Trevor is starting to improve...took a while for Jon to make it happen.
j_tso posted:Loved Life on Mars. Saw it through NetflixDVD then bought it. Ashes to Ashes was on there, but then not.
I have Life on Mars on Blu-ray but was planning on watching Ashes to Ashes on Netflx but it's disappeared here too. Ended up torrenting it.
j_tso posted:Yori posted:Just finished watching Life on Mars with the fiancée (she's never seen it), so we're now starting Ashes to Ashes. Also finally getting her into TNG.
Loved Life on Mars. Saw it through NetflixDVD then bought it. Ashes to Ashes was on there, but then not.user posted:I pretty much switched to it from TDS - don't dig Trevor as much, but yeah, the discussion panel format was unsatisfying. Just no good source for fake news anymore, guess I'll have to switch to Fox.
Same here. I watched Trevor in the beginning, but at the time he was just explaining the jokes he was making all the time. Nightly Show's panel was either too short or they just talk about crap.
Yeah, the panels were very rarely funny or insightful enough to be compelling. The infamous Bill Nye segment sums it up to me.
I will damn with this faint praise though: it was a better panel show that Bill Maher.
"Muthafucka" is not profanity, but an exclamation point.
As much as I admire Walton Goggins, I have been unable to sit through an entire episode of Vice Principals.
Vulture
420
I watched the whole 8 episodes of 11.22.63 on Hulu. The concept drew me in, but by the end I kept being bothered by two things that felt like foundational errors in the plot while the drama was propelled at all costs. Still enjoyed it, but mainly because at episode 1 you're thinking this can be so exciting, and by episode 8 you're like just end it already.
just giving band of brothers another watch ... damn that is some fine-ass television, i tell you what
among other things, i think this show is going to be something of a time capsule in the "before they were famous" department
you see so many appearances from young brits who later became big stars
so far i've seen james mcavoy, tom hardy, michael fassbender
among other things, i think this show is going to be something of a time capsule in the "before they were famous" department
you see so many appearances from young brits who later became big stars
so far i've seen james mcavoy, tom hardy, michael fassbender
Last edited by TOS on Tue Aug 30, 2016 4:53 am.
::fails to recall ass in BOB::
Smack The Pony. 'Green Wing' got me interested in Victoria Piles work. Some brilliant stuff in there but like all sketch comedy there's the inevitable hit-and-miss.
Anyone else watch the Dead Of Summer? I just started watching it. I set it to record and never got around to watching and was just gonna delete them, but then decide to watch the first episode. Watching ep2 now. Seems ok.
I decided to rematch enterprise, to see if a few years might help me forgive some of its failings... Just finished the episode where they decided to commit xenocide on a whim. Yup. The rewatching isn't going well.
The beagle was cute.
I do think doctor phlox was well written, it was nice to see actual alien motivations.
and actual alien buttocks
Finally started watching Homeland.
Yori posted:In 10 days I'll be watching Red Dwarf XI
The first episode of season 11 has been put up early on UKTV's VOD service so we watched it last night. They definitely have a decent budget so it looks nice, and we chuckled a few times during the episode. Have to see a few more episodes before I pass judgement.
The "boys from the Dwarf" are looking a bit ropey these days, though.
After series VII and VIII, I am not enthusiastic about any more.
Back to Earth ("series" 9, more of a mini-series) was a bit weird if you didn't get the Blade Runner references, but series 10 wasn't too bad. The ones with Kochanski were pants, but the she's gone now and they have the crimson short one back.
Penn & Teller: Fool Us. One hour in length per show. Currently on CW at 8 or 9 pm on Wednesdays, sometimes on Fridays too. Technically in its third season (though in the form of two half-seasons every year which is why I thought it was in its fifth or sixth season) beginning in 2011.
Originally the host of this show (in the original UK version) was Jonathan Ross, a well-known comedian and talk-show host in the UK. He had stood in for the everyman very well, sometimes serving as extra hands or on-stage prop for guest magicians. In the second season the show was moved to the Penn & Teller (P&T) Theater in Las Vegas, but for this season Ross was busy so P&T got Alyson Hannigan to take Ross' place and she has done an excellence job.
