My favorite movie reviewer (/mangler) once again nails it - Mr. Plinkett's review of Ghostbusters (2016)!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHUV8QLpEAc
(Language Warning. Almost a boob, too... (That's just to get you to watch it.) )
What are you watching now ? Movies and TV
Moderator: Moderators for English X Forum
Ugg all this region specificity needs to die in this age of transnationals (such as amazon) and global near instant communications networks.pjknibbs wrote:It annoys me that the Expanse is on Amazon Prime in the US, but not in the UK--I could watch it without having to buy an extra subscription if it was on Prime over here!
I mean I know why they do it (Waaaaay more $$$) but its a historical relic that makes no sense.
If you sell content to a provider, the size audience base of that provider should simply determine how much they pay. I.e. selling content to Netflix or Amazon pays way more than selling the same content to Channel 4.
"Shoot for the Moon. If you miss, you'll end up co-orbiting the Sun alongside Earth, living out your days alone in the void within sight of the lush, welcoming home you left behind." - XKCD
-
notaterran
- Posts: 1007
- Joined: Thu, 10. Sep 09, 05:22
Watched the first season of Gilmore Girls. Man, that was a chore to sit through; I don't want to think too much about who the hell was supposed to be the target audience for this nonsense. Here are a few thoughts:
-The series' name is VERY appropriate because it revolves around two GIRLS. The first one is Lorelai Gilmore, a woman-girl who has an annoying, rather strident high-pitched voice, the mannerisms and body language of a teenager, and on many occasions also has the common sense of a smashed asteroid (Lauren Graham was actually likable in Bad Santa, so I'm blaming the director for this). The other girl is Rory, Lorelai's bland daughter who at times exhibits more maturity than her mother. It becomes clear with each passing episode that she turned out ok in spite of Lorelai's many failings as a parent. Additionally, we are reminded a few times that Rory is named after her mother, so she's also a Lorelai (as if we're supposed to give a ****).
-This series thrives on the stereotypes of the talkative woman and the infantilized woman. I know that an actress can make a career out of infantilizing herself (e.g. Zooey Deschanel) but I was hoping for a less obvious portrayal.
-Lane is a complete waste of screen time, what a thoroughly useless character. Every time she was on screen I was hoping for her to rebel against her neurotic tiger mother, get an STD and then get run out of town wearing scarlet clothes.
-In a series with many annoying characters (Lorelai, Michel, Taylor, etc.) Kirk wins the prize.
-There are several silly songs, but the worst ones are the childish "la,la..." songs that would almost fit in a Teletubbies episode.
-As a side note, the only character that I enjoyed watching was that of Emily Gilmore (probably because she is almost an exact portrayal of a close relative, they're so similar it's scary).
-The character of Sookie starts out well, but then she just joins Rory in the Bland Actresses Guild because she doesn't have much to do. I wish they had continued with the physical comedy, it worked really well for this character (a kitchen offers plenty of opportunities for accidents and slapstick in general).
-The script is, unfortunately, not as smart as the writer thinks it is, so we end up with dialog that -if you added some profanity to it- wouldn't be out of place in a Sex And The City movie. The fact that it's delivered in rapid-fire fashion doesn't make it any less superficial and inconsequential, it only gives the impression of being witty (if you want clever banter watch Pulp Fiction). I swear, even the lines of Juno were more enjoyable than these.
-The series' name is VERY appropriate because it revolves around two GIRLS. The first one is Lorelai Gilmore, a woman-girl who has an annoying, rather strident high-pitched voice, the mannerisms and body language of a teenager, and on many occasions also has the common sense of a smashed asteroid (Lauren Graham was actually likable in Bad Santa, so I'm blaming the director for this). The other girl is Rory, Lorelai's bland daughter who at times exhibits more maturity than her mother. It becomes clear with each passing episode that she turned out ok in spite of Lorelai's many failings as a parent. Additionally, we are reminded a few times that Rory is named after her mother, so she's also a Lorelai (as if we're supposed to give a ****).
-This series thrives on the stereotypes of the talkative woman and the infantilized woman. I know that an actress can make a career out of infantilizing herself (e.g. Zooey Deschanel) but I was hoping for a less obvious portrayal.
