c4countdown

A while ago I watched “Race Across The World” where 4 teams of 2 raced from London to Singapore.

Ashton Hancock wrote: ↑Mon Jun 17, 2019 11:13 amOnly people with half a brain watch Love Island

If I only have half a brain then I probably won't be very good at a Co-event, so I won't be attending Co:Rot. Sorry hun x

Jennifer Steadman wrote: ↑Mon Jun 17, 2019 11:26 am

Ashton Hancock wrote: ↑Mon Jun 17, 2019 11:13 amOnly people with half a brain watch Love Island

If I only have half a brain then I probably won't be very good at a Co-event, so I won't be attending Co:Rot. Sorry hun x

I don’t literally mean that it was a joke as I don’t like the programme I apologise please attend CoRot.

The Virtues.
Not an easy watch , but brilliant acting , especially from Stephen Graham.
Years and Years , Black Mirroresque , very good .
Gets a bit Doctor Who like towards the end but still perfectly feasible future for Great Britain.
Quite chilling.....Boris/Jean Rook

Black Mirror (series 5) - always good, though nothing really groundbreaking this series

White Gold (series 2) - fun watch, good characters

The Sopranos - exceptional show. Been waiting years to properly watch this.

I am also re-watching Bojack Horseman. Such a relatable show.

Marc Meakin wrote: ↑Mon Jun 24, 2019 2:14 pm Years and Years , Black Mirroresque , very good .
Gets a bit Doctor Who like towards the end but still perfectly feasible future for Great Britain.
Quite chilling.....Boris/Jean Rook

I think the end bit was a little bit too weird and definitely too long.

Chernobyl, incredibly gripping viewing.

The Voice Kids Uk

Year of the Rabbit (starring Matt Berry) which has just finished on Channel 4 is pretty good. Also, Catch-22.

Also, I've literally just watched A Cut Too Far? Male Circumcision on the iPlayer. I think it was a bit of a lightweight analysis of it to be honest, and you can probably guess where I stand on the issue.

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Fri Jul 19, 2019 1:03 pmAlso, I've literally just watched A Cut Too Far? Male Circumcision on the iPlayer. I think it was a bit of a lightweight analysis of it to be honest, and you can probably guess where I stand on the issue.

Must admit I didn't see this so don't know what side it came down on (if it did take a side). Sure, it's occasionally necessary for medical reasons (in the case of phimosis) but that's pretty rare (maybe 1% of the population) and even then is only undertaken as a last resort. I think circumcision for cultural or religious reasons is pretty abhorrent and I don't really see why it's treated any differently to FGM (female genital mutilation), which has been a criminal offence in this country for decades. The two things are pretty much analogous.

JimBentley wrote: ↑Fri Jul 19, 2019 4:50 pm= The two things are pretty much analogous.

They're really not. I agree with you that male circumcision is unnecessary and can cause problems and I would happily see it banned, but the terrible lifelong and frequently life threatening complications caused by FGM are in a different league.

Fiona T wrote: ↑Fri Jul 19, 2019 9:17 pm

JimBentley wrote: ↑Fri Jul 19, 2019 4:50 pm= The two things are pretty much analogous.

They're really not. I agree with you that male circumcision is unnecessary and can cause problems and I would happily see it banned, but the terrible lifelong and frequently life threatening complications caused by FGM are in a different league.

You're right of course. We agree on this. I don't post here very much any more but when I do, I must admit that I get a bit overheated with my opinions. Start out at an extreme and work in. I just like to get a response - any response - sometimes. It's borderline trolling, really. Actually not really borderline.

JimBentley wrote: ↑Sat Jul 20, 2019 1:14 am

Fiona T wrote: ↑Fri Jul 19, 2019 9:17 pm

JimBentley wrote: ↑Fri Jul 19, 2019 4:50 pm= The two things are pretty much analogous.

They're really not. I agree with you that male circumcision is unnecessary and can cause problems and I would happily see it banned, but the terrible lifelong and frequently life threatening complications caused by FGM are in a different league.

You're right of course. We agree on this. I don't post here very much any more but when I do, I must admit that I get a bit overheated with my opinions. Start out at an extreme and work in. I just like to get a response - any response - sometimes. It's borderline trolling, really. Actually not really borderline.