The setup is that 3-5 guest magicians per show will attempt one-at-a-time to fool P&T with one main trick. They can add supplementary tricks along the way but the climax should be that main one. Afterwards Hannigan will banter with the guest magician for a bit while P&T will discuss the mechanics of the trick seated comfortably on a platform slightly above stage height about 30 feet from the stage (so about 50 feet from the main performance area). There are TV screens off to the sides for the audience in attendance which can show details from overhead for some of the close-up magic tricks. If the guest magician fools P&T then he/she/they get an audacious (though small) trophy denoted with a big red Fooled Us, the adulation of the audience, and the opportunity to appear as a preliminary show at the P&T Theater at some later date.
The show always ends with a performance by Penn and/or Teller, though sometimes these performances would not qualify for "Fool Us" as they are not tricks (such as one of Penn's juggling routines). These are some of the routines that P&T have performed for their nightly show in Vegas.
I believe that the rules of engagement are:
1) P&T are allowed only one guess. On his podcast, "Penn's Sunday School", Penn said that at least one magician had fooled P&T because they had a choice between 2 methods for performing the trick and they had guessed wrong.
2) Penn never fully gives away the trick in his explanations though sometimes Teller will provide an additional drawing which he shows only to the guest magician. Again on his podcast Penn said that his descriptions should give the guest magicians sufficient explanations and any students of magic enough keywords to do a web search for a full explanation. Me? I prefer ignorance.
If you like stage magic, this is a very good show. There is a wide variety of types of magic with an occasional very spectacular routine done by other professional magicians, but most are close-in magic such as card tricks or modernized variations of slate tricks with a tablet computer taking the slate's place.
One thing that I noticed is that Hannigan wears the same dress in every show (um, Ross also wore the same suit but like most people I hadn't noticed). It's a lovely though modest dark blue dress, but there is a reason for this (again, explained by Penn on his "Sunday School"): when these performances are recorded--I believe this past April for the shows with Hannigan--they are done at about the pace of a show's length per day for several weeks. While Penn has never mentioned this on his podcast (yet), perhaps there are some segments that they do not air because someone's trick goes disastrously wrong and they are not able to recover? Maybe, maybe not, but when the programs are shown they are edited together to fit that hour (with commercials) time slot. The director may edit together guest magician segments which are 5-minutes, 15-minutes, 10-minutes and 5-minutes in turn plus an 8-minute finale by P&T, all of which may not have been not recorded on the same day. They cannot have Hannigan's dress changing between each of them.
Originally the host of this show (in the original UK version) was Jonathan Ross, a well-known comedian and talk-show host in the UK. He had stood in for the everyman very well, sometimes serving as extra hands or on-stage prop for guest magicians. In the second season the show was moved to the Penn & Teller (P&T) Theater in Las Vegas, but for this season Ross was busy so P&T got Alyson Hannigan to take Ross' place and she has done an excellence job.
The setup is that 3-5 guest magicians per show will attempt one-at-a-time to fool P&T with one main trick. They can add supplementary tricks along the way but the climax should be that main one. Afterwards Hannigan will banter with the guest magician for a bit while P&T will discuss the mechanics of the trick seated comfortably on a platform slightly above stage height about 30 feet from the stage (so about 50 feet from the main performance area). There are TV screens off to the sides for the audience in attendance which can show details from overhead for some of the close-up magic tricks. If the guest magician fools P&T then he/she/they get an audacious (though small) trophy denoted with a big red Fooled Us, the adulation of the audience, and the opportunity to appear as a preliminary show at the P&T Theater at some later date.
The show always ends with a performance by Penn and/or Teller, though sometimes these performances would not qualify for "Fool Us" as they are not tricks (such as one of Penn's juggling routines). These are some of the routines that P&T have performed for their nightly show in Vegas.
