But most of all, Marine Le Pen has been helped by Emmanuel Macron. Discontented voters chose him five years ago to spite the other, older, hackneyed candidates — a populist reflex for a man who used populist means for decidedly non-populist policies. His victory was built on the cold-eyed destruction of traditional political parties Left and Right, and he never stopped to consider the effect on public life. He cherry-picked the most compatible and the most docile personalities from both the Socialists and the Républicains, gave them seats in the House and Cabinet, stringently barred them from having any kind of independent views, and declared himself as being neither Left nor Right.
Like the spoiled child he has been for all 44 years of his charmed life, political and personal, Macron has never had to face consequences for his decisions; for him, turning the French Republic into an atomised wasteland of individuals matters not one bit. (He will be remembered as the Houellebecq President.) Under his presidency, France was shaken by popular revolts such as the Gilets Jaunes who felt no one was representing them in a country of weak unions and even weaker parties.
Not sure I understand the "Houellebecq President" comment.
Houellebecq's books make clear he is against the atomisation whilst also documenting it surely?
I am, it has to be said, a massive fan.
No one. Not even our erstwhile SK writes like the 'novel' actually fecking matters anymore to the degree that Houellebecq does.
I've recently been watching 'Elementary' on Prime; CBS's take on Sherlock Holmes, with Jonny Lee Miller as Sherlock and Lucy Liu as Watson.
When I compare it with the BBC's awful 'Sherlock', it shows where the BBC often goes wrong. Elementary takes the Sherlock Holmes idea and thoroughly modernises it. They made 154 episodes over nine years, allowing meaningful plot and character development.
The BBC's Sherlock is all about the *star*. The plotlines are ludicrous, and they made just 13 episodes in seven years, allowing little plot or character development.
Also: Jonny Lee Miller is a much better actor than Benedict Cumberbatch.
I’m not saying you’re wrong, in fact you’re right - but Sherlock was a big hit around the world.
Elementary, not so much?
Perhaps not, but ran for 7 years and it is better, not just that theres more of it. The first season in particular - did a far better job showing how a Holnes/Watson dynamic could realistically develop when one is such an arse.
That's a really good point. From memory, in the books, Watson is very much his own man. A successful and respected doctor in his own right, who at times shares a flat with the protagonist, and at others is married (ooer missus!). In Sherlock, he is a broken man, and it is unclear why he hangs around Sherlock. I mean, why, given Cumberbatch's Holmes has no redeeming features?
In Elementary, the characterisations make it much clearer: initially watson is paid to put up with him, and does so through a feeling of guilt for her own mistake. Later, Holmes tries to make up for his character defects, and becomes a much more interesting character (note: I am only on season 2).
Nothing beats Jeremy Brett's portrayal for me. I've never got into Sherlock though I can see it's merits.
We do not often agree, but on this I fully agree.
However, I can recommend at least the first two seasons of 'Elementary'. A thoroughly modern Sherlock, without (mostly) the horse dung.
Jeremy Brett as Holmes was excellent but the latter stories and the 3 long episodes that comes after Baskervilles and Sign of Four were awful. Partly due to Brett’s poor health, Holmes was replace by his brother in one story.
Holmes ended on a whimper unlike Poirot.
I can't entirely agree. Even in the later episodes like the dying detective Brett has amazing scenes.
Yes, the stories do have some good moments but for me it feels like it has run out of steam. The stories just lack the energy and interest of the first stories in the run.
Have you seen any of the Douglas Wilmer or Peter Cushing ones.
But most of all, Marine Le Pen has been helped by Emmanuel Macron. Discontented voters chose him five years ago to spite the other, older, hackneyed candidates — a populist reflex for a man who used populist means for decidedly non-populist policies. His victory was built on the cold-eyed destruction of traditional political parties Left and Right, and he never stopped to consider the effect on public life. He cherry-picked the most compatible and the most docile personalities from both the Socialists and the Républicains, gave them seats in the House and Cabinet, stringently barred them from having any kind of independent views, and declared himself as being neither Left nor Right.
Like the spoiled child he has been for all 44 years of his charmed life, political and personal, Macron has never had to face consequences for his decisions; for him, turning the French Republic into an atomised wasteland of individuals matters not one bit. (He will be remembered as the Houellebecq President.) Under his presidency, France was shaken by popular revolts such as the Gilets Jaunes who felt no one was representing them in a country of weak unions and even weaker parties.
'Like the spoiled child he has been for all 44 years of his charmed life, political and personal, Macron has never had to face consequences for his decisions'
Uh huh.
I don’t wish to be ungallant, but looking at his wife, I wouldn’t say Macron’s “personal life” has been completely “charmed”. Indeed rumours say the opposite
Among the post-Partygate clear-out of Boris’s top team in No. 10 was his PPS Martin Reynolds, whose infamous ‘BYOB’ email invite – leaked to ITV – swiftly earned him the SW1 nickname of “Party Marty”. Instead of being fired he was foundy a comfy Foreign Office role…
Sue Gray's report will be the defining moment for not only Boris but many senior civil servants
I trust that in the case of many of them it will be realised that paying their salaries is, in their own words, not an appropriate use of public money.
Hasn't one of them already gone to the private sector?
Among the post-Partygate clear-out of Boris’s top team in No. 10 was his PPS Martin Reynolds, whose infamous ‘BYOB’ email invite – leaked to ITV – swiftly earned him the SW1 nickname of “Party Marty”. Instead of being fired he was foundy a comfy Foreign Office role…
Sue Gray's report will be the defining moment for not only Boris but many senior civil servants
I trust that in the case of many of them it will be realised that paying their salaries is, in their own words, not an appropriate use of public money.
Hasn't one of them already gone to the private sector?
But most of all, Marine Le Pen has been helped by Emmanuel Macron. Discontented voters chose him five years ago to spite the other, older, hackneyed candidates — a populist reflex for a man who used populist means for decidedly non-populist policies. His victory was built on the cold-eyed destruction of traditional political parties Left and Right, and he never stopped to consider the effect on public life. He cherry-picked the most compatible and the most docile personalities from both the Socialists and the Républicains, gave them seats in the House and Cabinet, stringently barred them from having any kind of independent views, and declared himself as being neither Left nor Right.
Like the spoiled child he has been for all 44 years of his charmed life, political and personal, Macron has never had to face consequences for his decisions; for him, turning the French Republic into an atomised wasteland of individuals matters not one bit. (He will be remembered as the Houellebecq President.) Under his presidency, France was shaken by popular revolts such as the Gilets Jaunes who felt no one was representing them in a country of weak unions and even weaker parties.
Not sure I understand the "Houellebecq President" comment.
Houellebecq's books make clear he is against the atomisation whilst also documenting it surely?
I am, it has to be said, a massive fan.
No one. Not even our erstwhile SK writes like the 'novel' actually fecking matters anymore to the degree that Houellebecq does.
I rate him too although he's one note and a misogynist.
But most of all, Marine Le Pen has been helped by Emmanuel Macron. Discontented voters chose him five years ago to spite the other, older, hackneyed candidates — a populist reflex for a man who used populist means for decidedly non-populist policies. His victory was built on the cold-eyed destruction of traditional political parties Left and Right, and he never stopped to consider the effect on public life. He cherry-picked the most compatible and the most docile personalities from both the Socialists and the Républicains, gave them seats in the House and Cabinet, stringently barred them from having any kind of independent views, and declared himself as being neither Left nor Right.
Like the spoiled child he has been for all 44 years of his charmed life, political and personal, Macron has never had to face consequences for his decisions; for him, turning the French Republic into an atomised wasteland of individuals matters not one bit. (He will be remembered as the Houellebecq President.) Under his presidency, France was shaken by popular revolts such as the Gilets Jaunes who felt no one was representing them in a country of weak unions and even weaker parties.
Not sure I understand the "Houellebecq President" comment.
Houellebecq's books make clear he is against the atomisation whilst also documenting it surely?
I am, it has to be said, a massive fan.
No one. Not even our erstwhile SK writes like the 'novel' actually fecking matters anymore to the degree that Houellebecq does.
I rate him too although he's one note and a misogynist.
It's striking how much support Boris Johnson is getting for his comments on trans issues from people who are not his natural supporters. This one is typical:
@annettepacey Oh god oh no someone I loathe just made a really good point. Still could never bring myself to vote for the bastard but this is what happens when Labour turn their backs on women and leave an open goal #labourlosingwomen
No, I've been told by PB experts that saying women have cocks won't hurt Labour.
Boris's comments are quite good and thoughtful.
The Trans Activist usual approach is to ram through their preferred measures before anyone gets any time to reflect properly upon the issue, and this is more considered.
Here is what BJ said. This is I think the full video of 1:39. Sky also seem to be putting out a truncated one at 1:04 length.
I haven't got my head around the latest kerfuffle.
Does, for example, the (Aiui) long-held Trans-Activist demand to be allowed to medicate without supervision children who are deemed by their parents to be trans count as Conversion Therapy? If so, the various organisations are demanding that this be banned.
ISTM very important that required time is taken.
This is an even longer version than the one I linked.
I just saw the Guardian News version, and the YT comments are an endless procession of people who clearly dislike Johnson in general, but are in agreement on this issue. It's actually hard to find anyone who disagrees with him. Labour are mincemeat unless they ditch Stonewall completely on this.
For all his many other faults, he is massively socially liberal. In that regard he is a million miles away from the Tory party of say the 1980s.
Ch4 getting sold is getting masses of column inches and 100s of posts on here, The sale of the Vaccine Manufacturing and Innovation Centre (VMIC) basically no coverage at all.
None of this, Gary (Oldman) and Kristin (Scott Thomas), could you possibly give us a date when you fancy making some more of these, I know you might be busy, could you possibly fit us in perhaps 2024....
That takes money and the BBC is limited by the licence fee. There's not much else to it.
My point is BBC still trying to do things the old way, 6 episode season, a mate of a mate who is a big name will do you a favour and star in it for cheap, then you get stupid situations where you have Tom Hardy make a season of Taboo, that does pretty well, and then it is 5 years before he can fit you in again for season 2.
They have to decide, either not to go down that route in the first place and not use the star talent or modernise. When the big players decide to go with these projects they are going to ensure they get their 5 seasons in 5 years.
The BBC are setting light to money starting an IP and then leaving it years.
Most series are drastically overlong and are flogged to within an inch of their lives. The Beeb’s six episode format - to use an absolutely horrible PB cliche - is a feature not a bug.
Its not just the 6 episode format, it is the ridiculous gap between seasons.
Can you imagine if you had the most shit hot new widget and then said yeah well we only made a few, come back in 5 years.....while acme industries down the street is also making shit hot new widgets, but they ensure they continually have new ones.
The massive bucks are available if can get a show syndicated worldwide. In order to do that normally need to have a significant back catalogue. They did that with Top Gear and made a load of money. The problem is drama is now gone that way too.
Most series are better off with sticking to just one season. There are exceptions, but in general the greats of TV just decline after season one.
Dad's Army didn't really hit its stride until about season 4. Similarly all the Star Trek series start to get really good from about season 3.5 onwards. (Well, apart from Enterprise.)
Yes, the idea that most dramas peak in season 1 is bollocks. It’s practically a truism of the genre that most successful dramas (ie ones with extended life, not immediately dropped) initially get better as the writers gain in confidence and establish and explore their characters with added verve and daring…. So they tend to peak in season 2 or 3, maybe even 4. Succession is a contemporary example, there are so many more - Sopranos, the Wire, BSG, Spartacus, House, the Tudors, Breaking Bad, basically all the great dramas of the Golden Age did this. Started off well but a bit nervously, then got better and better…
However the flip side of this is that nearly all dramas hit a wall when they just run out of ideas. Five seasons seems to be the general limit. Vanishingly few TV dramas remain good after the fifth season. That’s why most end there
Interestingly, this is also often true of books formed as a series
There are of course some exceptions, Dramas which have one great initial season then *WTF happened*. Westworld is a classic example. Drove off a cliff
None of this, Gary (Oldman) and Kristin (Scott Thomas), could you possibly give us a date when you fancy making some more of these, I know you might be busy, could you possibly fit us in perhaps 2024....
That takes money and the BBC is limited by the licence fee. There's not much else to it.
My point is BBC still trying to do things the old way, 6 episode season, a mate of a mate who is a big name will do you a favour and star in it for cheap, then you get stupid situations where you have Tom Hardy make a season of Taboo, that does pretty well, and then it is 5 years before he can fit you in again for season 2.
They have to decide, either not to go down that route in the first place and not use the star talent or modernise. When the big players decide to go with these projects they are going to ensure they get their 5 seasons in 5 years.
The BBC can either produce a lot of TV cheaply or less TV very expensively. You seem to favour the latter while the BBC (up to now) has tended to do the former....
Is it possible that the unique and irreplaceable bit of the BBC is news coverage with its significant degree of non bias and impartiality (never complete of course but it does sort of try) and world wide coverage. Not in hock to advertisers or government.
And next radio, not general telly. And next its minority coverage. And the rest can be done by anyone with the cash and desire to make a few bob.
None of this, Gary (Oldman) and Kristin (Scott Thomas), could you possibly give us a date when you fancy making some more of these, I know you might be busy, could you possibly fit us in perhaps 2024....
That takes money and the BBC is limited by the licence fee. There's not much else to it.
My point is BBC still trying to do things the old way, 6 episode season, a mate of a mate who is a big name will do you a favour and star in it for cheap, then you get stupid situations where you have Tom Hardy make a season of Taboo, that does pretty well, and then it is 5 years before he can fit you in again for season 2.
They have to decide, either not to go down that route in the first place and not use the star talent or modernise. When the big players decide to go with these projects they are going to ensure they get their 5 seasons in 5 years.
The BBC are setting light to money starting an IP and then leaving it years.
Most series are drastically overlong and are flogged to within an inch of their lives. The Beeb’s six episode format - to use an absolutely horrible PB cliche - is a feature not a bug.
I disagree. Sometimes a mini series is all you need - Chernobyl is a great example, one of the best tv shows I've seen in years. And even a 10-13 episode show might have plenty of padding (though is my preferred length).
But that's a question of good or bad writing. If you could guarantee the BBC traditional 6 episode or whatever format resulted in a higher amount of quality per episode, you might have an argument, but that's not the case - plenty of 6 episode shows are still very bad, and they are short and often sporadic on top of that.
Sure, plenty of long format shows are no good either, but many are good, and there are benefits to being able to develop arcs over a multi year period, or just develop the characters more thoroughly over that number of episodes and time. Going on too long is an unfortunate potential risk, to be sure, but personally I'd say was worth it for the greater number and depth of content earlier on.
I think the cheerleading for short format stuff is a crutch, frankly. There's no reason longer stuff cannot be good, and plenty of short stuff which is bad, so it's not a feature at all.
The idea that six episodes is short format is preposterous. That’s six hours of TV drama.
The Godfather - rightly considered an absolute epic - was told in nine hours or so.
Yes. Some people on here probably think Orwell messed up by not writing Animal Farm 2.
It's striking how much support Boris Johnson is getting for his comments on trans issues from people who are not his natural supporters. This one is typical:
@annettepacey Oh god oh no someone I loathe just made a really good point. Still could never bring myself to vote for the bastard but this is what happens when Labour turn their backs on women and leave an open goal #labourlosingwomen
No, I've been told by PB experts that saying women have cocks won't hurt Labour.
Boris's comments are quite good and thoughtful.
The Trans Activist usual approach is to ram through their preferred measures before anyone gets any time to reflect properly upon the issue, and this is more considered.
Here is what BJ said. This is I think the full video of 1:39. Sky also seem to be putting out a truncated one at 1:04 length.
I haven't got my head around the latest kerfuffle.
Does, for example, the (Aiui) long-held Trans-Activist demand to be allowed to medicate without supervision children who are deemed by their parents to be trans count as Conversion Therapy? If so, the various organisations are demanding that this be banned.
ISTM very important that required time is taken.
This is an even longer version than the one I linked.
I just saw the Guardian News version, and the YT comments are an endless procession of people who clearly dislike Johnson in general, but are in agreement on this issue. It's actually hard to find anyone who disagrees with him. Labour are mincemeat unless they ditch Stonewall completely on this.
If "c**ks in frocks" gets the traction and votes Johnson hopes it will in the face of economic Armageddon, we deserve no less than Johnson as sine die PM.
None of this, Gary (Oldman) and Kristin (Scott Thomas), could you possibly give us a date when you fancy making some more of these, I know you might be busy, could you possibly fit us in perhaps 2024....