You've been outed, Jim!

But while we're here, of course FGM is far worse than MGM (which we can call it here), but it does annoy me that MGM is largely brushed under the carpet in the mainstream media, whereas FGM gets far more air time. For example, I'm sure FGM has come up a handful of times in recent years on Question Time, whereas MGM has not. But to me, this is back to front. FGM is already illegal and generally thought of as a bad thing. There's no actual controversy surrounding it (in the UK at least), so it doesn't really need time on a political debate show. You just end up getting the panellists agreeing with each other, but trying to sound more sincere than the others about it. MGM, on the other hand, is controversial and people are divided on it, so it's exactly the sort of thing they should be discussing and debating. But obviously because it's associated with Jews and Muslims, it becomes a bit too sensitive because no-one wants to come across as anti-Semitic or Islamophobic, so the issue just doesn't get discussed. But this is just weak. Religious beliefs should not have any status above any other sort of belief and when it affects your actions in the world, they are very much up for discussion, thank you very much.

Anyway, in the programme that actually addressed the issue, they didn't really have people pushing for it to be illegal. They did actually have a surgeon that compared it to FGM, which surprised me, but he didn't explicitly call for it to be illegal and really only said it because of the question he was asked. He certainly didn't seem desperate to get any particular viewpoint across. It was a poorly made programme.

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Sat Jul 20, 2019 9:44 pmYou've been outed, Jim!

To be fair, I think most of us already knew. It's not like I make any kind of effort to hide it or anything.

This is probably going to come across as incredibly patronising but I think that Fiona has really revitalised these forums. I'm actually bothered to post stuff again, even if it is all rubbish. I am a big Fiona T fan and I don't mind who knows it.

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Sat Jul 20, 2019 9:44 pm

JimBentley wrote: ↑Sat Jul 20, 2019 1:14 am

Fiona T wrote: ↑Fri Jul 19, 2019 9:17 pm

They're really not. I agree with you that male circumcision is unnecessary and can cause problems and I would happily see it banned, but the terrible lifelong and frequently life threatening complications caused by FGM are in a different league.

You're right of course. We agree on this. I don't post here very much any more but when I do, I must admit that I get a bit overheated with my opinions. Start out at an extreme and work in. I just like to get a response - any response - sometimes. It's borderline trolling, really. Actually not really borderline.

You've been outed, Jim!

But while we're here, of course FGM is far worse than MGM (which we can call it here), but it does annoy me that MGM is largely brushed under the carpet in the mainstream media, whereas FGM gets far more air time. For example, I'm sure FGM has come up a handful of times in recent years on Question Time, whereas MGM has not. But to me, this is back to front. FGM is already illegal and generally thought of as a bad thing. There's no actual controversy surrounding it (in the UK at least), so it doesn't really need time on a political debate show. You just end up getting the panellists agreeing with each other, but trying to sound more sincere than the others about it. MGM, on the other hand, is controversial and people are divided on it, so it's exactly the sort of thing they should be discussing and debating. But obviously because it's associated with Jews and Muslims, it becomes a bit too sensitive because no-one wants to come across as anti-Semitic or Islamophobic, so the issue just doesn't get discussed. But this is just weak. Religious beliefs should not have any status above any other sort of belief and when it affects your actions in the world, they are very much up for discussion, thank you very much.

Anyway, in the programme that actually addressed the issue, they didn't really have people pushing for it to be illegal. They did actually have a surgeon that compared it to FGM, which surprised me, but he didn't explicitly call for it to be illegal and really only said it because of the question he was asked. He certainly didn't seem desperate to get any particular viewpoint across. It was a poorly made programme.

Good to see that I can associate my full initials with something other than the movie studio

The fundamental difference between FGM and MGM is that circumcision is a medical procedure that can be performed if it alleviates a medical condition.
FGM is just barbaric.

Marc Meakin wrote: ↑Sun Jul 21, 2019 4:15 pm The fundamental difference between FGM and MGM is that circumcision is a medical procedure that can be performed if it alleviates a medical condition.
FGM is just barbaric.

That only applies in the cases where there is a medical condition, which doesn't apply to the cases that I (and others) am (are) against.

Leg amputation can be a medical procedure...

