Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Options

What to read in to this? – politicalbetting.com

1356

Comments

  • Options
    Andy_CookeAndy_Cooke Posts: 4,825
    Leon said:

    kamski said:

    Leon said:

    Why did no one tell me about the Apple Series FOR ALL MANKIND

    It's fantastic. Admittedly, I have only watched one episode, but it is brilliant

    The bait and switch on the moon landing is GENIUS

    I've seen 3 episodes, and although it's well done, I'm beginning to suspect that after an intriguing opening it's descending into a slow-moving soap opera that they will milk for as many episodes as they can in the typical way. So I'm probably not going any further unless I hear different.

    If you're on Apple + I can highly recommend Shrinking featuring a great turn by Harrison Ford as a grumpy old man.
    Ach. dammit

    That is my big fear

    So many series now do this. Start with great promise, then fade away HORRIBLY

    I have had to abandon three dramas in recent months for this reason. GRRR
    Season one was pretty good throughout, in my opinion.
    Season two also still fairly good and well worth watching.
    Season three had its moments and remained worth watching, but slower and a bit faded in comparison to the first two.
    Season four felt flat to me and I really only watched it through inertia.
  • Options
    kinabalukinabalu Posts: 39,598

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    kamski said:

    Leon said:

    Eabhal said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    WTF

    Apparently in kids' footy now there is a thing called the "Brexit Tackle", it seems to be quite brutal

    Some kids do it while shouting "Brexit means Brexit"

    Is this just fantasy? An escape from reality?

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/feb/14/brexit-tackle-politics-children-football

    Get with the programme. I told you all about this on here about two years ago (my son plays U15 football). The Brexit tackle is a kind of mindlessly aggressive, barely legal tackle, harking back to traditional ugly but effective English football in contrast to Continental skill and sophistication. I think it is a satirical content by the young on the belligerent stupidity of the Brexit vote.
    Except..


    It is gaining positive connotations. Something tough, no nonsense and aggressive

    "Brexit means brexit
    Means when somebody hits a massive slide tackle and usually sends them flying and it hurts them servely.
    Brexit means brexit, I’m going to brake his legs and take his life."

    https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Brexit means brexit


    Here are people showing HOW to do the Brexit tackle

    https://www.tiktok.com/@kalan_lisbie/video/7311772522297543968


    lol
    Perhaps its connotations vary by area but for my son and his friends in SE London the idea of the Brexit tackle is very much taking the piss out of Brexit and the people who voted for it.
    Except you can see from that video (and there are hundreds like it) it is very much not seen as that any more. I can believe it began that way. but now it means a highly effective and extremely aggressive defensive tackle, which "cleans out" the opponent, as that TikTok influencer shows
    It started as a dangerous tackle, often performed by an overweight divorced white man who is promptly sent off much to the dismay of his teammates.

    "Brexit tackle"
    Spend twenty minutes on the internet, it isn't that anymore

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RIx7N6uJ23Q

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LF6y4WAjKYQ

    You can actually see the term evolving, from pejorative to neutral to admiring, to the extent TikTok stars now teach it

    This isn't really about politics (or Brexit), this is about language. Slang often sees term evolve to mean their opposite

    See "wicked", "sick", "dope", "snide" - which all became positives. Hundreds more examples
    It's a bit of long phrase to shout out though, I don't see it catching on. Though I might use it.
    I can see the word "Brexit" evolving to mean anything done with dangerous aggression

    "I will Brexit you, mate, you will look like three tins of catfood at the end"

    "That company? Brexit them. Wipe them out"

    "I gave him the full Brexit, he won't walk again"

    The syllables have the right quality of emphasis and snappiness, the plosive consonants, the middle X
    We were sat there, having what I thought was a nice chat, when suddenly he went all Brexit.
    He just won’t stop Brexitting.
    He’s full of Brexit.
    You've got to watch that guy. He'll tell you all this stuff, all very plausible like, and then you'll find out it was complete and utter brexit.

    (it's not obvious to me how we stop doing this now we've started)
  • Options
    MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 12,760

    Ratters said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Inflation stays at 4%

    Prices were rising about 1% per month in Feb-May last year. So hard not to see a fall in the annual rate over the spring.
    Agreed.

    Cumulative inflation over the last 8 months has now been a total of 0.2%.

    If we get relatively normal month-on-month prints over the next four months, we could easily see headline inflation fall to 2% or below.
    Which is why Sunak won’t call an election in May, but it won’t be enough to save him,
    🤣

    The decisions made solely on inflation?

    There’s lots of reasons why they chose May, easily top of the list is increase on boat crossing from last year, lack of growth in economy and covid report are second and third.
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 48,088

    Leon said:

    kamski said:

    Leon said:

    Why did no one tell me about the Apple Series FOR ALL MANKIND

    It's fantastic. Admittedly, I have only watched one episode, but it is brilliant

    The bait and switch on the moon landing is GENIUS

    I've seen 3 episodes, and although it's well done, I'm beginning to suspect that after an intriguing opening it's descending into a slow-moving soap opera that they will milk for as many episodes as they can in the typical way. So I'm probably not going any further unless I hear different.

    If you're on Apple + I can highly recommend Shrinking featuring a great turn by Harrison Ford as a grumpy old man.
    Ach. dammit

    That is my big fear

    So many series now do this. Start with great promise, then fade away HORRIBLY

    I have had to abandon three dramas in recent months for this reason. GRRR
    Season one was pretty good throughout, in my opinion.
    Season two also still fairly good and well worth watching.
    Season three had its moments and remained worth watching, but slower and a bit faded in comparison to the first two.
    Season four felt flat to me and I really only watched it through inertia.
    OK so I should get three seasons of fun. That's good

    I'd like to watch Masters of the Air but I CANNOT be arsed with this one episode a week bullshit. What is this, 1976?

    If I like a drama I want to watch an episode a night, I don't want to wait A WEEK for the next one, RIDIC

    So I will have to wait until the entire thing is broadcast, then watch it in toto

  • Options
    bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 8,256

    eek said:

    TOPPING said:

    Want an end to civilian casualties? Then there's a simple solution: Hamas lays down their arms unconditionally and releases the hostages. Otherwise the war continues.

    Exactly what David Cameron (pbuh) said yesterday in the HoL.

    And we know that DC can say or do no wrong.
    But ever civilian casualty recruits more people into Hamas rather than sitting on the sidelines.

    Even before you see the complete lack of hope that Israel is offering everyone in Gaza which again will be pushing people towards actively supporting Hamas because they’ve got nothing else so they may as well.

    Indeed. Nor do they offer any hope to Palestinians in the West Bank either. Nor that much to Arab Israelis.

    The conflict in Northern Ireland was ended because the conditions of the Catholic population were improved. The conflict in the Basque country was ended because the conditions of the Basque population were improved. And so on.
    Israel removed its military and settlements from Gaza in 2005.

    From then on Gaza was the responsibility of the people who lived there.

    What did they achieve apart from doubling its population.

    Overpopulating doesn't improve conditions.
    Hamas has done little to improve the condition of the people in Gaza. Nothing I wrote was supportive of Hamas. You, however, are misinformed about the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza. Gaza has long been blockaded by Israel (and, of course, a blockade is a casus belli according to Israel in 1967). It was not an independent statelet. It was still heavily under the control of Israel.

    Also, Gaza is part of Palestine. It's good that Israel pulled out of Gaza in 2005, but Israel was and is still in the West Bank, building illegal settlements and oppressing the local population.

    Israel has destroyed the only family planning clinic in Gaza: https://www.newsweek.com/planned-parenthood-gaza-clinic-destroyed-israeli-airstrike-1834556 Donations to the IPPF are, I'm sure, welcome.
  • Options
    Labour are now 2.5 on Betfair.
    https://www.betfair.com/exchange/politics/event/28548799/multi-market?marketIds=1.224220834
    Is that value yet? Just can't see Galloway doing it, but maybe that's just wishful thinking.
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 48,088
    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    kamski said:

    Leon said:

    Eabhal said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    WTF

    Apparently in kids' footy now there is a thing called the "Brexit Tackle", it seems to be quite brutal

    Some kids do it while shouting "Brexit means Brexit"

    Is this just fantasy? An escape from reality?

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/feb/14/brexit-tackle-politics-children-football

    Get with the programme. I told you all about this on here about two years ago (my son plays U15 football). The Brexit tackle is a kind of mindlessly aggressive, barely legal tackle, harking back to traditional ugly but effective English football in contrast to Continental skill and sophistication. I think it is a satirical content by the young on the belligerent stupidity of the Brexit vote.
    Except..


    It is gaining positive connotations. Something tough, no nonsense and aggressive

    "Brexit means brexit
    Means when somebody hits a massive slide tackle and usually sends them flying and it hurts them servely.
    Brexit means brexit, I’m going to brake his legs and take his life."

    https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Brexit means brexit


    Here are people showing HOW to do the Brexit tackle

    https://www.tiktok.com/@kalan_lisbie/video/7311772522297543968


    lol
    Perhaps its connotations vary by area but for my son and his friends in SE London the idea of the Brexit tackle is very much taking the piss out of Brexit and the people who voted for it.
    Except you can see from that video (and there are hundreds like it) it is very much not seen as that any more. I can believe it began that way. but now it means a highly effective and extremely aggressive defensive tackle, which "cleans out" the opponent, as that TikTok influencer shows
    It started as a dangerous tackle, often performed by an overweight divorced white man who is promptly sent off much to the dismay of his teammates.

    "Brexit tackle"
    Spend twenty minutes on the internet, it isn't that anymore

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RIx7N6uJ23Q

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LF6y4WAjKYQ

    You can actually see the term evolving, from pejorative to neutral to admiring, to the extent TikTok stars now teach it

    This isn't really about politics (or Brexit), this is about language. Slang often sees term evolve to mean their opposite

    See "wicked", "sick", "dope", "snide" - which all became positives. Hundreds more examples
    It's a bit of long phrase to shout out though, I don't see it catching on. Though I might use it.
    I can see the word "Brexit" evolving to mean anything done with dangerous aggression

    "I will Brexit you, mate, you will look like three tins of catfood at the end"

    "That company? Brexit them. Wipe them out"

    "I gave him the full Brexit, he won't walk again"

    The syllables have the right quality of emphasis and snappiness, the plosive consonants, the middle X
    We were sat there, having what I thought was a nice chat, when suddenly he went all Brexit.
    He just won’t stop Brexitting.
    He’s full of Brexit.
    You've got to watch that guy. He'll tell you all this stuff, all very plausible like, and then you'll find out it was complete and utter brexit.

    (it's not obvious to me how we stop doing this now we've started)
    If you don't STFU, I will get 100% Brexit on your sorry arse
  • Options
    Sean_FSean_F Posts: 36,087
    Leon said:

    kamski said:

    Leon said:

    kamski said:

    Leon said:

    kamski said:

    Leon said:

    Why did no one tell me about the Apple Series FOR ALL MANKIND

    It's fantastic. Admittedly, I have only watched one episode, but it is brilliant

    The bait and switch on the moon landing is GENIUS

    I've seen 3 episodes, and although it's well done, I'm beginning to suspect that after an intriguing opening it's descending into a slow-moving soap opera that they will milk for as many episodes as they can in the typical way. So I'm probably not going any further unless I hear different.

    If you're on Apple + I can highly recommend Shrinking featuring a great turn by Harrison Ford as a grumpy old man.
    Ach. dammit

    That is my big fear

    So many series now do this. Start with great promise, then fade away HORRIBLY

    I have had to abandon three dramas in recent months for this reason. GRRR
    Yes, it's very annoying. And sometimes the opposite happens - eg I was still enjoying The Path after 3 seasons (though it had got a bit slushy), and they didn't make any more despite the story clearly being unfinished.

    I would say For All Mankind is still entertaining after 3 episodes but 7 seasons are planned, and I don't want to get hooked into having to know what happens because it's too much of a time commitment for me...
    Rotten Tomatoes - which is modestly reliable - insists it contnues well into seasons 2 and 3. I shall persist for now

    The worst of the recent bunch was Money Heist, which started cleverly and elegantly, but described a perfect smooth arc of descent into inanity, plot holes, non sequiturs, stupid characters and tedious distractions

    Monarch: Legacy of Monsters immediately went from quite good in episode 1 to SHITE by ep 3, and stayed there
    Let us know how it goes!

    It took me 2 and a half seasons to give up on Mad Men.

    I've never seen an episode of Lost, or The Crown, or Game of Thrones (probably too violent for me), or Eastenders. Maybe I am commitment-phobic.

    Never heard of Monarch: Legacy of Monsters. I saw Money Heist advertised - it looked interesting but my wife can't be bothered with subtitles, and I refuse to watch anything dubbed (if it was even available) so didn't bother. Won't now.
    Mad Men was great, until about season 4 or 5 (most dramas collapse by seasons 4 or 5, if they get that far - it is an actual rule, with very few exceptions)

    The first season of the Crown is superb, second jolly good, then increasingly bad

    Game of Thrones is sui generis. I loved it, mostly, even while finding the plot absurdly complex and difficult to comprehend, it had that knack that, just when you felt like abandoning it for its labyrinthine complexity, it would have a brilliant scene with clever lines, or a spectacular battle sequence, or just the midget being funny

    Great actors helped; also good characterisation

    Game of Thrones began falling apart in Season 5, IMHO, which actually proves your general point, but there were some excellent episodes, still, like Hardhome or Light of the Seven, It jumped the shark in Season 7, with teleporting armies and navies, ridiculous military strategies, and the utterly ridiculous wight hunt.
  • Options
    Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 56,176
    Leon said:

    kamski said:

    Leon said:

    Why did no one tell me about the Apple Series FOR ALL MANKIND

    It's fantastic. Admittedly, I have only watched one episode, but it is brilliant

    The bait and switch on the moon landing is GENIUS

    I've seen 3 episodes, and although it's well done, I'm beginning to suspect that after an intriguing opening it's descending into a slow-moving soap opera that they will milk for as many episodes as they can in the typical way. So I'm probably not going any further unless I hear different.

    If you're on Apple + I can highly recommend Shrinking featuring a great turn by Harrison Ford as a grumpy old man.
    Ach. dammit

    That is my big fear

    So many series now do this. Start with great promise, then fade away HORRIBLY

    I have had to abandon three dramas in recent months for this reason. GRRR
    It got a bit Wokey in episode 3 with Nixon's Women, so I stopped watching.

    Might skip over it and pick up again later.
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 48,088
    Looking back, this was surely the FIRST Brexit Tackle

    JPR Williams

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eb0O6ZKcmEc
  • Options
    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    kamski said:

    Leon said:

    Eabhal said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    WTF

    Apparently in kids' footy now there is a thing called the "Brexit Tackle", it seems to be quite brutal

    Some kids do it while shouting "Brexit means Brexit"

    Is this just fantasy? An escape from reality?

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/feb/14/brexit-tackle-politics-children-football

    Get with the programme. I told you all about this on here about two years ago (my son plays U15 football). The Brexit tackle is a kind of mindlessly aggressive, barely legal tackle, harking back to traditional ugly but effective English football in contrast to Continental skill and sophistication. I think it is a satirical content by the young on the belligerent stupidity of the Brexit vote.
    Except..


    It is gaining positive connotations. Something tough, no nonsense and aggressive

    "Brexit means brexit
    Means when somebody hits a massive slide tackle and usually sends them flying and it hurts them servely.
    Brexit means brexit, I’m going to brake his legs and take his life."

    https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Brexit means brexit


    Here are people showing HOW to do the Brexit tackle

    https://www.tiktok.com/@kalan_lisbie/video/7311772522297543968


    lol
    Perhaps its connotations vary by area but for my son and his friends in SE London the idea of the Brexit tackle is very much taking the piss out of Brexit and the people who voted for it.
    Except you can see from that video (and there are hundreds like it) it is very much not seen as that any more. I can believe it began that way. but now it means a highly effective and extremely aggressive defensive tackle, which "cleans out" the opponent, as that TikTok influencer shows
    It started as a dangerous tackle, often performed by an overweight divorced white man who is promptly sent off much to the dismay of his teammates.

    "Brexit tackle"
    Spend twenty minutes on the internet, it isn't that anymore

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RIx7N6uJ23Q

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LF6y4WAjKYQ

    You can actually see the term evolving, from pejorative to neutral to admiring, to the extent TikTok stars now teach it

    This isn't really about politics (or Brexit), this is about language. Slang often sees term evolve to mean their opposite

    See "wicked", "sick", "dope", "snide" - which all became positives. Hundreds more examples
    It's a bit of long phrase to shout out though, I don't see it catching on. Though I might use it.
    I can see the word "Brexit" evolving to mean anything done with dangerous aggression

    "I will Brexit you, mate, you will look like three tins of catfood at the end"

    "That company? Brexit them. Wipe them out"

    "I gave him the full Brexit, he won't walk again"

    The syllables have the right quality of emphasis and snappiness, the plosive consonants, the middle X
    We were sat there, having what I thought was a nice chat, when suddenly he went all Brexit.
    He just won’t stop Brexitting.
    He’s full of Brexit.
    You've got to watch that guy. He'll tell you all this stuff, all very plausible like, and then you'll find out it was complete and utter brexit.

    (it's not obvious to me how we stop doing this now we've started)
    Stay reasonably closely aligned, build a relationship on a case by case basis, wait for the immediate postwar generation who never really liked the EEC, let alone the EU to go to that blessed place where there are no referendums...


    ... Oh, you meant stopping talking about it.
  • Options
    Carnyx said:

    PJH said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Inflation stays at 4%

    *brushes fingernails quietly*

    Next up, did the UK really suffer a technical recession in Q4 and Q1? I think not.
    It's easy to get carried away by the technical details and for the government to pop the champagne and slap each other on the back for a job well done in lowering inflation. Out in the real world, mortgages are as costly and as unaffordable as they've ever been and hundreds of thousands of mortgage holders have still yet to remortgage onto much higher rates. Energy bills are still crippling, food still going up. Mortgage arrears are at their highest rate since the GFC. Business insolvency ditto. It's grim out there
    The inflation figures don't lie, but they ain't telling the truth either.
    Oh I agree with all of that. Real wages are rising by more than 2% a year on average now but that does not come close to offsetting the additional costs borne by those with mortgages in particular. Many people are struggling and 4% inflation is not great. Some lenders are edging their mortgage offers back up again now on the assumption that base rates are going to fall more slowly than once thought. That is very much the way I see it, particularly if I am right that a technical recession is avoided.
    Don't forget that about a year ago, inflation was 11% and pay rises were at best 5-6%; so if you're working for a typical employer such as mine this year offering about 1-2% above inflation it will take about another 3 years or so to close that gap before people start feeling better than slightly less badly off compared to before.
    In reality people were on average about 3% worse off for a year and nearly half of that has already been recovered.

    But what is forgotten is how much real pay increased in 2021.

    From the ONS:

    Total pay (real):

    Jan-Mar 2020 +0.5%
    Apr-Jun 2020 -1.8%
    Jul-Sep 2020 +0.7%
    Oct-Dec 2020 +3.8%
    Jan-Mar 2021 +3.2%
    Apr-Jun 2021 +6.8%
    Jul-Sep 2021 +3.1%
    Oct-Dec 2021 +0.2%
    Jan-Mar 2022 +1.4%
    Apr-Jun 2022 -2.4%
    Jul-Sep 2022 -2.7%
    Oct-Dec 2022 -2.8%
    Jan-Mar 2023 -2.6%
    Apr-Jun 2023 +0.7%
    Jul-Sep 2023 +1.4%
    Oct-Dec 2023 +1.4%

    https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/earningsandworkinghours/timeseries/a3ww/lms

    https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/employmentandemployeetypes/bulletins/averageweeklyearningsingreatbritain/latest

    There's also the extra handouts people received, the £400 energy subsidy and the month's council tax rebate plus much more for the poor and oldies.
    How much of that pay inflation gets through to take home pay for a family renting and on universal credit? Posters on here have calculated marginal tax rates of 70%+ at that end of the spectrum and there are occassional instances where extra pay equals less income.