That takes money and the BBC is limited by the licence fee. There's not much else to it.
My point is BBC still trying to do things the old way, 6 episode season, a mate of a mate who is a big name will do you a favour and star in it for cheap, then you get stupid situations where you have Tom Hardy make a season of Taboo, that does pretty well, and then it is 5 years before he can fit you in again for season 2.
They have to decide, either not to go down that route in the first place and not use the star talent or modernise. When the big players decide to go with these projects they are going to ensure they get their 5 seasons in 5 years.
The BBC are setting light to money starting an IP and then leaving it years.
Most series are drastically overlong and are flogged to within an inch of their lives. The Beeb’s six episode format - to use an absolutely horrible PB cliche - is a feature not a bug.
I disagree. Sometimes a mini series is all you need - Chernobyl is a great example, one of the best tv shows I've seen in years. And even a 10-13 episode show might have plenty of padding (though is my preferred length).
But that's a question of good or bad writing. If you could guarantee the BBC traditional 6 episode or whatever format resulted in a higher amount of quality per episode, you might have an argument, but that's not the case - plenty of 6 episode shows are still very bad, and they are short and often sporadic on top of that.
Sure, plenty of long format shows are no good either, but many are good, and there are benefits to being able to develop arcs over a multi year period, or just develop the characters more thoroughly over that number of episodes and time. Going on too long is an unfortunate potential risk, to be sure, but personally I'd say was worth it for the greater number and depth of content earlier on.
I think the cheerleading for short format stuff is a crutch, frankly. There's no reason longer stuff cannot be good, and plenty of short stuff which is bad, so it's not a feature at all.
The idea that six episodes is short format is preposterous. That’s six hours of TV drama.
The Godfather - rightly considered an absolute epic - was told in nine hours or so.
Yes. Some people on here probably think Orwell messed up by not writing Animal Farm 2.
They are different forms of media.
A film is designed to tell a story well in 90-120 minutes. A series has longer, allowing it to develop in a very different manner. A book can be a stand-alone drama, or a series.
The form of the media allows the story-telling to take on very different natures.
None of this, Gary (Oldman) and Kristin (Scott Thomas), could you possibly give us a date when you fancy making some more of these, I know you might be busy, could you possibly fit us in perhaps 2024....
That takes money and the BBC is limited by the licence fee. There's not much else to it.
My point is BBC still trying to do things the old way, 6 episode season, a mate of a mate who is a big name will do you a favour and star in it for cheap, then you get stupid situations where you have Tom Hardy make a season of Taboo, that does pretty well, and then it is 5 years before he can fit you in again for season 2.
They have to decide, either not to go down that route in the first place and not use the star talent or modernise. When the big players decide to go with these projects they are going to ensure they get their 5 seasons in 5 years.
The BBC are setting light to money starting an IP and then leaving it years.
Most series are drastically overlong and are flogged to within an inch of their lives. The Beeb’s six episode format - to use an absolutely horrible PB cliche - is a feature not a bug.
Its not just the 6 episode format, it is the ridiculous gap between seasons.
Can you imagine if you had the most shit hot new widget and then said yeah well we only made a few, come back in 5 years.....while acme industries down the street is also making shit hot new widgets, but they ensure they continually have new ones.
The massive bucks are available if can get a show syndicated worldwide. In order to do that normally need to have a significant back catalogue. They did that with Top Gear and made a load of money. The problem is drama is now gone that way too.
Most series are better off with sticking to just one season. There are exceptions, but in general the greats of TV just decline after season one.
Dad's Army didn't really hit its stride until about season 4. Similarly all the Star Trek series start to get really good from about season 3.5 onwards. (Well, apart from Enterprise.)
The Simpsons, too, didn't really get going until series 4.
None of this, Gary (Oldman) and Kristin (Scott Thomas), could you possibly give us a date when you fancy making some more of these, I know you might be busy, could you possibly fit us in perhaps 2024....
That takes money and the BBC is limited by the licence fee. There's not much else to it.
My point is BBC still trying to do things the old way, 6 episode season, a mate of a mate who is a big name will do you a favour and star in it for cheap, then you get stupid situations where you have Tom Hardy make a season of Taboo, that does pretty well, and then it is 5 years before he can fit you in again for season 2.
They have to decide, either not to go down that route in the first place and not use the star talent or modernise. When the big players decide to go with these projects they are going to ensure they get their 5 seasons in 5 years.
The BBC can either produce a lot of TV cheaply or less TV very expensively. You seem to favour the latter while the BBC (up to now) has tended to do the former....
Is it possible that the unique and irreplaceable bit of the BBC is news coverage with its significant degree of non bias and impartiality (never complete of course but it does sort of try) and world wide coverage. Not in hock to advertisers or government.
And next radio, not general telly. And next its minority coverage. And the rest can be done by anyone with the cash and desire to make a few bob.
That’s probably true. But the BBC’s argument is that they cannot justify the universal licence fee unless they offer something to everyone - which does make sense
Trouble is they now have competitors who can do the stuff people really care about - eg TV drama - so much better because they have so much more money, and are less timid. The BBC is even getting overtaken in more niche areas like Nature documentaries
I do not wish to see the BBC disappear. It’s an important part of UK soft power. But fuck knows how it can be saved
I'm worried that there are enough French people who haven't benefited from globalisation and are willing to gamble on Le Pen. We had it here with Brexit, which was ultimately just leaving a trade/political union, France electing Le Pen would be a real "hold my beer" moment from the French.
The haughtiness of Macron is also an issue, rather than accept globalisation has a lot of losers he's one of those global elites who likes to pretend that trade isn't essentially a zero sum game which puts up huge skill barriers for well paid jobs.
I'm hopeful that we won't end up with Le Pen, but I think contingency planning is necessary. I'm also worried that once she gets power removing her will be as difficult as removing Orban.
It's striking how much support Boris Johnson is getting for his comments on trans issues from people who are not his natural supporters. This one is typical:
@annettepacey Oh god oh no someone I loathe just made a really good point. Still could never bring myself to vote for the bastard but this is what happens when Labour turn their backs on women and leave an open goal #labourlosingwomen
No, I've been told by PB experts that saying women have cocks won't hurt Labour.
Boris's comments are quite good and thoughtful.
The Trans Activist usual approach is to ram through their preferred measures before anyone gets any time to reflect properly upon the issue, and this is more considered.
Here is what BJ said. This is I think the full video of 1:39. Sky also seem to be putting out a truncated one at 1:04 length.
I haven't got my head around the latest kerfuffle.
Does, for example, the (Aiui) long-held Trans-Activist demand to be allowed to medicate without supervision children who are deemed by their parents to be trans count as Conversion Therapy? If so, the various organisations are demanding that this be banned.
ISTM very important that required time is taken.
This is an even longer version than the one I linked.
I just saw the Guardian News version, and the YT comments are an endless procession of people who clearly dislike Johnson in general, but are in agreement on this issue. It's actually hard to find anyone who disagrees with him. Labour are mincemeat unless they ditch Stonewall completely on this.
For all his many other faults, he is massively socially liberal. In that regard he is a million miles away from the Tory party of say the 1980s.
Except quite clearly on trans.
Unlike even Thatcher he has also ended free movement to and from the European single market and the UK
None of this, Gary (Oldman) and Kristin (Scott Thomas), could you possibly give us a date when you fancy making some more of these, I know you might be busy, could you possibly fit us in perhaps 2024....
That takes money and the BBC is limited by the licence fee. There's not much else to it.
My point is BBC still trying to do things the old way, 6 episode season, a mate of a mate who is a big name will do you a favour and star in it for cheap, then you get stupid situations where you have Tom Hardy make a season of Taboo, that does pretty well, and then it is 5 years before he can fit you in again for season 2.
They have to decide, either not to go down that route in the first place and not use the star talent or modernise. When the big players decide to go with these projects they are going to ensure they get their 5 seasons in 5 years.
The BBC are setting light to money starting an IP and then leaving it years.
Most series are drastically overlong and are flogged to within an inch of their lives. The Beeb’s six episode format - to use an absolutely horrible PB cliche - is a feature not a bug.
Its not just the 6 episode format, it is the ridiculous gap between seasons.
Can you imagine if you had the most shit hot new widget and then said yeah well we only made a few, come back in 5 years.....while acme industries down the street is also making shit hot new widgets, but they ensure they continually have new ones.
The massive bucks are available if can get a show syndicated worldwide. In order to do that normally need to have a significant back catalogue. They did that with Top Gear and made a load of money. The problem is drama is now gone that way too.
Most series are better off with sticking to just one season. There are exceptions, but in general the greats of TV just decline after season one.
Dad's Army didn't really hit its stride until about season 4. Similarly all the Star Trek series start to get really good from about season 3.5 onwards. (Well, apart from Enterprise.)
The Simpsons, too, didn't really get going until series 4.
Parks and Rec, one of my all time favourite comedies. Rather mediocre series 1, but sort of watchable. Then soared away in season 2 and on it went
And Blackadder! Does anyone ever re-watch season 1?? Then they got Ben Elton in and it turned into something brilliant
None of this, Gary (Oldman) and Kristin (Scott Thomas), could you possibly give us a date when you fancy making some more of these, I know you might be busy, could you possibly fit us in perhaps 2024....
That takes money and the BBC is limited by the licence fee. There's not much else to it.
My point is BBC still trying to do things the old way, 6 episode season, a mate of a mate who is a big name will do you a favour and star in it for cheap, then you get stupid situations where you have Tom Hardy make a season of Taboo, that does pretty well, and then it is 5 years before he can fit you in again for season 2.
They have to decide, either not to go down that route in the first place and not use the star talent or modernise. When the big players decide to go with these projects they are going to ensure they get their 5 seasons in 5 years.
The BBC are setting light to money starting an IP and then leaving it years.
Most series are drastically overlong and are flogged to within an inch of their lives. The Beeb’s six episode format - to use an absolutely horrible PB cliche - is a feature not a bug.
I disagree. Sometimes a mini series is all you need - Chernobyl is a great example, one of the best tv shows I've seen in years. And even a 10-13 episode show might have plenty of padding (though is my preferred length).
But that's a question of good or bad writing. If you could guarantee the BBC traditional 6 episode or whatever format resulted in a higher amount of quality per episode, you might have an argument, but that's not the case - plenty of 6 episode shows are still very bad, and they are short and often sporadic on top of that.
Sure, plenty of long format shows are no good either, but many are good, and there are benefits to being able to develop arcs over a multi year period, or just develop the characters more thoroughly over that number of episodes and time. Going on too long is an unfortunate potential risk, to be sure, but personally I'd say was worth it for the greater number and depth of content earlier on.
I think the cheerleading for short format stuff is a crutch, frankly. There's no reason longer stuff cannot be good, and plenty of short stuff which is bad, so it's not a feature at all.
The idea that six episodes is short format is preposterous. That’s six hours of TV drama.
The Godfather - rightly considered an absolute epic - was told in nine hours or so.
Yes. Some people on here probably think Orwell messed up by not writing Animal Farm 2.
They are different forms of media.
A film is designed to tell a story well in 90-120 minutes. A series has longer, allowing it to develop in a very different manner. A book can be a stand-alone drama, or a series.
The form of the media allows the story-telling to take on very different natures.
Thanks for explaining that to me, although I think I already knew it.
My serious point is that the length of any piece of media, be it film, TV or writing (of any sort) is, to me, secondary to its quality. Some long series are good; others are poor; and vice versa etc. War and Peace and Animal Farm are both pretty good, for example. With Fawlty Towers, the joke would have worn thin with more episodes I think.
None of this, Gary (Oldman) and Kristin (Scott Thomas), could you possibly give us a date when you fancy making some more of these, I know you might be busy, could you possibly fit us in perhaps 2024....
That takes money and the BBC is limited by the licence fee. There's not much else to it.
My point is BBC still trying to do things the old way, 6 episode season, a mate of a mate who is a big name will do you a favour and star in it for cheap, then you get stupid situations where you have Tom Hardy make a season of Taboo, that does pretty well, and then it is 5 years before he can fit you in again for season 2.
They have to decide, either not to go down that route in the first place and not use the star talent or modernise. When the big players decide to go with these projects they are going to ensure they get their 5 seasons in 5 years.
The BBC are setting light to money starting an IP and then leaving it years.
Most series are drastically overlong and are flogged to within an inch of their lives. The Beeb’s six episode format - to use an absolutely horrible PB cliche - is a feature not a bug.
Its not just the 6 episode format, it is the ridiculous gap between seasons.
Can you imagine if you had the most shit hot new widget and then said yeah well we only made a few, come back in 5 years.....while acme industries down the street is also making shit hot new widgets, but they ensure they continually have new ones.
The massive bucks are available if can get a show syndicated worldwide. In order to do that normally need to have a significant back catalogue. They did that with Top Gear and made a load of money. The problem is drama is now gone that way too.
Most series are better off with sticking to just one season. There are exceptions, but in general the greats of TV just decline after season one.
Dad's Army didn't really hit its stride until about season 4. Similarly all the Star Trek series start to get really good from about season 3.5 onwards. (Well, apart from Enterprise.)
Yes, the idea that most dramas peak in season 1 is bollocks. It’s practically a truism of the genre that most successful dramas (ie ones with extended life, not immediately dropped) initially get better as the writers gain in confidence and establish and explore their characters with added verve and daring…. So they tend to peak in season 2 or 3, maybe even 4. Succession is a contemporary example, there are so many more - Sopranos, the Wire, BSG, Spartacus, House, the Tudors, Breaking Bad, basically all the great dramas of the Golden Age did this. Started off well but a bit nervously, then got better and better…
However the flip side of this is that nearly all dramas hit a wall when they just run out of ideas. Five seasons seems to be the general limit. Vanishingly few TV dramas remain good after the fifth season. That’s why most end there
Interestingly, this is also often true of books formed as a series
There are of course some exceptions, Dramas which have one great initial season then *WTF happened*. Westworld is a classic example. Drove off a cliff
Good series often start off episodic, with very little changing between episodes. This means if you miss one episode, you haven't missed any plot points. Later on, they can stop being so episodic and start with the plot arcs. 'Person of Interest' is an example of this, or 'Fringe'. Some series remain episodic - I'm looking at you, Star Trek TNG, to the extent you can watch an episode from a later series and utterly know what is going on.
A brilliant series such as Babylon 5 will subvert this, and have episodic episodes that refer backwards to explain what happened in earlier series.
It's striking how much support Boris Johnson is getting for his comments on trans issues from people who are not his natural supporters. This one is typical:
@annettepacey Oh god oh no someone I loathe just made a really good point. Still could never bring myself to vote for the bastard but this is what happens when Labour turn their backs on women and leave an open goal #labourlosingwomen
No, I've been told by PB experts that saying women have cocks won't hurt Labour.
Boris's comments are quite good and thoughtful.
The Trans Activist usual approach is to ram through their preferred measures before anyone gets any time to reflect properly upon the issue, and this is more considered.
Here is what BJ said. This is I think the full video of 1:39. Sky also seem to be putting out a truncated one at 1:04 length.
I haven't got my head around the latest kerfuffle.
Does, for example, the (Aiui) long-held Trans-Activist demand to be allowed to medicate without supervision children who are deemed by their parents to be trans count as Conversion Therapy? If so, the various organisations are demanding that this be banned.
ISTM very important that required time is taken.
This is an even longer version than the one I linked.
I just saw the Guardian News version, and the YT comments are an endless procession of people who clearly dislike Johnson in general, but are in agreement on this issue. It's actually hard to find anyone who disagrees with him. Labour are mincemeat unless they ditch Stonewall completely on this.
If "c**ks in frocks" gets the traction and votes Johnson hopes it will in the face of economic Armageddon, we deserve no less than Johnson as sine die PM.
Cocks in frocks might just work simply because no party has an answer to the impending economic tsunami. What is Labour’s solution? Nationalise everything? That worked well in Venezuela
Question is whether Labour can come up with a plausible list of lies that might persuade people they have some brilliant answer (when they don’t, because there isn’t one)
I don’t know if Starmer has it in him to be that mendacious. Johnson does
And if the economic argument is a stalemate because no one has a clue what to do, then the Tories might win because the war on Woke does have traction
I've recently been watching 'Elementary' on Prime; CBS's take on Sherlock Holmes, with Jonny Lee Miller as Sherlock and Lucy Liu as Watson.
