The Man in the High Castle suffers from being a great idea for a film, but the producers suddenly found they need to fill another 20 hours of screentime. The whole antique dealer storyline could be cut, for example.
I watched The Circle last week. Interesting, given the Facebook/Cambridge Analytica headlines recently.
The Man in the High Castle suffers from being a great idea for a film, but the producers suddenly found they need to fill another 20 hours of screentime. The whole antique dealer storyline could be cut, for example.
I watched The Circle last week. Interesting, given the Facebook/Cambridge Analytica headlines recently.
Agreed. Loved much of Series 1 but the fact that Series 3 features an alien from outer space pretty much ratifies your analysis.
The Man in the High Castle suffers from being a great idea for a film, but the producers suddenly found they need to fill another 20 hours of screentime. The whole antique dealer storyline could be cut, for example.
An interesting point. TV shows in america have increasingly moved away from needing 22 episodes per season since Netflix came along, your streaming services seem to hew closer to the cable model of 10-13 as an average, and that is a good thing, but while there's lots of movies that seem like they would work better as tv shows, like you with Man in the High Castle I find plenty of shows are just too stretched out even at 10-13 episodes per season. Every single Marvel Netflix show is a case in point, in that whatever their good parts, I've not seen a single one that could not be 3-4 episodes shorter.
I certainly don't bemoan that some shows are better being binge watched, I think it works for some shows and not others, but there is still this problem in identifying how many episodes a story actually needs, and you end up with even some really good stuff either dragging on, or severely condensed.
The Man in the High Castle suffers from being a great idea for a film, but the producers suddenly found they need to fill another 20 hours of screentime. The whole antique dealer storyline could be cut, for example.
I watched The Circle last week. Interesting, given the Facebook/Cambridge Analytica headlines recently.
Of course we all know the greatest show of the past few years, Westworld, is a perfect 10 x 1hr episodes...
The Man in the High Castle suffers from being a great idea for a film, but the producers suddenly found they need to fill another 20 hours of screentime. The whole antique dealer storyline could be cut, for example.
An interesting point. TV shows in america have increasingly moved away from needing 22 episodes per season since Netflix came along, your streaming services seem to hew closer to the cable model of 10-13 as an average, and that is a good thing, but while there's lots of movies that seem like they would work better as tv shows, like you with Man in the High Castle I find plenty of shows are just too stretched out even at 10-13 episodes per season. Every single Marvel Netflix show is a case in point, in that whatever their good parts, I've not seen a single one that could not be 3-4 episodes shorter.
I certainly don't bemoan that some shows are better being binge watched, I think it works for some shows and not others, but there is still this problem in identifying how many episodes a story actually needs, and you end up with even some really good stuff either dragging on, or severely condensed.
Spot on. 5-6 episodes should be enough to tell most stories. One of the greatest storytelling epics of our time, The Godfather, would still only fill 10 episodes.
The best series of modern times, by far, is Big Little Lies. It was only five episodes. Sadly the producers are threatening a second series, despite the fact that they have no further novel to screenplay.
Of course we all know the greatest show of the past few years, Westworld, is a perfect 10 x 1hr episodes...
That's probably dictated by the insane production cost: $10m or so per episode, and that's only going to go north now as the stars demand pay rises, and the on-screen events get bigger and bigger. Certainly a good incentive not to let the story sprawl :-)
The Man in the High Castle suffers from being a great idea for a film, but the producers suddenly found they need to fill another 20 hours of screentime. The whole antique dealer storyline could be cut, for example.
An interesting point. TV shows in america have increasingly moved away from needing 22 episodes per season since Netflix came along, your streaming services seem to hew closer to the cable model of 10-13 as an average, and that is a good thing, but while there's lots of movies that seem like they would work better as tv shows, like you with Man in the High Castle I find plenty of shows are just too stretched out even at 10-13 episodes per season. Every single Marvel Netflix show is a case in point, in that whatever their good parts, I've not seen a single one that could not be 3-4 episodes shorter.
I certainly don't bemoan that some shows are better being binge watched, I think it works for some shows and not others, but there is still this problem in identifying how many episodes a story actually needs, and you end up with even some really good stuff either dragging on, or severely condensed.
Spot on. 5-6 episodes should be enough to tell most stories. One of the greatest storytelling epics of our time, The Godfather, would still only fill 10 episodes.
The best series of modern times, by far, is Big Little Lies. It was only five episodes. Sadly the producers are threatening a second series, despite the fact that they have no further novel to screenplay.
They should leave well alone.
Some stories can and should require more time, but if you are forced to stretch things out, they need to be better at filling the space.
The Man in the High Castle suffers from being a great idea for a film, but the producers suddenly found they need to fill another 20 hours of screentime. The whole antique dealer storyline could be cut, for example.
An interesting point. TV shows in america have increasingly moved away from needing 22 episodes per season since Netflix came along, your streaming services seem to hew closer to the cable model of 10-13 as an average, and that is a good thing, but while there's lots of movies that seem like they would work better as tv shows, like you with Man in the High Castle I find plenty of shows are just too stretched out even at 10-13 episodes per season. Every single Marvel Netflix show is a case in point, in that whatever their good parts, I've not seen a single one that could not be 3-4 episodes shorter.
I certainly don't bemoan that some shows are better being binge watched, I think it works for some shows and not others, but there is still this problem in identifying how many episodes a story actually needs, and you end up with even some really good stuff either dragging on, or severely condensed.
Spot on. 5-6 episodes should be enough to tell most stories. One of the greatest storytelling epics of our time, The Godfather, would still only fill 10 episodes.
The best series of modern times, by far, is Big Little Lies. It was only five episodes. Sadly the producers are threatening a second series, despite the fact that they have no further novel to screenplay.
They should leave well alone.
5-6 episodes tells a story. The question is whether you can tell more than one story (which is what the Americans are much better at) in a season
Of course we all know the greatest show of the past few years, Westworld, is a perfect 10 x 1hr episodes...
That's probably dictated by the insane production cost: $10m or so per episode, and that's only going to go north now as the stars demand pay rises, and the on-screen events get bigger and bigger. Certainly a good incentive not to let the story sprawl :-)
You only have to look at the trailers for an indication of the crazy amount of money they spend.
Of course we all know the greatest show of the past few years, Westworld, is a perfect 10 x 1hr episodes...
That's probably dictated by the insane episode cost: $10m or so per episode, and that's only going to go north now as the stars demand pay rises, and the on-screen events get bigger and bigger.
I was stunned to see a list that showed The Crown costs more to make per episode than Game of Thrones. I know there's a huge cast, and its still a period piece, but with all the effects work,production work and filming in so many different locations I am surprised. Despite my own thoughts on Westworld being more negative than positive, as a visual spectacle it is breathtaking.
Of course we all know the greatest show of the past few years, Westworld, is a perfect 10 x 1hr episodes...
That's probably dictated by the insane episode cost: $10m or so per episode, and that's only going to go north now as the stars demand pay rises, and the on-screen events get bigger and bigger.
I was stunned to see a list that showed The Crown costs more to make per episode than Game of Thrones. I know there's a huge cast, and its still a period piece, but with all the effects work,production work and filming in so many different locations I am surprised. Despite my own thoughts on Westworld being more negative than positive, as a visual spectacle it is breathtaking.
Really, I am really surprised by that. Not only because of the large Tits and Dragons cast, who have become big stars, but all the VFX work that is required.
If your priority is to prevent a Tory government Labour is your only choice in almost all of England and much of Wales. I don’t believe Corbyn is anti-Semitic. It’s more that he has never repudiated the anti-Semites he has actively campaigned with for decades and now that he is in charge they are swarming into the Labour party, emboldened and gunning for power. Most voters don’t see this because, quite understandably, they are not paying attention. Enough do, though, to ensure Labour will never win with him as leader.
I would have agreed with you on Corbyn's anti-semitism or lack thereof until recently even after he lied about his work with Paul Eisen. After all, he is not very intelligent and he is quite capable of making mistakes through naivety as much as malice.
That defence comes to pieces over his comment on that mural. He clearly, deliberately supported the right of an anti-Semite to freedom of expression (which is allowed)on the basis that the Jews went round suppressing it (which is clearly prejudiced bollocks).
He has a problem. It may not be serious, or even deliberate - it may be like Johnson's reflexive and unthinking racism in his journalism - but it's there. And that means he cannot with any moral authority criticise anyone else with racist views, including the very large number crawling it if the woodwork in Labour.
The thread header is right - he has to go if Labour are to deal with the problem. But if he won't go for lying over his links to the Iranian government, or his support for the IRA or Hamas, or his wilful blindness to child sexual abuse in Islington, he won't go over this.
I hate that mural but funnily enough I don't think it intends to be anti-Semitic. The bankers manipulating the world include Arab and South Asian stereotypes as well as the Jewish one. No-one bothers about potential equal opportunities expressions of racism in that image. It doesn't take a lot of sensitivity to understand the same iconography was used by Nazis who murdered millions of people. The mural has no place in civilised society.
Just when we get real wage increases again we find an extra cost that will keep spending down.
We do still have an unsustainable trade deficit, we do need to restrain consumption, we do need to save and invest more as a nation, we do need to improve our production but damn, the timing is unfortunate.