    Much of the pay inflation will have been at and just above the NMW rates by design, a lot of the rest is still at the elite level. Real median earnings are rising much slower than real average earnings.

    https://ifs.org.uk/articles/pay-growth-londons-top-earners-has-driven-geographical-inequality-mean-earnings#:~:text=Strong pay growth in finance,have seen little pay growth.

    So low earners see most of the rises taken up by the benefits traps and middle earners are seeing smaller rises combined with being most likely to be hit on mortgage rates or private sector rent increases.

    Sure those are average numbers and everyone's an individual.

    And there's many millions who have done worse than the average.

    But there's also many millions who have done better than the average.

    And the average itself is positive despite four years of economic turmoil.

    There seems to be a widespread and bizarre insistence that everyone is worse off and heading to the poor house.

    And that's a denial of reality equal to insisting that everyone is doing great.

    From apprentices on over £25k to tradesmen earning £85k to GenXs discussing their retirement plans (I've heard 58, 60, 63 mentioned recently) to oldies booking their cruises there are lots of people who have never been as well off.

    Sure there are a wide range of individual circumstances.

    Electorally though I suspect what tends to happen is:

    People who are better off than expected vote for the party they most identify with.
    People who are worse off than expected vote for the opposition.

    So aggregate bad news is not balanced out electorally by the wide range of circumstances.
    Another group:

    People who think they are worse off vote according to who they blame.

    That benefitted the Conservatives in 2015.

    But now, Jeremy Hunt aside, they seem to have given up even making an economic case.

    I suspect that because unemployment was high during the Thatcher government that many Conservatives actually think that low unemployment is a bad thing.
    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2024/feb/14/uk-households-face-battle-to-regain-former-living-standards-even-if-inflation-eases

    This is interesting, with comments suich as

    'Good news came from the food industry, where inflation fell from December to January, but the annual rate remains high at 7% and food and non-alcoholic beverage prices are about 25% higher than they were two years ago, the Office for National Statistics said.

    Worse is the price of electricity, gas, and other fuels. Inflation for this category has fallen by 18% since its peak in January 2023. However, prices last month were 89% higher than they were in January 2021.

    These are dramatic increases in the cost of living. So it is no wonder the boss of the TUC, Paul Nowak, is hopping mad about any talk of lower inflation somehow meaning the problem has gone away for most people.'
    Look, mate, you're not understanding. Sunak has fixed inflation. Everything is good.
  • Options
    Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,062
    Mr. F, and yet, even after the seventh season the final one could've been good. The ending of seven was fine.

    The eighth is amazing for the errors and poor decisions involved. I especially like two characters setting off early to arrive somewhere before the army (leaving from the same place) and arrive there after the army. Fun fact: two individuals move a lot faster than a whole army. The idea they'd be slower is demented. And the concept they wouldn't notice a whole army passing them is something special.
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 48,088

    Mr. F, and yet, even after the seventh season the final one could've been good. The ending of seven was fine.

    The eighth is amazing for the errors and poor decisions involved. I especially like two characters setting off early to arrive somewhere before the army (leaving from the same place) and arrive there after the army. Fun fact: two individuals move a lot faster than a whole army. The idea they'd be slower is demented. And the concept they wouldn't notice a whole army passing them is something special.

    I thought the final battle sequence with the dragons - third episode from the end? - was glorious. Didn't all make sense, but absolutely spectacular - if I am remembering correctly

    But then it went on after that, with some insane plot twists
  • Options
    eristdooferistdoof Posts: 4,940

    Ratters said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Inflation stays at 4%

    Prices were rising about 1% per month in Feb-May last year. So hard not to see a fall in the annual rate over the spring.
    Agreed.

    Cumulative inflation over the last 8 months has now been a total of 0.2%.

    If we get relatively normal month-on-month prints over the next four months, we could easily see headline inflation fall to 2% or below.
    Which is why Sunak won’t call an election in May, but it won’t be enough to save him,
    🤣

    The decisions made solely on inflation?

    There’s lots of reasons why they chose May, easily top of the list is increase on boat crossing from last year, lack of growth in economy and covid report are second and third.
    And the smaller number of Conservative councillors in autumn. It's hard to fight for the political lives of those who caused the loss of your seat.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 63,519
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    kamski said:

    Leon said:

    Why did no one tell me about the Apple Series FOR ALL MANKIND

    It's fantastic. Admittedly, I have only watched one episode, but it is brilliant

    The bait and switch on the moon landing is GENIUS

    I've seen 3 episodes, and although it's well done, I'm beginning to suspect that after an intriguing opening it's descending into a slow-moving soap opera that they will milk for as many episodes as they can in the typical way. So I'm probably not going any further unless I hear different.

    If you're on Apple + I can highly recommend Shrinking featuring a great turn by Harrison Ford as a grumpy old man.
    Ach. dammit

    That is my big fear

    So many series now do this. Start with great promise, then fade away HORRIBLY

    I have had to abandon three dramas in recent months for this reason. GRRR
    Season one was pretty good throughout, in my opinion.
    Season two also still fairly good and well worth watching.
    Season three had its moments and remained worth watching, but slower and a bit faded in comparison to the first two.
    Season four felt flat to me and I really only watched it through inertia.
    OK so I should get three seasons of fun. That's good

    I'd like to watch Masters of the Air but I CANNOT be arsed with this one episode a week bullshit. What is this, 1976?

    If I like a drama I want to watch an episode a night, I don't want to wait A WEEK for the next one, RIDIC

    So I will have to wait until the entire thing is broadcast, then watch it in toto

    Six Flying Dragons is available on Rakuten Viki.
    Fifty episodes.
  • Options
    bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 8,256

    eek said:

    TOPPING said:

    Want an end to civilian casualties? Then there's a simple solution: Hamas lays down their arms unconditionally and releases the hostages. Otherwise the war continues.

    Exactly what David Cameron (pbuh) said yesterday in the HoL.

    And we know that DC can say or do no wrong.
    But ever civilian casualty recruits more people into Hamas rather than sitting on the sidelines.

    Even before you see the complete lack of hope that Israel is offering everyone in Gaza which again will be pushing people towards actively supporting Hamas because they’ve got nothing else so they may as well.

    Indeed. Nor do they offer any hope to Palestinians in the West Bank either. Nor that much to Arab Israelis.

    The conflict in Northern Ireland was ended because the conditions of the Catholic population were improved. The conflict in the Basque country was ended because the conditions of the Basque population were improved. And so on.
    Israeli actions in the last couple of decades have not achieved much in terms of building peace. The choices made by Israel have contributed to the prospects of a peace settlement deteriorating.

    However, the circumstances immediately following the massacre of more than a thousand Israelis, and the taking of many hundreds of hostages, are not particularly ideal for a change in policy towards peace-building.

    The war against Hamas has to be won first, and then Israel will have another opportunity to build peace. Perhaps they will take it this time. Perhaps not.

    I've never felt at all Jewish in the present, though it's part of the family history I've always been aware of, but it makes me feel incredibly vulnerable when so many people advocate effective impunity for the people responsible for what must have been the most successful attempt to exterminate Jews since 1945.
    I'm not advocating impunity for the people responsible for the October attack. I agree that immediately after the massacre is not a good context for a change in policy towards peace-building. I have repeatedly said Israel has the right to defend itself.

    Nonetheless, what Israel is doing now is not going to achieve peace. I'm just some random guy on a website forum. My view isn't going to change anything, of course, but polling is very clear that the Israeli public don't support Netanyahu either.
  • Options
    EabhalEabhal Posts: 6,268
    Leon said:

    Looking back, this was surely the FIRST Brexit Tackle

    JPR Williams

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eb0O6ZKcmEc

    I'm not if there is a direct connection to the meme, but this is the obvious first Brexit tackle:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YO9F6BDffx4
  • Options

    Leon said:

    kamski said:

    Leon said:

    Why did no one tell me about the Apple Series FOR ALL MANKIND

    It's fantastic. Admittedly, I have only watched one episode, but it is brilliant

    The bait and switch on the moon landing is GENIUS

    I've seen 3 episodes, and although it's well done, I'm beginning to suspect that after an intriguing opening it's descending into a slow-moving soap opera that they will milk for as many episodes as they can in the typical way. So I'm probably not going any further unless I hear different.

    If you're on Apple + I can highly recommend Shrinking featuring a great turn by Harrison Ford as a grumpy old man.
    Ach. dammit

    That is my big fear

    So many series now do this. Start with great promise, then fade away HORRIBLY

    I have had to abandon three dramas in recent months for this reason. GRRR
    Season one was pretty good throughout, in my opinion.
    Season two also still fairly good and well worth watching.
    Season three had its moments and remained worth watching, but slower and a bit faded in comparison to the first two.
    Season four felt flat to me and I really only watched it through inertia.
    Yeah I agree, I'm becalmed about 4 eps into season 4.

    The Peter Capaldi thing on apple is quite good.
  • Options
    EndillionEndillion Posts: 4,976

    eek said:

    TOPPING said:

    Want an end to civilian casualties? Then there's a simple solution: Hamas lays down their arms unconditionally and releases the hostages. Otherwise the war continues.

    Exactly what David Cameron (pbuh) said yesterday in the HoL.

    And we know that DC can say or do no wrong.
    But ever civilian casualty recruits more people into Hamas rather than sitting on the sidelines.

    Even before you see the complete lack of hope that Israel is offering everyone in Gaza which again will be pushing people towards actively supporting Hamas because they’ve got nothing else so they may as well.

    Indeed. Nor do they offer any hope to Palestinians in the West Bank either. Nor that much to Arab Israelis.

    The conflict in Northern Ireland was ended because the conditions of the Catholic population were improved. The conflict in the Basque country was ended because the conditions of the Basque population were improved. And so on.
    Israel removed its military and settlements from Gaza in 2005.

    From then on Gaza was the responsibility of the people who lived there.

    What did they achieve apart from doubling its population.

    Overpopulating doesn't improve conditions.
    Hamas has done little to improve the condition of the people in Gaza. Nothing I wrote was supportive of Hamas. You, however, are misinformed about the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza. Gaza has long been blockaded by Israel (and, of course, a blockade is a casus belli according to Israel in 1967). It was not an independent statelet. It was still heavily under the control of Israel.

    Also, Gaza is part of Palestine. It's good that Israel pulled out of Gaza in 2005, but Israel was and is still in the West Bank, building illegal settlements and oppressing the local population.

    Israel has destroyed the only family planning clinic in Gaza: https://www.newsweek.com/planned-parenthood-gaza-clinic-destroyed-israeli-airstrike-1834556 Donations to the IPPF are, I'm sure, welcome.
    A few corrections needed here:

    - Israel does not control all entrances and exits from Gaza and therefore cannot "blockade" it. You would need to say that "Gaza has long been blockaded by Israel and Egypt, which doesn't change the facts on the ground but obviously weakens your point significantly.
    - Clearly, Israel hasn't been "blockading" Gaza very effectively, given the amount of weaponry that's got in.
    - "Gaza is part of Palestine": says who, exactly? Sure, it was part of the mandate, but then occupied by Egypt for nearly 20 years. Why is everyone so obsessed with preserving all borders as they were at the end of WW2, forever, regardless of changes in circumstances?
  • Options
    Leon said:

    Mr. F, and yet, even after the seventh season the final one could've been good. The ending of seven was fine.

    The eighth is amazing for the errors and poor decisions involved. I especially like two characters setting off early to arrive somewhere before the army (leaving from the same place) and arrive there after the army. Fun fact: two individuals move a lot faster than a whole army. The idea they'd be slower is demented. And the concept they wouldn't notice a whole army passing them is something special.

    I thought the final battle sequence with the dragons - third episode from the end? - was glorious. Didn't all make sense, but absolutely spectacular - if I am remembering correctly

    But then it went on after that, with some insane plot twists
    You know more about this than I do... how long can a saga like this keep going?

    I recently fell down a Howard's Way binge watch rabbit hole (yes, I deserve condemnation, I don't care), and whilst that was always incoherent tosh, it became really incoherent tosh towards the end, with characters behaving really out of character.

    Science nerd theory: You can only have so many characters in a story, because there's a limit to how many are enjoyable to hold in one's head on a Sunday evening. Once you have played everyone against everyone else, the game is broadly up.

    Sitcoms are a bit different, because the whole point is that hardly anyone ever learns anything, and the lack of evolution is the enjoyable comfort. But stories and sagas are meant to be about change.
  • Options
    kinabalukinabalu Posts: 39,598
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    kamski said:

    Leon said:

    Why did no one tell me about the Apple Series FOR ALL MANKIND

    It's fantastic. Admittedly, I have only watched one episode, but it is brilliant

    The bait and switch on the moon landing is GENIUS

    I've seen 3 episodes, and although it's well done, I'm beginning to suspect that after an intriguing opening it's descending into a slow-moving soap opera that they will milk for as many episodes as they can in the typical way. So I'm probably not going any further unless I hear different.

    If you're on Apple + I can highly recommend Shrinking featuring a great turn by Harrison Ford as a grumpy old man.
    Ach. dammit

    That is my big fear

    So many series now do this. Start with great promise, then fade away HORRIBLY

    I have had to abandon three dramas in recent months for this reason. GRRR
    Season one was pretty good throughout, in my opinion.
    Season two also still fairly good and well worth watching.
    Season three had its moments and remained worth watching, but slower and a bit faded in comparison to the first two.
    Season four felt flat to me and I really only watched it through inertia.
    OK so I should get three seasons of fun. That's good

    I'd like to watch Masters of the Air but I CANNOT be arsed with this one episode a week bullshit. What is this, 1976?

    If I like a drama I want to watch an episode a night, I don't want to wait A WEEK for the next one, RIDIC

    So I will have to wait until the entire thing is broadcast, then watch it in toto
    I wonder if modern viewing habits are contributing to cognitive decline? In the old days 'binge watch' wasn't possible, nor was an episode a night. You had to tune in each week to catch the latest episode of a drama. This meant holding the plot in your head for those 7 days between episodes and for the full however many weeks of the run. That's a proper "use it or lose it" mental test if you think about it. No need for Sudokus etc when you're doing that the whole time.
  • Options
    rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,905
    Nigelb said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    kamski said:

    Leon said:

    Why did no one tell me about the Apple Series FOR ALL MANKIND

    It's fantastic. Admittedly, I have only watched one episode, but it is brilliant

    The bait and switch on the moon landing is GENIUS

    I've seen 3 episodes, and although it's well done, I'm beginning to suspect that after an intriguing opening it's descending into a slow-moving soap opera that they will milk for as many episodes as they can in the typical way. So I'm probably not going any further unless I hear different.

    If you're on Apple + I can highly recommend Shrinking featuring a great turn by Harrison Ford as a grumpy old man.
    Ach. dammit

    That is my big fear

    So many series now do this. Start with great promise, then fade away HORRIBLY

    I have had to abandon three dramas in recent months for this reason. GRRR
    Season one was pretty good throughout, in my opinion.
    Season two also still fairly good and well worth watching.
    Season three had its moments and remained worth watching, but slower and a bit faded in comparison to the first two.
    Season four felt flat to me and I really only watched it through inertia.
    OK so I should get three seasons of fun. That's good

    I'd like to watch Masters of the Air but I CANNOT be arsed with this one episode a week bullshit. What is this, 1976?

    If I like a drama I want to watch an episode a night, I don't want to wait A WEEK for the next one, RIDIC

    So I will have to wait until the entire thing is broadcast, then watch it in toto

    Six Flying Dragons is available on Rakuten Viki.
    Fifty episodes.
    For all Mankind is superb. I really enjoyed it. There's some highly unrealistic stuff just for the drama - like how much time the head of NASA gives to a ten year old maths whizz kid who wants some tuition and too many rather over the top scenes 'macho astro men in bars slamming down the chasers' but overall it is all very well made and clever.
  • Options
    Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 9,351

    Strange, Guido and his pals were fine with ‘unsophisticated support’ for Project Brexit.


    Sounds anti-Semitic to me. Surely everyone knows the negative meanings of 'sophisticated': 'Mixed with a foreign substance, adulterated, impure', 'Altered from or deprived of natural simplicity or innocence'. Shame on him!
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 63,519
    Why John Bolton Is Certain Trump Really Wants to Blow Up NATO

    https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2024/02/13/bolton-trump-2024-nato-00141160
    “Look, I was there when he almost withdrew, and he’s not negotiating,” said Bolton, who served as Trump’s national security adviser. “His goal here is not to strengthen NATO, it’s to lay the groundwork to get out.”..
  • Options

    Strange, Guido and his pals were fine with ‘unsophisticated support’ for Project Brexit.


    Guido posts racism about muslims shock.
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 48,088
    Interesting article on that fake audio of Sadiq Khan from last November, and how much it freaked him out

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68146053

    Listening to it again, I am struck by how good it is. That ABSOLUTELY sounds like Khan, and it is brilliantly phrased to be provocative yet just about plausible. I accept that it is a fake, but I wonder how they proved it? The article does NOT say this. Perhaps because they have some technique they don't want to reveal?
  • Options

    Leon said:

    kamski said:

    Leon said:

    Why did no one tell me about the Apple Series FOR ALL MANKIND

    It's fantastic. Admittedly, I have only watched one episode, but it is brilliant

    The bait and switch on the moon landing is GENIUS

    I've seen 3 episodes, and although it's well done, I'm beginning to suspect that after an intriguing opening it's descending into a slow-moving soap opera that they will milk for as many episodes as they can in the typical way. So I'm probably not going any further unless I hear different.

    If you're on Apple + I can highly recommend Shrinking featuring a great turn by Harrison Ford as a grumpy old man.
    Ach. dammit

    That is my big fear

    So many series now do this. Start with great promise, then fade away HORRIBLY

    I have had to abandon three dramas in recent months for this reason. GRRR
    Season one was pretty good throughout, in my opinion.
    Season two also still fairly good and well worth watching.
    Season three had its moments and remained worth watching, but slower and a bit faded in comparison to the first two.
    Season four felt flat to me and I really only watched it through inertia.
    Yeah I agree, I'm becalmed about 4 eps into season 4.

    The Peter Capaldi thing on apple is quite good.
    Good? Its *fantastic*
  • Options
    TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 40,505

    Strange, Guido and his pals were fine with ‘unsophisticated support’ for Project Brexit.


    Sounds anti-Semitic to me. Surely everyone knows the negative meanings of 'sophisticated': 'Mixed with a foreign substance, adulterated, impure', 'Altered from or deprived of natural simplicity or innocence'. Shame on him!
    Yep, I got that vibe, a bawhair away from rootless cosmopolitans. Still, I suppose he’s saying this is now a good thing.
  • Options
    numbertwelvenumbertwelve Posts: 5,633

    Mr. F, and yet, even after the seventh season the final one could've been good. The ending of seven was fine.

    The eighth is amazing for the errors and poor decisions involved. I especially like two characters setting off early to arrive somewhere before the army (leaving from the same place) and arrive there after the army. Fun fact: two individuals move a lot faster than a whole army. The idea they'd be slower is demented. And the concept they wouldn't notice a whole army passing them is something special.

    They rushed it and it shows.

    I have very little doubt that there will be a reimagining/redoing of at least the final two seasons at some point. It may not be in 5 years time, or 10, but I think it’ll be too good an opportunity not to pass up at some point.

  • Options
    kinabalukinabalu Posts: 39,598

    Strange, Guido and his pals were fine with ‘unsophisticated support’ for Project Brexit.


    Lots of people are strangely comfortable slagging off Muslims, aren't they.
  • Options
    FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 9,097
    So just a week after Mike Freer, MP for the most Jewish constituency in the UK, steps down due to death threats we have 'pro-Palestine' protesters demonstrating outside Tobias Ellwood's home. The Guardian reported a week or two back how Labour MPs have been forming whatsapp (support?) groups in the face of intimidation they have been receiving. Jewish people across Britain are living on edge as pro Hamas activists march through London on a repeated basis. When David Amess MP was murdered the fact his killer was an islamist passed without notice.

