General Open Thread – TV Shows
8 January 2014 at 20:16 #24081
An interesting episode I thought, something a bit different and a bit more emotional than we’ve had before. In a way it was interesting to see a completely different side to Sherlock, and those drunk scenes are some of the best EVER! 😀 And Mrs Hudson- “you’ve only been gone 2 hours”. Brilliant.
Some interesting theories here, and I didn’t know about Mary’s fate in the books- have only just started reading them. Kind of hoping they ‘forget’ to put that in…
Someone said they thought Molly’s bloke was sus- we thought that too. There’s something about him, not sure if it’ll turn into anything though.
(I do have to say though, and this is just something that made me chuckle, if you were putting a belt on wouldn’t you feel that you’ve been stabbed? Even the smallest blade or needle you can feel, just seemed a bit odd in an otherwise top episode.)
Very much looking forward to the grand finale!8 January 2014 at 23:43 #24093theprettyreckless @theprettyreckless
Does anyone watch Torchwood?It’s an anagram of Dr Who,for those who maybe don’t know.9 January 2014 at 00:54 #24095
Well, I suppose Sunday could see the Watsons settled into contented parental bliss with several kids and nanny Sherlock onhand to bribe them with suitably gruesome stuff… but somehow I doubt it. 😀 Agree with @jimthefish that there’s still some emotional fallout from TRF to be dealt with. I really liked that episode, esp the emotional layers, with Sherlock seeming quite vulnerable (suddenly aware that his actions, and the fact of having a reputation, have consequences, and not just to himself. He can dissociate himself from all the press hoo-ha and celeb status crap and claim he’s not playing, but that reaction in itself is engaging with “the game” and is a reaction to it. And it affects other people). Sign of Three was written by the same guy.
I really need to catch up on the early Sherlocks – can’t believe I missed them. Need to refresh my memory on the original stories too – been a long time since I read them. Agh! I need a TARDIS 😯
@whogirl – agreed re “you’ve only been gone 2 hours” – that was great. Especially coming straight after Sherlock’s carefully calculated and calibrated alcohol intake research. But then the powerful final scene where he’s again withdrawing, putting on his coat both metaphorically and literally. (As others have mentioned you can se the parallels at the end of the Green Death)10 January 2014 at 11:05 #24150
On Sherlock, it seems they will go on to a Fourth series, which is nice10 January 2014 at 13:37 #24163Anonymous @
@phaseshift – yes, good news although the BTLers seem to disagree (no surprise there then 😉 )10 January 2014 at 13:57 #24165
@juniperfish and @whogirl – Molly’s boyfriend is definitely sus. In The Sign of Three, Molly’s looking considerably ‘older’ than in The Empty Hearse. She looks miserable throughout the wedding. When Sherlock’s consulting her about the stag do, she’s clearly sensitive about the amount she’s drinking.
Okay, so – doing a Sherlock: looks older, unhappy, drinking a lot. This relationship isn’t going well.11 January 2014 at 11:12 #24211
I’ve been away watching Nigel Kneale’s series ‘Beasts’ and ‘Kinvig’.
Interesting that ‘Beasts’ scared the wits out of young RTD & Mark Gatiss…
11 January 2014 at 11:15 #24212
Wedding photography Sherlock style….11 January 2014 at 11:33 #24216
@theprettyreckless – yeah, Torchwood is great stuff. Kept me going when Doctor Who was off air!
Loved the first three series’, but the fourth was very disappointing. Still hoping for a comeback one day… I can dream 😉
Last ep of Sherlock tomorrow, hold on to your hats people……12 January 2014 at 12:05 #24232
Really interesting article from Den of Geek – Shark Jumping and the Casual Viewer – a voice of sanity on fandom, breaking the fourth wall and “9 million strong cliques”. Mainly about Sherlock but applies to Who as well http://www.denofgeek.us/tv/sherlock/231946/sherlock-shark-jumping-and-the-casual-viewer12 January 2014 at 15:13 #24234
Thanks for the link. I just thought I’d mention that BBC4 are showing a Timeshift Documentary tonight at 10pm (just after the third episode finishes) looking at depictions of Holmes from Silent Movies onwards which could be interesting.12 January 2014 at 15:13 #24235
@scaryb – good article. Certainly I’ve lost count recently of the number of times I’ve been saying that I doubt there are eight million ‘obsessive fans’. Or that I also doubt 2.9 million requests on iPlayer all came from people watching the programme for the second time.
