Want to buy or sell something? Check the classifieds

What was the last TV show you watched?

Edward

Bartender
Messages
23,421
Location
London, UK
Watched the first three episodes of A League of Their Own last night. Prime's sort-of remake of the 1992 cinema picture of the same name. This time it's a series (eight parts in the first season, with an open end should it be renewed), with an all-new cast of characters, and more room to develop them. As previously, the characters are all inventions, but based on the experiences of specific individuals. In terms of broader historical accuracy, the game is depicted slightly differently than the AAGPBL (All American Girls' Professional Baseball League) played in reality. For the first few years, the ladies' game was a mix of softball and hardball rules, with the overarm pitch only being permitted several years in. Minor issue, though, as the human drama takes centre stage. Inevitably broaching the issue of same-sex relationships has come on for criticism as "modern" - though actually very much part of the historical reality. The opening episode is set in 1943, and the whole thing looks beautiful. I'm sure someone will be able to pick out everything they got "wrong" in terms of clothes and cars, but for me it really looks 'right', with a great sense of period. A lot of the cast I recognise from other parts. I don't think there are any weak links yet. Also nice to see here - and part of the benefit of the longer-from ,television approach over the original film - is the side-story of the black experience, with a female black players excluded from the racially segregated AAGPBL, fighting to get into the black men's teams in order to play the game she loves (and is better at than most men). The individual character followed here is a composite of three historical ladies. There was a nod to one of them in particular in the 1992 picture, but only very briefly. It's one thing the film was critcised for back in the day, though given the limits of time and that it was focused much more directly on only the Peaches, it would have been difficult to deal with it properly. It's a plus that that aspect of the story of the women's game is told here.

I think a lot of folks in these parts might enjoy the series. Visually it's a treat, but I'm finding it so much more than only something nice to look at.
 
Messages
17,672
Location
Funkytown, USA
Watched the first three episodes of A League of Their Own last night. Prime's sort-of remake of the 1992 cinema picture of the same name. This time it's a series (eight parts in the first season, with an open end should it be renewed), with an all-new cast of characters, and more room to develop them. As previously, the characters are all inventions, but based on the experiences of specific individuals. In terms of broader historical accuracy, the game is depicted slightly differently than the AAGPBL (All American Girls' Professional Baseball League) played in reality. For the first few years, the ladies' game was a mix of softball and hardball rules, with the overarm pitch only being permitted several years in. Minor issue, though, as the human drama takes centre stage. Inevitably broaching the issue of same-sex relationships has come on for criticism as "modern" - though actually very much part of the historical reality. The opening episode is set in 1943, and the whole thing looks beautiful. I'm sure someone will be able to pick out everything they got "wrong" in terms of clothes and cars, but for me it really looks 'right', with a great sense of period. A lot of the cast I recognise from other parts. I don't think there are any weak links yet. Also nice to see here - and part of the benefit of the longer-from ,television approach over the original film - is the side-story of the black experience, with a female black players excluded from the racially segregated AAGPBL, fighting to get into the black men's teams in order to play the game she loves (and is better at than most men). The individual character followed here is a composite of three historical ladies. There was a nod to one of them in particular in the 1992 picture, but only very briefly. It's one thing the film was critcised for back in the day, though given the limits of time and that it was focused much more directly on only the Peaches, it would have been difficult to deal with it properly. It's a plus that that aspect of the story of the women's game is told here.

I think a lot of folks in these parts might enjoy the series. Visually it's a treat, but I'm finding it so much more than only something nice to look at.

I really wanted to like it, as I loved the original movie, but after one episode, my wife and I decided to memory hole it. I have a direct opposite take as you. I find the whole thing seems forced, whether is be the lesbianism, the racial angle, or the "independent woman" angle. I like some of the dialogue - which is snappy, and the young lady and her friend trying to break the racial barrier are kind of fun, but terribly overplayed.

The period sets are nice, but it falls into the trap of being a little too polished. The element that really takes me out of it though is the demeanor and comportment of the women. Sure, I'm sure the women were largely independent and self-confident, but women simply did not talk like that during that period - certainly not dropping F-bombs in the middle of a hotel lobby. Took me completely out of the show. It's unnecessary and jarring.

Plus, maybe five minutes of baseball in the whole show. Hard pass.
 

Edward

Bartender
Messages
23,421
Location
London, UK
I really wanted to like it, as I loved the original movie, but after one episode, my wife and I decided to memory hole it. I have a direct opposite take as you. I find the whole thing seems forced, whether is be the lesbianism, the racial angle, or the "independent woman" angle. I like some of the dialogue - which is snappy, and the young lady and her friend trying to break the racial barrier are kind of fun, but terribly overplayed.

The period sets are nice, but it falls into the trap of being a little too polished. The element that really takes me out of it though is the demeanor and comportment of the women. Sure, I'm sure the women were largely independent and self-confident, but women simply did not talk like that during that period - certainly not dropping F-bombs in the middle of a hotel lobby. Took me completely out of the show. It's unnecessary and jarring.