    Is the media giving this the full attention it really deserves? Some will argue that this is the price MPs pay for supporting Israel and if only they backed a ceasefire this would all go away. I hope those arguments will be treated with the contempt they deserve. The idea of a democracy should be that people can air their opinions without fear of violence being meted out against them. Once that is gone we are no longer really a proper democracy. Are you willing to fight for it?
  • Options
    noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 21,037

    Strange, Guido and his pals were fine with ‘unsophisticated support’ for Project Brexit.


    Conversation somewhere within Guido towers reminscent of Mitchell and Webb...

    Guido, you know all those childish graphics and silly stories we keep pumping out, have you ever considered that we might be the unsophisticated ones?
  • Options
    jamesdoylejamesdoyle Posts: 671
    Leon said:

    Why did no one tell me about the Apple Series FOR ALL MANKIND

    It's fantastic. Admittedly, I have only watched one episode, but it is brilliant

    The bait and switch on the moon landing is GENIUS

    There's actually an entire subgenre of SF (it has a name, but I forget it) of stories about 'the space program would have been so much more successful if x had(n't) happened'.
    Wish fulfillment for space nerds,which does include me, but I am a bit tired of these now.
  • Options
    bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 8,256
    Endillion said:

    eek said:

    TOPPING said:

    Want an end to civilian casualties? Then there's a simple solution: Hamas lays down their arms unconditionally and releases the hostages. Otherwise the war continues.

    Exactly what David Cameron (pbuh) said yesterday in the HoL.

    And we know that DC can say or do no wrong.
    But ever civilian casualty recruits more people into Hamas rather than sitting on the sidelines.

    Even before you see the complete lack of hope that Israel is offering everyone in Gaza which again will be pushing people towards actively supporting Hamas because they’ve got nothing else so they may as well.

    Indeed. Nor do they offer any hope to Palestinians in the West Bank either. Nor that much to Arab Israelis.

    The conflict in Northern Ireland was ended because the conditions of the Catholic population were improved. The conflict in the Basque country was ended because the conditions of the Basque population were improved. And so on.
    Israel removed its military and settlements from Gaza in 2005.

    From then on Gaza was the responsibility of the people who lived there.

    What did they achieve apart from doubling its population.

    Overpopulating doesn't improve conditions.
    Hamas has done little to improve the condition of the people in Gaza. Nothing I wrote was supportive of Hamas. You, however, are misinformed about the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza. Gaza has long been blockaded by Israel (and, of course, a blockade is a casus belli according to Israel in 1967). It was not an independent statelet. It was still heavily under the control of Israel.

    Also, Gaza is part of Palestine. It's good that Israel pulled out of Gaza in 2005, but Israel was and is still in the West Bank, building illegal settlements and oppressing the local population.

    Israel has destroyed the only family planning clinic in Gaza: https://www.newsweek.com/planned-parenthood-gaza-clinic-destroyed-israeli-airstrike-1834556 Donations to the IPPF are, I'm sure, welcome.
    A few corrections needed here:

    - Israel does not control all entrances and exits from Gaza and therefore cannot "blockade" it. You would need to say that "Gaza has long been blockaded by Israel and Egypt, which doesn't change the facts on the ground but obviously weakens your point significantly.
    - Clearly, Israel hasn't been "blockading" Gaza very effectively, given the amount of weaponry that's got in.
    - "Gaza is part of Palestine": says who, exactly? Sure, it was part of the mandate, but then occupied by Egypt for nearly 20 years. Why is everyone so obsessed with preserving all borders as they were at the end of WW2, forever, regardless of changes in circumstances?
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egypt–Gaza_border#Buffer_zone_by_Israel explains how there is an Israeli buffer zone on the Egypt/Gaza border, which obviously weakens your point significantly.

    The people of Gaza consider themselves one with the people of the West Bank. That is also the view of pretty much every country in the world, and the UN.

    "Why is everyone so obsessed with preserving all borders as they were at the end of WW2, forever, regardless of changes in circumstances?" The preservation of borders is central to the rules-based international order that has been widely seen as the best way of keeping the peace for over 70 years. Borders can and do change peacefully with agreement of the peoples affected. Attempts to change borders without consent are illegal under international law.
  • Options
    EabhalEabhal Posts: 6,268
    kinabalu said:

    Strange, Guido and his pals were fine with ‘unsophisticated support’ for Project Brexit.


    Lots of people are strangely comfortable slagging off Muslims, aren't they.
    It's quite impressive that he's managed to negatively stereotype both groups at the same time.
  • Options
    SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 39,023
    edited February 14
    Leon said:

    kamski said:

    Leon said:

    kamski said:

    Leon said:

    kamski said:

    Leon said:

    Why did no one tell me about the Apple Series FOR ALL MANKIND

    It's fantastic. Admittedly, I have only watched one episode, but it is brilliant

    The bait and switch on the moon landing is GENIUS

    I've seen 3 episodes, and although it's well done, I'm beginning to suspect that after an intriguing opening it's descending into a slow-moving soap opera that they will milk for as many episodes as they can in the typical way. So I'm probably not going any further unless I hear different.

    If you're on Apple + I can highly recommend Shrinking featuring a great turn by Harrison Ford as a grumpy old man.
    Ach. dammit

    That is my big fear

    So many series now do this. Start with great promise, then fade away HORRIBLY

    I have had to abandon three dramas in recent months for this reason. GRRR
    Yes, it's very annoying. And sometimes the opposite happens - eg I was still enjoying The Path after 3 seasons (though it had got a bit slushy), and they didn't make any more despite the story clearly being unfinished.

    I would say For All Mankind is still entertaining after 3 episodes but 7 seasons are planned, and I don't want to get hooked into having to know what happens because it's too much of a time commitment for me...
    Rotten Tomatoes - which is modestly reliable - insists it contnues well into seasons 2 and 3. I shall persist for now

    The worst of the recent bunch was Money Heist, which started cleverly and elegantly, but described a perfect smooth arc of descent into inanity, plot holes, non sequiturs, stupid characters and tedious distractions

    Monarch: Legacy of Monsters immediately went from quite good in episode 1 to SHITE by ep 3, and stayed there
    Let us know how it goes!

    It took me 2 and a half seasons to give up on Mad Men.

    I've never seen an episode of Lost, or The Crown, or Game of Thrones (probably too violent for me), or Eastenders. Maybe I am commitment-phobic.

    Never heard of Monarch: Legacy of Monsters. I saw Money Heist advertised - it looked interesting but my wife can't be bothered with subtitles, and I refuse to watch anything dubbed (if it was even available) so didn't bother. Won't now.
    Mad Men was great, until about season 4 or 5 (most dramas collapse by seasons 4 or 5, if they get that far - it is an actual rule, with very few exceptions)

    The first season of the Crown is superb, second jolly good, then increasingly bad

    Game of Thrones is sui generis. I loved it, mostly, even while finding the plot absurdly complex and difficult to comprehend, it had that knack that, just when you felt like abandoning it for its labyrinthine complexity, it would have a brilliant scene with clever lines, or a spectacular battle sequence, or just the midget being funny

    Great actors helped; also good characterisation

    I thought Mad Men was brilliant all the way through. It just got the 60s perfectly from beginning to end. The Wire and the Sopranos were sustained brilliance too. Those three stand head and shoulders above all else.
  • Options
    MattWMattW Posts: 19,109
    ydoethur said:

    kamski said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    WTF

    Apparently in kids' footy now there is a thing called the "Brexit Tackle", it seems to be quite brutal

    Some kids do it while shouting "Brexit means Brexit"

    Is this just fantasy? An escape from reality?

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/feb/14/brexit-tackle-politics-children-football

    Get with the programme. I told you all about this on here about two years ago (my son plays U15 football). The Brexit tackle is a kind of mindlessly aggressive, barely legal tackle, harking back to traditional ugly but effective English football in contrast to Continental skill and sophistication. I think it is a satirical content by the young on the belligerent stupidity of the Brexit vote.
    Except..


    It is gaining positive connotations. Something tough, no nonsense and aggressive

    "Brexit means brexit
    Means when somebody hits a massive slide tackle and usually sends them flying and it hurts them servely.
    Brexit means brexit, I’m going to brake his legs and take his life."

    https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Brexit means brexit


    Here are people showing HOW to do the Brexit tackle

    https://www.tiktok.com/@kalan_lisbie/video/7311772522297543968


    lol
    Perhaps its connotations vary by area but for my son and his friends in SE London the idea of the Brexit tackle is very much taking the piss out of Brexit and the people who voted for it.
    It's hard to think of any situation where shouting 'Brexit means Brexit' isn't appropriate and funny.
    Boris Johnson at the DUP conference?
    That sounds like a Remainer self-reinforcement narrative picked up by children !
  • Options
    CookieCookie Posts: 11,716
    kinabalu said:

    Cookie said:

    Leon said:

    nico679 said:

    Good morning

    Labour down 5% on this poll

    Tomorrow's by elections should show if this is happening or if it is all smoke and mirrors

    https://twitter.com/DominicPenna/status/1757665864696971522?t=zfbTQL3aas6Qcnfmr03h_w&s=19

    Most of that poll was done before Ali-gate.
    Maybe a reaction to the green u-turn . Certainly it’s been a bad week for Labour and not what you want in the run up to the by-elections .

    Perhaps the postal votes might help them seeing as most would have been in before things went south.
    Sky reporting a third labour politician has been spoken to

    https://news.sky.com/story/third-labour-politician-spoken-to-over-meeting-at-centre-of-antisemitism-row-13071272
    It wouldn't surprise me if dozens of Labur MPs have said stuff like this. A potential catastrophe
    Someone yesterday ( @theProle ?) likened the current situation to a scene from "the Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe" in which the White Queen – looking superficially presentable – is seen to be backed by an absolute army of ogres, misfits and crazies. Admittedly I have neither read the book nor seen the film so the analogy was slightly lost on me. But still, I can picture it. And the number of scary luncatics in the ranks behind Starmer is starting to look quite scary.
    Of course, the Tories also have a cast of peculiars too. But their misfits are of a more traditional bent – the not-really-competent-of-effective types, the rules-don’t-really-apply-to-me types. Whereas a good half of the Labour Party appear to be living in a weird teenage twitter rabbithole which has driven them genuinely insane.
    "a good half of the Labour Party"

    I'll be kind and put this down to artistic licence.
    That's entirely fair. I should have put the word 'appear' in a different place. It is, of course, only the oddities which hit the news. But the last few days have given us:
    1) Azhar Ali - ex-leader of Lancashire Labour Party - hitherto thought of the sane and sensible wing of a sane and sensible regional body - comes out with the sort of weird conspiracy stuff you expect not leave the more deranged corners of twitter or the odd bit of motorway bridge graffiti.
    2) A second candiate in his wake gets suspended for something similar.
    3) Reports of a handful more.

    The impression you get is 'Christ, maybe they all secretly think like this'. Because the likes of Azhar Ali are not fringe players or rentagobs, and their views are presumably - presumably? - well known to those who select them. Indeed, they hadn't before now seen any reason to keep stuff like this to themselves.

    I do accept that five or so candidate is not 'a good half of the Labour Party', and you are quite right, artistic license. But the more we see of those behind the front bench, the more we see the crazies, and the more we see the crazies, the more we wonder how many of the faceless masses we have not yet met are actually like this too.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 63,519

    Nigelb said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    kamski said:

    Leon said:

    Why did no one tell me about the Apple Series FOR ALL MANKIND

    It's fantastic. Admittedly, I have only watched one episode, but it is brilliant

    The bait and switch on the moon landing is GENIUS

    I've seen 3 episodes, and although it's well done, I'm beginning to suspect that after an intriguing opening it's descending into a slow-moving soap opera that they will milk for as many episodes as they can in the typical way. So I'm probably not going any further unless I hear different.

    If you're on Apple + I can highly recommend Shrinking featuring a great turn by Harrison Ford as a grumpy old man.
    Ach. dammit

    That is my big fear

    So many series now do this. Start with great promise, then fade away HORRIBLY

    I have had to abandon three dramas in recent months for this reason. GRRR
    Season one was pretty good throughout, in my opinion.
    Season two also still fairly good and well worth watching.
    Season three had its moments and remained worth watching, but slower and a bit faded in comparison to the first two.
    Season four felt flat to me and I really only watched it through inertia.
    OK so I should get three seasons of fun. That's good

    I'd like to watch Masters of the Air but I CANNOT be arsed with this one episode a week bullshit. What is this, 1976?

    If I like a drama I want to watch an episode a night, I don't want to wait A WEEK for the next one, RIDIC

    So I will have to wait until the entire thing is broadcast, then watch it in toto

    Six Flying Dragons is available on Rakuten Viki.
    Fifty episodes.
    For all Mankind is superb. I really enjoyed it. There's some highly unrealistic stuff just for the drama - like how much time the head of NASA gives to a ten year old maths whizz kid who wants some tuition and too many rather over the top scenes 'macho astro men in bars slamming down the chasers' but overall it is all very well made and clever.
    6FD is a fictionalised account of the founding of the Joseon dynasty.

    While the storytelling is certainly not, the actual history is pretty accurate.

    Even the philosophical debate is dramatically interesting. By the time this guy gets clubbed to death on the Sonjuk bridge, you're rooting for the guy with the flail.
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeong_Mong-ju
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 48,088

    Leon said:

    Mr. F, and yet, even after the seventh season the final one could've been good. The ending of seven was fine.

    The eighth is amazing for the errors and poor decisions involved. I especially like two characters setting off early to arrive somewhere before the army (leaving from the same place) and arrive there after the army. Fun fact: two individuals move a lot faster than a whole army. The idea they'd be slower is demented. And the concept they wouldn't notice a whole army passing them is something special.

    I thought the final battle sequence with the dragons - third episode from the end? - was glorious. Didn't all make sense, but absolutely spectacular - if I am remembering correctly

    But then it went on after that, with some insane plot twists
    You know more about this than I do... how long can a saga like this keep going?

    I recently fell down a Howard's Way binge watch rabbit hole (yes, I deserve condemnation, I don't care), and whilst that was always incoherent tosh, it became really incoherent tosh towards the end, with characters behaving really out of character.

    Science nerd theory: You can only have so many characters in a story, because there's a limit to how many are enjoyable to hold in one's head on a Sunday evening. Once you have played everyone against everyone else, the game is broadly up.

    Sitcoms are a bit different, because the whole point is that hardly anyone ever learns anything, and the lack of evolution is the enjoyable comfort. But stories and sagas are meant to be about change.
    I have observed, personally and professionally, that the 4-5 seasons thing is a pretty iron rule. Of course plenty of dramas don't even make it that far, they die after 1 season, and are not renewed, or they make it to 3 and that was all they planned

    But there seems to be some algorithm which says you will run out of character changes, plot twists, likely scenarios, new and believeable angles, after 4 or 5 seasons. I note Succession, probably the greatest recent drama, ended on its 4th season, with people wanting more, but likely a very wise decision

    Great dramas that go beyond this - House, Mad Men - generally tail off badly

    There are vanishingly few exceptions. The Sopranos is probably one - six seasons, great to the end

    Soap operas that constanrtly introduce new characters can go on much longer, perhaps eternally, but they are not cohesive dramas in the same sense
  • Options
    MattWMattW Posts: 19,109
    edited February 14
    ydoethur said:

    For TSE:

    Hmmm.


  • Options
    kinabalukinabalu Posts: 39,598

    eek said:

    TOPPING said:

    Want an end to civilian casualties? Then there's a simple solution: Hamas lays down their arms unconditionally and releases the hostages. Otherwise the war continues.

    Exactly what David Cameron (pbuh) said yesterday in the HoL.

    And we know that DC can say or do no wrong.
    But ever civilian casualty recruits more people into Hamas rather than sitting on the sidelines.

    Even before you see the complete lack of hope that Israel is offering everyone in Gaza which again will be pushing people towards actively supporting Hamas because they’ve got nothing else so they may as well.

    Indeed. Nor do they offer any hope to Palestinians in the West Bank either. Nor that much to Arab Israelis.

    The conflict in Northern Ireland was ended because the conditions of the Catholic population were improved. The conflict in the Basque country was ended because the conditions of the Basque population were improved. And so on.
    Israeli actions in the last couple of decades have not achieved much in terms of building peace. The choices made by Israel have contributed to the prospects of a peace settlement deteriorating.

    However, the circumstances immediately following the massacre of more than a thousand Israelis, and the taking of many hundreds of hostages, are not particularly ideal for a change in policy towards peace-building.

    The war against Hamas has to be won first, and then Israel will have another opportunity to build peace. Perhaps they will take it this time. Perhaps not.

    I've never felt at all Jewish in the present, though it's part of the family history I've always been aware of, but it makes me feel incredibly vulnerable when so many people advocate effective impunity for the people responsible for what must have been the most successful attempt to exterminate Jews since 1945.
    I'm not advocating impunity for the people responsible for the October attack. I agree that immediately after the massacre is not a good context for a change in policy towards peace-building. I have repeatedly said Israel has the right to defend itself.

    Nonetheless, what Israel is doing now is not going to achieve peace. I'm just some random guy on a website forum. My view isn't going to change anything, of course, but polling is very clear that the Israeli public don't support Netanyahu either.
    Unfortunately there's another factor working against peace now and that is Moral Hazard. Peace means a Palestinian state but if this were to gain traction anytime soon it would look like Oct 7th had 'worked'. This aspect will hamper progress for quite some time, I think.
  • Options
    northern_monkeynorthern_monkey Posts: 1,559
    edited February 14

    Leon said:

    kamski said:

    Leon said:

    Why did no one tell me about the Apple Series FOR ALL MANKIND

    It's fantastic. Admittedly, I have only watched one episode, but it is brilliant

    The bait and switch on the moon landing is GENIUS

    I've seen 3 episodes, and although it's well done, I'm beginning to suspect that after an intriguing opening it's descending into a slow-moving soap opera that they will milk for as many episodes as they can in the typical way. So I'm probably not going any further unless I hear different.

    If you're on Apple + I can highly recommend Shrinking featuring a great turn by Harrison Ford as a grumpy old man.
    Ach. dammit

    That is my big fear

    So many series now do this. Start with great promise, then fade away HORRIBLY

    I have had to abandon three dramas in recent months for this reason. GRRR
    Season one was pretty good throughout, in my opinion.
    Season two also still fairly good and well worth watching.
    Season three had its moments and remained worth watching, but slower and a bit faded in comparison to the first two.
    Season four felt flat to me and I really only watched it through inertia.
    Yeah I agree, I'm becalmed about 4 eps into season 4.

    The Peter Capaldi thing on apple is quite good.
    Good? Its *fantastic*
    For me, I think quite good is accurate. I’m not the biggest fan of police procedurals - though it is a good example of the genre and I like its ambition and the questions it asks - but I’m not totally gripped by it.

    Not like I have been with Traitors. OMFG! I don’t watch loads of reality TV - unless you class loads of YouTube as reality TV - but Traitors is amazing! I started watching season 2 when I was ill a few weeks ago and wanting something easy to watch whilst laid in bed, suffering stoically.

    I’ve since burned through the two UK seasons and the two Aussie and one US season they have on iPlayer. They’re fascinating studies of the human character.

    Hot tip - skip the pointless tasks they do in each episode and just mainline the good stuff when they’re a-murdering and a-banishing. Compelling TV. Reality TV for people who are too snooty to watch reality TV. Like me.

    The new Gladiators lost its nostalgic novelty (oxymoron?) after 3 eps.
  • Options
    kamskikamski Posts: 4,344

    Leon said:

    kamski said:

    Leon said:

    Why did no one tell me about the Apple Series FOR ALL MANKIND

    It's fantastic. Admittedly, I have only watched one episode, but it is brilliant

    The bait and switch on the moon landing is GENIUS

    I've seen 3 episodes, and although it's well done, I'm beginning to suspect that after an intriguing opening it's descending into a slow-moving soap opera that they will milk for as many episodes as they can in the typical way. So I'm probably not going any further unless I hear different.