‘Viewing figures aren’t falling’ is another sentence I should have on speed type. 🙂13 January 2014 at 15:27 #24267thommck @thommck
No Spoilers 🙂
The final episode of Sherlock was much more what I wanted to see from this series :D. However, it still felt like it dragged on by about 20 minutes longer than it should have.
It’s odd that, in a way, it can feel like it is dragging on, with lots of ‘filler’ in it’s 90 mins runtime, yet I’d be happier to have seen a more slower development of the whole CAM plot. Perhaps my attention span is just too short nowadays (I blame YouTube!) but don’t you think the same episodes re-edited as 6 x 45 mins could have maybe told the story in a bit more of a thrilling and succinct manner?
If people are looking for another intelligent thriller to watch, I’d suggest you take a look at season one of Hannibal (was shown recently on Sky), starring the brother of the actor who played CAM, Mads Mikkelsen. I have a feeling they may have swapped tips on how to be creepy on screen! I loved it, and am very happy that season two is going to be on in February.13 January 2014 at 19:34 #24274
:O ….. I will keep it Sherlock-spoiler free!
Think I might still be in shock! What an episode!! The end, oh the end. To quote DocTor no.9- “FAN-TASTIC!” Who saw that coming then….14 January 2014 at 18:52 #24306ConfusedPolarity @confusedpolarity
Really glad they’ve confirmed another Sherlock series – even f it’s only three episodes long! Sunday’s was, for me, the best of the lot so far.
Honestly, Moffat and Gatiss are personally responsible for a good portion of all that’s worth watching on the BBC of late!19 January 2014 at 06:36 #24426
I recently bought the two Not the Nine O’clock News DVD’s, and I have to say its one of the funniest shows I’ve ever watched.19 January 2014 at 22:57 #24450novaya @novaya
Hi everyone – I’m new to this forum and wanted to petition any Mark Gatiss fans out there for help with getting a recent interview with him posted online. Not sure how many of you caught Gatiss’ adaptation of M.R. James’ “The Tractate Middoth” on BBC2 on Christmas, but the British Film Institute hosted a screening of the show in London in late November, followed by a Q&A with Gatiss and two of the actors (Sacha Dhawan and John Castle.) I e-mailed BFI in early December about getting the interview online, and they said they wanted to wait until after the broadcast. But several weeks later, there’s still nothing on the website. If you guys have a minute, would you mind asking BFI to upload the video? They can be reached at the links below or on Twitter. Thanks!!20 January 2014 at 14:23 #24484
The Musketeers was an enjoyable romp. The 1st episode was directed by one of Who’s best directors and featured (very Who-y) music by Murray Gold, plus some bloke called Peter Capaldi as the villain…
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/p00sxqkd/The_Musketeers_Friends_and_Enemies/20 January 2014 at 14:38 #24485thommck @thommck
@wolfweed I enjoyed The Musketeers too, although it seems like a mash-up of BBC dramas! I saw elements of Doctor Who, Robin Hood, Ripper Street, Merlin and Atlantis. All that was missing was a bit of Sherlock 😉
The king was delightfully wimpy, and each of the Musketeers seem like they’ll all have a decent bit of development. I’m not quite sure where the lady-with-the-northern-accent fits in but she seemed very companion-esque. In fact the Milady character was a bit of a River-in-psycho-mode character.
I heard this was originally going to be a Doctor Who gap-filler and my sons all liked the look of the trailers, so I was a bit bemused why it was scheduled after the watershed. I didn’t let them watch it but recorded just in case (as I’m doing with The Tomorrow People). Perhaps it’s all the prostitute/sex stuff (which was quite mild IMHO).
As for Capaldi, personally, I thought his performance was a bit off. Like he was struggling a bit with how evil he should be! Maybe he just stood out because of him being the new Doctor. I guess they will need to kill him off if this gets past one series. I can’t see him fitting both shows into his schedule, or binning DW off in favour of Musketeers.