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Sun Jul 21, 2019 5:42 pm

Marc Meakin wrote: ↑Sun Jul 21, 2019 4:15 pm The fundamental difference between FGM and MGM is that circumcision is a medical procedure that can be performed if it alleviates a medical condition.
FGM is just barbaric.

That only applies in the cases where there is a medical condition, which doesn't apply to the cases that I (and others) am (are) against.

Leg amputation can be a medical procedure...

The equivalence between FGM and circumcision would be having your penis chopped off. Remove the ability for sexual pleasure and cause lifelong problems with normal biological functions. Equating the two is doing a disservice to the women who are routinely mutilated for some misogynistic ideology that women exist for the pleasure of men.

Personally, I don't think circumcision is a good thing, but is there evidence that (more than a few) men who were circumcised as babies are deeply affected as adults? On the flipside, I know an adult who needed to be circumcised for medical reasons and described the result as a 'dog's dinner'. FGM is never required for medical reasons.

Fiona T wrote: ↑Sun Jul 21, 2019 9:49 pm

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Sun Jul 21, 2019 5:42 pm

Marc Meakin wrote: ↑Sun Jul 21, 2019 4:15 pm The fundamental difference between FGM and MGM is that circumcision is a medical procedure that can be performed if it alleviates a medical condition.
FGM is just barbaric.

That only applies in the cases where there is a medical condition, which doesn't apply to the cases that I (and others) am (are) against.

Leg amputation can be a medical procedure...

The equivalence between FGM and circumcision would be having your penis chopped off. Remove the ability for sexual pleasure and cause lifelong problems with normal biological functions. Equating the two is doing a disservice to the women who are routinely mutilated for some misogynistic ideology that women exist for the pleasure of men.

Personally, I don't think circumcision is a good thing, but is there evidence that (more than a few) men who were circumcised as babies are deeply affected as adults? On the flipside, I know an adult who needed to be circumcised for medical reasons and described the result as a 'dog's dinner'. FGM is never required for medical reasons.

No-one's equating the two. My point was just that the fundamental difference between the two is not what Marc Meakin suggested.

I'm not sure how many men are deeply affected as adults, but for a completely unnecessary procedure (in the cases we're talking about) it really only needs to be one. And not even deeply affected.

The point is that it is fundamentally wrong to amputate part of someone else's body for your own reasons when they are not old enough to make the decision for themselves. Talking about how many of these people are truly bothered by it is just a distraction really and any statistics someone might bring up to defend the practice do not make a dent in the main argument.

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Sun Jul 21, 2019 10:17 pmThe point is that it is fundamentally wrong to amputate part of someone else's body for your own reasons when they are not old enough to make the decision for themselves.

This I think, most of us who are not persuaded by religious arguments, would agree on. I suppose the question for debate is whether those religious arguments take priority over informed consent. In my opinion they do not, but I have long since abandoned religion as a lost cause, but still have many good friends to whom it is a fundamental part of their lives.

Fiona T wrote: ↑Sun Jul 21, 2019 10:31 pm I suppose the question for debate is whether those religious arguments take priority over informed consent. In my opinion they do not, but I have long since abandoned religion as a lost cause, but still have many good friends to whom it is a fundamental part of their lives.

And I think it's more of a question of how much we should pander to these fucking idiots. Gavin's said it before, we can't really argue against this sort of thing because in doing so, you're automatically an antisemite or an Islamophobe. But you know, for me, it's fuck all to do with that. My objection to circumcision is because it's generally a completely unnecessary operation that is carried out when any kind of informed consent is impossible. Now, maybe you don't think that sort of thing is wrong, but I do.

My main gripe with circumcision is the same as with ear piercing .
You shouldn't inflict either on your child until they are old enough to make an informed choice.

Marc Meakin wrote: ↑Mon Jul 22, 2019 10:44 am My main gripe with circumcision is the same as with ear piercing .
You shouldn't inflict either on your child until they are old enough to make an informed choice.

Well yeah. I mean ear-piercing is another level down from MGM like MGM is from FGM, but it's still unacceptable for a parent to inflict it on their child. But for some reason, some people when they are older choose to have this mental practice inflicted on themselves anyway!

