Re: What TV programmes have you been watching lately?
Posted: Mon Jun 17, 2019 11:26 am
A while ago I watched “Race Across The World” where 4 teams of 2 raced from London to Singapore.
A group for contestants and lovers of the Channel 4 game show 'Countdown'.
http://c4countdown.co.uk/
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.Jennifer Steadman wrote: ↑Mon Jun 17, 2019 11:26 amIf 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 think the end bit was a little bit too weird and definitely too long.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
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.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.
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!JimBentley wrote: ↑Sat Jul 20, 2019 1:14 amYou'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.
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.
Good to see that I can associate my full initials with something other than the movie studioGavin Chipper wrote: ↑Sat Jul 20, 2019 9:44 pmYou've been outed, Jim!JimBentley wrote: ↑Sat Jul 20, 2019 1:14 amYou'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.
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.
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.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.
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.Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Sun Jul 21, 2019 5:42 pmThat 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.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.
Leg amputation can be a medical procedure...
No-one's equating the two. My point was just that the fundamental difference between the two is not what Marc Meakin suggested.Fiona T wrote: ↑Sun Jul 21, 2019 9:49 pmThe 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.Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Sun Jul 21, 2019 5:42 pmThat 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.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.
Leg amputation can be a medical procedure...
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.
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.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.
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.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.
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!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.
I haven't got round to Worzel Gummidge yet although I have heard it is a bit scary for young kids.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.
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 listMatt Morrison wrote: ↑Tue Feb 04, 2020 5:36 pmabsolutely. tense, creepy, slightly scary, exciting. not sure what's going to happen. highly recommended so far.
As someone who has been described as a snowflake on a few occasions, you can safely ignore the steer clear advice - it's great.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 ? )
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.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.
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.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...
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.Graeme Cole wrote: ↑Tue Feb 18, 2020 10:45 amI 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.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...
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 pmThat 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.Graeme Cole wrote: ↑Tue Feb 18, 2020 10:45 amI 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.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...
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.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.
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.Jon O'Neill wrote: ↑Tue Feb 18, 2020 5:36 pmThey 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 pmThat 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.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.
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.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.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.
In what way Gevin Chapwell?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.
Have you seen it? It won't need explaining.Martin Peters wrote: ↑Wed Mar 04, 2020 8:21 amIn what way Gevin Chapwell?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.
I haven’tGavin Chipper wrote: ↑Wed Mar 04, 2020 8:57 amHave you seen it? It won't need explaining.Martin Peters wrote: ↑Wed Mar 04, 2020 8:21 amIn what way Gevin Chapwell?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.
The best Episode yet , this seriesGavin Chipper wrote: ↑Wed Mar 04, 2020 8:57 amHave you seen it? It won't need explaining.Martin Peters wrote: ↑Wed Mar 04, 2020 8:21 amIn what way Gevin Chapwell?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.
I thought the reveal was very clumsily done. Just an outright statement. Someone saying "OK, here is the twist for today's episode..."Marc Meakin wrote: ↑Thu Mar 05, 2020 2:22 pmThe best Episode yet , this series
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 politicsMark 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.
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.Marc Meakin wrote: ↑Sun Mar 08, 2020 1:56 pmThe 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 politicsMark 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.
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.Mark James wrote: ↑Sun Mar 08, 2020 2:21 pmWhat 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.Marc Meakin wrote: ↑Sun Mar 08, 2020 1:56 pmThe 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 politicsMark 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.
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.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.