-Lane is a complete waste of screen time, what a thoroughly useless character. Every time she was on screen I was hoping for her to rebel against her neurotic tiger mother, get an STD and then get run out of town wearing scarlet clothes.
-In a series with many annoying characters (Lorelai, Michel, Taylor, etc.) Kirk wins the prize.
-There are several silly songs, but the worst ones are the childish "la,la..." songs that would almost fit in a Teletubbies episode.
-As a side note, the only character that I enjoyed watching was that of Emily Gilmore (probably because she is almost an exact portrayal of a close relative, they're so similar it's scary).
-The character of Sookie starts out well, but then she just joins Rory in the Bland Actresses Guild because she doesn't have much to do. I wish they had continued with the physical comedy, it worked really well for this character (a kitchen offers plenty of opportunities for accidents and slapstick in general).
-The script is, unfortunately, not as smart as the writer thinks it is, so we end up with dialog that -if you added some profanity to it- wouldn't be out of place in a Sex And The City movie. The fact that it's delivered in rapid-fire fashion doesn't make it any less superficial and inconsequential, it only gives the impression of being witty (if you want clever banter watch Pulp Fiction). I swear, even the lines of Juno were more enjoyable than these.
Last edited by notaterran on Tue, 22. Aug 17, 05:35, edited 1 time in total.
-Skinny women look good in clothes, fit women look good naked.
I have purposefully never watched "Gilmore Girls." But, with your line above, this is something I have found to be very annoying with more recent "popular" shows/movies.notaterran wrote:... I swear, even the lines of Juno were more enjoyable than these.
I do not understand how fans can give full-throated belly laughs over some of the antics I have understood that they think are... hilarious. I don't understand how certain television shows exist.
I was bored, flipping channels, saw an episode of "Criminal Minds." I like Mandy Patinkin, so watched it for a bit. Worst crap ever... terribly written... transparent garbage... no drama or suspense developed whatsoever at all absolutely none zero-cost threat stupid dumb crap...
But, the director evidently thought the viewer was supposed to be mesmerized by the "suspense." Here is a clip that applies to all test screenings for all the latest network television drama shows:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dm8Q4fgv8Qo
Most of the popular sitcom/drama I see spewed out on the screen these days and being pushed by competing network television is of the same sort. Accompanying every damn punchline, there's a character that should practically be turning to their audience and yelling "Amiright" in hopes to get some level of empathy that makes the joke funny.
I would rather watch an hour of poop jokes or animal cruelty documentaries than anything passing for network primetime television these days.
-
notaterran
- Posts: 1007
- Joined: Thu, 10. Sep 09, 05:22
Dark Matter season 3 coming to netflix US September 25, 2017.
https://www.digitaltrends.com/home-thea ... ws-movies/
https://www.digitaltrends.com/home-thea ... ws-movies/
If you don't mind US patriotism showing up too often (for my liking) then try The Last Ship. It's not a new series but quite catchy.
Cheers Euclid
Cheers Euclid
"In any special doctrine of nature there can be only as much proper science as there is mathematics therein.”
- Immanuel Kant (1724-1804), Metaphysical Foundations of the Science of Nature, 4:470, 1786
- Immanuel Kant (1724-1804), Metaphysical Foundations of the Science of Nature, 4:470, 1786
-
notaterran
- Posts: 1007
- Joined: Thu, 10. Sep 09, 05:22
SEX AND THE CITY - SEASON 1
Reviewing bad shows (e.g. Gilmore Girls, Orange Is The New Black, Dark Matter) has become a labor of love. As I searched the bargain bin and pulled the DVD Box for my next review, I felt a familiar sense of anticipation. Whenever I'm going to watch something that I know is bad, I always hope that it will cross the line into camp and join masterpieces of the genre such as Plan 9 From Outer Space and The Room. Whether it's deficient acting skills, performers lacking physical ability, laughable special effects, pedestrian/inept direction, unlikable/underdeveloped characters, clichéd music or a stupid script, there are plenty of ways to ruin a piece of entertainment. It's a rare and specific kind of viewer who enjoys so-bad-they're-good movies; it takes an exact mixture of observation, cynicism and shadenfreude to allow the appreciation of material that was so carelessly, incompetently or lazily produced that would insult the intelligence of an audience. And since we're on the topic of bad shows, here are my thoughts on Sex And The City, Season 1:
-Let's start with the obvious: the four protagonists of SATC are materialistic, shallow, entitled, self-centered and all-around unlikable.