Plus, maybe five minutes of baseball in the whole show. Hard pass.

It's definitely not - at least three episodes in - one if you're interested in seeing the game played; very much more on the 'human interest' story angle off the field.

I'd love to get into the wardrobe room, though, when they're done... some great clothes there.
 
Messages
17,672
Location
Funkytown, USA
It's definitely not - at least three episodes in - one if you're interested in seeing the game played; very much more on the 'human interest' story angle off the field.

I'd love to get into the wardrobe room, though, when they're done... some great clothes there.

I was looking forward to the hats and cars, though!
 

Worf

I'll Lock Up
Messages
4,997
Location
Troy, New York, USA
Season One of "Sandman" - Not familiar with the graphic novel, I went into this cold. A bit slow, and the second half is quite a let down story wise, but we thoroughly enjoyed our time in "The Dreaming". As usual, some buffoons are all a dither about the diverse casting veering from those depicted in the source materiel... what else is new. I didn't find it "woke" or preachy. Two of the episodes are as good as ANYTHING Serling ever put out. If you want to see something "different" I recommend "Sandman".

Another major difference from the source materiel is that the books are squarely set in the D.C. Universe and cameos from super heroes and villains are liberally sprinkled in. Thank goodness they were left out of this one. Not a cape or cowl in sight.

Worf
 

Edward

Bartender
Messages
23,421
Location
London, UK
Season One of "Sandman" - Not familiar with the graphic novel, I went into this cold. A bit slow, and the second half is quite a let down story wise, but we thoroughly enjoyed our time in "The Dreaming". As usual, some buffoons are all a dither about the diverse casting veering from those depicted in the source materiel... what else is new. I didn't find it "woke" or preachy. Two of the episodes are as good as ANYTHING Serling ever put out. If you want to see something "different" I recommend "Sandman".

Another major difference from the source materiel is that the books are squarely set in the D.C. Universe and cameos from super heroes and villains are liberally sprinkled in. Thank goodness they were left out of this one. Not a cape or cowl in sight.

Worf

Looking forward to giving it a go when we reactivate Netflix. Some folks definitely like to carp and complain about anything. Given the Guy What Wrote The Book is involved and fully backs all artistic choices including the casting, the wannabe gatekeepers can go whistle...
 

Doctor Strange

I'll Lock Up
Messages
5,095
Location
Hudson Valley, NY
I dunno, Neil Gaiman was very involved with the production of American Gods too... and it was canceled with two more seasons of story left untold.

I haven't tried The Sandman yet, but I will get to it. I never read the original comics series, so I'll be going in cold too.

ADDENDUM: Okay, ten minutes after posting this, I saw this - Gaiman himself is dubious that there will be a second season!

https://www.avclub.com/the-sandman-might-not-get-a-second-season-on-netflix-1849439520
 
Last edited:

Edward

Bartender
Messages
23,421
Location
London, UK
I dunno, Neil Gaiman was very involved with the production of American Gods too... and it was canceled with two more seasons of story left untold.

I haven't tried The Sandman yet, but I will get to it. I never read the original comics series, so I'll be going in cold too.

ADDENDUM: Okay, ten minutes after posting this, I saw this - Gaiman himself is dubious that there will be a second season!

https://www.avclub.com/the-sandman-might-not-get-a-second-season-on-netflix-1849439520

Call me cynical if you will, but in a world where some truly great shows get cancelled after a season or so, while more often than not absolute rot like Friends or Mrs Brown's Boys runs forever, I honestly don't believe there's much of a relationship between quality and longevity. There certainly are legion other shows that have started good and gradually run down long before dropping ratings sees them bumped off, enough that I often wonder whether it's no bad thing for any show to finish up after a season or two. I must get around to the second series of American Gods; I enjoyed the first very much.

I don't know about Prime, but Netflix over here has gotten a real reputation for killing off good shows after only one or two seasons; supposedly a whole slew of shorter-run shows is more profitable to bring new people in to the brand's services than long-running shows. We'll see how that pans out long-term, of course: as the present cost of living crisis here in the UK really begins to bite and people economise, Netflix seem to be one of the big losers in terms of what people believe they can live without.
 

Worf

I'll Lock Up
Messages
4,997
Location
Troy, New York, USA
I dunno, Neil Gaiman was very involved with the production of American Gods too... and it was canceled with two more seasons of story left untold.

I haven't tried The Sandman yet, but I will get to it. I never read the original comics series, so I'll be going in cold too.

ADDENDUM: Okay, ten minutes after posting this, I saw this - Gaiman himself is dubious that there will be a second season!

https://www.avclub.com/the-sandman-might-not-get-a-second-season-on-netflix-1849439520
Sandman is currently the most watched program in over 50 countries (according to Terry Gross in her interview with Gaiman last week). Trust me it WILL be back.

