What was the last TV show you watched?

[Doctor Strange]

Well, as I'm always telling people when showing them my film photos, "Black and white is abstract by its very nature: it doesn't make images that reflect reality anything like our vision sees it."

So in that sense, you're right that Scott's current age is less apparent AND less important - here he's a timeless noir guy. And even without having watched it yet, yeah, that's a reasonable approach for this character/story.

I watched the first episode of Mary & George, but as much of a fan as I am of Julianne Moore (and an English history geek too)... I'm not sure I'm gonna stick with it. Pretty squicky premise, whoring her son off to the king...

 

[Edward]

Well, as I'm always telling people when showing them my film photos, "Black and white is abstract by its very nature: it doesn't make images that reflect reality anything like our vision sees it."

So in that sense, you're right that Scott's current age is less apparent AND less important - here he's a timeless noir guy. And even without having watched it yet, yeah, that's a reasonable approach for this character/story.

I watched the first episode of Mary & George, but as much of a fan as I am of Julianne Moore (and an English history geek too)... I'm not sure I'm gonna stick with it. Pretty squicky premise, whoring her son off to the king...

you'll probably want to avoid Scoop on Netflix, then! Though it's actually a very good representation of the reality of the contemporary broadcast newsroom and how an event-interview like that can come about.

 

[Touchofevil]

Guy Ritchie’s Netflix series The Gentlemen. Only three episodes in and I find it to be quite entertaining. I have yet to have seen the movie of the same name but most likely will at some point. As with Snatch and Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels, it has entertaining characters, snappy dialogue, plenty of action/energy, as well as humor.

 

[Worf]

"Fallout" - About 2 years ago I was casting about for a new "first person shooter" to play as I was done with "Far Cry". I read many good and bad things about the "Fallout" series of games. I played Fallout 3 several times then went on to "Fallout New Vegas", in my opinion, the BEST game of the series. It was with great trepidation that I dipped my toes into the new Amazon series.

Personally I found it "enjoyable" but limiting. In the Fallout games YOU make the choices it's a shooter AND a Role Playing Game". you decide who lives, who dies and which way the story goes. I constantly kept second guessing the characters choices and decisions. It didn't help that two of the main characters wandered this wide and dangerous world with all of the awareness of chimps fresh from the zoo. They also took 2 great liberties with the "lore" established in the game that left me burnt. I won't go all nerdy on that topic but needless to say a sizeable fraction of the fanbase are lighting torches and sharpening their pitchforks.

All in all I think the show is good. They don't hit you over the head with "fan service" and the acting is outstanding. Even if you're not familiar with the game or the world it's set in you could do much worse.

Worf

 

[Edward]

Guy Ritchie’s Netflix series The Gentlemen. Only three episodes in and I find it to be quite entertaining. I have yet to have seen the movie of the same name but most likely will at some point. As with Snatch and Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels, it has entertaining characters, snappy dialogue, plenty of action/energy, as well as humor.

His earlier work really did not appeal to me. I did however pick up on the film version of The Gentlemen hen it his my streamers, as much as anything for the cast: Charlie Hunnam is always good value. Though the star turn was Hugh Grant as exactly the sort of low rent, sleazy tabloid journo against whom he has spent the last few years railing against over intrusions into his personal life. It's a caricature performance, on a par with his campy turn as a villain in Paddington 2, and it really is wonderful. Capitvating and funny - far from the bumbling posho twit he's normally hired to play as a persona. I must check out the TV version for comparison, but the film is well worth your seeking it out.

"Fallout" - About 2 years ago I was casting about for a new "first person shooter" to play as I was done with "Far Cry". I read many good and bad things about the "Fallout" series of games. I played Fallout 3 several times then went on to "Fallout New Vegas", in my opinion, the BEST game of the series. It was with great trepidation that I dipped my toes into the new Amazon series.

Personally I found it "enjoyable" but limiting. In the Fallout games YOU make the choices it's a shooter AND a Role Playing Game". you decide who lives, who dies and which way the story goes. I constantly kept second guessing the characters choices and decisions. It didn't help that two of the main characters wandered this wide and dangerous world with all of the awareness of chimps fresh from the zoo. They also took 2 great liberties with the "lore" established in the game that left me burnt. I won't go all nerdy on that topic but needless to say a sizeable fraction of the fanbase are lighting torches and sharpening their pitchforks.

All in all I think the show is good. They don't hit you over the head with "fan service" and the acting is outstanding. Even if you're not familiar with the game or the world it's set in you could do much worse.

Worf

Interesting to read the opinion of aa gamer familiar with the source material. I enjoyed it very much, but I have no more awareness of the game than that it has a bunch of people living in a retro-futurist, post-apocalyptic America. It's interesting how you discuss the viewer experience; I think in all honesty one of the reasons I've never becmoe a gamer is because I do seek the passsive experience from my entertainment these days - I don't want to interact with it.

I do remember trying some of the early FPSs in the 90s, and ot being able to getthe hang ofthem because I couldn't figure out how to cope with controlling a character I couldn't see. Different evolution in games, I suppose.

 

[Edward]

Anyone seen the new animated version of Batman? Just dropped recently on Prime in the UK. It's beautiful. Something like the 90s 'Batman the Animated Series', but more noir. A joy.

 

[Doctor Strange]

Yeah, I've watched Batman: Caped Crusader. It's a gift from Bruce Timm, et.al. to us hardcore B:TAS fans!



