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.
Is there any word on fracking in their vicinity, though?
It’s like when people support tax rises to pay for stuff. They always support it if it’s someone else paying
The problem with fracking is it tends to be most viable in Tory seats. Which is why it isn't likely.
Given rising energy bills and bans on energy supplies from Russia, supply has to be increased somehow. The US has had success keeping energy prices down expanding fracking and shale extraction
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.
Never liked Friends, but the market says yes people care. Netflix paid insane amount of money at one point get it on their platform because its well known that Seinfeld, Friends, Fraser, all have people watch the episodes time and time and time again.
I believe there was data that said some stupid % of all Netflix watching at that time was people watching Friends on repeat.
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.
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.
Well there is a special "quantum dot" layer as well. But yes. I didn't know they still made them as small as 32" though.
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.
That must have been some election in 1981.
Vote for the crook, or the...well, actually, the slightly bigger crook.
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
Yes. News and current affairs coverage which has an inbuilt impartiality, worldwide reach and not at dictates of government or big business is a social good in itself as well as being as an aspect of soft power. The other element it brings is that of having a reasonable degree of reliability, which is at a premium in the age of twitter. It does not broadcast speculation as straight fact.
As to funding, personally I would limit the BBCs remit to the irreplaceable stuff and radio (which is cheap) and put a levy on something like council tax (one step distant from government) to all households on the basis that it is a public good, like other public services, whether you use it or not.
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.
Never liked Friends, but the market says yes people care. Netflix paid insane amount of money at one point get it on their platform because its well known that Seinfeld, Friends, Fraser, all have people watch the episodes time and time and time again.
I believe there was data that said some stupid % of all Netflix watching at that time was people watching Friends on repeat.
It was also the same with the Us version of the Office
Is there any word on fracking in their vicinity, though?
It’s like when people support tax rises to pay for stuff. They always support it if it’s someone else paying
The problem with fracking is it tends to be most viable in Tory seats. Which is why it isn't likely.
Given rising energy bills and bans on energy supplies from Russia, supply has to be increased somehow. The US has had success keeping energy prices down expanding fracking and shale extraction
Well. I tend to agree. We need to do everything. New nuclear, tidal, onshore wind, fracking. And strive to reduce consumption, too. But, it seems the government wants it to be painless. Hence nuclear and fracking. Which won't be up and running till they are all long retired. Oh. And fuel duty cuts too.
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.
Never liked Friends, but the market says yes people care. Netflix paid insane amount of money at one point get it on their platform because its well known that Seinfeld, Friends, Fraser, all have people watch the episodes time and time and time again.
I believe there was data that said some stupid % of all Netflix watching at that time was people watching Friends on repeat.
It was also the same with the Us version of the Office
I believe somebody has paid some stupid amount of money, $100 million a year, to win it off Netflix now for the US market.
Does anyone know how many tanks they had before they launched the invasion?
And is there any correlation between the number of tanks and the number of tankies?
I'm just trying to keep track of their losses and how it affects their capacity to regroup in the east.
(Incidentally if any of the tanks in reserve are worse than the ones they seem to have put out first they must actually be missing engines, guns or possibly the entire tank.)
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.
Never liked Friends, but the market says yes people care. Netflix paid insane amount of money at one point get it on their platform because its well known that Seinfeld, Friends, Fraser, all have people watch the episodes time and time and time again.
I believe there was data that said some stupid % of all Netflix watching at that time was people watching Friends on repeat.
The rules never change. Number one, two and three is the quality of the script. Without that nothing lasts. Lousy script quality wrecks large numbers of very expensive productions. And in period stuff, they often get the costumes perfect, and the setting, but not the words and the tone.
Chirac also won in 1995 after getting second place in the first round, more than two points behind Jospin. But Jospin had much less potential voters and lost the second round 53/47.
This time the total Macron + left wing candidates is still around 55%. Thus only very low turnout from the left could open the door to Le Pen. That’s what the polls putting her at 47.5 or 47 are showing. I don’t believe it can be even higher.
Does anyone know how many tanks they had before they launched the invasion?
And is there any correlation between the number of tanks and the number of tankies?
I'm just trying to keep track of their losses and how it affects their capacity to regroup in the east.
(Incidentally if any of the tanks in reserve are worse than the ones they seem to have put out first they must actually be missing engines, guns or possibly the entire tank.)
Should I offer the Russia Embassy the loan of the Covenanter?
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.
