Sunak sees a colossal drop in his favourability ratings – politicalbetting.com
Options
Comments
-
Not sure I understand the "Houellebecq President" comment.williamglenn said:Interesting piece on the resurrection of Le Pen by Anne-Elisabeth Moutet:
https://unherd.com/2022/04/the-resurrection-of-marine-le-pen/
But most of all, Marine Le Pen has been helped by Emmanuel Macron. Discontented voters chose him five years ago to spite the other, older, hackneyed candidates — a populist reflex for a man who used populist means for decidedly non-populist policies. His victory was built on the cold-eyed destruction of traditional political parties Left and Right, and he never stopped to consider the effect on public life. He cherry-picked the most compatible and the most docile personalities from both the Socialists and the Républicains, gave them seats in the House and Cabinet, stringently barred them from having any kind of independent views, and declared himself as being neither Left nor Right.
Like the spoiled child he has been for all 44 years of his charmed life, political and personal, Macron has never had to face consequences for his decisions; for him, turning the French Republic into an atomised wasteland of individuals matters not one bit. (He will be remembered as the Houellebecq President.) Under his presidency, France was shaken by popular revolts such as the Gilets Jaunes who felt no one was representing them in a country of weak unions and even weaker parties.
Houellebecq's books make clear he is against the atomisation whilst also documenting it surely?
I am, it has to be said, a massive fan.
No one. Not even our erstwhile SK writes like the 'novel' actually fecking matters anymore to the degree that Houellebecq does.0 -
No. I can imagine Peter Cushing being excellent.Taz said:
Yes, the stories do have some good moments but for me it feels like it has run out of steam. The stories just lack the energy and interest of the first stories in the run.Luckyguy1983 said:
I can't entirely agree. Even in the later episodes like the dying detective Brett has amazing scenes.Taz said:
Jeremy Brett as Holmes was excellent but the latter stories and the 3 long episodes that comes after Baskervilles and Sign of Four were awful. Partly due to Brett’s poor health, Holmes was replace by his brother in one story.JosiasJessop said:
We do not often agree, but on this I fully agree.Luckyguy1983 said:
Nothing beats Jeremy Brett's portrayal for me. I've never got into Sherlock though I can see it's merits.JosiasJessop said:
That's a really good point. From memory, in the books, Watson is very much his own man. A successful and respected doctor in his own right, who at times shares a flat with the protagonist, and at others is married (ooer missus!). In Sherlock, he is a broken man, and it is unclear why he hangs around Sherlock. I mean, why, given Cumberbatch's Holmes has no redeeming features?kle4 said:
Perhaps not, but ran for 7 years and it is better, not just that theres more of it. The first season in particular - did a far better job showing how a Holnes/Watson dynamic could realistically develop when one is such an arse.Gardenwalker said:
I’m not saying you’re wrong, in fact you’re right - but Sherlock was a big hit around the world.JosiasJessop said:I've recently been watching 'Elementary' on Prime; CBS's take on Sherlock Holmes, with Jonny Lee Miller as Sherlock and Lucy Liu as Watson.
When I compare it with the BBC's awful 'Sherlock', it shows where the BBC often goes wrong. Elementary takes the Sherlock Holmes idea and thoroughly modernises it. They made 154 episodes over nine years, allowing meaningful plot and character development.
The BBC's Sherlock is all about the *star*. The plotlines are ludicrous, and they made just 13 episodes in seven years, allowing little plot or character development.
Also: Jonny Lee Miller is a much better actor than Benedict Cumberbatch.
Elementary, not so much?
In Elementary, the characterisations make it much clearer: initially watson is paid to put up with him, and does so through a feeling of guilt for her own mistake. Later, Holmes tries to make up for his character defects, and becomes a much more interesting character (note: I am only on season 2).
However, I can recommend at least the first two seasons of 'Elementary'. A thoroughly modern Sherlock, without (mostly) the horse dung.
Holmes ended on a whimper unlike Poirot.
Have you seen any of the Douglas Wilmer or Peter Cushing ones.0 -
I don’t wish to be ungallant, but looking at his wife, I wouldn’t say Macron’s “personal life” has been completely “charmed”. Indeed rumours say the oppositeTheuniondivvie said:
'Like the spoiled child he has been for all 44 years of his charmed life, political and personal, Macron has never had to face consequences for his decisions'williamglenn said:Interesting piece on the resurrection of Le Pen by Anne-Elisabeth Moutet:
https://unherd.com/2022/04/the-resurrection-of-marine-le-pen/
But most of all, Marine Le Pen has been helped by Emmanuel Macron. Discontented voters chose him five years ago to spite the other, older, hackneyed candidates — a populist reflex for a man who used populist means for decidedly non-populist policies. His victory was built on the cold-eyed destruction of traditional political parties Left and Right, and he never stopped to consider the effect on public life. He cherry-picked the most compatible and the most docile personalities from both the Socialists and the Républicains, gave them seats in the House and Cabinet, stringently barred them from having any kind of independent views, and declared himself as being neither Left nor Right.
Like the spoiled child he has been for all 44 years of his charmed life, political and personal, Macron has never had to face consequences for his decisions; for him, turning the French Republic into an atomised wasteland of individuals matters not one bit. (He will be remembered as the Houellebecq President.) Under his presidency, France was shaken by popular revolts such as the Gilets Jaunes who felt no one was representing them in a country of weak unions and even weaker parties.
Uh huh.0 -
More than just a market for illegal drugs, the dark-web site allowed criminals to launder or cash out hundreds of millions in stolen cryptocurrencies.
https://www.wired.com/story/hydra-market-shutdown/0 -
Or the Brains!ydoethur said:
I doubt if she'd have the Courage.Foxy said:
She could start by clearing out the Tennants.ydoethur said:
She would have been better off starting again in the bass-ment.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Premier Leagueydoethur said:
Wetherspoons?Big_G_NorthWales said:
Hasn't one of them already gone to the private sector?ydoethur said:
I trust that in the case of many of them it will be realised that paying their salaries is, in their own words, not an appropriate use of public money.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Sue Gray's report will be the defining moment for not only Boris but many senior civil servantsFrancisUrquhart said:Always good to see properly punished.....
Among the post-Partygate clear-out of Boris’s top team in No. 10 was his PPS Martin Reynolds, whose infamous ‘BYOB’ email invite – leaked to ITV – swiftly earned him the SW1 nickname of “Party Marty”. Instead of being fired he was foundy a comfy Foreign Office role…
https://order-order.com/2022/04/06/no-10-levels-down-nicknames/
https://news.sky.com/story/helen-macnamara-governments-former-ethics-chief-apologises-for-error-of-judgement-after-partygate-fine-12582317
(For our Welsh viewers)4 -
This seems to be building up a Head.Mexicanpete said:
Or the Brains!ydoethur said:
I doubt if she'd have the Courage.Foxy said:
She could start by clearing out the Tennants.ydoethur said:
She would have been better off starting again in the bass-ment.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Premier Leagueydoethur said:
Wetherspoons?Big_G_NorthWales said:
Hasn't one of them already gone to the private sector?ydoethur said:
I trust that in the case of many of them it will be realised that paying their salaries is, in their own words, not an appropriate use of public money.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Sue Gray's report will be the defining moment for not only Boris but many senior civil servantsFrancisUrquhart said:Always good to see properly punished.....
Among the post-Partygate clear-out of Boris’s top team in No. 10 was his PPS Martin Reynolds, whose infamous ‘BYOB’ email invite – leaked to ITV – swiftly earned him the SW1 nickname of “Party Marty”. Instead of being fired he was foundy a comfy Foreign Office role…
https://order-order.com/2022/04/06/no-10-levels-down-nicknames/
https://news.sky.com/story/helen-macnamara-governments-former-ethics-chief-apologises-for-error-of-judgement-after-partygate-fine-12582317
(For our Welsh viewers)2 -
I rate him too although he's one note and a misogynist.rottenborough said:
Not sure I understand the "Houellebecq President" comment.williamglenn said:Interesting piece on the resurrection of Le Pen by Anne-Elisabeth Moutet:
https://unherd.com/2022/04/the-resurrection-of-marine-le-pen/
But most of all, Marine Le Pen has been helped by Emmanuel Macron. Discontented voters chose him five years ago to spite the other, older, hackneyed candidates — a populist reflex for a man who used populist means for decidedly non-populist policies. His victory was built on the cold-eyed destruction of traditional political parties Left and Right, and he never stopped to consider the effect on public life. He cherry-picked the most compatible and the most docile personalities from both the Socialists and the Républicains, gave them seats in the House and Cabinet, stringently barred them from having any kind of independent views, and declared himself as being neither Left nor Right.
Like the spoiled child he has been for all 44 years of his charmed life, political and personal, Macron has never had to face consequences for his decisions; for him, turning the French Republic into an atomised wasteland of individuals matters not one bit. (He will be remembered as the Houellebecq President.) Under his presidency, France was shaken by popular revolts such as the Gilets Jaunes who felt no one was representing them in a country of weak unions and even weaker parties.
Houellebecq's books make clear he is against the atomisation whilst also documenting it surely?
I am, it has to be said, a massive fan.
No one. Not even our erstwhile SK writes like the 'novel' actually fecking matters anymore to the degree that Houellebecq does.0 -
Ah, but the note is deep, sad and resonates.kinabalu said:
I rate him too although he's one note and a misogynist.rottenborough said:
Not sure I understand the "Houellebecq President" comment.williamglenn said:Interesting piece on the resurrection of Le Pen by Anne-Elisabeth Moutet:
https://unherd.com/2022/04/the-resurrection-of-marine-le-pen/
But most of all, Marine Le Pen has been helped by Emmanuel Macron. Discontented voters chose him five years ago to spite the other, older, hackneyed candidates — a populist reflex for a man who used populist means for decidedly non-populist policies. His victory was built on the cold-eyed destruction of traditional political parties Left and Right, and he never stopped to consider the effect on public life. He cherry-picked the most compatible and the most docile personalities from both the Socialists and the Républicains, gave them seats in the House and Cabinet, stringently barred them from having any kind of independent views, and declared himself as being neither Left nor Right.
Like the spoiled child he has been for all 44 years of his charmed life, political and personal, Macron has never had to face consequences for his decisions; for him, turning the French Republic into an atomised wasteland of individuals matters not one bit. (He will be remembered as the Houellebecq President.) Under his presidency, France was shaken by popular revolts such as the Gilets Jaunes who felt no one was representing them in a country of weak unions and even weaker parties.
Houellebecq's books make clear he is against the atomisation whilst also documenting it surely?
I am, it has to be said, a massive fan.
No one. Not even our erstwhile SK writes like the 'novel' actually fecking matters anymore to the degree that Houellebecq does.
1 -
Sold to the Americans. Yawn.FrancisUrquhart said:Harwell VMIC: New vaccine centre sold to company
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-oxfordshire-61011189.amp0 -
For all his many other faults, he is massively socially liberal. In that regard he is a million miles away from the Tory party of say the 1980s.Endillion said:
I just saw the Guardian News version, and the YT comments are an endless procession of people who clearly dislike Johnson in general, but are in agreement on this issue. It's actually hard to find anyone who disagrees with him. Labour are mincemeat unless they ditch Stonewall completely on this.MattW said:
This is an even longer version than the one I linked.MattW said:
Boris's comments are quite good and thoughtful.MaxPB said:
No, I've been told by PB experts that saying women have cocks won't hurt Labour.williamglenn said:It's striking how much support Boris Johnson is getting for his comments on trans issues from people who are not his natural supporters. This one is typical:
@annettepacey
Oh god oh no someone I loathe just made a really good point. Still could never bring myself to vote for the bastard but this is what happens when Labour turn their backs on women and leave an open goal #labourlosingwomen
https://twitter.com/annettepacey/status/1511691419647455237
The Trans Activist usual approach is to ram through their preferred measures before anyone gets any time to reflect properly upon the issue, and this is more considered.
Here is what BJ said. This is I think the full video of 1:39. Sky also seem to be putting out a truncated one at 1:04 length.
https://news.sky.com/story/pm-says-biological-males-should-not-compete-in-female-sport-and-venues-should-have-women-only-spaces-12583536
I haven't got my head around the latest kerfuffle.
Does, for example, the (Aiui) long-held Trans-Activist demand to be allowed to medicate without supervision children who are deemed by their parents to be trans count as Conversion Therapy? If so, the various organisations are demanding that this be banned.
ISTM very important that required time is taken.
https://twitter.com/skynews/status/1511669445877551104
3 -
Catalent is a good buyer, they'll use and invest in it.FrancisUrquhart said:Harwell VMIC: New vaccine centre sold to company
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-oxfordshire-61011189.amp0 -
Ch4 getting sold is getting masses of column inches and 100s of posts on here, The sale of the Vaccine Manufacturing and Innovation Centre (VMIC) basically no coverage at all.1
-
Yes, the idea that most dramas peak in season 1 is bollocks. It’s practically a truism of the genre that most successful dramas (ie ones with extended life, not immediately dropped) initially get better as the writers gain in confidence and establish and explore their characters with added verve and daring…. So they tend to peak in season 2 or 3, maybe even 4. Succession is a contemporary example, there are so many more - Sopranos, the Wire, BSG, Spartacus, House, the Tudors, Breaking Bad, basically all the great dramas of the Golden Age did this. Started off well but a bit nervously, then got better and better…ydoethur said:
Dad's Army didn't really hit its stride until about season 4. Similarly all the Star Trek series start to get really good from about season 3.5 onwards. (Well, apart from Enterprise.)Anabobazina said:
Most series are better off with sticking to just one season. There are exceptions, but in general the greats of TV just decline after season one.FrancisUrquhart said:
Its not just the 6 episode format, it is the ridiculous gap between seasons.Anabobazina said:
Most series are drastically overlong and are flogged to within an inch of their lives. The Beeb’s six episode format - to use an absolutely horrible PB cliche - is a feature not a bug.FrancisUrquhart said:
My point is BBC still trying to do things the old way, 6 episode season, a mate of a mate who is a big name will do you a favour and star in it for cheap, then you get stupid situations where you have Tom Hardy make a season of Taboo, that does pretty well, and then it is 5 years before he can fit you in again for season 2.MaxPB said:
That takes money and the BBC is limited by the licence fee. There's not much else to it.FrancisUrquhart said:To prove my point....in production.
SLOW HORSES S02
https://www.productionweekly.com/production-weekly-issue-1290-thursday-march-17-2022-199-listings-45-pages/
None of this, Gary (Oldman) and Kristin (Scott Thomas), could you possibly give us a date when you fancy making some more of these, I know you might be busy, could you possibly fit us in perhaps 2024....
They have to decide, either not to go down that route in the first place and not use the star talent or modernise. When the big players decide to go with these projects they are going to ensure they get their 5 seasons in 5 years.
The BBC are setting light to money starting an IP and then leaving it years.
Can you imagine if you had the most shit hot new widget and then said yeah well we only made a few, come back in 5 years.....while acme industries down the street is also making shit hot new widgets, but they ensure they continually have new ones.
The massive bucks are available if can get a show syndicated worldwide. In order to do that normally need to have a significant back catalogue. They did that with Top Gear and made a load of money. The problem is drama is now gone that way too.
However the flip side of this is that nearly all dramas hit a wall when they just run out of ideas. Five seasons seems to be the general limit. Vanishingly few TV dramas remain good after the fifth season. That’s why most end there
Interestingly, this is also often true of books formed as a series
There are of course some exceptions, Dramas which have one great initial season then *WTF happened*. Westworld is a classic example. Drove off a cliff0 -
Is it possible that the unique and irreplaceable bit of the BBC is news coverage with its significant degree of non bias and impartiality (never complete of course but it does sort of try) and world wide coverage. Not in hock to advertisers or government.eek said:
The BBC can either produce a lot of TV cheaply or less TV very expensively. You seem to favour the latter while the BBC (up to now) has tended to do the former....FrancisUrquhart said:
My point is BBC still trying to do things the old way, 6 episode season, a mate of a mate who is a big name will do you a favour and star in it for cheap, then you get stupid situations where you have Tom Hardy make a season of Taboo, that does pretty well, and then it is 5 years before he can fit you in again for season 2.MaxPB said:
That takes money and the BBC is limited by the licence fee. There's not much else to it.FrancisUrquhart said:To prove my point....in production.
SLOW HORSES S02
https://www.productionweekly.com/production-weekly-issue-1290-thursday-march-17-2022-199-listings-45-pages/
None of this, Gary (Oldman) and Kristin (Scott Thomas), could you possibly give us a date when you fancy making some more of these, I know you might be busy, could you possibly fit us in perhaps 2024....
They have to decide, either not to go down that route in the first place and not use the star talent or modernise. When the big players decide to go with these projects they are going to ensure they get their 5 seasons in 5 years.
And next radio, not general telly. And next its minority coverage. And the rest can be done by anyone with the cash and desire to make a few bob.
0 -
Yes. Some people on here probably think Orwell messed up by not writing Animal Farm 2.Anabobazina said:
The idea that six episodes is short format is preposterous. That’s six hours of TV drama.kle4 said:
I disagree. Sometimes a mini series is all you need - Chernobyl is a great example, one of the best tv shows I've seen in years. And even a 10-13 episode show might have plenty of padding (though is my preferred length).Anabobazina said:
Most series are drastically overlong and are flogged to within an inch of their lives. The Beeb’s six episode format - to use an absolutely horrible PB cliche - is a feature not a bug.FrancisUrquhart said:
My point is BBC still trying to do things the old way, 6 episode season, a mate of a mate who is a big name will do you a favour and star in it for cheap, then you get stupid situations where you have Tom Hardy make a season of Taboo, that does pretty well, and then it is 5 years before he can fit you in again for season 2.MaxPB said:
That takes money and the BBC is limited by the licence fee. There's not much else to it.FrancisUrquhart said:To prove my point....in production.
SLOW HORSES S02
https://www.productionweekly.com/production-weekly-issue-1290-thursday-march-17-2022-199-listings-45-pages/
None of this, Gary (Oldman) and Kristin (Scott Thomas), could you possibly give us a date when you fancy making some more of these, I know you might be busy, could you possibly fit us in perhaps 2024....
They have to decide, either not to go down that route in the first place and not use the star talent or modernise. When the big players decide to go with these projects they are going to ensure they get their 5 seasons in 5 years.
The BBC are setting light to money starting an IP and then leaving it years.
But that's a question of good or bad writing. If you could guarantee the BBC traditional 6 episode or whatever format resulted in a higher amount of quality per episode, you might have an argument, but that's not the case - plenty of 6 episode shows are still very bad, and they are short and often sporadic on top of that.
