|
The worst thing is that the Larry King goes out to over 200 countries. Piers Morgan in over 200 loving countries.
|
#
¿
Sep 8, 2010 19:17
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 5, 2024 19:03 |
|
|
The new Film 20xx was largely crap. I actually like Claudia Winkleman but the show reeked of the BBC not having faith in their choice of presenter. I would've preferred it if it was just the two of them reviewing the films, Ebert style. Instead the show is too busy. And though it doesn't bother me that the one woman didn't like Pixar films, the way she announced it was like it was meant to be a mind blowing revelation. Smug as gently caress.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 14, 2010 22:44
|
|
|
I'm just worried they make it too broad. But yeah the idea is a pretty good one, and it's surprising that it's not really been done yet.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2011 21:03
|
|
|
Graviton v2 posted:The very best stand up comedians produce 3 or 4 full hour long sets in their whole career. Louis CK, arguably one of the best stand up comedians working, produces a new hour of material each year. He doesn't reuse anything at all. Once he's performed it he's done. I'd love to see Peter Kay try that.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 16, 2011 13:33
|
|
|
LE0N posted:Did Keith chegwin host some jungle themed quiz show naked years ago or am I having some sort of stroke? Did it actually happen? It was, appropriately enough, 'Naked Jungle'. It was also a one-off. I don't think Channel 5 ever got lower than that did they?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2011 23:20
|
|
|
More Netflix chat - It's weird that you have to sign up to see a full selection since the US site allows you to browse their catalogue even if your not a member. And on that note, everyone should really get themselves unblock-us and have access to the US site. Way more extensive (All the seasons of The Twilight Zone in HD? Yes please). Oddly they have more British TV to select from than we do (Want every episode of Midsommer Murders? Of course you do). There are some things we have that they don't. For example they don't have Californication or Dexter. As for the quality. I thought both sites were excellent. I watched the pilot episode of Lost in HD and it looked great. Even their SD stuff looks fine. Much much better than Lovefilm, who equate SD to a pixelated mess and who offer no HD content where available.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 12, 2012 22:00
|
|
|
FAT WORM OF ERROR posted:On the Daria boxset I have nearly all the music has been replaced with stock stuff, which to be honest does make it not feel the same as when I watched it when it first aired. The excellent (And underseen) 'Friday Night Lights' has most of the music replaced for the DVD, except it's entirely inconsistent. To be fair if you had never seen the broadcast versions of the episodes then it would probably go unnoticed. It does however spoil a moment in the Season 1 finale where 'Your Hand In Mine' by Explosions in the Sky is changed for something similar sounding. Since the score of the show is based on their music I can't decide if that makes it better or worse.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2012 17:58
|
|
|
While sadly the Merton/Saville story isn't true, the allegations against Saville allegedly had some truth to them. Much more on it here. http://www.dangerousminds.net/comments/bbc_faces_serious_questions_over_sir_jimmy_savile_under_age_sex_allegations
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2012 21:52
|
|
|
thehustler posted:Haha I forgot about that holy poo poo There's a great clip where Michael Johnson has decided to cut Ortis out of the loop and conduct his own interviews. On that note they should just have Michael Johnson presenting athletics coverage from now anyway.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 8, 2012 16:37
|
|
|
stickyfngrdboy posted:It wasn't cancelled, but the man who created and produced it was fired after suggesting the show only worked because it lacked 'ethnic minority' characters. How he could possibly believe that I don't know. To be fair, the show seems to harken back to the idea of an idyllic English village. I would've said before that it was a deliberate choice (And if they were trying to harken back to the Agatha Christie-esque mysteries of yore then it certainly worked), but after those comments it just sounds like the creator probably didn't like black people.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 12, 2012 17:22
|
|
|