I believe that the rules of engagement are:
1) P&T are allowed only one guess. On his podcast, "Penn's Sunday School", Penn said that at least one magician had fooled P&T because they had a choice between 2 methods for performing the trick and they had guessed wrong.
2) Penn never fully gives away the trick in his explanations though sometimes Teller will provide an additional drawing which he shows only to the guest magician. Again on his podcast Penn said that his descriptions should give the guest magicians sufficient explanations and any students of magic enough keywords to do a web search for a full explanation. Me? I prefer ignorance.
If you like stage magic, this is a very good show. There is a wide variety of types of magic with an occasional very spectacular routine done by other professional magicians, but most are close-in magic such as card tricks or modernized variations of slate tricks with a tablet computer taking the slate's place.
One thing that I noticed is that Hannigan wears the same dress in every show (um, Ross also wore the same suit but like most people I hadn't noticed). It's a lovely though modest dark blue dress, but there is a reason for this (again, explained by Penn on his "Sunday School"): when these performances are recorded--I believe this past April for the shows with Hannigan--they are done at about the pace of a show's length per day for several weeks. While Penn has never mentioned this on his podcast (yet), perhaps there are some segments that they do not air because someone's trick goes disastrously wrong and they are not able to recover? Maybe, maybe not, but when the programs are shown they are edited together to fit that hour (with commercials) time slot. The director may edit together guest magician segments which are 5-minutes, 15-minutes, 10-minutes and 5-minutes in turn plus an 8-minute finale by P&T, all of which may not have been not recorded on the same day. They cannot have Hannigan's dress changing between each of them.
Episodes; fourth season. Don't bother. Apart from Kathleen Perkins there's no life left in the characters. Ironic considering the premise of this fourth season.
Second episode of Red Dwarf series 11 has aired and it's looking pretty funny so far. They seem to be available on the usual torrent sites, btw. 
second to last episode of Luke Cage (Netflix series.)
Some damn good TV. I'd love to know more about the musical acts, though.
Some damn good TV. I'd love to know more about the musical acts, though.
I just started binging my way through Longmire on Netflix. Pretty good so far, but damn I wouldn't want to live in that town. Per capita, I suspect it has the be the crime capitol of North America!
Warin posted:I just started binging my way through Longmire on Netflix. Pretty good so far, but damn I wouldn't want to live in that town. Per capita, I suspect it has the be the crime capitol of North America!
Wasn't that the town in murder she wrote?
I am pretty sure fiddlesticks, Wyoming is a lot smaller than wherever Angela Landsbury lived. But, since that show ran for 12 longer seasons, I might have to give you that one 
dv posted:second to last episode of Luke Cage (Netflix series.)
Some damn good TV. I'd love to know more about the musical acts, though.
i'm frigging loving luke cage right now
it's just so ... black
so wonderfully, wonderfully black
by the way there's a luke cage playlist on spotify
Very good show. Binged half of it yesterday...
I watched the first episode of Westworld (2016) last night...and I guess if I'll continue watching it if somewhat reluctantly.
The basic premise is identical to the original 1973 movie of the same name which was written and directed by Michael Crichton (who wrote the movie's novelization after that movie's release). I had seen that as a 14-year-old in a theater and I still think of it as being rollicking good fun as an adventure movie that certainly appealed to THAT 14-year-old. I recall that movie with a certain fondness though I had--and still have--no thoughts of it being anything approaching great cinema. Perhaps a classic title that any SF cinema buff should (but NOT must) watch.
But this new HBO series is WAAAY darker. While the movie certainly implied that anything could happen--and what teenaged boy WOULDN'T fantasize about having a compliant and "fully functional" female android?--ALL of such happened entirely off-screen and thus earned that movie only a PG rating.
On the other hand the viewer is directly confronted with a black aspect of the very concept of Westworld when The Man in Black (Ed Harris who as yet doesn't [and maybe will not?] have a character name other than that) murders the family and boyfriend of Dolores (Evan Rachel Wood) before grabbing her by her hair and the neck of her dress and dragging her screaming with pure terror to the family barn.