Off-topic: got a small amount to spend from a Christmas Waterstones card. If I had a thousand pounds I'd be able to buy all the things I want... as an aside, astounded by the absolute predominance of WWII in the Military History section. Must be 95% from the last century (in bestseller's).
I am open to suggestions, incidentally, if anyone has particularly fantastic books they've enjoyed.
Oh Lord. OK, looking at my bookshelves...
Max Hastings
Catastrophe: ISBN 978-0307597052 Overlord: ISBN 0-671-46029-3 Armageddon: ISBN 0-333-90836-8 Nemesis: ISBN 0-00-721982-2 Bomber Command: ISBN 0-7181-1603-8 Das Reich: ISBN 0-03-057059-X Finest Years: Churchill as Warlord: ISBN 978-0-00-726367-7 All Hell Let Loose: ISBN 978-0-00-733809-2 The Korean War: ISBN 0-671-52823-8 The Battle for the Falklands: ISBN 0-7181-2228-3 Warriors: ISBN 978-0-00-719756-9 The Secret War: ISBN 9780007503742
Others
"Britain's War Machine" by David Edgerton "Command and Control" by Eric Schlosser "World Order" by Henry Kissinger "To Hell and Back: Europe, 1914-1949" by Ian Kershaw "Britain Since 1918" by David Marquand "The Blunders of our Governments" by Anthony King and Ivor Crewe "The Signal and the Noise" by Nate Silver "Superforecasting" by Philip E. Tetlock and Dan Gardner "Breaking the Chains of Gravity: The Story of Spaceflight before NASA" by Amy Shira Teitel
The Man in the High Castle suffers from being a great idea for a film, but the producers suddenly found they need to fill another 20 hours of screentime. The whole antique dealer storyline could be cut, for example.
I watched The Circle last week. Interesting, given the Facebook/Cambridge Analytica headlines recently.
I am watching peaky Blinders at the moment, pretty violent but great acting and very stylised.
Labours travails would be almost funny if these clowns hadn't got - and continue to poll - a still unbelievable 40% of the vote last year.
That's how bad the Tories are. They cannot be ensured of a majority even when faced with an institutionally anti-Semitic party nostalgic for the 1970s, led by a quasi-Marxist who backs any murderous regime or cause as long as it is anti-US, anti-UK or anti-Israel. God help us!!
Nah, it shows how bad the people who would still vote Labour are.
In which case we're still buggered as they are nearly half the country. But I am a bit more generous than you. I think a lot of voters see a Tory party led by incompetents who have no interest in anything except personal advancement, who merrily dogwhistle to get the votes of racists, xenophobes and bigots, who are nostalgic for a time that has gone and will never come again and who have no idea how to tackle the country's problems. They choose to vote against such a party.
In that case - why would those people not vote for the Lib Dems? Or the Greens? The Lib Dems lost seats to Labour last time as well.
To me it's obvious - the people voting Labour don't believe Corbyn is anti-semitic or that he supports murderous regimes.
The alternative is that 40% of the country likes anti-semitism and murderous dictatorships.
If your priority is to prevent a Tory government Labour is your only choice in almost all of England and much of Wales. I don’t believe Corbyn is anti-Semitic. It’s more that he has never repudiated the anti-Semites he has actively campaigned with for decades and now that he is in charge they are swarming into the Labour party, emboldened and gunning for power. Most voters don’t see this because, quite understandably, they are not paying attention. Enough do, though, to ensure Labour will never win with him as leader.
If you have willingly associated and campaigned with anti-semites for years, you can hardly not be anti-semitic yourself. As a minimum, it shows that Corbyn doesn't think it is very important.
I guess it isn't snowing down south since no one has mentioned it, but we've had a couple of inches of wet snow in the Dales. Now turned to rain.
Torrential rain. Why are northerners so obsessed with the weather “down South”?
Because southern media is always wittering on about it being glorious sunshine , or flooding when they get some drizzle , or blizzards when they get a few flakes of snow. They usually just say its raining up North to finish.
Off-topic: got a small amount to spend from a Christmas Waterstones card. If I had a thousand pounds I'd be able to buy all the things I want... as an aside, astounded by the absolute predominance of WWII in the Military History section. Must be 95% from the last century (in bestseller's).
I am open to suggestions, incidentally, if anyone has particularly fantastic books they've enjoyed.
Oh Lord. OK, looking at my bookshelves...
Max Hastings
Catastrophe: ISBN 978-0307597052 Overlord: ISBN 0-671-46029-3 Armageddon: ISBN 0-333-90836-8 Nemesis: ISBN 0-00-721982-2 Bomber Command: ISBN 0-7181-1603-8 Das Reich: ISBN 0-03-057059-X Finest Years: Churchill as Warlord: ISBN 978-0-00-726367-7 All Hell Let Loose: ISBN 978-0-00-733809-2 The Korean War: ISBN 0-671-52823-8 The Battle for the Falklands: ISBN 0-7181-2228-3 Warriors: ISBN 978-0-00-719756-9 The Secret War: ISBN 9780007503742
Others
"Britain's War Machine" by David Edgerton "Command and Control" by Eric Schlosser "World Order" by Henry Kissinger "To Hell and Back: Europe, 1914-1949" by Ian Kershaw "Britain Since 1918" by David Marquand "The Blunders of our Governments" by Anthony King and Ivor Crewe "The Signal and the Noise" by Nate Silver "Superforecasting" by Philip E. Tetlock and Dan Gardner "Breaking the Chains of Gravity: The Story of Spaceflight before NASA" by Amy Shira Teitel
I am reading this at the, moment The Korean War: ISBN 0-671-52823-8. Excellent book and shows the incompetence of the US in the whole debacle.
Off-topic: got a small amount to spend from a Christmas Waterstones card. If I had a thousand pounds I'd be able to buy all the things I want... as an aside, astounded by the absolute predominance of WWII in the Military History section. Must be 95% from the last century (in bestseller's).
I am open to suggestions, incidentally, if anyone has particularly fantastic books they've enjoyed.
Oh Lord. OK, looking at my bookshelves...
Max Hastings
Catastrophe: ISBN 978-0307597052 Overlord: ISBN 0-671-46029-3 Armageddon: ISBN 0-333-90836-8 Nemesis: ISBN 0-00-721982-2 Bomber Command: ISBN 0-7181-1603-8 Das Reich: ISBN 0-03-057059-X Finest Years: Churchill as Warlord: ISBN 978-0-00-726367-7 All Hell Let Loose: ISBN 978-0-00-733809-2 The Korean War: ISBN 0-671-52823-8 The Battle for the Falklands: ISBN 0-7181-2228-3 Warriors: ISBN 978-0-00-719756-9 The Secret War: ISBN 9780007503742
Others
"Britain's War Machine" by David Edgerton "Command and Control" by Eric Schlosser "World Order" by Henry Kissinger "To Hell and Back: Europe, 1914-1949" by Ian Kershaw "Britain Since 1918" by David Marquand "The Blunders of our Governments" by Anthony King and Ivor Crewe "The Signal and the Noise" by Nate Silver "Superforecasting" by Philip E. Tetlock and Dan Gardner "Breaking the Chains of Gravity: The Story of Spaceflight before NASA" by Amy Shira Teitel
I hate that mural but funnily enough I don't think it intends to be anti-Semitic. The bankers manipulating the world include Arab and South Asian stereotypes as well as the Jewish one. No-one bothers about potential equal opportunities expressions of racism in that image. It doesn't take a lot of sensitivity to understand the same iconography was used by Nazis who murdered millions of people. The mural has no place in civilised society.
But in a sense you're missing the point. It's not the fact that he defended it that bothers me, or at least, not so much. Somebody who is consistently in favour of free speech could defend it quite legitimately.
It's the gratuitous reference to the Rothschilds and the implications of that that blows his defence out of the water.
Just when we get real wage increases again we find an extra cost that will keep spending down.
We do still have an unsustainable trade deficit, we do need to restrain consumption, we do need to save and invest more as a nation, we do need to improve our production but damn, the timing is unfortunate.
It's already been delayed once - was supposed to go up from the currently paltry amounts originally in Oct 17... needs to happen.
I guess it isn't snowing down south since no one has mentioned it, but we've had a couple of inches of wet snow in the Dales. Now turned to rain.
Torrential rain. Why are northerners so obsessed with the weather “down South”?
Because southern media is always wittering on about it being glorious sunshine , or flooding when they get some drizzle , or blizzards when they get a few flakes of snow. They usually just say its raining up North to finish.
I hate that mural but funnily enough I don't think it intends to be anti-Semitic. The bankers manipulating the world include Arab and South Asian stereotypes as well as the Jewish one. No-one bothers about potential equal opportunities expressions of racism in that image. It doesn't take a lot of sensitivity to understand the same iconography was used by Nazis who murdered millions of people. The mural has no place in civilised society.
But in a sense you're missing the point. It's not the fact that he defended it that bothers me, or at least, not so much. Somebody who is consistently in favour of free speech could defend it quite legitimately.
It's the gratuitous reference to the Rothschilds and the implications of that that blows his defence out of the water.
No defence on the wider situation, but his reference was to the gentile Rockefeller, not to the Rothschilds.
I finished V. By Thomas Pynchon this week. Mr Dancer might enjoy that, though if he works out what the hell it’s about, he can let me know. I’m currently making my way through Through A Scanner Darkly by Philip K Dick, which is as disturbing a dark comic novel as I’ve ever read.