Mickolution posted:I never really got his stand-up, either. I'd watched a few bits and pieces but had to turn them off. I've recently gotten into Louie, though. I'd watched most of the first series around a year ago and just stopped for some reason until last week. I'm almost finished series 2 and love it. Louie is completely unique in that it's someone's unfiltered thoughts coming through in half hour bursts each week. Sometimes it's funny, other times it plays it completely straight but it's purely Louis CK. It's brilliant television who's only real constraint is limited to when the creative force runs out of ideas. The 3-part episode this season was brilliant. While I find some of the standup stuff hit-and-miss, the highs are really high. Plus, there's something admirable about writing a show to go on tour with, doing a year and then never repeating it again because if people have paid to watch him they shouldn't have to see him do the same jokes they've seen on TV or on a DVD. Once that tour is over the show is done for and he sits back down and writes a new set. Given that some comedians make a living dredging up the same poo poo over and over there's something admirable about that. To end the lovefest, he also says that he puts what he thinks are the strongest jokes he has at that point at the start of the show so he can force himself to write better.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 30, 2012 16:52
|
|
|
There was a pretty good discussion on 5-Live this morning, though I usually hate Nicky Campbell, he raised a good point in that a sexist institution, which the BBC undoubtedly was at the time, is not the same as what Saville was doing. Liz Kershaw had personally told him the story she revealed earlier (He also pointed out that it wasn't Saville - but he knows who it is) but then he's heard the same thing from people who worked in the Houses of Parliment too. There was a certain time when that behavior was seen as 'ok' and it shouldn't be dragged up in relation to the Saville case. gently caress Janet Street-Porter and Paul Gambaccini though. If I heard that Dave in accounts had been loving young girls - repeatedly. I tell someone. Anyone in their right mind would. But at a certain point they decided it wasn't worth the dent in their careers and now come out of the woodwork so somehow make things morally right. It's nothing but self serving so that they can say "Yeah, I did something about this."
|
|
#
¿
Oct 8, 2012 20:33
|
|
|
justcola posted:My mum believes that paedophiles didn't exist before the eighties, but she also believes that homosexuality is a blood disease created by mankind so I'm not sure how much stock I'd put into the good old days. Between Saville, Freddy Starr and John Peel I wonder why such a relatively high percentage of celebrities from the seventies had sex with children though. One of the things that never really got mentioned after the Roman Polanski scandal was that Jack Nicholson and Warren Beatty were regularly loving under-age girls. They were arguably the biggest movie stars at that time, and the view was that Polanski was unlucky enough to get caught. I guess it's a sign of decadence, mixed with some adolescent fantasy of loving the youngest, hottest, girls. It should be noted that of course this isn't paedophilia, but there was certainly the trend then (As I'm sure there is now, just less so) that once a girl hit her teens she was good to go. Of course the waters there get murky because you have the groupie factor. Some, not all, but some knew just what they were going there for and fully enjoyed the experience. Others, like the girl Polanski raped clearly did not (Polanski insisted that the girl was there to gently caress and that she knew what she was doing - her statement seemed to indicate otherwise). The story Peel told leans more toward the Hollywood excess side of things than the Saville/Starr incidents. I've no doubt there were a subset of teen girls that simply wanted to gently caress, and wanted to gently caress someone famous. Misguided or not, it's a fact. Peel/Nicholson et al clearly should've known better but it happened and I'm sure a lot of those girls don't feel like they were preyed on. The difference, as far as I can tell with Saville/Starr was that they were coerced into doing what they did, and they were less than willing participants.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 8, 2012 22:11
|
|
|
Giedroyc posted:Mike Smith wades into the sexual assault debate with a wince inducing "all a bit of harmless fun" apologism designed to ruin any happy memories you have of him (but might raise your chances of bedding Sarah Greene) When I listened to the whole interview he raised one or two good points - he just also totally undoes himself with this weird defence of the BBC. What's the betting he's looking for a job?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 9, 2012 19:12
|
|
|
There was a great article in the Guardian about Kevin McCloud and how we don't really know a lot about him. He's great at keeping things pretty close to the chest, but can't help but occasionally let little things slip through. The episode with that guy who built in the water tower was good for McCloud's comment that he would never live there because it was in London. I imagine he'd be a man whose idea of a dream home would be the Eames house.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 26, 2012 21:47
|
|
|