    If you're on Apple + I can highly recommend Shrinking featuring a great turn by Harrison Ford as a grumpy old man.
    Ach. dammit

    That is my big fear

    So many series now do this. Start with great promise, then fade away HORRIBLY

    I have had to abandon three dramas in recent months for this reason. GRRR
    It got a bit Wokey in episode 3 with Nixon's Women, so I stopped watching.

    Might skip over it and pick up again later.
    In what way Wokey?
  • Options
    Sean_FSean_F Posts: 36,087
    Leon said:

    Mr. F, and yet, even after the seventh season the final one could've been good. The ending of seven was fine.

    The eighth is amazing for the errors and poor decisions involved. I especially like two characters setting off early to arrive somewhere before the army (leaving from the same place) and arrive there after the army. Fun fact: two individuals move a lot faster than a whole army. The idea they'd be slower is demented. And the concept they wouldn't notice a whole army passing them is something special.

    I thought the final battle sequence with the dragons - third episode from the end? - was glorious. Didn't all make sense, but absolutely spectacular - if I am remembering correctly

    But then it went on after that, with some insane plot twists
    In and of itself, I thought the sack of Kings Landing was well done. It's just all that went before and after. For me, what killed it was the appalling plotting in later seasons. Arya gets stabbed in the stomach, and falls into an open sewer, but recovers after a good night's sleep. The Dothraki are finished as a people, in one episode, only to revive in the next. Medieval torsion weapons are more effective than Storm Shadow in one episode, completely useless the next. People are talking about the Iron Fleet in one scene, Daenerys "kinda forgot" about it in the next, despite riding a dragon several hundred feet up, which should enable her to see for about 60 miles.

    Gendry could sprint 100 miles to the Wall, and Dany then flew up there at the speed of Concorde. Tyrion's military advice is utterly moronic, but for some reason, everyone keeps treating him as a genius. The Bran 9000 gets made king for ... reasons. Bronn is made Master of Coin, despite not knowing what a loan is. Sam is made Grand Maester, despite not being a maester. Grey Worm takes Jon prisoner, but instead of killing him, allows his family to act as his judges.

    Even in fantasy, there comes a point where you can suspend your disbelief no further.
  • Options
    MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 12,760

    Leon said:

    nico679 said:

    Good morning

    Labour down 5% on this poll

    Tomorrow's by elections should show if this is happening or if it is all smoke and mirrors

    https://twitter.com/DominicPenna/status/1757665864696971522?t=zfbTQL3aas6Qcnfmr03h_w&s=19

    Most of that poll was done before Ali-gate.
    Maybe a reaction to the green u-turn . Certainly it’s been a bad week for Labour and not what you want in the run up to the by-elections .

    Perhaps the postal votes might help them seeing as most would have been in before things went south.
    Sky reporting a third labour politician has been spoken to

    https://news.sky.com/story/third-labour-politician-spoken-to-over-meeting-at-centre-of-antisemitism-row-13071272
    It wouldn't surprise me if dozens of Labur MPs have said stuff like this. A potential catastrophe
    That guy appears to have merely heard rather than spoken, but can Sir Keir afford to show any mercy?
    So even hearing somebody say something critical of Israel makes you an antisemite now...
    Absolutely Yes. If you don’t challenge it on the spot and call it out, you are a fellow traveller, as guilty as the person saying it. This applies to every workplace in 2024, doesn’t it? It’s one of the best things to come from the woke era.
  • Options
    Sean_FSean_F Posts: 36,087

    Leon said:

    kamski said:

    Leon said:

    kamski said:

    Leon said:

    kamski said:

    Leon said:

    Why did no one tell me about the Apple Series FOR ALL MANKIND

    It's fantastic. Admittedly, I have only watched one episode, but it is brilliant

    The bait and switch on the moon landing is GENIUS

    I've seen 3 episodes, and although it's well done, I'm beginning to suspect that after an intriguing opening it's descending into a slow-moving soap opera that they will milk for as many episodes as they can in the typical way. So I'm probably not going any further unless I hear different.

    If you're on Apple + I can highly recommend Shrinking featuring a great turn by Harrison Ford as a grumpy old man.
    Ach. dammit

    That is my big fear

    So many series now do this. Start with great promise, then fade away HORRIBLY

    I have had to abandon three dramas in recent months for this reason. GRRR
    Yes, it's very annoying. And sometimes the opposite happens - eg I was still enjoying The Path after 3 seasons (though it had got a bit slushy), and they didn't make any more despite the story clearly being unfinished.

    I would say For All Mankind is still entertaining after 3 episodes but 7 seasons are planned, and I don't want to get hooked into having to know what happens because it's too much of a time commitment for me...
    Rotten Tomatoes - which is modestly reliable - insists it contnues well into seasons 2 and 3. I shall persist for now

    The worst of the recent bunch was Money Heist, which started cleverly and elegantly, but described a perfect smooth arc of descent into inanity, plot holes, non sequiturs, stupid characters and tedious distractions

    Monarch: Legacy of Monsters immediately went from quite good in episode 1 to SHITE by ep 3, and stayed there
    Let us know how it goes!

    It took me 2 and a half seasons to give up on Mad Men.

    I've never seen an episode of Lost, or The Crown, or Game of Thrones (probably too violent for me), or Eastenders. Maybe I am commitment-phobic.

    Never heard of Monarch: Legacy of Monsters. I saw Money Heist advertised - it looked interesting but my wife can't be bothered with subtitles, and I refuse to watch anything dubbed (if it was even available) so didn't bother. Won't now.
    Mad Men was great, until about season 4 or 5 (most dramas collapse by seasons 4 or 5, if they get that far - it is an actual rule, with very few exceptions)

    The first season of the Crown is superb, second jolly good, then increasingly bad

    Game of Thrones is sui generis. I loved it, mostly, even while finding the plot absurdly complex and difficult to comprehend, it had that knack that, just when you felt like abandoning it for its labyrinthine complexity, it would have a brilliant scene with clever lines, or a spectacular battle sequence, or just the midget being funny

    Great actors helped; also good characterisation

    I thought Mad Men was brilliant all the way through. It just got the 60s perfectly from beginning to end. The Wire and the Sopranos were sustained brilliance too. Those three stand head and shoulders above all else.
    Breaking Bad, too.

    Better Call Saul was quality almost throughout, although for me, it ended poorly.
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 48,088
    edited February 14
    Sean_F said:

    Leon said:

    Mr. F, and yet, even after the seventh season the final one could've been good. The ending of seven was fine.

    The eighth is amazing for the errors and poor decisions involved. I especially like two characters setting off early to arrive somewhere before the army (leaving from the same place) and arrive there after the army. Fun fact: two individuals move a lot faster than a whole army. The idea they'd be slower is demented. And the concept they wouldn't notice a whole army passing them is something special.

    I thought the final battle sequence with the dragons - third episode from the end? - was glorious. Didn't all make sense, but absolutely spectacular - if I am remembering correctly

    But then it went on after that, with some insane plot twists
    In and of itself, I thought the sack of Kings Landing was well done. It's just all that went before and after. For me, what killed it was the appalling plotting in later seasons. Arya gets stabbed in the stomach, and falls into an open sewer, but recovers after a good night's sleep. The Dothraki are finished as a people, in one episode, only to revive in the next. Medieval torsion weapons are more effective than Storm Shadow in one episode, completely useless the next. People are talking about the Iron Fleet in one scene, Daenerys "kinda forgot" about it in the next, despite riding a dragon several hundred feet up, which should enable her to see for about 60 miles.

    Gendry could sprint 100 miles to the Wall, and Dany then flew up there at the speed of Concorde. Tyrion's military advice is utterly moronic, but for some reason, everyone keeps treating him as a genius. The Bran 9000 gets made king for ... reasons. Bronn is made Master of Coin, despite not knowing what a loan is. Sam is made Grand Maester, despite not being a maester. Grey Worm takes Jon prisoner, but instead of killing him, allows his family to act as his judges.

    Even in fantasy, there comes a point where you can suspend your disbelief no further.
    You are obviously a much closer, more attentive viewer than me, I don't even recognise some of these names

    I watched Game of Thrones the way you look at a painting, yet animated, if you see what I mean: just enjoying the visuals and the wit and the gratuitous brothel scenes, or brutal fights, with only a vague sense of the plot

    But even with that laid back attitude, by the last two seasons I could sense the plot falling apart, so it must have been pretty fucking bad

    Isn't there an issue with JRRM not finishing the books, so by the end the show runners had to construct their own narratives? Obvs didn't do it very well, if so
  • Options
    Sean_F said:

    Leon said:

    Mr. F, and yet, even after the seventh season the final one could've been good. The ending of seven was fine.

    The eighth is amazing for the errors and poor decisions involved. I especially like two characters setting off early to arrive somewhere before the army (leaving from the same place) and arrive there after the army. Fun fact: two individuals move a lot faster than a whole army. The idea they'd be slower is demented. And the concept they wouldn't notice a whole army passing them is something special.

    I thought the final battle sequence with the dragons - third episode from the end? - was glorious. Didn't all make sense, but absolutely spectacular - if I am remembering correctly

    But then it went on after that, with some insane plot twists
    In and of itself, I thought the sack of Kings Landing was well done. It's just all that went before and after. For me, what killed it was the appalling plotting in later seasons. Arya gets stabbed in the stomach, and falls into an open sewer, but recovers after a good night's sleep. The Dothraki are finished as a people, in one episode, only to revive in the next. Medieval torsion weapons are more effective than Storm Shadow in one episode, completely useless the next. People are talking about the Iron Fleet in one scene, Daenerys "kinda forgot" about it in the next, despite riding a dragon several hundred feet up, which should enable her to see for about 60 miles.

    Gendry could sprint 100 miles to the Wall, and Dany then flew up there at the speed of Concorde. Tyrion's military advice is utterly moronic, but for some reason, everyone keeps treating him as a genius. The Bran 9000 gets made king for ... reasons. Bronn is made Master of Coin, despite not knowing what a loan is. Sam is made Grand Maester, despite not being a maester. Grey Worm takes Jon prisoner, but instead of killing him, allows his family to act as his judges.

    Even in fantasy, there comes a point where you can suspend your disbelief no further.
    As a rule I do not like the fantasy genre. Can't stand LOTR. But started watching GOT mainly because Sean Bean and Mark Addy hamming it up in season 1. There are so many quotable things and enjoyable moments in a series that went on and on and on with characters I had little regard for.

    Then it ended. And my reaction now? What an absolute waste of my time sitting through it.
  • Options
    rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 7,948
    kinabalu said:

    eek said:

    TOPPING said:

    Want an end to civilian casualties? Then there's a simple solution: Hamas lays down their arms unconditionally and releases the hostages. Otherwise the war continues.

    Exactly what David Cameron (pbuh) said yesterday in the HoL.

    And we know that DC can say or do no wrong.
    But ever civilian casualty recruits more people into Hamas rather than sitting on the sidelines.

    Even before you see the complete lack of hope that Israel is offering everyone in Gaza which again will be pushing people towards actively supporting Hamas because they’ve got nothing else so they may as well.

    Indeed. Nor do they offer any hope to Palestinians in the West Bank either. Nor that much to Arab Israelis.

    The conflict in Northern Ireland was ended because the conditions of the Catholic population were improved. The conflict in the Basque country was ended because the conditions of the Basque population were improved. And so on.
    Israeli actions in the last couple of decades have not achieved much in terms of building peace. The choices made by Israel have contributed to the prospects of a peace settlement deteriorating.

    However, the circumstances immediately following the massacre of more than a thousand Israelis, and the taking of many hundreds of hostages, are not particularly ideal for a change in policy towards peace-building.

    The war against Hamas has to be won first, and then Israel will have another opportunity to build peace. Perhaps they will take it this time. Perhaps not.

    I've never felt at all Jewish in the present, though it's part of the family history I've always been aware of, but it makes me feel incredibly vulnerable when so many people advocate effective impunity for the people responsible for what must have been the most successful attempt to exterminate Jews since 1945.
    I'm not advocating impunity for the people responsible for the October attack. I agree that immediately after the massacre is not a good context for a change in policy towards peace-building. I have repeatedly said Israel has the right to defend itself.

    Nonetheless, what Israel is doing now is not going to achieve peace. I'm just some random guy on a website forum. My view isn't going to change anything, of course, but polling is very clear that the Israeli public don't support Netanyahu either.
    Unfortunately there's another factor working against peace now and that is Moral Hazard. Peace means a Palestinian state but if this were to gain traction anytime soon it would look like Oct 7th had 'worked'. This aspect will hamper progress for quite some time, I think.
    Palestinian state in the west bank initially seems a good starting point.
  • Options
    viewcodeviewcode Posts: 19,339

    Leon said:

    Why did no one tell me about the Apple Series FOR ALL MANKIND

    It's fantastic. Admittedly, I have only watched one episode, but it is brilliant

    The bait and switch on the moon landing is GENIUS

    There's actually an entire subgenre of SF (it has a name, but I forget it) of stories about 'the space program would have been so much more successful if x had(n't) happened'.
    Wish fulfillment for space nerds,which does include me, but I am a bit tired of these now.
    Alternate History. The site alternatehistory.com covers it, including my only incidence[1] of fanfiction. The genre contains many attractors/cliches, including "Nazis win WWII", "Confederacy wins AC1", and "USSR wins space race".

    [1] see https://www.alternatehistory.com/wiki/doku.php?id=offtopic:viewcode , also https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/valen-in-vancouver.293668/ .
  • Options
    MattWMattW Posts: 19,109

    Ratters said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Inflation stays at 4%

    Prices were rising about 1% per month in Feb-May last year. So hard not to see a fall in the annual rate over the spring.
    Agreed.

    Cumulative inflation over the last 8 months has now been a total of 0.2%.

    If we get relatively normal month-on-month prints over the next four months, we could easily see headline inflation fall to 2% or below.
    Which is why Sunak won’t call an election in May, but it won’t be enough to save him,
    🤣

    The decisions made solely on inflation?

    There’s lots of reasons why they chose May, easily top of the list is increase on boat crossing from last year, lack of growth in economy and covid report are second and third.
    Hah !

    I read that as "Choose Theresa May", and was going to comment on her having been one of the 'harder' Home Secretaries for civil liberties and immigration - which I think is about right.
  • Options
    Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,062
    Mr. F, I'd argue characters need to be more credible in fantasy than other genres to make the suspension of disbelief in other elements (magic, dragons etc) easier.

    James Bond is a character in a real world but the man himself is more fantastical than almost anyone in GoT.
  • Options
    kamskikamski Posts: 4,344
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Mr. F, and yet, even after the seventh season the final one could've been good. The ending of seven was fine.

    The eighth is amazing for the errors and poor decisions involved. I especially like two characters setting off early to arrive somewhere before the army (leaving from the same place) and arrive there after the army. Fun fact: two individuals move a lot faster than a whole army. The idea they'd be slower is demented. And the concept they wouldn't notice a whole army passing them is something special.

    I thought the final battle sequence with the dragons - third episode from the end? - was glorious. Didn't all make sense, but absolutely spectacular - if I am remembering correctly

    But then it went on after that, with some insane plot twists
    You know more about this than I do... how long can a saga like this keep going?

    I recently fell down a Howard's Way binge watch rabbit hole (yes, I deserve condemnation, I don't care), and whilst that was always incoherent tosh, it became really incoherent tosh towards the end, with characters behaving really out of character.

    Science nerd theory: You can only have so many characters in a story, because there's a limit to how many are enjoyable to hold in one's head on a Sunday evening. Once you have played everyone against everyone else, the game is broadly up.

    Sitcoms are a bit different, because the whole point is that hardly anyone ever learns anything, and the lack of evolution is the enjoyable comfort. But stories and sagas are meant to be about change.
    I have observed, personally and professionally, that the 4-5 seasons thing is a pretty iron rule. Of course plenty of dramas don't even make it that far, they die after 1 season, and are not renewed, or they make it to 3 and that was all they planned

    But there seems to be some algorithm which says you will run out of character changes, plot twists, likely scenarios, new and believeable angles, after 4 or 5 seasons. I note Succession, probably the greatest recent drama, ended on its 4th season, with people wanting more, but likely a very wise decision

    Great dramas that go beyond this - House, Mad Men - generally tail off badly

    There are vanishingly few exceptions. The Sopranos is probably one - six seasons, great to the end

    Soap operas that constanrtly introduce new characters can go on much longer, perhaps eternally, but they are not cohesive dramas in the same sense
    Lucifer made it to 6 seasons with only a couple of dodgy patches, but more comedy-drama than drama.
  • Options
    Sean_F said:

    Leon said:

    kamski said:

    Leon said:

    kamski said:

    Leon said:

    kamski said:

    Leon said:

    Why did no one tell me about the Apple Series FOR ALL MANKIND

    It's fantastic. Admittedly, I have only watched one episode, but it is brilliant

    The bait and switch on the moon landing is GENIUS

    I've seen 3 episodes, and although it's well done, I'm beginning to suspect that after an intriguing opening it's descending into a slow-moving soap opera that they will milk for as many episodes as they can in the typical way. So I'm probably not going any further unless I hear different.

    If you're on Apple + I can highly recommend Shrinking featuring a great turn by Harrison Ford as a grumpy old man.
    Ach. dammit

    That is my big fear

    So many series now do this. Start with great promise, then fade away HORRIBLY

    I have had to abandon three dramas in recent months for this reason. GRRR
    Yes, it's very annoying. And sometimes the opposite happens - eg I was still enjoying The Path after 3 seasons (though it had got a bit slushy), and they didn't make any more despite the story clearly being unfinished.

    I would say For All Mankind is still entertaining after 3 episodes but 7 seasons are planned, and I don't want to get hooked into having to know what happens because it's too much of a time commitment for me...
    Rotten Tomatoes - which is modestly reliable - insists it contnues well into seasons 2 and 3. I shall persist for now

    The worst of the recent bunch was Money Heist, which started cleverly and elegantly, but described a perfect smooth arc of descent into inanity, plot holes, non sequiturs, stupid characters and tedious distractions

    Monarch: Legacy of Monsters immediately went from quite good in episode 1 to SHITE by ep 3, and stayed there
    Let us know how it goes!

    It took me 2 and a half seasons to give up on Mad Men.

    I've never seen an episode of Lost, or The Crown, or Game of Thrones (probably too violent for me), or Eastenders. Maybe I am commitment-phobic.

    Never heard of Monarch: Legacy of Monsters. I saw Money Heist advertised - it looked interesting but my wife can't be bothered with subtitles, and I refuse to watch anything dubbed (if it was even available) so didn't bother. Won't now.
    Mad Men was great, until about season 4 or 5 (most dramas collapse by seasons 4 or 5, if they get that far - it is an actual rule, with very few exceptions)

    The first season of the Crown is superb, second jolly good, then increasingly bad

    Game of Thrones is sui generis. I loved it, mostly, even while finding the plot absurdly complex and difficult to comprehend, it had that knack that, just when you felt like abandoning it for its labyrinthine complexity, it would have a brilliant scene with clever lines, or a spectacular battle sequence, or just the midget being funny

    Great actors helped; also good characterisation

    I thought Mad Men was brilliant all the way through. It just got the 60s perfectly from beginning to end. The Wire and the Sopranos were sustained brilliance too. Those three stand head and shoulders above all else.
    Breaking Bad, too.

    Better Call Saul was quality almost throughout, although for me, it ended poorly.

    I always forget Breaking Bad - but you're right, of course. Better Call Saul nearly got there.

    For me it's about whether you can go back time after time and still enjoy it. You can with those four.

  • Options
    TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 40,505
    ..
    rkrkrk said:

    kinabalu said:

    eek said:

    TOPPING said:

    Want an end to civilian casualties? Then there's a simple solution: Hamas lays down their arms unconditionally and releases the hostages. Otherwise the war continues.

    Exactly what David Cameron (pbuh) said yesterday in the HoL.

    And we know that DC can say or do no wrong.
    But ever civilian casualty recruits more people into Hamas rather than sitting on the sidelines.

