What’s on TV?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Huntn
  • Anyone can edit the first post of this thread WikiPost WikiPost
  • Start date Start date
Status
The first post of this thread is a WikiPost and can be edited by anyone with the appropiate permissions. Your edits will be public.
Sandman (2022 Netflix)- I’m 2 episodes and in and although it is well made, I am not enamored with the characters or the story. :(
 
Huntn said:
Sandman (2022 Netflix)- I’m 2 episodes and in and although it is well made, I am not enamored with the characters or the story. :(
Click to expand...
I think I went 3 eps and, I agree, I couldn’t stick with it. Some good stuff in there but 🤷‍♂️
 
Edd said:
I think I went 3 eps and, I agree, I couldn’t stick with it. Some good stuff in there but 🤷‍♂️
Click to expand...
Whatever it is, there has to be something that hooks the viewer, and then I ask myself do I care what happens? The answer determines if I will continue. Now there is another series called Morbius who is the same character?
 
Huntn said:
Sandman (2022 Netflix)- I’m 2 episodes and in and although it is well made, I am not enamored with the characters or the story. :(
Click to expand...
I enjoyed the show, but will definitely not watch the next season.
 
The English (2022 Prime/BBC)- The first episode just dropped, wow, I’m hooked, a western mini-series about an English Lady seeking vengence and a Pawnee Indian who has his own agenda, but...

Watching this I was immediately reminded of how grande this genre can be, was drawn into the script, the character interactions and the visuals/cinematography. There could be room to be disappointed, but so far. 👍

How long have you been in this country?
Two weeks.
How many people have you seen killed?
Four.

F0D4623D-9BC3-495F-9B29-B984AF13E82C.jpeg

6C41E3FF-B440-4C87-BB0D-6789070C865A.jpeg​
 
Last edited:
Huntn said:
5th Season of The Crown
Episode 1: Queen Victoria Syndrome-
Interesting episode, official position, never happened. :)

thetab.com

The Crown season five: Wait, did Prince Charles actually try to overthrow the Queen?!

Surely not!
thetab.com thetab.com

Elizabeth Debicki as Lady Diana outstanding:

Click to expand...

I'm having just a teeeeeensy bit of trouble buying into Dominic West picking up the role of Charles in season 5, not least because I can't get "Detective Jimmy McNulty" of The Wire out of my mind, and in particular West's hilarious episodes when trying to acquire enough of a British accent to pass undercover as a posh international elite trying to hook up in an expensive call girl ring.

But I've only watched that first episode of season 5 of The Crown, and so I'll keep an open mind. Not sure the real King Charles will do so, however, but then that's his problem. I'm pretty sure I'll keep watching, even if I think it's a train wreck. After all, train wrecks are hard to resist looking at sometimes.

Entertainment value aside, and generally liking period pieces about royalty (if only for the clothes and food porn), I may be a fan of producers/directors stopping the development of series like this when they approach time frames where the portrayal is of principals who are still living at time of filming. It becomes a dicier and dicier thing to drift from verifiable history to tabloid-style speculation to sheer fabrication for sake of dramatic appeal. At least slap a sticker on it says "this is not a documentary film.":

Viewers of these series are not the same as students of history, but they may well take what they see on the screen as faithful in entirety to actual history, especially when some of what is portrayed might as well have been a documentary rather than docudrama, biopic or just tabloid-level "pics because it happened" voyeurism. Lot of series like this one will intersperse actual news footage which only heightens the idea that one is watching "history" unfold on the screen.... right up to yesterday evening?

I realize all that registers as a futile objection in an era when reality TV is so pervasive as to have blurred in our real lives today what was real and what was invented during the presidency of Donald Trump. But that effect is exactly why I don't like to see it becoming more common in TV drama series. I agree 100% that The Crown should carry disclaimers up front that make it entirely clear the episodes for at least season 5 on (if not earlier!) are at best "based on..." actual events which are then fictionalized in the episodes.
 
And with that, Atlanta is done. An incredible series, the finale stuck the landing. I loved this show.
 
I haven't yet seen The Crown S5. Will check it out whenever I re-up my Netflix subscription.

But the actress portraying Diana in season 4 did an incredible job.
 
