
Another Mike Flanagan show (I was going through his back catalogue), this one aimed more at the young adult market. Pretty good (many familiar faces show up from Flanagan's other work), quite a bit of variety here, due to the stories told each episode, albeit one of Flanagan's weaker shows.

Invasion
Very good for the first few episodes - fairly deep characterisations, plenty of time spent in each location, a mysterious and interesting enemy. As time goes on the show proves to have far more style than substance to it, not that clever, really. And the slow pace simply becomes tedious. Characters rapidly prove themselves to be indestructible. The mother character is improbably perfect. The enemy doesn't seem to be trying very hard to win, after its early dramatic victories. It's nice to see teenagers played by teenagers for once but they too become rather tedious, and the dialogue really clunks in the mouths of the British kids.

Dead Ringers
Fairly enjoyable. Rachel Weisz is excellent. The show goes slowly off the rails, relying on characters becoming insane to drive it to its conclusion. Vile, super-wealthy characters appear.

The Changeling
Good but tonally uneven horror/fantasy story. The audience is kept in the dark far too long over key events that the main character has endured. At the end of season one we are still not clear about what has happened in season one.

6ixtynin9
Offbeat Korean comedy/horror. Worth watching.

Scavengers' Reign
Inspired (if a little blandly animated) high quality sci-fi. The alien planet is the star

► Show Spoiler

even if the lifeforms' mechanisms are improbably complex and interact with humans too neatly

. Worth checking out even if animation isn't usually your thing.

The Man Who Fell To Earth
Great cast, and mostly very good. A proper sequel rather than a remake of the film. The show is let down by one huge plot flaw near the end, a reveal which causes a lot of the earlier story to make little sense.

Mr Inbetween
A low-budget, unambitious but likeable Aussie crime drama (with hints of comedy). Not going to change your life but maybe worth watching.

[Numbers]

True Detective: Night Country - I thought this was pretty solid telly, perhaps not quite up to the hype but well worth a watch.

[paddy no 11]

True Detective: Night Country - I thought this was pretty solid telly, perhaps not quite up to the hype but well worth a watch.

I thought the final episode was more miss than hit. Enjoyed up to that.

Navarjo was great. The sisterhood covering up loose ends and plot holes at the end was a little irritating

Wouldn't put anyone off watching it

[paddy no 11]

Shogun on Disney - hell of a mis casting of lead role, inital doubts were fully realised by episode 3. Cack

[Puja]

Shogun on Disney - hell of a mis casting of lead role, inital doubts were fully realised by episode 3. Cack

That's a shame. I've been nervous about watching it because I **adore** the book. Is it 100% not worth my time?

Puja

[Which Tyler]

Ive not started it yet, but Paddy's is the first bad review I've seen

[paddy no 11]

Shogun on Disney - hell of a mis casting of lead role, inital doubts were fully realised by episode 3. Cack

That's a shame. I've been nervous about watching it because I **adore** the book. Is it 100% not worth my time?

Puja

Maybe I'm being harsh, a lot depends on if you can handle the lead actor.

I have not read the book

[Son of Mathonwy]

True Detective: Night Country - I thought this was pretty solid telly, perhaps not quite up to the hype but well worth a watch.

I thought the final episode was more miss than hit. Enjoyed up to that.

Navarjo was great. The sisterhood covering up loose ends and plot holes at the end was a little irritating

Wouldn't put anyone off watching it

I've watched all of True Detective over the last couple of months. I'm not normally one for detective shows but this is good (well, until season 4).

Season1: the Harrelson/McConaughey double act is pretty enjoyable (as with Nicolas Cage you cannot take McConaughey seriously), the title sequence is great, the grittiness yet overly theatrical dialogue somehow works (and sets the tone for the whole show). The last episode is a bit of a let down . . .