Worf
 

Worf

I'll Lock Up
Messages
4,997
Location
Troy, New York, USA
Call me cynical if you will, but in a world where some truly great shows get cancelled after a season or so, while more often than not absolute rot like Friends or Mrs Brown's Boys runs forever, I honestly don't believe there's much of a relationship between quality and longevity. There certainly are legion other shows that have started good and gradually run down long before dropping ratings sees them bumped off, enough that I often wonder whether it's no bad thing for any show to finish up after a season or two. I must get around to the second series of American Gods; I enjoyed the first very much.

I don't know about Prime, but Netflix over here has gotten a real reputation for killing off good shows after only one or two seasons; supposedly a whole slew of shorter-run shows is more profitable to bring new people in to the brand's services than long-running shows. We'll see how that pans out long-term, of course: as the present cost of living crisis here in the UK really begins to bite and people economise, Netflix seem to be one of the big losers in terms of what people believe they can live without.
Netflix is in trouble primarily because of a dramatic increase in competition. Remember they were the first and the biggest for a long time... now they're just one of many with some other big fish in the pond. They can no longer afford to waste millions on shows that aren't killing it. But I think Sandman is a hit.

Worfster.
 
Messages
11,460
Location
Southern California
Agreed. Felt the entire season was all questions, no answers. Felt it had potential but ultimately went nowhere.
And I think that's the main issue--the season didn't end, it just stopped. No resolutions, no questions answered, just, "Okay, that's enough for now." I'd guess they got word half-way through that the studio wanted to leave it open-ended for a potential second season, but the writers didn't quite know how to do that so they treated it as a "Part One" without labeling it that way. I thought it was worth watching for the performances, but the story was like an old sweater that unraveled as it aged.
 

ChazfromCali

One of the Regulars
Messages
122
Location
Tijuana / Rosarito
And I think that's the main issue--the season didn't end, it just stopped. No resolutions, no questions answered, just, "Okay, that's enough for now." I'd guess they got word half-way through that the studio wanted to leave it open-ended for a potential second season, but the writers didn't quite know how to do that so they treated it as a "Part One" without labeling it that way. I thought it was worth watching for the performances, but the story was like an old sweater that unraveled as it aged.

C'mon nah !

Lithgow and Bridges are now united in finding his daughter..... who we found out is not really his daughter, biologically speaking. That was a question answered: who is Angela Adams, really? She's the daughter of the Warlord.

But she's also a "daughter" to both of them. That was a resolution, they're on the same team now (fighting against Joel Grey and his hitman). And everybody else who gets in their way.

In season two they're going kill all the bad guys and get the girl back.

But I'm sure there will be complications like does she WANT to come back? Now that she knows she's the daughter of the big cheese in Afghanistan and probably inherits all his influence and money.


** My spidey-sense tells me that Bridges partner, the woman..... will end up killing the female lawyer for the Afghan guy.
 
Last edited:
Messages
11,460
Location
Southern California
** My spidey-sense tells me that Bridges partner, the woman..... will end up killing the female lawyer for the Afghan guy.
I'm still waiting for them to reveal that Zoe (Amy Brenneman) has a past working for some sort of organization and acted, for them, much as Bridges' character operated for the CIA, simply because she fell far too easily into doing the things she's been doing, things she couldn't possibly have succeeded at so well if she were simply a divorcee living in the mountains.
 

ChazfromCali

One of the Regulars
Messages
122
Location
Tijuana / Rosarito
I'm still waiting for them to reveal that Zoe (Amy Brenneman) has a past working for some sort of organization and acted, for them, much as Bridges' character operated for the CIA, simply because she fell far too easily into doing the things she's been doing, things she couldn't possibly have succeeded at so well if she were simply a divorcee living in the mountains.

Yeah. It's just too coincidental.
They can't let that angle pass by without getting something out of it.

I just had an idea..... let it go, no mention of it..... until the final scene of the series. Final scene: She gets a phone call and the dialogue clues the viewers in that she was a spy working for the agency the whole time. She hangs up, Bridges walks in, "who was that Honey?" "Ah nobody, telemarketer." "What do you want for dinner?" ;-)
 

Edward

Bartender
Messages
23,421
Location
London, UK
Our broadband has been out of service for a week now (the wife raised merry hell with the CEO of the company yesterday, so hopefully it'll be sorted very soon), so it's been a dip back into traditional, linear television broadcasting for us this last few days. It's amazing how limited that is now... though I've been enjoying repeats of Judge Judy. As soon as we're back online properly, I'm intending to watch the new Rings of Power series on Amazon, looks good on the clips I've caught to date.
 

Edward

Bartender
Messages
23,421
Location
London, UK
Rings of Power - I'm enjoying it. Probably more than I should because it's wound up the Bombadilist poseurs, ha...

I just discovered A Private Affair on Prime. Set in Galicia in the 1940s, the protagonist is a young lady socialite who fancies herself as something of a detective. Denied the chance to join the police on grounds of her sex, she recruits her brother to do the investigative work that her police commissioner brother's department can't or won't. Her Butler - Jean Reno - becomes her sidekick. It is well dubbed into English in a way which is not distracting (I had to look closely to ascertain this). Fun enough, so far, one episode in.... and it looks beautiful.
 
Top