This year's World Matchplay Darts from Blackpool has been nothing short of incredible!!!

Even if you don't like darts as much as me, there's just been stories to satisfy just about every palate this week.

And tonight, it will culminate in the final between the representatives of Team England at the World Cup that I went to in Hamburg last month, the former World Champion Rob "Voltage" Cross, and the former World Youth Champion Michael "Bully Boy" Smith.

Heads Up.
The Young Offenders Season 2 starts on Monday 11thNovember I'm guessing BBC1
If you can't wait that long it's on the iPlayer from today (3.11.19)

The new Worzel Gummidge over Christmas was better than you might think it would be.

I've also just watched the new Dracula. They made up their own story (very little comes from the book really) and I didn't think it was that great really. It was OK, but quite a commitment at 3 * 1.5-hour episodes.

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Sun Jan 12, 2020 10:43 pm The new Worzel Gummidge over Christmas was better than you might think it would be.

I've also just watched the new Dracula. They made up their own story (very little comes from the book really) and I didn't think it was that great really. It was OK, but quite a commitment at 3 * 1.5-hour episodes.

I haven't got round to Worzel Gummidge yet although I have heard it is a bit scary for young kids.
I am a bit precious about Dracula adaptations and was put off by the trailer, it looked like a Carry On film

I've quite enjoyed The Name of the Rose, which finished before Christmas I think. It started slowly, but as a fan of the book and the film, for me it's done a decent job of explaining the background of the story, and the expansion of the setting a little hasn't been too jarring. I've not watched the final episode yet though, it was building quite nicely after a bit of a meandering start.

Bojack Horseman season 6 part 2: well i know what i'm talking about in therapy on Tuesday, fuuuuuuuckkkkkkkkk

RuPaul's Drag Race UK: what the fuck, this is the best series of Drag Race proper in years. really, really funny! talented and entertaining queens. i have never laughed as much as Blu Hydrangea dressing as the Harland & Wolff cranes in the 'dress like your hometown' runway!! the forthcoming US season 12 better be more like this and less like season 11 (pure gash).

End of the F***ing World season 2: wasn't really sure where they'd go with a second season of this but fair fucks, good job. focusing on the PTSD legacy of the first season was a smart/effective move and they did a pretty good job of setting up why Bonnie was such a loon. am quite jealous of Alyssa as i would love to slouch around in a wedding dress as casual daywear.

Next In Fashion: i could happily watch nothing but fashion-related reality shows for the rest of my life tbh, but i love how diverse this is and how much more interesting the fashion is when it comes from all across the globe rather than just a western perspective. Minju and Angel are amazing

The Crown season 3: fucking hell this was so boring that i gave up after 7 episodes. god knows i found season 1 a slog but season 2 was decent and had that really excellent Edward VIII/Nazi episode (plus Vanessa Kirby as Princess Margaret was killer). this one... Aberfan ep was pretty good and I enjoyed the comedy framing of Harold Wilson = Communist?? everything else was balls. i fear i'm gonna get sucked into season 4 though when 'Gillian Anderson as Margaret Thatcher' thirst hits the internet. lord have mercy on our souls

also recently rewatched some of my favourite South Park episodes from back in the day and that Lord of the Rings one is truly still a masterpiece.

Ed Balls in Euroland- very insightful programme.

Just started watching Avenue 5.
A welcome return to comedy for Hugh Laurie.
Started watching Veep as it's made by the same man .
And Season 10 of Curb.
Steer clear if you are a snowflake , woke or easily offended ( is that tautology ? )

the outsider

Matt Morrison wrote: ↑Mon Feb 03, 2020 9:55 pm the outsider

Good ?

Late to the Party I know , but started watching Sense8 by the Watchowski's
So far so good , a bit too much gratuitous sex for my liking but interesting and the first decent trans character I've seen.
This ticks all the diversity boxes and spans four continents

Marc Meakin wrote: ↑Tue Feb 04, 2020 11:03 am

Matt Morrison wrote: ↑Mon Feb 03, 2020 9:55 pm the outsider

Good ?

absolutely. tense, creepy, slightly scary, exciting. not sure what's going to happen. highly recommended so far.