    Even before you see the complete lack of hope that Israel is offering everyone in Gaza which again will be pushing people towards actively supporting Hamas because they’ve got nothing else so they may as well.

    Indeed. Nor do they offer any hope to Palestinians in the West Bank either. Nor that much to Arab Israelis.

    The conflict in Northern Ireland was ended because the conditions of the Catholic population were improved. The conflict in the Basque country was ended because the conditions of the Basque population were improved. And so on.
    Israeli actions in the last couple of decades have not achieved much in terms of building peace. The choices made by Israel have contributed to the prospects of a peace settlement deteriorating.

    However, the circumstances immediately following the massacre of more than a thousand Israelis, and the taking of many hundreds of hostages, are not particularly ideal for a change in policy towards peace-building.

    The war against Hamas has to be won first, and then Israel will have another opportunity to build peace. Perhaps they will take it this time. Perhaps not.

    I've never felt at all Jewish in the present, though it's part of the family history I've always been aware of, but it makes me feel incredibly vulnerable when so many people advocate effective impunity for the people responsible for what must have been the most successful attempt to exterminate Jews since 1945.
    I'm not advocating impunity for the people responsible for the October attack. I agree that immediately after the massacre is not a good context for a change in policy towards peace-building. I have repeatedly said Israel has the right to defend itself.

    Nonetheless, what Israel is doing now is not going to achieve peace. I'm just some random guy on a website forum. My view isn't going to change anything, of course, but polling is very clear that the Israeli public don't support Netanyahu either.
    Unfortunately there's another factor working against peace now and that is Moral Hazard. Peace means a Palestinian state but if this were to gain traction anytime soon it would look like Oct 7th had 'worked'. This aspect will hamper progress for quite some time, I think.
    Palestinian state in the west bank initially seems a good starting point.
    Releasing Barghouti and reinforcing him as an alternative to Hamas might be a start, though can’t see it happening until Israel has had enough vengeance and Bibi is gone. Even then..
  • Options
    kinabalukinabalu Posts: 39,598
    Eabhal said:

    kinabalu said:

    Strange, Guido and his pals were fine with ‘unsophisticated support’ for Project Brexit.


    Lots of people are strangely comfortable slagging off Muslims, aren't they.
    It's quite impressive that he's managed to negatively stereotype both groups at the same time.
    Ha yes. Although I took "sophisticated" to be meant as a compliment there.

    As it happens this "sophisticated v unsophisticated" juxta - adjacent to "civilised v backward" - does imo lie at the heart of some of the more visceral pro-Israeli sentiment in the west.

    There is antisemitism on the other side, no question about that, and this here is its equivalent.
  • Options
    Sean_FSean_F Posts: 36,087
    Leon said:

    Sean_F said:

    Leon said:

    Mr. F, and yet, even after the seventh season the final one could've been good. The ending of seven was fine.

    The eighth is amazing for the errors and poor decisions involved. I especially like two characters setting off early to arrive somewhere before the army (leaving from the same place) and arrive there after the army. Fun fact: two individuals move a lot faster than a whole army. The idea they'd be slower is demented. And the concept they wouldn't notice a whole army passing them is something special.

    I thought the final battle sequence with the dragons - third episode from the end? - was glorious. Didn't all make sense, but absolutely spectacular - if I am remembering correctly

    But then it went on after that, with some insane plot twists
    In and of itself, I thought the sack of Kings Landing was well done. It's just all that went before and after. For me, what killed it was the appalling plotting in later seasons. Arya gets stabbed in the stomach, and falls into an open sewer, but recovers after a good night's sleep. The Dothraki are finished as a people, in one episode, only to revive in the next. Medieval torsion weapons are more effective than Storm Shadow in one episode, completely useless the next. People are talking about the Iron Fleet in one scene, Daenerys "kinda forgot" about it in the next, despite riding a dragon several hundred feet up, which should enable her to see for about 60 miles.

    Gendry could sprint 100 miles to the Wall, and Dany then flew up there at the speed of Concorde. Tyrion's military advice is utterly moronic, but for some reason, everyone keeps treating him as a genius. The Bran 9000 gets made king for ... reasons. Bronn is made Master of Coin, despite not knowing what a loan is. Sam is made Grand Maester, despite not being a maester. Grey Worm takes Jon prisoner, but instead of killing him, allows his family to act as his judges.

    Even in fantasy, there comes a point where you can suspend your disbelief no further.
    You are obviously a much closer, more attentive viewer than me, I don't even recognise some of these names

    I watched Game of Thrones the way you look at a painting, yet animated, if you see what I mean: just enjoying the visuals and the wit and the gratuitous brothel scenes, or brutal fights, with only a vague sense of the plot

    But even with that laid back attitude, by the last two seasons I could sense the plot falling apart, so it must have been pretty fucking bad

    Isn't there an issue with JRRM not finishing the books, so by the end the show runners had to construct their own narratives? Obvs didn't do it very well, if so
    Certainly, Martin has done no one any favours by not completing the series. I really got into the books in 2011, and the last one ended with a load of cliffhangers that may never be resolved.

    Even so, I think Benioff & Weiss just got high on their own supply, and instead of hiring writers, they thought they could do it on their own.
  • Options
    turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 15,646
    ...

    Strange, Guido and his pals were fine with ‘unsophisticated support’ for Project Brexit.


    Guido posts racism about muslims shock.
    My perception (which may be wrong) is that antisemitism is more pronounced in muslim communities. Are you saying that is wrong? Fine. The implication in Guido's point is that the numbers of muslims vastly outweighs Jews and thus appealing too members of the muslim community (selecting muslim candidates etc). The downside is that some seem to hold rather dodgy views.

  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 48,088
    edited February 14
    Sean_F said:

    Leon said:

    kamski said:

    Leon said:

    kamski said:

    Leon said:

    kamski said:

    Leon said:

    Why did no one tell me about the Apple Series FOR ALL MANKIND

    It's fantastic. Admittedly, I have only watched one episode, but it is brilliant

    The bait and switch on the moon landing is GENIUS

    I've seen 3 episodes, and although it's well done, I'm beginning to suspect that after an intriguing opening it's descending into a slow-moving soap opera that they will milk for as many episodes as they can in the typical way. So I'm probably not going any further unless I hear different.

    If you're on Apple + I can highly recommend Shrinking featuring a great turn by Harrison Ford as a grumpy old man.
    Ach. dammit

    That is my big fear

    So many series now do this. Start with great promise, then fade away HORRIBLY

    I have had to abandon three dramas in recent months for this reason. GRRR
    Yes, it's very annoying. And sometimes the opposite happens - eg I was still enjoying The Path after 3 seasons (though it had got a bit slushy), and they didn't make any more despite the story clearly being unfinished.

    I would say For All Mankind is still entertaining after 3 episodes but 7 seasons are planned, and I don't want to get hooked into having to know what happens because it's too much of a time commitment for me...
    Rotten Tomatoes - which is modestly reliable - insists it contnues well into seasons 2 and 3. I shall persist for now

    The worst of the recent bunch was Money Heist, which started cleverly and elegantly, but described a perfect smooth arc of descent into inanity, plot holes, non sequiturs, stupid characters and tedious distractions

    Monarch: Legacy of Monsters immediately went from quite good in episode 1 to SHITE by ep 3, and stayed there
    Let us know how it goes!

    It took me 2 and a half seasons to give up on Mad Men.

    I've never seen an episode of Lost, or The Crown, or Game of Thrones (probably too violent for me), or Eastenders. Maybe I am commitment-phobic.

    Never heard of Monarch: Legacy of Monsters. I saw Money Heist advertised - it looked interesting but my wife can't be bothered with subtitles, and I refuse to watch anything dubbed (if it was even available) so didn't bother. Won't now.
    Mad Men was great, until about season 4 or 5 (most dramas collapse by seasons 4 or 5, if they get that far - it is an actual rule, with very few exceptions)

    The first season of the Crown is superb, second jolly good, then increasingly bad

    Game of Thrones is sui generis. I loved it, mostly, even while finding the plot absurdly complex and difficult to comprehend, it had that knack that, just when you felt like abandoning it for its labyrinthine complexity, it would have a brilliant scene with clever lines, or a spectacular battle sequence, or just the midget being funny

    Great actors helped; also good characterisation

    I thought Mad Men was brilliant all the way through. It just got the 60s perfectly from beginning to end. The Wire and the Sopranos were sustained brilliance too. Those three stand head and shoulders above all else.
    Breaking Bad, too.

    Better Call Saul was quality almost throughout, although for me, it ended poorly.
    I loved Breaking Bad from the get-go, I was an early adopter, it is fantastic

    And yet I HATED the ending, even tho most people enjoyed it. Maybe I just didn't want it to end

    Endings are really hard in any genre. Paradoxically they are harder if you have made a really popular drama series, comedy series, novel sequence, etc- becaause then you have lots of fans who really CARE, and they will all have a personal preference for how it should end

    You cannot please them all, often you will please few if any - like GoT

    The best ending to any great drama I can remember is Spartacus (a neglected masterpiece)

    They absolutely nailed it, you knew he was gonna die (it's history, and they stayed reasonably close to the basic facts) and yet they brought it off superbly. Bravo
  • Options
    Sean_FSean_F Posts: 36,087

    Sean_F said:

    Leon said:

    Mr. F, and yet, even after the seventh season the final one could've been good. The ending of seven was fine.

    The eighth is amazing for the errors and poor decisions involved. I especially like two characters setting off early to arrive somewhere before the army (leaving from the same place) and arrive there after the army. Fun fact: two individuals move a lot faster than a whole army. The idea they'd be slower is demented. And the concept they wouldn't notice a whole army passing them is something special.

    I thought the final battle sequence with the dragons - third episode from the end? - was glorious. Didn't all make sense, but absolutely spectacular - if I am remembering correctly

    But then it went on after that, with some insane plot twists
    In and of itself, I thought the sack of Kings Landing was well done. It's just all that went before and after. For me, what killed it was the appalling plotting in later seasons. Arya gets stabbed in the stomach, and falls into an open sewer, but recovers after a good night's sleep. The Dothraki are finished as a people, in one episode, only to revive in the next. Medieval torsion weapons are more effective than Storm Shadow in one episode, completely useless the next. People are talking about the Iron Fleet in one scene, Daenerys "kinda forgot" about it in the next, despite riding a dragon several hundred feet up, which should enable her to see for about 60 miles.

    Gendry could sprint 100 miles to the Wall, and Dany then flew up there at the speed of Concorde. Tyrion's military advice is utterly moronic, but for some reason, everyone keeps treating him as a genius. The Bran 9000 gets made king for ... reasons. Bronn is made Master of Coin, despite not knowing what a loan is. Sam is made Grand Maester, despite not being a maester. Grey Worm takes Jon prisoner, but instead of killing him, allows his family to act as his judges.

    Even in fantasy, there comes a point where you can suspend your disbelief no further.
    As a rule I do not like the fantasy genre. Can't stand LOTR. But started watching GOT mainly because Sean Bean and Mark Addy hamming it up in season 1. There are so many quotable things and enjoyable moments in a series that went on and on and on with characters I had little regard for.

    Then it ended. And my reaction now? What an absolute waste of my time sitting through it.
    I like quite a lot of fantasy, but by the end of Season 8, my reaction was similar.
  • Options
    Sean_FSean_F Posts: 36,087

    Mr. F, I'd argue characters need to be more credible in fantasy than other genres to make the suspension of disbelief in other elements (magic, dragons etc) easier.

    James Bond is a character in a real world but the man himself is more fantastical than almost anyone in GoT.

    And, I think the same is true of logistics in fantasy (something which Tolkien, for example, is obsessive about. But, he was an ex-soldier).
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 76,067

    ...

    Strange, Guido and his pals were fine with ‘unsophisticated support’ for Project Brexit.


    Guido posts racism about muslims shock.
    My perception (which may be wrong) is that antisemitism is more pronounced in muslim communities. Are you saying that is wrong? Fine. The implication in Guido's point is that the numbers of muslims vastly outweighs Jews and thus appealing too members of the muslim community (selecting muslim candidates etc). The downside is that some seem to hold rather dodgy views.

    I agree, partially. And this would be entirely true of his statement if he'd removed the words "sophisticated" and "unsophisticated".

    Your point doesn't address the use of those words.
  • Options
    kamskikamski Posts: 4,344
    Leon said:

    Sean_F said:

    Leon said:

    kamski said:

    Leon said:

    kamski said:

    Leon said:

    kamski said:

    Leon said:

    Why did no one tell me about the Apple Series FOR ALL MANKIND

    It's fantastic. Admittedly, I have only watched one episode, but it is brilliant

    The bait and switch on the moon landing is GENIUS

    I've seen 3 episodes, and although it's well done, I'm beginning to suspect that after an intriguing opening it's descending into a slow-moving soap opera that they will milk for as many episodes as they can in the typical way. So I'm probably not going any further unless I hear different.

    If you're on Apple + I can highly recommend Shrinking featuring a great turn by Harrison Ford as a grumpy old man.
    Ach. dammit

    That is my big fear

    So many series now do this. Start with great promise, then fade away HORRIBLY

    I have had to abandon three dramas in recent months for this reason. GRRR
    Yes, it's very annoying. And sometimes the opposite happens - eg I was still enjoying The Path after 3 seasons (though it had got a bit slushy), and they didn't make any more despite the story clearly being unfinished.

    I would say For All Mankind is still entertaining after 3 episodes but 7 seasons are planned, and I don't want to get hooked into having to know what happens because it's too much of a time commitment for me...
    Rotten Tomatoes - which is modestly reliable - insists it contnues well into seasons 2 and 3. I shall persist for now

    The worst of the recent bunch was Money Heist, which started cleverly and elegantly, but described a perfect smooth arc of descent into inanity, plot holes, non sequiturs, stupid characters and tedious distractions

    Monarch: Legacy of Monsters immediately went from quite good in episode 1 to SHITE by ep 3, and stayed there
    Let us know how it goes!

    It took me 2 and a half seasons to give up on Mad Men.

    I've never seen an episode of Lost, or The Crown, or Game of Thrones (probably too violent for me), or Eastenders. Maybe I am commitment-phobic.

    Never heard of Monarch: Legacy of Monsters. I saw Money Heist advertised - it looked interesting but my wife can't be bothered with subtitles, and I refuse to watch anything dubbed (if it was even available) so didn't bother. Won't now.
    Mad Men was great, until about season 4 or 5 (most dramas collapse by seasons 4 or 5, if they get that far - it is an actual rule, with very few exceptions)

    The first season of the Crown is superb, second jolly good, then increasingly bad

    Game of Thrones is sui generis. I loved it, mostly, even while finding the plot absurdly complex and difficult to comprehend, it had that knack that, just when you felt like abandoning it for its labyrinthine complexity, it would have a brilliant scene with clever lines, or a spectacular battle sequence, or just the midget being funny

    Great actors helped; also good characterisation

    I thought Mad Men was brilliant all the way through. It just got the 60s perfectly from beginning to end. The Wire and the Sopranos were sustained brilliance too. Those three stand head and shoulders above all else.
    Breaking Bad, too.

    Better Call Saul was quality almost throughout, although for me, it ended poorly.
    i loved Breaking Bad from the get-go, I was an early adopter, it is fantastic

    And yet I HATED the ending, even tho most people enjoyed it. Maybe I just didn't want it to end

    Endings are really hard in any genre. Paradoxially they are harder if you have made a really popular drama series, comedy series, novel sequence, etc- becaause then you have lots of fans who really CARE, and have a personal preference for how it should end

    You cannot please them all, often you will please few if any - like GoT

    The best ending to any great drama I can remember is Spartacus (a neglected masterpiece)

    They absolutely nailed it, you knew he was gonna die (it's history, and they stayed reasonably close to the basic facts) and yet they brought it off superbly. Bravo
    Breaking Bad definitely lost the humour it had at first. For me a problem was that after the first season (or 2?) it had only pretty unlikeable characters. I mean I like dark stuff, but just a movie with no sympathetic characters can wear me down and that's only 100 odd minutes of viewing. I get that it's a big part of the story arc that Walter White starts off quite sympathetic and ends up a monster, but it was all a bit too nasty for me by the end.
  • Options
    Important assuming true (and I'd be confident given who is saying this)

    Lot of commentators on Rochdale seemingly forgetting that postal votes means probably about half the people who are going to vote had already done so before Labour sacked their candidate.

    https://x.com/Mr_John_Oxley/status/1757738965505851692

    Probably also signficant for those hoping that events of the last week will save the Conservatives from a double tonking tomorrow.
  • Options
    viewcodeviewcode Posts: 19,339
    kamski said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Mr. F, and yet, even after the seventh season the final one could've been good. The ending of seven was fine.

    The eighth is amazing for the errors and poor decisions involved. I especially like two characters setting off early to arrive somewhere before the army (leaving from the same place) and arrive there after the army. Fun fact: two individuals move a lot faster than a whole army. The idea they'd be slower is demented. And the concept they wouldn't notice a whole army passing them is something special.

    I thought the final battle sequence with the dragons - third episode from the end? - was glorious. Didn't all make sense, but absolutely spectacular - if I am remembering correctly

    But then it went on after that, with some insane plot twists
    You know more about this than I do... how long can a saga like this keep going?

    I recently fell down a Howard's Way binge watch rabbit hole (yes, I deserve condemnation, I don't care), and whilst that was always incoherent tosh, it became really incoherent tosh towards the end, with characters behaving really out of character.

    Science nerd theory: You can only have so many characters in a story, because there's a limit to how many are enjoyable to hold in one's head on a Sunday evening. Once you have played everyone against everyone else, the game is broadly up.

    Sitcoms are a bit different, because the whole point is that hardly anyone ever learns anything, and the lack of evolution is the enjoyable comfort. But stories and sagas are meant to be about change.
    I have observed, personally and professionally, that the 4-5 seasons thing is a pretty iron rule. Of course plenty of dramas don't even make it that far, they die after 1 season, and are not renewed, or they make it to 3 and that was all they planned

    But there seems to be some algorithm which says you will run out of character changes, plot twists, likely scenarios, new and believeable angles, after 4 or 5 seasons. I note Succession, probably the greatest recent drama, ended on its 4th season, with people wanting more, but likely a very wise decision

    Great dramas that go beyond this - House, Mad Men - generally tail off badly

    There are vanishingly few exceptions. The Sopranos is probably one - six seasons, great to the end

    Soap operas that constanrtly introduce new characters can go on much longer, perhaps eternally, but they are not cohesive dramas in the same sense
    Lucifer made it to 6 seasons with only a couple of dodgy patches, but more comedy-drama than drama.
    Science fiction/fantasy series, if successful, last longer. They have more fanatic fans (and then some) and a larger number of possible plots and settings. Even if we limit ourselves to 21st century series, BSG did four plus miniseries plus movies, The Expanse did six series, GOT did eight(!) series, the rebooted Dr Who is currently on gawdhelpus series fifteen (not counting the 1963-89 version!), and even Star Trek Discovery - not held to be an unalloyed success - will make it to five. Get a good one and you're made for life.
  • Options
    kyf_100kyf_100 Posts: 4,143
    kamski said:

    Leon said:

    Sean_F said:

    Leon said:

    kamski said:

    Leon said:

    kamski said:

    Leon said:

    kamski said:

    Leon said:

    Why did no one tell me about the Apple Series FOR ALL MANKIND

    It's fantastic. Admittedly, I have only watched one episode, but it is brilliant

    The bait and switch on the moon landing is GENIUS

    I've seen 3 episodes, and although it's well done, I'm beginning to suspect that after an intriguing opening it's descending into a slow-moving soap opera that they will milk for as many episodes as they can in the typical way. So I'm probably not going any further unless I hear different.

    If you're on Apple + I can highly recommend Shrinking featuring a great turn by Harrison Ford as a grumpy old man.
    Ach. dammit

    That is my big fear

    So many series now do this. Start with great promise, then fade away HORRIBLY

    I have had to abandon three dramas in recent months for this reason. GRRR
    Yes, it's very annoying. And sometimes the opposite happens - eg I was still enjoying The Path after 3 seasons (though it had got a bit slushy), and they didn't make any more despite the story clearly being unfinished.