The only major downside was that they got the theme tune wrong 😉
20 January 2014 at 18:20 #24495Whisht @whisht
@thommck – I don’t usually say this but NO!
I even watched 0:25 seconds just to reacquaint myself and…. it hasn’t changed.
NO NO NO – thrice I say NO!
[god how do i get that choon out of me head????!!?]20 January 2014 at 18:36 #24498ConfusedPolarity @confusedpolarity
Well it’s probably an advantage I’ve not read the Dumas version in over 2o years, but I’ve got to say I really enjoyed The Musketeers!
OK, it didn’t take Sherlock Holmes to figure out who was behind the dastardly plot; and I’ll be honest, one or two of the more minor characters were quite weakly played, but overall – yes, I’ll be watching again.
I was a bit worried about a “standard pretty boy” playing D’Artagnan, but actually he was perfectly credible; the banter between the Musketeers themselves was nicely done, Milady and Constance were both excellent, and for my taste Capaldi nailed Richelieu just about perfectly. I think it was wise to avoid any panto-villain moustache-twirling and make the Cardinal a nasty piece of political work rather than a Sherriff of Nottingham maniac.
I’m not quite sold on Louis XIII yet, although he’s certainly weak, ineffectual and petulant enough, but the really jarring note for me was the slightly dim mistress who thought she could get away with cheating the most powerful man in France. Her fate was deserved for the delivery of her lines in my opinion 🙂 although it also got one of those “looks that speak a thousand words” from Capaldi. To get that mix of emotions without saying a single word – that’s proper acting!21 January 2014 at 11:34 #24509
As soon as the pistol was hidden, it was obvious to the audience that Richelieu would rifle through the knicker-drawer of the mistress…
I suspect that Capaldi is refraining from shouting a lot, to distance himself from M Tucker…
26 January 2014 at 17:39 #24700Anonymous @
Quite enjoying the Musketeers so far.
Oh, and have written a blog on Sherlock but rather than clog up the works with it here, I’ll just link to it for anyone who might be interested….26 January 2014 at 21:01 #24702Arbutus @arbutus
Great post. I came late to the whole Sherlock phenomenon, as I do with everything these days; I just don’t tend to watch any TV until someone tells me I should! 🙂 On the whole I have really enjoyed their take on the stories, and definitely agree that there have been stronger and weaker episodes.
Regarding the most recent series, which I have now seen in its entirety thanks to the net, I can see why some people didn’t like it. It dipped pretty far into the surreal at times, and was often more about character development than plot. This doesn’t bother me in the least, although many won’t care for it. But I think that the main problem, as we have seen time and again with DW, is that people then feel entitled to the view that because the writers haven’t gone in the direction that they would prefer, that this means the show has “jumped the shark”, or that the writers/creators are somehow wrong. In the case of DW, I can understand that with a fifty-year old program, people feel possessive (although I believe that they are wrong to do this). I really don’t get it in the case of Sherlock. Nine episodes, created by the same team over three series, and people somehow feel that it is not the right of Moffat and Co. to take the show in any direction they want? Sorry, no sympathy there. If I don’t like it, I won’t watch it. I don’t watch most things. That’s my privilege. People, I think, really, truly need to get over themselves. End of rant. Thanks for reading.
Nice blog, @jimthefish. I also enjoyed the previous post on publishing: a really interesting take on how the notion of the “professional artist” is changing. As an unpublished writer who would like to bring more work to the public eye, I find this really relevant. I have long since moved past the notion that the arts will ever earn me my living, but they still remain central to my life. This whole discussion is equally relevant to the music world, where artists are finding a way to their audience without having to go through the music industry funnel. If today’s technology had been available back in the eighties when I was attempting my pop music career, my life might have gone in a very different direction. (Not that I mourn this now; I’m good where I am!)