When I compare it with the BBC's awful 'Sherlock', it shows where the BBC often goes wrong. Elementary takes the Sherlock Holmes idea and thoroughly modernises it. They made 154 episodes over nine years, allowing meaningful plot and character development.
The BBC's Sherlock is all about the *star*. The plotlines are ludicrous, and they made just 13 episodes in seven years, allowing little plot or character development.
Also: Jonny Lee Miller is a much better actor than Benedict Cumberbatch.
I’m not saying you’re wrong, in fact you’re right - but Sherlock was a big hit around the world.
Elementary, not so much?
Perhaps not, but ran for 7 years and it is better, not just that theres more of it. The first season in particular - did a far better job showing how a Holnes/Watson dynamic could realistically develop when one is such an arse.
That's a really good point. From memory, in the books, Watson is very much his own man. A successful and respected doctor in his own right, who at times shares a flat with the protagonist, and at others is married (ooer missus!). In Sherlock, he is a broken man, and it is unclear why he hangs around Sherlock. I mean, why, given Cumberbatch's Holmes has no redeeming features?
In Elementary, the characterisations make it much clearer: initially watson is paid to put up with him, and does so through a feeling of guilt for her own mistake. Later, Holmes tries to make up for his character defects, and becomes a much more interesting character (note: I am only on season 2).
Nothing beats Jeremy Brett's portrayal for me. I've never got into Sherlock though I can see it's merits.
I’ll be honest, Jeremy Brett for a classic feel, and set in the original era (hat tip to Tom Baker as the Doctor as Sherlock Holmes in the Talons of Weng Chiang, present concerns about horrific racist portrayal and yellow face excepted), Sherlock is fun, but could never be a series machine in the American way, whereas Elementary has room to breath and allows you to get to love the cast. All have their place.
Talons of Weng Chiang is essentially a mix of Baker playing a Sherlock Holmes character and John Bennett playing Fu Manchu.
You also have Louise Jameson as Eliza Doolittle.
I’d dispute the show is horrifically racist it has racial stereotypes based on the Fu Manchu stories, that period was full of rip offs/tributes to classic novels and sci fi. It’s an homage. Horrifically is a dramatic overstatement. It’s a subject fandom still debates to this day.
We may as well ban the Celestial Toymaker too.
Tom also played Holmes in Hound of the Baskervilles, pretty well, his first job on leaving Dr Who. Caroline John was also in it.
Now I don’t have an issue with the episode, but I no a lot of fans, probably younger than me, do. The racism portrayed was of its Victorian setting. The choice of a white British actor to portray Lee Sen Chang (forgive the spelling) is probably the biggest sin, although nowadays it seems we have colour blind casting.
I've recently been watching 'Elementary' on Prime; CBS's take on Sherlock Holmes, with Jonny Lee Miller as Sherlock and Lucy Liu as Watson.
When I compare it with the BBC's awful 'Sherlock', it shows where the BBC often goes wrong. Elementary takes the Sherlock Holmes idea and thoroughly modernises it. They made 154 episodes over nine years, allowing meaningful plot and character development.
The BBC's Sherlock is all about the *star*. The plotlines are ludicrous, and they made just 13 episodes in seven years, allowing little plot or character development.
Also: Jonny Lee Miller is a much better actor than Benedict Cumberbatch.
I’m not saying you’re wrong, in fact you’re right - but Sherlock was a big hit around the world.
Elementary, not so much?
Perhaps not, but ran for 7 years and it is better, not just that theres more of it. The first season in particular - did a far better job showing how a Holnes/Watson dynamic could realistically develop when one is such an arse.
That's a really good point. From memory, in the books, Watson is very much his own man. A successful and respected doctor in his own right, who at times shares a flat with the protagonist, and at others is married (ooer missus!). In Sherlock, he is a broken man, and it is unclear why he hangs around Sherlock. I mean, why, given Cumberbatch's Holmes has no redeeming features?
In Elementary, the characterisations make it much clearer: initially watson is paid to put up with him, and does so through a feeling of guilt for her own mistake. Later, Holmes tries to make up for his character defects, and becomes a much more interesting character (note: I am only on season 2).
Nothing beats Jeremy Brett's portrayal for me. I've never got into Sherlock though I can see it's merits.
We do not often agree, but on this I fully agree.
However, I can recommend at least the first two seasons of 'Elementary'. A thoroughly modern Sherlock, without (mostly) the horse dung.
Jeremy Brett as Holmes was excellent but the latter stories and the 3 long episodes that comes after Baskervilles and Sign of Four were awful. Partly due to Brett’s poor health, Holmes was replace by his brother in one story.
Holmes ended on a whimper unlike Poirot.
I can't entirely agree. Even in the later episodes like the dying detective Brett has amazing scenes.
Yes, the stories do have some good moments but for me it feels like it has run out of steam. The stories just lack the energy and interest of the first stories in the run.
Have you seen any of the Douglas Wilmer or Peter Cushing ones.
No. I can imagine Peter Cushing being excellent.
He was, only 6 complete episodes exist. Douglas Wilmer is very good as well.
None of this, Gary (Oldman) and Kristin (Scott Thomas), could you possibly give us a date when you fancy making some more of these, I know you might be busy, could you possibly fit us in perhaps 2024....
That takes money and the BBC is limited by the licence fee. There's not much else to it.
My point is BBC still trying to do things the old way, 6 episode season, a mate of a mate who is a big name will do you a favour and star in it for cheap, then you get stupid situations where you have Tom Hardy make a season of Taboo, that does pretty well, and then it is 5 years before he can fit you in again for season 2.
They have to decide, either not to go down that route in the first place and not use the star talent or modernise. When the big players decide to go with these projects they are going to ensure they get their 5 seasons in 5 years.
The BBC are setting light to money starting an IP and then leaving it years.
Most series are drastically overlong and are flogged to within an inch of their lives. The Beeb’s six episode format - to use an absolutely horrible PB cliche - is a feature not a bug.
Its not just the 6 episode format, it is the ridiculous gap between seasons.
Can you imagine if you had the most shit hot new widget and then said yeah well we only made a few, come back in 5 years.....while acme industries down the street is also making shit hot new widgets, but they ensure they continually have new ones.
The massive bucks are available if can get a show syndicated worldwide. In order to do that normally need to have a significant back catalogue. They did that with Top Gear and made a load of money. The problem is drama is now gone that way too.
Most series are better off with sticking to just one season. There are exceptions, but in general the greats of TV just decline after season one.
Dad's Army didn't really hit its stride until about season 4. Similarly all the Star Trek series start to get really good from about season 3.5 onwards. (Well, apart from Enterprise.)
The Simpsons, too, didn't really get going until series 4.
Parks and Rec, one of my all time favourite comedies. Rather mediocre series 1, but sort of watchable. Then soared away in season 2 and on it went
And Blackadder! Does anyone ever re-watch season 1?? Then they got Ben Elton in and it turned into something brilliant
Oh, yes, Blackwater 1 was utter dross. I would never claim Men Behaving Badly to be a classic, but it was well regarded at the time. But did you ever see series 1 with Harry Enfield instead if Neil Morrissey? Utter tosh.
None of this, Gary (Oldman) and Kristin (Scott Thomas), could you possibly give us a date when you fancy making some more of these, I know you might be busy, could you possibly fit us in perhaps 2024....
That takes money and the BBC is limited by the licence fee. There's not much else to it.
My point is BBC still trying to do things the old way, 6 episode season, a mate of a mate who is a big name will do you a favour and star in it for cheap, then you get stupid situations where you have Tom Hardy make a season of Taboo, that does pretty well, and then it is 5 years before he can fit you in again for season 2.
They have to decide, either not to go down that route in the first place and not use the star talent or modernise. When the big players decide to go with these projects they are going to ensure they get their 5 seasons in 5 years.
The BBC are setting light to money starting an IP and then leaving it years.
Most series are drastically overlong and are flogged to within an inch of their lives. The Beeb’s six episode format - to use an absolutely horrible PB cliche - is a feature not a bug.
I disagree. Sometimes a mini series is all you need - Chernobyl is a great example, one of the best tv shows I've seen in years. And even a 10-13 episode show might have plenty of padding (though is my preferred length).
But that's a question of good or bad writing. If you could guarantee the BBC traditional 6 episode or whatever format resulted in a higher amount of quality per episode, you might have an argument, but that's not the case - plenty of 6 episode shows are still very bad, and they are short and often sporadic on top of that.
Sure, plenty of long format shows are no good either, but many are good, and there are benefits to being able to develop arcs over a multi year period, or just develop the characters more thoroughly over that number of episodes and time. Going on too long is an unfortunate potential risk, to be sure, but personally I'd say was worth it for the greater number and depth of content earlier on.
I think the cheerleading for short format stuff is a crutch, frankly. There's no reason longer stuff cannot be good, and plenty of short stuff which is bad, so it's not a feature at all.
The idea that six episodes is short format is preposterous. That’s six hours of TV drama.
The Godfather - rightly considered an absolute epic - was told in nine hours or so.
Yes. Some people on here probably think Orwell messed up by not writing Animal Farm 2.
They are different forms of media.
A film is designed to tell a story well in 90-120 minutes. A series has longer, allowing it to develop in a very different manner. A book can be a stand-alone drama, or a series.
The form of the media allows the story-telling to take on very different natures.
Thanks for explaining that to me, although I think I already knew it.
My serious point is that the length of any piece of media, be it film, TV or writing (of any sort) is, to me, secondary to its quality. Some long series are good; others are poor; and vice versa etc. War and Peace and Animal Farm are both pretty good, for example. With Fawlty Towers, the joke would have worn thin with more episodes I think.
Sorry, I did not mean to sound condescending. It's just that the form of media does matter. For instance, would the Godfather films have been as good as a long-form series, with the plots and characters developed over five times the length? (*) Are he Reduced Shakespeare Company's output as good as the original, or are they good for a different market?
(For Fawlty Towers, didn't Cleese deliberately limit the number of episodes?_
I noticed the fat balding bloke who is supposed to be in charge seems to have got a spring back in his step....when they hired lynton prodigy, it was presumed to stick it to Labour, not friendly fire.
I'm worried that there are enough French people who haven't benefited from globalisation and are willing to gamble on Le Pen. We had it here with Brexit, which was ultimately just leaving a trade/political union, France electing Le Pen would be a real "hold my beer" moment from the French.
The haughtiness of Macron is also an issue, rather than accept globalisation has a lot of losers he's one of those global elites who likes to pretend that trade isn't essentially a zero sum game which puts up huge skill barriers for well paid jobs.
I'm hopeful that we won't end up with Le Pen, but I think contingency planning is necessary. I'm also worried that once she gets power removing her will be as difficult as removing Orban.
Marine Le Pen is not that scary. She’s not her dad, nor is she her niece.
She’d be a traditional Gaullist with some left wing statist economic polices and quite a lot of prickly nationalism, but she wouldn’t start deporting people en masse
She would also want a second term so I don’t see her attacking the basic structure of the French state.
To me she is considerably less frightening than Trump - or Jeremy Corbyn
I've recently been watching 'Elementary' on Prime; CBS's take on Sherlock Holmes, with Jonny Lee Miller as Sherlock and Lucy Liu as Watson.
When I compare it with the BBC's awful 'Sherlock', it shows where the BBC often goes wrong. Elementary takes the Sherlock Holmes idea and thoroughly modernises it. They made 154 episodes over nine years, allowing meaningful plot and character development.
The BBC's Sherlock is all about the *star*. The plotlines are ludicrous, and they made just 13 episodes in seven years, allowing little plot or character development.
Also: Jonny Lee Miller is a much better actor than Benedict Cumberbatch.
I’m not saying you’re wrong, in fact you’re right - but Sherlock was a big hit around the world.
Elementary, not so much?
Perhaps not, but ran for 7 years and it is better, not just that theres more of it. The first season in particular - did a far better job showing how a Holnes/Watson dynamic could realistically develop when one is such an arse.
That's a really good point. From memory, in the books, Watson is very much his own man. A successful and respected doctor in his own right, who at times shares a flat with the protagonist, and at others is married (ooer missus!). In Sherlock, he is a broken man, and it is unclear why he hangs around Sherlock. I mean, why, given Cumberbatch's Holmes has no redeeming features?
In Elementary, the characterisations make it much clearer: initially watson is paid to put up with him, and does so through a feeling of guilt for her own mistake. Later, Holmes tries to make up for his character defects, and becomes a much more interesting character (note: I am only on season 2).
Nothing beats Jeremy Brett's portrayal for me. I've never got into Sherlock though I can see it's merits.
I’ll be honest, Jeremy Brett for a classic feel, and set in the original era (hat tip to Tom Baker as the Doctor as Sherlock Holmes in the Talons of Weng Chiang, present concerns about horrific racist portrayal and yellow face excepted), Sherlock is fun, but could never be a series machine in the American way, whereas Elementary has room to breath and allows you to get to love the cast. All have their place.
Talons of Weng Chiang is essentially a mix of Baker playing a Sherlock Holmes character and John Bennett playing Fu Manchu.
You also have Louise Jameson as Eliza Doolittle.
I’d dispute the show is horrifically racist it has racial stereotypes based on the Fu Manchu stories, that period was full of rip offs/tributes to classic novels and sci fi. It’s an homage. Horrifically is a dramatic overstatement. It’s a subject fandom still debates to this day.
We may as well ban the Celestial Toymaker too.
Tom also played Holmes in Hound of the Baskervilles, pretty well, his first job on leaving Dr Who. Caroline John was also in it.
Now I don’t have an issue with the episode, but I no a lot of fans, probably younger than me, do. The racism portrayed was of its Victorian setting. The choice of a white British actor to portray Lee Sen Chang (forgive the spelling) is probably the biggest sin, although nowadays it seems we have colour blind casting.
At least you resisted the temptation to say the biggest Mr Sin 😂
It is mainly younger fans who object. I was best man at my mates wedding in the US and spent a good chunk of the afternoon debating whether it was racist or not with someone there. Had they had someone like Burt Kwouk in the role rather than John Bennett the Fu Manchu bit would not have worked.
John Bennett’s character even says to the racist policeman at one stage ‘I believe we all look the same’. It’s Li H’sen Chang, BTW 👍
It's striking how much support Boris Johnson is getting for his comments on trans issues from people who are not his natural supporters. This one is typical:
@annettepacey Oh god oh no someone I loathe just made a really good point. Still could never bring myself to vote for the bastard but this is what happens when Labour turn their backs on women and leave an open goal #labourlosingwomen
No, I've been told by PB experts that saying women have cocks won't hurt Labour.
Boris's comments are quite good and thoughtful.
The Trans Activist usual approach is to ram through their preferred measures before anyone gets any time to reflect properly upon the issue, and this is more considered.
Here is what BJ said. This is I think the full video of 1:39. Sky also seem to be putting out a truncated one at 1:04 length.
I haven't got my head around the latest kerfuffle.
Does, for example, the (Aiui) long-held Trans-Activist demand to be allowed to medicate without supervision children who are deemed by their parents to be trans count as Conversion Therapy? If so, the various organisations are demanding that this be banned.
ISTM very important that required time is taken.
This is an even longer version than the one I linked.
I just saw the Guardian News version, and the YT comments are an endless procession of people who clearly dislike Johnson in general, but are in agreement on this issue. It's actually hard to find anyone who disagrees with him. Labour are mincemeat unless they ditch Stonewall completely on this.
If "c**ks in frocks" gets the traction and votes Johnson hopes it will in the face of economic Armageddon, we deserve no less than Johnson as sine die PM.
Cocks in frocks might just work simply because no party has an answer to the impending economic tsunami. What is Labour’s solution? Nationalise everything? That worked well in Venezuela
Question is whether Labour can come up with a plausible list of lies that might persuade people they have some brilliant answer (when they don’t, because there isn’t one)
I don’t know if Starmer has it in him to be that mendacious. Johnson does
And if the economic argument is a stalemate because no one has a clue what to do, then the Tories might win because the war on Woke does have traction
Re the “c*cos in frocks” points, there are two issues here when it comes to voters, one is the direct issue itself and the second is what how the leader handles it says about the person.
So, for Starmer, I’d argue his problem could be more the second than the first. Yes, there are not a few women who like @Cyclefree who feel passionately about it but there are probably a good few people who feel as though the issue gets far more attention that it should and not a few on the right who think feminists are reaping what they sowed.
However, for many, not being able to answer what should be a simple question which most voters would say they can (“what is a woman?”) and displaying what seems to be cowardice / prevarication on the issue is going to be a turn off. Many will say “do I want someone as PM who struggles to handle such a question? How would he handle himself when it comes to the real serious stuff?”