Of course Dolores and her family and boyfriend are only "hosts" at Westworld, the androids who service the "guests" of the park. The personnel running the park are constantly confronted with various glitches in the behavior of the hosts, some of which are introduced by the park's creator Dr. Robert Ford (Anthony Hopkins) who continues to improve the believability of the hosts with complicated tweaks to their behaviors.
There is the additional implication that "SOMETHING ELSE IS GOING ON" which has only been hinted at by Westworld's head of operations Armistice (Ingrid Bolsø Berdal) and also by the Man in Black as he goes "off-script" from his usual "perversion" of abusing/killing Dolores and family to torturing/killing other hosts so maybe he was NOT indulging in some rape fantasy with Dolores in that barn? That the staged rape at the farm far from town is only cover to hide from the personnel running Westworld what he is REALLY looking for?.
So interesting but I'm not sure if it will be enough to justify the darkness of what I've seen so far.
The basic premise is identical to the original 1973 movie of the same name which was written and directed by Michael Crichton (who wrote the movie's novelization after that movie's release). I had seen that as a 14-year-old in a theater and I still think of it as being rollicking good fun as an adventure movie that certainly appealed to THAT 14-year-old. I recall that movie with a certain fondness though I had--and still have--no thoughts of it being anything approaching great cinema. Perhaps a classic title that any SF cinema buff should (but NOT must) watch.
But this new HBO series is WAAAY darker. While the movie certainly implied that anything could happen--and what teenaged boy WOULDN'T fantasize about having a compliant and "fully functional" female android?--ALL of such happened entirely off-screen and thus earned that movie only a PG rating.
On the other hand the viewer is directly confronted with a black aspect of the very concept of Westworld when The Man in Black (Ed Harris who as yet doesn't [and maybe will not?] have a character name other than that) murders the family and boyfriend of Dolores (Evan Rachel Wood) before grabbing her by her hair and the neck of her dress and dragging her screaming with pure terror to the family barn.
Of course Dolores and her family and boyfriend are only "hosts" at Westworld, the androids who service the "guests" of the park. The personnel running the park are constantly confronted with various glitches in the behavior of the hosts, some of which are introduced by the park's creator Dr. Robert Ford (Anthony Hopkins) who continues to improve the believability of the hosts with complicated tweaks to their behaviors.
There is the additional implication that "SOMETHING ELSE IS GOING ON" which has only been hinted at by Westworld's head of operations Armistice (Ingrid Bolsø Berdal) and also by the Man in Black as he goes "off-script" from his usual "perversion" of abusing/killing Dolores and family to torturing/killing other hosts so maybe he was NOT indulging in some rape fantasy with Dolores in that barn? That the staged rape at the farm far from town is only cover to hide from the personnel running Westworld what he is REALLY looking for?.
So interesting but I'm not sure if it will be enough to justify the darkness of what I've seen so far.
Blunt Talk. The jokes seem weak and obvious to me. If Patrick Stewart weren't a pop icon for millennials and boomers I doubt it would be shown.
DEyncourt posted:I watched the first episode of Westworld (2016) last night...and I guess if I'll continue watching it if somewhat reluctantly.
The basic premise is identical to the original 1973 movie of the same name which was written and directed by Michael Crichton (who wrote the movie's novelization after that movie's release). I had seen that as a 14-year-old in a theater and I still think of it as being rollicking good fun as an adventure movie that certainly appealed to THAT 14-year-old. I recall that movie with a certain fondness though I had--and still have--no thoughts of it being anything approaching great cinema. Perhaps a classic title that any SF cinema buff should (but NOT must) watch.
But this new HBO series is WAAAY darker. While the movie certainly implied that anything could happen--and what teenaged boy WOULDN'T fantasize about having a compliant and "fully functional" female android?--ALL of such happened entirely off-screen and thus earned that movie only a PG rating.
On the other hand the viewer is directly confronted with a black aspect of the very concept of Westworld when The Man in Black (Ed Harris who as yet doesn't [and maybe will not?] have a character name other than that) murders the family and boyfriend of Dolores (Evan Rachel Wood) before grabbing her by her hair and the neck of her dress and dragging her screaming with pure terror to the family barn.