However, the notion of artists creating works close to their heart, without constraints imposed upon them from outside based on spreadsheets and previous “hits” is on the whole pretty great, provided that people accept the changes that go along with it. Now if we could only convince more of the audience that all this art shouldn’t be available for free! 🙂26 January 2014 at 21:35 #24709
Nice blog post. I largely agree – except that I don’t think Pinter, Potter et al were writing in a vacuum at all. It’s just that they weren’t getting the feedback within two seconds of broadcast. 🙂
But they did get feedback. Boy, did they get feedback.26 January 2014 at 21:45 #24712Anonymous @
@arbutus — Many thanks for the kind words. I think one of the interesting things about Sherlock Holmes is that it’s a durable formula that you can take it in many different directions and still retain the spirit of the original — as we can see from the varying interpretations over the years. And it always has purists who don’t take to a new interpretation without an inordinate amount of pushing and prodding and time. I remember massive howls of protest at the Jeremy Brett versions back in the day and how they were an insult to the memory of ACD and Basil Rathbone and so on, but now they’re the standard to which all other interpretations have to be matched. Or at least until the next ones.
And I agree that Sherlock is much more about character than plot and I’d say it always has been. It’s just that it’s been much more obvious this year and they’ve done away with ‘hook’ of the mysteries to hang it upon. And if you accept that that is the premise of this version of the show then it’s still a rather satisfying piece of TV. It’s just when, as you say, you load it with your own set of expectations (which may or may not bear any relation to the actual show itself), that it starts becoming a disappointment.
RE. publishing/creativity in the modern age. We are definitely undergoing a paradigm shift now and it’s one which I find fascinating. Certainly there’s going to casualties but I think it’s largely going to be the middle-men and the gate-keepers of the distribution channels. In 20 or 30 years time what it means to be an artist is going to be something very, very different, I think. There will be far fewer people who make a sole living out of it than there is now. And how art is perceived and consumed will be different too. Maybe it’ll be much more an aspect of character development — something people do without the expectation that they’ll necessarily ‘get rich’ off it, as well as finding for ourselves the art we’re interested in rather than being fed through the streams of the current media trends, etc.26 January 2014 at 22:01 #24714Anonymous @
Oh, they all got notes, that’s for sure. And, of course, bollockings and praise from the media reaction to their work. But as you say, aside from production notes, I don’t think it would have interfered or manipulated the direction of the work itself, while it was actually being written. I’m not even sure writers would have got notes to the same extent from execs and so on that a writer today would. Back in the 80s. The writer would have largely worked with the script editor, who would have been the filter between the writer and the rest of the production hierarchy. There were probably far fewer strata of ‘editors’ for your script to fight through while you were actually writing the damn thing.
I’m also not sure whether the likes of Potter or Bleasdale would have given that much of a toss about the reaction to their work. Both were continually being hauled over the coals of public opinion but there’s no real evidence to suggest that it made them alter their subsequent work — and interesting, no real evidence that anyone at an executive level ever tried to get them to do so. There really is a sense that authorial voice in modern TV drama has become really diluted and I can’t help but wonder how much of that is down to institutional changes within the drama-producing companies and how much has been caused by the rise of the internet and social media etc.
Compare that to now where The Empty Hearse etc certainly seem to be reacting to what’s happening in the social media-sphere. The question is whether it weakens or strengthens it as drama.
It’s all highly interesting stuff. There’s almost certainly another burbling blog post in it, I reckon….26 January 2014 at 22:40 #24718
Compare that to now where The Empty Hearse etc certainly seem to be reacting to what’s happening in the social media-sphere. The question is whether it weakens or strengthens it as drama.
I’d say ‘commentating on’ rather than ‘reacting to’. Commentating on current events is always valid in drama – David Hare practically makes a living out of it. John and Sherlock are living (and blogging) in the Internet age and are Internet celebrities.
I do wonder how much of the apparent freedom to experiment that’s visible in Sherlock is due to Hartswood not just being an independent production company, but a family production company. It’s all very modern in one way, but old-fashioned in another: the focus group seems to be family and friends arguing it out over the dinner table. (Metaphorically speaking).
The other thing might be that the BBC clearly didn’t recognise what it had – the original August broadcasts for Series One show that. So they might be more hands off than usual; they didn’t get it, they know they don’t get it – but look at the viewing figures! Is there an attitude of ‘Hartswood are coming up with the goods; leave them alone to do it’ ?26 January 2014 at 23:20 #24723Anonymous @
Is there an attitude of ‘Hartswood are coming up with the goods; leave them alone to do it’ ?