It's really well done in nearly every way, though with some odd choices on the reconceptions of some characters. I like the circa-1950 setting (fedoras and tommy guns... and little b/w TVs) and year-one approach (those little finless gloves!) Voice work and writing is very good, art and action is stellar. It's a revisit/rethinking of B:TAS with a more adult approach, now that they're not under the censorship constraints of a network afternoon kids show back in the 90s.



That said... The new series can't quite match the excitement of B:TAS, which is suffused with a sense of we're-doing-this-right-for-the-first-time, even with fighting the time/budget/censorship constraints. Made by young folks just on the way up as writers/artists, B:TAS blossoms, discovering its seriousness, depth, and aritistry as it goes along. There's a palpable sense that they've managed to make something special...

The new series, made by some of the same creators - now senior veterans - isn't fighting its budget or broadcast censorship, or having to make a case for being yet another adaptation of Batman. How many Batman projects have we had since the 90s? Some have won Oscars. I recently saw a quote from some actor that, "Batman is now like King Lear or Hamlet, every actor wants a crack at it."



Caped Crusader is a revisit of B:TAS, made by older creators in a vastly different Bat-media universe than the 90s series. It's very worthwhile and enjoyable - bring on season two! - but as good as it is, it still isn't Batman: The Animated Series. It can't be. But it certainly is Son of B:TAS!

 

[belfastboy]

A bit late to the dance but just finished Season 1 of "Foyle's War". Quite like it...usual great British acting and writing.

 

[Julian Shellhammer]

A bit late to the dance but just finished Season 1 of "Foyle's War". Quite like it...usual great British acting and writing.

Foyle's War was a favorite of the Missus and me. Michael Kitchen underplays the character even as he is pulling together the clues. The pacing might seem slow, but the story-telling keeps us engaged.

 

[Edward]

I've recently been rewatching Buffy the Vampire Slayer on streaming. It's an interesting experience, as I've not seen the show at all since it was originally broadcast (1997-2002), an era which predated streaming. The upshot is that I've seen (particularly from season 4 onwards, by which time I was working and often not home in time for its broadcast slot of 6pm-7pm) a number of episodes I know I missed first time around. Binge-watching episodes close together, I'm getting a whole new appreciation for the story arcs and how well paced it was, with major plot points being set up often six, seven episodes ahead of them coming to fruition. Despite the much-publicised controversies about behind the scenes behaviour that have come to light in recent times, in terms of the show content itself it has dated very well. Particularly interesting is how little tech is portrayed in use day to day. The point I'm currently at is about the year 2000, a time when the web wasn't quite yet a daily-use thing for most people, mobile phones were much less common than they suddenly became, and landlines were still very much a norm. It's an interesting snapshot of a moment in time which has key differences to now if you look for them.

 

[Worf]

Yeah, I've watched Batman: Caped Crusader. It's a gift from Bruce Timm, et.al. to us hardcore B:TAS fans!

View attachment 632110

It's really well done in nearly every way, though with some odd choices on the reconceptions of some characters. I like the circa-1950 setting (fedoras and tommy guns... and little b/w TVs) and year-one approach (those little finless gloves!) Voice work and writing is very good, art and action is stellar. It's a revisit/rethinking of B:TAS with a more adult approach, now that they're not under the censorship constraints of a network afternoon kids show back in the 90s.

View attachment 632111

That said... The new series can't quite match the excitement of B:TAS, which is suffused with a sense of we're-doing-this-right-for-the-first-time, even with fighting the time/budget/censorship constraints. Made by young folks just on the way up as writers/artists, B:TAS blossoms, discovering its seriousness, depth, and aritistry as it goes along. There's a palpable sense that they've managed to make something special...

The new series, made by some of the same creators - now senior veterans - isn't fighting its budget or broadcast censorship, or having to make a case for being yet another adaptation of Batman. How many Batman projects have we had since the 90s? Some have won Oscars. I recently saw a quote from some actor that, "Batman is now like King Lear or Hamlet, every actor wants a crack at it."

View attachment 632112

Caped Crusader is a revisit of B:TAS, made by older creators in a vastly different Bat-media universe than the 90s series. It's very worthwhile and enjoyable - bring on season two! - but as good as it is, it still isn't Batman: The Animated Series. It can't be. But it certainly is Son of B:TAS!

Despite being a "Marvel Maniac" since the 60's B'TAS is what lead me to pay attention to ANYTHING D.C. related. Watching it as an adult, I got hooked. The one thing D.C./Warner has managed to do right is their animated films and shows (for the most part). Like you I fell in love with B'TAS and through that the Dark Knight himself. I too looked forward to this new series and loved (for the most part) its depiction of Batman and his rogues gallery.

They've taken Gotham back (or almost) its late 30's early 40's roots. This world is dark and gritty and folks, good and bad, are gunned down left right and sideways. This is both good and bad, seminal members of Batman's rogues gallery are either captured way too easily or eliminated altogether in a hail of lead. Characters who's development we watched over the last two decades in D.C. extended universe are snuffed out in seconds in this show. I find that disconcerting. The only one I'll touch on is the character of Detective Bullock. In B'TAS Bullock is a fat, donut eating slob at the beginning, who, while not explicitly "dirty", would never be considered a "good cop". Through the original series Bullock's character grows and we find out he's not only clean but, in reality, is actually a cop who wants to do the right thing. In this series he's a dirty as they come.

Over all I and Puddin' enjoyed the show. It's NOT close to having the charm and impact of the original BUT it's close enough to keep me interested.

Worf

PS It's also interesting how they take Alfred BACK to his original depiction from the comics. Here he's fat, bald and definitely NOT a retired man of action, yet.