The non-fiction book I’ve enjoyed most for a long while is 1491 by Charles C Mann.
Just when we get real wage increases again we find an extra cost that will keep spending down.
We do still have an unsustainable trade deficit, we do need to restrain consumption, we do need to save and invest more as a nation, we do need to improve our production but damn, the timing is unfortunate.
It's already been delayed once - was supposed to go up from the currently paltry amounts originally in Oct 17... needs to happen.
It's necessary. We really don't save enough and we import far too much. But when we have had 7 years of restrained consumption and people are getting pretty cross about it the timing is poor. It will probably knock off 0.2-0.4 off our GDP this year. Some people will blame Brexit of course.
I guess it isn't snowing down south since no one has mentioned it, but we've had a couple of inches of wet snow in the Dales. Now turned to rain.
Torrential rain. Why are northerners so obsessed with the weather “down South”?
Because southern media is always wittering on about it being glorious sunshine , or flooding when they get some drizzle , or blizzards when they get a few flakes of snow. They usually just say its raining up North to finish.
The Man in the High Castle suffers from being a great idea for a film, but the producers suddenly found they need to fill another 20 hours of screentime. The whole antique dealer storyline could be cut, for example.
An interesting point. TV shows in america have increasingly moved away from needing 22 episodes per season since Netflix came along, your streaming services seem to hew closer to the cable model of 10-13 as an average, and that is a good thing, but while there's lots of movies that seem like they would work better as tv shows, like you with Man in the High Castle I find plenty of shows are just too stretched out even at 10-13 episodes per season. Every single Marvel Netflix show is a case in point, in that whatever their good parts, I've not seen a single one that could not be 3-4 episodes shorter.
I certainly don't bemoan that some shows are better being binge watched, I think it works for some shows and not others, but there is still this problem in identifying how many episodes a story actually needs, and you end up with even some really good stuff either dragging on, or severely condensed.
Spot on. 5-6 episodes should be enough to tell most stories. One of the greatest storytelling epics of our time, The Godfather, would still only fill 10 episodes...
Up to a point. The Korean drama I recommended in the previous thread, Misaeng, stretches over 21 hour plus episodes, and I wouldn't lose any except perhaps the last one (for some reason the Koreans seem to have a strong tendency to be shit at ending stuff). On the other hand, they tend not to produce second seasons to even their big hits,
But I'd agree that some stories need space to tell, and others benefit from condensing.
I hate that mural but funnily enough I don't think it intends to be anti-Semitic. The bankers manipulating the world include Arab and South Asian stereotypes as well as the Jewish one. No-one bothers about potential equal opportunities expressions of racism in that image. It doesn't take a lot of sensitivity to understand the same iconography was used by Nazis who murdered millions of people. The mural has no place in civilised society.
But in a sense you're missing the point. It's not the fact that he defended it that bothers me, or at least, not so much. Somebody who is consistently in favour of free speech could defend it quite legitimately.
It's the gratuitous reference to the Rothschilds and the implications of that that blows his defence out of the water.
No defence on the wider situation, but his reference was to the gentile Rockefeller, not to the Rothschilds.
Labours travails would be almost funny if these clowns hadn't got - and continue to poll - a still unbelievable 40% of the vote last year.
That's how bad the Tories are. They cannot be ensured of a majority even when faced with an institutionally anti-Semitic party nostalgic for the 1970s, led by a quasi-Marxist who backs any murderous regime or cause as long as it is anti-US, anti-UK or anti-Israel. God help us!!
Nah, it shows how bad the people who would still vote Labour are.
In which case we're still buggered as they are nearly half the country. But I am a bit more generous than you. I think a lot of voters see a Tory party led by incompetents who have no interest in anything except personal advancement, who merrily dogwhistle to get the votes of racists, xenophobes and bigots, who are nostalgic for a time that has gone and will never come again and who have no idea how to tackle the country's problems. They choose to vote against such a party.
In that case - why would those people not vote for the Lib Dems? Or the Greens? The Lib Dems lost seats to Labour last time as well.
To me it's obvious - the people voting Labour don't believe Corbyn is anti-semitic or that he supports murderous regimes.
The alternative is that 40% of the country likes anti-semitism and murderous dictatorships.
If your priority is to prevent a Tory government Labour is your only choice in almost all of England and much of Wales. I don’t believe Corbyn is anti-Semitic. It’s more that he has never repudiated the anti-Semites he has actively campaigned with for decades and now that he is in charge they are swarming into the Labour party, emboldened and gunning for power. Most voters don’t see this because, quite understandably, they are not paying attention. Enough do, though, to ensure Labour will never win with him as leader.
If you have willingly associated and campaigned with anti-semites for years, you can hardly not be anti-semitic yourself. As a minimum, it shows that Corbyn doesn't think it is very important.
And what does it say about the Conservatives that they have not, to date, apologised for an anti-Muslim mayoral campaign in 2016?
I finished V. By Thomas Pynchon this week. Mr Dancer might enjoy that, though if he works out what the hell it’s about, he can let me know. I’m currently making my way through Through A Scanner Darkly by Philip K Dick, which is as disturbing a dark comic novel as I’ve ever read.
The non-fiction book I’ve enjoyed most for a long while is 1491 by Charles C Mann.
I am reading this at the, moment The Korean War: ISBN 0-671-52823-8. Excellent book and shows the incompetence of the US in the whole debacle.
I didn't realise how important were the politics of the time. At that time the UN Security Council's China seat was held by Taiwan and the Soviet Union was boycotting it as a result. Had either Big China or the USSR been on the council, things might have been different.
Just when we get real wage increases again we find an extra cost that will keep spending down.
We do still have an unsustainable trade deficit, we do need to restrain consumption, we do need to save and invest more as a nation, we do need to improve our production but damn, the timing is unfortunate.
It's already been delayed once - was supposed to go up from the currently paltry amounts originally in Oct 17... needs to happen.
It's necessary. We really don't save enough and we import far too much. But when we have had 7 years of restrained consumption and people are getting pretty cross about it the timing is poor. It will probably knock off 0.2-0.4 off our GDP this year. Some people will blame Brexit of course.
The Man in the High Castle suffers from being a great idea for a film, but the producers suddenly found they need to fill another 20 hours of screentime. The whole antique dealer storyline could be cut, for example.
An interesting point. TV shows in america have increasingly moved away from needing 22 episodes per season since Netflix came along, your streaming services seem to hew closer to the cable model of 10-13 as an average, and that is a good thing, but while there's lots of movies that seem like they would work better as tv shows, like you with Man in the High Castle I find plenty of shows are just too stretched out even at 10-13 episodes per season. Every single Marvel Netflix show is a case in point, in that whatever their good parts, I've not seen a single one that could not be 3-4 episodes shorter.
I certainly don't bemoan that some shows are better being binge watched, I think it works for some shows and not others, but there is still this problem in identifying how many episodes a story actually needs, and you end up with even some really good stuff either dragging on, or severely condensed.
Spot on. 5-6 episodes should be enough to tell most stories. One of the greatest storytelling epics of our time, The Godfather, would still only fill 10 episodes...
Up to a point. The Korean drama I recommended in the previous thread, Misaeng, stretches over 21 hour plus episodes, and I wouldn't lose any except perhaps the last one (for some reason the Koreans seem to have a strong tendency to be shit at ending stuff). On the other hand, they tend not to produce second seasons to even their big hits,
But I'd agree that some stories need space to tell, and others benefit from condensing.
There are exceptions of course (I have never seen Misaeng) but the simple truth is that very few modern series are worth their run time. The vast majority are flabby from the start, or else extended to breaking point.
Mr. Eagles, my main concrete concern is the rumoured desire of Charles to change Defender of the Faith to Defender of Faith, which is utterly idiotic and unnecessary.
Indeed you are right.
Both titles are absurd and should be dropped entirely.
The title "Defender of the Faith" (Fid Def) was granted on 11 October 1521 by Pope Leo X to King Henry VIII. Within a few years it had become an oxymoron due to Henry VIII's abominable behaviour, but the British Monarchy has retained the title ever since - I find it incredible.
I guess it isn't snowing down south since no one has mentioned it, but we've had a couple of inches of wet snow in the Dales. Now turned to rain.
Torrential rain. Why are northerners so obsessed with the weather “down South”?
Because southern media is always wittering on about it being glorious sunshine , or flooding when they get some drizzle , or blizzards when they get a few flakes of snow. They usually just say its raining up North to finish.
"its raining up North"
Is that news?
I’ve got to write a short story for a group to which I belong. The title is A Wet Weekend. I’m thinking of setting it in Manchester.......
There are exceptions of course (I have never seen Misaeng) but the simple truth is that very few modern series are worth their run time. The vast majority are flabby from the start, or else extended to breaking point.
Indeed. If there had never been a "True Detective" series 2, we would have extremely fond memories of "True Detective" series 1. I think "Westworld" series 2 might also be such a mistake.
I am reading this at the, moment The Korean War: ISBN 0-671-52823-8. Excellent book and shows the incompetence of the US in the whole debacle.
I didn't realise how important were the politics of the time. At that time the UN Security Council's China seat was held by Taiwan and the Soviet Union was boycotting it as a result. Had either Big China or the USSR been on the council, things might have been different.
Wasn't the Korean War an example (the only?) of a Security Council Veto (Soviet's) being over-ruled by a vote in the General Assembly?