    I would say For All Mankind is still entertaining after 3 episodes but 7 seasons are planned, and I don't want to get hooked into having to know what happens because it's too much of a time commitment for me...
    Rotten Tomatoes - which is modestly reliable - insists it contnues well into seasons 2 and 3. I shall persist for now

    The worst of the recent bunch was Money Heist, which started cleverly and elegantly, but described a perfect smooth arc of descent into inanity, plot holes, non sequiturs, stupid characters and tedious distractions

    Monarch: Legacy of Monsters immediately went from quite good in episode 1 to SHITE by ep 3, and stayed there
    Let us know how it goes!

    It took me 2 and a half seasons to give up on Mad Men.

    I've never seen an episode of Lost, or The Crown, or Game of Thrones (probably too violent for me), or Eastenders. Maybe I am commitment-phobic.

    Never heard of Monarch: Legacy of Monsters. I saw Money Heist advertised - it looked interesting but my wife can't be bothered with subtitles, and I refuse to watch anything dubbed (if it was even available) so didn't bother. Won't now.
    Mad Men was great, until about season 4 or 5 (most dramas collapse by seasons 4 or 5, if they get that far - it is an actual rule, with very few exceptions)

    The first season of the Crown is superb, second jolly good, then increasingly bad

    Game of Thrones is sui generis. I loved it, mostly, even while finding the plot absurdly complex and difficult to comprehend, it had that knack that, just when you felt like abandoning it for its labyrinthine complexity, it would have a brilliant scene with clever lines, or a spectacular battle sequence, or just the midget being funny

    Great actors helped; also good characterisation

    I thought Mad Men was brilliant all the way through. It just got the 60s perfectly from beginning to end. The Wire and the Sopranos were sustained brilliance too. Those three stand head and shoulders above all else.
    Breaking Bad, too.

    Better Call Saul was quality almost throughout, although for me, it ended poorly.
    i loved Breaking Bad from the get-go, I was an early adopter, it is fantastic

    And yet I HATED the ending, even tho most people enjoyed it. Maybe I just didn't want it to end

    Endings are really hard in any genre. Paradoxially they are harder if you have made a really popular drama series, comedy series, novel sequence, etc- becaause then you have lots of fans who really CARE, and have a personal preference for how it should end

    You cannot please them all, often you will please few if any - like GoT

    The best ending to any great drama I can remember is Spartacus (a neglected masterpiece)

    They absolutely nailed it, you knew he was gonna die (it's history, and they stayed reasonably close to the basic facts) and yet they brought it off superbly. Bravo
    Breaking Bad definitely lost the humour it had at first. For me a problem was that after the first season (or 2?) it had only pretty unlikeable characters. I mean I like dark stuff, but just a movie with no sympathetic characters can wear me down and that's only 100 odd minutes of viewing. I get that it's a big part of the story arc that Walter White starts off quite sympathetic and ends up a monster, but it was all a bit too nasty for me by the end.
    Try Better Call Saul, if you haven't. As a spinoff from Breaking Bad, it arguably exceeds the original show for storytelling and character development, the cinematography is breathtaking, and even when it goes to dark places (as you'd expect) it never loses its sense of humour. The ending is awesome, and surprisingly satisfying.
  • Options
    EabhalEabhal Posts: 6,268

    eek said:

    TOPPING said:

    Want an end to civilian casualties? Then there's a simple solution: Hamas lays down their arms unconditionally and releases the hostages. Otherwise the war continues.

    Exactly what David Cameron (pbuh) said yesterday in the HoL.

    And we know that DC can say or do no wrong.
    But ever civilian casualty recruits more people into Hamas rather than sitting on the sidelines.

    Even before you see the complete lack of hope that Israel is offering everyone in Gaza which again will be pushing people towards actively supporting Hamas because they’ve got nothing else so they may as well.

    Indeed. Nor do they offer any hope to Palestinians in the West Bank either. Nor that much to Arab Israelis.

    The conflict in Northern Ireland was ended because the conditions of the Catholic population were improved. The conflict in the Basque country was ended because the conditions of the Basque population were improved. And so on.
    Israel removed its military and settlements from Gaza in 2005.

    From then on Gaza was the responsibility of the people who lived there.

    What did they achieve apart from doubling its population.

    Overpopulating doesn't improve conditions.
    Hamas has done little to improve the condition of the people in Gaza. Nothing I wrote was supportive of Hamas. You, however, are misinformed about the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza. Gaza has long been blockaded by Israel (and, of course, a blockade is a casus belli according to Israel in 1967). It was not an independent statelet. It was still heavily under the control of Israel.

    Also, Gaza is part of Palestine. It's good that Israel pulled out of Gaza in 2005, but Israel was and is still in the West Bank, building illegal settlements and oppressing the local population.

    Israel has destroyed the only family planning clinic in Gaza:
    https://www.newsweek.com/planned-parenthood-gaza-clinic-destroyed-israeli-airstrike-1834556 Donations to the IPPF are, I'm sure, welcome.
    That seems extraordinarily short-sighted. In 16 years time Hamas will be fully replenished.
  • Options
    MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 12,760
    Sandpit said:

    Leon said:

    Eabhal said:

    Leon said:

    kamski said:

    Leon said:

    kamski said:

    Leon said:

    Why did no one tell me about the Apple Series FOR ALL MANKIND

    It's fantastic. Admittedly, I have only watched one episode, but it is brilliant

    The bait and switch on the moon landing is GENIUS

    I've seen 3 episodes, and although it's well done, I'm beginning to suspect that after an intriguing opening it's descending into a slow-moving soap opera that they will milk for as many episodes as they can in the typical way. So I'm probably not going any further unless I hear different.

    If you're on Apple + I can highly recommend Shrinking featuring a great turn by Harrison Ford as a grumpy old man.
    Ach. dammit

    That is my big fear

    So many series now do this. Start with great promise, then fade away HORRIBLY

    I have had to abandon three dramas in recent months for this reason. GRRR
    Yes, it's very annoying. And sometimes the opposite happens - eg I was still enjoying The Path after 3 seasons (though it had got a bit slushy), and they didn't make any more despite the story clearly being unfinished.

    I would say For All Mankind is still entertaining after 3 episodes but 7 seasons are planned, and I don't want to get hooked into having to know what happens because it's too much of a time commitment for me...
    Rotten Tomatoes - which is modestly reliable - insists it contnues well into seasons 2 and 3. I shall persist for now

    The worst of the recent bunch was Money Heist, which started cleverly and elegantly, but described a perfect smooth arc of descent into inanity, plot holes, non sequiturs, stupid characters and tedious distractions

    Monarch: Legacy of Monsters immediately went from quite good in episode 1 to SHITE by ep 3, and stayed there

    On the upside, GRISELDA is great, from episodes 1 to 6. Complete and whole, and all good. Hard recommend
    1) Just started Slow Horses after rave reviews on PB. I have that desperate need for the next episode for the first time in years - it's superb. Rationing to one episode an evening.

    2) Brexit tackles are all over the internet. I think it might have started on FIFA? (Video game). That's also where the ubiquitous anti-semitic description for a tap-in comes from.
    it took me ages to "get" Slow Horses, but finally I did, and I like it. Excellent entertainment
    Slow Horses was a one-night binge every season. Possibly the best television drama since Breaking Bad ended.
    I’ve a couple of contributions to this sub thread. Just because it’s now the cinematic age, it doesn’t necessarily mean better, it could lack soul, pace, imagination despite big bucks and looking the part.

    And conversely it can be great despite being from a classic age and made on a budget.

    I recently saw something I haven’t seen before, a BBC adaption of Pride and Prejudice from 1980, scripted by Fay Weldon, and it’s easily the best P&P I’ve ever seen, with the best casting and acting. I’ve also binged very watchable older cheaply made crime/cowboy series Justified, that’s full of great characters, plots, script and pace, if you haven’t tried it.

    What could have made For All Mankind better, if the whole of the first series had been accurately historical, till twist coming in the last episode not the first? Coming in the first episode, you didn’t really feel the emotion what they were feeling? They could have built it up to that instead? What do you think?
  • Options
    bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 8,256
    viewcode said:

    kamski said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Mr. F, and yet, even after the seventh season the final one could've been good. The ending of seven was fine.

    The eighth is amazing for the errors and poor decisions involved. I especially like two characters setting off early to arrive somewhere before the army (leaving from the same place) and arrive there after the army. Fun fact: two individuals move a lot faster than a whole army. The idea they'd be slower is demented. And the concept they wouldn't notice a whole army passing them is something special.

    I thought the final battle sequence with the dragons - third episode from the end? - was glorious. Didn't all make sense, but absolutely spectacular - if I am remembering correctly

    But then it went on after that, with some insane plot twists
    You know more about this than I do... how long can a saga like this keep going?

    I recently fell down a Howard's Way binge watch rabbit hole (yes, I deserve condemnation, I don't care), and whilst that was always incoherent tosh, it became really incoherent tosh towards the end, with characters behaving really out of character.

    Science nerd theory: You can only have so many characters in a story, because there's a limit to how many are enjoyable to hold in one's head on a Sunday evening. Once you have played everyone against everyone else, the game is broadly up.

    Sitcoms are a bit different, because the whole point is that hardly anyone ever learns anything, and the lack of evolution is the enjoyable comfort. But stories and sagas are meant to be about change.
    I have observed, personally and professionally, that the 4-5 seasons thing is a pretty iron rule. Of course plenty of dramas don't even make it that far, they die after 1 season, and are not renewed, or they make it to 3 and that was all they planned

    But there seems to be some algorithm which says you will run out of character changes, plot twists, likely scenarios, new and believeable angles, after 4 or 5 seasons. I note Succession, probably the greatest recent drama, ended on its 4th season, with people wanting more, but likely a very wise decision

    Great dramas that go beyond this - House, Mad Men - generally tail off badly

    There are vanishingly few exceptions. The Sopranos is probably one - six seasons, great to the end

    Soap operas that constanrtly introduce new characters can go on much longer, perhaps eternally, but they are not cohesive dramas in the same sense
    Lucifer made it to 6 seasons with only a couple of dodgy patches, but more comedy-drama than drama.
    Science fiction/fantasy series, if successful, last longer. They have more fanatic fans (and then some) and a larger number of possible plots and settings. Even if we limit ourselves to 21st century series, BSG did four plus miniseries plus movies, The Expanse did six series, GOT did eight(!) series, the rebooted Dr Who is currently on gawdhelpus series fifteen (not counting the 1963-89 version!), and even Star Trek Discovery - not held to be an unalloyed success - will make it to five. Get a good one and you're made for life.
    Coronation Street has over 11,000 episodes…
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 48,088

    Sean_F said:

    Leon said:

    kamski said:

    Leon said:

    kamski said:

    Leon said:

    kamski said:

    Leon said:

    Why did no one tell me about the Apple Series FOR ALL MANKIND

    It's fantastic. Admittedly, I have only watched one episode, but it is brilliant

    The bait and switch on the moon landing is GENIUS

    I've seen 3 episodes, and although it's well done, I'm beginning to suspect that after an intriguing opening it's descending into a slow-moving soap opera that they will milk for as many episodes as they can in the typical way. So I'm probably not going any further unless I hear different.

    If you're on Apple + I can highly recommend Shrinking featuring a great turn by Harrison Ford as a grumpy old man.
    Ach. dammit

    That is my big fear

    So many series now do this. Start with great promise, then fade away HORRIBLY

    I have had to abandon three dramas in recent months for this reason. GRRR
    Yes, it's very annoying. And sometimes the opposite happens - eg I was still enjoying The Path after 3 seasons (though it had got a bit slushy), and they didn't make any more despite the story clearly being unfinished.

    I would say For All Mankind is still entertaining after 3 episodes but 7 seasons are planned, and I don't want to get hooked into having to know what happens because it's too much of a time commitment for me...
    Rotten Tomatoes - which is modestly reliable - insists it contnues well into seasons 2 and 3. I shall persist for now

    The worst of the recent bunch was Money Heist, which started cleverly and elegantly, but described a perfect smooth arc of descent into inanity, plot holes, non sequiturs, stupid characters and tedious distractions

    Monarch: Legacy of Monsters immediately went from quite good in episode 1 to SHITE by ep 3, and stayed there
    Let us know how it goes!

    It took me 2 and a half seasons to give up on Mad Men.

    I've never seen an episode of Lost, or The Crown, or Game of Thrones (probably too violent for me), or Eastenders. Maybe I am commitment-phobic.

    Never heard of Monarch: Legacy of Monsters. I saw Money Heist advertised - it looked interesting but my wife can't be bothered with subtitles, and I refuse to watch anything dubbed (if it was even available) so didn't bother. Won't now.
    Mad Men was great, until about season 4 or 5 (most dramas collapse by seasons 4 or 5, if they get that far - it is an actual rule, with very few exceptions)

    The first season of the Crown is superb, second jolly good, then increasingly bad

    Game of Thrones is sui generis. I loved it, mostly, even while finding the plot absurdly complex and difficult to comprehend, it had that knack that, just when you felt like abandoning it for its labyrinthine complexity, it would have a brilliant scene with clever lines, or a spectacular battle sequence, or just the midget being funny

    Great actors helped; also good characterisation

    I thought Mad Men was brilliant all the way through. It just got the 60s perfectly from beginning to end. The Wire and the Sopranos were sustained brilliance too. Those three stand head and shoulders above all else.
    Breaking Bad, too.

    Better Call Saul was quality almost throughout, although for me, it ended poorly.

    I always forget Breaking Bad - but you're right, of course. Better Call Saul nearly got there.

    For me it's about whether you can go back time after time and still enjoy it. You can with those four.

    There are dozens of others, you are being insanely restrictive

    The Golden Age of TV (let's hope it hasn't ended) has produced maybe 100 fantastic shows

    Remember The Killing, the Danish version?

    OMFG. Just absolutely compelling. not merely some of the greatest TV drama, some of the greatest drama of any form I have ever watched. You could not take your eyes off it, even tho it was bitterly harrowing. What a show

    Squid Game
    Chernobyl
    Vikings

    &c &c
  • Options
    SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 20,889

    Strange, Guido and his pals were fine with ‘unsophisticated support’ for Project Brexit.


    As I noted yesterday evening, we seem to be prepared to turn a blind eye to views that the Labour Party is supposed to find abhorrent, in return for a wheelbarrow full of votes.
  • Options

    ...

    Sean_F said:

    Sean_F said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    Unfortunately this is a by-election dominated by a quarrel in a far-away country between people of whom we know far, far too much.

    There are conflicts all around the world that don't get a fraction of the spotlight or attention that this one has had. I wonder what is so unique about this one conflict, that every moment becomes headline news unlike all the others?

    The physical carnage, the huge civilian casualties, the mass displacement of people, the resulting humanitarian disaster, the inflictor of all this being a regime supported by the west - these do make for a big story.
    "the inflictor of all this being a regime supported by the west".

    I think you might need to understand that this awful conflict was blatantly started by Hamas who "inflicted" rape torture and murder on innocent people.

    There is a reasonable argument that the Israeli response has been disproportionate, but the "infliction" was initiated by Hamas terrorists.

    As you have been an occasional apologist for Corbyn (and probably indirectly voted for him to be PM) I guess this is hard to recognise?
    I know who started the fire. Hamas did. Oct 7th was unspeakable. It's now 13th February and Israel has wreaked a mighty vengeance for it.

    Justifiable response to a threat deemed existential? Or barbaric collective punishment of the population of Gaza?

    I think the latter.
    I think you'll find that war does involve what useful idiots such as yourself would call "collective punishment".
    Collective punishment is a war crime under Article 33 of the Geneva Convention. People who make excuses for it are idiots, useful or otherwise.
    That's why I put it in quotation marks. Or perhaps Kinabalu thinks what Israel is doing is a war crime.
    Well many of us do.
    Yes hugely important that arseholes on the internet think something or other.
    The arseholes being those who defend the murder of civilians as a necessary evil.

    You suit the description perfectly.
    It's war, Dickie boy. Look it up in the dictionary.
    Indeed hence war crimes. Look them up yourself.
    I suspect the proportion of military combatants to civilians was far smaller ratio in the Hamburg firestorm and the levelling of Dresden. But we weren't on trial at Nuremburg.

    Is it a free pass for war crimes if you win the war?
    Nope. Many commentators these days consider Dresden as a war crime. Indeed there is no escaping that for Harris as his explicit stated aim of breaking the German spirit by targeting civilians is specifically addressed as a war crime today.

    The UK, and importantly in this debate, Israel both signed up to the post WW2 international rules on the conduct of war which outlawed many of the things both sides did in WW2 and which Israel and Russia are both doing now.
    Personally I think only idiots living without the fear of Nazi tyranny consider Dresden a war crime. Why Dresden and not every single bombing raid that Bomber Command mounted? Because like it or not, Bomber Command wanted to achieve Dresden results EVERY time they set out. Dresden stands out as it was late in the war, and was highly successful, due to the firestorm. But many, many allied soldiers died after Dresden. Many Jews and other captives of the Nazis died after Dresden. Germany could have surrendered and stopped it all.
    I know very little about WW2.
    But was Bomber Command strategy basically predicated on the idea that bombing Germany out of the war would save the innumerable slaughter witnessed in WW1?
    Yep. Harris wanted to defeat Germany without the need for any British soldiers to land on the continent, other than to accept the surrender. There have been many arguments over the years about whether Bomber Command was worth the money and resources (materials and men) that it took. Max Hastings thought not in his book on the bomber war. Others disagree. Certainly the bombing campaign tied up tens if not hundreds of thousands of Germans defending the Reich who could have been fighting in the East. And combined with the 8th airforce’s campaign, the Allies achieved air dominance over the Luftwaffe, making D-Day much easier and restricting German movements to night time, to avoid being attacked from the air. By the end of 44 and into 45 the German transport system was wrecked, so moving anything was hard, including troops, tanks etc.

    Sadly the idea that you could depress the morale of a nation under a fascist authoritarian regime was false. Even if a German housewife wanted to end the war after her house was destroyed, there was no mechanism for her to achieve it. And the Blitz had shown the resilience of the Brits under the bomb.

    But ultimately strategic bombing contributed to winning the war and to describe one target destroyed as a war crime is infantile rubbish.
    There were lots of things done on both sides in both wars which would now be considered war crimes. The whole point of civilisation is that we develop and learn from our mistakes.
    My view is that war is never desirable, but once one is engaged, there’s no point in half measures.

    Ultimately one has to do what is needful, to win. There is nothing worse than defeat.
    Chemical warfare? Biological warfare? Terrorising an occupied population with retaliatory executions and the use of rape as a tool of suppression?

    We draw the line somewhere and where International Law has currently drawn it seems a pretty good place to me.

    (By the way I am not accusing Israel of any of these just pointing out that your 'half measures' might be very much open to interpretation).

    Sean_F said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    Unfortunately this is a by-election dominated by a quarrel in a far-away country between people of whom we know far, far too much.

    There are conflicts all around the world that don't get a fraction of the spotlight or attention that this one has had. I wonder what is so unique about this one conflict, that every moment becomes headline news unlike all the others?

    The physical carnage, the huge civilian casualties, the mass displacement of people, the resulting humanitarian disaster, the inflictor of all this being a regime supported by the west - these do make for a big story.
    "the inflictor of all this being a regime supported by the west".

    I think you might need to understand that this awful conflict was blatantly started by Hamas who "inflicted" rape torture and murder on innocent people.

    There is a reasonable argument that the Israeli response has been disproportionate, but the "infliction" was initiated by Hamas terrorists.

    As you have been an occasional apologist for Corbyn (and probably indirectly voted for him to be PM) I guess this is hard to recognise?
    I know who started the fire. Hamas did. Oct 7th was unspeakable. It's now 13th February and Israel has wreaked a mighty vengeance for it.