Paperhouse posted:With the David Blaine stuff then I'd probably agree with you, but I think he's right about Derren Brown. When he did the lottery stunt it was pretty clear that it was some kind of camera/TV trickery, not least because of the thousands of people going on about it at the time. The fact that he then dressed it all up with a load of nonsense and bullshit made him seem fake and insincere, perhaps for the first time, and it could be argued that once he did that it was difficult to go back. I don't think you had to seek out the answers for this because his explanation was so obviously untrue. There was a pretty good blog post from a guy who was in the audience that night talking about part of the episode that wasn't shown to anyone but the studio audience. The gist is Brown filmed a stunt before hand where he revealed the numbers (He was in an open top bus in London) and that's how he revealed the numbers to the audience. Except that wasn't what actually went out and it seems that for whatever reason C4 put the halt on it. Probably because their legal team said "You can't do this". Don't forget that after that Brown was being called by Politicians to explain himself and had a lot of heat on him. The filming around London thing was actually true. There were pictures of him filming but as far as I know it wasn't shown. Could just be a dude making things up but it didn't read that way.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 28, 2012 10:47
|
|
|
hermand posted:Uh, you're not really buying this? Unless someone is accusing him of actually fixing the lottery that week.... No but I think there was a more impressive trick that what people got (At least the reveal was more impressive, I dare say the nuts and bolts of the trick were just the same) but, for whatever reason, C4 decided against it. Brown has talked about the legal storm he came under for both that show and the Russian Roulette one so it's not hard to presume that C4's lawyers stepped in and said "Nope, can't do this."
|
|
#
¿
Oct 28, 2012 18:34
|
|
|
I love Jamie Oliver as a Chef. His books are great, his shows are great, and good on him for trying to actually do something about Children's health. As a person my affection is less so, but the fact his school campaign is met with derision rather than support says it all really.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 19, 2012 00:15
|
|
|
Plus he got very good notices when he was on stage. And he's the lead in 'Horns', based on the fantastic book. It's not an easy role so I hope he nails it (And the american accent).
|
|
#
¿
Dec 23, 2012 00:06
|
|
|
"Simon, sidestep to your left" became a school playground laughathon after that episode of Nightmare was on. I'm really still not sure what the gently caress happened, other than one guy doesn't know his left or right properly.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 30, 2012 14:18
|
|
|
I can't fault Tarantino for his comments at all. He's completely right, the press junket is just a commercial for his film and not the time or place to go into the 'movies/real life violence' debate. Tarantino does the press because it gets the film out there and the press do it because it generates sight traffic/views. Tarantino has, even recently, done a lengthy piece with a reporter about some of the plot points in 'Django' and why the reviewer thought some things didn't make sense. He's also talked at length at lectures about violence and how it's portrayed on screen. It's not even a bad question, it's just a poorly asked one used to generate a quick soundbite they can play. Plus, it's a question that Tarantino gets asked every time he has something out, even with the comparatively non-violent 'Jackie Brown'.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 11, 2013 21:00
|
|
|
Paperhouse posted:If this is true, would it have been that difficult for him to give a proper response to what was a pretty reasonable question? If he has written so much about it, I don't see why he couldn't just suggest a few of the overarching themes in his writing instead of being a knobhead about it Because the question was asked in the worst, most passive aggressive way possible. Tarantino is a cinephile, so why not ask him way people have always blamed violent movies on real life events. He could probably cite hundreds of examples and he answers the question without it getting confrontational. Murphy just uses these shock words like 'twisted' and seems to be passing comment on the film. Given that he mentions the 'portrayal of rape' in the film I'd be surprised if he'd actually seen it (Rape is implied to have happened at some point, but it doesn't actually happen in film). It starts to feel like Murphy is reaching. Add it to the fact that Tarantino has been asked the same questions since Reservoir Dogs and was probably asked the same question a hundred times that day and it's not much of a surprise.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 13, 2013 18:14
|
|
|
Weekly Wipe was ok. The film review bit was terrible and really offered nothing apart from some people awkward laughing about their attitudes to violence and slavery. If Brooker had used the same critical eye he did on the school shooting bit then it could've been interesting. Also, get rid of Philomena Chunk. It just doesn't work because you already have Barry Shitpeas doing exactly the same act. The addition of her just feels a little bit like padding, and the joke only really works in short bursts. It's probably the first 'wipe' thing I've been disappointed with.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 1, 2013 23:01
|
|
|