I finished V. By Thomas Pynchon this week. Mr Dancer might enjoy that, though if he works out what the hell it’s about, he can let me know. I’m currently making my way through Through A Scanner Darkly by Philip K Dick, which is as disturbing a dark comic novel as I’ve ever read.
The non-fiction book I’ve enjoyed most for a long while is 1491 by Charles C Mann.
Did you also read his 1493 ?
It’s in the pile to read. I’ve got a lot going on at the moment so reading is mainly work stuff at the moment.
This week I’m mostly on holiday so I’m making up for lost time. I’m also trying to make an effort to read a bit more fiction (estate agents’ particulars don’t count). Inevitably that’s hit and miss - I finished Endymion by Dan Simmons this morning, which was fluent but unstimulating.
I finished V. By Thomas Pynchon this week. Mr Dancer might enjoy that, though if he works out what the hell it’s about, he can let me know. I’m currently making my way through Through A Scanner Darkly by Philip K Dick, which is as disturbing a dark comic novel as I’ve ever read.
The non-fiction book I’ve enjoyed most for a long while is 1491 by Charles C Mann.
Did you also read his 1493 ?
It’s in the pile to read. I’ve got a lot going on at the moment so reading is mainly work stuff at the moment.
This week I’m mostly on holiday so I’m making up for lost time. I’m also trying to make an effort to read a bit more fiction (estate agents’ particulars don’t count). Inevitably that’s hit and miss - I finished Endymion by Dan Simmons this morning, which was fluent but unstimulating.
His Ilyum and Olympos were better but he does like playing with ideas more than telling a story.
The Man in the High Castle suffers from being a great idea for a film, but the producers suddenly found they need to fill another 20 hours of screentime. The whole antique dealer storyline could be cut, for example.
An interesting point. TV shows in america have increasingly moved away from needing 22 episodes per season since Netflix came along, your streaming services seem to hew closer to the cable model of 10-13 as an average, and that is a good thing, but while there's lots of movies that seem like they would work better as tv shows, like you with Man in the High Castle I find plenty of shows are just too stretched out even at 10-13 episodes per season. Every single Marvel Netflix show is a case in point, in that whatever their good parts, I've not seen a single one that could not be 3-4 episodes shorter.
I certainly don't bemoan that some shows are better being binge watched, I think it works for some shows and not others, but there is still this problem in identifying how many episodes a story actually needs, and you end up with even some really good stuff either dragging on, or severely condensed.
Spot on. 5-6 episodes should be enough to tell most stories. One of the greatest storytelling epics of our time, The Godfather, would still only fill 10 episodes...
Up to a point. The Korean drama I recommended in the previous thread, Misaeng, stretches over 21 hour plus episodes, and I wouldn't lose any except perhaps the last one (for some reason the Koreans seem to have a strong tendency to be shit at ending stuff). On the other hand, they tend not to produce second seasons to even their big hits,
But I'd agree that some stories need space to tell, and others benefit from condensing.
There are exceptions of course (I have never seen Misaeng) but the simple truth is that very few modern series are worth their run time. The vast majority are flabby from the start, or else extended to breaking point.
I wouldn't greatly disagree with that, though 5-6 episodes seems a little spartan, and if that's all the story need for telling, then maybe it would make a better film.
I'd certainly agree that even in the internet binge watching age there are still a great deal of what feel like 'episode of the week' padding. Halt and Catch Fire is an example of a series which worked over multiple seasons, as is perhaps Black Sails.
I guess it isn't snowing down south since no one has mentioned it, but we've had a couple of inches of wet snow in the Dales. Now turned to rain.
Torrential rain. Why are northerners so obsessed with the weather “down South”?
Because southern media is always wittering on about it being glorious sunshine , or flooding when they get some drizzle , or blizzards when they get a few flakes of snow. They usually just say its raining up North to finish.
"its raining up North"
Is that news?
I’ve got to write a short story for a group to which I belong. The title is A Wet Weekend. I’m thinking of setting it in Manchester.......
I am reading this at the, moment The Korean War: ISBN 0-671-52823-8. Excellent book and shows the incompetence of the US in the whole debacle.
I didn't realise how important were the politics of the time. At that time the UN Security Council's China seat was held by Taiwan and the Soviet Union was boycotting it as a result. Had either Big China or the USSR been on the council, things might have been different.
Wasn't the Korean War an example (the only?) of a Security Council Veto (Soviet's) being over-ruled by a vote in the General Assembly?
I did not know (or have forgotten) that, thank you.
I am reading this at the, moment The Korean War: ISBN 0-671-52823-8. Excellent book and shows the incompetence of the US in the whole debacle.
I didn't realise how important were the politics of the time. At that time the UN Security Council's China seat was held by Taiwan and the Soviet Union was boycotting it as a result. Had either Big China or the USSR been on the council, things might have been different.
Wasn't the Korean War an example (the only?) of a Security Council Veto (Soviet's) being over-ruled by a vote in the General Assembly?
I remember...... I was in my early teens at the time .......everyone’s surprise at how the entire course of the war was reversed by the Inchon landings. The Allies were on the verge of being pushed right out of Korea before they took place.
@ydoethur My main objection to the mural is the art. Who wants to be confronted with that spirit sapping nonsense as they go about their daily business? It's big. You can't just walk past it and ignore.
Mr. Eagles, my main concrete concern is the rumoured desire of Charles to change Defender of the Faith to Defender of Faith, which is utterly idiotic and unnecessary.
Indeed you are right.
Both titles are absurd and should be dropped entirely.
The title "Defender of the Faith" (Fid Def) was granted on 11 October 1521 by Pope Leo X to King Henry VIII. Within a few years it had become an oxymoron due to Henry VIII's abominable behaviour, but the British Monarchy has retained the title ever since - I find it incredible.
I think, at least domestically, it had a completely different meaning once England had broken from Rome. It was their duty as head of the established church.
There are exceptions of course (I have never seen Misaeng) but the simple truth is that very few modern series are worth their run time. The vast majority are flabby from the start, or else extended to breaking point.
Indeed. If there had never been a "True Detective" series 2, we would have extremely fond memories of "True Detective" series 1. I think "Westworld" series 2 might also be such a mistake.
True Detective Season 2...dear oh dear oh dear...unwatchable.
Labours travails would be almost funny if these clowns hadn't got - and continue to poll - a still unbelievable 40% of the vote last year.
That's how bad the Tories are. They cannot be ensured of a majority even when faced with an institutionally anti-Semitic party nostalgic for the 1970s, led by a quasi-Marxist who backs any murderous regime or cause as long as it is anti-US, anti-UK or anti-Israel. God help us!!
Nah, it shows how bad the people who would still vote Labour are.
In which case we're still buggered as they are nearly half the country. But I am a bit more generous than you. I think a lot of voters see a Tory party led by incompetents who have no interest in anything except personal advancement, who merrily dogwhistle to get the votes of racists, xenophobes and bigots, who are nostalgic for a time that has gone and will never come again and who have no idea how to tackle the country's problems. They choose to vote against such a party.
In that case - why would those people not vote for the Lib Dems? Or the Greens? The Lib Dems lost seats to Labour last time as well.
To me it's obvious - the people voting Labour don't believe Corbyn is anti-semitic or that he supports murderous regimes.
The alternative is that 40% of the country likes anti-semitism and murderous dictatorships.
If your priority is to prevent a Tory government Labour is your only choice in almost all of England and much of Wales. I don’t believe Corbyn is anti-Semitic. It’s more that he has never repudiated the anti-Semites he has actively campaigned with for decades and now that he is in charge they are swarming into the Labour party, emboldened and gunning for power. Most voters don’t see this because, quite understandably, they are not paying attention. Enough do, though, to ensure Labour will never win with him as leader.
If you have willingly associated and campaigned with anti-semites for years, you can hardly not be anti-semitic yourself. As a minimum, it shows that Corbyn doesn't think it is very important.
And what does it say about the Conservatives that they have not, to date, apologised for an anti-Muslim mayoral campaign in 2016?
I am reading this at the, moment The Korean War: ISBN 0-671-52823-8. Excellent book and shows the incompetence of the US in the whole debacle.
I didn't realise how important were the politics of the time. At that time the UN Security Council's China seat was held by Taiwan and the Soviet Union was boycotting it as a result. Had either Big China or the USSR been on the council, things might have been different.
Wasn't the Korean War an example (the only?) of a Security Council Veto (Soviet's) being over-ruled by a vote in the General Assembly?
I remember...... I was in my early teens at the time .......everyone’s surprise at how the entire course of the war was reversed by the Inchon landings. The Allies were on the verge of being pushed right out of Korea before they took place.
Did that not also give rise to MacArthur's quote: "“The enemy is in front of us, the enemy is behind us, the enemy is to the right and to the left of us. They can't get away this time!”
There are exceptions of course (I have never seen Misaeng) but the simple truth is that very few modern series are worth their run time. The vast majority are flabby from the start, or else extended to breaking point.
Indeed. If there had never been a "True Detective" series 2, we would have extremely fond memories of "True Detective" series 1. I think "Westworld" series 2 might also be such a mistake.
True Detective Season 2...dear oh dear oh dear...unwatchable.
Labours travails would be almost funny if these clowns hadn't got - and continue to poll - a still unbelievable 40% of the vote last year.