Matt Morrison wrote: ↑Tue Feb 04, 2020 5:36 pm

Marc Meakin wrote: ↑Tue Feb 04, 2020 11:03 am

Matt Morrison wrote: ↑Mon Feb 03, 2020 9:55 pm the outsider

Good ?

absolutely. tense, creepy, slightly scary, exciting. not sure what's going to happen. highly recommended so far.

I'm currently binging Sense8 but it will be next on my list

We all know that The 12 Days of Christine is the best episode of Inside No. 9. But tonight's story, Love's Great Adventure, comes a pretty close second.

Marc Meakin wrote: ↑Sat Feb 01, 2020 12:14 pm And Season 10 of Curb.
Steer clear if you are a snowflake , woke or easily offended ( is that tautology ? )

As someone who has been described as a snowflake on a few occasions, you can safely ignore the steer clear advice - it's great.

Phil Reynolds wrote: ↑Tue Feb 18, 2020 12:48 am We all know that The 12 Days of Christine is the best episode of Inside No. 9. But tonight's story, Love's Great Adventure, comes a pretty close second.

Yeah it's superb. I'd still have a couple of the early ones (Sardines, the silent robbery episode) and definitely the Shakespeare one ahead. I'm sure you have but if you haven't then there's also a podcast called Inside Inside No. 9 which will be a good fan listen.

I didn't think it was that great. I mean it was OK but it wasn't very "Inside No 9". There was no twist or was I missing something? (Other than the bit that happened quite early on so doesn't really count.) I was looking at the clock - "10:28" - surely something has to happen now to make this episode...

But it was a bit "emotional" and "hard hitting" so it was bound to have the "praise gushers" on this forum out in force.

Last week's was very poor though. Like they got an AI to read some previous scripts and make its own episode. The football one was decent I thought.

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Tue Feb 18, 2020 8:55 am I didn't think it was that great. I mean it was OK but it wasn't very "Inside No 9". There was no twist or was I missing something? (Other than the bit that happened quite early on so doesn't really count.) I was looking at the clock - "10:28" - surely something has to happen now to make this episode...

I thought that. It was as if there was a scene on the end that got cut out. I thought they were going to reveal that the car crash the mother was talking to the driving instructor about was the hit-and-run that put the loan shark in hospital.

Graeme Cole wrote: ↑Tue Feb 18, 2020 10:45 am

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Tue Feb 18, 2020 8:55 am I didn't think it was that great. I mean it was OK but it wasn't very "Inside No 9". There was no twist or was I missing something? (Other than the bit that happened quite early on so doesn't really count.) I was looking at the clock - "10:28" - surely something has to happen now to make this episode...

I thought that. It was as if there was a scene on the end that got cut out. I thought they were going to reveal that the car crash the mother was talking to the driving instructor about was the hit-and-run that put the loan shark in hospital.

That would have been good. Well it would have been something anyway. Maybe they meant that anyway but it was too subtle for the likes of me (but not you) to get. But even if they did, it wasn't a twist at the end, but something that happened in passing at some arbitrary point in the show.

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Tue Feb 18, 2020 12:10 pm

Graeme Cole wrote: ↑Tue Feb 18, 2020 10:45 am

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Tue Feb 18, 2020 8:55 am I didn't think it was that great. I mean it was OK but it wasn't very "Inside No 9". There was no twist or was I missing something? (Other than the bit that happened quite early on so doesn't really count.) I was looking at the clock - "10:28" - surely something has to happen now to make this episode...

I thought that. It was as if there was a scene on the end that got cut out. I thought they were going to reveal that the car crash the mother was talking to the driving instructor about was the hit-and-run that put the loan shark in hospital.

That would have been good. Well it would have been something anyway. Maybe they meant that anyway but it was too subtle for the likes of me (but not you) to get. But even if they did, it wasn't a twist at the end, but something that happened in passing at some arbitrary point in the show.

They don't always have a big twist. What Graeme said is correct (I think most people who'd seen Inside No. 9 before would put the pieces together), but that doesn't really qualify as the big twist.

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Tue Feb 18, 2020 12:10 pm But it was a bit "emotional" and "hard hitting" so it was bound to have the "praise gushers" on this forum out in force.