And yet, I would argue that the best sitcoms - Dad's Army, What Became of the Likely Lads, Porridge, Ever Devreasing Circles, One Foot in the Grave, the Royle Family, the Office, Detectorists - say far more about what it means to live than drama does. Because real life has humour. And pathos. And because in drama your guard is up; in comedy it isn't.
The European Union has sent almost €1billion to Russia each day for energy since the war in Ukraine began, its chief of foreign affairs admitted earlier today.
Chirac also won in 1995 after getting second place in the first round, more than two points behind Jospin. But Jospin had much less potential voters and lost the second round 53/47.
This time the total Macron + left wing candidates is still around 55%. Thus only very low turnout from the left could open the door to Le Pen. That’s what the polls putting her at 47.5 or 47 are showing. I don’t believe it can be even higher.
Assuming Melenchon voters mainly vote for Macron.
Not guaranteed. On economics and foreign policy Melenchon voters are closer to Le Pen, only on cultural and social values are they closer to Macron. (Albeit Pecresse voters are closer to Macron on economics and foreign policy but less so on cultural and social values but there are fewer of them than Melenchon voters now). Zemmour voters will be strongly for Le Pen too
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.
And yet, I would argue that the best sitcoms - Dad's Army, What Became of the Likely Lads, Porridge, Ever Devreasing Circles, One Foot in the Grave, the Royle Family, the Office, Detectorists - say far more about what it means to live than drama does. Because real life has humour. And pathos. And because in drama your guard is up; in comedy it isn't.
Yes. The best comedy often uses jokes as a Trojan horse for some serious drama.
Does anyone know how many tanks they had before they launched the invasion?
Wikipedia has figures for the army as a whole. Not sure if there's an estimate for the forces assembled around Ukraine on Feb 24th.
Total for army as a whole is 2,945 active tanks (11,200 in reserve, supposedly).
So (confirmed by photo) losses are now at just over 15% of active tanks for the army as a whole.
This year's Moscow May Day parade is going to look like it happened in 1957, such will be the need to raid the museums for some tanks to trundle past...
Does anyone know how many tanks they had before they launched the invasion?
And is there any correlation between the number of tanks and the number of tankies?
I'm just trying to keep track of their losses and how it affects their capacity to regroup in the east.
(Incidentally if any of the tanks in reserve are worse than the ones they seem to have put out first they must actually be missing engines, guns or possibly the entire tank.)
Should I offer the Russia Embassy the loan of the Covenanter?
Vote for the crook, or the...well, actually, the slightly bigger crook.
Arguably the last real Socialist Government in Western Europe - the first couple of years of the Mauroy Government. He had to throttle back to accede to the will of the European Monetary System - his Government wouldn't be the last to yield to the EMS or ERM of course.
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
The European Union has sent almost €1billion to Russia each day for energy since the war in Ukraine began, its chief of foreign affairs admitted earlier today.
Fuckers. Turn off the gas taps and put on a few extra layers, Europe....
Does anyone know how many tanks they had before they launched the invasion?
Wikipedia has figures for the army as a whole. Not sure if there's an estimate for the forces assembled around Ukraine on Feb 24th.
Total for army as a whole is 2,945 active tanks (11,200 in reserve, supposedly).
So (confirmed by photo) losses are now at just over 15% of active tanks for the army as a whole.
This year's Moscow May Day parade is going to look like it happened in 1957, such will be the need to raid the museums for some tanks to trundle past...
They will all be out with their Swastikas Z's though....
Not guaranteed. On economics and foreign policy Melenchon voters are closer to Le Pen, only on cultural and social values are they closer to Macron. (Albeit Pecresse voters are closer to Macron on economics and foreign policy but less so on cultural and social values but there are fewer of them than Melenchon voters now). Zemmour voters will be strongly for Le Pen too
Why do you think Pecresse has performed so poorly?
It doesn't augur well for LR in the legislative elections but as we've discussed before, it could be a confused result.
Chirac also won in 1995 after getting second place in the first round, more than two points behind Jospin. But Jospin had much less potential voters and lost the second round 53/47.
This time the total Macron + left wing candidates is still around 55%. Thus only very low turnout from the left could open the door to Le Pen. That’s what the polls putting her at 47.5 or 47 are showing. I don’t believe it can be even higher.