That's how bad the Tories are. They cannot be ensured of a majority even when faced with an institutionally anti-Semitic party nostalgic for the 1970s, led by a quasi-Marxist who backs any murderous regime or cause as long as it is anti-US, anti-UK or anti-Israel. God help us!!
Nah, it shows how bad the people who would still vote Labour are.
In which case we're still buggered as they are nearly half the country. But I am a bit more generous than you. I think a lot of voters see a Tory party led by incompetents who have no interest in anything except personal advancement, who merrily dogwhistle to get the votes of racists, xenophobes and bigots, who are nostalgic for a time that has gone and will never come again and who have no idea how to tackle the country's problems. They choose to vote against such a party.
In that case - why would those people not vote for the Lib Dems? Or the Greens? The Lib Dems lost seats to Labour last time as well.
To me it's obvious - the people voting Labour don't believe Corbyn is anti-semitic or that he supports murderous regimes.
The alternative is that 40% of the country likes anti-semitism and murderous dictatorships.
If your priority is to prevent a Tory government Labour is your only choice in almost all of England and much of Wales. I don’t believe Corbyn is anti-Semitic. It’s more that he has never repudiated the anti-Semites he has actively campaigned with for decades and now that he is in charge they are swarming into the Labour party, emboldened and gunning for power. Most voters don’t see this because, quite understandably, they are not paying attention. Enough do, though, to ensure Labour will never win with him as leader.
If you have willingly associated and campaigned with anti-semites for years, you can hardly not be anti-semitic yourself. As a minimum, it shows that Corbyn doesn't think it is very important.
And what does it say about the Conservatives that they have not, to date, apologised for an anti-Muslim mayoral campaign in 2016?
Yes much of that campaign was poor, although it was largely a half-arsed attempt at targeting specific ethnic groups, which is obviously something the Left has done for years. I don't think it was anti-Muslim though. Now back to the topic on hand... the Labour leader being a fellow-traveller of anti-semites.
Yes much of that campaign was poor, although it was largely a half-arsed attempt at targeting specific ethnic groups, which is obviously something the Left has done for years. I don't think it was anti-Muslim though. Now back to the topic on hand... the Labour leader being a fellow-traveller of anti-semites.
If that mural is anti-semitic, then the mayoral campaign was anti-Muslim (I think both are/were).
The mayoral campaign said Khan was "dangerous" and a potential terrorist sympathiser, on the basis of nothing whatsoever. There was even a newspaper article by Zac Goldsmith which was illustrated by a picture of the 7/7 bombings. It was based on racist stereotypes of Muslims, just as that mural is based on racist stereotypes of Jews as being greedy, nefarious and manipulative. You can't condemn one without condemning the other, unless you're a total hypocrite.
And again, while Corbyn's response to the antisemitism has been poor, and his "apology" was very mealy-mouthed, there has not even been any attempt at an apology from the Conservatives for the mayoral campaign, nor any punishments given to the people who ran that campaign.
I guess it isn't snowing down south since no one has mentioned it, but we've had a couple of inches of wet snow in the Dales. Now turned to rain.
Torrential rain. Why are northerners so obsessed with the weather “down South”?
Because southern media is always wittering on about it being glorious sunshine , or flooding when they get some drizzle , or blizzards when they get a few flakes of snow. They usually just say its raining up North to finish.
It takes the perspective of physical distance to remember that Theresa May’s survival is astonishing. The British are blasé about it, having seen her withstand five existential crises in less than a year: a bungled election, a wooden response to the Grenfell Tower fire, a hoarse speech on a disintegrating stage, a double cabinet resignation last November and a failed attempt to tweak the same cabinet.
If anything is new, it is that her shopworn premiership can now aspire to more than mere survival. The change is recent and subject to reversal, but she seems to have broken the cycle of crisis and narrow escape to achieve, if not comfort, then at least relief from rolling conjecture about her own position. The Labour party is distracted. Mr Johnson no longer stalks her in plain sight like a salivating dauphin. Betting exchanges overrate the enthusiasm of Conservative MPs for the backbencher Jacob Rees-Mogg (another eccentric of surprising renown in distant lands). https://www.ft.com/content/d4207bf8-364e-11e8-8eee-e06bde01c544
There are exceptions of course (I have never seen Misaeng) but the simple truth is that very few modern series are worth their run time. The vast majority are flabby from the start, or else extended to breaking point.
Indeed. If there had never been a "True Detective" series 2, we would have extremely fond memories of "True Detective" series 1. I think "Westworld" series 2 might also be such a mistake.
True Detective Season 2...dear oh dear oh dear...unwatchable.
Indeed.
I couldn’t bear series 1! An undoubtably excellent performance by McConaughey but with a plot and environment so bleak I found it unwatchable.
Labours travails would be almost funny if these clowns hadn't got - and continue to poll - a still unbelievable 40% of the vote last year.
That's how bad the Tories are. They cannot be ensured of a majority even when faced with an institutionally anti-Semitic party nostalgic for the 1970s, led by a quasi-Marxist who backs any murderous regime or cause as long as it is anti-US, anti-UK or anti-Israel. God help us!!
Nah, it shows how bad the people who would still vote Labour are.
In which case we're still buggered as they are nearly half the country. But I am a bit more generous than you. I think a lot of voters see a Tory party led by incompetents who have no interest in anything except personal advancement, who merrily dogwhistle to get the votes of racists, xenophobes and bigots, who are nostalgic for a time that has gone and will never come again and who have no idea how to tackle the country's problems. They choose to vote against such a party.
In that case - why would those people not vote for the Lib Dems? Or the Greens? The Lib Dems lost seats to Labour last time as well.
To me it's obvious - the people voting Labour don't believe Corbyn is anti-semitic or that he supports murderous regimes.
The alternative is that 40% of the country likes anti-semitism and murderous dictatorships.
If your priority is to prevent a Tory government Labour is your only choice in almost all of England and much of Wales. I don’t believe Corbyn is anti-Semitic. It’s more that he has never repudiated the anti-Semites he has actively campaigned with for decades and now that he is in charge they are swarming into the Labour party, emboldened and gunning for power. Most voters don’t see this because, quite understandably, they are not paying attention. Enough do, though, to ensure Labour will never win with him as leader.
If you have willingly associated and campaigned with anti-semites for years, you can hardly not be anti-semitic yourself. As a minimum, it shows that Corbyn doesn't think it is very important.
And what does it say about the Conservatives that they have not, to date, apologised for an anti-Muslim mayoral campaign in 2016?
And nobody replies....
They did on the terrorists attacks last year.They said Sadiq Khan was slow to comment !
Labours travails would be almost funny if these clowns hadn't got - and continue to poll - a still unbelievable 40% of the vote last year.
That's how bad the Tories are. They cannot be ensured of a majority even when faced with an institutionally anti-Semitic party nostalgic for the 1970s, led by a quasi-Marxist who backs any murderous regime or cause as long as it is anti-US, anti-UK or anti-Israel. God help us!!
Nah, it shows how bad the people who would still vote Labour are.
In which case we're still buggered as they are nearly half the country. But I am a bit more generous than you. I think a lot of voters see a Tory party led by incompetents who have no interest in anything except personal advancement, who merrily dogwhistle to get the votes of racists, xenophobes and bigots, who are nostalgic for a time that has gone and will never come again and who have no idea how to tackle the country's problems. They choose to vote against such a party.
In that case - why would those people not vote for the Lib Dems? Or the Greens? The Lib Dems lost seats to Labour last time as well.
To me it's obvious - the people voting Labour don't believe Corbyn is anti-semitic or that he supports murderous regimes.
The alternative is that 40% of the country likes anti-semitism and murderous dictatorships.
If your priority is to prevent a Tory government Labour is your only choice in almost all of England and much of Wales. I don’t believe Corbyn is anti-Semitic. It’s more that he has never repudiated the anti-Semites he has actively campaigned with for decades and now that he is in charge they are swarming into the Labour party, emboldened and gunning for power. Most voters don’t see this because, quite understandably, they are not paying attention. Enough do, though, to ensure Labour will never win with him as leader.
If you have willingly associated and campaigned with anti-semites for years, you can hardly not be anti-semitic yourself. As a minimum, it shows that Corbyn doesn't think it is very important.
And what does it say about the Conservatives that they have not, to date, apologised for an anti-Muslim mayoral campaign in 2016?
And nobody replies....
Many, including myself, expressed reservations about Goldsmith's campaign for Mayor at the time and grave disappointment that he was selected and then elected for Richmond. I would not have voted for him.
If your priority is to prevent a Tory government Labour is your only choice in almost all of England and much of Wales. I don’t believe Corbyn is anti-Semitic. It’s more that he has never repudiated the anti-Semites he has actively campaigned with for decades and now that he is in charge they are swarming into the Labour party, emboldened and gunning for power. Most voters don’t see this because, quite understandably, they are not paying attention. Enough do, though, to ensure Labour will never win with him as leader.
I would have agreed with you on Corbyn's anti-semitism or lack thereof until recently even after he lied about his work with Paul Eisen. After all, he is not very intelligent and he is quite capable of making mistakes through naivety as much as malice.
That defence comes to pieces over his comment on that mural. He clearly, deliberately supported the right of an anti-Semite to freedom of expression (which is allowed)on the basis that the Jews went round suppressing it (which is clearly prejudiced bollocks).