None of this, Gary (Oldman) and Kristin (Scott Thomas), could you possibly give us a date when you fancy making some more of these, I know you might be busy, could you possibly fit us in perhaps 2024....
That takes money and the BBC is limited by the licence fee. There's not much else to it.
My point is BBC still trying to do things the old way, 6 episode season, a mate of a mate who is a big name will do you a favour and star in it for cheap, then you get stupid situations where you have Tom Hardy make a season of Taboo, that does pretty well, and then it is 5 years before he can fit you in again for season 2.
They have to decide, either not to go down that route in the first place and not use the star talent or modernise. When the big players decide to go with these projects they are going to ensure they get their 5 seasons in 5 years.
The BBC are setting light to money starting an IP and then leaving it years.
Most series are drastically overlong and are flogged to within an inch of their lives. The Beeb’s six episode format - to use an absolutely horrible PB cliche - is a feature not a bug.
I disagree. Sometimes a mini series is all you need - Chernobyl is a great example, one of the best tv shows I've seen in years. And even a 10-13 episode show might have plenty of padding (though is my preferred length).
But that's a question of good or bad writing. If you could guarantee the BBC traditional 6 episode or whatever format resulted in a higher amount of quality per episode, you might have an argument, but that's not the case - plenty of 6 episode shows are still very bad, and they are short and often sporadic on top of that.
Sure, plenty of long format shows are no good either, but many are good, and there are benefits to being able to develop arcs over a multi year period, or just develop the characters more thoroughly over that number of episodes and time. Going on too long is an unfortunate potential risk, to be sure, but personally I'd say was worth it for the greater number and depth of content earlier on.
I think the cheerleading for short format stuff is a crutch, frankly. There's no reason longer stuff cannot be good, and plenty of short stuff which is bad, so it's not a feature at all.
The idea that six episodes is short format is preposterous. That’s six hours of TV drama.
The Godfather - rightly considered an absolute epic - was told in nine hours or so.
Yes. Some people on here probably think Orwell messed up by not writing Animal Farm 2.
They are different forms of media.
A film is designed to tell a story well in 90-120 minutes. A series has longer, allowing it to develop in a very different manner. A book can be a stand-alone drama, or a series.
The form of the media allows the story-telling to take on very different natures.
Thanks for explaining that to me, although I think I already knew it.
My serious point is that the length of any piece of media, be it film, TV or writing (of any sort) is, to me, secondary to its quality. Some long series are good; others are poor; and vice versa etc. War and Peace and Animal Farm are both pretty good, for example. With Fawlty Towers, the joke would have worn thin with more episodes I think.
Sorry, I did not mean to sound condescending. It's just that the form of media does matter. For instance, would the Godfather films have been as good as a long-form series, with the plots and characters developed over five times the length? (*) Are he Reduced Shakespeare Company's output as good as the original, or are they good for a different market?
(For Fawlty Towers, didn't Cleese deliberately limit the number of episodes?_
(*) I have never seen a Godfather films.
No problem at all. All I can say in response is wow! Never seen the Godfather films? That's up there with me never having seen Star Wars, only much worse.
None of this, Gary (Oldman) and Kristin (Scott Thomas), could you possibly give us a date when you fancy making some more of these, I know you might be busy, could you possibly fit us in perhaps 2024....
That takes money and the BBC is limited by the licence fee. There's not much else to it.
My point is BBC still trying to do things the old way, 6 episode season, a mate of a mate who is a big name will do you a favour and star in it for cheap, then you get stupid situations where you have Tom Hardy make a season of Taboo, that does pretty well, and then it is 5 years before he can fit you in again for season 2.
They have to decide, either not to go down that route in the first place and not use the star talent or modernise. When the big players decide to go with these projects they are going to ensure they get their 5 seasons in 5 years.
The BBC are setting light to money starting an IP and then leaving it years.
Most series are drastically overlong and are flogged to within an inch of their lives. The Beeb’s six episode format - to use an absolutely horrible PB cliche - is a feature not a bug.
Its not just the 6 episode format, it is the ridiculous gap between seasons.
Can you imagine if you had the most shit hot new widget and then said yeah well we only made a few, come back in 5 years.....while acme industries down the street is also making shit hot new widgets, but they ensure they continually have new ones.
The massive bucks are available if can get a show syndicated worldwide. In order to do that normally need to have a significant back catalogue. They did that with Top Gear and made a load of money. The problem is drama is now gone that way too.
Most series are better off with sticking to just one season. There are exceptions, but in general the greats of TV just decline after season one.
Dad's Army didn't really hit its stride until about season 4. Similarly all the Star Trek series start to get really good from about season 3.5 onwards. (Well, apart from Enterprise.)
The Simpsons, too, didn't really get going until series 4.
Parks and Rec, one of my all time favourite comedies. Rather mediocre series 1, but sort of watchable. Then soared away in season 2 and on it went
And Blackadder! Does anyone ever re-watch season 1?? Then they got Ben Elton in and it turned into something brilliant
I worked through the entire Big Bang Theory on Netflix during lockdown (150 or so 20-minute episodes) - perfect for lunchbreaks worknig from home. IMO it got better and better till midway, and then gently changed direction, becoming gradually more romantic and less silly. I liked it in its later incarnation too, and it managed to produce a plot conclusion after years of going nowhere in particular. Friends who are more serious nerds than I am felt it went downhill once the characters all acquired girlfriends.
I've recently been watching 'Elementary' on Prime; CBS's take on Sherlock Holmes, with Jonny Lee Miller as Sherlock and Lucy Liu as Watson.
When I compare it with the BBC's awful 'Sherlock', it shows where the BBC often goes wrong. Elementary takes the Sherlock Holmes idea and thoroughly modernises it. They made 154 episodes over nine years, allowing meaningful plot and character development.
The BBC's Sherlock is all about the *star*. The plotlines are ludicrous, and they made just 13 episodes in seven years, allowing little plot or character development.
Also: Jonny Lee Miller is a much better actor than Benedict Cumberbatch.
I’m not saying you’re wrong, in fact you’re right - but Sherlock was a big hit around the world.
Elementary, not so much?
Perhaps not, but ran for 7 years and it is better, not just that theres more of it. The first season in particular - did a far better job showing how a Holnes/Watson dynamic could realistically develop when one is such an arse.
That's a really good point. From memory, in the books, Watson is very much his own man. A successful and respected doctor in his own right, who at times shares a flat with the protagonist, and at others is married (ooer missus!). In Sherlock, he is a broken man, and it is unclear why he hangs around Sherlock. I mean, why, given Cumberbatch's Holmes has no redeeming features?
In Elementary, the characterisations make it much clearer: initially watson is paid to put up with him, and does so through a feeling of guilt for her own mistake. Later, Holmes tries to make up for his character defects, and becomes a much more interesting character (note: I am only on season 2).
Nothing beats Jeremy Brett's portrayal for me. I've never got into Sherlock though I can see it's merits.
We do not often agree, but on this I fully agree.
However, I can recommend at least the first two seasons of 'Elementary'. A thoroughly modern Sherlock, without (mostly) the horse dung.
Jeremy Brett as Holmes was excellent but the latter stories and the 3 long episodes that comes after Baskervilles and Sign of Four were awful. Partly due to Brett’s poor health, Holmes was replace by his brother in one story.
Holmes ended on a whimper unlike Poirot.
I can't entirely agree. Even in the later episodes like the dying detective Brett has amazing scenes.
Yes, the stories do have some good moments but for me it feels like it has run out of steam. The stories just lack the energy and interest of the first stories in the run.
Have you seen any of the Douglas Wilmer or Peter Cushing ones.
No. I can imagine Peter Cushing being excellent.
He was, only 6 complete episodes exist. Douglas Wilmer is very good as well.
None of this, Gary (Oldman) and Kristin (Scott Thomas), could you possibly give us a date when you fancy making some more of these, I know you might be busy, could you possibly fit us in perhaps 2024....
That takes money and the BBC is limited by the licence fee. There's not much else to it.
My point is BBC still trying to do things the old way, 6 episode season, a mate of a mate who is a big name will do you a favour and star in it for cheap, then you get stupid situations where you have Tom Hardy make a season of Taboo, that does pretty well, and then it is 5 years before he can fit you in again for season 2.
They have to decide, either not to go down that route in the first place and not use the star talent or modernise. When the big players decide to go with these projects they are going to ensure they get their 5 seasons in 5 years.
The BBC are setting light to money starting an IP and then leaving it years.
Most series are drastically overlong and are flogged to within an inch of their lives. The Beeb’s six episode format - to use an absolutely horrible PB cliche - is a feature not a bug.
Its not just the 6 episode format, it is the ridiculous gap between seasons.
Can you imagine if you had the most shit hot new widget and then said yeah well we only made a few, come back in 5 years.....while acme industries down the street is also making shit hot new widgets, but they ensure they continually have new ones.
The massive bucks are available if can get a show syndicated worldwide. In order to do that normally need to have a significant back catalogue. They did that with Top Gear and made a load of money. The problem is drama is now gone that way too.
Most series are better off with sticking to just one season. There are exceptions, but in general the greats of TV just decline after season one.
Dad's Army didn't really hit its stride until about season 4. Similarly all the Star Trek series start to get really good from about season 3.5 onwards. (Well, apart from Enterprise.)
The Simpsons, too, didn't really get going until series 4.
Parks and Rec, one of my all time favourite comedies. Rather mediocre series 1, but sort of watchable. Then soared away in season 2 and on it went
And Blackadder! Does anyone ever re-watch season 1?? Then they got Ben Elton in and it turned into something brilliant
Yes, season 1 is excellent. The Frank Finlay episode especially.
Totally different show in season 2. Had to beg to get it made and budget was slashed. Hence the lack of outdoor shooting and a few set.
Rik Mayall only had one take for his flashheart scene in ep 1. You can see his moustache falling off at the end of it.
None of this, Gary (Oldman) and Kristin (Scott Thomas), could you possibly give us a date when you fancy making some more of these, I know you might be busy, could you possibly fit us in perhaps 2024....
That takes money and the BBC is limited by the licence fee. There's not much else to it.
My point is BBC still trying to do things the old way, 6 episode season, a mate of a mate who is a big name will do you a favour and star in it for cheap, then you get stupid situations where you have Tom Hardy make a season of Taboo, that does pretty well, and then it is 5 years before he can fit you in again for season 2.
They have to decide, either not to go down that route in the first place and not use the star talent or modernise. When the big players decide to go with these projects they are going to ensure they get their 5 seasons in 5 years.
The BBC are setting light to money starting an IP and then leaving it years.
Most series are drastically overlong and are flogged to within an inch of their lives. The Beeb’s six episode format - to use an absolutely horrible PB cliche - is a feature not a bug.
Its not just the 6 episode format, it is the ridiculous gap between seasons.
Can you imagine if you had the most shit hot new widget and then said yeah well we only made a few, come back in 5 years.....while acme industries down the street is also making shit hot new widgets, but they ensure they continually have new ones.
The massive bucks are available if can get a show syndicated worldwide. In order to do that normally need to have a significant back catalogue. They did that with Top Gear and made a load of money. The problem is drama is now gone that way too.
Most series are better off with sticking to just one season. There are exceptions, but in general the greats of TV just decline after season one.
Dad's Army didn't really hit its stride until about season 4. Similarly all the Star Trek series start to get really good from about season 3.5 onwards. (Well, apart from Enterprise.)
The Simpsons, too, didn't really get going until series 4.
Parks and Rec, one of my all time favourite comedies. Rather mediocre series 1, but sort of watchable. Then soared away in season 2 and on it went
And Blackadder! Does anyone ever re-watch season 1?? Then they got Ben Elton in and it turned into something brilliant
Oh, yes, Blackwater 1 was utter dross. I would never claim Men Behaving Badly to be a classic, but it was well regarded at the time. But did you ever see series 1 with Harry Enfield instead if Neil Morrissey? Utter tosh.
I have very fond memories of Men Behaving Badly (I never even watched series 1 coz everyone said it was awful)
I’m guessing it has dated rather badly, but then that’s true of 99.7% of comedies.
I've recently been watching 'Elementary' on Prime; CBS's take on Sherlock Holmes, with Jonny Lee Miller as Sherlock and Lucy Liu as Watson.
When I compare it with the BBC's awful 'Sherlock', it shows where the BBC often goes wrong. Elementary takes the Sherlock Holmes idea and thoroughly modernises it. They made 154 episodes over nine years, allowing meaningful plot and character development.
The BBC's Sherlock is all about the *star*. The plotlines are ludicrous, and they made just 13 episodes in seven years, allowing little plot or character development.
Also: Jonny Lee Miller is a much better actor than Benedict Cumberbatch.
I’m not saying you’re wrong, in fact you’re right - but Sherlock was a big hit around the world.
Elementary, not so much?
Perhaps not, but ran for 7 years and it is better, not just that theres more of it. The first season in particular - did a far better job showing how a Holnes/Watson dynamic could realistically develop when one is such an arse.
That's a really good point. From memory, in the books, Watson is very much his own man. A successful and respected doctor in his own right, who at times shares a flat with the protagonist, and at others is married (ooer missus!). In Sherlock, he is a broken man, and it is unclear why he hangs around Sherlock. I mean, why, given Cumberbatch's Holmes has no redeeming features?
In Elementary, the characterisations make it much clearer: initially watson is paid to put up with him, and does so through a feeling of guilt for her own mistake. Later, Holmes tries to make up for his character defects, and becomes a much more interesting character (note: I am only on season 2).
Nothing beats Jeremy Brett's portrayal for me. I've never got into Sherlock though I can see it's merits.
I’ll be honest, Jeremy Brett for a classic feel, and set in the original era (hat tip to Tom Baker as the Doctor as Sherlock Holmes in the Talons of Weng Chiang, present concerns about horrific racist portrayal and yellow face excepted), Sherlock is fun, but could never be a series machine in the American way, whereas Elementary has room to breath and allows you to get to love the cast. All have their place.
Talons of Weng Chiang is essentially a mix of Baker playing a Sherlock Holmes character and John Bennett playing Fu Manchu.
You also have Louise Jameson as Eliza Doolittle.
I’d dispute the show is horrifically racist it has racial stereotypes based on the Fu Manchu stories, that period was full of rip offs/tributes to classic novels and sci fi. It’s an homage. Horrifically is a dramatic overstatement. It’s a subject fandom still debates to this day.
We may as well ban the Celestial Toymaker too.
Tom also played Holmes in Hound of the Baskervilles, pretty well, his first job on leaving Dr Who. Caroline John was also in it.
Now I don’t have an issue with the episode, but I no a lot of fans, probably younger than me, do. The racism portrayed was of its Victorian setting. The choice of a white British actor to portray Lee Sen Chang (forgive the spelling) is probably the biggest sin, although nowadays it seems we have colour blind casting.
At least you resisted the temptation to say the biggest Mr Sin 😂
It is mainly younger fans who object. I was best man at my mates wedding in the US and spent a good chunk of the afternoon debating whether it was racist or not with someone there. Had they had someone like Burt Kwouk in the role rather than John Bennett the Fu Manchu bit would not have worked.
John Bennett’s character even says to the racist policeman at one stage ‘I believe we all look the same’. It’s Li H’sen Chang, BTW 👍
That’s the puppy. Been a long day. And I did indeed think of mr sin... It’s probably one of my all time faves, along with other Baker stories such as tha ark in space, pyramids of mars and the robots of death. Glorious. One wonders how they would look with today’s money and effects.
It's striking how much support Boris Johnson is getting for his comments on trans issues from people who are not his natural supporters. This one is typical:
@annettepacey Oh god oh no someone I loathe just made a really good point. Still could never bring myself to vote for the bastard but this is what happens when Labour turn their backs on women and leave an open goal #labourlosingwomen
No, I've been told by PB experts that saying women have cocks won't hurt Labour.
Boris's comments are quite good and thoughtful.
The Trans Activist usual approach is to ram through their preferred measures before anyone gets any time to reflect properly upon the issue, and this is more considered.
Here is what BJ said. This is I think the full video of 1:39. Sky also seem to be putting out a truncated one at 1:04 length.
I haven't got my head around the latest kerfuffle.
Does, for example, the (Aiui) long-held Trans-Activist demand to be allowed to medicate without supervision children who are deemed by their parents to be trans count as Conversion Therapy? If so, the various organisations are demanding that this be banned.
ISTM very important that required time is taken.