sex pervert posted:Yeah, I caught a bit of that last week. The United States of Television. It was about as insightful as those Channel 4 "100 greatest" shows. It might be a useful programme for an Amish person who is joining mainstream society; serving as a list of shows to catch up on. Aside from that I can't think of anyone who'd glean anything from this show. That's a shame because something like Alan Sepinwall's recent 'The Revolution Was Televised' book would've been a pretty great jumping off point, even if it's focused on a more modern era (I think the oldest show is NYPD Blue). In fact I'd say anyone who wanted to know about modern American TV should read it. I've not seen the Yentob show but it's sounding suspiciously like a show that's on the US Netflix at the moment, 3 episodes and all are split by a certain 'type'. I'd argue that's where the interviews came from.
|
|
#
¿
May 12, 2013 15:00
|
|
|
Akuma posted:I'll save you the trouble; it's been moronic for years. It is a show for stupid people who didn't get the joke so they changed the joke to be the absolute lowest common denominator so now they get the joke and it's painfully poo poo. The strangest thing is that despite the first season basically being a retread of the British one, the US remake has gone on to become one of the best shows on television.
|
|
#
¿
May 12, 2013 15:03
|
|
|
The success of Chris Moyles was lost on me and the mere presence of Nick Grimshaw is just a mystery altogether. When I get a lift in the morning it's always on (Thankfully it's a scant 15 minutes). He sounds like the guy they bring in to replace the real host when they're off ill.
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2013 20:00
|
|
|
VogeGandire posted:Especially since most of the cast seem to be not even reading from an auto-cue, but have someone just out of shot, miming out the words. Nev is definitely for real, the company I work for took over his previous company that supposedly he ran into the ground. No doubt by being 'wacky' and employing poo poo staff because he liked the look of them. As someone who's worked in a call centre in the past lord knows it can be lovely and mind numbing so a bit of fun is always welcome, but I couldn't live with that every day.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 15, 2013 13:58
|
|
"
|
Fatkraken posted:I rather like the Barry Shitpeas etc. bits, the "they're dumb! LOL!" stuff can wear a little thin but there's usually more to it than that My issue is you don't need them both. It's the exact same joke now coming out of the mouths of two characters. Other than that it was great though, that Jeremy Irons bit was so weird.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 30, 2013 22:13
|
|
|
I liked 'Sherlock' quite a bit, and think that character wise it's the best they've done (And more than a shade of 'Elementary' in there) but the whole 'flashiness' thing just doesn't work at all. It starts to get a little embarrassing when Cumberbatch has to pull 'thinking' faces while someone at the BBC goes mad with an editing machine.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2014 17:58
|
|
|
The Review Show complained that the female characters in TRUE DETECTIVE were either nagging wives or strippers and questioned the "people" who write this stuff. Sometimes I completely understand these criticisms, but I also don't know what's wrong with a story that has a specific point of view and sticks with it. Weirdly there's no strong black characters in the show either, but that always seems less of an issue. It reminds me of the time when Newsnight Review complained that there were no women in MASTER AND COMMANDER. The film set almost entirely on a boat during the Napoleonic War.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 23, 2014 22:27
|
|
|
Bobby Deluxe posted:I've said it before, but I think the Saville interview would be fascinating to watch in retrospect. From memory, there are a couple of points where he comes off looking like a paranoid old man, telling Theroux he's very clever and that he's trying to trick him, when Louis was actually not digging at anything specific. Yeah there's a few moments where it gets tense, presumably because Saville is seeing something implied in the questioning, whether it's actually there or not. The worst thing is that Saville often comes across as a man who has a secret he's desperate to tell you, but enjoys the power of knowing it, if that makes sense. There's a smugness to him. I wouldn't mind knowing if Theroux actually knew anything at the time or not, since it was often considered a pretty open secret. The only negative I do have is that when Theroux comes up against a subject who doesn't mesh with his 'act', he doesn't seem to know what to do. Like 99% of the time he gets results, but that other 1% he just flounders.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 16, 2014 12:59
|
|
|
Jesus Mel B. I would like to see a behind the scenes story about that one. Being out of your comfort zone is one thing, being out of your comfort zone and being that loving miserable is another thing entirely. I honestly think that Posh Spice would've been a better bet. I don't usually like Mickey Flannigan that much, but he did well to deal with her. Also, I've tried watching Phoenix Nights again. Funny moments aside, it's amazing how much goodwill Peter Kay burned up by being a shithead .