Taking the fact that this is a total knobhead comment aside, it wasn't especially emotional or hard-hitting compared to some other episodes. It was just an excellently staged and acted take on family life that not many programmes could come close to in a whole series, let alone 30 minutes.

Jon O'Neill wrote: ↑Tue Feb 18, 2020 5:36 pm

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Tue Feb 18, 2020 12:10 pm

Graeme Cole wrote: ↑Tue Feb 18, 2020 10:45 am

I thought that. It was as if there was a scene on the end that got cut out. I thought they were going to reveal that the car crash the mother was talking to the driving instructor about was the hit-and-run that put the loan shark in hospital.

That would have been good. Well it would have been something anyway. Maybe they meant that anyway but it was too subtle for the likes of me (but not you) to get. But even if they did, it wasn't a twist at the end, but something that happened in passing at some arbitrary point in the show.

They don't always have a big twist. What Graeme said is correct (I think most people who'd seen Inside No. 9 before would put the pieces together), but that doesn't really qualify as the big twist.

You think that was intended? Maybe. I mean I sort of missed the scene because it was a bit mumbled and I briefly switched off, and saw it again completely out of sequence on the iPlayer, so if I'd been paying attention first time round I might have picked up on it.

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Tue Feb 18, 2020 12:10 pm But it was a bit "emotional" and "hard hitting" so it was bound to have the "praise gushers" on this forum out in force.

Taking the fact that this is a total knobhead comment aside, it wasn't especially emotional or hard-hitting compared to some other episodes. It was just an excellently staged and acted take on family life that not many programmes could come close to in a whole series, let alone 30 minutes.

OK, fair enough, but I have to play up to my role as the forum psychopath. Plus you're a bit of a kdickhead yourself.

Itching to watch this so I can comment.
Last week's one with the Sowerbutts from Psychoville was inspired.

I did enjoy the episode quite a lot.
I wouldn't put it up there with the best 30 minutes of TV this century that is The 12 Days of Christine.
( Would love them to do a play or a film version of it btw )
But I would say that I loved the advent calendar vignettes but I think maybe the no 9 should have been an expansion of the car crash rather than the father and son fight but never the less the best show on the BBC

So good I watched it twice.
Inside No 9 season 5 episode 4 , misdirection.
Best of the series so far for me.
The writing and directing were superb.
Pemberton and Shearsmith are the best writers working for the BBC

Yesterday's Inside No. 9 reminds me a little bit of Martin Peters and his family.

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Tue Mar 03, 2020 11:19 pm Yesterday's Inside No. 9 reminds me a little bit of Martin Peters and his family.

In what way Gevin Chapwell?

Martin Peters wrote: ↑Wed Mar 04, 2020 8:21 am

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Tue Mar 03, 2020 11:19 pm Yesterday's Inside No. 9 reminds me a little bit of Martin Peters and his family.

In what way Gevin Chapwell?

Have you seen it? It won't need explaining.

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Wed Mar 04, 2020 8:57 am

Martin Peters wrote: ↑Wed Mar 04, 2020 8:21 am

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Tue Mar 03, 2020 11:19 pm Yesterday's Inside No. 9 reminds me a little bit of Martin Peters and his family.

In what way Gevin Chapwell?

Have you seen it? It won't need explaining.

I haven’t

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Wed Mar 04, 2020 8:57 am

Martin Peters wrote: ↑Wed Mar 04, 2020 8:21 am

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Tue Mar 03, 2020 11:19 pm Yesterday's Inside No. 9 reminds me a little bit of Martin Peters and his family.

In what way Gevin Chapwell?

Have you seen it? It won't need explaining.

The best Episode yet , this series

Marc Meakin wrote: ↑Thu Mar 05, 2020 2:22 pm

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Wed Mar 04, 2020 8:57 am

Martin Peters wrote: ↑Wed Mar 04, 2020 8:21 am

In what way Gevin Chapwell?

Have you seen it? It won't need explaining.

The best Episode yet , this series

I thought the reveal was very clumsily done. Just an outright statement. Someone saying "OK, here is the twist for today's episode..."

