The new tv series of Boiling Point is pretty good imo
I watched the first series of Mr Mercedes and that was ok, I wouldn't bother with the rest of it tho, without Gleeson it wouldn't be good
Also watched the Roal Dahl shorts on Netflix directed by Wers Anderson, these have a stellar cast but the stories aren't that captivating (just as well Catrtman isn't on here any more)
Re: Good TV Shows
Posted: Thu Oct 19, 2023 8:35 pm
by Son of Mathonwy
Numbers wrote: ↑Wed Oct 18, 2023 10:58 am
The new tv series of Boiling Point is pretty good imo
I watched the first series of Mr Mercedes and that was ok, I wouldn't bother with the rest of it tho, without Gleeson it wouldn't be good
Also watched the Roal Dahl shorts on Netflix directed by Wers Anderson, these have a stellar cast but the stories aren't that captivating (just as well Catrtman isn't on here any more)
I'm not sure I can cope with another high-pressure restaurant drama. The Bear was a bit of a stretch for me from my usual watching habits. Also I can only take limited amounts of Stephen Graham. I'll check out Mr Mercedes though . . .
I thought the Henry Sugar tale was pretty good. Highly eccentric but avoided becoming tiresome due to its short length.
Re: Good TV Shows
Posted: Wed Nov 08, 2023 6:08 pm
by Son of Mathonwy
The Fall of the House of Usher is really good - another Mike Flanagan miniseries (like the Haunting of Hill House and the Haunting of Bly Manor). A feast for the Poe fan. Something that gives these shows an edge is that the story is complete, there's no need to scrabble together a cliffhanger ending and a follow-up season with weaker material.
► Show Spoiler
A slight weakness perhaps is the total certainty of doom on the Usher children as presented in episode one. The viewer has to just embrace this (it's fundamental to the plot structure) and see the deaths (deserved and undeserved . . . but mostly deserved) unfold episode by episode like clockwork.
Re: Good TV Shows
Posted: Fri Nov 10, 2023 3:51 pm
by monkey
Son of Mathonwy wrote: ↑Wed Nov 08, 2023 6:08 pm
The Fall of the House of Usher is really good - another Mike Flanagan miniseries (like the Haunting of Hill House and the Haunting of Bly Manor). A feast for the Poe fan. Something that gives these shows an edge is that the story is complete, there's no need to scrabble together a cliffhanger ending and a follow-up season with weaker material.
► Show Spoiler
A slight weakness perhaps is the total certainty of doom on the Usher children as presented in episode one. The viewer has to just embrace this (it's fundamental to the plot structure) and see the deaths (deserved and undeserved . . . but mostly deserved) unfold episode by episode like clockwork.
Yeah, it's very good. I actually think it's a lot stronger and more engaging than the other two you mentioned.
Son of Mathonwy wrote: ↑Wed Nov 08, 2023 6:08 pm
The Fall of the House of Usher is really good - another Mike Flanagan miniseries (like the Haunting of Hill House and the Haunting of Bly Manor). A feast for the Poe fan. Something that gives these shows an edge is that the story is complete, there's no need to scrabble together a cliffhanger ending and a follow-up season with weaker material.
► Show Spoiler
A slight weakness perhaps is the total certainty of doom on the Usher children as presented in episode one. The viewer has to just embrace this (it's fundamental to the plot structure) and see the deaths (deserved and undeserved . . . but mostly deserved) unfold episode by episode like clockwork.
Yeah, it's very good. I actually think it's a lot stronger and more engaging than the other two you mentioned.
Yeah, for me it was better than Bly Manor but not as good as Hill House. I found Usher gripping but Hill House actually scary.
Re: Good TV Shows
Posted: Mon Dec 18, 2023 4:16 pm
by Son of Mathonwy
The 2023 Doctor Who specials.
1. The Star Beast. Really poor (unless you're a fan of pantomime). Couldn't be taken seriously and yet only mildly funny. I'm pretty woke (if I have to use the word) but this show is just too self-conscious about it. Yeah the trans character was fine, no problem with that but we can really do without slagging off a character just for being a man.