Sure, plenty of long format shows are no good either, but many are good, and there are benefits to being able to develop arcs over a multi year period, or just develop the characters more thoroughly over that number of episodes and time. Going on too long is an unfortunate potential risk, to be sure, but personally I'd say was worth it for the greater number and depth of content earlier on.
I think the cheerleading for short format stuff is a crutch, frankly. There's no reason longer stuff cannot be good, and plenty of short stuff which is bad, so it's not a feature at all.
The Godfather - rightly considered an absolute epic - was told in nine hours or so.5 -
If "c**ks in frocks" gets the traction and votes Johnson hopes it will in the face of economic Armageddon, we deserve no less than Johnson as sine die PM.Endillion said:
I just saw the Guardian News version, and the YT comments are an endless procession of people who clearly dislike Johnson in general, but are in agreement on this issue. It's actually hard to find anyone who disagrees with him. Labour are mincemeat unless they ditch Stonewall completely on this.MattW said:
This is an even longer version than the one I linked.MattW said:
Boris's comments are quite good and thoughtful.MaxPB said:
No, I've been told by PB experts that saying women have cocks won't hurt Labour.williamglenn said:It's striking how much support Boris Johnson is getting for his comments on trans issues from people who are not his natural supporters. This one is typical:
@annettepacey
Oh god oh no someone I loathe just made a really good point. Still could never bring myself to vote for the bastard but this is what happens when Labour turn their backs on women and leave an open goal #labourlosingwomen
https://twitter.com/annettepacey/status/1511691419647455237
The Trans Activist usual approach is to ram through their preferred measures before anyone gets any time to reflect properly upon the issue, and this is more considered.
Here is what BJ said. This is I think the full video of 1:39. Sky also seem to be putting out a truncated one at 1:04 length.
https://news.sky.com/story/pm-says-biological-males-should-not-compete-in-female-sport-and-venues-should-have-women-only-spaces-12583536
I haven't got my head around the latest kerfuffle.
Does, for example, the (Aiui) long-held Trans-Activist demand to be allowed to medicate without supervision children who are deemed by their parents to be trans count as Conversion Therapy? If so, the various organisations are demanding that this be banned.
ISTM very important that required time is taken.
https://twitter.com/skynews/status/15116694458775511040 -
They are different forms of media.Northern_Al said:
Yes. Some people on here probably think Orwell messed up by not writing Animal Farm 2.Anabobazina said:
The idea that six episodes is short format is preposterous. That’s six hours of TV drama.kle4 said:
I disagree. Sometimes a mini series is all you need - Chernobyl is a great example, one of the best tv shows I've seen in years. And even a 10-13 episode show might have plenty of padding (though is my preferred length).Anabobazina said:
Most series are drastically overlong and are flogged to within an inch of their lives. The Beeb’s six episode format - to use an absolutely horrible PB cliche - is a feature not a bug.FrancisUrquhart said:
My point is BBC still trying to do things the old way, 6 episode season, a mate of a mate who is a big name will do you a favour and star in it for cheap, then you get stupid situations where you have Tom Hardy make a season of Taboo, that does pretty well, and then it is 5 years before he can fit you in again for season 2.MaxPB said:
That takes money and the BBC is limited by the licence fee. There's not much else to it.FrancisUrquhart said:To prove my point....in production.
SLOW HORSES S02
https://www.productionweekly.com/production-weekly-issue-1290-thursday-march-17-2022-199-listings-45-pages/
None of this, Gary (Oldman) and Kristin (Scott Thomas), could you possibly give us a date when you fancy making some more of these, I know you might be busy, could you possibly fit us in perhaps 2024....
They have to decide, either not to go down that route in the first place and not use the star talent or modernise. When the big players decide to go with these projects they are going to ensure they get their 5 seasons in 5 years.
The BBC are setting light to money starting an IP and then leaving it years.
But that's a question of good or bad writing. If you could guarantee the BBC traditional 6 episode or whatever format resulted in a higher amount of quality per episode, you might have an argument, but that's not the case - plenty of 6 episode shows are still very bad, and they are short and often sporadic on top of that.
Sure, plenty of long format shows are no good either, but many are good, and there are benefits to being able to develop arcs over a multi year period, or just develop the characters more thoroughly over that number of episodes and time. Going on too long is an unfortunate potential risk, to be sure, but personally I'd say was worth it for the greater number and depth of content earlier on.
I think the cheerleading for short format stuff is a crutch, frankly. There's no reason longer stuff cannot be good, and plenty of short stuff which is bad, so it's not a feature at all.
The Godfather - rightly considered an absolute epic - was told in nine hours or so.
A film is designed to tell a story well in 90-120 minutes. A series has longer, allowing it to develop in a very different manner. A book can be a stand-alone drama, or a series.
The form of the media allows the story-telling to take on very different natures.1 -
The Simpsons, too, didn't really get going until series 4.ydoethur said:
Dad's Army didn't really hit its stride until about season 4. Similarly all the Star Trek series start to get really good from about season 3.5 onwards. (Well, apart from Enterprise.)Anabobazina said:
Most series are better off with sticking to just one season. There are exceptions, but in general the greats of TV just decline after season one.FrancisUrquhart said:
Its not just the 6 episode format, it is the ridiculous gap between seasons.Anabobazina said:
Most series are drastically overlong and are flogged to within an inch of their lives. The Beeb’s six episode format - to use an absolutely horrible PB cliche - is a feature not a bug.FrancisUrquhart said:
My point is BBC still trying to do things the old way, 6 episode season, a mate of a mate who is a big name will do you a favour and star in it for cheap, then you get stupid situations where you have Tom Hardy make a season of Taboo, that does pretty well, and then it is 5 years before he can fit you in again for season 2.MaxPB said:
That takes money and the BBC is limited by the licence fee. There's not much else to it.FrancisUrquhart said:To prove my point....in production.
SLOW HORSES S02
https://www.productionweekly.com/production-weekly-issue-1290-thursday-march-17-2022-199-listings-45-pages/
None of this, Gary (Oldman) and Kristin (Scott Thomas), could you possibly give us a date when you fancy making some more of these, I know you might be busy, could you possibly fit us in perhaps 2024....
They have to decide, either not to go down that route in the first place and not use the star talent or modernise. When the big players decide to go with these projects they are going to ensure they get their 5 seasons in 5 years.
The BBC are setting light to money starting an IP and then leaving it years.
Can you imagine if you had the most shit hot new widget and then said yeah well we only made a few, come back in 5 years.....while acme industries down the street is also making shit hot new widgets, but they ensure they continually have new ones.
The massive bucks are available if can get a show syndicated worldwide. In order to do that normally need to have a significant back catalogue. They did that with Top Gear and made a load of money. The problem is drama is now gone that way too.0 -
That’s probably true. But the BBC’s argument is that they cannot justify the universal licence fee unless they offer something to everyone - which does make sensealgarkirk said:
Is it possible that the unique and irreplaceable bit of the BBC is news coverage with its significant degree of non bias and impartiality (never complete of course but it does sort of try) and world wide coverage. Not in hock to advertisers or government.eek said:
The BBC can either produce a lot of TV cheaply or less TV very expensively. You seem to favour the latter while the BBC (up to now) has tended to do the former....FrancisUrquhart said:
My point is BBC still trying to do things the old way, 6 episode season, a mate of a mate who is a big name will do you a favour and star in it for cheap, then you get stupid situations where you have Tom Hardy make a season of Taboo, that does pretty well, and then it is 5 years before he can fit you in again for season 2.MaxPB said:
That takes money and the BBC is limited by the licence fee. There's not much else to it.FrancisUrquhart said:To prove my point....in production.
SLOW HORSES S02
https://www.productionweekly.com/production-weekly-issue-1290-thursday-march-17-2022-199-listings-45-pages/
None of this, Gary (Oldman) and Kristin (Scott Thomas), could you possibly give us a date when you fancy making some more of these, I know you might be busy, could you possibly fit us in perhaps 2024....
They have to decide, either not to go down that route in the first place and not use the star talent or modernise. When the big players decide to go with these projects they are going to ensure they get their 5 seasons in 5 years.
And next radio, not general telly. And next its minority coverage. And the rest can be done by anyone with the cash and desire to make a few bob.
Trouble is they now have competitors who can do the stuff people really care about - eg TV drama - so much better because they have so much more money, and are less timid. The BBC is even getting overtaken in more niche areas like Nature documentaries
I do not wish to see the BBC disappear. It’s an important part of UK soft power. But fuck knows how it can be saved0 -
I'm worried that there are enough French people who haven't benefited from globalisation and are willing to gamble on Le Pen. We had it here with Brexit, which was ultimately just leaving a trade/political union, France electing Le Pen would be a real "hold my beer" moment from the French.
The haughtiness of Macron is also an issue, rather than accept globalisation has a lot of losers he's one of those global elites who likes to pretend that trade isn't essentially a zero sum game which puts up huge skill barriers for well paid jobs.
I'm hopeful that we won't end up with Le Pen, but I think contingency planning is necessary. I'm also worried that once she gets power removing her will be as difficult as removing Orban.0 -
Except quite clearly on trans.rottenborough said:
For all his many other faults, he is massively socially liberal. In that regard he is a million miles away from the Tory party of say the 1980s.Endillion said:
I just saw the Guardian News version, and the YT comments are an endless procession of people who clearly dislike Johnson in general, but are in agreement on this issue. It's actually hard to find anyone who disagrees with him. Labour are mincemeat unless they ditch Stonewall completely on this.MattW said:
This is an even longer version than the one I linked.MattW said:
Boris's comments are quite good and thoughtful.MaxPB said:
No, I've been told by PB experts that saying women have cocks won't hurt Labour.williamglenn said:It's striking how much support Boris Johnson is getting for his comments on trans issues from people who are not his natural supporters. This one is typical:
@annettepacey
Oh god oh no someone I loathe just made a really good point. Still could never bring myself to vote for the bastard but this is what happens when Labour turn their backs on women and leave an open goal #labourlosingwomen
https://twitter.com/annettepacey/status/1511691419647455237
The Trans Activist usual approach is to ram through their preferred measures before anyone gets any time to reflect properly upon the issue, and this is more considered.
Here is what BJ said. This is I think the full video of 1:39. Sky also seem to be putting out a truncated one at 1:04 length.
https://news.sky.com/story/pm-says-biological-males-should-not-compete-in-female-sport-and-venues-should-have-women-only-spaces-12583536
I haven't got my head around the latest kerfuffle.
Does, for example, the (Aiui) long-held Trans-Activist demand to be allowed to medicate without supervision children who are deemed by their parents to be trans count as Conversion Therapy? If so, the various organisations are demanding that this be banned.
ISTM very important that required time is taken.
https://twitter.com/skynews/status/1511669445877551104
Unlike even Thatcher he has also ended free movement to and from the European single market and the UK0 -
Excl: Rishi Sunak’s millionaire wife ‘avoided tax through non-dom status’
The Treasury declined to comment. A spokesperson for Rishi Sunak did not respond to multiple requests for comment.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/rishi-sunak-akshata-murthy-non-dom-wife-tax-b2052251.html1 -
Oh dear RishiScott_xP said:Excl: Rishi Sunak’s millionaire wife ‘avoided tax through non-dom status’
The Treasury declined to comment. A spokesperson for Rishi Sunak did not respond to multiple requests for comment.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/rishi-sunak-akshata-murthy-non-dom-wife-tax-b2052251.html0 -
Parks and Rec, one of my all time favourite comedies. Rather mediocre series 1, but sort of watchable. Then soared away in season 2 and on it wentCookie said:
The Simpsons, too, didn't really get going until series 4.ydoethur said:
Dad's Army didn't really hit its stride until about season 4. Similarly all the Star Trek series start to get really good from about season 3.5 onwards. (Well, apart from Enterprise.)Anabobazina said:
Most series are better off with sticking to just one season. There are exceptions, but in general the greats of TV just decline after season one.FrancisUrquhart said:
Its not just the 6 episode format, it is the ridiculous gap between seasons.Anabobazina said:
Most series are drastically overlong and are flogged to within an inch of their lives. The Beeb’s six episode format - to use an absolutely horrible PB cliche - is a feature not a bug.FrancisUrquhart said:
My point is BBC still trying to do things the old way, 6 episode season, a mate of a mate who is a big name will do you a favour and star in it for cheap, then you get stupid situations where you have Tom Hardy make a season of Taboo, that does pretty well, and then it is 5 years before he can fit you in again for season 2.MaxPB said:
That takes money and the BBC is limited by the licence fee. There's not much else to it.FrancisUrquhart said:To prove my point....in production.
SLOW HORSES S02
https://www.productionweekly.com/production-weekly-issue-1290-thursday-march-17-2022-199-listings-45-pages/
None of this, Gary (Oldman) and Kristin (Scott Thomas), could you possibly give us a date when you fancy making some more of these, I know you might be busy, could you possibly fit us in perhaps 2024....
They have to decide, either not to go down that route in the first place and not use the star talent or modernise. When the big players decide to go with these projects they are going to ensure they get their 5 seasons in 5 years.
The BBC are setting light to money starting an IP and then leaving it years.
Can you imagine if you had the most shit hot new widget and then said yeah well we only made a few, come back in 5 years.....while acme industries down the street is also making shit hot new widgets, but they ensure they continually have new ones.
The massive bucks are available if can get a show syndicated worldwide. In order to do that normally need to have a significant back catalogue. They did that with Top Gear and made a load of money. The problem is drama is now gone that way too.
And Blackadder! Does anyone ever re-watch season 1?? Then they got Ben Elton in and it turned into something brilliant4 -
Somebody has really got it in for RishiScott_xP said:Excl: Rishi Sunak’s millionaire wife ‘avoided tax through non-dom status’
The Treasury declined to comment. A spokesperson for Rishi Sunak did not respond to multiple requests for comment.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/rishi-sunak-akshata-murthy-non-dom-wife-tax-b2052251.html1 -
Thanks for explaining that to me, although I think I already knew it.JosiasJessop said:
They are different forms of media.Northern_Al said:
Yes. Some people on here probably think Orwell messed up by not writing Animal Farm 2.Anabobazina said:
The idea that six episodes is short format is preposterous. That’s six hours of TV drama.kle4 said:
I disagree. Sometimes a mini series is all you need - Chernobyl is a great example, one of the best tv shows I've seen in years. And even a 10-13 episode show might have plenty of padding (though is my preferred length).Anabobazina said:
Most series are drastically overlong and are flogged to within an inch of their lives. The Beeb’s six episode format - to use an absolutely horrible PB cliche - is a feature not a bug.FrancisUrquhart said:
My point is BBC still trying to do things the old way, 6 episode season, a mate of a mate who is a big name will do you a favour and star in it for cheap, then you get stupid situations where you have Tom Hardy make a season of Taboo, that does pretty well, and then it is 5 years before he can fit you in again for season 2.MaxPB said:
That takes money and the BBC is limited by the licence fee. There's not much else to it.FrancisUrquhart said:To prove my point....in production.
SLOW HORSES S02
https://www.productionweekly.com/production-weekly-issue-1290-thursday-march-17-2022-199-listings-45-pages/
None of this, Gary (Oldman) and Kristin (Scott Thomas), could you possibly give us a date when you fancy making some more of these, I know you might be busy, could you possibly fit us in perhaps 2024....
They have to decide, either not to go down that route in the first place and not use the star talent or modernise. When the big players decide to go with these projects they are going to ensure they get their 5 seasons in 5 years.
The BBC are setting light to money starting an IP and then leaving it years.
But that's a question of good or bad writing. If you could guarantee the BBC traditional 6 episode or whatever format resulted in a higher amount of quality per episode, you might have an argument, but that's not the case - plenty of 6 episode shows are still very bad, and they are short and often sporadic on top of that.
Sure, plenty of long format shows are no good either, but many are good, and there are benefits to being able to develop arcs over a multi year period, or just develop the characters more thoroughly over that number of episodes and time. Going on too long is an unfortunate potential risk, to be sure, but personally I'd say was worth it for the greater number and depth of content earlier on.
I think the cheerleading for short format stuff is a crutch, frankly. There's no reason longer stuff cannot be good, and plenty of short stuff which is bad, so it's not a feature at all.
The Godfather - rightly considered an absolute epic - was told in nine hours or so.
A film is designed to tell a story well in 90-120 minutes. A series has longer, allowing it to develop in a very different manner. A book can be a stand-alone drama, or a series.
The form of the media allows the story-telling to take on very different natures.
My serious point is that the length of any piece of media, be it film, TV or writing (of any sort) is, to me, secondary to its quality. Some long series are good; others are poor; and vice versa etc. War and Peace and Animal Farm are both pretty good, for example. With Fawlty Towers, the joke would have worn thin with more episodes I think.0 -
Good series often start off episodic, with very little changing between episodes. This means if you miss one episode, you haven't missed any plot points. Later on, they can stop being so episodic and start with the plot arcs. 'Person of Interest' is an example of this, or 'Fringe'. Some series remain episodic - I'm looking at you, Star Trek TNG, to the extent you can watch an episode from a later series and utterly know what is going on.Leon said:
Yes, the idea that most dramas peak in season 1 is bollocks. It’s practically a truism of the genre that most successful dramas (ie ones with extended life, not immediately dropped) initially get better as the writers gain in confidence and establish and explore their characters with added verve and daring…. So they tend to peak in season 2 or 3, maybe even 4. Succession is a contemporary example, there are so many more - Sopranos, the Wire, BSG, Spartacus, House, the Tudors, Breaking Bad, basically all the great dramas of the Golden Age did this. Started off well but a bit nervously, then got better and better…ydoethur said:
Dad's Army didn't really hit its stride until about season 4. Similarly all the Star Trek series start to get really good from about season 3.5 onwards. (Well, apart from Enterprise.)Anabobazina said:
Most series are better off with sticking to just one season. There are exceptions, but in general the greats of TV just decline after season one.FrancisUrquhart said:
Its not just the 6 episode format, it is the ridiculous gap between seasons.Anabobazina said:
Most series are drastically overlong and are flogged to within an inch of their lives. The Beeb’s six episode format - to use an absolutely horrible PB cliche - is a feature not a bug.FrancisUrquhart said:
My point is BBC still trying to do things the old way, 6 episode season, a mate of a mate who is a big name will do you a favour and star in it for cheap, then you get stupid situations where you have Tom Hardy make a season of Taboo, that does pretty well, and then it is 5 years before he can fit you in again for season 2.MaxPB said:
That takes money and the BBC is limited by the licence fee. There's not much else to it.FrancisUrquhart said:To prove my point....in production.
SLOW HORSES S02
https://www.productionweekly.com/production-weekly-issue-1290-thursday-march-17-2022-199-listings-45-pages/
None of this, Gary (Oldman) and Kristin (Scott Thomas), could you possibly give us a date when you fancy making some more of these, I know you might be busy, could you possibly fit us in perhaps 2024....