-On several occasions Carrie refers to them as women in their 30s, but she and Samantha don't look a day under 40. Suspension of disbelief, and all that.
-To make matters worse, most of them have adolescent expectations about men and how they interact with women. For example, they tend to be naive about the differences between male and female sexualities (see Charlotte's reaction when Capote Duncan tells her that he needs to have sex that night. He's very respectful of her, stops when she implies -she doesn't even say it- that she's not comfortable, even calls her a cab, and she's still shocked and disappointed).
-They sort of make fun of women's insecurities (e.g. when discussing models).
-If you pay attention to the characters' arcs, the series is actually not pushing any envelopes at all. Carrie has a relationship with a tycoon (she's so infatuated with his wealth, she calls him Mr. Big instead of using his name. In fact, his money is so important for these superficial characters that I don't think I've heard anyone use his real name). Miranda needs external validation for her looks, and she even meets a couple who want a threesome to get that validation (not to mention that she's an incredibly snarky woman). Samantha stops dating young guys because she doesn't want to feel old. And Charlotte is just another silly princess (watch the ridiculous scene when she opens her "wish box" for her life). So much for undermining stereotypes of women. The series' encompassing subtext is rather conventional and doesn't offer much in terms of women acting outside of traditional molds; they even get depressed and feel inadequate after visiting some Stepford Wives who are having a baby shower (SATC is at times corny as hell, in a 50s way. It fails at subverting anything).
-A word about Samantha: she may seem like a carefree, liberated woman but it's not as if casual sex was invented in the 90s (and by the end of the season she also wants to fall in love). If you want a movie about carefree living watch White Girl (a couple of warnings: unless you've had friends who were addicts the characters in this film won't be relatable to you, especially Leah and her often blank expression, and you will find her empty and one-dimensional. The character of Leah is not likable because she goes through life screwing people and screwing people over without any remorse or awareness. We'd like to think that we live in a world where justice is served eventually, however, the movie delivers a good dose of reality along with some social commentary). But I digress, back to the stupid SATC.
-Holy Hell, what's with the ****** dialog and the moronic voice-overs?
(In a girly, silly voice)
"-She was one of the only people I knew who thought that proximity to beauty made her feel more attractive".
"-Some people read palms, Charlotte read real estate".
"-I decided the only way to break free was to move from one addiction to an even bigger one: shoes".
"-As I watched people leaving church, I was amazed at how they looked. Valentino, Escada, Oscar de la Renta".
/facepalm
It's the Superficiality Olympics and I refuse to think about the people who enjoy this.
-One positive thing: the episodes are short.
Reviewing bad shows (e.g. Gilmore Girls, Orange Is The New Black, Dark Matter) has become a labor of love. As I searched the bargain bin and pulled the DVD Box for my next review, I felt a familiar sense of anticipation. Whenever I'm going to watch something that I know is bad, I always hope that it will cross the line into camp and join masterpieces of the genre such as Plan 9 From Outer Space and The Room. Whether it's deficient acting skills, performers lacking physical ability, laughable special effects, pedestrian/inept direction, unlikable/underdeveloped characters, clichéd music or a stupid script, there are plenty of ways to ruin a piece of entertainment. It's a rare and specific kind of viewer who enjoys so-bad-they're-good movies; it takes an exact mixture of observation, cynicism and shadenfreude to allow the appreciation of material that was so carelessly, incompetently or lazily produced that would insult the intelligence of an audience. And since we're on the topic of bad shows, here are my thoughts on Sex And The City, Season 1:
-Let's start with the obvious: the four protagonists of SATC are materialistic, shallow, entitled, self-centered and all-around unlikable.
-On several occasions Carrie refers to them as women in their 30s, but she and Samantha don't look a day under 40. Suspension of disbelief, and all that.
-To make matters worse, most of them have adolescent expectations about men and how they interact with women. For example, they tend to be naive about the differences between male and female sexualities (see Charlotte's reaction when Capote Duncan tells her that he needs to have sex that night. He's very respectful of her, stops when she implies -she doesn't even say it- that she's not comfortable, even calls her a cab, and she's still shocked and disappointed).