2. Wild Blue Yonder. Much better. Not much story here, not really enough for an hour, bit at least that allowed things to slow down. Unmemorable but not bad. The blind-cast Newton cameo was a bit jarring though. Blind-casting is fine but surely the whole show needs to be blind cast for consistency? What next, a black Hitler, an east Asian Churchill, an Inuit Mohammed Ali? A Dalek playing a Cyberman? Personally I'd rather see more stories involving non-white historical figures than this unsubtle stuff.
3. The Giggle. Eventful and a strong antagonist. But basically a no-rules fantasy story, not SciFi. Literally anything could have happened to resolve the story.
► Show Spoiler
So we have a duplicate Doctor (and Tardis) with the explanation that . . . the script says so.
The new doctor was fine though.
So we have Davies back as the producer and it's pretty much as you'd expect. Reasonably entertaining but nothing clever is likely to happen. I just hope there are some good new scriptwriters for the 2024 season.
Re: Good TV Shows
Posted: Mon Dec 18, 2023 7:43 pm
by Puja
Son of Mathonwy wrote: ↑Mon Dec 18, 2023 4:16 pm
The blind-cast Newton cameo was a bit jarring though. Blind-casting is fine but surely the whole show needs to be blind cast for consistency? What next, a black Hitler, an east Asian Churchill, an Inuit Mohammed Ali? A Dalek playing a Cyberman?
Why would it need to be consistent? More to the point, why does it matter to you or anyone for Newton to be played by an Asian actor?
Son of Mathonwy wrote: ↑Mon Dec 18, 2023 4:16 pm
The blind-cast Newton cameo was a bit jarring though. Blind-casting is fine but surely the whole show needs to be blind cast for consistency? What next, a black Hitler, an east Asian Churchill, an Inuit Mohammed Ali? A Dalek playing a Cyberman?
Why would it need to be consistent? More to the point, why does it matter to you or anyone for Newton to be played by an Asian actor?
Puja
Sure - interesting question - why should it be consistent?
Because consistency is a positive quality. When does anything or anyone get praised for their inconsistency? I guess nothing has to be consistent but it's usually a sign of confused or unclear thinking and is more likely to fail in its purpose.
For example, in TV there's nothing stopping characters from bursting into song but it perhaps might be jarring if this happened one time only in Call of Duty. Or if one scene of the Sopranos was animated with hand puppets. Or if Diana had straight black hair in The Crown.
The makers of Doctor Who have generally (to the limits of their budget) tried to make the show depict things as they would appear. When Winston Churchill or Rosa Parks showed up a few years back, they looked as you'd expect them to look. Donna's daughter in the previous episode was mixed race, as she should have been. Why bother to get that right and then deliberately depict a historical figure inaccurately? If the whole show was like that, that's fine, but when it happens inconsistently you're left wondering if this is a plot thing (history is being meddled with!) or just a casting thing. Or if you're unfamiliar with Newton, you might actually think he was European-Asian.
IMO In order to get more non-white actors in the show, it would be far better if the producer actually created more stories involving non-white characters, which for all the crap Chibnall made in the last few years was at least something he tried to do.
Son of Mathonwy wrote: ↑Mon Dec 18, 2023 4:16 pm
The blind-cast Newton cameo was a bit jarring though. Blind-casting is fine but surely the whole show needs to be blind cast for consistency? What next, a black Hitler, an east Asian Churchill, an Inuit Mohammed Ali? A Dalek playing a Cyberman?
Why would it need to be consistent? More to the point, why does it matter to you or anyone for Newton to be played by an Asian actor?
Puja
Sure - interesting question - why should it be consistent?
Because consistency is a positive quality. When does anything or anyone get praised for their inconsistency? I guess nothing has to be consistent but it's usually a sign of confused or unclear thinking and is more likely to fail in its purpose.
For example, in TV there's nothing stopping characters from bursting into song but it perhaps might be jarring if this happened one time only in Call of Duty. Or if one scene of the Sopranos was animated with hand puppets. Or if Diana had straight black hair in The Crown.