They have to decide, either not to go down that route in the first place and not use the star talent or modernise. When the big players decide to go with these projects they are going to ensure they get their 5 seasons in 5 years.
The BBC are setting light to money starting an IP and then leaving it years.
Can you imagine if you had the most shit hot new widget and then said yeah well we only made a few, come back in 5 years.....while acme industries down the street is also making shit hot new widgets, but they ensure they continually have new ones.
The massive bucks are available if can get a show syndicated worldwide. In order to do that normally need to have a significant back catalogue. They did that with Top Gear and made a load of money. The problem is drama is now gone that way too.
However the flip side of this is that nearly all dramas hit a wall when they just run out of ideas. Five seasons seems to be the general limit. Vanishingly few TV dramas remain good after the fifth season. That’s why most end there
Interestingly, this is also often true of books formed as a series
There are of course some exceptions, Dramas which have one great initial season then *WTF happened*. Westworld is a classic example. Drove off a cliff
A brilliant series such as Babylon 5 will subvert this, and have episodic episodes that refer backwards to explain what happened in earlier series. 0 -
Mexicanpete said:
If "c**ks in frocks" gets the traction and votes Johnson hopes it will in the face of economic Armageddon, we deserve no less than Johnson as sine die PM.Endillion said:
I just saw the Guardian News version, and the YT comments are an endless procession of people who clearly dislike Johnson in general, but are in agreement on this issue. It's actually hard to find anyone who disagrees with him. Labour are mincemeat unless they ditch Stonewall completely on this.MattW said:
This is an even longer version than the one I linked.MattW said:
Boris's comments are quite good and thoughtful.MaxPB said:
No, I've been told by PB experts that saying women have cocks won't hurt Labour.williamglenn said:It's striking how much support Boris Johnson is getting for his comments on trans issues from people who are not his natural supporters. This one is typical:
@annettepacey
Oh god oh no someone I loathe just made a really good point. Still could never bring myself to vote for the bastard but this is what happens when Labour turn their backs on women and leave an open goal #labourlosingwomen
https://twitter.com/annettepacey/status/1511691419647455237
The Trans Activist usual approach is to ram through their preferred measures before anyone gets any time to reflect properly upon the issue, and this is more considered.
Here is what BJ said. This is I think the full video of 1:39. Sky also seem to be putting out a truncated one at 1:04 length.
https://news.sky.com/story/pm-says-biological-males-should-not-compete-in-female-sport-and-venues-should-have-women-only-spaces-12583536
I haven't got my head around the latest kerfuffle.
Does, for example, the (Aiui) long-held Trans-Activist demand to be allowed to medicate without supervision children who are deemed by their parents to be trans count as Conversion Therapy? If so, the various organisations are demanding that this be banned.
ISTM very important that required time is taken.
https://twitter.com/skynews/status/1511669445877551104
Cocks in frocks might just work simply because no party has an answer to the impending economic tsunami. What is Labour’s solution? Nationalise everything? That worked well in Venezuela
Question is whether Labour can come up with a plausible list of lies that might persuade people they have some brilliant answer (when they don’t, because there isn’t one)
I don’t know if Starmer has it in him to be that mendacious. Johnson does
And if the economic argument is a stalemate because no one has a clue what to do, then the Tories might win because the war on Woke does have traction1 -
Now I don’t have an issue with the episode, but I no a lot of fans, probably younger than me, do. The racism portrayed was of its Victorian setting. The choice of a white British actor to portray Lee Sen Chang (forgive the spelling) is probably the biggest sin, although nowadays it seems we have colour blind casting.Taz said:
Talons of Weng Chiang is essentially a mix of Baker playing a Sherlock Holmes character and John Bennett playing Fu Manchu.turbotubbs said:
I’ll be honest, Jeremy Brett for a classic feel, and set in the original era (hat tip to Tom Baker as the Doctor as Sherlock Holmes in the Talons of Weng Chiang, present concerns about horrific racist portrayal and yellow face excepted), Sherlock is fun, but could never be a series machine in the American way, whereas Elementary has room to breath and allows you to get to love the cast. All have their place.Luckyguy1983 said:
Nothing beats Jeremy Brett's portrayal for me. I've never got into Sherlock though I can see it's merits.JosiasJessop said:
That's a really good point. From memory, in the books, Watson is very much his own man. A successful and respected doctor in his own right, who at times shares a flat with the protagonist, and at others is married (ooer missus!). In Sherlock, he is a broken man, and it is unclear why he hangs around Sherlock. I mean, why, given Cumberbatch's Holmes has no redeeming features?kle4 said:
Perhaps not, but ran for 7 years and it is better, not just that theres more of it. The first season in particular - did a far better job showing how a Holnes/Watson dynamic could realistically develop when one is such an arse.Gardenwalker said:
I’m not saying you’re wrong, in fact you’re right - but Sherlock was a big hit around the world.JosiasJessop said:I've recently been watching 'Elementary' on Prime; CBS's take on Sherlock Holmes, with Jonny Lee Miller as Sherlock and Lucy Liu as Watson.
When I compare it with the BBC's awful 'Sherlock', it shows where the BBC often goes wrong. Elementary takes the Sherlock Holmes idea and thoroughly modernises it. They made 154 episodes over nine years, allowing meaningful plot and character development.
The BBC's Sherlock is all about the *star*. The plotlines are ludicrous, and they made just 13 episodes in seven years, allowing little plot or character development.
Also: Jonny Lee Miller is a much better actor than Benedict Cumberbatch.
Elementary, not so much?
In Elementary, the characterisations make it much clearer: initially watson is paid to put up with him, and does so through a feeling of guilt for her own mistake. Later, Holmes tries to make up for his character defects, and becomes a much more interesting character (note: I am only on season 2).
You also have Louise Jameson as Eliza Doolittle.
I’d dispute the show is horrifically racist it has racial stereotypes based on the Fu Manchu stories, that period was full of rip offs/tributes to classic novels and sci fi. It’s an homage. Horrifically is a dramatic overstatement. It’s a subject fandom still debates to this day.
We may as well ban the Celestial Toymaker too.
Tom also played Holmes in Hound of the Baskervilles, pretty well, his first job on leaving Dr Who. Caroline John was also in it.0 -
He was, only 6 complete episodes exist. Douglas Wilmer is very good as well.Luckyguy1983 said:
No. I can imagine Peter Cushing being excellent.Taz said:
Yes, the stories do have some good moments but for me it feels like it has run out of steam. The stories just lack the energy and interest of the first stories in the run.Luckyguy1983 said:
I can't entirely agree. Even in the later episodes like the dying detective Brett has amazing scenes.Taz said:
Jeremy Brett as Holmes was excellent but the latter stories and the 3 long episodes that comes after Baskervilles and Sign of Four were awful. Partly due to Brett’s poor health, Holmes was replace by his brother in one story.JosiasJessop said:
We do not often agree, but on this I fully agree.Luckyguy1983 said:
Nothing beats Jeremy Brett's portrayal for me. I've never got into Sherlock though I can see it's merits.JosiasJessop said:
That's a really good point. From memory, in the books, Watson is very much his own man. A successful and respected doctor in his own right, who at times shares a flat with the protagonist, and at others is married (ooer missus!). In Sherlock, he is a broken man, and it is unclear why he hangs around Sherlock. I mean, why, given Cumberbatch's Holmes has no redeeming features?kle4 said:
Perhaps not, but ran for 7 years and it is better, not just that theres more of it. The first season in particular - did a far better job showing how a Holnes/Watson dynamic could realistically develop when one is such an arse.Gardenwalker said:
I’m not saying you’re wrong, in fact you’re right - but Sherlock was a big hit around the world.JosiasJessop said:I've recently been watching 'Elementary' on Prime; CBS's take on Sherlock Holmes, with Jonny Lee Miller as Sherlock and Lucy Liu as Watson.
When I compare it with the BBC's awful 'Sherlock', it shows where the BBC often goes wrong. Elementary takes the Sherlock Holmes idea and thoroughly modernises it. They made 154 episodes over nine years, allowing meaningful plot and character development.
The BBC's Sherlock is all about the *star*. The plotlines are ludicrous, and they made just 13 episodes in seven years, allowing little plot or character development.
Also: Jonny Lee Miller is a much better actor than Benedict Cumberbatch.
Elementary, not so much?
In Elementary, the characterisations make it much clearer: initially watson is paid to put up with him, and does so through a feeling of guilt for her own mistake. Later, Holmes tries to make up for his character defects, and becomes a much more interesting character (note: I am only on season 2).
However, I can recommend at least the first two seasons of 'Elementary'. A thoroughly modern Sherlock, without (mostly) the horse dung.
Holmes ended on a whimper unlike Poirot.
Have you seen any of the Douglas Wilmer or Peter Cushing ones.0 -
Everton are going down0
-
Boris has clearly patched it up with DomScott_xP said:Excl: Rishi Sunak’s millionaire wife ‘avoided tax through non-dom status’
The Treasury declined to comment. A spokesperson for Rishi Sunak did not respond to multiple requests for comment.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/rishi-sunak-akshata-murthy-non-dom-wife-tax-b2052251.html0 -
Oh, yes, Blackwater 1 was utter dross.Leon said:
Parks and Rec, one of my all time favourite comedies. Rather mediocre series 1, but sort of watchable. Then soared away in season 2 and on it wentCookie said:
The Simpsons, too, didn't really get going until series 4.ydoethur said:
Dad's Army didn't really hit its stride until about season 4. Similarly all the Star Trek series start to get really good from about season 3.5 onwards. (Well, apart from Enterprise.)Anabobazina said:
Most series are better off with sticking to just one season. There are exceptions, but in general the greats of TV just decline after season one.FrancisUrquhart said:
Its not just the 6 episode format, it is the ridiculous gap between seasons.Anabobazina said:
Most series are drastically overlong and are flogged to within an inch of their lives. The Beeb’s six episode format - to use an absolutely horrible PB cliche - is a feature not a bug.FrancisUrquhart said:
My point is BBC still trying to do things the old way, 6 episode season, a mate of a mate who is a big name will do you a favour and star in it for cheap, then you get stupid situations where you have Tom Hardy make a season of Taboo, that does pretty well, and then it is 5 years before he can fit you in again for season 2.MaxPB said:
That takes money and the BBC is limited by the licence fee. There's not much else to it.FrancisUrquhart said:To prove my point....in production.
SLOW HORSES S02
https://www.productionweekly.com/production-weekly-issue-1290-thursday-march-17-2022-199-listings-45-pages/
None of this, Gary (Oldman) and Kristin (Scott Thomas), could you possibly give us a date when you fancy making some more of these, I know you might be busy, could you possibly fit us in perhaps 2024....
They have to decide, either not to go down that route in the first place and not use the star talent or modernise. When the big players decide to go with these projects they are going to ensure they get their 5 seasons in 5 years.
The BBC are setting light to money starting an IP and then leaving it years.
Can you imagine if you had the most shit hot new widget and then said yeah well we only made a few, come back in 5 years.....while acme industries down the street is also making shit hot new widgets, but they ensure they continually have new ones.
The massive bucks are available if can get a show syndicated worldwide. In order to do that normally need to have a significant back catalogue. They did that with Top Gear and made a load of money. The problem is drama is now gone that way too.
And Blackadder! Does anyone ever re-watch season 1?? Then they got Ben Elton in and it turned into something brilliant
I would never claim Men Behaving Badly to be a classic, but it was well regarded at the time. But did you ever see series 1 with Harry Enfield instead if Neil Morrissey? Utter tosh.0 -
Can't think who it might be.FrancisUrquhart said:
Somebody has really got it in for RishiScott_xP said:Excl: Rishi Sunak’s millionaire wife ‘avoided tax through non-dom status’
The Treasury declined to comment. A spokesperson for Rishi Sunak did not respond to multiple requests for comment.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/rishi-sunak-akshata-murthy-non-dom-wife-tax-b2052251.html0 -
Sorry if it's already been posted:
https://twitter.com/BritainElects/status/1511725341978546185
Voting intention of voters living in rural counties:
CON: 38% (-8)
LAB: 36% (+7)
LDEM: 10% (-3)
GRN: 8% (+5)
via @Survation
, 07 - 14 Mar0 -
Sorry, I did not mean to sound condescending. It's just that the form of media does matter. For instance, would the Godfather films have been as good as a long-form series, with the plots and characters developed over five times the length? (*) Are he Reduced Shakespeare Company's output as good as the original, or are they good for a different market?Northern_Al said:
Thanks for explaining that to me, although I think I already knew it.JosiasJessop said:
They are different forms of media.Northern_Al said:
Yes. Some people on here probably think Orwell messed up by not writing Animal Farm 2.Anabobazina said:
The idea that six episodes is short format is preposterous. That’s six hours of TV drama.kle4 said:
I disagree. Sometimes a mini series is all you need - Chernobyl is a great example, one of the best tv shows I've seen in years. And even a 10-13 episode show might have plenty of padding (though is my preferred length).Anabobazina said:
Most series are drastically overlong and are flogged to within an inch of their lives. The Beeb’s six episode format - to use an absolutely horrible PB cliche - is a feature not a bug.FrancisUrquhart said:
My point is BBC still trying to do things the old way, 6 episode season, a mate of a mate who is a big name will do you a favour and star in it for cheap, then you get stupid situations where you have Tom Hardy make a season of Taboo, that does pretty well, and then it is 5 years before he can fit you in again for season 2.MaxPB said:
That takes money and the BBC is limited by the licence fee. There's not much else to it.FrancisUrquhart said:To prove my point....in production.
SLOW HORSES S02
https://www.productionweekly.com/production-weekly-issue-1290-thursday-march-17-2022-199-listings-45-pages/
None of this, Gary (Oldman) and Kristin (Scott Thomas), could you possibly give us a date when you fancy making some more of these, I know you might be busy, could you possibly fit us in perhaps 2024....
They have to decide, either not to go down that route in the first place and not use the star talent or modernise. When the big players decide to go with these projects they are going to ensure they get their 5 seasons in 5 years.
The BBC are setting light to money starting an IP and then leaving it years.
But that's a question of good or bad writing. If you could guarantee the BBC traditional 6 episode or whatever format resulted in a higher amount of quality per episode, you might have an argument, but that's not the case - plenty of 6 episode shows are still very bad, and they are short and often sporadic on top of that.
Sure, plenty of long format shows are no good either, but many are good, and there are benefits to being able to develop arcs over a multi year period, or just develop the characters more thoroughly over that number of episodes and time. Going on too long is an unfortunate potential risk, to be sure, but personally I'd say was worth it for the greater number and depth of content earlier on.
I think the cheerleading for short format stuff is a crutch, frankly. There's no reason longer stuff cannot be good, and plenty of short stuff which is bad, so it's not a feature at all.
The Godfather - rightly considered an absolute epic - was told in nine hours or so.
A film is designed to tell a story well in 90-120 minutes. A series has longer, allowing it to develop in a very different manner. A book can be a stand-alone drama, or a series.
The form of the media allows the story-telling to take on very different natures.
My serious point is that the length of any piece of media, be it film, TV or writing (of any sort) is, to me, secondary to its quality. Some long series are good; others are poor; and vice versa etc. War and Peace and Animal Farm are both pretty good, for example. With Fawlty Towers, the joke would have worn thin with more episodes I think.
(For Fawlty Towers, didn't Cleese deliberately limit the number of episodes?_
(*) I have never seen a Godfather films.0 -
I think this is this is Cumbria, Cornwall, North Yorkshire, Gwynedd and Norfolk.CatMan said:Sorry if it's already been posted:
https://twitter.com/BritainElects/status/1511725341978546185
Voting intention of voters living in rural counties:
CON: 38% (-8)
LAB: 36% (+7)
LDEM: 10% (-3)
GRN: 8% (+5)
via @Survation
, 07 - 14 Mar0 -
I noticed the fat balding bloke who is supposed to be in charge seems to have got a spring back in his step....when they hired lynton prodigy, it was presumed to stick it to Labour, not friendly fire.Theuniondivvie said:
Can't think who it might be.FrancisUrquhart said:
Somebody has really got it in for RishiScott_xP said:Excl: Rishi Sunak’s millionaire wife ‘avoided tax through non-dom status’
The Treasury declined to comment. A spokesperson for Rishi Sunak did not respond to multiple requests for comment.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/rishi-sunak-akshata-murthy-non-dom-wife-tax-b2052251.html0 -
Lyton Crosby's man is now working for #10 is he not?Leon said:
Boris has clearly patched it up with DomScott_xP said:Excl: Rishi Sunak’s millionaire wife ‘avoided tax through non-dom status’
The Treasury declined to comment. A spokesperson for Rishi Sunak did not respond to multiple requests for comment.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/rishi-sunak-akshata-murthy-non-dom-wife-tax-b2052251.html0 -
PB strikes again....Razedabode said:Everton are going down
0 -
Marine Le Pen is not that scary. She’s not her dad, nor is she her niece.MaxPB said:I'm worried that there are enough French people who haven't benefited from globalisation and are willing to gamble on Le Pen. We had it here with Brexit, which was ultimately just leaving a trade/political union, France electing Le Pen would be a real "hold my beer" moment from the French.
The haughtiness of Macron is also an issue, rather than accept globalisation has a lot of losers he's one of those global elites who likes to pretend that trade isn't essentially a zero sum game which puts up huge skill barriers for well paid jobs.
I'm hopeful that we won't end up with Le Pen, but I think contingency planning is necessary. I'm also worried that once she gets power removing her will be as difficult as removing Orban.
She’d be a traditional Gaullist with some left wing statist economic polices and quite a lot of prickly nationalism, but she wouldn’t start deporting people en masse
She would also want a second term so I don’t see her attacking the basic structure of the French state.