This is an even longer version than the one I linked.
I just saw the Guardian News version, and the YT comments are an endless procession of people who clearly dislike Johnson in general, but are in agreement on this issue. It's actually hard to find anyone who disagrees with him. Labour are mincemeat unless they ditch Stonewall completely on this.
If "c**ks in frocks" gets the traction and votes Johnson hopes it will in the face of economic Armageddon, we deserve no less than Johnson as sine die PM.
Cocks in frocks might just work simply because no party has an answer to the impending economic tsunami. What is Labour’s solution? Nationalise everything? That worked well in Venezuela
Question is whether Labour can come up with a plausible list of lies that might persuade people they have some brilliant answer (when they don’t, because there isn’t one)
I don’t know if Starmer has it in him to be that mendacious. Johnson does
And if the economic argument is a stalemate because no one has a clue what to do, then the Tories might win because the war on Woke does have traction
I would suggest the incumbent takes the hit for economic chaos (although that might have calmed down by election day in January 2025) irrespective of what the opposition has to offer (unless what they offer is Corbynista madness).
I don't doubt your assertion that Johnson's war on woke could gain pre-election traction, nonetheless it seems an absurd construct to me. It would appear from anecdota that women are fearful of being attacked in public conveniences by an aforementioned "c**k in a frock", yet I suspect more women have been assaulted by serving police officers than they have by transgender males over the last twelve months.
It may be a hill Starmer and the Labour Party are content to die on. It makes no odds to me. I'd just like to see the back of this dreadful Prime Minister.
This definitely isn't correct for all rural counties. The Tories would be much further ahead. Maybe it's just for those areas voting in the local elections in May, when most shire counties aren't going to the polls.
I've recently been watching 'Elementary' on Prime; CBS's take on Sherlock Holmes, with Jonny Lee Miller as Sherlock and Lucy Liu as Watson.
When I compare it with the BBC's awful 'Sherlock', it shows where the BBC often goes wrong. Elementary takes the Sherlock Holmes idea and thoroughly modernises it. They made 154 episodes over nine years, allowing meaningful plot and character development.
The BBC's Sherlock is all about the *star*. The plotlines are ludicrous, and they made just 13 episodes in seven years, allowing little plot or character development.
Also: Jonny Lee Miller is a much better actor than Benedict Cumberbatch.
I’m not saying you’re wrong, in fact you’re right - but Sherlock was a big hit around the world.
Elementary, not so much?
Perhaps not, but ran for 7 years and it is better, not just that theres more of it. The first season in particular - did a far better job showing how a Holnes/Watson dynamic could realistically develop when one is such an arse.
That's a really good point. From memory, in the books, Watson is very much his own man. A successful and respected doctor in his own right, who at times shares a flat with the protagonist, and at others is married (ooer missus!). In Sherlock, he is a broken man, and it is unclear why he hangs around Sherlock. I mean, why, given Cumberbatch's Holmes has no redeeming features?
In Elementary, the characterisations make it much clearer: initially watson is paid to put up with him, and does so through a feeling of guilt for her own mistake. Later, Holmes tries to make up for his character defects, and becomes a much more interesting character (note: I am only on season 2).
Nothing beats Jeremy Brett's portrayal for me. I've never got into Sherlock though I can see it's merits.
We do not often agree, but on this I fully agree.
However, I can recommend at least the first two seasons of 'Elementary'. A thoroughly modern Sherlock, without (mostly) the horse dung.
Jeremy Brett as Holmes was excellent but the latter stories and the 3 long episodes that comes after Baskervilles and Sign of Four were awful. Partly due to Brett’s poor health, Holmes was replace by his brother in one story.
Holmes ended on a whimper unlike Poirot.
I can't entirely agree. Even in the later episodes like the dying detective Brett has amazing scenes.
Yes, the stories do have some good moments but for me it feels like it has run out of steam. The stories just lack the energy and interest of the first stories in the run.
Have you seen any of the Douglas Wilmer or Peter Cushing ones.
No. I can imagine Peter Cushing being excellent.
He was, only 6 complete episodes exist. Douglas Wilmer is very good as well.
It's striking how much support Boris Johnson is getting for his comments on trans issues from people who are not his natural supporters. This one is typical:
@annettepacey Oh god oh no someone I loathe just made a really good point. Still could never bring myself to vote for the bastard but this is what happens when Labour turn their backs on women and leave an open goal #labourlosingwomen
No, I've been told by PB experts that saying women have cocks won't hurt Labour.
Boris's comments are quite good and thoughtful.
The Trans Activist usual approach is to ram through their preferred measures before anyone gets any time to reflect properly upon the issue, and this is more considered.
Here is what BJ said. This is I think the full video of 1:39. Sky also seem to be putting out a truncated one at 1:04 length.
I haven't got my head around the latest kerfuffle.
Does, for example, the (Aiui) long-held Trans-Activist demand to be allowed to medicate without supervision children who are deemed by their parents to be trans count as Conversion Therapy? If so, the various organisations are demanding that this be banned.
ISTM very important that required time is taken.
This is an even longer version than the one I linked.
I just saw the Guardian News version, and the YT comments are an endless procession of people who clearly dislike Johnson in general, but are in agreement on this issue. It's actually hard to find anyone who disagrees with him. Labour are mincemeat unless they ditch Stonewall completely on this.
If "c**ks in frocks" gets the traction and votes Johnson hopes it will in the face of economic Armageddon, we deserve no less than Johnson as sine die PM.
Cocks in frocks might just work simply because no party has an answer to the impending economic tsunami. What is Labour’s solution? Nationalise everything? That worked well in Venezuela
Question is whether Labour can come up with a plausible list of lies that might persuade people they have some brilliant answer (when they don’t, because there isn’t one)
I don’t know if Starmer has it in him to be that mendacious. Johnson does
And if the economic argument is a stalemate because no one has a clue what to do, then the Tories might win because the war on Woke does have traction
On the first point, I think you might be fighting the last war. Labour under Starmer don't seem that keen to nationalise everything. He even said he wouldn't nationalise rail, which is generally popular.
Were I to put on my clown make-up and wig of naivety I would even suggest that Starmer might not even need to lie. The current Government appear to be using the motto 'To Seem, not to be', though they're not doing that well on the seeming. With an optimistic bent, most of our problems aren't even unprecedented, and so surely there's a way through beyond telling the best lies. C'mon Leon, where's the optimism and bombast?
None of this, Gary (Oldman) and Kristin (Scott Thomas), could you possibly give us a date when you fancy making some more of these, I know you might be busy, could you possibly fit us in perhaps 2024....
That takes money and the BBC is limited by the licence fee. There's not much else to it.
My point is BBC still trying to do things the old way, 6 episode season, a mate of a mate who is a big name will do you a favour and star in it for cheap, then you get stupid situations where you have Tom Hardy make a season of Taboo, that does pretty well, and then it is 5 years before he can fit you in again for season 2.
They have to decide, either not to go down that route in the first place and not use the star talent or modernise. When the big players decide to go with these projects they are going to ensure they get their 5 seasons in 5 years.
The BBC are setting light to money starting an IP and then leaving it years.
Most series are drastically overlong and are flogged to within an inch of their lives. The Beeb’s six episode format - to use an absolutely horrible PB cliche - is a feature not a bug.
Its not just the 6 episode format, it is the ridiculous gap between seasons.
Can you imagine if you had the most shit hot new widget and then said yeah well we only made a few, come back in 5 years.....while acme industries down the street is also making shit hot new widgets, but they ensure they continually have new ones.
The massive bucks are available if can get a show syndicated worldwide. In order to do that normally need to have a significant back catalogue. They did that with Top Gear and made a load of money. The problem is drama is now gone that way too.
Most series are better off with sticking to just one season. There are exceptions, but in general the greats of TV just decline after season one.
Dad's Army didn't really hit its stride until about season 4. Similarly all the Star Trek series start to get really good from about season 3.5 onwards. (Well, apart from Enterprise.)
The Simpsons, too, didn't really get going until series 4.
Parks and Rec, one of my all time favourite comedies. Rather mediocre series 1, but sort of watchable. Then soared away in season 2 and on it went
And Blackadder! Does anyone ever re-watch season 1?? Then they got Ben Elton in and it turned into something brilliant
Oh, yes, Blackwater 1 was utter dross. I would never claim Men Behaving Badly to be a classic, but it was well regarded at the time. But did you ever see series 1 with Harry Enfield instead if Neil Morrissey? Utter tosh.
I have very fond memories of Men Behaving Badly (I never even watched series 1 coz everyone said it was awful)
I’m guessing it has dated rather badly, but then that’s true of 99.7% of comedies.
Why does comedy go so very stale so very quickly?
Because a lot of it plays on an exaggerated version of real life, but life changes and so those references become out dated
This definitely isn't correct for all rural counties. The Tories would be much further ahead. Maybe it's just for those areas voting in the local elections in May, when most shire counties aren't going to the polls.
Thought this was the Tory poll lead!
Labour is not just piling up votes in London. The coalition is efficient and spread.
None of this, Gary (Oldman) and Kristin (Scott Thomas), could you possibly give us a date when you fancy making some more of these, I know you might be busy, could you possibly fit us in perhaps 2024....
That takes money and the BBC is limited by the licence fee. There's not much else to it.
My point is BBC still trying to do things the old way, 6 episode season, a mate of a mate who is a big name will do you a favour and star in it for cheap, then you get stupid situations where you have Tom Hardy make a season of Taboo, that does pretty well, and then it is 5 years before he can fit you in again for season 2.
They have to decide, either not to go down that route in the first place and not use the star talent or modernise. When the big players decide to go with these projects they are going to ensure they get their 5 seasons in 5 years.
The BBC are setting light to money starting an IP and then leaving it years.
Most series are drastically overlong and are flogged to within an inch of their lives. The Beeb’s six episode format - to use an absolutely horrible PB cliche - is a feature not a bug.
Its not just the 6 episode format, it is the ridiculous gap between seasons.
Can you imagine if you had the most shit hot new widget and then said yeah well we only made a few, come back in 5 years.....while acme industries down the street is also making shit hot new widgets, but they ensure they continually have new ones.
The massive bucks are available if can get a show syndicated worldwide. In order to do that normally need to have a significant back catalogue. They did that with Top Gear and made a load of money. The problem is drama is now gone that way too.
Most series are better off with sticking to just one season. There are exceptions, but in general the greats of TV just decline after season one.
Dad's Army didn't really hit its stride until about season 4. Similarly all the Star Trek series start to get really good from about season 3.5 onwards. (Well, apart from Enterprise.)
The Simpsons, too, didn't really get going until series 4.
Parks and Rec, one of my all time favourite comedies. Rather mediocre series 1, but sort of watchable. Then soared away in season 2 and on it went
And Blackadder! Does anyone ever re-watch season 1?? Then they got Ben Elton in and it turned into something brilliant
Oh, yes, Blackwater 1 was utter dross. I would never claim Men Behaving Badly to be a classic, but it was well regarded at the time. But did you ever see series 1 with Harry Enfield instead if Neil Morrissey? Utter tosh.
I have very fond memories of Men Behaving Badly (I never even watched series 1 coz everyone said it was awful)
I’m guessing it has dated rather badly, but then that’s true of 99.7% of comedies.
Why does comedy go so very stale so very quickly?
Because a lot of it plays on an exaggerated version of real life, but life changes and so those references become out dated
I think the best stuff holds up. Faulty Towers. One foot in the grave. Father Ted, the IT crowd.
None of this, Gary (Oldman) and Kristin (Scott Thomas), could you possibly give us a date when you fancy making some more of these, I know you might be busy, could you possibly fit us in perhaps 2024....
That takes money and the BBC is limited by the licence fee. There's not much else to it.
My point is BBC still trying to do things the old way, 6 episode season, a mate of a mate who is a big name will do you a favour and star in it for cheap, then you get stupid situations where you have Tom Hardy make a season of Taboo, that does pretty well, and then it is 5 years before he can fit you in again for season 2.
They have to decide, either not to go down that route in the first place and not use the star talent or modernise. When the big players decide to go with these projects they are going to ensure they get their 5 seasons in 5 years.
The BBC are setting light to money starting an IP and then leaving it years.
Most series are drastically overlong and are flogged to within an inch of their lives. The Beeb’s six episode format - to use an absolutely horrible PB cliche - is a feature not a bug.
I disagree. Sometimes a mini series is all you need - Chernobyl is a great example, one of the best tv shows I've seen in years. And even a 10-13 episode show might have plenty of padding (though is my preferred length).
But that's a question of good or bad writing. If you could guarantee the BBC traditional 6 episode or whatever format resulted in a higher amount of quality per episode, you might have an argument, but that's not the case - plenty of 6 episode shows are still very bad, and they are short and often sporadic on top of that.
Sure, plenty of long format shows are no good either, but many are good, and there are benefits to being able to develop arcs over a multi year period, or just develop the characters more thoroughly over that number of episodes and time. Going on too long is an unfortunate potential risk, to be sure, but personally I'd say was worth it for the greater number and depth of content earlier on.
I think the cheerleading for short format stuff is a crutch, frankly. There's no reason longer stuff cannot be good, and plenty of short stuff which is bad, so it's not a feature at all.
The idea that six episodes is short format is preposterous. That’s six hours of TV drama.
The Godfather - rightly considered an absolute epic - was told in nine hours or so.
Yes. Some people on here probably think Orwell messed up by not writing Animal Farm 2.
They are different forms of media.
A film is designed to tell a story well in 90-120 minutes. A series has longer, allowing it to develop in a very different manner. A book can be a stand-alone drama, or a series.
The form of the media allows the story-telling to take on very different natures.
Thanks for explaining that to me, although I think I already knew it.
My serious point is that the length of any piece of media, be it film, TV or writing (of any sort) is, to me, secondary to its quality. Some long series are good; others are poor; and vice versa etc. War and Peace and Animal Farm are both pretty good, for example. With Fawlty Towers, the joke would have worn thin with more episodes I think.
Sorry, I did not mean to sound condescending. It's just that the form of media does matter. For instance, would the Godfather films have been as good as a long-form series, with the plots and characters developed over five times the length? (*) Are he Reduced Shakespeare Company's output as good as the original, or are they good for a different market?
(For Fawlty Towers, didn't Cleese deliberately limit the number of episodes?_
(*) I have never seen a Godfather films.
No problem at all. All I can say in response is wow! Never seen the Godfather films? That's up there with me never having seen Star Wars, only much worse.
Saw the first Star Wars movie. Was bored by it. Great cast. Give me season 1 of Space 1999 any day.
The first 2 godfather films are magnificent. Peerless. Two of the best films I’ve ever seen.
This definitely isn't correct for all rural counties. The Tories would be much further ahead. Maybe it's just for those areas voting in the local elections in May, when most shire counties aren't going to the polls.
It said it's just Cornwall, Cumbria, Norfolk North Yorkshire and Gwynedd apparently. I'm not sure if North Yorkshire includes York or not.
I think the new Cumberland authority should be interesting this year (Copeland, Carlisle and Allerdale) as in theory Labour should be able to win it in a good year.
None of this, Gary (Oldman) and Kristin (Scott Thomas), could you possibly give us a date when you fancy making some more of these, I know you might be busy, could you possibly fit us in perhaps 2024....
That takes money and the BBC is limited by the licence fee. There's not much else to it.
My point is BBC still trying to do things the old way, 6 episode season, a mate of a mate who is a big name will do you a favour and star in it for cheap, then you get stupid situations where you have Tom Hardy make a season of Taboo, that does pretty well, and then it is 5 years before he can fit you in again for season 2.
They have to decide, either not to go down that route in the first place and not use the star talent or modernise. When the big players decide to go with these projects they are going to ensure they get their 5 seasons in 5 years.
The BBC are setting light to money starting an IP and then leaving it years.
Most series are drastically overlong and are flogged to within an inch of their lives. The Beeb’s six episode format - to use an absolutely horrible PB cliche - is a feature not a bug.
Its not just the 6 episode format, it is the ridiculous gap between seasons.
Can you imagine if you had the most shit hot new widget and then said yeah well we only made a few, come back in 5 years.....while acme industries down the street is also making shit hot new widgets, but they ensure they continually have new ones.
The massive bucks are available if can get a show syndicated worldwide. In order to do that normally need to have a significant back catalogue. They did that with Top Gear and made a load of money. The problem is drama is now gone that way too.
Most series are better off with sticking to just one season. There are exceptions, but in general the greats of TV just decline after season one.