► Show Spoiler

as it becomes a bit too much of a buddy show and also a bit too silence of the lambs. Harrelson's cheated on & estranged wife returning to his hospital beside was a bit of a stretch, albeit that he was much more interested in continuing his bromance with McConaughey.

Season 2: more grim and depressing than the first, with a more complex story and 4 protagonists, but if you can get past unusually philosophical mobster Vaughn there's much to enjoy here.

Season 3: probably the best season overall, a very well written and constructed story over three time periods, with a nice balance of light and dark. Okay, quite a lot of dark but this is True Detective.

Season 4: by a long way the weakest season and barely recognisable as the same show. Yes, there is a very, very strong feminist message here, but it feels more like someone wrote a couple of troubled, arsehole male cops then switched their sexes in the last draft (I'm sure that wasn't the case but it might as well have been). Some really stupid elements to the plot . . .

► Show Spoiler

- the lack of forensic work, the thawing out of naked victims, unscreened on an ice rink, the pointless, strained The Thing parallels, the ridiculously clean crime scene despite the fact that the perpetrators turn out to have been a mob with guns - and no one fights back!?, the letting off the the mass murderers when they turn out to be female.

Acting is good as ever, although I think Foster was a bit miscast (or maybe just badly written?). Although Reis does claim to have some Native American ancestry it would have been better IMO to have cast someone who looked like they did (unlike the actors for the more minor parts, who did). Unlike the other seasons the title sequence doesn't show the actors' faces merged with the imagery - a minor mistake IMO.

[Donny osmond]

Shogun on Disney - hell of a mis casting of lead role, inital doubts were fully realised by episode 3. Cack

That's a shame. I've been nervous about watching it because I **adore** the book. Is it 100% not worth my time?

Puja

Maybe I'm being harsh, a lot depends on if you can handle the lead actor.

I have not read the book

Just working thru this series now. You do need to get past the lead actor, for some reason he seems to be channeling Boris Johnson in his "Englishman interfaces with foreigners" impression. Once, if, you can get past that , the plot and dialogue is great.

[paddy no 11]

True Detective: Night Country - I thought this was pretty solid telly, perhaps not quite up to the hype but well worth a watch.

I thought the final episode was more miss than hit. Enjoyed up to that.


Navarjo was great. The sisterhood covering up loose ends and plot holes at the end was a little irritating

Wouldn't put anyone off watching it

I've watched all of True Detective over the last couple of months. I'm not normally one for detective shows but this is good (well, until season 4).

Season1: the Harrelson/McConaughey double act is pretty enjoyable (as with Nicolas Cage you cannot take McConaughey seriously), the title sequence is great, the grittiness yet overly theatrical dialogue somehow works (and sets the tone for the whole show). The last episode is a bit of a let down . . .

► Show Spoiler

as it becomes a bit too much of a buddy show and also a bit too silence of the lambs. Harrelson's cheated on & estranged wife returning to his hospital beside was a bit of a stretch, albeit that he was much more interested in continuing his bromance with McConaughey.

Season 2: more grim and depressing than the first, with a more complex story and 4 protagonists, but if you can get past unusually philosophical mobster Vaughn there's much to enjoy here.

Season 3: probably the best season overall, a very well written and constructed story over three time periods, with a nice balance of light and dark. Okay, quite a lot of dark but this is True Detective.

Season 4: by a long way the weakest season and barely recognisable as the same show. Yes, there is a very, very strong feminist message here, but it feels more like someone wrote a couple of troubled, arsehole male cops then switched their sexes in the last draft (I'm sure that wasn't the case but it might as well have been). Some really stupid elements to the plot . . .

► Show Spoiler

- the lack of forensic work, the thawing out of naked victims, unscreened on an ice rink, the pointless, strained The Thing parallels, the ridiculously clean crime scene despite the fact that the perpetrators turn out to have been a mob with guns - and no one fights back!?, the letting off the the mass murderers when they turn out to be female.