To me she is considerably less frightening than Trump - or Jeremy Corbyn0 -
Rapid back pedalling from some commentators starts…
https://twitter.com/telegraph/status/15117777381469470790 -
At least you resisted the temptation to say the biggest Mr Sin 😂turbotubbs said:
Now I don’t have an issue with the episode, but I no a lot of fans, probably younger than me, do. The racism portrayed was of its Victorian setting. The choice of a white British actor to portray Lee Sen Chang (forgive the spelling) is probably the biggest sin, although nowadays it seems we have colour blind casting.Taz said:
Talons of Weng Chiang is essentially a mix of Baker playing a Sherlock Holmes character and John Bennett playing Fu Manchu.turbotubbs said:
I’ll be honest, Jeremy Brett for a classic feel, and set in the original era (hat tip to Tom Baker as the Doctor as Sherlock Holmes in the Talons of Weng Chiang, present concerns about horrific racist portrayal and yellow face excepted), Sherlock is fun, but could never be a series machine in the American way, whereas Elementary has room to breath and allows you to get to love the cast. All have their place.Luckyguy1983 said:
Nothing beats Jeremy Brett's portrayal for me. I've never got into Sherlock though I can see it's merits.JosiasJessop said:
That's a really good point. From memory, in the books, Watson is very much his own man. A successful and respected doctor in his own right, who at times shares a flat with the protagonist, and at others is married (ooer missus!). In Sherlock, he is a broken man, and it is unclear why he hangs around Sherlock. I mean, why, given Cumberbatch's Holmes has no redeeming features?kle4 said:
Perhaps not, but ran for 7 years and it is better, not just that theres more of it. The first season in particular - did a far better job showing how a Holnes/Watson dynamic could realistically develop when one is such an arse.Gardenwalker said:
I’m not saying you’re wrong, in fact you’re right - but Sherlock was a big hit around the world.JosiasJessop said:I've recently been watching 'Elementary' on Prime; CBS's take on Sherlock Holmes, with Jonny Lee Miller as Sherlock and Lucy Liu as Watson.
When I compare it with the BBC's awful 'Sherlock', it shows where the BBC often goes wrong. Elementary takes the Sherlock Holmes idea and thoroughly modernises it. They made 154 episodes over nine years, allowing meaningful plot and character development.
The BBC's Sherlock is all about the *star*. The plotlines are ludicrous, and they made just 13 episodes in seven years, allowing little plot or character development.
Also: Jonny Lee Miller is a much better actor than Benedict Cumberbatch.
Elementary, not so much?
In Elementary, the characterisations make it much clearer: initially watson is paid to put up with him, and does so through a feeling of guilt for her own mistake. Later, Holmes tries to make up for his character defects, and becomes a much more interesting character (note: I am only on season 2).
You also have Louise Jameson as Eliza Doolittle.
I’d dispute the show is horrifically racist it has racial stereotypes based on the Fu Manchu stories, that period was full of rip offs/tributes to classic novels and sci fi. It’s an homage. Horrifically is a dramatic overstatement. It’s a subject fandom still debates to this day.
We may as well ban the Celestial Toymaker too.
Tom also played Holmes in Hound of the Baskervilles, pretty well, his first job on leaving Dr Who. Caroline John was also in it.
It is mainly younger fans who object. I was best man at my mates wedding in the US and spent a good chunk of the afternoon debating whether it was racist or not with someone there. Had they had someone like Burt Kwouk in the role rather than John Bennett the Fu Manchu bit would not have worked.
John Bennett’s character even says to the racist policeman at one stage ‘I believe we all look the same’. It’s Li H’sen Chang, BTW 👍
0 -
No one's mentioned "The Big Bang Theory." It shows the advantage of a group of writers, and the science is realistic.
I still remember 'The pancreas wants what the pancreas wants.' A classic, and allowed to be unwoke at times.0 -
Re the “c*cos in frocks” points, there are two issues here when it comes to voters, one is the direct issue itself and the second is what how the leader handles it says about the person.Leon said:Mexicanpete said:
If "c**ks in frocks" gets the traction and votes Johnson hopes it will in the face of economic Armageddon, we deserve no less than Johnson as sine die PM.Endillion said:
I just saw the Guardian News version, and the YT comments are an endless procession of people who clearly dislike Johnson in general, but are in agreement on this issue. It's actually hard to find anyone who disagrees with him. Labour are mincemeat unless they ditch Stonewall completely on this.MattW said:
This is an even longer version than the one I linked.MattW said:
Boris's comments are quite good and thoughtful.MaxPB said:
No, I've been told by PB experts that saying women have cocks won't hurt Labour.williamglenn said:It's striking how much support Boris Johnson is getting for his comments on trans issues from people who are not his natural supporters. This one is typical:
@annettepacey
Oh god oh no someone I loathe just made a really good point. Still could never bring myself to vote for the bastard but this is what happens when Labour turn their backs on women and leave an open goal #labourlosingwomen
https://twitter.com/annettepacey/status/1511691419647455237
The Trans Activist usual approach is to ram through their preferred measures before anyone gets any time to reflect properly upon the issue, and this is more considered.
Here is what BJ said. This is I think the full video of 1:39. Sky also seem to be putting out a truncated one at 1:04 length.
https://news.sky.com/story/pm-says-biological-males-should-not-compete-in-female-sport-and-venues-should-have-women-only-spaces-12583536
I haven't got my head around the latest kerfuffle.
Does, for example, the (Aiui) long-held Trans-Activist demand to be allowed to medicate without supervision children who are deemed by their parents to be trans count as Conversion Therapy? If so, the various organisations are demanding that this be banned.
ISTM very important that required time is taken.
https://twitter.com/skynews/status/1511669445877551104
Cocks in frocks might just work simply because no party has an answer to the impending economic tsunami. What is Labour’s solution? Nationalise everything? That worked well in Venezuela
Question is whether Labour can come up with a plausible list of lies that might persuade people they have some brilliant answer (when they don’t, because there isn’t one)
I don’t know if Starmer has it in him to be that mendacious. Johnson does
And if the economic argument is a stalemate because no one has a clue what to do, then the Tories might win because the war on Woke does have traction
So, for Starmer, I’d argue his problem could be more the second than the first. Yes, there are not a few women who like @Cyclefree who feel passionately about it but there are probably a good few people who feel as though the issue gets far more attention that it should and not a few on the right who think feminists are reaping what they sowed.
However, for many, not being able to answer what should be a simple question which most voters would say they can (“what is a woman?”) and displaying what seems to be cowardice / prevarication on the issue is going to be a turn off. Many will say “do I want someone as PM who struggles to handle such a question? How would he handle himself when it comes to the real serious stuff?”
1 -
No problem at all. All I can say in response is wow! Never seen the Godfather films? That's up there with me never having seen Star Wars, only much worse.JosiasJessop said:
Sorry, I did not mean to sound condescending. It's just that the form of media does matter. For instance, would the Godfather films have been as good as a long-form series, with the plots and characters developed over five times the length? (*) Are he Reduced Shakespeare Company's output as good as the original, or are they good for a different market?Northern_Al said:
Thanks for explaining that to me, although I think I already knew it.JosiasJessop said:
They are different forms of media.Northern_Al said:
Yes. Some people on here probably think Orwell messed up by not writing Animal Farm 2.Anabobazina said:
The idea that six episodes is short format is preposterous. That’s six hours of TV drama.kle4 said:
I disagree. Sometimes a mini series is all you need - Chernobyl is a great example, one of the best tv shows I've seen in years. And even a 10-13 episode show might have plenty of padding (though is my preferred length).Anabobazina said:
Most series are drastically overlong and are flogged to within an inch of their lives. The Beeb’s six episode format - to use an absolutely horrible PB cliche - is a feature not a bug.FrancisUrquhart said:
My point is BBC still trying to do things the old way, 6 episode season, a mate of a mate who is a big name will do you a favour and star in it for cheap, then you get stupid situations where you have Tom Hardy make a season of Taboo, that does pretty well, and then it is 5 years before he can fit you in again for season 2.MaxPB said:
That takes money and the BBC is limited by the licence fee. There's not much else to it.FrancisUrquhart said:To prove my point....in production.
SLOW HORSES S02
https://www.productionweekly.com/production-weekly-issue-1290-thursday-march-17-2022-199-listings-45-pages/
None of this, Gary (Oldman) and Kristin (Scott Thomas), could you possibly give us a date when you fancy making some more of these, I know you might be busy, could you possibly fit us in perhaps 2024....
They have to decide, either not to go down that route in the first place and not use the star talent or modernise. When the big players decide to go with these projects they are going to ensure they get their 5 seasons in 5 years.
The BBC are setting light to money starting an IP and then leaving it years.
But that's a question of good or bad writing. If you could guarantee the BBC traditional 6 episode or whatever format resulted in a higher amount of quality per episode, you might have an argument, but that's not the case - plenty of 6 episode shows are still very bad, and they are short and often sporadic on top of that.
Sure, plenty of long format shows are no good either, but many are good, and there are benefits to being able to develop arcs over a multi year period, or just develop the characters more thoroughly over that number of episodes and time. Going on too long is an unfortunate potential risk, to be sure, but personally I'd say was worth it for the greater number and depth of content earlier on.
I think the cheerleading for short format stuff is a crutch, frankly. There's no reason longer stuff cannot be good, and plenty of short stuff which is bad, so it's not a feature at all.
The Godfather - rightly considered an absolute epic - was told in nine hours or so.
A film is designed to tell a story well in 90-120 minutes. A series has longer, allowing it to develop in a very different manner. A book can be a stand-alone drama, or a series.
The form of the media allows the story-telling to take on very different natures.
My serious point is that the length of any piece of media, be it film, TV or writing (of any sort) is, to me, secondary to its quality. Some long series are good; others are poor; and vice versa etc. War and Peace and Animal Farm are both pretty good, for example. With Fawlty Towers, the joke would have worn thin with more episodes I think.
(For Fawlty Towers, didn't Cleese deliberately limit the number of episodes?_
(*) I have never seen a Godfather films.0 -
I worked through the entire Big Bang Theory on Netflix during lockdown (150 or so 20-minute episodes) - perfect for lunchbreaks worknig from home. IMO it got better and better till midway, and then gently changed direction, becoming gradually more romantic and less silly. I liked it in its later incarnation too, and it managed to produce a plot conclusion after years of going nowhere in particular. Friends who are more serious nerds than I am felt it went downhill once the characters all acquired girlfriends.Leon said:
Parks and Rec, one of my all time favourite comedies. Rather mediocre series 1, but sort of watchable. Then soared away in season 2 and on it wentCookie said:
The Simpsons, too, didn't really get going until series 4.ydoethur said:
Dad's Army didn't really hit its stride until about season 4. Similarly all the Star Trek series start to get really good from about season 3.5 onwards. (Well, apart from Enterprise.)Anabobazina said:
Most series are better off with sticking to just one season. There are exceptions, but in general the greats of TV just decline after season one.FrancisUrquhart said:
Its not just the 6 episode format, it is the ridiculous gap between seasons.Anabobazina said:
Most series are drastically overlong and are flogged to within an inch of their lives. The Beeb’s six episode format - to use an absolutely horrible PB cliche - is a feature not a bug.FrancisUrquhart said:
My point is BBC still trying to do things the old way, 6 episode season, a mate of a mate who is a big name will do you a favour and star in it for cheap, then you get stupid situations where you have Tom Hardy make a season of Taboo, that does pretty well, and then it is 5 years before he can fit you in again for season 2.MaxPB said:
That takes money and the BBC is limited by the licence fee. There's not much else to it.FrancisUrquhart said:To prove my point....in production.
SLOW HORSES S02
https://www.productionweekly.com/production-weekly-issue-1290-thursday-march-17-2022-199-listings-45-pages/
None of this, Gary (Oldman) and Kristin (Scott Thomas), could you possibly give us a date when you fancy making some more of these, I know you might be busy, could you possibly fit us in perhaps 2024....
They have to decide, either not to go down that route in the first place and not use the star talent or modernise. When the big players decide to go with these projects they are going to ensure they get their 5 seasons in 5 years.
The BBC are setting light to money starting an IP and then leaving it years.
Can you imagine if you had the most shit hot new widget and then said yeah well we only made a few, come back in 5 years.....while acme industries down the street is also making shit hot new widgets, but they ensure they continually have new ones.
The massive bucks are available if can get a show syndicated worldwide. In order to do that normally need to have a significant back catalogue. They did that with Top Gear and made a load of money. The problem is drama is now gone that way too.
And Blackadder! Does anyone ever re-watch season 1?? Then they got Ben Elton in and it turned into something brilliant1 -
"Europe Elects
@EuropeElects
France, Ifop-Fiducial poll:
Macron (EC-RE): 52.5% (-0.5)
Le Pen (RN-ID): 47.5% (+0.5)
Macron (EC-RE): 59% (-0.5)
Mélenchon (LFI-LEFT): 41% (+0.5)
...
+/- vs. 1-5 April 2022
Fieldwork: 2-6 April 2022
Sample size: 3,010"1 -
The film exists too...Taz said:
He was, only 6 complete episodes exist. Douglas Wilmer is very good as well.Luckyguy1983 said:
No. I can imagine Peter Cushing being excellent.Taz said:
Yes, the stories do have some good moments but for me it feels like it has run out of steam. The stories just lack the energy and interest of the first stories in the run.Luckyguy1983 said:
I can't entirely agree. Even in the later episodes like the dying detective Brett has amazing scenes.Taz said:
Jeremy Brett as Holmes was excellent but the latter stories and the 3 long episodes that comes after Baskervilles and Sign of Four were awful. Partly due to Brett’s poor health, Holmes was replace by his brother in one story.JosiasJessop said:
We do not often agree, but on this I fully agree.Luckyguy1983 said:
Nothing beats Jeremy Brett's portrayal for me. I've never got into Sherlock though I can see it's merits.JosiasJessop said:
That's a really good point. From memory, in the books, Watson is very much his own man. A successful and respected doctor in his own right, who at times shares a flat with the protagonist, and at others is married (ooer missus!). In Sherlock, he is a broken man, and it is unclear why he hangs around Sherlock. I mean, why, given Cumberbatch's Holmes has no redeeming features?kle4 said:
Perhaps not, but ran for 7 years and it is better, not just that theres more of it. The first season in particular - did a far better job showing how a Holnes/Watson dynamic could realistically develop when one is such an arse.Gardenwalker said:
I’m not saying you’re wrong, in fact you’re right - but Sherlock was a big hit around the world.JosiasJessop said:I've recently been watching 'Elementary' on Prime; CBS's take on Sherlock Holmes, with Jonny Lee Miller as Sherlock and Lucy Liu as Watson.
When I compare it with the BBC's awful 'Sherlock', it shows where the BBC often goes wrong. Elementary takes the Sherlock Holmes idea and thoroughly modernises it. They made 154 episodes over nine years, allowing meaningful plot and character development.
The BBC's Sherlock is all about the *star*. The plotlines are ludicrous, and they made just 13 episodes in seven years, allowing little plot or character development.
Also: Jonny Lee Miller is a much better actor than Benedict Cumberbatch.
Elementary, not so much?
In Elementary, the characterisations make it much clearer: initially watson is paid to put up with him, and does so through a feeling of guilt for her own mistake. Later, Holmes tries to make up for his character defects, and becomes a much more interesting character (note: I am only on season 2).
However, I can recommend at least the first two seasons of 'Elementary'. A thoroughly modern Sherlock, without (mostly) the horse dung.
Holmes ended on a whimper unlike Poirot.
Have you seen any of the Douglas Wilmer or Peter Cushing ones.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hound_of_the_Baskervilles_(1959_film)1 -
Yes, season 1 is excellent. The Frank Finlay episode especially.Leon said:
Parks and Rec, one of my all time favourite comedies. Rather mediocre series 1, but sort of watchable. Then soared away in season 2 and on it wentCookie said:
The Simpsons, too, didn't really get going until series 4.ydoethur said:
Dad's Army didn't really hit its stride until about season 4. Similarly all the Star Trek series start to get really good from about season 3.5 onwards. (Well, apart from Enterprise.)Anabobazina said:
Most series are better off with sticking to just one season. There are exceptions, but in general the greats of TV just decline after season one.FrancisUrquhart said:
Its not just the 6 episode format, it is the ridiculous gap between seasons.Anabobazina said:
Most series are drastically overlong and are flogged to within an inch of their lives. The Beeb’s six episode format - to use an absolutely horrible PB cliche - is a feature not a bug.FrancisUrquhart said:
My point is BBC still trying to do things the old way, 6 episode season, a mate of a mate who is a big name will do you a favour and star in it for cheap, then you get stupid situations where you have Tom Hardy make a season of Taboo, that does pretty well, and then it is 5 years before he can fit you in again for season 2.MaxPB said:
That takes money and the BBC is limited by the licence fee. There's not much else to it.FrancisUrquhart said:To prove my point....in production.
SLOW HORSES S02
https://www.productionweekly.com/production-weekly-issue-1290-thursday-march-17-2022-199-listings-45-pages/
None of this, Gary (Oldman) and Kristin (Scott Thomas), could you possibly give us a date when you fancy making some more of these, I know you might be busy, could you possibly fit us in perhaps 2024....
They have to decide, either not to go down that route in the first place and not use the star talent or modernise. When the big players decide to go with these projects they are going to ensure they get their 5 seasons in 5 years.
The BBC are setting light to money starting an IP and then leaving it years.
Can you imagine if you had the most shit hot new widget and then said yeah well we only made a few, come back in 5 years.....while acme industries down the street is also making shit hot new widgets, but they ensure they continually have new ones.
The massive bucks are available if can get a show syndicated worldwide. In order to do that normally need to have a significant back catalogue. They did that with Top Gear and made a load of money. The problem is drama is now gone that way too.
And Blackadder! Does anyone ever re-watch season 1?? Then they got Ben Elton in and it turned into something brilliant
Totally different show in season 2. Had to beg to get it made and budget was slashed. Hence the lack of outdoor shooting and a few set.
Rik Mayall only had one take for his flashheart scene in ep 1. You can see his moustache falling off at the end of it.1 -
I have very fond memories of Men Behaving Badly (I never even watched series 1 coz everyone said it was awful)Cookie said:
Oh, yes, Blackwater 1 was utter dross.Leon said:
Parks and Rec, one of my all time favourite comedies. Rather mediocre series 1, but sort of watchable. Then soared away in season 2 and on it wentCookie said:
The Simpsons, too, didn't really get going until series 4.ydoethur said:
Dad's Army didn't really hit its stride until about season 4. Similarly all the Star Trek series start to get really good from about season 3.5 onwards. (Well, apart from Enterprise.)Anabobazina said:
Most series are better off with sticking to just one season. There are exceptions, but in general the greats of TV just decline after season one.FrancisUrquhart said:
Its not just the 6 episode format, it is the ridiculous gap between seasons.Anabobazina said:
Most series are drastically overlong and are flogged to within an inch of their lives. The Beeb’s six episode format - to use an absolutely horrible PB cliche - is a feature not a bug.FrancisUrquhart said:
My point is BBC still trying to do things the old way, 6 episode season, a mate of a mate who is a big name will do you a favour and star in it for cheap, then you get stupid situations where you have Tom Hardy make a season of Taboo, that does pretty well, and then it is 5 years before he can fit you in again for season 2.MaxPB said:
That takes money and the BBC is limited by the licence fee. There's not much else to it.FrancisUrquhart said:To prove my point....in production.