The makers of Doctor Who have generally (to the limits of their budget) tried to make the show depict things as they would appear. When Winston Churchill or Rosa Parks showed up a few years back, they looked as you'd expect them to look. Donna's daughter in the previous episode was mixed race, as she should have been. Why bother to get that right and then deliberately depict a historical figure inaccurately? If the whole show was like that, that's fine, but when it happens inconsistently you're left wondering if this is a plot thing (history is being meddled with!) or just a casting thing. Or if you're unfamiliar with Newton, you might actually think he was European-Asian.
IMO In order to get more non-white actors in the show, it would be far better if the producer actually created more stories involving non-white characters, which for all the crap Chibnall made in the last few years was at least something he tried to do.
I suspect the actual answer for casting a non-White actor was deliberately annoying the Daily Mail readers, who'd already been sufficiently triggered in the children in need skit and the last episode by a villain not being villainously scarred and in a wheelchair early in life, a background actor being a Sikh (and not wearing a helmet ), a heroic character being in a wheelchair, and a trans actor and character). Let's face it, there was no reason to have Newton in that episode at all - I suspect RTD is being petty at people who accused him of pushing an agenda in his first run by daring to have people who weren't straight by showing them what pushing agendas really looks like. And, you know what? I'm okay with it - as long as it's not affecting the story and things are still enjoyable, don't mind him trolling the proudly anti-woke one whit.
If it were a character with an important part to the plot, then I'd possibly feel differently, but a Newton that has about three lines and is there as a throwaway joke in the cold open? Not bothered in the slightest.
Why would it need to be consistent? More to the point, why does it matter to you or anyone for Newton to be played by an Asian actor?
Puja
Sure - interesting question - why should it be consistent?
Because consistency is a positive quality. When does anything or anyone get praised for their inconsistency? I guess nothing has to be consistent but it's usually a sign of confused or unclear thinking and is more likely to fail in its purpose.
For example, in TV there's nothing stopping characters from bursting into song but it perhaps might be jarring if this happened one time only in Call of Duty. Or if one scene of the Sopranos was animated with hand puppets. Or if Diana had straight black hair in The Crown.
The makers of Doctor Who have generally (to the limits of their budget) tried to make the show depict things as they would appear. When Winston Churchill or Rosa Parks showed up a few years back, they looked as you'd expect them to look. Donna's daughter in the previous episode was mixed race, as she should have been. Why bother to get that right and then deliberately depict a historical figure inaccurately? If the whole show was like that, that's fine, but when it happens inconsistently you're left wondering if this is a plot thing (history is being meddled with!) or just a casting thing. Or if you're unfamiliar with Newton, you might actually think he was European-Asian.
IMO In order to get more non-white actors in the show, it would be far better if the producer actually created more stories involving non-white characters, which for all the crap Chibnall made in the last few years was at least something he tried to do.
I suspect the actual answer for casting a non-White actor was deliberately annoying the Daily Mail readers, who'd already been sufficiently triggered in the children in need skit and the last episode by a villain not being villainously scarred and in a wheelchair early in life, a background actor being a Sikh (and not wearing a helmet ), a heroic character being in a wheelchair, and a trans actor and character). Let's face it, there was no reason to have Newton in that episode at all - I suspect RTD is being petty at people who accused him of pushing an agenda in his first run by daring to have people who weren't straight by showing them what pushing agendas really looks like. And, you know what? I'm okay with it - as long as it's not affecting the story and things are still enjoyable, don't mind him trolling the proudly anti-woke one whit.
If it were a character with an important part to the plot, then I'd possibly feel differently, but a Newton that has about three lines and is there as a throwaway joke in the cold open? Not bothered in the slightest.
Puja
Yeah, fair enough. I'd rather he concentrated on writing good stories than throwaway scenes just to wind up the Mail but hey, as you say it was not an important moment. I wonder if he wrote the scene and then thought to blind-cast it or vice versa?
Son of Mathonwy wrote: ↑Tue Dec 19, 2023 10:37 am
Sure - interesting question - why should it be consistent?
Because consistency is a positive quality. When does anything or anyone get praised for their inconsistency? I guess nothing has to be consistent but it's usually a sign of confused or unclear thinking and is more likely to fail in its purpose.