Dad's Army didn't really hit its stride until about season 4. Similarly all the Star Trek series start to get really good from about season 3.5 onwards. (Well, apart from Enterprise.)
The Simpsons, too, didn't really get going until series 4.
Parks and Rec, one of my all time favourite comedies. Rather mediocre series 1, but sort of watchable. Then soared away in season 2 and on it went
And Blackadder! Does anyone ever re-watch season 1?? Then they got Ben Elton in and it turned into something brilliant
I worked through the entire Big Bang Theory on Netflix during lockdown (150 or so 20-minute episodes) - perfect for lunchbreaks worknig from home. IMO it got better and better till midway, and then gently changed direction, becoming gradually more romantic and less silly. I liked it in its later incarnation too, and it managed to produce a plot conclusion after years of going nowhere in particular. Friends who are more serious nerds than I am felt it went downhill once the characters all acquired girlfriends.
I tried Big Bang Theory (I had a girlfriend that loved it and wanted to share) so I tried, but the first few were so bad and laboured and unfunny - to me - I abandoned it. Perhaps I should have persisted
I have the opposite sensation when I try and persuade people to watch Spartacus. Yes the first FIVE OR SIX episodes are cartoonish displays of nudity and violence, with flashes of wit, and pretty vulgar and crude, but then it just gets better and better and better and ends up as one of the greatest TV dramas ever made
But few of my acquaintances are willing to give a series SIX episodes of mediocrity to get to the good stuff. Shame
I'm worried that there are enough French people who haven't benefited from globalisation and are willing to gamble on Le Pen. We had it here with Brexit, which was ultimately just leaving a trade/political union, France electing Le Pen would be a real "hold my beer" moment from the French.
The haughtiness of Macron is also an issue, rather than accept globalisation has a lot of losers he's one of those global elites who likes to pretend that trade isn't essentially a zero sum game which puts up huge skill barriers for well paid jobs.
I'm hopeful that we won't end up with Le Pen, but I think contingency planning is necessary. I'm also worried that once she gets power removing her will be as difficult as removing Orban.
I’m not saying anything new on this but I agree with your points why Le Pen may win. I suspect that people have focused a bit too much on the “many people will never vote for Le Pen” and too little on the “many people now will never vote for Macron” I think we underestimate on this site how a certain percentage of the population actively loathes him.
I disagree Le Pen will be like Orban. France’s institutions are strong and, while the Presidency has many powers, it’s not omnipotent. Plus I’m not convinced Le Pen is an autocrat in the mode of Orban, Putin et al.
I think this is this is Cumbria, Cornwall, North Yorkshire, Gwynedd and Norfolk.
In 1997 every Cornish seat bar 1 was LD, the other was Labour. The LDs won Harrogate and Knaresborough, Labour won Norfolk NW (to which the LDs added Norfolk N in 2001 and held it until 2019) and the LDs also hold Westmoreland and Lonsdale and 2/3 of Gwynedd seats are PC. So not completely impossible.
Though note the Tories still lead in those rural sample seats while they trail by 7% nationally with Survation
None of this, Gary (Oldman) and Kristin (Scott Thomas), could you possibly give us a date when you fancy making some more of these, I know you might be busy, could you possibly fit us in perhaps 2024....
That takes money and the BBC is limited by the licence fee. There's not much else to it.
My point is BBC still trying to do things the old way, 6 episode season, a mate of a mate who is a big name will do you a favour and star in it for cheap, then you get stupid situations where you have Tom Hardy make a season of Taboo, that does pretty well, and then it is 5 years before he can fit you in again for season 2.
They have to decide, either not to go down that route in the first place and not use the star talent or modernise. When the big players decide to go with these projects they are going to ensure they get their 5 seasons in 5 years.
The BBC are setting light to money starting an IP and then leaving it years.
Most series are drastically overlong and are flogged to within an inch of their lives. The Beeb’s six episode format - to use an absolutely horrible PB cliche - is a feature not a bug.
I disagree. Sometimes a mini series is all you need - Chernobyl is a great example, one of the best tv shows I've seen in years. And even a 10-13 episode show might have plenty of padding (though is my preferred length).
But that's a question of good or bad writing. If you could guarantee the BBC traditional 6 episode or whatever format resulted in a higher amount of quality per episode, you might have an argument, but that's not the case - plenty of 6 episode shows are still very bad, and they are short and often sporadic on top of that.
Sure, plenty of long format shows are no good either, but many are good, and there are benefits to being able to develop arcs over a multi year period, or just develop the characters more thoroughly over that number of episodes and time. Going on too long is an unfortunate potential risk, to be sure, but personally I'd say was worth it for the greater number and depth of content earlier on.
I think the cheerleading for short format stuff is a crutch, frankly. There's no reason longer stuff cannot be good, and plenty of short stuff which is bad, so it's not a feature at all.
The idea that six episodes is short format is preposterous. That’s six hours of TV drama.
The Godfather - rightly considered an absolute epic - was told in nine hours or so.
Yes. Some people on here probably think Orwell messed up by not writing Animal Farm 2.
They are different forms of media.
A film is designed to tell a story well in 90-120 minutes. A series has longer, allowing it to develop in a very different manner. A book can be a stand-alone drama, or a series.
The form of the media allows the story-telling to take on very different natures.
Thanks for explaining that to me, although I think I already knew it.
My serious point is that the length of any piece of media, be it film, TV or writing (of any sort) is, to me, secondary to its quality. Some long series are good; others are poor; and vice versa etc. War and Peace and Animal Farm are both pretty good, for example. With Fawlty Towers, the joke would have worn thin with more episodes I think.
Sorry, I did not mean to sound condescending. It's just that the form of media does matter. For instance, would the Godfather films have been as good as a long-form series, with the plots and characters developed over five times the length? (*) Are he Reduced Shakespeare Company's output as good as the original, or are they good for a different market?
(For Fawlty Towers, didn't Cleese deliberately limit the number of episodes?_
(*) I have never seen a Godfather films.
No problem at all. All I can say in response is wow! Never seen the Godfather films? That's up there with me never having seen Star Wars, only much worse.
I've seen GF clips, and it doesn't appeal. If I want to spend time with scum, I'd go to Hartlepool.
This is probably very unfair. I'm not interested in Breaking Bad for a similar reason.
I also dislike courtroom dramas, either as TV series or films.
It's striking how much support Boris Johnson is getting for his comments on trans issues from people who are not his natural supporters. This one is typical:
@annettepacey Oh god oh no someone I loathe just made a really good point. Still could never bring myself to vote for the bastard but this is what happens when Labour turn their backs on women and leave an open goal #labourlosingwomen
No, I've been told by PB experts that saying women have cocks won't hurt Labour.
Boris's comments are quite good and thoughtful.
The Trans Activist usual approach is to ram through their preferred measures before anyone gets any time to reflect properly upon the issue, and this is more considered.
Here is what BJ said. This is I think the full video of 1:39. Sky also seem to be putting out a truncated one at 1:04 length.
I haven't got my head around the latest kerfuffle.
Does, for example, the (Aiui) long-held Trans-Activist demand to be allowed to medicate without supervision children who are deemed by their parents to be trans count as Conversion Therapy? If so, the various organisations are demanding that this be banned.
ISTM very important that required time is taken.
This is an even longer version than the one I linked.
I just saw the Guardian News version, and the YT comments are an endless procession of people who clearly dislike Johnson in general, but are in agreement on this issue. It's actually hard to find anyone who disagrees with him. Labour are mincemeat unless they ditch Stonewall completely on this.
If "c**ks in frocks" gets the traction and votes Johnson hopes it will in the face of economic Armageddon, we deserve no less than Johnson as sine die PM.
Cocks in frocks might just work simply because no party has an answer to the impending economic tsunami. What is Labour’s solution? Nationalise everything? That worked well in Venezuela
Question is whether Labour can come up with a plausible list of lies that might persuade people they have some brilliant answer (when they don’t, because there isn’t one)
I don’t know if Starmer has it in him to be that mendacious. Johnson does
And if the economic argument is a stalemate because no one has a clue what to do, then the Tories might win because the war on Woke does have traction
On the first point, I think you might be fighting the last war. Labour under Starmer don't seem that keen to nationalise everything. He even said he wouldn't nationalise rail, which is generally popular.
Were I to put on my clown make-up and wig of naivety I would even suggest that Starmer might not even need to lie. The current Government appear to be using the motto 'To Seem, not to be', though they're not doing that well on the seeming. With an optimistic bent, most of our problems aren't even unprecedented, and so surely there's a way through beyond telling the best lies. C'mon Leon, where's the optimism and bombast?
I've recently been watching 'Elementary' on Prime; CBS's take on Sherlock Holmes, with Jonny Lee Miller as Sherlock and Lucy Liu as Watson.
When I compare it with the BBC's awful 'Sherlock', it shows where the BBC often goes wrong. Elementary takes the Sherlock Holmes idea and thoroughly modernises it. They made 154 episodes over nine years, allowing meaningful plot and character development.
The BBC's Sherlock is all about the *star*. The plotlines are ludicrous, and they made just 13 episodes in seven years, allowing little plot or character development.
Also: Jonny Lee Miller is a much better actor than Benedict Cumberbatch.
I’m not saying you’re wrong, in fact you’re right - but Sherlock was a big hit around the world.
Elementary, not so much?
Perhaps not, but ran for 7 years and it is better, not just that theres more of it. The first season in particular - did a far better job showing how a Holnes/Watson dynamic could realistically develop when one is such an arse.
That's a really good point. From memory, in the books, Watson is very much his own man. A successful and respected doctor in his own right, who at times shares a flat with the protagonist, and at others is married (ooer missus!). In Sherlock, he is a broken man, and it is unclear why he hangs around Sherlock. I mean, why, given Cumberbatch's Holmes has no redeeming features?
In Elementary, the characterisations make it much clearer: initially watson is paid to put up with him, and does so through a feeling of guilt for her own mistake. Later, Holmes tries to make up for his character defects, and becomes a much more interesting character (note: I am only on season 2).
Nothing beats Jeremy Brett's portrayal for me. I've never got into Sherlock though I can see it's merits.
I’ll be honest, Jeremy Brett for a classic feel, and set in the original era (hat tip to Tom Baker as the Doctor as Sherlock Holmes in the Talons of Weng Chiang, present concerns about horrific racist portrayal and yellow face excepted), Sherlock is fun, but could never be a series machine in the American way, whereas Elementary has room to breath and allows you to get to love the cast. All have their place.
Talons of Weng Chiang is essentially a mix of Baker playing a Sherlock Holmes character and John Bennett playing Fu Manchu.
You also have Louise Jameson as Eliza Doolittle.
I’d dispute the show is horrifically racist it has racial stereotypes based on the Fu Manchu stories, that period was full of rip offs/tributes to classic novels and sci fi. It’s an homage. Horrifically is a dramatic overstatement. It’s a subject fandom still debates to this day.
We may as well ban the Celestial Toymaker too.
Tom also played Holmes in Hound of the Baskervilles, pretty well, his first job on leaving Dr Who. Caroline John was also in it.
Now I don’t have an issue with the episode, but I no a lot of fans, probably younger than me, do. The racism portrayed was of its Victorian setting. The choice of a white British actor to portray Lee Sen Chang (forgive the spelling) is probably the biggest sin, although nowadays it seems we have colour blind casting.
At least you resisted the temptation to say the biggest Mr Sin 😂
It is mainly younger fans who object. I was best man at my mates wedding in the US and spent a good chunk of the afternoon debating whether it was racist or not with someone there. Had they had someone like Burt Kwouk in the role rather than John Bennett the Fu Manchu bit would not have worked.
John Bennett’s character even says to the racist policeman at one stage ‘I believe we all look the same’. It’s Li H’sen Chang, BTW 👍
That’s the puppy. Been a long day. And I did indeed think of mr sin... It’s probably one of my all time faves, along with other Baker stories such as tha ark in space, pyramids of mars and the robots of death. Glorious. One wonders how they would look with today’s money and effects.
Oh God, I love all of those stories. Robots of Death is Agatha Christie in space. It’s magnificent
Nothing, Tom Baker wise, beats City of Death for me. Or Destiny of the Daleks. My mate and I have been to the quarry it was filmed at more than once.
But those stories you mention are just everything that is perfect about Dr Who. Episode one lf Ark In Space just feels like such a break with the Pertwee years. It’s genius.
"Leonard: I grew up in a house full of crazy academics. Instead of leaving Santa milk and cookies, we had to leave him a research paper. And in the morning, you could tell he’d been there because the paper would be graded.
Sheldon: No wonder you love Christmas. That sounds amazing.
Leonard: It wasn’t amazing. I got a C-minus four years in a row.
Sheldon: Yeah, I’m familiar with your work. C-minus was your gift.
Scene: The bar.
Raj: Amy, I’m really sorry. I didn’t mean to upset you.
Amy: It’s fine. I’m used to being the girl who never gets looked at twice. I didn’t have my first kiss till I was 22, and the guy only did it so I’d give him back his insulin.
Bernadette: Sometimes the pancreas wants what the pancreas wants.
Amy: Forget it. I don’t expect you guys to understand.
Raj: I understand. In seventh grade, I played Spin the Bottle and it landed on Alina Shankar. She said if I came near her, she would break the bottle and cut me.
Amy: You think that’s bad? In college, I passed out at a frat party and woke up with more clothes on."
And now for something different. I hope people won’t mind if I post a link to a podcast some of our students have created based on my research. It’s free from Spotify. Gives a bit of insight into what I do when I get the chance to research cool stuff. https://open.spotify.com/show/2C36cnqCZb70hHwMY4I1to?si=214c0e66b9b84566
There’s also a feedback form to help them with their project.
I slightly adjusted my comment. But a) I am a bit dubious of that methodology e.g. 6hrs on average for oldies seem nonsense and b) the trend if your friend.....the trend is going one way, away from linear tv and fast.
The question isn't what is the state of play now, its whats the state of play in 5 years. 5G is coming, that means streaming anywhere that has it will become trivial. In the car, on the train, out in the countryside, and will be available in 4k / HDR.
Yes, I think you're right for specific programmes in the long run. However, live-streamed linear TV may have a future too. Radio is perhaps a guide to where that's heading. I know lots of people who have a radio station that they quite like (from Radio 4 to Smooth to Classic FM) on all day every day, so will count as "16 hours a day", but they only really listen intermittently. You can't do that with Netflix, which is based on the model of sitting down to watch something specific.
Do most people care about 4k/HDR? If your favourite programme is Corrie or Emmerdale, still dominating the charts, do you mind if it's not 4k?
With 5G, people will be absolutely able to continue to watch content on the go with ease.
And we are talking about the immediate future. 43" 4k / HDR tellies are now £250, they are absolutely bottom end standard tv. Do you get the full benefit below 50", no, but cycle it will be 50" 4k tellies will be the next "standard" size. So increasingly yes, 4k is where will be at.
And that is why Netflix, Sky, Amazon (and YouTube creators) have moved to this. They have adapted to the future already.
You seem to know an awful lot about this stuff. I’m thinking of buying a new tv. What should I go for, ie spec?
I really only watch tv for films, so picture quality (very black blacks etc) is v important.
I’m alarmed at the idea of 50”. I hate it when a screen dominates a room.
How long is a piece of string....depends on your budget. But for "very black blacks", it has to be QLED or OLED (well there are new technologies if you have crazy money). But I don't think you will find a QLED or OLED less than 50".
Like so many industries, tellies are a globalised near duopoly in terms of who makes them *. Basically LG or Samsung make every high end panel (regardless of brand), so they dedicate the sizings.
* Yes there are cheap Chinese manufacturers of LCD panels these days, because LG and Samsung don't care about LCD anymore.
QLED is just an LCD with an LED backlit and very localised LEDs. That's available in smaller sizes - we have a 32 inch one.
None of this, Gary (Oldman) and Kristin (Scott Thomas), could you possibly give us a date when you fancy making some more of these, I know you might be busy, could you possibly fit us in perhaps 2024....
That takes money and the BBC is limited by the licence fee. There's not much else to it.
My point is BBC still trying to do things the old way, 6 episode season, a mate of a mate who is a big name will do you a favour and star in it for cheap, then you get stupid situations where you have Tom Hardy make a season of Taboo, that does pretty well, and then it is 5 years before he can fit you in again for season 2.
They have to decide, either not to go down that route in the first place and not use the star talent or modernise. When the big players decide to go with these projects they are going to ensure they get their 5 seasons in 5 years.