SLOW HORSES S02
https://www.productionweekly.com/production-weekly-issue-1290-thursday-march-17-2022-199-listings-45-pages/
None of this, Gary (Oldman) and Kristin (Scott Thomas), could you possibly give us a date when you fancy making some more of these, I know you might be busy, could you possibly fit us in perhaps 2024....
They have to decide, either not to go down that route in the first place and not use the star talent or modernise. When the big players decide to go with these projects they are going to ensure they get their 5 seasons in 5 years.
The BBC are setting light to money starting an IP and then leaving it years.
Can you imagine if you had the most shit hot new widget and then said yeah well we only made a few, come back in 5 years.....while acme industries down the street is also making shit hot new widgets, but they ensure they continually have new ones.
The massive bucks are available if can get a show syndicated worldwide. In order to do that normally need to have a significant back catalogue. They did that with Top Gear and made a load of money. The problem is drama is now gone that way too.
And Blackadder! Does anyone ever re-watch season 1?? Then they got Ben Elton in and it turned into something brilliant
I would never claim Men Behaving Badly to be a classic, but it was well regarded at the time. But did you ever see series 1 with Harry Enfield instead if Neil Morrissey? Utter tosh.
I’m guessing it has dated rather badly, but then that’s true of 99.7% of comedies.
Why does comedy go so very stale so very quickly?1 -
That’s the puppy. Been a long day. And I did indeed think of mr sin...Taz said:
At least you resisted the temptation to say the biggest Mr Sin 😂turbotubbs said:
Now I don’t have an issue with the episode, but I no a lot of fans, probably younger than me, do. The racism portrayed was of its Victorian setting. The choice of a white British actor to portray Lee Sen Chang (forgive the spelling) is probably the biggest sin, although nowadays it seems we have colour blind casting.Taz said:
Talons of Weng Chiang is essentially a mix of Baker playing a Sherlock Holmes character and John Bennett playing Fu Manchu.turbotubbs said:
I’ll be honest, Jeremy Brett for a classic feel, and set in the original era (hat tip to Tom Baker as the Doctor as Sherlock Holmes in the Talons of Weng Chiang, present concerns about horrific racist portrayal and yellow face excepted), Sherlock is fun, but could never be a series machine in the American way, whereas Elementary has room to breath and allows you to get to love the cast. All have their place.Luckyguy1983 said:
Nothing beats Jeremy Brett's portrayal for me. I've never got into Sherlock though I can see it's merits.JosiasJessop said:
That's a really good point. From memory, in the books, Watson is very much his own man. A successful and respected doctor in his own right, who at times shares a flat with the protagonist, and at others is married (ooer missus!). In Sherlock, he is a broken man, and it is unclear why he hangs around Sherlock. I mean, why, given Cumberbatch's Holmes has no redeeming features?kle4 said:
Perhaps not, but ran for 7 years and it is better, not just that theres more of it. The first season in particular - did a far better job showing how a Holnes/Watson dynamic could realistically develop when one is such an arse.Gardenwalker said:
I’m not saying you’re wrong, in fact you’re right - but Sherlock was a big hit around the world.JosiasJessop said:I've recently been watching 'Elementary' on Prime; CBS's take on Sherlock Holmes, with Jonny Lee Miller as Sherlock and Lucy Liu as Watson.
When I compare it with the BBC's awful 'Sherlock', it shows where the BBC often goes wrong. Elementary takes the Sherlock Holmes idea and thoroughly modernises it. They made 154 episodes over nine years, allowing meaningful plot and character development.
The BBC's Sherlock is all about the *star*. The plotlines are ludicrous, and they made just 13 episodes in seven years, allowing little plot or character development.
Also: Jonny Lee Miller is a much better actor than Benedict Cumberbatch.
Elementary, not so much?
In Elementary, the characterisations make it much clearer: initially watson is paid to put up with him, and does so through a feeling of guilt for her own mistake. Later, Holmes tries to make up for his character defects, and becomes a much more interesting character (note: I am only on season 2).
You also have Louise Jameson as Eliza Doolittle.
I’d dispute the show is horrifically racist it has racial stereotypes based on the Fu Manchu stories, that period was full of rip offs/tributes to classic novels and sci fi. It’s an homage. Horrifically is a dramatic overstatement. It’s a subject fandom still debates to this day.
We may as well ban the Celestial Toymaker too.
Tom also played Holmes in Hound of the Baskervilles, pretty well, his first job on leaving Dr Who. Caroline John was also in it.
It is mainly younger fans who object. I was best man at my mates wedding in the US and spent a good chunk of the afternoon debating whether it was racist or not with someone there. Had they had someone like Burt Kwouk in the role rather than John Bennett the Fu Manchu bit would not have worked.
John Bennett’s character even says to the racist policeman at one stage ‘I believe we all look the same’. It’s Li H’sen Chang, BTW 👍
It’s probably one of my all time faves, along with other Baker stories such as tha ark in space, pyramids of mars and the robots of death. Glorious. One wonders how they would look with today’s money and effects.0 -
What is a woman? Stick to biology, that tends to be true. Psychology or sociology can be problematic.1
-
I would suggest the incumbent takes the hit for economic chaos (although that might have calmed down by election day in January 2025) irrespective of what the opposition has to offer (unless what they offer is Corbynista madness).Leon said:Mexicanpete said:
If "c**ks in frocks" gets the traction and votes Johnson hopes it will in the face of economic Armageddon, we deserve no less than Johnson as sine die PM.Endillion said:
I just saw the Guardian News version, and the YT comments are an endless procession of people who clearly dislike Johnson in general, but are in agreement on this issue. It's actually hard to find anyone who disagrees with him. Labour are mincemeat unless they ditch Stonewall completely on this.MattW said:
This is an even longer version than the one I linked.MattW said:
Boris's comments are quite good and thoughtful.MaxPB said:
No, I've been told by PB experts that saying women have cocks won't hurt Labour.williamglenn said:It's striking how much support Boris Johnson is getting for his comments on trans issues from people who are not his natural supporters. This one is typical:
@annettepacey
Oh god oh no someone I loathe just made a really good point. Still could never bring myself to vote for the bastard but this is what happens when Labour turn their backs on women and leave an open goal #labourlosingwomen
https://twitter.com/annettepacey/status/1511691419647455237
The Trans Activist usual approach is to ram through their preferred measures before anyone gets any time to reflect properly upon the issue, and this is more considered.
Here is what BJ said. This is I think the full video of 1:39. Sky also seem to be putting out a truncated one at 1:04 length.
https://news.sky.com/story/pm-says-biological-males-should-not-compete-in-female-sport-and-venues-should-have-women-only-spaces-12583536
I haven't got my head around the latest kerfuffle.
Does, for example, the (Aiui) long-held Trans-Activist demand to be allowed to medicate without supervision children who are deemed by their parents to be trans count as Conversion Therapy? If so, the various organisations are demanding that this be banned.
ISTM very important that required time is taken.
https://twitter.com/skynews/status/1511669445877551104
Cocks in frocks might just work simply because no party has an answer to the impending economic tsunami. What is Labour’s solution? Nationalise everything? That worked well in Venezuela
Question is whether Labour can come up with a plausible list of lies that might persuade people they have some brilliant answer (when they don’t, because there isn’t one)
I don’t know if Starmer has it in him to be that mendacious. Johnson does
And if the economic argument is a stalemate because no one has a clue what to do, then the Tories might win because the war on Woke does have traction
I don't doubt your assertion that Johnson's war on woke could gain pre-election traction, nonetheless it seems an absurd construct to me. It would appear from anecdota that women are fearful of being attacked in public conveniences by an aforementioned "c**k in a frock", yet I suspect more women have been assaulted by serving police officers than they have by transgender males over the last twelve months.
It may be a hill Starmer and the Labour Party are content to die on. It makes no odds to me. I'd just like to see the back of this dreadful Prime Minister.1 -
This definitely isn't correct for all rural counties. The Tories would be much further ahead. Maybe it's just for those areas voting in the local elections in May, when most shire counties aren't going to the polls.CatMan said:Sorry if it's already been posted:
https://twitter.com/BritainElects/status/1511725341978546185
Voting intention of voters living in rural counties:
CON: 38% (-8)
LAB: 36% (+7)
LDEM: 10% (-3)
GRN: 8% (+5)
via @Survation
, 07 - 14 Mar0 -
Fascinating. Not heard of this before. It seems to be really well regarded. If this is out on dvd I will get a copy.ydoethur said:
The film exists too...Taz said:
He was, only 6 complete episodes exist. Douglas Wilmer is very good as well.Luckyguy1983 said:
No. I can imagine Peter Cushing being excellent.Taz said:
Yes, the stories do have some good moments but for me it feels like it has run out of steam. The stories just lack the energy and interest of the first stories in the run.Luckyguy1983 said:
I can't entirely agree. Even in the later episodes like the dying detective Brett has amazing scenes.Taz said:
Jeremy Brett as Holmes was excellent but the latter stories and the 3 long episodes that comes after Baskervilles and Sign of Four were awful. Partly due to Brett’s poor health, Holmes was replace by his brother in one story.JosiasJessop said:
We do not often agree, but on this I fully agree.Luckyguy1983 said:
Nothing beats Jeremy Brett's portrayal for me. I've never got into Sherlock though I can see it's merits.JosiasJessop said:
That's a really good point. From memory, in the books, Watson is very much his own man. A successful and respected doctor in his own right, who at times shares a flat with the protagonist, and at others is married (ooer missus!). In Sherlock, he is a broken man, and it is unclear why he hangs around Sherlock. I mean, why, given Cumberbatch's Holmes has no redeeming features?kle4 said:
Perhaps not, but ran for 7 years and it is better, not just that theres more of it. The first season in particular - did a far better job showing how a Holnes/Watson dynamic could realistically develop when one is such an arse.Gardenwalker said:
I’m not saying you’re wrong, in fact you’re right - but Sherlock was a big hit around the world.JosiasJessop said:I've recently been watching 'Elementary' on Prime; CBS's take on Sherlock Holmes, with Jonny Lee Miller as Sherlock and Lucy Liu as Watson.
When I compare it with the BBC's awful 'Sherlock', it shows where the BBC often goes wrong. Elementary takes the Sherlock Holmes idea and thoroughly modernises it. They made 154 episodes over nine years, allowing meaningful plot and character development.
The BBC's Sherlock is all about the *star*. The plotlines are ludicrous, and they made just 13 episodes in seven years, allowing little plot or character development.
Also: Jonny Lee Miller is a much better actor than Benedict Cumberbatch.
Elementary, not so much?
In Elementary, the characterisations make it much clearer: initially watson is paid to put up with him, and does so through a feeling of guilt for her own mistake. Later, Holmes tries to make up for his character defects, and becomes a much more interesting character (note: I am only on season 2).
However, I can recommend at least the first two seasons of 'Elementary'. A thoroughly modern Sherlock, without (mostly) the horse dung.
Holmes ended on a whimper unlike Poirot.
Have you seen any of the Douglas Wilmer or Peter Cushing ones.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hound_of_the_Baskervilles_(1959_film)0 -
On the first point, I think you might be fighting the last war. Labour under Starmer don't seem that keen to nationalise everything. He even said he wouldn't nationalise rail, which is generally popular.Leon said:Mexicanpete said:
If "c**ks in frocks" gets the traction and votes Johnson hopes it will in the face of economic Armageddon, we deserve no less than Johnson as sine die PM.Endillion said:
I just saw the Guardian News version, and the YT comments are an endless procession of people who clearly dislike Johnson in general, but are in agreement on this issue. It's actually hard to find anyone who disagrees with him. Labour are mincemeat unless they ditch Stonewall completely on this.MattW said:
This is an even longer version than the one I linked.MattW said:
Boris's comments are quite good and thoughtful.MaxPB said:
No, I've been told by PB experts that saying women have cocks won't hurt Labour.williamglenn said:It's striking how much support Boris Johnson is getting for his comments on trans issues from people who are not his natural supporters. This one is typical:
@annettepacey
Oh god oh no someone I loathe just made a really good point. Still could never bring myself to vote for the bastard but this is what happens when Labour turn their backs on women and leave an open goal #labourlosingwomen
https://twitter.com/annettepacey/status/1511691419647455237
The Trans Activist usual approach is to ram through their preferred measures before anyone gets any time to reflect properly upon the issue, and this is more considered.
Here is what BJ said. This is I think the full video of 1:39. Sky also seem to be putting out a truncated one at 1:04 length.
https://news.sky.com/story/pm-says-biological-males-should-not-compete-in-female-sport-and-venues-should-have-women-only-spaces-12583536
I haven't got my head around the latest kerfuffle.
Does, for example, the (Aiui) long-held Trans-Activist demand to be allowed to medicate without supervision children who are deemed by their parents to be trans count as Conversion Therapy? If so, the various organisations are demanding that this be banned.
ISTM very important that required time is taken.
https://twitter.com/skynews/status/1511669445877551104
Cocks in frocks might just work simply because no party has an answer to the impending economic tsunami. What is Labour’s solution? Nationalise everything? That worked well in Venezuela
Question is whether Labour can come up with a plausible list of lies that might persuade people they have some brilliant answer (when they don’t, because there isn’t one)
I don’t know if Starmer has it in him to be that mendacious. Johnson does
And if the economic argument is a stalemate because no one has a clue what to do, then the Tories might win because the war on Woke does have traction
Were I to put on my clown make-up and wig of naivety I would even suggest that Starmer might not even need to lie. The current Government appear to be using the motto 'To Seem, not to be', though they're not doing that well on the seeming. With an optimistic bent, most of our problems aren't even unprecedented, and so surely there's a way through beyond telling the best lies. C'mon Leon, where's the optimism and bombast?1 -
Because a lot of it plays on an exaggerated version of real life, but life changes and so those references become out datedLeon said:
I have very fond memories of Men Behaving Badly (I never even watched series 1 coz everyone said it was awful)Cookie said:
Oh, yes, Blackwater 1 was utter dross.Leon said:
Parks and Rec, one of my all time favourite comedies. Rather mediocre series 1, but sort of watchable. Then soared away in season 2 and on it wentCookie said:
The Simpsons, too, didn't really get going until series 4.ydoethur said:
Dad's Army didn't really hit its stride until about season 4. Similarly all the Star Trek series start to get really good from about season 3.5 onwards. (Well, apart from Enterprise.)Anabobazina said:
Most series are better off with sticking to just one season. There are exceptions, but in general the greats of TV just decline after season one.FrancisUrquhart said:
Its not just the 6 episode format, it is the ridiculous gap between seasons.Anabobazina said:
Most series are drastically overlong and are flogged to within an inch of their lives. The Beeb’s six episode format - to use an absolutely horrible PB cliche - is a feature not a bug.FrancisUrquhart said:
My point is BBC still trying to do things the old way, 6 episode season, a mate of a mate who is a big name will do you a favour and star in it for cheap, then you get stupid situations where you have Tom Hardy make a season of Taboo, that does pretty well, and then it is 5 years before he can fit you in again for season 2.MaxPB said:
That takes money and the BBC is limited by the licence fee. There's not much else to it.FrancisUrquhart said:To prove my point....in production.
SLOW HORSES S02
https://www.productionweekly.com/production-weekly-issue-1290-thursday-march-17-2022-199-listings-45-pages/
None of this, Gary (Oldman) and Kristin (Scott Thomas), could you possibly give us a date when you fancy making some more of these, I know you might be busy, could you possibly fit us in perhaps 2024....
They have to decide, either not to go down that route in the first place and not use the star talent or modernise. When the big players decide to go with these projects they are going to ensure they get their 5 seasons in 5 years.
The BBC are setting light to money starting an IP and then leaving it years.
Can you imagine if you had the most shit hot new widget and then said yeah well we only made a few, come back in 5 years.....while acme industries down the street is also making shit hot new widgets, but they ensure they continually have new ones.
The massive bucks are available if can get a show syndicated worldwide. In order to do that normally need to have a significant back catalogue. They did that with Top Gear and made a load of money. The problem is drama is now gone that way too.
And Blackadder! Does anyone ever re-watch season 1?? Then they got Ben Elton in and it turned into something brilliant
I would never claim Men Behaving Badly to be a classic, but it was well regarded at the time. But did you ever see series 1 with Harry Enfield instead if Neil Morrissey? Utter tosh.
I’m guessing it has dated rather badly, but then that’s true of 99.7% of comedies.
Why does comedy go so very stale so very quickly?1 -
Thought this was the Tory poll lead!Andy_JS said:
This definitely isn't correct for all rural counties. The Tories would be much further ahead. Maybe it's just for those areas voting in the local elections in May, when most shire counties aren't going to the polls.CatMan said:Sorry if it's already been posted:
https://twitter.com/BritainElects/status/1511725341978546185
Voting intention of voters living in rural counties:
CON: 38% (-8)
LAB: 36% (+7)
LDEM: 10% (-3)
GRN: 8% (+5)
via @Survation
, 07 - 14 Mar
Labour is not just piling up votes in London. The coalition is efficient and spread.1 -
@CorrectHorseBattery hi mate, is this the one you linked to this week ? If so that is correct isn’t it ?Gary_Burton said:
I think this is this is Cumbria, Cornwall, North Yorkshire, Gwynedd and Norfolk.CatMan said:Sorry if it's already been posted:
https://twitter.com/BritainElects/status/1511725341978546185
Voting intention of voters living in rural counties:
CON: 38% (-8)
LAB: 36% (+7)
LDEM: 10% (-3)
GRN: 8% (+5)
via @Survation
, 07 - 14 Mar0 -
I think the best stuff holds up. Faulty Towers. One foot in the grave. Father Ted, the IT crowd.FrancisUrquhart said:
Because a lot of it plays on an exaggerated version of real life, but life changes and so those references become out datedLeon said:
I have very fond memories of Men Behaving Badly (I never even watched series 1 coz everyone said it was awful)Cookie said:
Oh, yes, Blackwater 1 was utter dross.Leon said:
Parks and Rec, one of my all time favourite comedies. Rather mediocre series 1, but sort of watchable. Then soared away in season 2 and on it wentCookie said:
The Simpsons, too, didn't really get going until series 4.ydoethur said:
Dad's Army didn't really hit its stride until about season 4. Similarly all the Star Trek series start to get really good from about season 3.5 onwards. (Well, apart from Enterprise.)Anabobazina said:
Most series are better off with sticking to just one season. There are exceptions, but in general the greats of TV just decline after season one.FrancisUrquhart said:
Its not just the 6 episode format, it is the ridiculous gap between seasons.Anabobazina said:
Most series are drastically overlong and are flogged to within an inch of their lives. The Beeb’s six episode format - to use an absolutely horrible PB cliche - is a feature not a bug.FrancisUrquhart said:
My point is BBC still trying to do things the old way, 6 episode season, a mate of a mate who is a big name will do you a favour and star in it for cheap, then you get stupid situations where you have Tom Hardy make a season of Taboo, that does pretty well, and then it is 5 years before he can fit you in again for season 2.MaxPB said:
That takes money and the BBC is limited by the licence fee. There's not much else to it.FrancisUrquhart said:To prove my point....in production.