Of course Dolores and her family and boyfriend are only "hosts" at Westworld, the androids who service the "guests" of the park. The personnel running the park are constantly confronted with various glitches in the behavior of the hosts, some of which are introduced by the park's creator Dr. Robert Ford (Anthony Hopkins) who continues to improve the believability of the hosts with complicated tweaks to their behaviors.
There is the additional implication that "SOMETHING ELSE IS GOING ON" which has only been hinted at by Westworld's head of operations Armistice (Ingrid Bolsø Berdal) and also by the Man in Black as he goes "off-script" from his usual "perversion" of abusing/killing Dolores and family to torturing/killing other hosts so maybe he was NOT indulging in some rape fantasy with Dolores in that barn? That the staged rape at the farm far from town is only cover to hide from the personnel running Westworld what he is REALLY looking for?.
So interesting but I'm not sure if it will be enough to justify the darkness of what I've seen so far.
wait a minute ... i'm pretty sure the man in black is human; the guns wouldn't work on him, plus he said at one point that he'd been going to the park for 30 year or something
i'm not sure what he's up to, but i'll be very interested to find out ... one idea i had is that instead of being about robots who go crazy and attack humans, maybe it will be about robots who become sentient an humans who go crazy and attack them
anyway, i'm quite enjoying it so far, love anthony hopkins, that scandinavian actress is marvelous, just really watchable tv
also i really didn't find it as dark as everyone made it out to be ... it's nowhere near as dark as game of thrones or the zombie shows
american crime, holy crap
that's some amazing television, you must watch it
currently on season two ... i love how they use the same cast in radically different roles
that's some amazing television, you must watch it
currently on season two ... i love how they use the same cast in radically different roles
Luke Cage, frikkin' great. love the origin episode where he gets to wear his 70's era shackles and headband and yellow tunic. ("I look like a damn fool!") Au contraire! Kool and the Gang did not look like damn fools!
Supernatural
Last Man Standing
American Horror Story
Big Bang Theory
Ink Master
Huangs World
Snapped
Mind Of A Murderer
Blood Relatives
That's just to name the top ones
On DVR but yet to start:
The Good Place
This Is Us
Last Man Standing
American Horror Story
Big Bang Theory
Ink Master
Huangs World
Snapped
Mind Of A Murderer
Blood Relatives
That's just to name the top ones
On DVR but yet to start:
The Good Place
This Is Us
Only two episodes released, and Designated Survivor is pretty darn good. I like seeing Keifer Sutherland in a dramatic role that isn't Jack Bauer.
Vulture
420
TOS posted:DEyncourt posted:I watched the first episode of Westworld (2016) last night...and I guess if I'll continue watching it if somewhat reluctantly.
The basic premise is identical to the original 1973 movie of the same name which was written and directed by Michael Crichton (who wrote the movie's novelization after that movie's release). I had seen that as a 14-year-old in a theater and I still think of it as being rollicking good fun as an adventure movie that certainly appealed to THAT 14-year-old. I recall that movie with a certain fondness though I had--and still have--no thoughts of it being anything approaching great cinema. Perhaps a classic title that any SF cinema buff should (but NOT must) watch.
But this new HBO series is WAAAY darker. While the movie certainly implied that anything could happen--and what teenaged boy WOULDN'T fantasize about having a compliant and "fully functional" female android?--ALL of such happened entirely off-screen and thus earned that movie only a PG rating.
On the other hand the viewer is directly confronted with a black aspect of the very concept of Westworld when The Man in Black (Ed Harris who as yet doesn't [and maybe will not?] have a character name other than that) murders the family and boyfriend of Dolores (Evan Rachel Wood) before grabbing her by her hair and the neck of her dress and dragging her screaming with pure terror to the family barn.
Of course Dolores and her family and boyfriend are only "hosts" at Westworld, the androids who service the "guests" of the park. The personnel running the park are constantly confronted with various glitches in the behavior of the hosts, some of which are introduced by the park's creator Dr. Robert Ford (Anthony Hopkins) who continues to improve the believability of the hosts with complicated tweaks to their behaviors.