I would vote Melenchon in first round
If he didnt make it into final 2 wouldnt vote in 2nd round
Not guaranteed. On economics and foreign policy Melenchon voters are closer to Le Pen, only on cultural and social values are they closer to Macron. (Albeit Pecresse voters are closer to Macron on economics and foreign policy but less so on cultural and social values but there are fewer of them than Melenchon voters now). Zemmour voters will be strongly for Le Pen too
Why do you think Pecresse has performed so poorly?
It doesn't augur well for LR in the legislative elections but as we've discussed before, it could be a confused result.
She has lost voters to the right to Zemmour and voters to the centre to Macron.
LR might well lose some seats but if there is a swing v EM in June they will still hold most of them as the main non EM party. RN and Melenchon's party will likely make gains in the legislative elections though
Does anyone know how many tanks they had before they launched the invasion?
Wikipedia has figures for the army as a whole. Not sure if there's an estimate for the forces assembled around Ukraine on Feb 24th.
Total for army as a whole is 2,945 active tanks (11,200 in reserve, supposedly).
So (confirmed by photo) losses are now at just over 15% of active tanks for the army as a whole.
This year's Moscow May Day parade is going to look like it happened in 1957, such will be the need to raid the museums for some tanks to trundle past...
They will all be out with their Swastikas Z's though....
They could respond to Ukraine's use of tractors by showing off their latest combine harvester technology.
Does anyone know how many tanks they had before they launched the invasion?
Wikipedia has figures for the army as a whole. Not sure if there's an estimate for the forces assembled around Ukraine on Feb 24th.
Total for army as a whole is 2,945 active tanks (11,200 in reserve, supposedly).
So (confirmed by photo) losses are now at just over 15% of active tanks for the army as a whole.
This year's Moscow May Day parade is going to look like it happened in 1957, such will be the need to raid the museums for some tanks to trundle past...
They will all be out with their Swastikas Z's though....
They could respond to Ukraine's use of tractors by showing off their latest combine harvester technology.
Does anyone know how many tanks they had before they launched the invasion?
Wikipedia has figures for the army as a whole. Not sure if there's an estimate for the forces assembled around Ukraine on Feb 24th.
Total for army as a whole is 2,945 active tanks (11,200 in reserve, supposedly).
So (confirmed by photo) losses are now at just over 15% of active tanks for the army as a whole.
This year's Moscow May Day parade is going to look like it happened in 1957, such will be the need to raid the museums for some tanks to trundle past...
They will all be out with their Swastikas Z's though....
They could respond to Ukraine's use of tractors by showing off their latest combine harvester technology.
Does anyone know how many tanks they had before they launched the invasion?
Wikipedia has figures for the army as a whole. Not sure if there's an estimate for the forces assembled around Ukraine on Feb 24th.
Total for army as a whole is 2,945 active tanks (11,200 in reserve, supposedly).
So (confirmed by photo) losses are now at just over 15% of active tanks for the army as a whole.
This year's Moscow May Day parade is going to look like it happened in 1957, such will be the need to raid the museums for some tanks to trundle past...
They will all be out with their Swastikas Z's though....
They could respond to Ukraine's use of tractors by showing off their latest combine harvester technology.
Not guaranteed. On economics and foreign policy Melenchon voters are closer to Le Pen, only on cultural and social values are they closer to Macron. (Albeit Pecresse voters are closer to Macron on economics and foreign policy but less so on cultural and social values but there are fewer of them than Melenchon voters now). Zemmour voters will be strongly for Le Pen too
Melenchon voters are in large parts lower and middle ranking civil servants and non-white minorities. Both categories are deeply suspicious of Le Pen. The good thing for her is that a lot of them also despise Macron.
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.
I bet on Giscard d'Estaing in 1974. It was my first political bet. I don't think the 2-1 that my history teacher gave me was very generous but at least he paid up.
The great irony of the current position in Ukraine is if Russia has aimed lower (land bridge to Crimea and extend existing territory in the East), they could have achieved their current gains far more easily and without as strong Western sanctions / support for Ukraine.
And now they are completely isolated and shown to be a paper bear militarily. Their nuclear weapons and gas their only remaining sources of strength.
Strategically this has to be the biggest military own goal there has been for a long time.
The European Union has sent almost €1billion to Russia each day for energy since the war in Ukraine began, its chief of foreign affairs admitted earlier today.
Fuckers. Turn off the gas taps and put on a few extra layers, Europe....
I believe we are still buying gas from Russia as well - today's commitment talks of an end to the imports of Russian oil and gas by 2022. We get 18% of our diesel from Russia so it's not a pain-free option to turn off the tap but that's the thing with sanctions. If they are hurting you, you can be sure they are hurting the other side more.