SLOW HORSES S02
https://www.productionweekly.com/production-weekly-issue-1290-thursday-march-17-2022-199-listings-45-pages/
None of this, Gary (Oldman) and Kristin (Scott Thomas), could you possibly give us a date when you fancy making some more of these, I know you might be busy, could you possibly fit us in perhaps 2024....
They have to decide, either not to go down that route in the first place and not use the star talent or modernise. When the big players decide to go with these projects they are going to ensure they get their 5 seasons in 5 years.
The BBC are setting light to money starting an IP and then leaving it years.
Can you imagine if you had the most shit hot new widget and then said yeah well we only made a few, come back in 5 years.....while acme industries down the street is also making shit hot new widgets, but they ensure they continually have new ones.
The massive bucks are available if can get a show syndicated worldwide. In order to do that normally need to have a significant back catalogue. They did that with Top Gear and made a load of money. The problem is drama is now gone that way too.
And Blackadder! Does anyone ever re-watch season 1?? Then they got Ben Elton in and it turned into something brilliant
I would never claim Men Behaving Badly to be a classic, but it was well regarded at the time. But did you ever see series 1 with Harry Enfield instead if Neil Morrissey? Utter tosh.
I’m guessing it has dated rather badly, but then that’s true of 99.7% of comedies.
Why does comedy go so very stale so very quickly?0 -
I think that's right yupTaz said:
@CorrectHorseBattery hi mate, is this the one you linked to this week ? If so that is correct isn’t it ?Gary_Burton said:
I think this is this is Cumbria, Cornwall, North Yorkshire, Gwynedd and Norfolk.CatMan said:Sorry if it's already been posted:
https://twitter.com/BritainElects/status/1511725341978546185
Voting intention of voters living in rural counties:
CON: 38% (-8)
LAB: 36% (+7)
LDEM: 10% (-3)
GRN: 8% (+5)
via @Survation
, 07 - 14 Mar0 -
Saw the first Star Wars movie. Was bored by it. Great cast. Give me season 1 of Space 1999 any day.Northern_Al said:
No problem at all. All I can say in response is wow! Never seen the Godfather films? That's up there with me never having seen Star Wars, only much worse.JosiasJessop said:
Sorry, I did not mean to sound condescending. It's just that the form of media does matter. For instance, would the Godfather films have been as good as a long-form series, with the plots and characters developed over five times the length? (*) Are he Reduced Shakespeare Company's output as good as the original, or are they good for a different market?Northern_Al said:
Thanks for explaining that to me, although I think I already knew it.JosiasJessop said:
They are different forms of media.Northern_Al said:
Yes. Some people on here probably think Orwell messed up by not writing Animal Farm 2.Anabobazina said:
The idea that six episodes is short format is preposterous. That’s six hours of TV drama.kle4 said:
I disagree. Sometimes a mini series is all you need - Chernobyl is a great example, one of the best tv shows I've seen in years. And even a 10-13 episode show might have plenty of padding (though is my preferred length).Anabobazina said:
Most series are drastically overlong and are flogged to within an inch of their lives. The Beeb’s six episode format - to use an absolutely horrible PB cliche - is a feature not a bug.FrancisUrquhart said:
My point is BBC still trying to do things the old way, 6 episode season, a mate of a mate who is a big name will do you a favour and star in it for cheap, then you get stupid situations where you have Tom Hardy make a season of Taboo, that does pretty well, and then it is 5 years before he can fit you in again for season 2.MaxPB said:
That takes money and the BBC is limited by the licence fee. There's not much else to it.FrancisUrquhart said:To prove my point....in production.
SLOW HORSES S02
https://www.productionweekly.com/production-weekly-issue-1290-thursday-march-17-2022-199-listings-45-pages/
None of this, Gary (Oldman) and Kristin (Scott Thomas), could you possibly give us a date when you fancy making some more of these, I know you might be busy, could you possibly fit us in perhaps 2024....
They have to decide, either not to go down that route in the first place and not use the star talent or modernise. When the big players decide to go with these projects they are going to ensure they get their 5 seasons in 5 years.
The BBC are setting light to money starting an IP and then leaving it years.
But that's a question of good or bad writing. If you could guarantee the BBC traditional 6 episode or whatever format resulted in a higher amount of quality per episode, you might have an argument, but that's not the case - plenty of 6 episode shows are still very bad, and they are short and often sporadic on top of that.
Sure, plenty of long format shows are no good either, but many are good, and there are benefits to being able to develop arcs over a multi year period, or just develop the characters more thoroughly over that number of episodes and time. Going on too long is an unfortunate potential risk, to be sure, but personally I'd say was worth it for the greater number and depth of content earlier on.
I think the cheerleading for short format stuff is a crutch, frankly. There's no reason longer stuff cannot be good, and plenty of short stuff which is bad, so it's not a feature at all.
The Godfather - rightly considered an absolute epic - was told in nine hours or so.
A film is designed to tell a story well in 90-120 minutes. A series has longer, allowing it to develop in a very different manner. A book can be a stand-alone drama, or a series.
The form of the media allows the story-telling to take on very different natures.
My serious point is that the length of any piece of media, be it film, TV or writing (of any sort) is, to me, secondary to its quality. Some long series are good; others are poor; and vice versa etc. War and Peace and Animal Farm are both pretty good, for example. With Fawlty Towers, the joke would have worn thin with more episodes I think.
(For Fawlty Towers, didn't Cleese deliberately limit the number of episodes?_
(*) I have never seen a Godfather films.
The first 2 godfather films are magnificent. Peerless. Two of the best films I’ve ever seen.0 -
It said it's just Cornwall, Cumbria, Norfolk North Yorkshire and Gwynedd apparently. I'm not sure if North Yorkshire includes York or not.Andy_JS said:
This definitely isn't correct for all rural counties. The Tories would be much further ahead. Maybe it's just for those areas voting in the local elections in May, when most shire counties aren't going to the polls.CatMan said:Sorry if it's already been posted:
https://twitter.com/BritainElects/status/1511725341978546185
Voting intention of voters living in rural counties:
CON: 38% (-8)
LAB: 36% (+7)
LDEM: 10% (-3)
GRN: 8% (+5)
via @Survation
, 07 - 14 Mar
I think the new Cumberland authority should be interesting this year (Copeland, Carlisle and Allerdale) as in theory Labour should be able to win it in a good year.0 -
I tried Big Bang Theory (I had a girlfriend that loved it and wanted to share) so I tried, but the first few were so bad and laboured and unfunny - to me - I abandoned it. Perhaps I should have persistedNickPalmer said:
I worked through the entire Big Bang Theory on Netflix during lockdown (150 or so 20-minute episodes) - perfect for lunchbreaks worknig from home. IMO it got better and better till midway, and then gently changed direction, becoming gradually more romantic and less silly. I liked it in its later incarnation too, and it managed to produce a plot conclusion after years of going nowhere in particular. Friends who are more serious nerds than I am felt it went downhill once the characters all acquired girlfriends.Leon said:
Parks and Rec, one of my all time favourite comedies. Rather mediocre series 1, but sort of watchable. Then soared away in season 2 and on it wentCookie said:
The Simpsons, too, didn't really get going until series 4.ydoethur said:
Dad's Army didn't really hit its stride until about season 4. Similarly all the Star Trek series start to get really good from about season 3.5 onwards. (Well, apart from Enterprise.)Anabobazina said:
Most series are better off with sticking to just one season. There are exceptions, but in general the greats of TV just decline after season one.FrancisUrquhart said:
Its not just the 6 episode format, it is the ridiculous gap between seasons.Anabobazina said:
Most series are drastically overlong and are flogged to within an inch of their lives. The Beeb’s six episode format - to use an absolutely horrible PB cliche - is a feature not a bug.FrancisUrquhart said:
My point is BBC still trying to do things the old way, 6 episode season, a mate of a mate who is a big name will do you a favour and star in it for cheap, then you get stupid situations where you have Tom Hardy make a season of Taboo, that does pretty well, and then it is 5 years before he can fit you in again for season 2.MaxPB said:
That takes money and the BBC is limited by the licence fee. There's not much else to it.FrancisUrquhart said:To prove my point....in production.
SLOW HORSES S02
https://www.productionweekly.com/production-weekly-issue-1290-thursday-march-17-2022-199-listings-45-pages/
None of this, Gary (Oldman) and Kristin (Scott Thomas), could you possibly give us a date when you fancy making some more of these, I know you might be busy, could you possibly fit us in perhaps 2024....
They have to decide, either not to go down that route in the first place and not use the star talent or modernise. When the big players decide to go with these projects they are going to ensure they get their 5 seasons in 5 years.
The BBC are setting light to money starting an IP and then leaving it years.
Can you imagine if you had the most shit hot new widget and then said yeah well we only made a few, come back in 5 years.....while acme industries down the street is also making shit hot new widgets, but they ensure they continually have new ones.
The massive bucks are available if can get a show syndicated worldwide. In order to do that normally need to have a significant back catalogue. They did that with Top Gear and made a load of money. The problem is drama is now gone that way too.
And Blackadder! Does anyone ever re-watch season 1?? Then they got Ben Elton in and it turned into something brilliant
I have the opposite sensation when I try and persuade people to watch Spartacus. Yes the first FIVE OR SIX episodes are cartoonish displays of nudity and violence, with flashes of wit, and pretty vulgar and crude, but then it just gets better and better and better and ends up as one of the greatest TV dramas ever made
But few of my acquaintances are willing to give a series SIX episodes of mediocrity to get to the good stuff. Shame0 -
I’m sure you posted it yesterdayCorrectHorseBattery said:
I think that's right yupTaz said:
@CorrectHorseBattery hi mate, is this the one you linked to this week ? If so that is correct isn’t it ?Gary_Burton said:
I think this is this is Cumbria, Cornwall, North Yorkshire, Gwynedd and Norfolk.CatMan said:Sorry if it's already been posted:
https://twitter.com/BritainElects/status/1511725341978546185
Voting intention of voters living in rural counties:
CON: 38% (-8)
LAB: 36% (+7)
LDEM: 10% (-3)
GRN: 8% (+5)
via @Survation
, 07 - 14 Mar0 -
I’m not saying anything new on this but I agree with your points why Le Pen may win. I suspect that people have focused a bit too much on the “many people will never vote for Le Pen” and too little on the “many people now will never vote for Macron” I think we underestimate on this site how a certain percentage of the population actively loathes him.MaxPB said:I'm worried that there are enough French people who haven't benefited from globalisation and are willing to gamble on Le Pen. We had it here with Brexit, which was ultimately just leaving a trade/political union, France electing Le Pen would be a real "hold my beer" moment from the French.
The haughtiness of Macron is also an issue, rather than accept globalisation has a lot of losers he's one of those global elites who likes to pretend that trade isn't essentially a zero sum game which puts up huge skill barriers for well paid jobs.
I'm hopeful that we won't end up with Le Pen, but I think contingency planning is necessary. I'm also worried that once she gets power removing her will be as difficult as removing Orban.
I disagree Le Pen will be like Orban. France’s institutions are strong and, while the Presidency has many powers, it’s not omnipotent. Plus I’m not convinced Le Pen is an autocrat in the mode of Orban, Putin et al.
0 -
ProbablyTaz said:
I’m sure you posted it yesterdayCorrectHorseBattery said:
I think that's right yupTaz said:
@CorrectHorseBattery hi mate, is this the one you linked to this week ? If so that is correct isn’t it ?Gary_Burton said:
I think this is this is Cumbria, Cornwall, North Yorkshire, Gwynedd and Norfolk.CatMan said:Sorry if it's already been posted:
https://twitter.com/BritainElects/status/1511725341978546185
Voting intention of voters living in rural counties:
CON: 38% (-8)
LAB: 36% (+7)
LDEM: 10% (-3)
GRN: 8% (+5)
via @Survation
, 07 - 14 Mar
I am CorrectPollBattery!
Hope you are well.0 -
In 1997 every Cornish seat bar 1 was LD, the other was Labour. The LDs won Harrogate and Knaresborough, Labour won Norfolk NW (to which the LDs added Norfolk N in 2001 and held it until 2019) and the LDs also hold Westmoreland and Lonsdale and 2/3 of Gwynedd seats are PC. So not completely impossible.Gary_Burton said:
I think this is this is Cumbria, Cornwall, North Yorkshire, Gwynedd and Norfolk.CatMan said:Sorry if it's already been posted:
https://twitter.com/BritainElects/status/1511725341978546185
Voting intention of voters living in rural counties:
CON: 38% (-8)
LAB: 36% (+7)
LDEM: 10% (-3)
GRN: 8% (+5)
via @Survation
, 07 - 14 Mar
Though note the Tories still lead in those rural sample seats while they trail by 7% nationally with Survation0 -
I've seen GF clips, and it doesn't appeal. If I want to spend time with scum, I'd go to Hartlepool.Northern_Al said:
No problem at all. All I can say in response is wow! Never seen the Godfather films? That's up there with me never having seen Star Wars, only much worse.JosiasJessop said:
Sorry, I did not mean to sound condescending. It's just that the form of media does matter. For instance, would the Godfather films have been as good as a long-form series, with the plots and characters developed over five times the length? (*) Are he Reduced Shakespeare Company's output as good as the original, or are they good for a different market?Northern_Al said:
Thanks for explaining that to me, although I think I already knew it.JosiasJessop said:
They are different forms of media.Northern_Al said:
Yes. Some people on here probably think Orwell messed up by not writing Animal Farm 2.Anabobazina said:
The idea that six episodes is short format is preposterous. That’s six hours of TV drama.kle4 said:
I disagree. Sometimes a mini series is all you need - Chernobyl is a great example, one of the best tv shows I've seen in years. And even a 10-13 episode show might have plenty of padding (though is my preferred length).Anabobazina said:
Most series are drastically overlong and are flogged to within an inch of their lives. The Beeb’s six episode format - to use an absolutely horrible PB cliche - is a feature not a bug.FrancisUrquhart said:
My point is BBC still trying to do things the old way, 6 episode season, a mate of a mate who is a big name will do you a favour and star in it for cheap, then you get stupid situations where you have Tom Hardy make a season of Taboo, that does pretty well, and then it is 5 years before he can fit you in again for season 2.MaxPB said:
That takes money and the BBC is limited by the licence fee. There's not much else to it.FrancisUrquhart said:To prove my point....in production.
SLOW HORSES S02
https://www.productionweekly.com/production-weekly-issue-1290-thursday-march-17-2022-199-listings-45-pages/
None of this, Gary (Oldman) and Kristin (Scott Thomas), could you possibly give us a date when you fancy making some more of these, I know you might be busy, could you possibly fit us in perhaps 2024....
They have to decide, either not to go down that route in the first place and not use the star talent or modernise. When the big players decide to go with these projects they are going to ensure they get their 5 seasons in 5 years.
The BBC are setting light to money starting an IP and then leaving it years.
But that's a question of good or bad writing. If you could guarantee the BBC traditional 6 episode or whatever format resulted in a higher amount of quality per episode, you might have an argument, but that's not the case - plenty of 6 episode shows are still very bad, and they are short and often sporadic on top of that.
Sure, plenty of long format shows are no good either, but many are good, and there are benefits to being able to develop arcs over a multi year period, or just develop the characters more thoroughly over that number of episodes and time. Going on too long is an unfortunate potential risk, to be sure, but personally I'd say was worth it for the greater number and depth of content earlier on.
I think the cheerleading for short format stuff is a crutch, frankly. There's no reason longer stuff cannot be good, and plenty of short stuff which is bad, so it's not a feature at all.
The Godfather - rightly considered an absolute epic - was told in nine hours or so.
A film is designed to tell a story well in 90-120 minutes. A series has longer, allowing it to develop in a very different manner. A book can be a stand-alone drama, or a series.
The form of the media allows the story-telling to take on very different natures.
My serious point is that the length of any piece of media, be it film, TV or writing (of any sort) is, to me, secondary to its quality. Some long series are good; others are poor; and vice versa etc. War and Peace and Animal Farm are both pretty good, for example. With Fawlty Towers, the joke would have worn thin with more episodes I think.
(For Fawlty Towers, didn't Cleese deliberately limit the number of episodes?_
(*) I have never seen a Godfather films.
This is probably very unfair. I'm not interested in Breaking Bad for a similar reason.
I also dislike courtroom dramas, either as TV series or films.0 -
Wandsworth should be a Labour gain surely0
-
“Most of our problems aren’t unprecedented”Unpopular said:
On the first point, I think you might be fighting the last war. Labour under Starmer don't seem that keen to nationalise everything. He even said he wouldn't nationalise rail, which is generally popular.Leon said:Mexicanpete said:
If "c**ks in frocks" gets the traction and votes Johnson hopes it will in the face of economic Armageddon, we deserve no less than Johnson as sine die PM.Endillion said:
I just saw the Guardian News version, and the YT comments are an endless procession of people who clearly dislike Johnson in general, but are in agreement on this issue. It's actually hard to find anyone who disagrees with him. Labour are mincemeat unless they ditch Stonewall completely on this.MattW said:
This is an even longer version than the one I linked.MattW said:
Boris's comments are quite good and thoughtful.MaxPB said:
No, I've been told by PB experts that saying women have cocks won't hurt Labour.williamglenn said:It's striking how much support Boris Johnson is getting for his comments on trans issues from people who are not his natural supporters. This one is typical:
@annettepacey
Oh god oh no someone I loathe just made a really good point. Still could never bring myself to vote for the bastard but this is what happens when Labour turn their backs on women and leave an open goal #labourlosingwomen
https://twitter.com/annettepacey/status/1511691419647455237
The Trans Activist usual approach is to ram through their preferred measures before anyone gets any time to reflect properly upon the issue, and this is more considered.
Here is what BJ said. This is I think the full video of 1:39. Sky also seem to be putting out a truncated one at 1:04 length.
https://news.sky.com/story/pm-says-biological-males-should-not-compete-in-female-sport-and-venues-should-have-women-only-spaces-12583536
I haven't got my head around the latest kerfuffle.
Does, for example, the (Aiui) long-held Trans-Activist demand to be allowed to medicate without supervision children who are deemed by their parents to be trans count as Conversion Therapy? If so, the various organisations are demanding that this be banned.
