Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Current Watching

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Originally posted by WOM View Post
    Dunnit, innit?
    Not necesscelery.

    Comment


      Originally posted by Femme Folle View Post
      Bah. I got to the third episode of Killing Eve and discovered that only the first two were free. I'm not paying for it. It will eventually be on Netflix or Amazon Prime. What a despicable thing to do, to let someone watch enough to get hooked and then put up a paywall.
      What network are you watching it on?

      Comment


        BBC America On Demand (on Verizon Fios cable).

        Comment


          BBC's overseas channels totally suck. I don't know why but quality-wise they're somewhere south of the Shopping Channel.

          Comment


            Verizon is probably more to blame in this situation, I assume. Any opportunity they can take to pocket more of their customers' money, they will.

            Comment


              Originally posted by Amor de Cosmos View Post
              Yeah. I mean we haven't got this yet but undoubtedly it'll show up on PBS in the next three months, but why? I mean does the world really need/want another Poirot however reconstructed he is? Fuck me there must have been half a dozen versions of Murder on the the Orient Express — for example — in my lifetime and there can't be more than half a dozen English speakers on the planet who don't know who did it by now. I mean if the BBC, or whoever, wants to regurgitate 30s whodunits than take another crack at Peter Wimsey and Harriet Vane. There's far more to be done with class and gender in one Dorothy L Sayers story than in an entire library of Agatha Christie.
              I agree that they've been done to death (!) but I think AC is under-rated - she's one of the most-read and best-known authors ever, but I mean critically under-rated. She's actually good on psychology; some of her killers are psychopaths or insane, others are driven by jealousy or fear, or desires for money, revenge, security, validation. I binge read most if not all of them as a teenager and some observations of Poirot's stayed with me. I don't think her characters or plots need tinkering with. It is, how you say, over-egging the pudding?

              As for class, the working-class characters are less sophisticated and less complex, but you probably wouldn't have found a housemaid reading Proust back then.

              Comment


                Originally posted by Amor de Cosmos View Post
                Fuck me there must have been half a dozen versions of Murder on the the Orient Express — for example — in my lifetime and there can't be more than half a dozen English speakers on the planet who don't know who did it by now.
                I thought that too, but when sw2boro and I saw the trailer for the latest adaptation he said he didn't know who did it. When I told this to my colleagues, it turned out none of them knew either. I really thought that that one, And Then There Were None and Roger Ackroyd would have been pretty much unspoilerable by now given how notorious the plot twists are.

                Anyway, I love Agatha Christie, and like MsD have read most of her books (although I wouldn't go as far as saying she's great on psychology, as most her characters are pretty thinly drawn - she doesn't get enough credit for how sharp and funny some of her writing is though), but have zero interest in any of the adaptations*. At this point they just seem like a safe and lazy way to churn out yet more "prestige" productions featuring hot new up-and-comers and theatre grandees chewing the scenery in period costumes. Hard pass.

                * Although I have to say I'm intrigued by the recent version of Witness for the Prosecution, as I remember the original short story being really short indeed and the plot very basic. I'm mildly curious about how much padding has been added to take it to 120 minutes.

                Comment


                  I watched the And Then There Were None done by the same writer not so long ago, and I remember enjoying it, but I've no recollection of whodunnit.

                  Comment


                    Femme Folle... PM for you.

                    Comment


                      Thanks!

                      Comment


                        As this appears to have turned into the Agatha Chrisite thread can I recommend this essay in the London Review of Books

                        Comment


                          Originally posted by Incandenza View Post
                          Started watching the first episode of Derry Girls. It's pretty entertaining so far.
                          Do you have the subtitles on?

                          Comment


                            Started 'The Man In The High Castle' last night. Not quite hooked yet. The dialogue is somewhat formulaic and there are some cliches such as the Japanese diplomat reading a page then removing his glasses to signify significance.

                            I'm also not sure (as per Episode 1) that Himmler and Goebbels would be the main contenders to replace Hitler. Goering was the official No. 2 in the Third Reich.
                            Last edited by Satchmo Distel; 31-12-2018, 14:50.

                            Comment


                              Goering was an egotistical drug addict who made enemies with everyone, even if the nazis had won the war he wouldn't have lasted long.