For example, in TV there's nothing stopping characters from bursting into song but it perhaps might be jarring if this happened one time only in Call of Duty. Or if one scene of the Sopranos was animated with hand puppets. Or if Diana had straight black hair in The Crown.
The makers of Doctor Who have generally (to the limits of their budget) tried to make the show depict things as they would appear. When Winston Churchill or Rosa Parks showed up a few years back, they looked as you'd expect them to look. Donna's daughter in the previous episode was mixed race, as she should have been. Why bother to get that right and then deliberately depict a historical figure inaccurately? If the whole show was like that, that's fine, but when it happens inconsistently you're left wondering if this is a plot thing (history is being meddled with!) or just a casting thing. Or if you're unfamiliar with Newton, you might actually think he was European-Asian.
IMO In order to get more non-white actors in the show, it would be far better if the producer actually created more stories involving non-white characters, which for all the crap Chibnall made in the last few years was at least something he tried to do.
I suspect the actual answer for casting a non-White actor was deliberately annoying the Daily Mail readers, who'd already been sufficiently triggered in the children in need skit and the last episode by a villain not being villainously scarred and in a wheelchair early in life, a background actor being a Sikh (and not wearing a helmet ), a heroic character being in a wheelchair, and a trans actor and character). Let's face it, there was no reason to have Newton in that episode at all - I suspect RTD is being petty at people who accused him of pushing an agenda in his first run by daring to have people who weren't straight by showing them what pushing agendas really looks like. And, you know what? I'm okay with it - as long as it's not affecting the story and things are still enjoyable, don't mind him trolling the proudly anti-woke one whit.
If it were a character with an important part to the plot, then I'd possibly feel differently, but a Newton that has about three lines and is there as a throwaway joke in the cold open? Not bothered in the slightest.
Puja
Yeah, fair enough. I'd rather he concentrated on writing good stories than throwaway scenes just to wind up the Mail but hey, as you say it was not an important moment. I wonder if he wrote the scene and then thought to blind-cast it or vice versa?
I believe the actor was in one of his old shows, so I expect it was probably less "blind-casting" and more, "Hey, I know someone with ringlets like Isaac Newton," and then an evil chuckle as he thought of the reaction it'd get.
I suspect the actual answer for casting a non-White actor was deliberately annoying the Daily Mail readers, who'd already been sufficiently triggered in the children in need skit and the last episode by a villain not being villainously scarred and in a wheelchair early in life, a background actor being a Sikh (and not wearing a helmet ), a heroic character being in a wheelchair, and a trans actor and character). Let's face it, there was no reason to have Newton in that episode at all - I suspect RTD is being petty at people who accused him of pushing an agenda in his first run by daring to have people who weren't straight by showing them what pushing agendas really looks like. And, you know what? I'm okay with it - as long as it's not affecting the story and things are still enjoyable, don't mind him trolling the proudly anti-woke one whit.
If it were a character with an important part to the plot, then I'd possibly feel differently, but a Newton that has about three lines and is there as a throwaway joke in the cold open? Not bothered in the slightest.
Puja
Yeah, fair enough. I'd rather he concentrated on writing good stories than throwaway scenes just to wind up the Mail but hey, as you say it was not an important moment. I wonder if he wrote the scene and then thought to blind-cast it or vice versa?
I believe the actor was in one of his old shows, so I expect it was probably less "blind-casting" and more, "Hey, I know someone with ringlets like Isaac Newton," and then an evil chuckle as he thought of the reaction it'd get.
Puja
Ah, writers. Where do they get their ideas?
Re: Good TV Shows
Posted: Thu Jan 04, 2024 9:13 pm
by Donny osmond
Fargo series 5 is pushing all the right buttons so far. Only once in 8 episodes I've frowned and been unable to suspend disbelief, which for me is pretty good.
Re: Good TV Shows
Posted: Fri Jan 05, 2024 4:00 pm
by Son of Mathonwy
Donny osmond wrote: ↑Thu Jan 04, 2024 9:13 pm
Fargo series 5 is pushing all the right buttons so far. Only once in 8 episodes I've frowned and been unable to suspend disbelief, which for me is pretty good.