ISTM very important that required time is taken.
https://twitter.com/skynews/status/1511669445877551104
Cocks in frocks might just work simply because no party has an answer to the impending economic tsunami. What is Labour’s solution? Nationalise everything? That worked well in Venezuela
Question is whether Labour can come up with a plausible list of lies that might persuade people they have some brilliant answer (when they don’t, because there isn’t one)
I don’t know if Starmer has it in him to be that mendacious. Johnson does
And if the economic argument is a stalemate because no one has a clue what to do, then the Tories might win because the war on Woke does have traction
Were I to put on my clown make-up and wig of naivety I would even suggest that Starmer might not even need to lie. The current Government appear to be using the motto 'To Seem, not to be', though they're not doing that well on the seeming. With an optimistic bent, most of our problems aren't even unprecedented, and so surely there's a way through beyond telling the best lies. C'mon Leon, where's the optimism and bombast?
Lol0 -
As it's a rural poll, surely that should be CorrectHorsePoll?CorrectHorseBattery said:
ProbablyTaz said:
I’m sure you posted it yesterdayCorrectHorseBattery said:
I think that's right yupTaz said:
@CorrectHorseBattery hi mate, is this the one you linked to this week ? If so that is correct isn’t it ?Gary_Burton said:
I think this is this is Cumbria, Cornwall, North Yorkshire, Gwynedd and Norfolk.CatMan said:Sorry if it's already been posted:
https://twitter.com/BritainElects/status/1511725341978546185
Voting intention of voters living in rural counties:
CON: 38% (-8)
LAB: 36% (+7)
LDEM: 10% (-3)
GRN: 8% (+5)
via @Survation
, 07 - 14 Mar
I am CorrectPollBattery!
Hope you are well.0 -
Biology is messy, though. Very messy.CD13 said:What is a woman? Stick to biology, that tends to be true. Psychology or sociology can be problematic.
0 -
Yes!JosiasJessop said:
As it's a rural poll, surely that should be CorrectHorsePoll?CorrectHorseBattery said:
ProbablyTaz said:
I’m sure you posted it yesterdayCorrectHorseBattery said:
I think that's right yupTaz said:
@CorrectHorseBattery hi mate, is this the one you linked to this week ? If so that is correct isn’t it ?Gary_Burton said:
I think this is this is Cumbria, Cornwall, North Yorkshire, Gwynedd and Norfolk.CatMan said:Sorry if it's already been posted:
https://twitter.com/BritainElects/status/1511725341978546185
Voting intention of voters living in rural counties:
CON: 38% (-8)
LAB: 36% (+7)
LDEM: 10% (-3)
GRN: 8% (+5)
via @Survation
, 07 - 14 Mar
I am CorrectPollBattery!
Hope you are well.1 -
Oh God, I love all of those stories. Robots of Death is Agatha Christie in space. It’s magnificentturbotubbs said:
That’s the puppy. Been a long day. And I did indeed think of mr sin...Taz said:
At least you resisted the temptation to say the biggest Mr Sin 😂turbotubbs said:
Now I don’t have an issue with the episode, but I no a lot of fans, probably younger than me, do. The racism portrayed was of its Victorian setting. The choice of a white British actor to portray Lee Sen Chang (forgive the spelling) is probably the biggest sin, although nowadays it seems we have colour blind casting.Taz said:
Talons of Weng Chiang is essentially a mix of Baker playing a Sherlock Holmes character and John Bennett playing Fu Manchu.turbotubbs said:
I’ll be honest, Jeremy Brett for a classic feel, and set in the original era (hat tip to Tom Baker as the Doctor as Sherlock Holmes in the Talons of Weng Chiang, present concerns about horrific racist portrayal and yellow face excepted), Sherlock is fun, but could never be a series machine in the American way, whereas Elementary has room to breath and allows you to get to love the cast. All have their place.Luckyguy1983 said:
Nothing beats Jeremy Brett's portrayal for me. I've never got into Sherlock though I can see it's merits.JosiasJessop said:
That's a really good point. From memory, in the books, Watson is very much his own man. A successful and respected doctor in his own right, who at times shares a flat with the protagonist, and at others is married (ooer missus!). In Sherlock, he is a broken man, and it is unclear why he hangs around Sherlock. I mean, why, given Cumberbatch's Holmes has no redeeming features?kle4 said:
Perhaps not, but ran for 7 years and it is better, not just that theres more of it. The first season in particular - did a far better job showing how a Holnes/Watson dynamic could realistically develop when one is such an arse.Gardenwalker said:
I’m not saying you’re wrong, in fact you’re right - but Sherlock was a big hit around the world.JosiasJessop said:I've recently been watching 'Elementary' on Prime; CBS's take on Sherlock Holmes, with Jonny Lee Miller as Sherlock and Lucy Liu as Watson.
When I compare it with the BBC's awful 'Sherlock', it shows where the BBC often goes wrong. Elementary takes the Sherlock Holmes idea and thoroughly modernises it. They made 154 episodes over nine years, allowing meaningful plot and character development.
The BBC's Sherlock is all about the *star*. The plotlines are ludicrous, and they made just 13 episodes in seven years, allowing little plot or character development.
Also: Jonny Lee Miller is a much better actor than Benedict Cumberbatch.
Elementary, not so much?
In Elementary, the characterisations make it much clearer: initially watson is paid to put up with him, and does so through a feeling of guilt for her own mistake. Later, Holmes tries to make up for his character defects, and becomes a much more interesting character (note: I am only on season 2).
You also have Louise Jameson as Eliza Doolittle.
I’d dispute the show is horrifically racist it has racial stereotypes based on the Fu Manchu stories, that period was full of rip offs/tributes to classic novels and sci fi. It’s an homage. Horrifically is a dramatic overstatement. It’s a subject fandom still debates to this day.
We may as well ban the Celestial Toymaker too.
Tom also played Holmes in Hound of the Baskervilles, pretty well, his first job on leaving Dr Who. Caroline John was also in it.
It is mainly younger fans who object. I was best man at my mates wedding in the US and spent a good chunk of the afternoon debating whether it was racist or not with someone there. Had they had someone like Burt Kwouk in the role rather than John Bennett the Fu Manchu bit would not have worked.
John Bennett’s character even says to the racist policeman at one stage ‘I believe we all look the same’. It’s Li H’sen Chang, BTW 👍
It’s probably one of my all time faves, along with other Baker stories such as tha ark in space, pyramids of mars and the robots of death. Glorious. One wonders how they would look with today’s money and effects.
Nothing, Tom Baker wise, beats City of Death for me. Or Destiny of the Daleks. My mate and I have been to the quarry it was filmed at more than once.
But those stories you mention are just everything that is perfect about Dr Who. Episode one lf Ark In Space just feels like such a break with the Pertwee years. It’s genius.1 -
Despite it being American ...
"Leonard: I grew up in a house full of crazy academics. Instead of leaving Santa milk and cookies, we had to leave him a research paper. And in the morning, you could tell he’d been there because the paper would be graded.
Sheldon: No wonder you love Christmas. That sounds amazing.
Leonard: It wasn’t amazing. I got a C-minus four years in a row.
Sheldon: Yeah, I’m familiar with your work. C-minus was your gift.
Scene: The bar.
Raj: Amy, I’m really sorry. I didn’t mean to upset you.
Amy: It’s fine. I’m used to being the girl who never gets looked at twice. I didn’t have my first kiss till I was 22, and the guy only did it so I’d give him back his insulin.
Bernadette: Sometimes the pancreas wants what the pancreas wants.
Amy: Forget it. I don’t expect you guys to understand.
Raj: I understand. In seventh grade, I played Spin the Bottle and it landed on Alina Shankar. She said if I came near her, she would break the bottle and cut me.
Amy: You think that’s bad? In college, I passed out at a frat party and woke up with more clothes on."0 -
And now for something different. I hope people won’t mind if I post a link to a podcast some of our students have created based on my research. It’s free from Spotify. Gives a bit of insight into what I do when I get the chance to research cool stuff.
https://open.spotify.com/show/2C36cnqCZb70hHwMY4I1to?si=214c0e66b9b84566
There’s also a feedback form to help them with their project.
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSe04ZlMaL_NN6tFv3ZbVRbOS6-APIpsZRSkSC2zXh6vIJb1cQ/viewform1 -
ORYX has just added there 450th Russian Tank
https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/02/attack-on-europe-documenting-equipment.html2 -
Ephesus. Oh, Ephesus
The peach trees were in blossom, the slopes blushing pale and tender pink, the shrines of Jupiter were shining in the April sun
And I was basically the only person there.
Gratitude, Covid, Gratitude0 -
If they don't they have big problems given every Wandsworth MP is now LabourCorrectHorseBattery said:Wandsworth should be a Labour gain surely
0 -
QLED is just an LCD with an LED backlit and very localised LEDs. That's available in smaller sizes - we have a 32 inch one.FrancisUrquhart said:
How long is a piece of string....depends on your budget. But for "very black blacks", it has to be QLED or OLED (well there are new technologies if you have crazy money). But I don't think you will find a QLED or OLED less than 50".Gardenwalker said:
You seem to know an awful lot about this stuff.FrancisUrquhart said:
With 5G, people will be absolutely able to continue to watch content on the go with ease.NickPalmer said:
Yes, I think you're right for specific programmes in the long run. However, live-streamed linear TV may have a future too. Radio is perhaps a guide to where that's heading. I know lots of people who have a radio station that they quite like (from Radio 4 to Smooth to Classic FM) on all day every day, so will count as "16 hours a day", but they only really listen intermittently. You can't do that with Netflix, which is based on the model of sitting down to watch something specific.FrancisUrquhart said:
I slightly adjusted my comment. But a) I am a bit dubious of that methodology e.g. 6hrs on average for oldies seem nonsense and b) the trend if your friend.....the trend is going one way, away from linear tv and fast.
The question isn't what is the state of play now, its whats the state of play in 5 years. 5G is coming, that means streaming anywhere that has it will become trivial. In the car, on the train, out in the countryside, and will be available in 4k / HDR.
Do most people care about 4k/HDR? If your favourite programme is Corrie or Emmerdale, still dominating the charts, do you mind if it's not 4k?
And we are talking about the immediate future. 43" 4k / HDR tellies are now £250, they are absolutely bottom end standard tv. Do you get the full benefit below 50", no, but cycle it will be 50" 4k tellies will be the next "standard" size. So increasingly yes, 4k is where will be at.
And that is why Netflix, Sky, Amazon (and YouTube creators) have moved to this. They have adapted to the future already.
I’m thinking of buying a new tv. What should I go for, ie spec?
I really only watch tv for films, so picture quality (very black blacks etc) is v important.
I’m alarmed at the idea of 50”. I hate it when a screen dominates a room.
Like so many industries, tellies are a globalised near duopoly in terms of who makes them *. Basically LG or Samsung make every high end panel (regardless of brand), so they dedicate the sizings.
* Yes there are cheap Chinese manufacturers of LCD panels these days, because LG and Samsung don't care about LCD anymore.0 -
It’s incredibly unfair. Hartlepool wasn’t even Brexit central. Places like Boston in lincs were. Hartlepool has some run down areas in the centre but no different to many other large towns or cities and it also has some really nice areas. Hart, Percy Main. Along the A688(iirc) from the A19 to the A1 there are large ‘executive’ style houses going up. They are not cheap. Especially for the north eastJosiasJessop said:
I've seen GF clips, and it doesn't appeal. If I want to spend time with scum, I'd go to Hartlepool.Northern_Al said:
No problem at all. All I can say in response is wow! Never seen the Godfather films? That's up there with me never having seen Star Wars, only much worse.JosiasJessop said:
Sorry, I did not mean to sound condescending. It's just that the form of media does matter. For instance, would the Godfather films have been as good as a long-form series, with the plots and characters developed over five times the length? (*) Are he Reduced Shakespeare Company's output as good as the original, or are they good for a different market?Northern_Al said:
Thanks for explaining that to me, although I think I already knew it.JosiasJessop said:
They are different forms of media.Northern_Al said:
Yes. Some people on here probably think Orwell messed up by not writing Animal Farm 2.Anabobazina said:
The idea that six episodes is short format is preposterous. That’s six hours of TV drama.kle4 said:
I disagree. Sometimes a mini series is all you need - Chernobyl is a great example, one of the best tv shows I've seen in years. And even a 10-13 episode show might have plenty of padding (though is my preferred length).Anabobazina said:
Most series are drastically overlong and are flogged to within an inch of their lives. The Beeb’s six episode format - to use an absolutely horrible PB cliche - is a feature not a bug.FrancisUrquhart said:
My point is BBC still trying to do things the old way, 6 episode season, a mate of a mate who is a big name will do you a favour and star in it for cheap, then you get stupid situations where you have Tom Hardy make a season of Taboo, that does pretty well, and then it is 5 years before he can fit you in again for season 2.MaxPB said:
That takes money and the BBC is limited by the licence fee. There's not much else to it.FrancisUrquhart said:To prove my point....in production.
SLOW HORSES S02
https://www.productionweekly.com/production-weekly-issue-1290-thursday-march-17-2022-199-listings-45-pages/
None of this, Gary (Oldman) and Kristin (Scott Thomas), could you possibly give us a date when you fancy making some more of these, I know you might be busy, could you possibly fit us in perhaps 2024....
They have to decide, either not to go down that route in the first place and not use the star talent or modernise. When the big players decide to go with these projects they are going to ensure they get their 5 seasons in 5 years.
The BBC are setting light to money starting an IP and then leaving it years.
But that's a question of good or bad writing. If you could guarantee the BBC traditional 6 episode or whatever format resulted in a higher amount of quality per episode, you might have an argument, but that's not the case - plenty of 6 episode shows are still very bad, and they are short and often sporadic on top of that.
Sure, plenty of long format shows are no good either, but many are good, and there are benefits to being able to develop arcs over a multi year period, or just develop the characters more thoroughly over that number of episodes and time. Going on too long is an unfortunate potential risk, to be sure, but personally I'd say was worth it for the greater number and depth of content earlier on.
I think the cheerleading for short format stuff is a crutch, frankly. There's no reason longer stuff cannot be good, and plenty of short stuff which is bad, so it's not a feature at all.
The Godfather - rightly considered an absolute epic - was told in nine hours or so.
A film is designed to tell a story well in 90-120 minutes. A series has longer, allowing it to develop in a very different manner. A book can be a stand-alone drama, or a series.
The form of the media allows the story-telling to take on very different natures.
My serious point is that the length of any piece of media, be it film, TV or writing (of any sort) is, to me, secondary to its quality. Some long series are good; others are poor; and vice versa etc. War and Peace and Animal Farm are both pretty good, for example. With Fawlty Towers, the joke would have worn thin with more episodes I think.
(For Fawlty Towers, didn't Cleese deliberately limit the number of episodes?_
(*) I have never seen a Godfather films.
This is probably very unfair. I'm not interested in Breaking Bad for a similar reason.
I also dislike courtroom dramas, either as TV series or films.
As for courtroom drama, got to disagree. I love the old Crown Court shows. Got most of them thanks to Network or legal.tv
The last episode wasn’t shown. It had an unfortunate title.0 -
I have a weird dislike of old timey gangster settings, prohibition era and the like. Can't really explain it, as I like things like the Sopranos and the Godfather just fine (though I have the unpopular opinion that Marlon Brando's performance in the first one is terrible and embarrassing - I truly cannot see why people think it is a good performance in the slightest).JosiasJessop said:
I've seen GF clips, and it doesn't appeal. If I want to spend time with scum, I'd go to Hartlepool.Northern_Al said:
No problem at all. All I can say in response is wow! Never seen the Godfather films? That's up there with me never having seen Star Wars, only much worse.JosiasJessop said:
Sorry, I did not mean to sound condescending. It's just that the form of media does matter. For instance, would the Godfather films have been as good as a long-form series, with the plots and characters developed over five times the length? (*) Are he Reduced Shakespeare Company's output as good as the original, or are they good for a different market?Northern_Al said:
Thanks for explaining that to me, although I think I already knew it.JosiasJessop said:
They are different forms of media.Northern_Al said:
Yes. Some people on here probably think Orwell messed up by not writing Animal Farm 2.Anabobazina said:
The idea that six episodes is short format is preposterous. That’s six hours of TV drama.kle4 said:
I disagree. Sometimes a mini series is all you need - Chernobyl is a great example, one of the best tv shows I've seen in years. And even a 10-13 episode show might have plenty of padding (though is my preferred length).Anabobazina said:
Most series are drastically overlong and are flogged to within an inch of their lives. The Beeb’s six episode format - to use an absolutely horrible PB cliche - is a feature not a bug.FrancisUrquhart said:
My point is BBC still trying to do things the old way, 6 episode season, a mate of a mate who is a big name will do you a favour and star in it for cheap, then you get stupid situations where you have Tom Hardy make a season of Taboo, that does pretty well, and then it is 5 years before he can fit you in again for season 2.MaxPB said:
That takes money and the BBC is limited by the licence fee. There's not much else to it.FrancisUrquhart said:To prove my point....in production.
SLOW HORSES S02
https://www.productionweekly.com/production-weekly-issue-1290-thursday-march-17-2022-199-listings-45-pages/
None of this, Gary (Oldman) and Kristin (Scott Thomas), could you possibly give us a date when you fancy making some more of these, I know you might be busy, could you possibly fit us in perhaps 2024....
They have to decide, either not to go down that route in the first place and not use the star talent or modernise. When the big players decide to go with these projects they are going to ensure they get their 5 seasons in 5 years.
The BBC are setting light to money starting an IP and then leaving it years.
But that's a question of good or bad writing. If you could guarantee the BBC traditional 6 episode or whatever format resulted in a higher amount of quality per episode, you might have an argument, but that's not the case - plenty of 6 episode shows are still very bad, and they are short and often sporadic on top of that.
Sure, plenty of long format shows are no good either, but many are good, and there are benefits to being able to develop arcs over a multi year period, or just develop the characters more thoroughly over that number of episodes and time. Going on too long is an unfortunate potential risk, to be sure, but personally I'd say was worth it for the greater number and depth of content earlier on.
I think the cheerleading for short format stuff is a crutch, frankly. There's no reason longer stuff cannot be good, and plenty of short stuff which is bad, so it's not a feature at all.
The Godfather - rightly considered an absolute epic - was told in nine hours or so.
A film is designed to tell a story well in 90-120 minutes. A series has longer, allowing it to develop in a very different manner. A book can be a stand-alone drama, or a series.
The form of the media allows the story-telling to take on very different natures.
My serious point is that the length of any piece of media, be it film, TV or writing (of any sort) is, to me, secondary to its quality. Some long series are good; others are poor; and vice versa etc. War and Peace and Animal Farm are both pretty good, for example. With Fawlty Towers, the joke would have worn thin with more episodes I think.
(For Fawlty Towers, didn't Cleese deliberately limit the number of episodes?_
(*) I have never seen a Godfather films.