There is the additional implication that "SOMETHING ELSE IS GOING ON" which has only been hinted at by Westworld's head of operations Armistice (Ingrid Bolsø Berdal) and also by the Man in Black as he goes "off-script" from his usual "perversion" of abusing/killing Dolores and family to torturing/killing other hosts so maybe he was NOT indulging in some rape fantasy with Dolores in that barn? That the staged rape at the farm far from town is only cover to hide from the personnel running Westworld what he is REALLY looking for?.
So interesting but I'm not sure if it will be enough to justify the darkness of what I've seen so far.
wait a minute ... i'm pretty sure the man in black is human; the guns wouldn't work on him, plus he said at one point that he'd been going to the park for 30 year or something
i'm not sure what he's up to, but i'll be very interested to find out ... one idea i had is that instead of being about robots who go crazy and attack humans, maybe it will be about robots who become sentient an humans who go crazy and attack them
anyway, i'm quite enjoying it so far, love anthony hopkins, that scandinavian actress is marvelous, just really watchable tv
also i really didn't find it as dark as everyone made it out to be ... it's nowhere near as dark as game of thrones or the zombie shows
I saw the first episode, saw the original movie a few years back, and yes I agree that The Man In Black is a complete mystery at this point and doesn't fit the same character as in the movie. The darkness is not nearly as dark to me, it is just fine and normal to me, but now that you bring it up I rather prefer it that way. My guess is we have a lot in store as viewers, not yet knowing how deep and far the writers intended to take the plot beyond the original movie, especially with today's perspective of AI and after that movie EX MACHINA which no doubt has had an influence on how to perceive doing this show. I wish it was on Netflix so I don't have to wait week after week after week.
A big part of the appeal of the org movie was titilation by the idea of android sex.
I said nothing about Westworld's Man in Black being an android, only that he had gone "off-script" meaning that he had done something outside of his usual pattern of terrorizing Dolores and her family.
Obviously anyone who had seen the movie one would immediately identify Harris' Man in Black with Yul Brenner's "Gunslinger" android of the original. Perhaps this is mere misdirection on the director's part though as yet the viewers do not know anything of the background of the HBO series. My suspicion is that the current Man in Black IS an android that had been specifically modified to be identified by Westworld computers as a guest. While he will lead the android mayhem against Westworld's human supervisors, the heroine Dolores--probably assisted by boyfriend Teddy (James Marsden)--somehow will save the day: "Heh, you know that gun won't work on me." <BLAM> "Funny thing: this ain't a Westworld gun."
There is a problem with both the original movie and the HBO series: aside from the more obvious behavioral glitches, if the androids of Westworld are so lifelike that it is usually hard to tell the differences between hosts and guests, what prevents bad interactions between guests of Westworld?
"Yer a pretty one--c'mon to my room."
"Ugh, you? Get away from me!"
From both: "Giving Westworld 1 star only because I can't give it a negative rating."
Obviously anyone who had seen the movie one would immediately identify Harris' Man in Black with Yul Brenner's "Gunslinger" android of the original. Perhaps this is mere misdirection on the director's part though as yet the viewers do not know anything of the background of the HBO series. My suspicion is that the current Man in Black IS an android that had been specifically modified to be identified by Westworld computers as a guest. While he will lead the android mayhem against Westworld's human supervisors, the heroine Dolores--probably assisted by boyfriend Teddy (James Marsden)--somehow will save the day: "Heh, you know that gun won't work on me." <BLAM> "Funny thing: this ain't a Westworld gun."
There is a problem with both the original movie and the HBO series: aside from the more obvious behavioral glitches, if the androids of Westworld are so lifelike that it is usually hard to tell the differences between hosts and guests, what prevents bad interactions between guests of Westworld?
"Yer a pretty one--c'mon to my room."
"Ugh, you? Get away from me!"
From both: "Giving Westworld 1 star only because I can't give it a negative rating."