Acting is good as ever, although I think Foster was a bit miscast (or maybe just badly written?). Although Reis does claim to have some Native American ancestry it would have been better IMO to have cast someone who looked like they did (unlike the actors for the more minor parts, who did). Unlike the other seasons the title sequence doesn't show the actors' faces merged with the imagery - a minor mistake IMO.

I loved season 1, thought it was amazing and I totally bought into mcconaugheys character. The language apparently draws heavily from the conspiracy against the human race by Thomas ligotti (I have not read this but a more learned friend is fairly enamoured with it)

[Which Tyler]

Finally got around to watching Breathtaking.
It made me bgry, all over again.

[Numbers]

I thought the final episode was more miss than hit. Enjoyed up to that.


Navarjo was great. The sisterhood covering up loose ends and plot holes at the end was a little irritating

Wouldn't put anyone off watching it

I've watched all of True Detective over the last couple of months. I'm not normally one for detective shows but this is good (well, until season 4).

Season1: the Harrelson/McConaughey double act is pretty enjoyable (as with Nicolas Cage you cannot take McConaughey seriously), the title sequence is great, the grittiness yet overly theatrical dialogue somehow works (and sets the tone for the whole show). The last episode is a bit of a let down . . .

► Show Spoiler

as it becomes a bit too much of a buddy show and also a bit too silence of the lambs. Harrelson's cheated on & estranged wife returning to his hospital beside was a bit of a stretch, albeit that he was much more interested in continuing his bromance with McConaughey.

Season 2: more grim and depressing than the first, with a more complex story and 4 protagonists, but if you can get past unusually philosophical mobster Vaughn there's much to enjoy here.

Season 3: probably the best season overall, a very well written and constructed story over three time periods, with a nice balance of light and dark. Okay, quite a lot of dark but this is True Detective.

Season 4: by a long way the weakest season and barely recognisable as the same show. Yes, there is a very, very strong feminist message here, but it feels more like someone wrote a couple of troubled, arsehole male cops then switched their sexes in the last draft (I'm sure that wasn't the case but it might as well have been). Some really stupid elements to the plot . . .

► Show Spoiler

- the lack of forensic work, the thawing out of naked victims, unscreened on an ice rink, the pointless, strained The Thing parallels, the ridiculously clean crime scene despite the fact that the perpetrators turn out to have been a mob with guns - and no one fights back!?, the letting off the the mass murderers when they turn out to be female.

Acting is good as ever, although I think Foster was a bit miscast (or maybe just badly written?). Although Reis does claim to have some Native American ancestry it would have been better IMO to have cast someone who looked like they did (unlike the actors for the more minor parts, who did). Unlike the other seasons the title sequence doesn't show the actors' faces merged with the imagery - a minor mistake IMO.

I loved season 1, thought it was amazing and I totally bought into mcconaugheys character. The language apparently draws heavily from the conspiracy against the human race by Thomas ligotti (I have not read this but a more learned friend is fairly enamoured with it)

I think Season 1 was my favourite then season 3, I didn't enjoy season 2 at all and season 4 had all sorts if plot holes but I think I still preferred it to S2 on the strength of the cast as much as anything, I would probably watch S4 again which can't be said for S2 (Vince Vaughan is not good at all)

[Son of Mathonwy]

I've watched all of True Detective over the last couple of months. I'm not normally one for detective shows but this is good (well, until season 4).

Season1: the Harrelson/McConaughey double act is pretty enjoyable (as with Nicolas Cage you cannot take McConaughey seriously), the title sequence is great, the grittiness yet overly theatrical dialogue somehow works (and sets the tone for the whole show). The last episode is a bit of a let down . . .

► Show Spoiler

as it becomes a bit too much of a buddy show and also a bit too silence of the lambs. Harrelson's cheated on & estranged wife returning to his hospital beside was a bit of a stretch, albeit that he was much more interested in continuing his bromance with McConaughey.