The European Union has sent almost €1billion to Russia each day for energy since the war in Ukraine began, its chief of foreign affairs admitted earlier today.
Fuckers. Turn off the gas taps and put on a few extra layers, Europe....
I believe we are still buying gas from Russia as well - today's commitment talks of an end to the imports of Russian oil and gas by 2022. We get 18% of our diesel from Russia so it's not a pain-free option to turn off the tap but that's the thing with sanctions. If they are hurting you, you can be sure they are hurting the other side more.
Yup, people on here keep quoting figures for how much the EU is spending and never saying how much we are. It looks a bit agenda-y to me.
Not guaranteed. On economics and foreign policy Melenchon voters are closer to Le Pen, only on cultural and social values are they closer to Macron. (Albeit Pecresse voters are closer to Macron on economics and foreign policy but less so on cultural and social values but there are fewer of them than Melenchon voters now). Zemmour voters will be strongly for Le Pen too
Why do you think Pecresse has performed so poorly?
It doesn't augur well for LR in the legislative elections but as we've discussed before, it could be a confused result.
She has lost voters to the right to Zemmour and voters to the centre to Macron.
LR might well lose some seats but if there is a swing v EM in June they will still hold most of them as the main non EM party. RN and Melenchon's party will likely make gains in the legislative elections though
She is a poor public speaker in front of crowds (much better in debates and tv interviews). This weakness was exposed by first rallies. The macronist power and their media supporters focused relentlessly on her during at least January and half of February. a very negative campaign focusing on the supposed weakness of LR split between centrists and right-wing (curiously enough nobody pointed out that it is a divide narrower than between Macron supporters, some of them having fought each other for decades before joining him). She never escaped that trap and progressively got marginalized exactly when Le Pen started to solidify again as the main challenger to Macron.
Can Nato ships escort Ukrainian ships out of Odessa? Would the rest of the world be outraged by this attempt to keep the Ukrainian economy going and the world's poorest from starving?
I think the Trans activism is ultimately self-defeating because the more traction it gets the more political resistance it will face.
Put simply: most people aren't nutters. So they'll be ignored until it causes real problems and then they'll lose.
Sorry, what exactly would you need to be a "nutter" to support? I'm not sure if there's a specific story you're on about because "trans activism" seems like a broad target.
The European Union has sent almost €1billion to Russia each day for energy since the war in Ukraine began, its chief of foreign affairs admitted earlier today.
Fuckers. Turn off the gas taps and put on a few extra layers, Europe....
The UK timetable for weaning itself off Russian diesel is available as a model: we'll do our very BEST to end imports by the end of the year.
Excellent NYT article on how the French Right has used “wokisme” (an entirely new word for them) and social media et al to SUCCESSFULLY wage a culture war and force l’Overton window their way
They set up think tanks and everything. They are destroying the vile woke progressive left, even in academe
On cultural issues - the political establishment across Europe is dominated by a divisive and puritannical agenda by what may be described as the postmodern left, or the 'woke'. It is intolerant of dissenting views on a wide range of issues... abortion, Islam, gender, immigration etc... which often reflect the very deeply held beliefs of a vast number of people. The way forward isn't to be found in smashing the postmodern left to nothing, but through somehow finding a way for both sets of views to co-exist within a framework of democracy. The left may not like this, but it is the only way the Europe we know can prevail.
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
Macron is an anti English cock.
But he's also implemented a lot of very necessary, very unpopular, returns to the French labour market and to the age of retirement for civil servants.
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
Macron is an anti English cock.
But he's also implemented a lot of very necessary, very unpopular, returns to the French labour market and to the age of retirement for civil servants.
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?”
Shades of Gordon Brown taking two days to tell Mumsnet his favourite biscuit.
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?
“Most of our problems aren’t unprecedented”
Lol
I don't think they are! Climate change, maybe (though I'd argue not unprecedented, just we've never been able to have an influence over it). But pandemics have been and gone, economic woes suffered through. Wars have killed millions.
I don't want to make a the sun will rise tomorrow kind of argument, because that would be flippant. The arc of history is long, and can be several shades of shit over multiple centuries. I don't have any answers, but surely none of these problems are beyond the wit of man, long term. Indeed, the answers are fairly simple it's just getting there.
I think the Trans activism is ultimately self-defeating because the more traction it gets the more political resistance it will face.
