RugbyRebels

Mikey Brown wrote: ↑Tue Aug 29, 2023 6:29 pm Is this the gay agenda that Mr. Shapiro has been warning me about?

Son of Mathonwy wrote: ↑Sun Sep 11, 2022 11:38 pm 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.

Which Tyler wrote: ↑Wed Oct 11, 2023 7:24 am 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 wrote: ↑Wed Jul 19, 2023 1:08 pm

Son of Mathonwy wrote: ↑Sun Sep 18, 2022 2:18 pm 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.

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)

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.

monkey wrote: ↑Fri Nov 10, 2023 3:51 pm

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: ↑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?

Puja wrote: ↑Mon Dec 18, 2023 7:43 pm

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

Son of Mathonwy wrote: ↑Tue Dec 19, 2023 10:37 am

Puja wrote: ↑Mon Dec 18, 2023 7:43 pm

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.

Puja wrote: ↑Tue Dec 19, 2023 12:15 pm

Son of Mathonwy wrote: ↑Tue Dec 19, 2023 10:37 am

Puja wrote: ↑Mon Dec 18, 2023 7:43 pm

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 wrote: ↑Tue Dec 19, 2023 2:57 pm

Puja wrote: ↑Tue Dec 19, 2023 12:15 pm

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?

Puja wrote: ↑Tue Dec 19, 2023 7:21 pm

Son of Mathonwy wrote: ↑Tue Dec 19, 2023 2:57 pm

Puja wrote: ↑Tue Dec 19, 2023 12:15 pm

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

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.

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.

Puja wrote: ↑Mon Dec 18, 2023 7:43 pm

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