Season 2: more grim and depressing than the first, with a more complex story and 4 protagonists, but if you can get past unusually philosophical mobster Vaughn there's much to enjoy here.

Season 3: probably the best season overall, a very well written and constructed story over three time periods, with a nice balance of light and dark. Okay, quite a lot of dark but this is True Detective.

Season 4: by a long way the weakest season and barely recognisable as the same show. Yes, there is a very, very strong feminist message here, but it feels more like someone wrote a couple of troubled, arsehole male cops then switched their sexes in the last draft (I'm sure that wasn't the case but it might as well have been). Some really stupid elements to the plot . . .

► Show Spoiler

- the lack of forensic work, the thawing out of naked victims, unscreened on an ice rink, the pointless, strained The Thing parallels, the ridiculously clean crime scene despite the fact that the perpetrators turn out to have been a mob with guns - and no one fights back!?, the letting off the the mass murderers when they turn out to be female.

Acting is good as ever, although I think Foster was a bit miscast (or maybe just badly written?). Although Reis does claim to have some Native American ancestry it would have been better IMO to have cast someone who looked like they did (unlike the actors for the more minor parts, who did). Unlike the other seasons the title sequence doesn't show the actors' faces merged with the imagery - a minor mistake IMO.

I loved season 1, thought it was amazing and I totally bought into mcconaugheys character. The language apparently draws heavily from the conspiracy against the human race by Thomas ligotti (I have not read this but a more learned friend is fairly enamoured with it)

I think Season 1 was my favourite then season 3, I didn't enjoy season 2 at all and season 4 had all sorts if plot holes but I think I still preferred it to S2 on the strength of the cast as much as anything, I would probably watch S4 again which can't be said for S2 (Vince Vaughan is not good at all)

Yeah, s1 and 3 were the strongest, definitely. I did enjoy 2 but perhaps it could have done with a couple of percent more hope. Have to credit the commitment, though - no punches were pulled at the end. 4 was worth watching but definitely weak.

I will have to read some Ligotti. I can't quite take that philosophy seriously in the dialogue though; there's some logic to it but anyone who actually believes it should be on suicide watch. Seems more likely to me that Rust is putting on an act, at least to some extent.

[paddy no 11]

I loved season 1, thought it was amazing and I totally bought into mcconaugheys character. The language apparently draws heavily from the conspiracy against the human race by Thomas ligotti (I have not read this but a more learned friend is fairly enamoured with it)

I think Season 1 was my favourite then season 3, I didn't enjoy season 2 at all and season 4 had all sorts if plot holes but I think I still preferred it to S2 on the strength of the cast as much as anything, I would probably watch S4 again which can't be said for S2 (Vince Vaughan is not good at all)

Yeah, s1 and 3 were the strongest, definitely. I did enjoy 2 but perhaps it could have done with a couple of percent more hope. Have to credit the commitment, though - no punches were pulled at the end. 4 was worth watching but definitely weak.

I will have to read some Ligotti. I can't quite take that philosophy seriously in the dialogue though; there's some logic to it but anyone who actually believes it should be on suicide watch. Seems more likely to me that Rust is putting on an act, at least to some extent.

I think Russ is or was suicidal, he says something along the lines of "I'd kill myself but I lack the moral fortitude"

[Mikey Brown]

Vince Vaughn really does suck, both as an actor and a human, but I did think there were some great elements in season 2.

1 was largely amazing, though I also thought the very end was a bit weak. It’s crazy how much it has been ripped off in the years since it came out. It does feel kind of dated already but all the rambling, artsy, philosophical stuff is fucking great.

I love Mahershala Ali and thought he was incredible for the half a season I watched of 3, but it just didn’t grab me overall. I think there was such an over-saturation of glossy, but mostly shallow, ‘prestige’ TV murder/detective shows since the first series that I just couldn’t separate it from all the other dross. Maybe I should give it another shot.