What TV are you watching and how would you rate it? [Revive from FRDB]

[Thomas II]

HBO's "Night Will Fall" Chronicles Making of WWII Holocaust Film (Documentary)

http://www.thehollywoodnews.com/2014/01/16/watch-hitchcock-holocaust-documentary-now-available-online/

 

[DrZoidberg]

Reign. Historical drama about Mary Queen if Scots. It's extremely loosely based on history. Everybody is young and sexy. It's basically a high school drama series. But it is well written. I'm having a lot of fun. It suffers from weak acting and a low budget. But I think they've done a good job with the money they have.

But it craps all over histotical accuracy. Francis II who wad famous for being sickly and weak is in the TV series a handsome and dashing young man. A real teen heart throb. In reality he barely managed to stand upright his entire life. Was riddled with genetic defects from inbreeding.

It still sort of works since queen Mary's real life was mostly about flirting with men to secure alliances, and playing suitors off one another to get the best deals. She was in reality a shrewd politician.

It also makes zero effort in portraying the lifestyle of the period. It's renaisance fair stuff. The court is portrayed just like any modern high-school.

Still... I'm enjoying it. I am excited when I see it and do keep watching. 6/10

 

[Daioh]

So firstly I picked up a show years ago that I vaguely remembered
Farscape
And it's.....ok
It's not going to jump to the front of my favourite shows ever list, but it does everything well enough that I at least have no problem going from episode to episode
Overall I would give it a 6/10 for the first season so far

Also picked up the next set for
Walking Dead Season 4 (Some hidden because of potential spoilers)
And I just don't know anymore
To me this is the show that is rapidly becomming a love/hate affair
Because for everything I like about the show it seems to introduce something that just irritates, annoys or grates
This is true for characters, the plot and the overall feel
Some of it I think is that they just really can't do villains all that well

Show

I mean season 2 had Shane becomming the hilariously cartoon bad guy. then three has the even more cartoonishly evil Govenor who become even more over the top cartoonish is season 4
I mean you are in the middle of a damn Zombie apocalypse so he gets A TANK????????????????? WHAT???????????

So do the good point outweight the bad? or am I just spinning wheels on this show out of habit?
I just don't know

 

[credoconsolans]

Reign. Historical drama about Mary Queen if Scots. It's extremely loosely based on history. Everybody is young and sexy. It's basically a high school drama series. But it is well written. I'm having a lot of fun. It suffers from weak acting and a low budget. But I think they've done a good job with the money they have.

But it craps all over histotical accuracy. Francis II who wad famous for being sickly and weak is in the TV series a handsome and dashing young man. A real teen heart throb. In reality he barely managed to stand upright his entire life. Was riddled with genetic defects from inbreeding.

It still sort of works since queen Mary's real life was mostly about flirting with men to secure alliances, and playing suitors off one another to get the best deals. She was in reality a shrewd politician.

It also makes zero effort in portraying the lifestyle of the period. It's renaisance fair stuff. The court is portrayed just like any modern high-school.

Still... I'm enjoying it. I am excited when I see it and do keep watching. 6/10

Mary Queen of Scots as per the historian Simon Schama

"Things might have worked out had Mary accepted the safe Protestant husband Elizabeth picked out in the winning form of Robert Dudley. One small problem, Mary had no intention of being told what to do by Elizabeth...Mary was [more interested] in the posterboy of Scottish nobility Lord Darnley...and one look at his shapely calves and Mary decided she must have him...it helped that Stuart blood ran in his veins. Unfortunately for Mary a lot of whiskey ran in his veins as well. Too late, Mary realized she had married a lazy, dissolute drunk who was incapable of even the minimal tasks needed to run a kingdom..."

"Mary became close to her secretary, Italian Catholic David Rizzio, which caused doubt to grow about about Mary's Catholic loyalties and faithfulness..."

...[after Darnley's murder] she [Mary] should have distanced herself from Bothwell, not married him...The mother let herself be turned into a whore...and it never needed to have happened if she was even half the politician Elizabeth was...

Not everyone thinks Mary was a shrewd politician...Schama thinks she was a disaster from day one.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Reign. Historical drama about Mary Queen if Scots. It's extremely loosely based on history. Everybody is young and sexy. It's basically a high school drama series. But it is well written. I'm having a lot of fun. It suffers from weak acting and a low budget. But I think they've done a good job with the money they have.