The BBC are setting light to money starting an IP and then leaving it years.
Most series are drastically overlong and are flogged to within an inch of their lives. The Beeb’s six episode format - to use an absolutely horrible PB cliche - is a feature not a bug.
I disagree. Sometimes a mini series is all you need - Chernobyl is a great example, one of the best tv shows I've seen in years. And even a 10-13 episode show might have plenty of padding (though is my preferred length).
But that's a question of good or bad writing. If you could guarantee the BBC traditional 6 episode or whatever format resulted in a higher amount of quality per episode, you might have an argument, but that's not the case - plenty of 6 episode shows are still very bad, and they are short and often sporadic on top of that.
Sure, plenty of long format shows are no good either, but many are good, and there are benefits to being able to develop arcs over a multi year period, or just develop the characters more thoroughly over that number of episodes and time. Going on too long is an unfortunate potential risk, to be sure, but personally I'd say was worth it for the greater number and depth of content earlier on.
I think the cheerleading for short format stuff is a crutch, frankly. There's no reason longer stuff cannot be good, and plenty of short stuff which is bad, so it's not a feature at all.
The idea that six episodes is short format is preposterous. That’s six hours of TV drama.
The Godfather - rightly considered an absolute epic - was told in nine hours or so.
Yes. Some people on here probably think Orwell messed up by not writing Animal Farm 2.
They are different forms of media.
A film is designed to tell a story well in 90-120 minutes. A series has longer, allowing it to develop in a very different manner. A book can be a stand-alone drama, or a series.
The form of the media allows the story-telling to take on very different natures.
Thanks for explaining that to me, although I think I already knew it.
My serious point is that the length of any piece of media, be it film, TV or writing (of any sort) is, to me, secondary to its quality. Some long series are good; others are poor; and vice versa etc. War and Peace and Animal Farm are both pretty good, for example. With Fawlty Towers, the joke would have worn thin with more episodes I think.
Sorry, I did not mean to sound condescending. It's just that the form of media does matter. For instance, would the Godfather films have been as good as a long-form series, with the plots and characters developed over five times the length? (*) Are he Reduced Shakespeare Company's output as good as the original, or are they good for a different market?
(For Fawlty Towers, didn't Cleese deliberately limit the number of episodes?_
(*) I have never seen a Godfather films.
No problem at all. All I can say in response is wow! Never seen the Godfather films? That's up there with me never having seen Star Wars, only much worse.
I've seen GF clips, and it doesn't appeal. If I want to spend time with scum, I'd go to Hartlepool.
This is probably very unfair. I'm not interested in Breaking Bad for a similar reason.
I also dislike courtroom dramas, either as TV series or films.
It’s incredibly unfair. Hartlepool wasn’t even Brexit central. Places like Boston in lincs were. Hartlepool has some run down areas in the centre but no different to many other large towns or cities and it also has some really nice areas. Hart, Percy Main. Along the A688(iirc) from the A19 to the A1 there are large ‘executive’ style houses going up. They are not cheap. Especially for the north east
As for courtroom drama, got to disagree. I love the old Crown Court shows. Got most of them thanks to Network or legal.tv
The last episode wasn’t shown. It had an unfortunate title.
None of this, Gary (Oldman) and Kristin (Scott Thomas), could you possibly give us a date when you fancy making some more of these, I know you might be busy, could you possibly fit us in perhaps 2024....
That takes money and the BBC is limited by the licence fee. There's not much else to it.
My point is BBC still trying to do things the old way, 6 episode season, a mate of a mate who is a big name will do you a favour and star in it for cheap, then you get stupid situations where you have Tom Hardy make a season of Taboo, that does pretty well, and then it is 5 years before he can fit you in again for season 2.
They have to decide, either not to go down that route in the first place and not use the star talent or modernise. When the big players decide to go with these projects they are going to ensure they get their 5 seasons in 5 years.
The BBC are setting light to money starting an IP and then leaving it years.
Most series are drastically overlong and are flogged to within an inch of their lives. The Beeb’s six episode format - to use an absolutely horrible PB cliche - is a feature not a bug.
I disagree. Sometimes a mini series is all you need - Chernobyl is a great example, one of the best tv shows I've seen in years. And even a 10-13 episode show might have plenty of padding (though is my preferred length).
But that's a question of good or bad writing. If you could guarantee the BBC traditional 6 episode or whatever format resulted in a higher amount of quality per episode, you might have an argument, but that's not the case - plenty of 6 episode shows are still very bad, and they are short and often sporadic on top of that.
Sure, plenty of long format shows are no good either, but many are good, and there are benefits to being able to develop arcs over a multi year period, or just develop the characters more thoroughly over that number of episodes and time. Going on too long is an unfortunate potential risk, to be sure, but personally I'd say was worth it for the greater number and depth of content earlier on.
I think the cheerleading for short format stuff is a crutch, frankly. There's no reason longer stuff cannot be good, and plenty of short stuff which is bad, so it's not a feature at all.
The idea that six episodes is short format is preposterous. That’s six hours of TV drama.
The Godfather - rightly considered an absolute epic - was told in nine hours or so.
Yes. Some people on here probably think Orwell messed up by not writing Animal Farm 2.
They are different forms of media.
A film is designed to tell a story well in 90-120 minutes. A series has longer, allowing it to develop in a very different manner. A book can be a stand-alone drama, or a series.
The form of the media allows the story-telling to take on very different natures.
Thanks for explaining that to me, although I think I already knew it.
My serious point is that the length of any piece of media, be it film, TV or writing (of any sort) is, to me, secondary to its quality. Some long series are good; others are poor; and vice versa etc. War and Peace and Animal Farm are both pretty good, for example. With Fawlty Towers, the joke would have worn thin with more episodes I think.
Sorry, I did not mean to sound condescending. It's just that the form of media does matter. For instance, would the Godfather films have been as good as a long-form series, with the plots and characters developed over five times the length? (*) Are he Reduced Shakespeare Company's output as good as the original, or are they good for a different market?
(For Fawlty Towers, didn't Cleese deliberately limit the number of episodes?_
(*) I have never seen a Godfather films.
No problem at all. All I can say in response is wow! Never seen the Godfather films? That's up there with me never having seen Star Wars, only much worse.
I've seen GF clips, and it doesn't appeal. If I want to spend time with scum, I'd go to Hartlepool.
This is probably very unfair. I'm not interested in Breaking Bad for a similar reason.
I also dislike courtroom dramas, either as TV series or films.
I have a weird dislike of old timey gangster settings, prohibition era and the like. Can't really explain it, as I like things like the Sopranos and the Godfather just fine (though I have the unpopular opinion that Marlon Brando's performance in the first one is terrible and embarrassing - I truly cannot see why people think it is a good performance in the slightest).
And now for something different. I hope people won’t mind if I post a link to a podcast some of our students have created based on my research. It’s free from Spotify. Gives a bit of insight into what I do when I get the chance to research cool stuff. https://open.spotify.com/show/2C36cnqCZb70hHwMY4I1to?si=214c0e66b9b84566
There’s also a feedback form to help them with their project.
The first nominations out in London - needless to say, Newham a little way off the pace.
Not much polling news to report - I was reminded by @DoubleCarpet in 1981 Mitterrand won having been 2.5 points behind incumbent President Valery Giscard d'Estaing in the first ballot before winning by 3.5 points in the second round.
Giscard d'Estaing's vote went up by 6.2 million from rounds one to two but Mitterrand's rose 10 million.
The irony was in 1974 Mitterrand had led the first round by 10 points and lost the run off 50.8 to 49.2.
I still think Le Pen has to be within a couple of points of Macron to win in the second round and the strong showing by Melenchon (still down on his 2017 numbers) still suggests to me irrespective of some of the commentary Macron will pick up a strong anti-Le Pen sentiment.
I also see an article praising the French Right getting some mentions - arguably the first victim of Le Pen's revival isn't Macron but Pecresse and Les Republicans but we'll see in June if a strong FN vote in the presidency translates to a strong vote in the legislative elections.
My final thought for the evening is to those on the left and centre-left wanting to get into a cultural wars skirmish with the right - in one word, don't. It's an elephant-sized trap especially at a time when cost of living issues potentially play well for those opposing the Government. The "culture wars" mean nothing to 99% of the population and it smacks of Conservative desperation when they keep trying to play the same old card.
None of this, Gary (Oldman) and Kristin (Scott Thomas), could you possibly give us a date when you fancy making some more of these, I know you might be busy, could you possibly fit us in perhaps 2024....
That takes money and the BBC is limited by the licence fee. There's not much else to it.
My point is BBC still trying to do things the old way, 6 episode season, a mate of a mate who is a big name will do you a favour and star in it for cheap, then you get stupid situations where you have Tom Hardy make a season of Taboo, that does pretty well, and then it is 5 years before he can fit you in again for season 2.
They have to decide, either not to go down that route in the first place and not use the star talent or modernise. When the big players decide to go with these projects they are going to ensure they get their 5 seasons in 5 years.
The BBC are setting light to money starting an IP and then leaving it years.
Most series are drastically overlong and are flogged to within an inch of their lives. The Beeb’s six episode format - to use an absolutely horrible PB cliche - is a feature not a bug.
Its not just the 6 episode format, it is the ridiculous gap between seasons.
Can you imagine if you had the most shit hot new widget and then said yeah well we only made a few, come back in 5 years.....while acme industries down the street is also making shit hot new widgets, but they ensure they continually have new ones.
The massive bucks are available if can get a show syndicated worldwide. In order to do that normally need to have a significant back catalogue. They did that with Top Gear and made a load of money. The problem is drama is now gone that way too.
Most series are better off with sticking to just one season. There are exceptions, but in general the greats of TV just decline after season one.
Dad's Army didn't really hit its stride until about season 4. Similarly all the Star Trek series start to get really good from about season 3.5 onwards. (Well, apart from Enterprise.)
The Simpsons, too, didn't really get going until series 4.
Parks and Rec, one of my all time favourite comedies. Rather mediocre series 1, but sort of watchable. Then soared away in season 2 and on it went
And Blackadder! Does anyone ever re-watch season 1?? Then they got Ben Elton in and it turned into something brilliant
Oh, yes, Blackwater 1 was utter dross. I would never claim Men Behaving Badly to be a classic, but it was well regarded at the time. But did you ever see series 1 with Harry Enfield instead if Neil Morrissey? Utter tosh.
I have very fond memories of Men Behaving Badly (I never even watched series 1 coz everyone said it was awful)
I’m guessing it has dated rather badly, but then that’s true of 99.7% of comedies.
Why does comedy go so very stale so very quickly?
A lot of comedy relies on unspoken context to work well - the things that everyone knows without having to say explicitly - but this sort of context often only exists ephemerally, and once it is gone then the complexity and nuance is stripped from the joke.
Drama is trying to say something about fundamentally what it means to live, and to deal with all the trials and tribulations that might be met. In many respects the context is then just costume and setting, and not central to the essence of the story being told.
None of this, Gary (Oldman) and Kristin (Scott Thomas), could you possibly give us a date when you fancy making some more of these, I know you might be busy, could you possibly fit us in perhaps 2024....
That takes money and the BBC is limited by the licence fee. There's not much else to it.
My point is BBC still trying to do things the old way, 6 episode season, a mate of a mate who is a big name will do you a favour and star in it for cheap, then you get stupid situations where you have Tom Hardy make a season of Taboo, that does pretty well, and then it is 5 years before he can fit you in again for season 2.
They have to decide, either not to go down that route in the first place and not use the star talent or modernise. When the big players decide to go with these projects they are going to ensure they get their 5 seasons in 5 years.
The BBC are setting light to money starting an IP and then leaving it years.
Most series are drastically overlong and are flogged to within an inch of their lives. The Beeb’s six episode format - to use an absolutely horrible PB cliche - is a feature not a bug.
I disagree. Sometimes a mini series is all you need - Chernobyl is a great example, one of the best tv shows I've seen in years. And even a 10-13 episode show might have plenty of padding (though is my preferred length).
But that's a question of good or bad writing. If you could guarantee the BBC traditional 6 episode or whatever format resulted in a higher amount of quality per episode, you might have an argument, but that's not the case - plenty of 6 episode shows are still very bad, and they are short and often sporadic on top of that.
Sure, plenty of long format shows are no good either, but many are good, and there are benefits to being able to develop arcs over a multi year period, or just develop the characters more thoroughly over that number of episodes and time. Going on too long is an unfortunate potential risk, to be sure, but personally I'd say was worth it for the greater number and depth of content earlier on.
I think the cheerleading for short format stuff is a crutch, frankly. There's no reason longer stuff cannot be good, and plenty of short stuff which is bad, so it's not a feature at all.
The idea that six episodes is short format is preposterous. That’s six hours of TV drama.
The Godfather - rightly considered an absolute epic - was told in nine hours or so.
Yes. Some people on here probably think Orwell messed up by not writing Animal Farm 2.
They are different forms of media.
A film is designed to tell a story well in 90-120 minutes. A series has longer, allowing it to develop in a very different manner. A book can be a stand-alone drama, or a series.
The form of the media allows the story-telling to take on very different natures.
Thanks for explaining that to me, although I think I already knew it.
My serious point is that the length of any piece of media, be it film, TV or writing (of any sort) is, to me, secondary to its quality. Some long series are good; others are poor; and vice versa etc. War and Peace and Animal Farm are both pretty good, for example. With Fawlty Towers, the joke would have worn thin with more episodes I think.
Sorry, I did not mean to sound condescending. It's just that the form of media does matter. For instance, would the Godfather films have been as good as a long-form series, with the plots and characters developed over five times the length? (*) Are he Reduced Shakespeare Company's output as good as the original, or are they good for a different market?
(For Fawlty Towers, didn't Cleese deliberately limit the number of episodes?_
(*) I have never seen a Godfather films.
No problem at all. All I can say in response is wow! Never seen the Godfather films? That's up there with me never having seen Star Wars, only much worse.
I've seen GF clips, and it doesn't appeal. If I want to spend time with scum, I'd go to Hartlepool.
This is probably very unfair. I'm not interested in Breaking Bad for a similar reason.
I also dislike courtroom dramas, either as TV series or films.
It’s incredibly unfair. Hartlepool wasn’t even Brexit central. Places like Boston in lincs were. Hartlepool has some run down areas in the centre but no different to many other large towns or cities and it also has some really nice areas. Hart, Percy Main. Along the A688(iirc) from the A19 to the A1 there are large ‘executive’ style houses going up. They are not cheap. Especially for the north east
Very true. It was the Midlands more than the North which was Brexit Land. There are much less prepossessing places than Hartlepool for sure.
None of this, Gary (Oldman) and Kristin (Scott Thomas), could you possibly give us a date when you fancy making some more of these, I know you might be busy, could you possibly fit us in perhaps 2024....
That takes money and the BBC is limited by the licence fee. There's not much else to it.
My point is BBC still trying to do things the old way, 6 episode season, a mate of a mate who is a big name will do you a favour and star in it for cheap, then you get stupid situations where you have Tom Hardy make a season of Taboo, that does pretty well, and then it is 5 years before he can fit you in again for season 2.
They have to decide, either not to go down that route in the first place and not use the star talent or modernise. When the big players decide to go with these projects they are going to ensure they get their 5 seasons in 5 years.
The BBC are setting light to money starting an IP and then leaving it years.
Most series are drastically overlong and are flogged to within an inch of their lives. The Beeb’s six episode format - to use an absolutely horrible PB cliche - is a feature not a bug.
Its not just the 6 episode format, it is the ridiculous gap between seasons.
Can you imagine if you had the most shit hot new widget and then said yeah well we only made a few, come back in 5 years.....while acme industries down the street is also making shit hot new widgets, but they ensure they continually have new ones.
The massive bucks are available if can get a show syndicated worldwide. In order to do that normally need to have a significant back catalogue. They did that with Top Gear and made a load of money. The problem is drama is now gone that way too.
Most series are better off with sticking to just one season. There are exceptions, but in general the greats of TV just decline after season one.
Dad's Army didn't really hit its stride until about season 4. Similarly all the Star Trek series start to get really good from about season 3.5 onwards. (Well, apart from Enterprise.)
The Simpsons, too, didn't really get going until series 4.
Parks and Rec, one of my all time favourite comedies. Rather mediocre series 1, but sort of watchable. Then soared away in season 2 and on it went
And Blackadder! Does anyone ever re-watch season 1?? Then they got Ben Elton in and it turned into something brilliant
Oh, yes, Blackwater 1 was utter dross. I would never claim Men Behaving Badly to be a classic, but it was well regarded at the time. But did you ever see series 1 with Harry Enfield instead if Neil Morrissey? Utter tosh.