                              Comment


                                We watched The ABC Murders, all very grimdark and enjoyable.

                                By coincidence I am watching mid voice break Rupert Grint in Harry Potter and The Chamber of Secrets at the moment.

                                Comment


                                  "At this point they just seem like a safe and lazy way to churn out yet more "prestige" productions featuring hot new up-and-comers and theatre grandees chewing the scenery in period costumes."
                                  I usually like those things.

                                  Comment


                                    Ah well. Not everyone can have my impeccably superior taste in everything, I suppose.

                                    The thing that grates though is that it feels like these are the only British programmes that get funded these days, due to tapping into a certain idea of Britishness that's easy to export. They wouldn't rile me so much otherwise.

                                    Comment


                                      Interesting opinions re. Agatha Christie, here and in the LRB. I seem to be the Witness for the Defence, ho ho.

                                      I remember PD James slagging her off as a bad writer and getting sniffy about being compared to her, and someone took her down with something like "she should be so lucky to have Christie's wit and economy of writing" but I can't remember who that was.

                                      Comment


                                        Originally posted by Fussbudget View Post
                                        Ah well. Not everyone can have my impeccably superior taste in everything, I suppose.

                                        The thing that grates though is that it feels like these are the only British programmes that get funded these days, due to tapping into a certain idea of Britishness that's easy to export. They wouldn't rile me so much otherwise.
                                        I've often wondered about that. I was watching the newish Vanity Fair thing with Olivia Cooke (which I like) and noticed on IMDB that this is like the 10th time the story has been made for TV or film and most of them appear to have been UK productions. The same can be said for the classics by the Brontes, Jane Austen, Thomas Hardy, etc. I've sometimes wondered "Do British people really want to dig-up all these old stories about class and women being treated horribly, over and over and over?" Of course, class and women-being-treated-horribly are worthy subjects, but the popularity of these programs seems to be more about the beauty of their language, the scenery, and the clothes and not so much about the social commentary, and that's unfortunate. But perhaps, as you suggest, it's as much for export as domestic consumption.*

                                        But those are not the only UK things being funded. As I noted before, there appear to be an ungodly number of detective/crime shows coming out of the UK. My mom is into Silent Witness which has, apparently, been on for like 25 years. A bit like Criminal Minds, I suppose or Law & Order. It's more about the format than the characters.



                                        *I suppose the closest equivalent in the US are westerns. A very short period of US history in a relatively small part of the country is vastly over-represented in popular culture and it has had a noticeable impact on how we are viewed overseas and, to a large extent, how we view ourselves. And while I like some westerns, we collectively have learned all the wrong lessons from that time and place. It wasn't about freedom and "rugged individualism" so much as it was about poverty, genocide, violence, greed, misogyny, more genocide, racism, alcohol abuse, poor public health infrastructure, and cruelty to animals - all sponsored by the federal government and a handful of wealthy tycoons and assorted speculators.

                                        Comment


                                          Originally posted by Fussbudget View Post
                                          Ah well. Not everyone can have my impeccably superior taste in everything, I suppose.

                                          The thing that grates though is that it feels like these are the only British programmes that get funded these days, due to tapping into a certain idea of Britishness that's easy to export. They wouldn't rile me so much otherwise.
                                          Yeah, that was pretty much my point. I've nothing against AC, but like the interminable Jane Austen re-dos it just seems a really lazy production decision. There are so many other authors that are worthy of TV adaptation but they rarely get a look in.

                                          Comment


                                            Westerns are definitely an appropriate comparison in terms of the political context, but as far as why they keep being made (and you don't really see comparable things being made in the US all that often), I think it's as much about the differing natures of the TV production business on either side of the Atlantic. Historical dramas based on one-off stories (or relatively short series like Sherlock) fit the UK model of a handful of longish episodes per season, without many seasons, which can be monetised through export/co-production if necessary, and they don't fit the US model of 24 episodes every year for a decade, monetised through syndication and maybe merch/licensing deals. You can also put all the money on the screen in the form of sets and costumes rather than increasing actors' pay each year. Interestingly enough, you are starting to see historical or quasi-historical stuff get made on streaming services which don't have to worry about selling ads week in week out, generally with much shorter seasons. And westerns — eg Godless, or for that matter The Ballad of Buster Scruggs, which is basically a miniseries.
                                            Last edited by Ginger Yellow; 31-12-2018, 17:29.