But it craps all over histotical accuracy. Francis II who wad famous for being sickly and weak is in the TV series a handsome and dashing young man. A real teen heart throb. In reality he barely managed to stand upright his entire life. Was riddled with genetic defects from inbreeding.

It still sort of works since queen Mary's real life was mostly about flirting with men to secure alliances, and playing suitors off one another to get the best deals. She was in reality a shrewd politician.

It also makes zero effort in portraying the lifestyle of the period. It's renaisance fair stuff. The court is portrayed just like any modern high-school.

Still... I'm enjoying it. I am excited when I see it and do keep watching. 6/10

And it has Anne Shirley in it. That's Anne with an 'e'.

 

[KeepTalking]

So firstly I picked up a show years ago that I vaguely remembered
Farscape
And it's.....ok
It's not going to jump to the front of my favourite shows ever list, but it does everything well enough that I at least have no problem going from episode to episode
Overall I would give it a 6/10 for the first season so far

Also picked up the next set for
Walking Dead Season 4 (Some hidden because of potential spoilers)
And I just don't know anymore
To me this is the show that is rapidly becomming a love/hate affair
Because for everything I like about the show it seems to introduce something that just irritates, annoys or grates
This is true for characters, the plot and the overall feel
Some of it I think is that they just really can't do villains all that well

Show

I mean season 2 had Shane becomming the hilariously cartoon bad guy. then three has the even more cartoonishly evil Govenor who become even more over the top cartoonish is season 4
I mean you are in the middle of a damn Zombie apocalypse so he gets A TANK????????????????? WHAT???????????

So do the good point outweight the bad? or am I just spinning wheels on this show out of habit?
I just don't know

For me the good outweighs the bad. As far as cartoon villains goes, you have to realize that this series is based on a comic book series. That said, the "villains" are different in the comics.

Show

Shane in particular was handled quite differently, and he did not get anywhere near as cartoony before Carl killed him.

The Governer is quite a bit more obviously insane when you first meet him in the comics.

If I recall correctly, he gets the tank specifically for the purpose of going after the prison, which does make sense if you have a tank handy.

I think part of the problem with the TV series is that they spread the stories and backgrounds of the villainous characters over too many episodes, whereas in the comics they come to a more abrupt end. At least it seemed that way to me, but I have been reading the collected trade paperback volumes of the comics, so I am typically moving through the issues at a more rapid pace. So they are trying to make them seem more human, and less cartoonish, but they have apparently failed at some level, at least for some viewers.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Reign. Historical drama about Mary Queen if Scots. It's extremely loosely based on history. Everybody is young and sexy. It's basically a high school drama series. But it is well written. I'm having a lot of fun. It suffers from weak acting and a low budget. But I think they've done a good job with the money they have.

But it craps all over histotical accuracy. Francis II who wad famous for being sickly and weak is in the TV series a handsome and dashing young man. A real teen heart throb. In reality he barely managed to stand upright his entire life. Was riddled with genetic defects from inbreeding.

It still sort of works since queen Mary's real life was mostly about flirting with men to secure alliances, and playing suitors off one another to get the best deals. She was in reality a shrewd politician.

It also makes zero effort in portraying the lifestyle of the period. It's renaisance fair stuff. The court is portrayed just like any modern high-school.

Still... I'm enjoying it. I am excited when I see it and do keep watching. 6/10

Mary Queen of Scots as per the historian Simon Schama

"Things might have worked out had Mary accepted the safe Protestant husband Elizabeth picked out in the winning form of Robert Dudley. One small problem, Mary had no intention of being told what to do by Elizabeth...Mary was [more interested] in the posterboy of Scottish nobility Lord Darnley...and one look at his shapely calves and Mary decided she must have him...it helped that Stuart blood ran in his veins. Unfortunately for Mary a lot of whiskey ran in his veins as well. Too late, Mary realized she had married a lazy, dissolute drunk who was incapable of even the minimal tasks needed to run a kingdom..."

"Mary became close to her secretary, Italian Catholic David Rizzio, which caused doubt to grow about about Mary's Catholic loyalties and faithfulness..."