He has a problem. It may not be serious, or even deliberate - it may be like Johnson's reflexive and unthinking racism in his journalism - but it's there. And that means he cannot with any moral authority criticise anyone else with racist views, including the very large number crawling it if the woodwork in Labour.
The thread header is right - he has to go if Labour are to deal with the problem. But if he won't go for lying over his links to the Iranian government, or his support for the IRA or Hamas, or his wilful blindness to child sexual abuse in Islington, he won't go over this.
It is an issue that has been blown out of proportion by people with a vested interest in discrediting Corbyn and the direction the Labour party is taking. Its continued domination of the airwaves will backfire on the Jewish community, particular at Easter time when Jews are perceived in an even more unfavourable light than the rest of the year. Corbyn and the Labour party leadership would best be advised to say nowt more on this matter; it is a red herring to most people. The neutral observer is likely to take the view that Corbyn is being picked on unfairly.
Why are Corbyn's links with Iran/Hamas and Sinn Fein a problem any more than the Tory government's links to the Saudi/Zionist regimes and the DUP? Personally, I think that the UK should take a more neutral position. .
Yes much of that campaign was poor, although it was largely a half-arsed attempt at targeting specific ethnic groups, which is obviously something the Left has done for years. I don't think it was anti-Muslim though. Now back to the topic on hand... the Labour leader being a fellow-traveller of anti-semites.
If that mural is anti-semitic, then the mayoral campaign was anti-Muslim (I think both are/were).
The mayoral campaign said Khan was "dangerous" and a potential terrorist sympathiser, on the basis of nothing whatsoever. There was even a newspaper article by Zac Goldsmith which was illustrated by a picture of the 7/7 bombings. It was based on racist stereotypes of Muslims, just as that mural is based on racist stereotypes of Jews as being greedy, nefarious and manipulative. You can't condemn one without condemning the other, unless you're a total hypocrite.
And again, while Corbyn's response to the antisemitism has been poor, and his "apology" was very mealy-mouthed, there has not even been any attempt at an apology from the Conservatives for the mayoral campaign, nor any punishments given to the people who ran that campaign.
I have noticed that double standards are rife on PB. Many people who are (rightly) outraged by the mural have a) called for the holocaust denier Ron Crosby to be reinstated and b) mock those who point out racism with the juvenile phrase “waycist”.
It takes the perspective of physical distance to remember that Theresa May’s survival is astonishing. The British are blasé about it, having seen her withstand five existential crises in less than a year: a bungled election, a wooden response to the Grenfell Tower fire, a hoarse speech on a disintegrating stage, a double cabinet resignation last November and a failed attempt to tweak the same cabinet.
If anything is new, it is that her shopworn premiership can now aspire to more than mere survival. The change is recent and subject to reversal, but she seems to have broken the cycle of crisis and narrow escape to achieve, if not comfort, then at least relief from rolling conjecture about her own position. The Labour party is distracted. Mr Johnson no longer stalks her in plain sight like a salivating dauphin. Betting exchanges overrate the enthusiasm of Conservative MPs for the backbencher Jacob Rees-Mogg (another eccentric of surprising renown in distant lands). https://www.ft.com/content/d4207bf8-364e-11e8-8eee-e06bde01c544
Our best writer in the MSM on our politics. Articulate and insightful.
There are exceptions of course (I have never seen Misaeng) but the simple truth is that very few modern series are worth their run time. The vast majority are flabby from the start, or else extended to breaking point.
Indeed. If there had never been a "True Detective" series 2, we would have extremely fond memories of "True Detective" series 1. I think "Westworld" series 2 might also be such a mistake.
True Detective Season 2...dear oh dear oh dear...unwatchable.
Indeed.
I couldn’t bear series 1! An undoubtably excellent performance by McConaughey but with a plot and environment so bleak I found it unwatchable.
Weirdly enough, I liked it. Some things just snag my mind and I'm hooked.
Just when we get real wage increases again we find an extra cost that will keep spending down.
We do still have an unsustainable trade deficit, we do need to restrain consumption, we do need to save and invest more as a nation, we do need to improve our production but damn, the timing is unfortunate.
This is why opting out should not be allowed. The woman in the video says she might have to travel less. That is not a valid reason not to contribute to a pension that should protect you from poverty in old age, when you don’t have the human capital left to improve your situation.
We need to consume less and produce more. Contributing an extra 2% of income to pensions is not blood, sweat and tears.
Many, including myself, expressed reservations about Goldsmith's campaign for Mayor at the time and grave disappointment that he was selected and then elected for Richmond. I would not have voted for him.
Yes to be fair many Conservatives politicians came out afterwards and said it was wrong/they disapproved etc. Goldsmith and Cameron were unrepentant if I remember correctly.
If your priority is to prevent a Tory government Labour is your only choice in almost all of England and much of Wales. I don’t believe Corbyn is anti-Semitic. It’s more that he has never repudiated the anti-Semites he has actively campaigned with for decades and now that he is in charge they are swarming into the Labour party, emboldened and gunning for power. Most voters don’t see this because, quite understandably, they are not paying attention. Enough do, though, to ensure Labour will never win with him as leader.
I would have agreed with you on Corbyn's anti-semitism or lack thereof until recently even after he lied about his work with Paul Eisen. After all, he is not very intelligent and he is quite capable of making mistakes through naivety as much as malice.
That defence comes to pieces over his comment on that mural. He clearly, deliberately supported the right of an anti-Semite to freedom of expression (which is allowed)on the basis that the Jews went round suppressing it (which is clearly prejudiced bollocks).
He has a problem. It may not be serious, or even deliberate - it may be like Johnson's reflexive and unthinking racism in his journalism - but it's there. And that means he cannot with any moral authority criticise anyone else with racist views, including the very large number crawling it if the woodwork in Labour.
The thread header is right - he has to go if Labour are to deal with the problem. But if he won't go for lying over his links to the Iranian government, or his support for the IRA or Hamas, or his wilful blindness to child sexual abuse in Islington, he won't go over this.
. Its continued domination of the airwaves will backfire on the Jewish community, particular at Easter time when Jews are perceived in an even more unfavourable light than the rest of the year. .
It takes the perspective of physical distance to remember that Theresa May’s survival is astonishing. The British are blasé about it, having seen her withstand five existential crises in less than a year: a bungled election, a wooden response to the Grenfell Tower fire, a hoarse speech on a disintegrating stage, a double cabinet resignation last November and a failed attempt to tweak the same cabinet.
If anything is new, it is that her shopworn premiership can now aspire to more than mere survival. The change is recent and subject to reversal, but she seems to have broken the cycle of crisis and narrow escape to achieve, if not comfort, then at least relief from rolling conjecture about her own position. The Labour party is distracted. Mr Johnson no longer stalks her in plain sight like a salivating dauphin. Betting exchanges overrate the enthusiasm of Conservative MPs for the backbencher Jacob Rees-Mogg (another eccentric of surprising renown in distant lands). https://www.ft.com/content/d4207bf8-364e-11e8-8eee-e06bde01c544
I wouldn't say all five of those were existential crises. He is right that for a time at least May has managed to break free from the seeming cycle of of crisis, and hopefully she can build on that to get stuff done.
Many, including myself, expressed reservations about Goldsmith's campaign for Mayor at the time and grave disappointment that he was selected and then elected for Richmond. I would not have voted for him.
A point conveniently ignored. As with Brexit issues you then get people saying 'No one complained about x' when they bloody well did (and shows the demands to be nonsense posturing in relation to Brexit - the Khan issue not so much - since clearly meeting the demand is not wanted).
Khan seems to stir up more antipathy than is warranted though. The campaign never seemed plausible, as I recall.
Just when we get real wage increases again we find an extra cost that will keep spending down.
We do still have an unsustainable trade deficit, we do need to restrain consumption, we do need to save and invest more as a nation, we do need to improve our production but damn, the timing is unfortunate.
This is why opting out should not be allowed. The woman in the video says she might have to travel less. That is not a valid reason not to contribute to a pension that should protect you from poverty in old age, when you don’t have the human capital left to improve your situation.
We need to consume less and produce more. Contributing an extra 2% of income to pensions is not blood, sweat and tears.
Consume less indeed. It’s fine for those with above average incomes, but for the Just About Managing that’s up there with, as was remarked the other day ‘let them eat cake!’ And as for those on zero hours contracts in the gig economy, it’s tantamount to an invitation to revolution!
It takes the perspective of physical distance to remember that Theresa May’s survival is astonishing. The British are blasé about it, having seen her withstand five existential crises in less than a year: a bungled election, a wooden response to the Grenfell Tower fire, a hoarse speech on a disintegrating stage, a double cabinet resignation last November and a failed attempt to tweak the same cabinet.
If anything is new, it is that her shopworn premiership can now aspire to more than mere survival. The change is recent and subject to reversal, but she seems to have broken the cycle of crisis and narrow escape to achieve, if not comfort, then at least relief from rolling conjecture about her own position. The Labour party is distracted. Mr Johnson no longer stalks her in plain sight like a salivating dauphin. Betting exchanges overrate the enthusiasm of Conservative MPs for the backbencher Jacob Rees-Mogg (another eccentric of surprising renown in distant lands). https://www.ft.com/content/d4207bf8-364e-11e8-8eee-e06bde01c544
I wouldn't say all five of those were existential crises. He is right that for a time at least May has managed to break free from the seeming cycle of of crisis, and hopefully she can build on that to get stuff done.