It's on my list. Looking forward to it.
Re: Good TV Shows
Posted: Sat Jan 06, 2024 5:58 am
by Which Tyler
I'm not a gamer* so I've no idea what this is referencing, but I'm pleased to see this show back in production
* I think it's from a game, not anime
Re: Good TV Shows
Posted: Tue Jan 23, 2024 6:38 am
by Donny osmond
Finally got around to watching The Bear. Strange and strangely enthralling. Good, without really deserving all the hype. Looking forward to season 3 but at the same time knowing that it'll turn to shit and I'll get frustrated with it.
Re: Good TV Shows
Posted: Mon Jan 29, 2024 2:10 pm
by Numbers
Donny osmond wrote: ↑Thu Jan 04, 2024 9:13 pm
Fargo series 5 is pushing all the right buttons so far. Only once in 8 episodes I've frowned and been unable to suspend disbelief, which for me is pretty good.
Binged this over the weekend, it was what you would expect from this franchise, enjoyable.
I also watched Boy Swallows Universeon Netflix and that is very good viewing indeed, highly recommended.
Son of Mathonwy wrote: ↑Mon Dec 18, 2023 4:16 pm
The blind-cast Newton cameo was a bit jarring though. Blind-casting is fine but surely the whole show needs to be blind cast for consistency? What next, a black Hitler, an east Asian Churchill, an Inuit Mohammed Ali? A Dalek playing a Cyberman?
Why would it need to be consistent? More to the point, why does it matter to you or anyone for Newton to be played by an Asian actor?
Puja
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.
Re: Good TV Shows
Posted: Thu Feb 08, 2024 8:41 pm
by Sandydragon
Just binge watched Andor. Definitely one of the better offering from the Star Wars stable.
Re: Good TV Shows
Posted: Thu Feb 08, 2024 8:42 pm
by Sandydragon
Currently working my way through The Winter King which isn’t really hitting the mark yet.
Son of Mathonwy wrote: ↑Mon Dec 18, 2023 4:16 pm
The blind-cast Newton cameo was a bit jarring though. Blind-casting is fine but surely the whole show needs to be blind cast for consistency? What next, a black Hitler, an east Asian Churchill, an Inuit Mohammed Ali? A Dalek playing a Cyberman?
Why would it need to be consistent? More to the point, why does it matter to you or anyone for Newton to be played by an Asian actor?
Puja
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?"
Why would it need to be consistent? More to the point, why does it matter to you or anyone for Newton to be played by an Asian actor?
Puja
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.
Re: Good TV Shows
Posted: Fri Feb 09, 2024 2:58 pm
by Son of Mathonwy
Sandydragon wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 8:41 pm
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.
Re: Good TV Shows
Posted: Fri Feb 09, 2024 4:49 pm
by Mikey Brown
I tried watching it and was just confused. It’s like dry, “Prestige” Star Wars. It just didn’t make any sense to me. Does it even have lightsabers in it?
Re: Good TV Shows
Posted: Fri Feb 09, 2024 10:12 pm
by Son of Mathonwy
Mikey Brown wrote: ↑Fri Feb 09, 2024 4:49 pm
I tried watching it and was just confused. It’s like dry, “Prestige” Star Wars. It just didn’t make any sense to me. Does it even have lightsabers in it?
Yeah, no lightsabres. No Jedi, no Sith. Crazy really. It shouldn't work.
It's not like the Mandalorian, it's not like most Star Wars. It's like a grown-up story set in the Star Wars universe. Maybe no one should attempt to do that, but it works for me.
), a heroic character being in a wheelchair, and a trans actor and character). Let's face it, there was no reason to have Newton in that episode at all - I suspect RTD is being petty at people who accused him of pushing an agenda in his first run by daring to have people who weren't straight by showing them what pushing agendas really looks like. And, you know what? I'm okay with it - as long as it's not affecting the story and things are still enjoyable, don't mind him trolling the proudly anti-woke one whit.