I was a big fan of The Sandman comic, started with issue #1 way back in '89 :) and a big fan of the incredibly talented Neil Gaiman (that includes his non-comic work).

That out of the way, I could totally see how the show would be less appealing to people not coming from the comic or from a history of consuming his sort of material (it's a very specific sort of fantasy work).

I would say to @Huntn and @Edd, if you have a moment, watch Episode 6: The Sound of Her Wings, it's [mostly] a bottle EP, it introduces Dream's sister, Death (played, in a terrific performance, by Kirby Howell-Baptiste). It's funny, touching, really a beautiful take on the hereafter. And not as a "Then you'll want to watch the others", just as an extremely engaging 53 minutes of stand-alone entertainment.

Huntn said:
Now there is another series called Morbius who is the same character?
Click to expand...

Morbius != Morpheus ;)

(I assume you're talking about the Sony/Marvel movie starring Jared Leto)
 
lizkat said:
I'm having just a teeeeeensy bit of trouble buying into Dominic West picking up the role of Charles in season 5, not least because I can't get "Detective Jimmy McNulty" of The Wire out of my mind, and in particular West's hilarious episodes when trying to acquire enough of a British accent to pass undercover as a posh international elite trying to hook up in an expensive call girl ring.

But I've only watched that first episode of season 5 of The Crown, and so I'll keep an open mind. Not sure the real King Charles will do so, however, but then that's his problem. I'm pretty sure I'll keep watching, even if I think it's a train wreck. After all, train wrecks are hard to resist looking at sometimes.

Entertainment value aside, and generally liking period pieces about royalty (if only for the clothes and food porn), I may be a fan of producers/directors stopping the development of series like this when they approach time frames where the portrayal is of principals who are still living at time of filming. It becomes a dicier and dicier thing to drift from verifiable history to tabloid-style speculation to sheer fabrication for sake of dramatic appeal. At least slap a sticker on it says "this is not a documentary film.":

Viewers of these series are not the same as students of history, but they may well take what they see on the screen as faithful in entirety to actual history, especially when some of what is portrayed might as well have been a documentary rather than docudrama, biopic or just tabloid-level "pics because it happened" voyeurism. Lot of series like this one will intersperse actual news footage which only heightens the idea that one is watching "history" unfold on the screen.... right up to yesterday evening?

I realize all that registers as a futile objection in an era when reality TV is so pervasive as to have blurred in our real lives today what was real and what was invented during the presidency of Donald Trump. But that effect is exactly why I don't like to see it becoming more common in TV drama series. I agree 100% that The Crown should carry disclaimers up front that make it entirely clear the episodes for at least season 5 on (if not earlier!) are at best "based on..." actual events which are then fictionalized in the episodes.
Click to expand...
For a historical show whether it is seventeenth or the twentieth century like this one, I expect an historically based show to follow and be accurate to the actual framework of history, especially when making a statement about someone’s life who was alive until just recently. I also understand there is a lot of liberty in writing lines of dialog that meet said historical framework, in other words conversations unless documented, must be regarded as fictional, but if they stay within the bounds of the historical record, then they are good enough.

In the case of Princess Diana fortunately because she went on record, there is a lot of specific info even so the portrayal of her’s and Charles lives together most likely follows the tones of their documented relationship.

Regarding accuracy, if you as the creator of the show can’t say a story is true or mostly true, don’t say you are making a show about Queen Elizabeth. Otherwise, I agree put a fiction label on it.

That said, regarding this season 5, episode 1, this story line although denied by sources like John Major, came from somewhere, possibly someone’s imagination, maybe a writer or though the grapevine. So I can say it is not documented, but at the same time I suspect the people like Major who would know, might have reasons not to substantiate the story, especially now, although some of that might depend on whether they are pro-monarchy or anti.
 
DT said:
I was a big fan of The Sandman comic, started with issue #1 way back in '89 :) and a big fan of the incredibly talented Neil Gaiman (that includes his non-comic work).

That out of the way, I could totally see how the show would be less appealing to people not coming from the comic or from a history of consuming his sort of material (it's a very specific sort of fantasy work).