That’s an interesting point and I think you could well be right. Coupled with the fact that Moffat and Gatiss (and Cumberbatch and Freeman) are seriously big-hitters for the Beeb now. They’ve transcended above the normal commissioning and production process to a large extent. I’m sure they still get notes, but as you say I suspect they’re given in a much more respectful and collegiate way than they would be if they were further down the food chain.
You’re right that the Beeb didn’t know what they had. The fact that the pilot had to be remade and the initial scheduling suggests that they didn’t really have that much faith in it as a project. I’m guessing that they’re glad to have been proved wrong.
In general though I think there’s some evidence that the writing culture within the Beeb that a great many writers railed against, with layers and layers of commissioning and executive ‘input’ seems to be being slowly dismantled. John Yorke’s Writing Academy has gone now, the soaps are losing their stranglehold on drama departments. Maybe we’re going to start seeing more of a different way of producing drama in the coming years…26 January 2014 at 23:32 #24725Anonymous @
@arbutus – Thank you for your comments Re Timey-Wimey Evolution post. I wanted to say, that you deserve all the credit, since it was just my interpretation of what you had posted already. I just arranged it in a form where the pattern could be more easily seen. The “pattern” is simplified and just my opinion so I didn’t want to blame that on you, since I’m sure it will be proven to be wrong in the future. 🙂
I just don’t tend to watch any TV until someone tells me I should!
That is exactly how I approach new TV shows, too. There are so many “bad shows” (just my opinion of shows I don’t find the least bit interesting and leave me wondering how they ever managed to reach the airwaves). Shows simply made based on ‘spreadsheets and previous hits’ are often the easiest to identify for being “bad shows” and I refuse to ever watch them. I like to think that, in some small way I am making sure that “good shows” get the recognition they deserve by not allowing lesser productions to share the same space with them. On the other hand, I think it is important that “artists creating works close to their heart”, should never be criticized for their efforts, they are the true owners of the art.
But even the best artist is capable of making mistakes, which I think should be constructively criticized.
Breaking Bad is the last American show I watched. It was an excellent show -if you don’t have moral objections to its subject matter- for anyone who has not watched it yet. I think it is perfect for demonstrating “mistake” versus “creative differences”. I think they completely botched the final season of Breaking Bad in two ways. The first way was a mistake. The second way was creative differences.
At the start of the final episodes, the first scene is supposed to be a vague preview of where the season is going to end up. However, it is not vague at all!!! 👿 Unlike previous seasons of BB (or DW’s TIA ep, which did this perfectly), anyone with a bit of deductive reasoning can piece together half of the season from the first five minutes. An unexplainable and pointless mistake which ruined what I thought was a flawless show up till then. So, I would recommend skipping the first five minutes of the episode ‘Blood Money’. That will restore the excitement of the first half of the final season, which would have been good if I didn’t know what was coming already.
The second half of the season is more of a creative difference, based on the uncharacteristic decisions Jessie makes. I would have done it differently, but I’m not the artist. I think the first mistake is much worse than the second, but both of these things equally break my heart as a fan of the show. I would still recommend giving Breaking Bad a watch if you haven’t seen it. It is still one of the greatest I have ever seen, even without liking the ending.31 January 2014 at 14:52 #24902Anonymous @
Interesting archive piece on The Sarah Connor Chronicles (which I was a big fan of) and why it failed. Aside from being interesting in itself, it’s sort of pertinent in the light of some of the criticisms that Moffat gets about making Who too complicated and arc-heavy.
(What do you mean ‘you’re clearly in prevarication and distraction mode today?’)31 January 2014 at 23:22 #24912blenkinsopthebrave @blenkinsopthebrave
Buffy the Vampire Slayer
Fellow Enthusiasts. I need your advice. I have been devouring the works of Joss Whedon, who I first discovered–not via “Buffy”, but via “Firefly”. And now I have seen everything up to, and including, both “Cabin in the Woods” (loved it!) and his absolutely brilliant “As You Like It”.