                                            Comment


                                              Originally posted by Amor de Cosmos View Post
                                              Yeah, that was pretty much my point. I've nothing against AC, but like the interminable Jane Austen re-dos it just seems a really lazy production decision. There are so many other authors that are worthy of TV adaptation but they rarely get a look in.
                                              It's a risk/reward thing. Austen and Christie are reliable bank, just like a CSI/NCIS spin-off would be in the US. And the higher the budget, the less risk people are willing to take.

                                              Comment


                                                Yes I get that. But that still doesn't explain why they have to be the only game in the historical town. For example the BBC did The Pallisers back in the 70s. Trollope wasn't at all fashionable back then, in fact he reeked of fustiness, but they did it anyway. The comparative lack of courage these days is significant.

                                                Comment


                                                  They still get made now and then, just not as often. As you'd expect. I'm not defending it as an artistic practice, but the business is what it is. I mean, is GK Chesterton fashionable? We've had six seasons of one of his.

                                                  Comment


                                                    Originally posted by Ginger Yellow View Post
                                                    Westerns are definitely an appropriate comparison in terms of the political context, but as far as why they keep being made (and you don't really see comparable things being made in the US all that often), I think it's as much about the differing natures of the TV production business on either side of the Atlantic. Historical dramas based on one-off stories (or relatively short series like Sherlock) fit the UK model of a handful of longish episodes per season, without many seasons, which can be monetised through export/co-production if necessary, and they don't fit the US model of 24 episodes every year for a decade, monetised through syndication and maybe merch/licensing deals. You can also put all the money on the screen in the form of sets and costumes rather than increasing actors' pay each year. Interestingly enough, you are starting to see historical or quasi-historical stuff get made on streaming services which don't have to worry about selling ads week in week out, generally with much shorter seasons. And westerns — eg Godless, or for that matter The Ballad of Buster Scruggs, which is basically a miniseries.
                                                    The 24-episodes-with-commercials-for-as-long-as-possible model may eventually disappear. It's certainly not where most of the best TV is happening now. The ratings for network TV continue to gradually erode, syndication isn't the end-game/cash-cow that it once was, and the streaming services and HBO (which is increasingly as much a streaming service as a cable channel) are throwing tons of cash at producers with few constraints. There's still a pretty big audience for the endless stream of not-very-original cop/fireman/lawyer, trashy-reality, and fat/nerdy-guy-with-a-hot-wife-sitcom shows the networks crank out, but I don't know if there will be in 10-15 years.

                                                    And even within the Netflix/HBO/Prime world, we're starting to see creators take advantage of the freedom of the format. Homecoming was a drama in half-hour episodes. That's pretty much unprecedented. Seinfeld's Comedians in Cars thing doesn't have a set episode length. I think we'll probably see more shows do eight or ten episodes or maybe just three to six long ones UK-style, instead of 12 or 13 Netflix did with its Marvel shows. Fargo is basically a series of 10-hour movies and it's awesome. Forever is just eight half-hour episodes and it's just enough to be worthy by itself, while leaving more to do in another season.

                                                    I don't know if we'll see more or fewer shows drop a whole season at a time. HBO gets mileage out of being "part of the conversation" over a longer period with stuff like Game of Thrones and Succession. I suppose that might only really matter to critics and real TV nerds. Lots of people don't catch up until the season is over anyway, and this "part of the conversation" thing only works, if it does at all, if people actually care and want to talk about it. Amazon has tried to spread out the The Romanoffs and its just making it harder for people to care.

                                                    I suppose these services might want to stop people from just subscribing for a month, bingeing a lot, unsubscribing for a while as they do the same for another service for a month, and then back and forth. Like I do. Forcing people to subscribe for a few months to see a whole show - or wait until it's all done and thereby miss this vital "conversation" - helps drive in revenue, though I doubt it makes much of a difference really.

                                                    Comment

                                                    Working...
                                                    X