Many, including myself, expressed reservations about Goldsmith's campaign for Mayor at the time and grave disappointment that he was selected and then elected for Richmond. I would not have voted for him.
A point conveniently ignored. As with Brexit issues you then get people saying 'No one complained about x' when they bloody well did (and shows the demands to be nonsense posturing, since clearly meeting the demand is not wanted).
Khan seems to stir up more antipathy than is warranted though.
To @DavidL 's credit, I do indeed remember him criticising the Goldsmith campaign at the time, and you did I think as well. But there's a fair few other PBTories who definitely did not criticise it at the time (indeed, they were happily churning out all the campaign's talking points themselves on PB), who are now hypocritically railing against Labour's antisemitism problems.
Yes much of that campaign was poor, although it was largely a half-arsed attempt at targeting specific ethnic groups, which is obviously something the Left has done for years. I don't think it was anti-Muslim though. Now back to the topic on hand... the Labour leader being a fellow-traveller of anti-semites.
If that mural is anti-semitic, then the mayoral campaign was anti-Muslim (I think both are/were).
The mayoral campaign said Khan was "dangerous" and a potential terrorist sympathiser, on the basis of nothing whatsoever. There was even a newspaper article by Zac Goldsmith which was illustrated by a picture of the 7/7 bombings. It was based on racist stereotypes of Muslims, just as that mural is based on racist stereotypes of Jews as being greedy, nefarious and manipulative. You can't condemn one without condemning the other, unless you're a total hypocrite.
And again, while Corbyn's response to the antisemitism has been poor, and his "apology" was very mealy-mouthed, there has not even been any attempt at an apology from the Conservatives for the mayoral campaign, nor any punishments given to the people who ran that campaign.
So many straw men. The argument was I believe that Khan was too friendly with Muslim radicals and extremists and therefore likely to be too soft on prospective terrorists. Poorly made, I agree. In any case I am not asking for Corbyn's apology. I believe that most politicians' apologies are worthless. When they say they are sorry for past actions deliberately carried out, they are mostly lying. I am simply pointing out that the Labour leader appears to be an anti-semite. Zac is unlikely to run for important office again. Corbyn wants to be the next Prime Minister.
Yes much of that campaign was poor, although it was largely a half-arsed attempt at targeting specific ethnic groups, which is obviously something the Left has done for years. I don't think it was anti-Muslim though. Now back to the topic on hand... the Labour leader being a fellow-traveller of anti-semites.
If that mural is anti-semitic, then the mayoral campaign was anti-Muslim (I think both are/were).
The mayoral campaign said Khan was "dangerous" and a potential terrorist sympathiser, on the basis of nothing whatsoever. There was even a newspaper article by Zac Goldsmith which was illustrated by a picture of the 7/7 bombings. It was based on racist stereotypes of Muslims, just as that mural is based on racist stereotypes of Jews as being greedy, nefarious and manipulative. You can't condemn one without condemning the other, unless you're a total hypocrite.
And again, while Corbyn's response to the antisemitism has been poor, and his "apology" was very mealy-mouthed, there has not even been any attempt at an apology from the Conservatives for the mayoral campaign, nor any punishments given to the people who ran that campaign.
So many straw men. The argument was I believe that Khan was too friendly with Muslim radicals and extremists and therefore likely to be too soft on prospective terrorists. Poorly made, I agree. In any case I am not asking for Corbyn's apology. I believe that most politicians' apologies are worthless. When they say they are sorry for past actions deliberately carried out, they are mostly lying. I am simply pointing out that the Labour leader appears to be an anti-semite. Zac is unlikely to run for important office again. Corbyn wants to be the next Prime Minister.
What does Zac not running for "important office" again have to do with anything? The criticism of Corbyn is that he doesn't "speak out" against antisemites, and doesn't expel them. The exact same criticism can be levelled at the Conservatives' leadership for failing to "speak out" against the Goldsmith campaign at the time or since, and for failing to expel Goldsmith and the people who organised the campaign, no? Either both leaderships are "tolerant of racism", or neither are.
Mr. Viewcode, apologies for not replying promptly, only I wasn't here.
I do sometimes consider looking at modern history, and have just ordered a book about the 17th century. Mostly I got knowledge of modern warfare via Lindybeige on Youtube.
Just when we get real wage increases again we find an extra cost that will keep spending down.
We do still have an unsustainable trade deficit, we do need to restrain consumption, we do need to save and invest more as a nation, we do need to improve our production but damn, the timing is unfortunate.
This is why opting out should not be allowed. The woman in the video says she might have to travel less. That is not a valid reason not to contribute to a pension that should protect you from poverty in old age, when you don’t have the human capital left to improve your situation.
We need to consume less and produce more. Contributing an extra 2% of income to pensions is not blood, sweat and tears.
Consume less indeed. It’s fine for those with above average incomes, but for the Just About Managing that’s up there with, as was remarked the other day ‘let them eat cake!’ And as for those on zero hours contracts in the gig economy, it’s tantamount to an invitation to revolution!
We’re talking about giving up one year’s disposable income growth, which is already near its record high, in exchange for greater security in old age.
Zero-hours contracts represent 3% of the labour force. Britain is not a nation of starving day labourers, whatever the Labour Party and its acolytes say.
Could we be wealthier? Of course. Will we be wealthier by constantly putting short-term needs ahead of the long term? Absolutely not.
Of course we all know the greatest show of the past few years, Westworld, is a perfect 10 x 1hr episodes...
That's probably dictated by the insane production cost: $10m or so per episode, and that's only going to go north now as the stars demand pay rises, and the on-screen events get bigger and bigger. Certainly a good incentive not to let the story sprawl :-)
You only have to look at the trailers for an indication of the crazy amount of money they spend.
I guess it isn't snowing down south since no one has mentioned it, but we've had a couple of inches of wet snow in the Dales. Now turned to rain.
Torrential rain. Why are northerners so obsessed with the weather “down South”?
Because southern media is always wittering on about it being glorious sunshine , or flooding when they get some drizzle , or blizzards when they get a few flakes of snow. They usually just say its raining up North to finish.
"its raining up North"
Is that news?
was sunny yesterday
I have to say that I don't think today's snow is newsworthy in terms of disruption - Easter Monday, the usual selection of mountain passes and some problems in a small number of towns and high suburbs tight to the Pennines doesn't do it. Disruption should be king in news reporting.
We've had a bad winter here, every main bit of snow going has affected West Yorkshire this time around (not usually so, the Vale of York and eastwards normally sees more than us), but to be fair to London, we do generally get a mention. The day the news just plain missed us was back in January when the whole county ground to a halt for about 8 hours one evening rush hour, but because BBC Scotland had been put in charge of the story, we were completely overlooked. London simply wouldn't have done that.
Of course we all know the greatest show of the past few years, Westworld, is a perfect 10 x 1hr episodes...
That's probably dictated by the insane production cost: $10m or so per episode, and that's only going to go north now as the stars demand pay rises, and the on-screen events get bigger and bigger. Certainly a good incentive not to let the story sprawl :-)
You only have to look at the trailers for an indication of the crazy amount of money they spend.
Mr. Viewcode, apologies for not replying promptly, only I wasn't here.
I do sometimes consider looking at modern history, and have just ordered a book about the 17th century. Mostly I got knowledge of modern warfare via Lindybeige on Youtube.
Lindybeige? Pah! Pah, I say! May I point you to the wonder that is Nicholas Moran/The Chieftain? here, here, here, here, here, here
I guess it isn't snowing down south since no one has mentioned it, but we've had a couple of inches of wet snow in the Dales. Now turned to rain.
Torrential rain. Why are northerners so obsessed with the weather “down South”?
Because southern media is always wittering on about it being glorious sunshine , or flooding when they get some drizzle , or blizzards when they get a few flakes of snow. They usually just say its raining up North to finish.
"its raining up North"
Is that news?
was sunny yesterday
I have to say that I don't think today's snow is newsworthy in terms of disruption - Easter Monday, the usual selection of mountain passes and some problems in a small number of towns and high suburbs tight to the Pennines doesn't do it. Disruption should be king in news reporting.
We've had a bad winter here, every main bit of snow going has affected West Yorkshire this time around (not usually so, the Vale of York and eastwards normally sees more than us), but to be fair to London, we do generally get a mention. The day the news just plain missed us was back in January when the whole county ground to a halt for about 8 hours one evening rush hour, but because BBC Scotland had been put in charge of the story, we were completely overlooked. London simply wouldn't have done that.
It's been interesting to see how heavily the infrequently-used railway snowploughs have been used this year, including in places you would not expect it, like East Anglia.
I did a walk from Daventry a little over a week ago (well, someone has to), and there were still a few patches of snow on a road cutting near the top of Newnham Hill. Given most of the snow my way on disappeared the next day, they must have had a lot up there for it to have lasted.
What does Zac not running for "important office" again have to do with anything? The criticism of Corbyn is that he doesn't "speak out" against antisemites, and doesn't expel them. The exact same criticism can be levelled at the Conservatives' leadership for failing to "speak out" against the Goldsmith campaign at the time or since, and for failing to expel Goldsmith and the people who organised the campaign, no? Either both leaderships are "tolerant of racism", or neither are.