However, I have to confess that I have never seen any “Buffy”. Hard to believe, I know. (You have to understand also that I have never signed up for Facebook or Twitter–the enquiry comes from that background)
Where do I start? At the beginning, and work my way through? Or is there an iconic episode that will capture the uninitiated, like me? Or is there one season in particular that I should go to?1 February 2014 at 00:41 #24913Anonymous @
Logically, you should really start at the beginning but I highly recommend Season 3 simply for the brilliant performances of Harry Groener as ‘Mayor Richard Wilkins III’ and Elisa Dushka as ‘Faith, the psychotic and ever so naughty Vampire Slayer’.
As for iconic episodes, the one that springs to mind is ‘Once More With Feeling’, a musical episode from Season 6. Musicals aren’t really ‘my thing’ but this really is superb. I’ll post a couple of songs on the Music thread as a taster.1 February 2014 at 02:32 #24915Anonymous @
Just to echo @fatmaninabox, there are certain ground-breaking and frankly breathtaking episodes of Buffy — such as Hush, Passions, The Body, Once More With Feeling and so on — but I think it’s better to encounter them as you go along instead of seeing them slightly out of context. I’d also agree that Season Three is probably the highpoint, the one where the cast was tightest and it had the best Big Bad in the form of the Mayor and Faith.
So basically, like Alice, I’d recommend starting at the beginning and keep going until you reach the end and then stop.
Hmmm, you’ve made me want to check out some Buffy again now. (Although I think I do prefer Angel overall. It certainly had the more satisfying series finale, I think.)1 February 2014 at 12:10 #24922
Just a warning, however. Starting at the beginning is good advice because it lets you find out the character dynamics that later series rely on. However, Season 1 was a bit wobbly – rather like Series 1 of the AG Who, they threw everything at it but the kitchen sink in the hope that something would work. 🙂
So if you start at the beginning, be patient. The best is yet to come. 😀3 February 2014 at 09:55 #24964
Just adding my agreement to what’s been said before about Buffy. I found it halfway through Season 2, then did a catch up of Season 1 before 3 started. Seeing where it came from, how the characters (and the story) evolved, definitely added to the enjoyment (tho I’d agree with @bluesqueakpip that S1 has its “wobbles” – but also some great bits). Once More with Feeling for example, while it’s a great stand alone, benefits from the added nuances of knowing the characters and context.3 February 2014 at 10:08 #24967Anonymous @
A further warning. Do not under any circumstances watch the movie version with Kristy Swanson! If I’d seen that first, I’d have never bothered with the series 🙂10 February 2014 at 00:26 #25160andrewwhite92 @andrewwhite92
Other than Doctor Who my favorite TV shows are Walking dead, Game of Thrones, Veronica Mars, Parks and Recreation, and Psych. For older TV shows I loved M*A*S*H.28 February 2014 at 15:50 #25870
A new TV show to avoid: Intelligence.
I was recommended it by a friend, and can’t help but feel she was being mischievous, as the only alternative explanation can be that she has had most of her brain removed in some sort of freak accident. I’ve watched about three episodes of it with increasing incredulity.
It’s a shlocky action fest which sees Sawyer from Lost (Josh Holloway) have a chip implanted into his brain by Doctor Phlox from Star Trek Enterprise (John Billingsley). He works for a secretive Government Agency and he can access every bit of information on everyone. He fights for truth, puppies, freedom, etc. against people who want to “destroy our way of life” (honestly – Sawyer actually says this at one point, although I’ll give him points for looking fairly stunned as he says it, with gritted teeth).
The biggest problem I have with it is that I believe it is in danger of turning me into a conspiracy freak – something I believe I have successfully resisted for much of my life. Because I can’t help feeling this abortion was dreamed up by a committee of concerned parties in an emergency session of the CIA and NSA:
Boss: “We’re getting a lot of heat over our surveillance and data gathering…what can we do?”
Underling 1: “It doesn’t help that the media is producing shows saying that surveillance is a bad thing and something to be feared. We need balance. We need a show that tells it like it is to honest god-fearing American folk that only people with something to hide have anthing to fear. We’re the good guys!”
Underling 2: “Hell yeah! We could write it!”
Underling 3: “Do we have anyone who understands character and drama?”
Boss: “No we don’t. We’d better aim for network TV.”