I would say to @Huntn and @Edd, if you have a moment, watch Episode 6: The Sound of Her Wings, it's [mostly] a bottle EP, it introduces Dream's sister, Death (played, in a terrific performance, by Kirby Howell-Baptiste). It's funny, touching, really a beautiful take on the hereafter. And not as a "Then you'll want to watch the others", just as an extremely engaging 53 minutes of stand-alone entertainment.



Morbius != Morpheus ;)

(I assume you're talking about the Sony/Marvel movie starring Jared Leto)
Click to expand...
I will consider your suggestion. My standard for stories, some percentage of, is it intriguing, compelling, visually exciting, do I like these characters or are interested in them, and possibly most important, do I care what happens to them or what happens next? Keep in mind I like fantasy as a genre. There was enough in episode 1 to keep me going, but as I continued into E2, I continued to find the presentation to be cold, is the best way I can describe it.
 
Ref: The Crown (Netflix)
I'm having just a teeeeeensy bit of trouble buying into Dominic West picking up the role of Charles in season 5, not least because I can't get "Detective Jimmy McNulty" of The Wire out of my mind, and in particular West's hilarious episodes when trying to acquire enough of a British accent to pass undercover as a posh international elite trying to hook up in an expensive call girl ring.
-@lizkat

Speaking of, every time I see Imelda Staunton as the Queen, I see Dolores Umbridge… (Harry Potter Baddie) :D

Season 5 E3: Mou Mou was excellent.

It took me a while to place her, Elizabeth Debicki as Diana, in a former/returning role:


1BA9FD16-0572-450F-B63B-ED649E9D6290.jpegAyesha: Guardians of the Galaxy 2​
 
Last edited:
Huntn said:
There was enough in episode 1 to keep me going, but as I continued into E2, I continued to find the presentation to be cold, is the best way I can describe it.
Click to expand...

That's definitely a fair point, the lead characters are personifications of abstract concepts, not exactly something most of us can identify with :D

That's also why there was always the presence of strong human / human-esque characters, so be the reader/viewer's perspective, and while that gets much better in the latter 1/2 of the show, it's the weakest part.
 
Huntn said:
The English (2022 Prime/BBC)- The first episode just dropped, wow, I’m hooked, a western mini-series about an English Lady seeking vengence and a Pawnee Indian who has his own agenda, but...

Watching this I was immediately reminded of how grande this genre can be, was drawn into the script, the character interactions and the visuals/cinematography. There could be room to be disappointed, but so far. 👍

How long have you been in this country?
Two weeks.
How many people have you seen killed?
Four.

Click to expand...
Just finished, it’s excellent, a piece of art, filmed beautifully with wide angle lense and grand scenery (filmed in Spain) with caveats. Although there are common Western themes like cattlemen, and sod busters, deadly gun fights, abuse of Native Americans, stealing their lands, it’s not a cliched story. There are good and bad people on all sides, it does not have the usual climactic gun fight you might expect, but when it’s over I felt like I saw something special with truths about human nature. The amazing thing is that this was about the US only 70 years before I was born. 🤔

DF82FF55-B5A4-4104-8B3D-C726CEB70B77.jpeg​
 
Gee, why is everything just going downhill. Now on Netflix some "docuseries" that apparently found favor with the likes of Jordan Peterson and Joe Rogan... and will appeal to conspiracy theorists in general almost everywhere. All about a purported highly advanced civilization that built all this great stuff on planet earth 12k years ago and then was wiped out in a hail of comet fire or something.

www.theguardian.com

Ancient Apocalypse is the most dangerous show on Netflix

A show with a truly preposterous theory is one of the streaming giant’s biggest hits – and it seems to exist solely for conspiracy theorists. Why has this been allowed?
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com

Reputable archeologists (or "big archaeology" as the series writer would have it) all vehemently disagree... but the series is trending on the platform anyway.

How did this dubious offering land on Netflix?

But, hey, not all conspiracy theories are bad. If you don’t like Hancock’s story about the super-intelligent advanced civilisation being wiped off the face of the planet, here’s another that might explain how Netflix gave the greenlight to Ancient Apocalypse: the platform’s senior manager of unscripted originals happens to be Hancock’s son. Honestly, what are the chances?
Click to expand...
 

Similar threads

Huntn
What’s On Your Mind?
19 20 21
Replies
412
Views
17K
Huntn
Huntn
Back
Top