-They sort of make fun of women's insecurities (e.g. when discussing models).
-If you pay attention to the characters' arcs, the series is actually not pushing any envelopes at all. Carrie has a relationship with a tycoon (she's so infatuated with his wealth, she calls him Mr. Big instead of using his name. In fact, his money is so important for these superficial characters that I don't think I've heard anyone use his real name). Miranda needs external validation for her looks, and she even meets a couple who want a threesome to get that validation (not to mention that she's an incredibly snarky woman). Samantha stops dating young guys because she doesn't want to feel old. And Charlotte is just another silly princess (watch the ridiculous scene when she opens her "wish box" for her life). So much for undermining stereotypes of women. The series' encompassing subtext is rather conventional and doesn't offer much in terms of women acting outside of traditional molds; they even get depressed and feel inadequate after visiting some Stepford Wives who are having a baby shower (SATC is at times corny as hell, in a 50s way. It fails at subverting anything).
-A word about Samantha: she may seem like a carefree, liberated woman but it's not as if casual sex was invented in the 90s (and by the end of the season she also wants to fall in love). If you want a movie about carefree living watch White Girl (a couple of warnings: unless you've had friends who were addicts the characters in this film won't be relatable to you, especially Leah and her often blank expression, and you will find her empty and one-dimensional. The character of Leah is not likable because she goes through life screwing people and screwing people over without any remorse or awareness. We'd like to think that we live in a world where justice is served eventually, however, the movie delivers a good dose of reality along with some social commentary). But I digress, back to the stupid SATC.
-Holy Hell, what's with the ****** dialog and the moronic voice-overs?
(In a girly, silly voice)
"-She was one of the only people I knew who thought that proximity to beauty made her feel more attractive".
"-Some people read palms, Charlotte read real estate".
"-I decided the only way to break free was to move from one addiction to an even bigger one: shoes".
"-As I watched people leaving church, I was amazed at how they looked. Valentino, Escada, Oscar de la Renta".
/facepalm
It's the Superficiality Olympics and I refuse to think about the people who enjoy this.
-One positive thing: the episodes are short.
-Skinny women look good in clothes, fit women look good naked.
Vice news did some more stuff on ISIS. I feel that Vice is always pretty good when dealing with devoloping nations and third world countries, but their commentary is often rather biased when dealing with the first world. On the other hand I am not sure if their type of journalism (at least the videos Vice news puts out) even aim for objectivity or if they just want to give an impression the same way groups like Y-Kollektiv do.
"The problem with gender is that it prescribes how we should be rather than recognizing how we are. Imagine how much happier we would be, how much freer to be our true individual selves, if we didn't have the weight of gender expectations." - Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie
-
Redvers Ganderpoke
- Posts: 1905
- Joined: Tue, 11. Sep 07, 12:38
Netflix usually stick the whole series on in one go. So subscribe for a month, watch it, unsubscribe...pjknibbs wrote:It annoys me that the Expanse is on Amazon Prime in the US, but not in the UK--I could watch it without having to buy an extra subscription if it was on Prime over here!
I had a Now TV sub so I could watch a few things that were on there - now I've watched them I've cancelled the sub and most Sky programming seems to be utter rubbish.
A flower?
I'm watching "The Defenders" and in preparation for that binged all of "Iron Fist", the only Netflix Marvel show that I hadn't seen.
Iron Fist is definitely the worst of these shows, but having said that also kinda fun and I didn't hate it by any means. Some good characters but as is often the way with these shows not the leads.
One thing that really stuck out though, this is a show about super martial arts guy and the fight choreography and martial arts on display are BAD.
Daredevil was a lot better, and even his love interest is better (I suspect the actress trained harder and took it more seriously). This is dissonant . . . . this is meant to be Iron Fist's THING.
So, The Defenders.
I'm about half way in (its short, 8 episodes) and jury is still out really.
There's some fun interaction between the 4 leads them all being very different people but they kinda only just teamed up.