    Justifiable response to a threat deemed existential? Or barbaric collective punishment of the population of Gaza?

    I think the latter.
    I think you'll find that war does involve what useful idiots such as yourself would call "collective punishment".
    Collective punishment is a war crime under Article 33 of the Geneva Convention. People who make excuses for it are idiots, useful or otherwise.
    That's why I put it in quotation marks. Or perhaps Kinabalu thinks what Israel is doing is a war crime.
    Well many of us do.
    Yes hugely important that arseholes on the internet think something or other.
    The arseholes being those who defend the murder of civilians as a necessary evil.

    You suit the description perfectly.
    It's war, Dickie boy. Look it up in the dictionary.
    Indeed hence war crimes. Look them up yourself.
    I suspect the proportion of military combatants to civilians was far smaller ratio in the Hamburg firestorm and the levelling of Dresden. But we weren't on trial at Nuremburg.

    Is it a free pass for war crimes if you win the war?
    Nope. Many commentators these days consider Dresden as a war crime. Indeed there is no escaping that for Harris as his explicit stated aim of breaking the German spirit by targeting civilians is specifically addressed as a war crime today.

    The UK, and importantly in this debate, Israel both signed up to the post WW2 international rules on the conduct of war which outlawed many of the things both sides did in WW2 and which Israel and Russia are both doing now.
    Personally I think only idiots living without the fear of Nazi tyranny consider Dresden a war crime. Why Dresden and not every single bombing raid that Bomber Command mounted? Because like it or not, Bomber Command wanted to achieve Dresden results EVERY time they set out. Dresden stands out as it was late in the war, and was highly successful, due to the firestorm. But many, many allied soldiers died after Dresden. Many Jews and other captives of the Nazis died after Dresden. Germany could have surrendered and stopped it all.
    I know very little about WW2.
    But was Bomber Command strategy basically predicated on the idea that bombing Germany out of the war would save the innumerable slaughter witnessed in WW1?
    Yep. Harris wanted to defeat Germany without the need for any British soldiers to land on the continent, other than to accept the surrender. There have been many arguments over the years about whether Bomber Command was worth the money and resources (materials and men) that it took. Max Hastings thought not in his book on the bomber war. Others disagree. Certainly the bombing campaign tied up tens if not hundreds of thousands of Germans defending the Reich who could have been fighting in the East. And combined with the 8th airforce’s campaign, the Allies achieved air dominance over the Luftwaffe, making D-Day much easier and restricting German movements to night time, to avoid being attacked from the air. By the end of 44 and into 45 the German transport system was wrecked, so moving anything was hard, including troops, tanks etc.

    Sadly the idea that you could depress the morale of a nation under a fascist authoritarian regime was false. Even if a German housewife wanted to end the war after her house was destroyed, there was no mechanism for her to achieve it. And the Blitz had shown the resilience of the Brits under the bomb.

    But ultimately strategic bombing contributed to winning the war and to describe one target destroyed as a war crime is infantile rubbish.
    There were lots of things done on both sides in both wars which would now be considered war crimes. The whole point of civilisation is that we develop and learn from our mistakes.
    My view is that war is never desirable, but once one is engaged, there’s no point in half measures.

    Ultimately one has to do what is needful, to win. There is nothing worse than defeat.
    Chemical warfare? Biological warfare? Terrorising an occupied population with retaliatory executions and the use of rape as a tool of suppression?

    We draw the line somewhere and where International Law has currently drawn it seems a pretty good place to me.

    (By the way I am not accusing Israel of any of these just pointing out that your 'half measures' might be very much open to interpretation).
    It depends on the nature of the threat that one faces. If say, this country faced an invasion, or we were fighting an enemy like the Nazis, I don’t think we’d show much restraint.

    When the stakes are lower, one shows more restraint.
    That's a very reasonable point.

    And the problem is the hypocrisy of those who find the stakes minimal in the Middle East as they don't care about Israel, who then expect zero civilian casualties as a result. For Israel the stakes are massive.

    War is hell and war results in casualties, civilian casualties included.

    We went to war against Iraq without having been attacked and hundreds of thousands of civilians died as a result.
    Israel was attacked, and is defending itself in a war against an existential enemy that wants to destroy it, and people argue that they're illegitimate for fighting a war to defend themselves because of tens of thousands of alleged civilian casualties.

    What is that other than hypocrisy?

    Israel has every bit as much of a right to defend itself as any other nation. It has every bit as much of a right to fight this war to the best of its ability as any other nation. If that results in hundreds of thousands of Palestinian civilian casualties, just as our war resulted in hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilian casualties, then so long as they continue to stick to the rules of proportionality then it is not a war crime.

    That's a horrible thing to say, but war is horrible - and Hamas started this war knowing the consequences of their actions.

    Want an end to civilian casualties? Then there's a simple solution: Hamas lays down their arms unconditionally and releases the hostages. Otherwise the war continues.
    Hamas are not rational, they are not like Joe Gormley's NUM and will capitulate over beer and sandwiches, they are a death cult. If you think otherwise you are deluded.

    If Netanyahu had spent more time dealing with the grandees out of their Doha condominium windows rather than carpet bombing Gaza City I suspect his allies would be less uncomfortable with his strategy.
    Totally agreed, which is why they can not be reasoned with, they have to be killed.
  • Options
    SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 20,889

    Important assuming true (and I'd be confident given who is saying this)

    Lot of commentators on Rochdale seemingly forgetting that postal votes means probably about half the people who are going to vote had already done so before Labour sacked their candidate.

    https://x.com/Mr_John_Oxley/status/1757738965505851692

    Probably also signficant for those hoping that events of the last week will save the Conservatives from a double tonking tomorrow.

    Most of the voters who don't exist will have already cast their ballots for him too.
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 48,088
    There are also shows which have one or maybe two briliant seasons, but then turn to shit, how do you classify them? Are they great or disasters?

    Westworld is the classic example. Fabulous opening season. oh dear oh dear what happened then

    Also Homeland, and Peaky Blinders, and the Crown
  • Options
    Leon said:

    Sean_F said:

    Leon said:

    kamski said:

    Leon said:

    kamski said:

    Leon said:

    kamski said:

    Leon said:

    Why did no one tell me about the Apple Series FOR ALL MANKIND

    It's fantastic. Admittedly, I have only watched one episode, but it is brilliant

    The bait and switch on the moon landing is GENIUS

    I've seen 3 episodes, and although it's well done, I'm beginning to suspect that after an intriguing opening it's descending into a slow-moving soap opera that they will milk for as many episodes as they can in the typical way. So I'm probably not going any further unless I hear different.

    If you're on Apple + I can highly recommend Shrinking featuring a great turn by Harrison Ford as a grumpy old man.
    Ach. dammit

    That is my big fear

    So many series now do this. Start with great promise, then fade away HORRIBLY

    I have had to abandon three dramas in recent months for this reason. GRRR
    Yes, it's very annoying. And sometimes the opposite happens - eg I was still enjoying The Path after 3 seasons (though it had got a bit slushy), and they didn't make any more despite the story clearly being unfinished.

    I would say For All Mankind is still entertaining after 3 episodes but 7 seasons are planned, and I don't want to get hooked into having to know what happens because it's too much of a time commitment for me...
    Rotten Tomatoes - which is modestly reliable - insists it contnues well into seasons 2 and 3. I shall persist for now

    The worst of the recent bunch was Money Heist, which started cleverly and elegantly, but described a perfect smooth arc of descent into inanity, plot holes, non sequiturs, stupid characters and tedious distractions

    Monarch: Legacy of Monsters immediately went from quite good in episode 1 to SHITE by ep 3, and stayed there
    Let us know how it goes!

    It took me 2 and a half seasons to give up on Mad Men.

    I've never seen an episode of Lost, or The Crown, or Game of Thrones (probably too violent for me), or Eastenders. Maybe I am commitment-phobic.

    Never heard of Monarch: Legacy of Monsters. I saw Money Heist advertised - it looked interesting but my wife can't be bothered with subtitles, and I refuse to watch anything dubbed (if it was even available) so didn't bother. Won't now.
    Mad Men was great, until about season 4 or 5 (most dramas collapse by seasons 4 or 5, if they get that far - it is an actual rule, with very few exceptions)

    The first season of the Crown is superb, second jolly good, then increasingly bad

    Game of Thrones is sui generis. I loved it, mostly, even while finding the plot absurdly complex and difficult to comprehend, it had that knack that, just when you felt like abandoning it for its labyrinthine complexity, it would have a brilliant scene with clever lines, or a spectacular battle sequence, or just the midget being funny

    Great actors helped; also good characterisation

    I thought Mad Men was brilliant all the way through. It just got the 60s perfectly from beginning to end. The Wire and the Sopranos were sustained brilliance too. Those three stand head and shoulders above all else.
    Breaking Bad, too.

    Better Call Saul was quality almost throughout, although for me, it ended poorly.

    I always forget Breaking Bad - but you're right, of course. Better Call Saul nearly got there.

    For me it's about whether you can go back time after time and still enjoy it. You can with those four.

    There are dozens of others, you are being insanely restrictive

    The Golden Age of TV (let's hope it hasn't ended) has produced maybe 100 fantastic shows

    Remember The Killing, the Danish version?

    OMFG. Just absolutely compelling. not merely some of the greatest TV drama, some of the greatest drama of any form I have ever watched. You could not take your eyes off it, even tho it was bitterly harrowing. What a show

    Squid Game
    Chernobyl
    Vikings

    &c &c

    I loved the Killing but we did not get all of it, the sub-titles gave us a couple of sentences when it was clear a lot more was going on. The same with The Bridge - there was a sustained joke in that about the way Swedes and Danes speak that was totally inaccessible to non-Danish/Swedish natives. So, these were probably even better than we thought. Chernobyl was brilliant too. I thought we were talking about multi-series examples, not one or two. But it is true I don't watch a whole heap of telly.

  • Options
    Sean_FSean_F Posts: 36,087
    Sean_F said:

    Mr. F, I'd argue characters need to be more credible in fantasy than other genres to make the suspension of disbelief in other elements (magic, dragons etc) easier.

    James Bond is a character in a real world but the man himself is more fantastical than almost anyone in GoT.

    And, I think the same is true of logistics in fantasy (something which Tolkien, for example, is obsessive about. But, he was an ex-soldier).
    By the end, I was expecting someone to say "the eyes are open, the mouth is moving, but Mr. Brain has long since departed, Lord Tyrion."
  • Options
    turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 15,646
    Pulpstar said:

    ...

    Strange, Guido and his pals were fine with ‘unsophisticated support’ for Project Brexit.


    Guido posts racism about muslims shock.
    My perception (which may be wrong) is that antisemitism is more pronounced in muslim communities. Are you saying that is wrong? Fine. The implication in Guido's point is that the numbers of muslims vastly outweighs Jews and thus appealing too members of the muslim community (selecting muslim candidates etc). The downside is that some seem to hold rather dodgy views.

    I agree, partially. And this would be entirely true of his statement if he'd removed the words "sophisticated" and "unsophisticated".

    Your point doesn't address the use of those words.
    Good catch - I assumed the racism accusation was about labelling muslims as more likely to be anti-semitic.
  • Options

    Sandpit said:

    Leon said:

    Eabhal said:

    Leon said:

    kamski said:

    Leon said:

    kamski said:

    Leon said:

    Why did no one tell me about the Apple Series FOR ALL MANKIND

    It's fantastic. Admittedly, I have only watched one episode, but it is brilliant

    The bait and switch on the moon landing is GENIUS

    I've seen 3 episodes, and although it's well done, I'm beginning to suspect that after an intriguing opening it's descending into a slow-moving soap opera that they will milk for as many episodes as they can in the typical way. So I'm probably not going any further unless I hear different.

    If you're on Apple + I can highly recommend Shrinking featuring a great turn by Harrison Ford as a grumpy old man.
    Ach. dammit

    That is my big fear

    So many series now do this. Start with great promise, then fade away HORRIBLY

    I have had to abandon three dramas in recent months for this reason. GRRR
    Yes, it's very annoying. And sometimes the opposite happens - eg I was still enjoying The Path after 3 seasons (though it had got a bit slushy), and they didn't make any more despite the story clearly being unfinished.

    I would say For All Mankind is still entertaining after 3 episodes but 7 seasons are planned, and I don't want to get hooked into having to know what happens because it's too much of a time commitment for me...
    Rotten Tomatoes - which is modestly reliable - insists it contnues well into seasons 2 and 3. I shall persist for now

    The worst of the recent bunch was Money Heist, which started cleverly and elegantly, but described a perfect smooth arc of descent into inanity, plot holes, non sequiturs, stupid characters and tedious distractions

    Monarch: Legacy of Monsters immediately went from quite good in episode 1 to SHITE by ep 3, and stayed there

    On the upside, GRISELDA is great, from episodes 1 to 6. Complete and whole, and all good. Hard recommend
    1) Just started Slow Horses after rave reviews on PB. I have that desperate need for the next episode for the first time in years - it's superb. Rationing to one episode an evening.

    2) Brexit tackles are all over the internet. I think it might have started on FIFA? (Video game). That's also where the ubiquitous anti-semitic description for a tap-in comes from.
    it took me ages to "get" Slow Horses, but finally I did, and I like it. Excellent entertainment
    Slow Horses was a one-night binge every season. Possibly the best television drama since Breaking Bad ended.
    I’ve a couple of contributions to this sub thread. Just because it’s now the cinematic age, it doesn’t necessarily mean better, it could lack soul, pace, imagination despite big bucks and looking the part.

    And conversely it can be great despite being from a classic age and made on a budget.

    I recently saw something I haven’t seen before, a BBC adaption of Pride and Prejudice from 1980, scripted by Fay Weldon, and it’s easily the best P&P I’ve ever seen, with the best casting and acting. I’ve also binged very watchable older cheaply made crime/cowboy series Justified, that’s full of great characters, plots, script and pace, if you haven’t tried it.

    What could have made For All Mankind better, if the whole of the first series had been accurately historical, till twist coming in the last episode not the first? Coming in the first episode, you didn’t really feel the emotion what they were feeling? They could have built it up to that instead? What do you think?

    I could watch the early 1980s Granada adaptation of Brideshead Revisited over and over again. I don't see how you can improve it. For me, probably the best drama series there has ever been. Did Granada also do the World at War?

  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 48,088

    Leon said:

    Sean_F said:

    Leon said:

    kamski said:

    Leon said:

    kamski said:

    Leon said:

    kamski said:

    Leon said:

    Why did no one tell me about the Apple Series FOR ALL MANKIND

    It's fantastic. Admittedly, I have only watched one episode, but it is brilliant

    The bait and switch on the moon landing is GENIUS

    I've seen 3 episodes, and although it's well done, I'm beginning to suspect that after an intriguing opening it's descending into a slow-moving soap opera that they will milk for as many episodes as they can in the typical way. So I'm probably not going any further unless I hear different.

    If you're on Apple + I can highly recommend Shrinking featuring a great turn by Harrison Ford as a grumpy old man.
    Ach. dammit

    That is my big fear

    So many series now do this. Start with great promise, then fade away HORRIBLY

    I have had to abandon three dramas in recent months for this reason. GRRR
    Yes, it's very annoying. And sometimes the opposite happens - eg I was still enjoying The Path after 3 seasons (though it had got a bit slushy), and they didn't make any more despite the story clearly being unfinished.

    I would say For All Mankind is still entertaining after 3 episodes but 7 seasons are planned, and I don't want to get hooked into having to know what happens because it's too much of a time commitment for me...
    Rotten Tomatoes - which is modestly reliable - insists it contnues well into seasons 2 and 3. I shall persist for now

    The worst of the recent bunch was Money Heist, which started cleverly and elegantly, but described a perfect smooth arc of descent into inanity, plot holes, non sequiturs, stupid characters and tedious distractions

    Monarch: Legacy of Monsters immediately went from quite good in episode 1 to SHITE by ep 3, and stayed there
    Let us know how it goes!

    It took me 2 and a half seasons to give up on Mad Men.

    I've never seen an episode of Lost, or The Crown, or Game of Thrones (probably too violent for me), or Eastenders. Maybe I am commitment-phobic.

    Never heard of Monarch: Legacy of Monsters. I saw Money Heist advertised - it looked interesting but my wife can't be bothered with subtitles, and I refuse to watch anything dubbed (if it was even available) so didn't bother. Won't now.
    Mad Men was great, until about season 4 or 5 (most dramas collapse by seasons 4 or 5, if they get that far - it is an actual rule, with very few exceptions)

    The first season of the Crown is superb, second jolly good, then increasingly bad

    Game of Thrones is sui generis. I loved it, mostly, even while finding the plot absurdly complex and difficult to comprehend, it had that knack that, just when you felt like abandoning it for its labyrinthine complexity, it would have a brilliant scene with clever lines, or a spectacular battle sequence, or just the midget being funny

    Great actors helped; also good characterisation

    I thought Mad Men was brilliant all the way through. It just got the 60s perfectly from beginning to end. The Wire and the Sopranos were sustained brilliance too. Those three stand head and shoulders above all else.
    Breaking Bad, too.

    Better Call Saul was quality almost throughout, although for me, it ended poorly.

    I always forget Breaking Bad - but you're right, of course. Better Call Saul nearly got there.

    For me it's about whether you can go back time after time and still enjoy it. You can with those four.

    There are dozens of others, you are being insanely restrictive

    The Golden Age of TV (let's hope it hasn't ended) has produced maybe 100 fantastic shows

    Remember The Killing, the Danish version?

    OMFG. Just absolutely compelling. not merely some of the greatest TV drama, some of the greatest drama of any form I have ever watched. You could not take your eyes off it, even tho it was bitterly harrowing. What a show

    Squid Game
    Chernobyl
    Vikings

    &c &c

    I loved the Killing but we did not get all of it, the sub-titles gave us a couple of sentences when it was clear a lot more was going on. The same with The Bridge - there was a sustained joke in that about the way Swedes and Danes speak that was totally inaccessible to non-Danish/Swedish natives. So, these were probably even better than we thought. Chernobyl was brilliant too. I thought we were talking about multi-series examples, not one or two. But it is true I don't watch a whole heap of telly.

    I watch tons of TV drama, it is how I relax, I love it - I prefer it to any other form of entertainment (movies, novels, theatre), I adore a good drama I can watch night after night. So I have revelled in The Golden Age

    Trouble is I consume so much I run out
  • Options

    eek said:

    TOPPING said:

    Want an end to civilian casualties? Then there's a simple solution: Hamas lays down their arms unconditionally and releases the hostages. Otherwise the war continues.

    Exactly what David Cameron (pbuh) said yesterday in the HoL.

    And we know that DC can say or do no wrong.
    But ever civilian casualty recruits more people into Hamas rather than sitting on the sidelines.

    Even before you see the complete lack of hope that Israel is offering everyone in Gaza which again will be pushing people towards actively supporting Hamas because they’ve got nothing else so they may as well.

    Indeed. Nor do they offer any hope to Palestinians in the West Bank either. Nor that much to Arab Israelis.

    The conflict in Northern Ireland was ended because the conditions of the Catholic population were improved. The conflict in the Basque country was ended because the conditions of the Basque population were improved. And so on.
    Israel removed its military and settlements from Gaza in 2005.

    From then on Gaza was the responsibility of the people who lived there.

    What did they achieve apart from doubling its population.

    Overpopulating doesn't improve conditions.
    Hamas has done little to improve the condition of the people in Gaza. Nothing I wrote was supportive of Hamas. You, however, are misinformed about the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza. Gaza has long been blockaded by Israel (and, of course, a blockade is a casus belli according to Israel in 1967). It was not an independent statelet. It was still heavily under the control of Israel.

    Also, Gaza is part of Palestine. It's good that Israel pulled out of Gaza in 2005, but Israel was and is still in the West Bank, building illegal settlements and oppressing the local population.

    Israel has destroyed the only family planning clinic in Gaza: https://www.newsweek.com/planned-parenthood-gaza-clinic-destroyed-israeli-airstrike-1834556 Donations to the IPPF are, I'm sure, welcome.
    You're either mistaken or being disingenuous.