I have very fond memories of Men Behaving Badly (I never even watched series 1 coz everyone said it was awful)
I’m guessing it has dated rather badly, but then that’s true of 99.7% of comedies.
Why does comedy go so very stale so very quickly?
Because a lot of it plays on an exaggerated version of real life, but life changes and so those references become out dated
I think the best stuff holds up. Faulty Towers. One foot in the grave. Father Ted, the IT crowd.
Frasier, anything by PG Wodehouse, Outnumbered.
Situations date, and gag machines stop being funny if you've heard the gags before. (Can anyone care about any of the characters in Friends?). But characters we care about who interact and amuse us on the way... That's got a chance of surviving. That's why Yes, Minister and Dad's Army are kind of eternal and Are You Being Served? isn't.
Zelensky's warming up to Macron. Probably rightly worried about the possibility of Le Putin, I mean Le Pen.
Russian atrocities in the Kyiv region must be investigated and Russia itself must face new painful sanctions. Discussed that with EmmanuelMacron . We also talked about negotiations and humanitarian aid to the blocked 🇺🇦 cities. Thank you, my friend, for your principled position.
None of this, Gary (Oldman) and Kristin (Scott Thomas), could you possibly give us a date when you fancy making some more of these, I know you might be busy, could you possibly fit us in perhaps 2024....
That takes money and the BBC is limited by the licence fee. There's not much else to it.
My point is BBC still trying to do things the old way, 6 episode season, a mate of a mate who is a big name will do you a favour and star in it for cheap, then you get stupid situations where you have Tom Hardy make a season of Taboo, that does pretty well, and then it is 5 years before he can fit you in again for season 2.
They have to decide, either not to go down that route in the first place and not use the star talent or modernise. When the big players decide to go with these projects they are going to ensure they get their 5 seasons in 5 years.
The BBC are setting light to money starting an IP and then leaving it years.
Most series are drastically overlong and are flogged to within an inch of their lives. The Beeb’s six episode format - to use an absolutely horrible PB cliche - is a feature not a bug.
Its not just the 6 episode format, it is the ridiculous gap between seasons.
Can you imagine if you had the most shit hot new widget and then said yeah well we only made a few, come back in 5 years.....while acme industries down the street is also making shit hot new widgets, but they ensure they continually have new ones.
The massive bucks are available if can get a show syndicated worldwide. In order to do that normally need to have a significant back catalogue. They did that with Top Gear and made a load of money. The problem is drama is now gone that way too.
Most series are better off with sticking to just one season. There are exceptions, but in general the greats of TV just decline after season one.
Dad's Army didn't really hit its stride until about season 4. Similarly all the Star Trek series start to get really good from about season 3.5 onwards. (Well, apart from Enterprise.)
The Simpsons, too, didn't really get going until series 4.
Parks and Rec, one of my all time favourite comedies. Rather mediocre series 1, but sort of watchable. Then soared away in season 2 and on it went
And Blackadder! Does anyone ever re-watch season 1?? Then they got Ben Elton in and it turned into something brilliant
Oh, yes, Blackwater 1 was utter dross. I would never claim Men Behaving Badly to be a classic, but it was well regarded at the time. But did you ever see series 1 with Harry Enfield instead if Neil Morrissey? Utter tosh.
I have very fond memories of Men Behaving Badly (I never even watched series 1 coz everyone said it was awful)
I’m guessing it has dated rather badly, but then that’s true of 99.7% of comedies.
Why does comedy go so very stale so very quickly?
Because a lot of it plays on an exaggerated version of real life, but life changes and so those references become out dated
I think the best stuff holds up. Faulty Towers. One foot in the grave. Father Ted, the IT crowd.
Frasier, anything by PG Wodehouse, Outnumbered.
Situations date, and gag machines stop being funny if you've heard the gags before. (Can anyone care about any of the characters in Friends?). But characters we care about who interact and amuse us on the way... That's got a chance of surviving. That's why Yes, Minister and Dad's Army are kind of eternal and Are You Being Served? isn't.
Frasier absolutely. Some of the farce episodes are superb examples of the craft. Ski chalet? And the one where Niles has to be Martins boyfriend... And a modern one that will probably divide opinion - Not Going Out. Always makes me laugh.
Comments
Houellebecq's books make clear he is against the atomisation whilst also documenting it surely?
I am, it has to be said, a massive fan.
No one. Not even our erstwhile SK writes like the 'novel' actually fecking matters anymore to the degree that Houellebecq does.
https://www.wired.com/story/hydra-market-shutdown/
(For our Welsh viewers)
However the flip side of this is that nearly all dramas hit a wall when they just run out of ideas. Five seasons seems to be the general limit. Vanishingly few TV dramas remain good after the fifth season. That’s why most end there
Interestingly, this is also often true of books formed as a series
There are of course some exceptions, Dramas which have one great initial season then *WTF happened*. Westworld is a classic example. Drove off a cliff
And next radio, not general telly. And next its minority coverage. And the rest can be done by anyone with the cash and desire to make a few bob.
A film is designed to tell a story well in 90-120 minutes. A series has longer, allowing it to develop in a very different manner. A book can be a stand-alone drama, or a series.
The form of the media allows the story-telling to take on very different natures.
Trouble is they now have competitors who can do the stuff people really care about - eg TV drama - so much better because they have so much more money, and are less timid. The BBC is even getting overtaken in more niche areas like Nature documentaries
I do not wish to see the BBC disappear. It’s an important part of UK soft power. But fuck knows how it can be saved
The haughtiness of Macron is also an issue, rather than accept globalisation has a lot of losers he's one of those global elites who likes to pretend that trade isn't essentially a zero sum game which puts up huge skill barriers for well paid jobs.
I'm hopeful that we won't end up with Le Pen, but I think contingency planning is necessary. I'm also worried that once she gets power removing her will be as difficult as removing Orban.
Unlike even Thatcher he has also ended free movement to and from the European single market and the UK
The Treasury declined to comment. A spokesperson for Rishi Sunak did not respond to multiple requests for comment.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/rishi-sunak-akshata-murthy-non-dom-wife-tax-b2052251.html
And Blackadder! Does anyone ever re-watch season 1?? Then they got Ben Elton in and it turned into something brilliant
My serious point is that the length of any piece of media, be it film, TV or writing (of any sort) is, to me, secondary to its quality. Some long series are good; others are poor; and vice versa etc. War and Peace and Animal Farm are both pretty good, for example. With Fawlty Towers, the joke would have worn thin with more episodes I think.
A brilliant series such as Babylon 5 will subvert this, and have episodic episodes that refer backwards to explain what happened in earlier series.
Cocks in frocks might just work simply because no party has an answer to the impending economic tsunami. What is Labour’s solution? Nationalise everything? That worked well in Venezuela
Question is whether Labour can come up with a plausible list of lies that might persuade people they have some brilliant answer (when they don’t, because there isn’t one)
I don’t know if Starmer has it in him to be that mendacious. Johnson does
And if the economic argument is a stalemate because no one has a clue what to do, then the Tories might win because the war on Woke does have traction
I would never claim Men Behaving Badly to be a classic, but it was well regarded at the time. But did you ever see series 1 with Harry Enfield instead if Neil Morrissey? Utter tosh.
https://twitter.com/BritainElects/status/1511725341978546185
Voting intention of voters living in rural counties:
CON: 38% (-8)
LAB: 36% (+7)
LDEM: 10% (-3)
GRN: 8% (+5)
via @Survation
, 07 - 14 Mar
(For Fawlty Towers, didn't Cleese deliberately limit the number of episodes?_
(*) I have never seen a Godfather films.
She’d be a traditional Gaullist with some left wing statist economic polices and quite a lot of prickly nationalism, but she wouldn’t start deporting people en masse
She would also want a second term so I don’t see her attacking the basic structure of the French state.
To me she is considerably less frightening than Trump - or Jeremy Corbyn
https://twitter.com/telegraph/status/1511777738146947079
It is mainly younger fans who object. I was best man at my mates wedding in the US and spent a good chunk of the afternoon debating whether it was racist or not with someone there. Had they had someone like Burt Kwouk in the role rather than John Bennett the Fu Manchu bit would not have worked.
John Bennett’s character even says to the racist policeman at one stage ‘I believe we all look the same’. It’s Li H’sen Chang, BTW 👍
I still remember 'The pancreas wants what the pancreas wants.' A classic, and allowed to be unwoke at times.
So, for Starmer, I’d argue his problem could be more the second than the first. Yes, there are not a few women who like @Cyclefree who feel passionately about it but there are probably a good few people who feel as though the issue gets far more attention that it should and not a few on the right who think feminists are reaping what they sowed.
However, for many, not being able to answer what should be a simple question which most voters would say they can (“what is a woman?”) and displaying what seems to be cowardice / prevarication on the issue is going to be a turn off. Many will say “do I want someone as PM who struggles to handle such a question? How would he handle himself when it comes to the real serious stuff?”
@EuropeElects
France, Ifop-Fiducial poll:
Macron (EC-RE): 52.5% (-0.5)
Le Pen (RN-ID): 47.5% (+0.5)
Macron (EC-RE): 59% (-0.5)
Mélenchon (LFI-LEFT): 41% (+0.5)
...
+/- vs. 1-5 April 2022
Fieldwork: 2-6 April 2022
Sample size: 3,010"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hound_of_the_Baskervilles_(1959_film)
Totally different show in season 2. Had to beg to get it made and budget was slashed. Hence the lack of outdoor shooting and a few set.
Rik Mayall only had one take for his flashheart scene in ep 1. You can see his moustache falling off at the end of it.
I’m guessing it has dated rather badly, but then that’s true of 99.7% of comedies.
Why does comedy go so very stale so very quickly?
It’s probably one of my all time faves, along with other Baker stories such as tha ark in space, pyramids of mars and the robots of death. Glorious. One wonders how they would look with today’s money and effects.
I don't doubt your assertion that Johnson's war on woke could gain pre-election traction, nonetheless it seems an absurd construct to me. It would appear from anecdota that women are fearful of being attacked in public conveniences by an aforementioned "c**k in a frock", yet I suspect more women have been assaulted by serving police officers than they have by transgender males over the last twelve months.
It may be a hill Starmer and the Labour Party are content to die on. It makes no odds to me. I'd just like to see the back of this dreadful Prime Minister.
Were I to put on my clown make-up and wig of naivety I would even suggest that Starmer might not even need to lie. The current Government appear to be using the motto 'To Seem, not to be', though they're not doing that well on the seeming. With an optimistic bent, most of our problems aren't even unprecedented, and so surely there's a way through beyond telling the best lies. C'mon Leon, where's the optimism and bombast?
Labour is not just piling up votes in London. The coalition is efficient and spread.
The first 2 godfather films are magnificent. Peerless. Two of the best films I’ve ever seen.
I think the new Cumberland authority should be interesting this year (Copeland, Carlisle and Allerdale) as in theory Labour should be able to win it in a good year.
I have the opposite sensation when I try and persuade people to watch Spartacus. Yes the first FIVE OR SIX episodes are cartoonish displays of nudity and violence, with flashes of wit, and pretty vulgar and crude, but then it just gets better and better and better and ends up as one of the greatest TV dramas ever made
But few of my acquaintances are willing to give a series SIX episodes of mediocrity to get to the good stuff. Shame
I disagree Le Pen will be like Orban. France’s institutions are strong and, while the Presidency has many powers, it’s not omnipotent. Plus I’m not convinced Le Pen is an autocrat in the mode of Orban, Putin et al.
I am CorrectPollBattery!
Hope you are well.
Though note the Tories still lead in those rural sample seats while they trail by 7% nationally with Survation
This is probably very unfair. I'm not interested in Breaking Bad for a similar reason.
I also dislike courtroom dramas, either as TV series or films.
Lol
Nothing, Tom Baker wise, beats City of Death for me. Or Destiny of the Daleks. My mate and I have been to the quarry it was filmed at more than once.
But those stories you mention are just everything that is perfect about Dr Who. Episode one lf Ark In Space just feels like such a break with the Pertwee years. It’s genius.
"Leonard: I grew up in a house full of crazy academics. Instead of leaving Santa milk and cookies, we had to leave him a research paper. And in the morning, you could tell he’d been there because the paper would be graded.
Sheldon: No wonder you love Christmas. That sounds amazing.
Leonard: It wasn’t amazing. I got a C-minus four years in a row.
Sheldon: Yeah, I’m familiar with your work. C-minus was your gift.
Scene: The bar.
Raj: Amy, I’m really sorry. I didn’t mean to upset you.
Amy: It’s fine. I’m used to being the girl who never gets looked at twice. I didn’t have my first kiss till I was 22, and the guy only did it so I’d give him back his insulin.
Bernadette: Sometimes the pancreas wants what the pancreas wants.
Amy: Forget it. I don’t expect you guys to understand.
Raj: I understand. In seventh grade, I played Spin the Bottle and it landed on Alina Shankar. She said if I came near her, she would break the bottle and cut me.
Amy: You think that’s bad? In college, I passed out at a frat party and woke up with more clothes on."
https://open.spotify.com/show/2C36cnqCZb70hHwMY4I1to?si=214c0e66b9b84566
There’s also a feedback form to help them with their project.
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSe04ZlMaL_NN6tFv3ZbVRbOS6-APIpsZRSkSC2zXh6vIJb1cQ/viewform
https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/02/attack-on-europe-documenting-equipment.html
The peach trees were in blossom, the slopes blushing pale and tender pink, the shrines of Jupiter were shining in the April sun
And I was basically the only person there.
Gratitude, Covid, Gratitude
As for courtroom drama, got to disagree. I love the old Crown Court shows. Got most of them thanks to Network or legal.tv
The last episode wasn’t shown. It had an unfortunate title.
The first nominations out in London - needless to say, Newham a little way off the pace.
Not much polling news to report - I was reminded by @DoubleCarpet in 1981 Mitterrand won having been 2.5 points behind incumbent President Valery Giscard d'Estaing in the first ballot before winning by 3.5 points in the second round.
Giscard d'Estaing's vote went up by 6.2 million from rounds one to two but Mitterrand's rose 10 million.
The irony was in 1974 Mitterrand had led the first round by 10 points and lost the run off 50.8 to 49.2.
I still think Le Pen has to be within a couple of points of Macron to win in the second round and the strong showing by Melenchon (still down on his 2017 numbers) still suggests to me irrespective of some of the commentary Macron will pick up a strong anti-Le Pen sentiment.
I also see an article praising the French Right getting some mentions - arguably the first victim of Le Pen's revival isn't Macron but Pecresse and Les Republicans but we'll see in June if a strong FN vote in the presidency translates to a strong vote in the legislative elections.
My final thought for the evening is to those on the left and centre-left wanting to get into a cultural wars skirmish with the right - in one word, don't. It's an elephant-sized trap especially at a time when cost of living issues potentially play well for those opposing the Government. The "culture wars" mean nothing to 99% of the population and it smacks of Conservative desperation when they keep trying to play the same old card.
By 44% to 36% they also want to end the ban on fracking
https://twitter.com/jamesjohnson252/status/1511751721504149508?s=20&t=qJ_27XRZIsgo94IK2gSIJQ
https://twitter.com/GuidoFawkes/status/1511780860709810179?s=20&t=qJ_27XRZIsgo94IK2gSIJQ
Drama is trying to say something about fundamentally what it means to live, and to deal with all the trials and tribulations that might be met. In many respects the context is then just costume and setting, and not central to the essence of the story being told.
It was the Midlands more than the North which was Brexit Land.
There are much less prepossessing places than Hartlepool for sure.
You’re safe
Situations date, and gag machines stop being funny if you've heard the gags before. (Can anyone care about any of the characters in Friends?). But characters we care about who interact and amuse us on the way... That's got a chance of surviving. That's why Yes, Minister and Dad's Army are kind of eternal and Are You Being Served? isn't.
Russian atrocities in the Kyiv region must be investigated and Russia itself must face new painful sanctions. Discussed that with EmmanuelMacron . We also talked about negotiations and humanitarian aid to the blocked 🇺🇦 cities. Thank you, my friend, for your principled position.
https://twitter.com/ZelenskyyUa/status/1511445189054894086?cxt=HHwWjMC48YbZ3fkpAAAA
Which is why it isn't likely.
And a modern one that will probably divide opinion - Not Going Out. Always makes me laugh.