Good TV Shows

[Puja]

Is this the gay agenda that Mr. Shapiro has been warning me about?

Yes - that show is **absolutely** the gay agenda, boiled down to its essence.

Puja

[Son of Mathonwy]

Star Trek: Strange New Worlds, is IMO the best ST since the original. This is partly because it unashamedly follows the formula, but also because the characters are well-written and the cast bring warmth and humour to roles. This is in total contrast to the humourless ST: Discovery, which spawned this spin-off.

Season 2 of Strange New Worlds maintains the quality. If I'm finding fault I'd say it veers a little too far into humour - 3 out of 10 episodes are non-serious - comedy or musical. All well done but when there's that much of it it gets harder to take the serious stuff seriously.

[Son of Mathonwy]

The Big Door Prize is okay. It's likeable, well written and cast, but doesn't really achieve that much. The stakes never get high enough and it's only mildly amusing.

► Show Spoiler

At the end I thought it was going to wrap up amiably. And it did. And then they tagged on a cliffhanger that looked like it was written 5 minutes before shooting. Weird. It was nice enough but does not need a second season.

[Which Tyler]

Has anyone been watching The Winter King?
Based on Bernard Cornwell's best work (IMO) - but the trailer looked a bit shit.
Consequently, I've been holding off - can anyone report back on whether it's decent or not?

Nasty feeling they've just gone for a swords-and-sandals show but with Saxons instead of Vikings, and maybe lifted a few names from Cornwell, but none of the characters or commentary that made the books great.

[Son of Mathonwy]

Has anyone been watching The Winter King?
Based on Bernard Cornwell's best work (IMO) - but the trailer looked a bit shit.
Consequently, I've been holding off - can anyone report back on whether it's decent or not?

Nasty feeling they've just gone for a swords-and-sandals show but with Saxons instead of Vikings, and maybe lifted a few names from Cornwell, but none of the characters or commentary that made the books great.

I'm holding off too. I think I will try it eventually but don't feel drawn to it. Is Iain De Caestecker the shortest king ever? (Other than Charles III?)

[Son of Mathonwy]

Foundation is very good. It looks great and the storyline is quite unusual. The plot is not without some highly unlikely occurrences but the mature tone (presumably due to the source material) makes this well worth watching.

Just as the 2nd season is starting up I thought I'd revisit this.

Since watching season 1 I read the first 4 Foundation books.

They are awful, awful, awful. Awful. Awful characters, unexciting stories, not even a great idea. Not even good science. Asimov gives up on any attempt at scientific realism halfway through book 2 and the books are about psychic powers from then on. Jesus. These books give SF a bad name. If this was the only SF I'd read I'd look down on the genre too. And it's supposed to be a classic.

In light of this I'm more impressed with the show, since they've had to invent (or steal from other SF . . . which is less impressive I guess) most of the plot and characterisations. Particularly, everything about the emperor is new (and good . . . more like Dune than anything in Foundation). Not quite so sure about the revolutionary activity on the fringe worlds but it's also new. I reckon Foundation was considered unfilmable because the books are so bad. The show sidesteps that by ignoring the books after the first episode.

The second season of Foundation is better than the first. They clearly had a bit of a rethink and ditched a few of the storylines they'd been working on and introduced some new ones (mostly nothing to do with the books). It's a bit sketchy in places and certainly takes things from an unusual angle (compared with most TV SF), but overall it's very good.

► Show Spoiler

Wisely, they dropped the Anacreon and Thespis storyline and perhaps less wisely, the Luminist plotline. But the developments on Trantor make up for this. The Imperial fleet is too sparsely manned (or characterized), so it feels a little thin compared with more familiar SF. Gaal, Salvor and Hari's adventures are okay but are completely separate from the rest of the plot (but then so was Daenerys's in GOT so that's alright for an epic). The one thing I have a real problem with though, is Gaal's prophetic ability. I can see they wanted to use this to foreshadow the Mule and generally drive the plot but predestinarian is so completely at odds with the concept of psychohistory that it damages the entire show.

[Numbers]

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)

[Son of Mathonwy]

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.

[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.

[monkey]

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]

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.

[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.

[Puja]

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

[Son of Mathonwy]

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.

[Puja]

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.

Puja

[Son of Mathonwy]

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?

[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?

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

[Son of Mathonwy]

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?

[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.

[Son of Mathonwy]

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.

[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

[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.

[Numbers]

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.

[Sandydragon]

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.

[Sandydragon]

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