Put simply: most people aren't nutters. So they'll be ignored until it causes real problems and then they'll lose.
Sorry, what exactly would you need to be a "nutter" to support? I'm not sure if there's a specific story you're on about because "trans activism" seems like a broad target.
I think the Trans activism is ultimately self-defeating because the more traction it gets the more political resistance it will face.
Put simply: most people aren't nutters. So they'll be ignored until it causes real problems and then they'll lose.
Sorry, what exactly would you need to be a "nutter" to support? I'm not sure if there's a specific story you're on about because "trans activism" seems like a broad target.
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
She will be very weak/sycophantic on Russia
This is a concern, but we have survived 4 years of Trump.
I think her Putin links will be used to good effect against her in the campaign. He has become toxic due to the war in Ukraine.
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
She will be very weak/sycophantic on Russia
This is a concern, but we have survived 4 years of Trump.
I think her Putin links will be used to good effect against her in the campaign. He has become toxic due to the war in Ukraine.
Does anyone know how many tanks they had before they launched the invasion?
Wikipedia has figures for the army as a whole. Not sure if there's an estimate for the forces assembled around Ukraine on Feb 24th.
Total for army as a whole is 2,945 active tanks (11,200 in reserve, supposedly).
So (confirmed by photo) losses are now at just over 15% of active tanks for the army as a whole.
This year's Moscow May Day parade is going to look like it happened in 1957, such will be the need to raid the museums for some tanks to trundle past...
To some extend,
One question about the invasion is why has Russia not used its lutes Tank the T14. so far there are no reports of any destroyed/captured T 14 Tanks, nor I believe any photos/videos of any in acction. so if they have used it will be on a very small scale. there are a few possible reasons, and it could be a combination.
a) There are still teething troubles to be sorted out before its battle ready.
b) Putin does not what to risk one be captured by the Ukrainians who might give/sell to USA.
c) Its not nearly as good as the west fears and if it failed in combat that would look bad,
One other option I had not thought about till now, is maybe Putin planes to use them all in his big parade in May?
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
She will be very weak/sycophantic on Russia
This is a concern, but we have survived 4 years of Trump.
I think her Putin links will be used to good effect against her in the campaign. He has become toxic due to the war in Ukraine.
He's been toxic a long time. See BBC4 right now. Ukraine is peak toxicity. So far.
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
She will be very weak/sycophantic on Russia
This is a concern, but we have survived 4 years of Trump.
I think her Putin links will be used to good effect against her in the campaign. He has become toxic due to the war in Ukraine.
I can't believe this site is free
Still a point worth saying - he hasn't become toxic everywhere due to the war after all, even in Europe.
On topic, I think Sunak has totally misjudged the Zeitgeist.
He's obsessed with balancing the current account and thinks voters will reward him for fiscal conservatism, alone, at the ballot box if he takes "tough decisions" now.
They won't - and especially not if it hits them in the pocket.
Does anyone know how many tanks they had before they launched the invasion?
Wikipedia has figures for the army as a whole. Not sure if there's an estimate for the forces assembled around Ukraine on Feb 24th.
Total for army as a whole is 2,945 active tanks (11,200 in reserve, supposedly).
So (confirmed by photo) losses are now at just over 15% of active tanks for the army as a whole.
This year's Moscow May Day parade is going to look like it happened in 1957, such will be the need to raid the museums for some tanks to trundle past...
To some extend,
One question about the invasion is why has Russia not used its lutes Tank the T14. so far there are no reports of any destroyed/captured T 14 Tanks, nor I believe any photos/videos of any in acction. so if they have used it will be on a very small scale. there are a few possible reasons, and it could be a combination.
a) There are still teething troubles to be sorted out before its battle ready.
b) Putin does not what to risk one be captured by the Ukrainians who might give/sell to USA.
c) Its not nearly as good as the west fears and if it failed in combat that would look bad,
One other option I had not thought about till now, is maybe Putin planes to use them all in his big parade in May?
My understanding is that they only have a couple of dozen of their newest tanks, and that it is very prone to breaking down.
Comments
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.
I believe there was data that said some stupid % of all Netflix watching at that time was people watching Friends on repeat.
Beautiful Yangtze
Home to a race
Of fish
Vote for the crook, or the...well, actually, the slightly bigger crook.
As to funding, personally I would limit the BBCs remit to the irreplaceable stuff and radio (which is cheap) and put a levy on something like council tax (one step distant from government) to all households on the basis that it is a public good, like other public services, whether you use it or not.