The underlying philosophy is “Oh, we will get into trouble if anyone finds out we’re doing this terrible thing. But it’s keeping us safe from some horrible people, and look, Sawyer has just taken his shirt off. And saved some puppies. Isn’t he a role model for super-snoopers everywhere?”.
Intelligence – It’s an insult to the audiences.28 February 2014 at 18:07 #25879Anonymous @
It sounds ghastly. I have a theory that the reason why Agents of SHIELD and the last Splinter Cell game have done so badly is precisely because of all this NSA stuff. The TV/movie fetisisation of a hi-tech industrial/military complex of the last 20 odd years is finally at an end, it would seem. At least temporarily. And that’s a good thing in my book.3 March 2014 at 11:06 #26057FaeGrl @faegrl
Hmm… as if I don’t blah-de-blah enough on this forum, I wanted to quickly mention some of my current shows I’m following (sorry, if you’re sick of me already!). Besides Doctor Who, I tend to love crime dramas in general… I’ve always wanted to work in law enforcement, you see. Never quite got there, so I write instead.
Anyway, I’m currently watching two crime shows, one fictional and one real: “The Following” and “Catching Killers (Forensic Firsts)”. I was a huge fan of Sherlock… I still am, just that I’ve gone lazy in following it in real-time and plan to watch the full season in a marathon when they add it to “Netflix”, like they always do. I was always a huge fan of “Lie To Me”, before they canceled it. Sigh. And for the gruesome monster stuff, I do follow The Walking Dead. American Horror Story, and “Supernatural” from time to time.12 March 2014 at 16:38 #26361
I wonder if anyone can help me with this. I remember watching a kids TV series several years ago about a town entirely populated by ducks, ecxept for the main guys best mate who was a crocodile. It was on Cartoon Network in the UK and was a CG animation. Does anyone know what it’s called?12 March 2014 at 17:09 #26363blenkinsopthebrave @blenkinsopthebrave
Sitting Ducks. Not seen it myself, but it took about 10 seconds to Google it.12 March 2014 at 19:18 #2636413 March 2014 at 15:05 #26370CraigNixon @craignixon
What about Ducktales? Sure theres a crocodile in it somewhere. 😛
Anyone still wayching Musketeers? Last weeks was a bit weak but next weeks looks like a belter. Though they’ve done the typical “bloke sees his evil ex” bit and “Dogtanian gets it on” bit
(I will always refer to him as Dogtanian, greatest ever interpretation!)14 March 2014 at 10:27 #26384Anonymous @
@jimthefish and @phaseshift marvellous analyses and I’d second (well third) it. The US invariably produces this stuff at huge cost to production companies: it’s mind boggling. Another series on recently in Australia (bought from the States) was something about an ex-CIA agent working with the baddies so as to afford his hedonism: I don’t remember its name but I was mildly interested as it starred James Spader in a David E. Kelley production. But unlike LA Law, there was about 8 mins of quality…the rest…shite.14 March 2014 at 13:35 #26388
I think its The Blacklist with James Spader. I thought he was watcheable in it, but a lot of the support team dragged it down.
On a happy note, I’m glad to report that the friend who recommended Intelligence to me was being mischievous and I have therefore cancelled the order for twelve roles of rubber wallpaper that I intended to redecorate her study with.
There will be payback – oh yes.17 March 2014 at 20:36 #26482
@craignixon I’m watching The Musketeers, I quite enjoy it, and it lightens up my dull Sunday evenings.
Every time I see Peter Capaldi I wonder if he knew he was the next Doctor when he filmed the episode…
I’m filling the sci-fi shaped hole in my life at the moment with ‘The Tomorrow People’ on E4. It’s ok, it’s been interesting enough to keep me tuning in every week. Anyone else?19 March 2014 at 11:04 #26501
Just a heads up that the BBC’s new comedy W1A might be worth watching. It’s the Twenty Twelve approach applied to the BBC itself.
The character of Tracey Pritchard sounds suspiciously like Julie Gardner….19 March 2014 at 11:43 #26502janetteB @janetteb
I will be watching out for that one. It sounds promising.
The topic ‘General Open Thread – TV Shows’ is closed to new replies.