    Gaza was not blockaded when Israel withdrew from Gaza, quite the opposite, Israel was supporting the Palestinian Authority in building up the Port of Gaza when it withdrew.

    The blockade of Gaza began after Hamas took over Gaza, and I'm sure you agree that blockade is entirely justified thanks to the actions (past not just present) and intent of Hamas.

    You're quite right that peace will not exist until Gaza develops, I agree wholeheartedly with you there. Gaza is not going to develop as long as Hamas exists.

    So all roads lead back to the need to destroy Hamas. After Hamas is destroyed there will be a window of opportunity to see Gaza developed and a better future for all Gazans as well as Israelis, but only if Hamas are destroyed first.

    Israel withdrawing but Hamas surviving and the blockade continuing is no future for Gaza and not humane.
  • Options
    tlg86tlg86 Posts: 25,269
    Pulpstar said:

    ...

    Strange, Guido and his pals were fine with ‘unsophisticated support’ for Project Brexit.


    Guido posts racism about muslims shock.
    My perception (which may be wrong) is that antisemitism is more pronounced in muslim communities. Are you saying that is wrong? Fine. The implication in Guido's point is that the numbers of muslims vastly outweighs Jews and thus appealing too members of the muslim community (selecting muslim candidates etc). The downside is that some seem to hold rather dodgy views.

    I agree, partially. And this would be entirely true of his statement if he'd removed the words "sophisticated" and "unsophisticated".

    Your point doesn't address the use of those words.
    Doesn't unsophisticated and sophisticated relate to the support? I don't think he needed to bring Jewish voters into it. The point is, Labour want the Muslim block vote.
  • Options
    AverageNinjaAverageNinja Posts: 1,169

    Strange, Guido and his pals were fine with ‘unsophisticated support’ for Project Brexit.


    As I noted yesterday evening, we seem to be prepared to turn a blind eye to views that the Labour Party is supposed to find abhorrent, in return for a wheelbarrow full of votes.
    Only the right kind of views, if you want to be disgustingly vile to Muslims they are fair game.
  • Options
    turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 15,646
    Leon said:

    There are also shows which have one or maybe two briliant seasons, but then turn to shit, how do you classify them? Are they great or disasters?

    Westworld is the classic example. Fabulous opening season. oh dear oh dear what happened then

    Also Homeland, and Peaky Blinders, and the Crown

    How I wish Westworld had stayed as one season only. At least the second season stayed within the Park(s) but after that it was awful. I wanted to like it, but the need for another big twist each series let it down. The twist in the first series (spoiler alert here) was great. First time through you have no inkling that its different times being shown, but on second watching, when you know, it makes sense. Glorious.
  • Options
    SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 20,889

    Pulpstar said:

    ...

    Strange, Guido and his pals were fine with ‘unsophisticated support’ for Project Brexit.


    Guido posts racism about muslims shock.
    My perception (which may be wrong) is that antisemitism is more pronounced in muslim communities. Are you saying that is wrong? Fine. The implication in Guido's point is that the numbers of muslims vastly outweighs Jews and thus appealing too members of the muslim community (selecting muslim candidates etc). The downside is that some seem to hold rather dodgy views.

    I agree, partially. And this would be entirely true of his statement if he'd removed the words "sophisticated" and "unsophisticated".

    Your point doesn't address the use of those words.
    Good catch - I assumed the racism accusation was about labelling muslims as more likely to be anti-semitic.
    Unsophisticated = Pindu in this context.

  • Options
    kinabalukinabalu Posts: 39,598
    Cookie said:

    kinabalu said:

    Cookie said:

    Leon said:

    nico679 said:

    Good morning

    Labour down 5% on this poll

    Tomorrow's by elections should show if this is happening or if it is all smoke and mirrors

    https://twitter.com/DominicPenna/status/1757665864696971522?t=zfbTQL3aas6Qcnfmr03h_w&s=19

    Most of that poll was done before Ali-gate.
    Maybe a reaction to the green u-turn . Certainly it’s been a bad week for Labour and not what you want in the run up to the by-elections .

    Perhaps the postal votes might help them seeing as most would have been in before things went south.
    Sky reporting a third labour politician has been spoken to

    https://news.sky.com/story/third-labour-politician-spoken-to-over-meeting-at-centre-of-antisemitism-row-13071272
    It wouldn't surprise me if dozens of Labur MPs have said stuff like this. A potential catastrophe
    Someone yesterday ( @theProle ?) likened the current situation to a scene from "the Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe" in which the White Queen – looking superficially presentable – is seen to be backed by an absolute army of ogres, misfits and crazies. Admittedly I have neither read the book nor seen the film so the analogy was slightly lost on me. But still, I can picture it. And the number of scary luncatics in the ranks behind Starmer is starting to look quite scary.
    Of course, the Tories also have a cast of peculiars too. But their misfits are of a more traditional bent – the not-really-competent-of-effective types, the rules-don’t-really-apply-to-me types. Whereas a good half of the Labour Party appear to be living in a weird teenage twitter rabbithole which has driven them genuinely insane.
    "a good half of the Labour Party"

    I'll be kind and put this down to artistic licence.
    That's entirely fair. I should have put the word 'appear' in a different place. It is, of course, only the oddities which hit the news. But the last few days have given us:
    1) Azhar Ali - ex-leader of Lancashire Labour Party - hitherto thought of the sane and sensible wing of a sane and sensible regional body - comes out with the sort of weird conspiracy stuff you expect not leave the more deranged corners of twitter or the odd bit of motorway bridge graffiti.
    2) A second candiate in his wake gets suspended for something similar.
    3) Reports of a handful more.

    The impression you get is 'Christ, maybe they all secretly think like this'. Because the likes of Azhar Ali are not fringe players or rentagobs, and their views are presumably - presumably? - well known to those who select them. Indeed, they hadn't before now seen any reason to keep stuff like this to themselves.

    I do accept that five or so candidate is not 'a good half of the Labour Party', and you are quite right, artistic license. But the more we see of those behind the front bench, the more we see the crazies, and the more we see the crazies, the more we wonder how many of the faceless masses we have not yet met are actually like this too.
    Well I do hope anxiety about those "faceless masses" isn't keeping you up at night, but if it is I can honestly and in the utmost good faith reassure you. SKS controls the party and the main impact of these cases will be to strengthen his grip still further. If you look at Left/Palestine Twitter you'll see this. He's hated more than Netanyahu.
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 48,088
    FWIW I do not think the Golden Age of TV has ended

    We have just had Succession, which for me is as good as Breaking Bad or Sopranos, and much better than The Wire (overrated)

    We have just had The Great, possibly the funniest show ever made?

    The Bear is weirdly weirdly brilliant, and is in the middle of its run

    I've only finished Griselda two nights ago, it's not genius but it is excellent. And so on and so forth

    I think we have simply got USED to great TV, so we are more blase and complacent, or we demand more
  • Options
    AverageNinjaAverageNinja Posts: 1,169
    The idea Labour is using anti-Semitism to win Muslim votes is nutty, we've really fallen down the beergate hole.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 63,519
    Leon said:

    Sean_F said:

    Leon said:

    kamski said:

    Leon said:

    kamski said:

    Leon said:

    kamski said:

    Leon said:

    Why did no one tell me about the Apple Series FOR ALL MANKIND

    It's fantastic. Admittedly, I have only watched one episode, but it is brilliant

    The bait and switch on the moon landing is GENIUS

    I've seen 3 episodes, and although it's well done, I'm beginning to suspect that after an intriguing opening it's descending into a slow-moving soap opera that they will milk for as many episodes as they can in the typical way. So I'm probably not going any further unless I hear different.

    If you're on Apple + I can highly recommend Shrinking featuring a great turn by Harrison Ford as a grumpy old man.
    Ach. dammit

    That is my big fear

    So many series now do this. Start with great promise, then fade away HORRIBLY

    I have had to abandon three dramas in recent months for this reason. GRRR
    Yes, it's very annoying. And sometimes the opposite happens - eg I was still enjoying The Path after 3 seasons (though it had got a bit slushy), and they didn't make any more despite the story clearly being unfinished.

    I would say For All Mankind is still entertaining after 3 episodes but 7 seasons are planned, and I don't want to get hooked into having to know what happens because it's too much of a time commitment for me...
    Rotten Tomatoes - which is modestly reliable - insists it contnues well into seasons 2 and 3. I shall persist for now

    The worst of the recent bunch was Money Heist, which started cleverly and elegantly, but described a perfect smooth arc of descent into inanity, plot holes, non sequiturs, stupid characters and tedious distractions

    Monarch: Legacy of Monsters immediately went from quite good in episode 1 to SHITE by ep 3, and stayed there
    Let us know how it goes!

    It took me 2 and a half seasons to give up on Mad Men.

    I've never seen an episode of Lost, or The Crown, or Game of Thrones (probably too violent for me), or Eastenders. Maybe I am commitment-phobic.

    Never heard of Monarch: Legacy of Monsters. I saw Money Heist advertised - it looked interesting but my wife can't be bothered with subtitles, and I refuse to watch anything dubbed (if it was even available) so didn't bother. Won't now.
    Mad Men was great, until about season 4 or 5 (most dramas collapse by seasons 4 or 5, if they get that far - it is an actual rule, with very few exceptions)

    The first season of the Crown is superb, second jolly good, then increasingly bad

    Game of Thrones is sui generis. I loved it, mostly, even while finding the plot absurdly complex and difficult to comprehend, it had that knack that, just when you felt like abandoning it for its labyrinthine complexity, it would have a brilliant scene with clever lines, or a spectacular battle sequence, or just the midget being funny

    Great actors helped; also good characterisation

    I thought Mad Men was brilliant all the way through. It just got the 60s perfectly from beginning to end. The Wire and the Sopranos were sustained brilliance too. Those three stand head and shoulders above all else.
    Breaking Bad, too.

    Better Call Saul was quality almost throughout, although for me, it ended poorly.

    I always forget Breaking Bad - but you're right, of course. Better Call Saul nearly got there.

    For me it's about whether you can go back time after time and still enjoy it. You can with those four.

    There are dozens of others, you are being insanely restrictive

    The Golden Age of TV (let's hope it hasn't ended) has produced maybe 100 fantastic shows

    Remember The Killing, the Danish version?

    OMFG. Just absolutely compelling. not merely some of the greatest TV drama, some of the greatest drama of any form I have ever watched. You could not take your eyes off it, even tho it was bitterly harrowing. What a show

    Squid Game
    Chernobyl
    Vikings

    &c &c
    Agreed; The Killing was superb.
    How many have you rewatched, though ?

    Not many, in my case.

    I rewatched West Wing with my kids quite some time ago, to educate them in the mechanics of US politics (which was great fun), and much more recently 6FD, which was every bit as good the second time round.
  • Options
    rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,905
    Rob Ford vs Mattie Goodwin on twitter!!

    Get the popcorn in kids!
  • Options
    bigglesbiggles Posts: 4,455

    Sandpit said:

    Leon said:

    Eabhal said:

    Leon said:

    kamski said:

    Leon said:

    kamski said:

    Leon said:

    Why did no one tell me about the Apple Series FOR ALL MANKIND

    It's fantastic. Admittedly, I have only watched one episode, but it is brilliant

    The bait and switch on the moon landing is GENIUS

    I've seen 3 episodes, and although it's well done, I'm beginning to suspect that after an intriguing opening it's descending into a slow-moving soap opera that they will milk for as many episodes as they can in the typical way. So I'm probably not going any further unless I hear different.

    If you're on Apple + I can highly recommend Shrinking featuring a great turn by Harrison Ford as a grumpy old man.
    Ach. dammit

    That is my big fear

    So many series now do this. Start with great promise, then fade away HORRIBLY

    I have had to abandon three dramas in recent months for this reason. GRRR
    Yes, it's very annoying. And sometimes the opposite happens - eg I was still enjoying The Path after 3 seasons (though it had got a bit slushy), and they didn't make any more despite the story clearly being unfinished.

    I would say For All Mankind is still entertaining after 3 episodes but 7 seasons are planned, and I don't want to get hooked into having to know what happens because it's too much of a time commitment for me...
    Rotten Tomatoes - which is modestly reliable - insists it contnues well into seasons 2 and 3. I shall persist for now

    The worst of the recent bunch was Money Heist, which started cleverly and elegantly, but described a perfect smooth arc of descent into inanity, plot holes, non sequiturs, stupid characters and tedious distractions

    Monarch: Legacy of Monsters immediately went from quite good in episode 1 to SHITE by ep 3, and stayed there

    On the upside, GRISELDA is great, from episodes 1 to 6. Complete and whole, and all good. Hard recommend
    1) Just started Slow Horses after rave reviews on PB. I have that desperate need for the next episode for the first time in years - it's superb. Rationing to one episode an evening.

    2) Brexit tackles are all over the internet. I think it might have started on FIFA? (Video game). That's also where the ubiquitous anti-semitic description for a tap-in comes from.
    it took me ages to "get" Slow Horses, but finally I did, and I like it. Excellent entertainment
    Slow Horses was a one-night binge every season. Possibly the best television drama since Breaking Bad ended.
    I’ve a couple of contributions to this sub thread. Just because it’s now the cinematic age, it doesn’t necessarily mean better, it could lack soul, pace, imagination despite big bucks and looking the part.

    And conversely it can be great despite being from a classic age and made on a budget.

    I recently saw something I haven’t seen before, a BBC adaption of Pride and Prejudice from 1980, scripted by Fay Weldon, and it’s easily the best P&P I’ve ever seen, with the best casting and acting. I’ve also binged very watchable older cheaply made crime/cowboy series Justified, that’s full of great characters, plots, script and pace, if you haven’t tried it.

    What could have made For All Mankind better, if the whole of the first series had been accurately historical, till twist coming in the last episode not the first? Coming in the first episode, you didn’t really feel the emotion what they were feeling? They could have built it up to that instead? What do you think?

    I could watch the early 1980s Granada adaptation of Brideshead Revisited over and over again. I don't see how you can improve it. For me, probably the best drama series there has ever been. Did Granada also do the World at War?

    And Bullseye. Granada’s finest triumph.
  • Options
    LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 15,826
    edited February 14
    Leon said:

    ...

    Isn't there an issue with JRRM not finishing the books, so by the end the show runners had to construct their own narratives? Obvs didn't do it very well, if so

    Yes. Some authors will have sketched out the main architecture of the plot ahead of time, so that it wouldn't have been a problem, but GRRM has a writing style where he makes it up as he goes along, and often writes several different versions of the plot before deciding which is his favourite, so he couldn't provide a one-page summary of the ending of the story.

    This is also one factor that has contributed to the delay in completing the books. As the story has grown the number of different possible plots has also grown, and so it takes longer for GRRM to explore them in his writing, before deciding where to take it.

    It's a shame really. There was something very audacious about the early books, and it would be nice to see the story completed.
  • Options
    rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,905
    Leon said:

    There are also shows which have one or maybe two briliant seasons, but then turn to shit, how do you classify them? Are they great or disasters?

    Westworld is the classic example. Fabulous opening season. oh dear oh dear what happened then

    Also Homeland, and Peaky Blinders, and the Crown

    Have you seen Better Call Saul and Ozarks?

  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,806

    Leon said:

    There are also shows which have one or maybe two briliant seasons, but then turn to shit, how do you classify them? Are they great or disasters?

    Westworld is the classic example. Fabulous opening season. oh dear oh dear what happened then

    Also Homeland, and Peaky Blinders, and the Crown

    How I wish Westworld had stayed as one season only. At least the second season stayed within the Park(s) but after that it was awful. I wanted to like it, but the need for another big twist each series let it down. The twist in the first series (spoiler alert here) was great. First time through you have no inkling that its different times being shown, but on second watching, when you know, it makes sense. Glorious.
    Designated Survivor got progressively worse from about three episodes in to Season 2 as well.

    That said, it was always a bit flawed.
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 48,088

    Leon said:

    There are also shows which have one or maybe two briliant seasons, but then turn to shit, how do you classify them? Are they great or disasters?

    Westworld is the classic example. Fabulous opening season. oh dear oh dear what happened then

    Also Homeland, and Peaky Blinders, and the Crown

    How I wish Westworld had stayed as one season only. At least the second season stayed within the Park(s) but after that it was awful. I wanted to like it, but the need for another big twist each series let it down. The twist in the first series (spoiler alert here) was great. First time through you have no inkling that its different times being shown, but on second watching, when you know, it makes sense. Glorious.
    Quite so

    If they'd kept Westworld at that one season we would all look back on it as a crowning moment in the Golden Age

    I recall starting season 2 with such anticipation, and then by about the 20th minute of episode 1, I looked at my then wife (also a fan) and we both grimaced with surprise, and we knew it was going to be utterly terrible, and it was. I think we made it to about episode 5, season 2, then abandoned it forever

    I wonder what went on behind the scenes. Perhaps it WAS conceived as a standalone single series, initially
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 63,519

    Leon said:

    There are also shows which have one or maybe two briliant seasons, but then turn to shit, how do you classify them? Are they great or disasters?

    Westworld is the classic example. Fabulous opening season. oh dear oh dear what happened then

    Also Homeland, and Peaky Blinders, and the Crown

    Have you seen Better Call Saul and Ozarks?

    The first of those was excellent; dropped the second after the first season.
  • Options
    Northern_AlNorthern_Al Posts: 7,731

    viewcode said:

    kamski said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Mr. F, and yet, even after the seventh season the final one could've been good. The ending of seven was fine.

    The eighth is amazing for the errors and poor decisions involved. I especially like two characters setting off early to arrive somewhere before the army (leaving from the same place) and arrive there after the army. Fun fact: two individuals move a lot faster than a whole army. The idea they'd be slower is demented. And the concept they wouldn't notice a whole army passing them is something special.

    I thought the final battle sequence with the dragons - third episode from the end? - was glorious. Didn't all make sense, but absolutely spectacular - if I am remembering correctly

    But then it went on after that, with some insane plot twists
    You know more about this than I do... how long can a saga like this keep going?

    I recently fell down a Howard's Way binge watch rabbit hole (yes, I deserve condemnation, I don't care), and whilst that was always incoherent tosh, it became really incoherent tosh towards the end, with characters behaving really out of character.

    Science nerd theory: You can only have so many characters in a story, because there's a limit to how many are enjoyable to hold in one's head on a Sunday evening. Once you have played everyone against everyone else, the game is broadly up.

    Sitcoms are a bit different, because the whole point is that hardly anyone ever learns anything, and the lack of evolution is the enjoyable comfort. But stories and sagas are meant to be about change.
    I have observed, personally and professionally, that the 4-5 seasons thing is a pretty iron rule. Of course plenty of dramas don't even make it that far, they die after 1 season, and are not renewed, or they make it to 3 and that was all they planned

    But there seems to be some algorithm which says you will run out of character changes, plot twists, likely scenarios, new and believeable angles, after 4 or 5 seasons. I note Succession, probably the greatest recent drama, ended on its 4th season, with people wanting more, but likely a very wise decision

    Great dramas that go beyond this - House, Mad Men - generally tail off badly

    There are vanishingly few exceptions. The Sopranos is probably one - six seasons, great to the end

    Soap operas that constanrtly introduce new characters can go on much longer, perhaps eternally, but they are not cohesive dramas in the same sense
    Lucifer made it to 6 seasons with only a couple of dodgy patches, but more comedy-drama than drama.
    Science fiction/fantasy series, if successful, last longer. They have more fanatic fans (and then some) and a larger number of possible plots and settings. Even if we limit ourselves to 21st century series, BSG did four plus miniseries plus movies, The Expanse did six series, GOT did eight(!) series, the rebooted Dr Who is currently on gawdhelpus series fifteen (not counting the 1963-89 version!), and even Star Trek Discovery - not held to be an unalloyed success - will make it to five. Get a good one and you're made for life.
    Coronation Street has over 11,000 episodes…
    The Archers has over 20,000. Still going strong since 1951.
This discussion has been closed.