Straw men again. I am not criticising Corbyn for (a) not criticising antisemites (b) nor expelling them. I am sure that if he did so he would (a) be lying and (b) acting out of political expediency. I am accusing him of being one, or at least a fellow-traveller. I don't believe the Goldsmith campaign was racist, but I would say it was poor and led to accusations of dog-whistling to racists. I am more concerned about the half-arsed attempts at racial profiling (which you ignore). If the Left wants to believe that "radical and divisive" means anything other than radical and divisive, it can continue with that belief. Zac not running for office again means as a voter I will not be asked to vote for him. I will be asked to vote for Corbyn though. I don't want an apology, I want things not to happen again.
Just when we get real wage increases again we find an extra cost that will keep spending down.
We do still have an unsustainable trade deficit, we do need to restrain consumption, we do need to save and invest more as a nation, we do need to improve our production but damn, the timing is unfortunate.
This is why opting out should not be allowed. The woman in the video says she might have to travel less. That is not a valid reason not to contribute to a pension that should protect you from poverty in old age, when you don’t have the human capital left to improve your situation.
We need to consume less and produce more. Contributing an extra 2% of income to pensions is not blood, sweat and tears.
Consume less indeed. It’s fine for those with above average incomes, but for the Just About Managing that’s up there with, as was remarked the other day ‘let them eat cake!’ And as for those on zero hours contracts in the gig economy, it’s tantamount to an invitation to revolution!
We’re talking about giving up one year’s disposable income growth, which is already near its record high, in exchange for greater security in old age.
Zero-hours contracts represent 3% of the labour force. Britain is not a nation of starving day labourers, whatever the Labour Party and its acolytes say.
Could we be wealthier? Of course. Will we be wealthier by constantly putting short-term needs ahead of the long term? Absolutely not.
We also know a) a significant proportion are actually high paying positions and b) many on she actually like them. ZHC is really just agency work without the agency middleman, and that kind of work has been about forever. The difference now is with likes of Uber, you don’t use a middleman to get you the work.
My one big thing I had about ZHC is when the employer tried to tie somebody to exclusively working for them, that was totally wrong but I believe has now been outlawed.
Comments
(Gawd I love The Goonies)
Re Netflix, et al...
The Man in the High Castle suffers from being a great idea for a film, but the producers suddenly found they need to fill another 20 hours of screentime. The whole antique dealer storyline could be cut, for example.
I watched The Circle last week. Interesting, given the Facebook/Cambridge Analytica headlines recently.
The orc, the spooky miliband kid, the 2-finger lady and my favourite the 'hold me back' 10 rows back.
I certainly don't bemoan that some shows are better being binge watched, I think it works for some shows and not others, but there is still this problem in identifying how many episodes a story actually needs, and you end up with even some really good stuff either dragging on, or severely condensed.
The best series of modern times, by far, is Big Little Lies. It was only five episodes. Sadly the producers are threatening a second series, despite the fact that they have no further novel to screenplay.
They should leave well alone.
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/met-police-chief-cressida-dick-social-media-to-blame-for-rising-knife-crime-among-children-a3803211.html
Just when we get real wage increases again we find an extra cost that will keep spending down.
We do still have an unsustainable trade deficit, we do need to restrain consumption, we do need to save and invest more as a nation, we do need to improve our production but damn, the timing is unfortunate.
Max Hastings
Catastrophe: ISBN 978-0307597052
Overlord: ISBN 0-671-46029-3
Armageddon: ISBN 0-333-90836-8
Nemesis: ISBN 0-00-721982-2
Bomber Command: ISBN 0-7181-1603-8
Das Reich: ISBN 0-03-057059-X
Finest Years: Churchill as Warlord: ISBN 978-0-00-726367-7
All Hell Let Loose: ISBN 978-0-00-733809-2
The Korean War: ISBN 0-671-52823-8
The Battle for the Falklands: ISBN 0-7181-2228-3
Warriors: ISBN 978-0-00-719756-9
The Secret War: ISBN 9780007503742
Others
"Britain's War Machine" by David Edgerton
"Command and Control" by Eric Schlosser
"World Order" by Henry Kissinger
"To Hell and Back: Europe, 1914-1949" by Ian Kershaw
"Britain Since 1918" by David Marquand
"The Blunders of our Governments" by Anthony King and Ivor Crewe
"The Signal and the Noise" by Nate Silver
"Superforecasting" by Philip E. Tetlock and Dan Gardner
"Breaking the Chains of Gravity: The Story of Spaceflight before NASA" by Amy Shira Teitel
It's the gratuitous reference to the Rothschilds and the implications of that that blows his defence out of the water.
https://www.retirement-planner.co.uk/13866/auto-enrolment-contributions-delay
Is that news?
However, they also apparently have no seam bowlers at all which may be why they're batting on.
The non-fiction book I’ve enjoyed most for a long while is 1491 by Charles C Mann.
EDIT: Apparently it's because some of the bowlers are injured.
The Korean drama I recommended in the previous thread, Misaeng, stretches over 21 hour plus episodes, and I wouldn't lose any except perhaps the last one (for some reason the Koreans seem to have a strong tendency to be shit at ending stuff).
On the other hand, they tend not to produce second seasons to even their big hits,
But I'd agree that some stories need space to tell, and others benefit from condensing.
I withdraw that comment then.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/businessindustryandtrade/retailindustry/timeseries/j5eb/drsi
This week I’m mostly on holiday so I’m making up for lost time. I’m also trying to make an effort to read a bit more fiction (estate agents’ particulars don’t count). Inevitably that’s hit and miss - I finished Endymion by Dan Simmons this morning, which was fluent but unstimulating.
I'd certainly agree that even in the internet binge watching age there are still a great deal of what feel like 'episode of the week' padding.
Halt and Catch Fire is an example of a series which worked over multiple seasons, as is perhaps Black Sails.
Ah, my coat...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b09fj3xk
https://twitter.com/Daniel_Sugarman/status/980790612634013696
The mayoral campaign said Khan was "dangerous" and a potential terrorist sympathiser, on the basis of nothing whatsoever. There was even a newspaper article by Zac Goldsmith which was illustrated by a picture of the 7/7 bombings. It was based on racist stereotypes of Muslims, just as that mural is based on racist stereotypes of Jews as being greedy, nefarious and manipulative. You can't condemn one without condemning the other, unless you're a total hypocrite.
And again, while Corbyn's response to the antisemitism has been poor, and his "apology" was very mealy-mouthed, there has not even been any attempt at an apology from the Conservatives for the mayoral campaign, nor any punishments given to the people who ran that campaign.
It takes the perspective of physical distance to remember that Theresa May’s survival is astonishing. The British are blasé about it, having seen her withstand five existential crises in less than a year: a bungled election, a wooden response to the Grenfell Tower fire, a hoarse speech on a disintegrating stage, a double cabinet resignation last November and a failed attempt to tweak the same cabinet.
If anything is new, it is that her shopworn premiership can now aspire to more than mere survival. The change is recent and subject to reversal, but she seems to have broken the cycle of crisis and narrow escape to achieve, if not comfort, then at least relief from rolling conjecture about her own position. The Labour party is distracted. Mr Johnson no longer stalks her in plain sight like a salivating dauphin. Betting exchanges overrate the enthusiasm of Conservative MPs for the backbencher Jacob Rees-Mogg (another eccentric of surprising renown in distant lands).
https://www.ft.com/content/d4207bf8-364e-11e8-8eee-e06bde01c544
Why are Corbyn's links with Iran/Hamas and Sinn Fein a problem any more than the Tory government's links to the Saudi/Zionist regimes and the DUP? Personally, I think that the UK should take a more neutral position. .
We need to consume less and produce more. Contributing an extra 2% of income to pensions is not blood, sweat and tears.
https://twitter.com/HungryHatter/status/980485985921306624
What the hell are you talking about? Shameful.
Khan seems to stir up more antipathy than is warranted though. The campaign never seemed plausible, as I recall.
And as for those on zero hours contracts in the gig economy, it’s tantamount to an invitation to revolution!
Mr. Viewcode, apologies for not replying promptly, only I wasn't here.
I do sometimes consider looking at modern history, and have just ordered a book about the 17th century. Mostly I got knowledge of modern warfare via Lindybeige on Youtube.
Zero-hours contracts represent 3% of the labour force. Britain is not a nation of starving day labourers, whatever the Labour Party and its acolytes say.
Could we be wealthier? Of course. Will we be wealthier by constantly putting short-term needs ahead of the long term? Absolutely not.
We've had a bad winter here, every main bit of snow going has affected West Yorkshire this time around (not usually so, the Vale of York and eastwards normally sees more than us), but to be fair to London, we do generally get a mention. The day the news just plain missed us was back in January when the whole county ground to a halt for about 8 hours one evening rush hour, but because BBC Scotland had been put in charge of the story, we were completely overlooked. London simply wouldn't have done that.
South Africa's Winnie Mandela dies at 81
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-43621112
Do not get me started on internet experts...
I did a walk from Daventry a little over a week ago (well, someone has to), and there were still a few patches of snow on a road cutting near the top of Newnham Hill. Given most of the snow my way on disappeared the next day, they must have had a lot up there for it to have lasted.
My one big thing I had about ZHC is when the employer tried to tie somebody to exclusively working for them, that was totally wrong but I believe has now been outlawed.