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2014 12:51
|
|
|
stickyfngrdboy posted:What's all this about Part of it is his well know joke thievery and ego. From what I recall he's fallen out with Dave Spikey and Neil Fitzmaurice (Both are absent from the season 2 commentaries) and Daniel Kitson has nothing good at all to say about him. I know there's separating the art from the artist and all that, but still.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2014 14:00
|
|
|
Hijo Del Helmsley posted:My ideal QI panel would be David Mitchell, Ronni Ancona and Sue Perkins. Because they're all both funny and actually intelligent. You missed Rory McGrath off that list.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2014 14:24
|
|
|
Castle Radium posted:Also: Someone in those comments called him overpowering and obnoxious, which I think is a pretty fair assessment. For some reason I thought I imagined the renaming to PETER KAY's Phoenix Nights. From what I recall he also takes over the directing duties too. The S2 commentaries are horrible. The ones for S1 are a lot of fun (With Dave and Neil present) but the S2 ones has Kay and some fawning admirers that act in the show and he just comes across like such a tool. It's no wonder he hasn't done any new standup since he doesn't have anyone left to write it for him.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 30, 2014 15:41
|
|
|
Dicky B posted:What is is about this clip that I'm supposed to be in such an unbridled rage about? I think it's that he's an antagonistic child. And that he makes two jokes (About the show and about the presenter) and then just sort of hammers it into the ground.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 30, 2014 18:46
|
|
|
sex pervert posted:Peter Kay chat. Series 1 and 2 of Phoenix Nights were very different. How? I think Season 2 is a little meaner that Season 1 is. Season 1 seems more affectionate for its characters. There's a surprisingly nice moment in S1 during the singles night where Max sees Paddy chatting up a woman and it kind of lets you see this sadness because he hasn't met anyone. There's no joke there, the show doesn't make fun of him for it, it's just a minor thing. But it's something that S1 does that's largely lacking in S2. Plus Kay's ego takes over S2. It adds the declaration of 'Peter Kay's' before the title and he takes on directing duties. It's certainly not bad by any means, and it's still pretty funny, but it just lacks the warmth of S1 and feels colder.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 5, 2015 23:42
|
|
|
Paladinus posted:To be fair, I didn't find the original too good either. I guess you have to be drunk yourself to fully enjoy it. The original full show could be hit and miss. But when it worked (Basically the right combination of speaker and drunkeness) it was hilarious. Plus the performances usually helped too. It's such a simple thing to do that I can't believe someone could gently caress it up.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 10, 2015 21:54
|
|
|
A few days later and I'm still laughing at the Guardian TV writer who got paid to write that no comedy is actually funny, you're just tricked into laughing and in this day and age, no one likes to be tricked. I'm not sure what kind of dead-inside person you have to be to believe that.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2015 15:54
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 5, 2024 19:03 |
|
|
Jesus Christ, Cucumber went somewhere else this week. I've never seen a writer so uneven in quality as Russell T Davies. I think his heart is much more into something like this than it ever was with Dr Who.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 27, 2015 15:20
|
|