|
Zorba the Greek posted:Whats the line up for it? About five posts up? 
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2010 14:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 07:12 |
|
|
Zorba the Greek posted:Whats the line up for it? See picture above.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2010 14:32
|
|
|
Zorba the Greek posted:Whats the line up for it? Seriously?
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2010 14:36
|
|
|
Zorba the Greek posted:Whats the line up for it? ... edit: wow, a lot of people responded to that before I did :/ for content: the lineup does look pretty awful, but I've never seen Ruth Jones on a panel before, I think. She's pretty funny in all the sitcoms she's in, but is she good in this sort of context?
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2010 14:36
|
|
|
Wow, sorry I just had a brain fart. Ugh, that looks pretty poo poo. I don't mind Alan Carr but the rest are just pure shite.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2010 14:36
|
|
|
It might not look like the best lineup ever but it's hardly terrible. The most glaring omission is Rob Brydon, he's been consistently great in the Big Fat Quiz. I mean 3 for 6 is okay. Fielding is good as long as he's got someone to play off of (assuming Aoyade). Aoyade is good (or at least he was when he was paired with Mitchell). Ross is perfectly fine. McIntyre and Carr I could do without and Ruth Jones is a total unknown (to me).
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2010 14:41
|
|
|
I think that it will still be alright. One of the main reason I watch it is to compete against the other half 
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2010 14:48
|
|
|
On the positive side, Charlie Brooker has just announced in Twitter that a Screenwipe-style retrospective on 2010 will be broadcast on BBC 2 on the 27th of December at 10 PM. Can't wait for that 
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2010 15:20
|
|
|
Adrianics posted:So, this year's Big Fat Quiz Of The Year lineup is pretty terrible: A reminder that last year mitchell and brooker hardly made any jokes or any attempt really to make people laugh and were oddly quiet and forgettable during the usual banter-filled quiz of the year. They even played up the "heh we are old fuddy duddies" routine till it wasnt funny and got tiresome. I think literally all they did was give the right answers and do nothing else.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2010 15:24
|
|
|
The Big Fat Quiz of the Year I remember liking best was the one with Noel Fielding and Russel Brand on the same team - funny cos I don't really like either of them seperately but they made a good team
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2010 15:27
|
|
|
LE0N posted:I think literally all they did was give the right answers and do nothing else. I genuinely think that we were watching different versions of the show, Brooker I'll admit seemed a little awkward (as he tends to with non-scripted stuff) but Mitchell was pretty much the same as he usually is on panel shows, his reaction to Poker Face in particular was gold. The only one out of all of them I remember being quiet was Claudia Winkleman, but then again she was pretty much just fulfilling the typical role of The Woman On The Panel Show, ie laughing at everything everyone else does and piping up occasionally to polite laughter.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2010 15:40
|
|
|
Zorba the Greek posted:Wow, sorry I just had a brain fart. Ugh, that looks pretty poo poo. I don't mind Alan Carr but the rest are just pure shite. What? Do you mean Jimmy Carr? Because if you so much as "don't mind" Alan Carr you should really be put out of your misery. LE0N posted:A reminder that last year mitchell and brooker hardly made any jokes or any attempt really to make people laugh and were oddly quiet and forgettable during the usual banter-filled quiz of the year. They even played up the "heh we are old fuddy duddies" routine till it wasnt funny and got tiresome. "A trombone made of lacquered poo poo?" is probably the most memorable line of the night. Anyway, lineup looks poor even when I don't take as dim a view of them as some. Alan Carr has no business on TV. Or stage. Or land.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2010 15:48
|
|
|
BizarroAzrael posted:Anyway, lineup looks poor even when I don't take as dim a view of them as some. Alan Carr has no business on TV. Or stage. Or land. Or anywhere in the Solar system. e: Actually, that's a bit harsh, he could live on Pluto.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2010 16:26
|
|
|
BizarroAzrael posted:What? Do you mean Jimmy Carr? Because if you so much as "don't mind" Alan Carr you should really be put out of your misery. Yes, I did mean Jimmy Carr. What the hell is wrong with me today...