Total for army as a whole is 2,945 active tanks (11,200 in reserve, supposedly).
So (confirmed by photo) losses are now at just over 15% of active tanks for the army as a whole.
But, it seems the government wants it to be painless. Hence nuclear and fracking. Which won't be up and running till they are all long retired.
Oh. And fuel duty cuts too.
I have seen great things!
(Incidentally if any of the tanks in reserve are worse than the ones they seem to have put out first they must actually be missing engines, guns or possibly the entire tank.)
Leader of Nottinghamshire County Council and MP for Mansfield doesnt know C4 isn't the BBC.
People of Mansfield hold your head in shame
https://twitter.com/AvaSantina/status/1511652956822806531
(Admittedly I'm 9+ hours late to the thread)
Chirac also won in 1995 after getting second place in the first round, more than two points behind Jospin.
But Jospin had much less potential voters and lost the second round 53/47.
This time the total Macron + left wing candidates is still around 55%. Thus only very low turnout from the left could open the door to Le Pen. That’s what the polls putting her at 47.5 or 47 are showing. I don’t believe it can be even higher.
Not guaranteed. On economics and foreign policy Melenchon voters are closer to Le Pen, only on cultural and social values are they closer to Macron. (Albeit Pecresse voters are closer to Macron on economics and foreign policy but less so on cultural and social values but there are fewer of them than Melenchon voters now). Zemmour voters will be strongly for Le Pen too
SwastikasZ's though....It doesn't augur well for LR in the legislative elections but as we've discussed before, it could be a confused result.
If he didnt make it into final 2 wouldnt vote in 2nd round
LR might well lose some seats but if there is a swing v EM in June they will still hold most of them as the main non EM party. RN and Melenchon's party will likely make gains in the legislative elections though
I know it's corny but I couldn't resist...
Not guaranteed. On economics and foreign policy Melenchon voters are closer to Le Pen, only on cultural and social values are they closer to Macron. (Albeit Pecresse voters are closer to Macron on economics and foreign policy but less so on cultural and social values but there are fewer of them than Melenchon voters now). Zemmour voters will be strongly for Le Pen too
Melenchon voters are in large parts lower and middle ranking civil servants and non-white minorities. Both categories are deeply suspicious of Le Pen. The good thing for her is that a lot of them also despise Macron.
And now they are completely isolated and shown to be a paper bear militarily. Their nuclear weapons and gas their only remaining sources of strength.
Strategically this has to be the biggest military own goal there has been for a long time.
Put simply: most people aren't nutters. So they'll be ignored until it causes real problems and then they'll lose.
The macronist power and their media supporters focused relentlessly on her during at least January and half of February. a very negative campaign focusing on the supposed weakness of LR split between centrists and right-wing (curiously enough nobody pointed out that it is a divide narrower than between Macron supporters, some of them having fought each other for decades before joining him).
She never escaped that trap and progressively got marginalized exactly when Le Pen started to solidify again as the main challenger to Macron.
EDIT: "broad target", oh god, that was... no
Park up those Chelski tractors, lads.
She strikes me as someone who, in extremis, might well take a man to bed for cold brutal sex only to finish him off with a luger afterwards.
But he's also implemented a lot of very necessary, very unpopular, returns to the French labour market and to the age of retirement for civil servants.
I don't want to make a the sun will rise tomorrow kind of argument, because that would be flippant. The arc of history is long, and can be several shades of shit over multiple centuries. I don't have any answers, but surely none of these problems are beyond the wit of man, long term. Indeed, the answers are fairly simple it's just getting there.
I think her Putin links will be used to good effect against her in the campaign. He has become toxic due to the war in Ukraine.
One question about the invasion is why has Russia not used its lutes Tank the T14. so far there are no reports of any destroyed/captured T 14 Tanks, nor I believe any photos/videos of any in acction. so if they have used it will be on a very small scale. there are a few possible reasons, and it could be a combination.
a) There are still teething troubles to be sorted out before its battle ready.
b) Putin does not what to risk one be captured by the Ukrainians who might give/sell to USA.
c) Its not nearly as good as the west fears and if it failed in combat that would look bad,
One other option I had not thought about till now, is maybe Putin planes to use them all in his big parade in May?
He's obsessed with balancing the current account and thinks voters will reward him for fiscal conservatism, alone, at the ballot box if he takes "tough decisions" now.
They won't - and especially not if it hits them in the pocket.