...[after Darnley's murder] she [Mary] should have distanced herself from Bothwell, not married him...The mother let herself be turned into a whore...and it never needed to have happened if she was even half the politician Elizabeth was...

Not everyone thinks Mary was a shrewd politician...Schama thinks she was a disaster from day one.

Hmm... well. She had her motives for not going with Elizabeth's choice other than her vagina. Elizabeth wanted Scotland in a union with England. Also, there's protestants and protestants. Church of England =! Calvinism. If Mary wanted to rule Scotland independently from England she needed to pick some other strategy. Also, we know now how the Calvinism would win out over Catholicism. But she had no way of knowing that. She was relatively weak and most of the Scottish nobles were Catholics. She needed their support. and yeah... it sucks to be a woman

Oh, btw, the series really doesn't develop much. At episode six I got bored. I lasted to episode ten. I suffers from zero character development. There's a lot of drama but nothing seems to matter in the long run. And the further along they go the more they deviate from history. It's gone from fun and campy to tiresome.

 

[TSwizzle]

I just rattled through Peaky Blinders on Netflix, three series I think. The story is about a criminal enterprise operating in the city of Birmingham, England post world war one. It's a bleak, industrial, rough setting. The Peaky Blinders are mostly family, derived from Irish, gypsy stock. The main character, an ambitious Tommy Shelby is trying to steer the organization from thugs running illegal gambling and the like towards some semblance of legitimacy by getting a licensed betting operation going. But it is a challenge trying to keep the legal stuff and the violent and dangerous underbelly working at the same. Through it all he has to make shady alliances with government, IRA and London gangsters, playing one off the other to his own benefit. The series finale was too elaborate and far fetched but overall the series was enjoyable most of the time. I wouldn't rave about it, there is nothing spectacular but the acting is impressive but some of the plot lines are a bit daft.

 

[Draconis]

Started ploughing through DS9 again after many years of just watching occasional random episodes. Watched the whole of Voyager last year.

Very good to remind myself of it all.

 

[Jayjay]

Started ploughing through DS9 again after many years of just watching occasional random episodes. Watched the whole of Voyager last year.

Very good to remind myself of it all.

I did same thing a few years back. DS9 is overrated and kind of misses the point, but Voyager despite it's bad reputation has some pretty good episodes here and there.

 

[Draconis]

Started ploughing through DS9 again after many years of just watching occasional random episodes. Watched the whole of Voyager last year.

Very good to remind myself of it all.

I did same thing a few years back. DS9 is overrated and kind of misses the point, but Voyager despite it's bad reputation has some pretty good episodes here and there.

I think DS9 has more than its fair share of the really bad episodes in the whole Star Trek franchise, and more of the really good ones. Voyager - there's much to be said about a certain character in a tight costume, but I think it's all been said already.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Started ploughing through DS9 again after many years of just watching occasional random episodes. Watched the whole of Voyager last year.

Very good to remind myself of it all.

I did same thing a few years back. DS9 is overrated and kind of misses the point, but Voyager despite it's bad reputation has some pretty good episodes here and there.

DS9 has some camp, but it has a timeline. Bajoran power struggle, the Marquis, the Dominion/Cardassians, and even the secret Section 31. DS9 at least went to different places and had much better characters particularly Gul Dukat, Garak, Quark, and Kai Winn (did you hate any character in the Star Trek universe more than her?). And the Defiant is the coolest ship ever.

Voyager was in the middle of nowhere and they still had to bring the Borg into it. It was a terribly botched attempt at something new and was too one dimensional. Captain Janeway was the worse captain by a long shot. Wouldn't take a deal with Q to get them home in an instant to save the life of one guy and then commits an act of genocide an episode or two later to save a few years of travel. I tried it here and there after Season One, but was never impressed. They had a chance to establish a new Federation, and blew it.

As an aside, Babylon 5 blows both out of the water for the most part, by running a full arc, episode by episode and having incredible writing that really never let itself forget about the consequences of actions. I just finished watching Season 4 of that recently.

 

[TSwizzle]

Episodes on Showtime starring Matt Le Blanc. In it's fourth season already and it's quite amusing, not hilarious but very watchable.

 

[Jayjay]

I did same thing a few years back. DS9 is overrated and kind of misses the point, but Voyager despite it's bad reputation has some pretty good episodes here and there.