The Hand plot line I found dull as dishwater in Daredevil season 2, a little more interesting in Iron Fist and this latest iteration looks very promising, not least because of a lot more focus on The Hand as characters rather than as a nebulous organisation. One of said characters is Sigourney Weaver who is excellent and another has had one scene so far and I already think he's pretty good too.
Iron Fist is definitely the worst of these shows, but having said that also kinda fun and I didn't hate it by any means. Some good characters but as is often the way with these shows not the leads.
One thing that really stuck out though, this is a show about super martial arts guy and the fight choreography and martial arts on display are BAD.
Daredevil was a lot better, and even his love interest is better (I suspect the actress trained harder and took it more seriously). This is dissonant . . . . this is meant to be Iron Fist's THING.
So, The Defenders.
I'm about half way in (its short, 8 episodes) and jury is still out really.
There's some fun interaction between the 4 leads them all being very different people but they kinda only just teamed up.
The Hand plot line I found dull as dishwater in Daredevil season 2, a little more interesting in Iron Fist and this latest iteration looks very promising, not least because of a lot more focus on The Hand as characters rather than as a nebulous organisation. One of said characters is Sigourney Weaver who is excellent and another has had one scene so far and I already think he's pretty good too.
"Shoot for the Moon. If you miss, you'll end up co-orbiting the Sun alongside Earth, living out your days alone in the void within sight of the lush, welcoming home you left behind." - XKCD
-
Redvers Ganderpoke
- Posts: 1905
- Joined: Tue, 11. Sep 07, 12:38
Well to be fair, it was not that good anyway.
I binged it a few weeks ago and, sure it scratched the Space SciFi itch a bit, but I started to get really annoyed at the same old tropes the show turned to. The start was interesting with all the who is bad who is good and was entertaining untill mid season 2. Then they went the old, space monsters from magic, time-travel and other dimensions tropes we have seen over and over again. I think if they kept to a sorts of bad guys stuck in a bad position trying to be good guys, maybe add some political stuff in the mix, but they went the route every other 90s space scifi series already had done ad nauseam.
MFG
Ketraar
I binged it a few weeks ago and, sure it scratched the Space SciFi itch a bit, but I started to get really annoyed at the same old tropes the show turned to. The start was interesting with all the who is bad who is good and was entertaining untill mid season 2. Then they went the old, space monsters from magic, time-travel and other dimensions tropes we have seen over and over again. I think if they kept to a sorts of bad guys stuck in a bad position trying to be good guys, maybe add some political stuff in the mix, but they went the route every other 90s space scifi series already had done ad nauseam.
MFG
Ketraar
I hate when that happens...Ketraar wrote:Well to be fair, it was not that good anyway.
I binged it a few weeks ago and, sure it scratched the Space SciFi itch a bit, but I started to get really annoyed at the same old tropes the show turned to. The start was interesting with all the who is bad who is good and was entertaining untill mid season 2. Then they went the old, space monsters from magic, time-travel and other dimensions tropes we have seen over and over again. I think if they kept to a sorts of bad guys stuck in a bad position trying to be good guys, maybe add some political stuff in the mix, but they went the route every other 90s space scifi series already had done ad nauseam.
MFG
Ketraar
A series has an interesting hook, it's attracting a genre audience, it has a good one-season storyline going...
Then, it tries to outdo itself. It's as if the writers/producers ask themselves "OK, now we're desperate to keep the ball rolling, so we're going to start throwing the wackiest crap at the screen that we can think of."
How many times can you save the world and still make that story interesting?
So much drama-raising crappola... They've friggin forgotten how to create drama and instead rely on tired crap-from-a-shoebox junk to create it for them. "It's too haaaard to write. It's better if we just fake it with stuffs that people will oogle at for about fifteen minutes until they figure out we don't know wtf we're doing, which is why we're writing for a weak show that nobody expects will last the full run, anyway, since they didn't bother fully funding it - We were the lowest bidders.."
/rant-off
/rant-on
Few networks are fully dedicated to a project. They don't like "new things" since "new things" are risky. So, here's some money, it's barely enough to pay for the paper the scripts are written on and we're going to throw you into the deep water where you'll have to sink or swim, on your own. 'Cause, them's the breaks and if you don't like it, you should get a steady job writing commercials or directing stock footage..."
/rant-really-off