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2010 16:35
|
|
|
To be fair, I cannot tell the difference sometimes too. Eh, I'll watch it for Fielding and Ayoade.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2010 16:49
|
|
|
LE0N posted:I think literally all they did was give the right answers and do nothing else.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2010 19:51
|
|
|
everyone posted:Watch Ashes to Ashes Cool, thanks guys. I was surprisingly okay with LoM's ambiguous ending, because it let it be a happy ending that still had a bit of a bite after the credits roll. Also that was part of the point, Sam accepting that he may never know whether 1973 is real or not, but it doesn't matter because it's real to him in the way that matters most. But it seems that you guys are saying that Ashes to Ashes not only answers things, but does so satisfactorily (the most important thing) rather than undermining LoM, so I will check it out. hookerbot 5000 posted:John Simm is a fantastic actor, after watching Life on Mars and the episodes of Dr Who that he was in I watched State of Play - if anyone hasn't seen that or only seen the Hollywood version definitely try and get hold of it. It's absolutely brilliant. Thanks for this, just added State of Play to my Netflix queue. I didn't know there had been a UK version. Looks like it has a great cast. Hey, Glenister is in it too! And yeah, I first saw Simm in Doctor Who and found him to be a ton of fun as the Master, but, you know, it was a pretty broad character. His performance as Sam Tyler blows it out of the water. I had no idea. I was actually a little concerned that the characters would bleed into each other in my mind, but they're so different that I can hardly believe they were the same actor. Cichlid the Loach fucked around with this message at 23:10 on Dec 16, 2010 |
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2010 23:04
|
|
|
Who is this host on Buzzcocks? They are just awful. I rather enjoyed the Dirk Gently adaptation, I'm a little disappointed they didn't just try to adapt the whole thing into a mini-series.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2010 23:05
|
|
|
Why... Why in God's name is Juliette Lewis presenting Buzzcocks?  How bizarre
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2010 23:07
|
|
Adrianics posted:Why... Why in God's name is Juliette Lewis presenting Buzzcocks? They forgot to refill the random celebrity hat they pick the names out from and hers was the last bit of paper.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2010 23:09
|
|
|
Noreaus posted:Who is this host on Buzzcocks? They are just awful. Juliette Lewis, she was an actor and I think was in one of the better Woody Allen films but then gave it up to do music. Not sue what I thought of the Dirk Gently adaptation. Think I would have preferred it if they had completely changed the plot rather than using the same names of the main characters but changing the story - like a follow on that possibly referred to the original case but wasn't meant to be the same one.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2010 23:11
|
|
|
Why the gently caress is there a Scientologist hosting my Buzzcocks ?
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2010 23:11
|
|
|
It's like the Jewish conspiracy, only focused around pop-culture celebrities. Dirk Gently had a distinct lack of electric monks and ghosts. goatface fucked around with this message at 23:55 on Dec 16, 2010 |
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2010 23:17
|
|
|
Why does it say 'new' under the BBC3 ident as Russel Howard tells the same jokes he's been telling for years?
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2010 23:57
|
|
|
goatface posted:It's like the Jewish conspiracy, only focused around pop-culture celebrities. And Norse gods. I still thought it was good though. It would be nice (if unlikely) if they turned it into a series, but that would involve coming up with more stories than the two (and a bit) Douglas Adams wrote. Still might be possible if they chained someone like David Renwick to a desk and flogged him with chains for six months. Gram-O-Phone fucked around with this message at 00:15 on Dec 17, 2010 |
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2010 00:13
|
|
|
New Skins bunch actually looks worst than the last somehow.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2010 00:21
|
|
|
Adrianics posted:Why... Why in God's name is Juliette Lewis presenting Buzzcocks? Ok, just started watching this on iPlayer. I am 2 minutes in and I already want to slap her around a bit. For a former actress her delivery is loving appalling.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2010 00:24
|
|
|
As long as Alan Carr doesn't get given too much speaking time in the final cut it still looks good. Richard Ayoade is a god however, and I will not allow a bad word said about him in this thread. Plus, if he gets partnered will Noel Fielding as that picture suggests then I for one am excited. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2010 00:31
|
|
|
yeah I'm actually looking forward to seeing Richard Ayoade in it, I've no idea what he'll be like but he's been excellent in everything I've seen him do and I imagine he's a naturally funny guy. Alan Carr and Michael McIntyre can gently caress off though
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2010 00:37
|
|
|
Enjoyed Dirk Gently, mildly disappointed they didn't use the marvellously convoluted plot from the book but that would have had to be at LEAST a 3 part miniseries to actually cover everything. What they did use worked well enough though.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2010 01:07
|
|
|
Paperhouse posted:yeah I'm actually looking forward to seeing Richard Ayoade in it, I've no idea what he'll be like but he's been excellent in everything I've seen him do and I imagine he's a naturally funny guy. Alan Carr and Michael McIntyre can gently caress off though Ayoade was on the Big Fat Annniversary Quiz (celebrating 25 years of Channel 4) with David Mitchell. He was really good if you ask me. Him and Mitchell gelled fine as the token nerd team (or, as Ayoade suggesting indignantly after several allusions to them not exactly being jocks while discussing team names "Look, let's just call us the Speccy Nerdy Fucknuts and get on with it") You can probably find it on youtube.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2010 01:22
|
|
|
Fatkraken posted:Enjoyed Dirk Gently, mildly disappointed they didn't use the marvellously convoluted plot from the book but that would have had to be at LEAST a 3 part miniseries to actually cover everything. What they did use worked well enough though. quote:"The BBC wanted a returning detective show, one doable on a BBC4 budget," says Overman. From here: http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/tv/features/dirk-gently-appliance-of-science-is-the-stuff-of-fantasy-2160436.html I assume this means that a full series, or at least more one-off episodes are on the cards, which is good news. Found this too: http://www.thateden.co.uk/dirk/ "A Suffusion of Yellow"
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2010 01:34
|
|
|
Dirk Gently was pretty good, hope it gets a proper series. If only because Green Wing is dead.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2010 02:15
|
|
|
Someone mentioned Life on Mars earlier and it reminded me of the weird american remake (with Harvey Keitel as the Gene Hunt character). Thinking about it there have been quite a few brit shows remade in the US to varying degrees of success. Queer as Folk and the Office did well doing a variation on the originals. Cracker and Life on Mars stuggled through one season before cancellation. Finally theres the poo poo pilot only attempts at Spaced (never even shown anywhere), Red Dwarf (twice) and the IT Crowd. Are there any programs that could be improved or even matched in a remake, or are they doomed to be a pale imitation of the original?