This is probably very unfair. I'm not interested in Breaking Bad for a similar reason.
I also dislike courtroom dramas, either as TV series or films.0 -
Does anyone know how many tanks they had before they launched the invasion?BigRich said:ORYX has just added there 450th Russian Tank
https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/02/attack-on-europe-documenting-equipment.html0 -
If only you’d said ‘now for something completely different’turbotubbs said:And now for something different. I hope people won’t mind if I post a link to a podcast some of our students have created based on my research. It’s free from Spotify. Gives a bit of insight into what I do when I get the chance to research cool stuff.
https://open.spotify.com/show/2C36cnqCZb70hHwMY4I1to?si=214c0e66b9b84566
There’s also a feedback form to help them with their project.
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSe04ZlMaL_NN6tFv3ZbVRbOS6-APIpsZRSkSC2zXh6vIJb1cQ/viewform2 -
Evening all
The first nominations out in London - needless to say, Newham a little way off the pace.
Not much polling news to report - I was reminded by @DoubleCarpet in 1981 Mitterrand won having been 2.5 points behind incumbent President Valery Giscard d'Estaing in the first ballot before winning by 3.5 points in the second round.
Giscard d'Estaing's vote went up by 6.2 million from rounds one to two but Mitterrand's rose 10 million.
The irony was in 1974 Mitterrand had led the first round by 10 points and lost the run off 50.8 to 49.2.
I still think Le Pen has to be within a couple of points of Macron to win in the second round and the strong showing by Melenchon (still down on his 2017 numbers) still suggests to me irrespective of some of the commentary Macron will pick up a strong anti-Le Pen sentiment.
I also see an article praising the French Right getting some mentions - arguably the first victim of Le Pen's revival isn't Macron but Pecresse and Les Republicans but we'll see in June if a strong FN vote in the presidency translates to a strong vote in the legislative elections.
My final thought for the evening is to those on the left and centre-left wanting to get into a cultural wars skirmish with the right - in one word, don't. It's an elephant-sized trap especially at a time when cost of living issues potentially play well for those opposing the Government. The "culture wars" mean nothing to 99% of the population and it smacks of Conservative desperation when they keep trying to play the same old card.1 -
I love VAR.0
-
Voters by 41% to 38% now want the government to prioritise the economy over stopping the spread of Covid.
By 44% to 36% they also want to end the ban on fracking
https://twitter.com/jamesjohnson252/status/1511751721504149508?s=20&t=qJ_27XRZIsgo94IK2gSIJQ
https://twitter.com/GuidoFawkes/status/1511780860709810179?s=20&t=qJ_27XRZIsgo94IK2gSIJQ
0 -
A lot of comedy relies on unspoken context to work well - the things that everyone knows without having to say explicitly - but this sort of context often only exists ephemerally, and once it is gone then the complexity and nuance is stripped from the joke.Leon said:
I have very fond memories of Men Behaving Badly (I never even watched series 1 coz everyone said it was awful)Cookie said:
Oh, yes, Blackwater 1 was utter dross.Leon said:
Parks and Rec, one of my all time favourite comedies. Rather mediocre series 1, but sort of watchable. Then soared away in season 2 and on it wentCookie said:
The Simpsons, too, didn't really get going until series 4.ydoethur said:
Dad's Army didn't really hit its stride until about season 4. Similarly all the Star Trek series start to get really good from about season 3.5 onwards. (Well, apart from Enterprise.)Anabobazina said:
Most series are better off with sticking to just one season. There are exceptions, but in general the greats of TV just decline after season one.FrancisUrquhart said:
Its not just the 6 episode format, it is the ridiculous gap between seasons.Anabobazina said:
Most series are drastically overlong and are flogged to within an inch of their lives. The Beeb’s six episode format - to use an absolutely horrible PB cliche - is a feature not a bug.FrancisUrquhart said:
My point is BBC still trying to do things the old way, 6 episode season, a mate of a mate who is a big name will do you a favour and star in it for cheap, then you get stupid situations where you have Tom Hardy make a season of Taboo, that does pretty well, and then it is 5 years before he can fit you in again for season 2.MaxPB said:
That takes money and the BBC is limited by the licence fee. There's not much else to it.FrancisUrquhart said:To prove my point....in production.
SLOW HORSES S02
https://www.productionweekly.com/production-weekly-issue-1290-thursday-march-17-2022-199-listings-45-pages/
None of this, Gary (Oldman) and Kristin (Scott Thomas), could you possibly give us a date when you fancy making some more of these, I know you might be busy, could you possibly fit us in perhaps 2024....
They have to decide, either not to go down that route in the first place and not use the star talent or modernise. When the big players decide to go with these projects they are going to ensure they get their 5 seasons in 5 years.
The BBC are setting light to money starting an IP and then leaving it years.
Can you imagine if you had the most shit hot new widget and then said yeah well we only made a few, come back in 5 years.....while acme industries down the street is also making shit hot new widgets, but they ensure they continually have new ones.
The massive bucks are available if can get a show syndicated worldwide. In order to do that normally need to have a significant back catalogue. They did that with Top Gear and made a load of money. The problem is drama is now gone that way too.
And Blackadder! Does anyone ever re-watch season 1?? Then they got Ben Elton in and it turned into something brilliant
I would never claim Men Behaving Badly to be a classic, but it was well regarded at the time. But did you ever see series 1 with Harry Enfield instead if Neil Morrissey? Utter tosh.
I’m guessing it has dated rather badly, but then that’s true of 99.7% of comedies.
Why does comedy go so very stale so very quickly?
Drama is trying to say something about fundamentally what it means to live, and to deal with all the trials and tribulations that might be met. In many respects the context is then just costume and setting, and not central to the essence of the story being told.0 -
Very true.Taz said:
It’s incredibly unfair. Hartlepool wasn’t even Brexit central. Places like Boston in lincs were. Hartlepool has some run down areas in the centre but no different to many other large towns or cities and it also has some really nice areas. Hart, Percy Main. Along the A688(iirc) from the A19 to the A1 there are large ‘executive’ style houses going up. They are not cheap. Especially for the north eastJosiasJessop said:
I've seen GF clips, and it doesn't appeal. If I want to spend time with scum, I'd go to Hartlepool.Northern_Al said:
No problem at all. All I can say in response is wow! Never seen the Godfather films? That's up there with me never having seen Star Wars, only much worse.JosiasJessop said:
Sorry, I did not mean to sound condescending. It's just that the form of media does matter. For instance, would the Godfather films have been as good as a long-form series, with the plots and characters developed over five times the length? (*) Are he Reduced Shakespeare Company's output as good as the original, or are they good for a different market?Northern_Al said:
Thanks for explaining that to me, although I think I already knew it.JosiasJessop said:
They are different forms of media.Northern_Al said:
Yes. Some people on here probably think Orwell messed up by not writing Animal Farm 2.Anabobazina said:
The idea that six episodes is short format is preposterous. That’s six hours of TV drama.kle4 said:
I disagree. Sometimes a mini series is all you need - Chernobyl is a great example, one of the best tv shows I've seen in years. And even a 10-13 episode show might have plenty of padding (though is my preferred length).Anabobazina said:
Most series are drastically overlong and are flogged to within an inch of their lives. The Beeb’s six episode format - to use an absolutely horrible PB cliche - is a feature not a bug.FrancisUrquhart said:
My point is BBC still trying to do things the old way, 6 episode season, a mate of a mate who is a big name will do you a favour and star in it for cheap, then you get stupid situations where you have Tom Hardy make a season of Taboo, that does pretty well, and then it is 5 years before he can fit you in again for season 2.MaxPB said:
That takes money and the BBC is limited by the licence fee. There's not much else to it.FrancisUrquhart said:To prove my point....in production.
SLOW HORSES S02
https://www.productionweekly.com/production-weekly-issue-1290-thursday-march-17-2022-199-listings-45-pages/
None of this, Gary (Oldman) and Kristin (Scott Thomas), could you possibly give us a date when you fancy making some more of these, I know you might be busy, could you possibly fit us in perhaps 2024....
They have to decide, either not to go down that route in the first place and not use the star talent or modernise. When the big players decide to go with these projects they are going to ensure they get their 5 seasons in 5 years.
The BBC are setting light to money starting an IP and then leaving it years.
But that's a question of good or bad writing. If you could guarantee the BBC traditional 6 episode or whatever format resulted in a higher amount of quality per episode, you might have an argument, but that's not the case - plenty of 6 episode shows are still very bad, and they are short and often sporadic on top of that.
Sure, plenty of long format shows are no good either, but many are good, and there are benefits to being able to develop arcs over a multi year period, or just develop the characters more thoroughly over that number of episodes and time. Going on too long is an unfortunate potential risk, to be sure, but personally I'd say was worth it for the greater number and depth of content earlier on.
I think the cheerleading for short format stuff is a crutch, frankly. There's no reason longer stuff cannot be good, and plenty of short stuff which is bad, so it's not a feature at all.
The Godfather - rightly considered an absolute epic - was told in nine hours or so.
A film is designed to tell a story well in 90-120 minutes. A series has longer, allowing it to develop in a very different manner. A book can be a stand-alone drama, or a series.
The form of the media allows the story-telling to take on very different natures.
My serious point is that the length of any piece of media, be it film, TV or writing (of any sort) is, to me, secondary to its quality. Some long series are good; others are poor; and vice versa etc. War and Peace and Animal Farm are both pretty good, for example. With Fawlty Towers, the joke would have worn thin with more episodes I think.
(For Fawlty Towers, didn't Cleese deliberately limit the number of episodes?_
(*) I have never seen a Godfather films.
This is probably very unfair. I'm not interested in Breaking Bad for a similar reason.
I also dislike courtroom dramas, either as TV series or films.
It was the Midlands more than the North which was Brexit Land.
There are much less prepossessing places than Hartlepool for sure.0 -
Is there any word on fracking in their vicinity, though?HYUFD said:Voters by 41% to 38% now want the government to prioritise the economy over stopping the spread of Covid.
By 44% to 36% they also want to end the ban on fracking
https://twitter.com/jamesjohnson252/status/1511751721504149508?s=20&t=qJ_27XRZIsgo94IK2gSIJQ
https://twitter.com/GuidoFawkes/status/1511780860709810179?s=20&t=qJ_27XRZIsgo94IK2gSIJQ1 -
Frasier, anything by PG Wodehouse, Outnumbered.turbotubbs said:
I think the best stuff holds up. Faulty Towers. One foot in the grave. Father Ted, the IT crowd.FrancisUrquhart said:
Because a lot of it plays on an exaggerated version of real life, but life changes and so those references become out datedLeon said:
I have very fond memories of Men Behaving Badly (I never even watched series 1 coz everyone said it was awful)Cookie said:
Oh, yes, Blackwater 1 was utter dross.Leon said:
Parks and Rec, one of my all time favourite comedies. Rather mediocre series 1, but sort of watchable. Then soared away in season 2 and on it wentCookie said:
The Simpsons, too, didn't really get going until series 4.ydoethur said:
Dad's Army didn't really hit its stride until about season 4. Similarly all the Star Trek series start to get really good from about season 3.5 onwards. (Well, apart from Enterprise.)Anabobazina said:
Most series are better off with sticking to just one season. There are exceptions, but in general the greats of TV just decline after season one.FrancisUrquhart said:
Its not just the 6 episode format, it is the ridiculous gap between seasons.Anabobazina said:
Most series are drastically overlong and are flogged to within an inch of their lives. The Beeb’s six episode format - to use an absolutely horrible PB cliche - is a feature not a bug.FrancisUrquhart said:
My point is BBC still trying to do things the old way, 6 episode season, a mate of a mate who is a big name will do you a favour and star in it for cheap, then you get stupid situations where you have Tom Hardy make a season of Taboo, that does pretty well, and then it is 5 years before he can fit you in again for season 2.MaxPB said:
That takes money and the BBC is limited by the licence fee. There's not much else to it.FrancisUrquhart said:To prove my point....in production.
SLOW HORSES S02
https://www.productionweekly.com/production-weekly-issue-1290-thursday-march-17-2022-199-listings-45-pages/
None of this, Gary (Oldman) and Kristin (Scott Thomas), could you possibly give us a date when you fancy making some more of these, I know you might be busy, could you possibly fit us in perhaps 2024....
They have to decide, either not to go down that route in the first place and not use the star talent or modernise. When the big players decide to go with these projects they are going to ensure they get their 5 seasons in 5 years.
The BBC are setting light to money starting an IP and then leaving it years.
Can you imagine if you had the most shit hot new widget and then said yeah well we only made a few, come back in 5 years.....while acme industries down the street is also making shit hot new widgets, but they ensure they continually have new ones.
The massive bucks are available if can get a show syndicated worldwide. In order to do that normally need to have a significant back catalogue. They did that with Top Gear and made a load of money. The problem is drama is now gone that way too.
And Blackadder! Does anyone ever re-watch season 1?? Then they got Ben Elton in and it turned into something brilliant
I would never claim Men Behaving Badly to be a classic, but it was well regarded at the time. But did you ever see series 1 with Harry Enfield instead if Neil Morrissey? Utter tosh.
I’m guessing it has dated rather badly, but then that’s true of 99.7% of comedies.
Why does comedy go so very stale so very quickly?
Situations date, and gag machines stop being funny if you've heard the gags before. (Can anyone care about any of the characters in Friends?). But characters we care about who interact and amuse us on the way... That's got a chance of surviving. That's why Yes, Minister and Dad's Army are kind of eternal and Are You Being Served? isn't.1 -
It’s like when people support tax rises to pay for stuff. They always support it if it’s someone else payingdixiedean said:
Is there any word on fracking in their vicinity, though?HYUFD said:Voters by 41% to 38% now want the government to prioritise the economy over stopping the spread of Covid.
By 44% to 36% they also want to end the ban on fracking
https://twitter.com/jamesjohnson252/status/1511751721504149508?s=20&t=qJ_27XRZIsgo94IK2gSIJQ
https://twitter.com/GuidoFawkes/status/1511780860709810179?s=20&t=qJ_27XRZIsgo94IK2gSIJQ1 -
Zelensky's warming up to Macron. Probably rightly worried about the possibility of Le Putin, I mean Le Pen.
Russian atrocities in the Kyiv region must be investigated and Russia itself must face new painful sanctions. Discussed that with EmmanuelMacron . We also talked about negotiations and humanitarian aid to the blocked 🇺🇦 cities. Thank you, my friend, for your principled position.
https://twitter.com/ZelenskyyUa/status/1511445189054894086?cxt=HHwWjMC48YbZ3fkpAAAA1 -
The problem with fracking is it tends to be most viable in Tory seats.Taz said:
It’s like when people support tax rises to pay for stuff. They always support it if it’s someone else payingdixiedean said:
Is there any word on fracking in their vicinity, though?HYUFD said:Voters by 41% to 38% now want the government to prioritise the economy over stopping the spread of Covid.
By 44% to 36% they also want to end the ban on fracking
https://twitter.com/jamesjohnson252/status/1511751721504149508?s=20&t=qJ_27XRZIsgo94IK2gSIJQ
https://twitter.com/GuidoFawkes/status/1511780860709810179?s=20&t=qJ_27XRZIsgo94IK2gSIJQ
Which is why it isn't likely.2 -
Frasier absolutely. Some of the farce episodes are superb examples of the craft. Ski chalet? And the one where Niles has to be Martins boyfriend...Stuartinromford said:
Frasier, anything by PG Wodehouse, Outnumbered.turbotubbs said:
I think the best stuff holds up. Faulty Towers. One foot in the grave. Father Ted, the IT crowd.FrancisUrquhart said:
Because a lot of it plays on an exaggerated version of real life, but life changes and so those references become out datedLeon said:
I have very fond memories of Men Behaving Badly (I never even watched series 1 coz everyone said it was awful)Cookie said:
Oh, yes, Blackwater 1 was utter dross.Leon said:
Parks and Rec, one of my all time favourite comedies. Rather mediocre series 1, but sort of watchable. Then soared away in season 2 and on it wentCookie said:
The Simpsons, too, didn't really get going until series 4.ydoethur said:
Dad's Army didn't really hit its stride until about season 4. Similarly all the Star Trek series start to get really good from about season 3.5 onwards. (Well, apart from Enterprise.)Anabobazina said:
Most series are better off with sticking to just one season. There are exceptions, but in general the greats of TV just decline after season one.FrancisUrquhart said:
Its not just the 6 episode format, it is the ridiculous gap between seasons.Anabobazina said:
Most series are drastically overlong and are flogged to within an inch of their lives. The Beeb’s six episode format - to use an absolutely horrible PB cliche - is a feature not a bug.FrancisUrquhart said:
My point is BBC still trying to do things the old way, 6 episode season, a mate of a mate who is a big name will do you a favour and star in it for cheap, then you get stupid situations where you have Tom Hardy make a season of Taboo, that does pretty well, and then it is 5 years before he can fit you in again for season 2.MaxPB said:
That takes money and the BBC is limited by the licence fee. There's not much else to it.FrancisUrquhart said:To prove my point....in production.
SLOW HORSES S02
https://www.productionweekly.com/production-weekly-issue-1290-thursday-march-17-2022-199-listings-45-pages/
None of this, Gary (Oldman) and Kristin (Scott Thomas), could you possibly give us a date when you fancy making some more of these, I know you might be busy, could you possibly fit us in perhaps 2024....
They have to decide, either not to go down that route in the first place and not use the star talent or modernise. When the big players decide to go with these projects they are going to ensure they get their 5 seasons in 5 years.
The BBC are setting light to money starting an IP and then leaving it years.
Can you imagine if you had the most shit hot new widget and then said yeah well we only made a few, come back in 5 years.....while acme industries down the street is also making shit hot new widgets, but they ensure they continually have new ones.
The massive bucks are available if can get a show syndicated worldwide. In order to do that normally need to have a significant back catalogue. They did that with Top Gear and made a load of money. The problem is drama is now gone that way too.
And Blackadder! Does anyone ever re-watch season 1?? Then they got Ben Elton in and it turned into something brilliant
I would never claim Men Behaving Badly to be a classic, but it was well regarded at the time. But did you ever see series 1 with Harry Enfield instead if Neil Morrissey? Utter tosh.
I’m guessing it has dated rather badly, but then that’s true of 99.7% of comedies.
Why does comedy go so very stale so very quickly?
Situations date, and gag machines stop being funny if you've heard the gags before. (Can anyone care about any of the characters in Friends?). But characters we care about who interact and amuse us on the way... That's got a chance of surviving. That's why Yes, Minister and Dad's Army are kind of eternal and Are You Being Served? isn't.
And a modern one that will probably divide opinion - Not Going Out. Always makes me laugh.1
This discussion has been closed.