I think it borrowed heavily from the film Identity but the acting was superb again and the reveal seemed rushed because 29 minutes had elapsed.
I wish Netflix comes calling so they can expand their stories more

Finally got around to watching Chernobyl. I thought it was really good. Reading about it after though, the historical inaccuracies were a bit annoying. I thought it was a bit unfair on the "villain", the head guy in the reactor. I felt his assholeness was played too over the top. And I'm still in two minds about the lack of Russian accents. Ultimately I'd probably say it was the right decision but I found it jarring in the first episode. I think if more shows and films go this way though it will become the norm to not bother with accents.

Also, it's not a tv show but I hate that maltesers ad that seems to be on every ad break and is now on YouTube all the time too. It's bad enough she broke your one's necklace but then she goes and spills all the lovely maltesers on the floor.

Mark James wrote: ↑Sun Mar 08, 2020 12:44 pm Finally got around to watching Chernobyl. I thought it was really good. Reading about it after though, the historical inaccuracies were a bit annoying. I thought it was a bit unfair on the "villain", the head guy in the reactor. I felt his assholeness was played too over the top. And I'm still in two minds about the lack of Russian accents. Ultimately I'd probably say it was the right decision but I found it jarring in the first episode. I think if more shows and films go this way though it will become the norm to not bother with accents.

The Russians bought the rights to Chernobyl on condition that they could make the Russians look good and concentrate more on the disaster and not the politics

Marc Meakin wrote: ↑Sun Mar 08, 2020 1:56 pm

Mark James wrote: ↑Sun Mar 08, 2020 12:44 pm Finally got around to watching Chernobyl. I thought it was really good. Reading about it after though, the historical inaccuracies were a bit annoying. I thought it was a bit unfair on the "villain", the head guy in the reactor. I felt his assholeness was played too over the top. And I'm still in two minds about the lack of Russian accents. Ultimately I'd probably say it was the right decision but I found it jarring in the first episode. I think if more shows and films go this way though it will become the norm to not bother with accents.

The Russians bought the rights to Chernobyl on condition that they could make the Russians look good and concentrate more on the disaster and not the politics

What show were you watching? Russian (well Soviet) politics is shown in a terrible light. And some of the historical inaccuracies make them look worse than the really were.

Mark James wrote: ↑Sun Mar 08, 2020 2:21 pm

Marc Meakin wrote: ↑Sun Mar 08, 2020 1:56 pm

Mark James wrote: ↑Sun Mar 08, 2020 12:44 pm Finally got around to watching Chernobyl. I thought it was really good. Reading about it after though, the historical inaccuracies were a bit annoying. I thought it was a bit unfair on the "villain", the head guy in the reactor. I felt his assholeness was played too over the top. And I'm still in two minds about the lack of Russian accents. Ultimately I'd probably say it was the right decision but I found it jarring in the first episode. I think if more shows and films go this way though it will become the norm to not bother with accents.

The Russians bought the rights to Chernobyl on condition that they could make the Russians look good and concentrate more on the disaster and not the politics

What show were you watching? Russian (well Soviet) politics is shown in a terrible light. And some of the historical inaccuracies make them look worse than the really were.

Sorry , my comments were a tad ambiguous , I meant since the HBO version which you ( and I ) watched , the Russian TV network have bought the rights to make their own version.
Fwiw I prefer no accents to crap ones when it comes to English/American playing Russians

Inside No 9 season 5 episode 6.
Another well written episode.
No spoilers but definitely deserves a second watch

Mark James wrote: ↑Sun Mar 08, 2020 12:44 pm Finally got around to watching Chernobyl. [...] I'm still in two minds about the lack of Russian accents. Ultimately I'd probably say it was the right decision but I found it jarring in the first episode. I think if more shows and films go this way though it will become the norm to not bother with accents.

I can't remember the last time I saw something made in English where non-English-speaking characters spoke with a foreign accent. It doesn't make sense. If you accept the dramatic convention that a group of Russians are speaking English to each other when in reality they'd be speaking Russian, then they should sound to us like they would to each other, i.e. using the natural accents of the language in which the drama is filmed. If they adopted Russian accents they would sound "foreign", which in the context of the drama they're not.

A braver approach is for characters whose dialogue is all in English to sound English when they're meant to be speaking their own language but to adopt an accent when they're supposed to be speaking English. I've seen this done in a couple of WW2-set films and it does jar a bit although it's completely logical.