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2010 02:43
|
|
|
Purple Gromit posted:Someone mentioned Life on Mars earlier and it reminded me of the weird american remake (with Harvey Keitel as the Gene Hunt character). A lot of people seem to rate the US version of 'The Office' tremendously highly. Never seen it myself, though.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2010 02:52
|
|
|
Coincidentally enough, the topic of British-American remakes came up with a few friends tonight, and a couple wondered if an American remake of All Creatures Great and Small could ever be done and how much of a ridiculous abortion it might be. I think this is one of those questions that answers itself. Man, though, I've been really preoccupied by the Life on Mars ending. It's so lovely. I got the feeling that while 1973 may not be "real," it's something more than just the inside of Sam's own head. For the ending to be uplifting, it NEEDS to be that 1973 has some kind of life of its own and is more than just Sam's inner delusions. Equally, Sam's inability to feel in 2006 suggests that 2006 may be the dream. In any case, there was absolutely no evidence that could prove conclusively that either one was real and the other fake. Maybe that's the point, none of us can ever know, even in our own lives. Everything is real and nothing is real. Sam was caught between two equally real unrealities. There is no empirical "reality," you just have to call it for yourself based on whether you feel alive. I'm a little afraid of A2A treading on this. If it goes "Sam is dead, that's reality, 1973 did not exist and that's all there is to it," I'm going to be very disappointed. But it does seem like most people were satisfied with how it wrapped up. So, with trepidation, on to A2A I go. Cichlid the Loach fucked around with this message at 06:38 on Dec 17, 2010 |
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2010 06:35
|
|
|
The Royal Variety Performance has made me want to go see The Wizard of Oz even more. loving amazing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2010 06:35
|
|
|
Okay, so, Ashes to Ashes episode one. And FFFUUUUUCKK whyyyyyyyyyyyyy Not a half hour in and Sam is dead?! Fuckity christ why why why, why would they do that? Why would they piss on that sweet happily-ever-after ending? I guess they had to get Sam out of the way somehow because if he were anywhere around, Drake would find him, and yet that can't happen because they don't have John Simm. But... there's GOT to be some other way. That's just too awful. Although, "no body was ever found," yadda yadda yadda... so it may be more than it appears. Or they may be just hedging their bets for the future. And I suppose even if it sticks, he did live for 7 years, enough time to live and love... It could be worse... Ffffuck. How could they do that. I'm watching this for you guys, so you all had better be right about this show. <  >E: I know that this show takes a series or so to find its footing, so I'm not gonna judge it too harshly just yet. But I gotta say that just in terms of style and nuance and realism and intelligence and atmosphere and emotional resonance and ... everything... that episode just made me appreciate LoM's quality even more. Cichlid the Loach fucked around with this message at 08:47 on Dec 17, 2010 |
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2010 08:26
|
|
|
I *promise* the ending wraps things up nicely. Also, this list is pretty much every re-made US TV show. slotbadger fucked around with this message at 12:52 on Dec 17, 2010 |
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2010 12:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 07:12 |
|
|
I really disliked Ashes to Ashes through out its run. The story telling is muddled and amateur and the ending is a massive cliche. They try to present their mythology in ways that outright contradict themselves and characters never act intelligently or realistically. It gets better, yes, but its always got the shadow of its beginning hanging around and the ghost of Life on Mars making you realise how poo poo and ill thought out it is.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2010 12:46
|
|