DS9 has some camp, but it has a timeline. Bajoran power struggle, the Marquis, the Dominion/Cardassians, and even the secret Section 31. DS9 at least went to different places and had much better characters particularly Gul Dukat, Garak, Quark, and Kai Winn (did you hate any character in the Star Trek universe more than her?). And the Defiant is the coolest ship ever.

You managed to list almost all the things that made me roll my eyes when watching DS9. Too much soap opera, too little scifi... watching it didn't feel like Star Trek, it felt like poor man's Babylon 5 set in a Star Trek universe. A Star Trek show doesn't really need a story arc or a timeline: TNG was best when it merely used the characters as vehicles to explore some neat concept, and then moved on.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

DS9 has some camp, but it has a timeline. Bajoran power struggle, the Marquis, the Dominion/Cardassians, and even the secret Section 31. DS9 at least went to different places and had much better characters particularly Gul Dukat, Garak, Quark, and Kai Winn (did you hate any character in the Star Trek universe more than her?). And the Defiant is the coolest ship ever.

You managed to list almost all the things that made me roll my eyes when watching DS9. Too much soap opera, too little scifi... watching it didn't feel like Star Trek, it felt like poor man's Babylon 5 set in a Star Trek universe. A Star Trek show doesn't really need a story arc or a timeline: TNG was best when it merely used the characters as vehicles to explore some neat concept, and then moved on.

This is probably a IMHO sort of assessment. One thing I didn't like about TNG was that there was little connection between episodes. I likes how DS9 grew along an arc. TNG had those parasite things and at the end of that arc (if you want to even call it that), they suggest something bigger coming down the road... never happened. I liked TNG, really did, but I like how DS9 was able to have an arc. I ponder how much of that is necessary, with the plot centering around a single stationary station.

I think it is a bit funny to say DS9 was a poor man's Babylon 5, when it was the other way around. Man, if Babylon 5 had the funding DS9 had... well probably no way in heck it gets written by one guy because the studio wouldn't allow such a risk, and it becomes another DS9. *sigh*

 

[bilby]

You managed to list almost all the things that made me roll my eyes when watching DS9. Too much soap opera, too little scifi... watching it didn't feel like Star Trek, it felt like poor man's Babylon 5 set in a Star Trek universe. A Star Trek show doesn't really need a story arc or a timeline: TNG was best when it merely used the characters as vehicles to explore some neat concept, and then moved on.

This is probably a IMHO sort of assessment. One thing I didn't like about TNG was that there was little connection between episodes. I likes how DS9 grew along an arc. TNG had those parasite things and at the end of that arc (if you want to even call it that), they suggest something bigger coming down the road... never happened. I liked TNG, really did, but I like how DS9 was able to have an arc. I ponder how much of that is necessary, with the plot centering around a single stationary station.

I think it is a bit funny to say DS9 was a poor man's Babylon 5, when it was the other way around. Man, if Babylon 5 had the funding DS9 had... well probably no way in heck it gets written by one guy because the studio wouldn't allow such a risk, and it becomes another DS9. *sigh*

Obviously Babylon 5 only cost ~55.556% of what Deep Space 9 cost. That's simple maths.

 

[KeepTalking]

DS9 has some camp, but it has a timeline. Bajoran power struggle, the Marquis, the Dominion/Cardassians, and even the secret Section 31. DS9 at least went to different places and had much better characters particularly Gul Dukat, Garak, Quark, and Kai Winn (did you hate any character in the Star Trek universe more than her?). And the Defiant is the coolest ship ever.

You managed to list almost all the things that made me roll my eyes when watching DS9. Too much soap opera, too little scifi... watching it didn't feel like Star Trek, it felt like poor man's Babylon 5 set in a Star Trek universe. A Star Trek show doesn't really need a story arc or a timeline: TNG was best when it merely used the characters as vehicles to explore some neat concept, and then moved on.

One genre of sci-fi is known as 'space opera', and Babylon 5 fits comfortably within that genre. Really, the only thing keeping most Star Trek series' from being space opera is the lack of significant story arcs.

J. Michael Straczynski, the creator of Babylon 5 has maintained that Paramount actually stole the idea of DS9 from him, as he pitched the idea to them 5 years before either series premiered. He then pitched the show to WB, who announced the development of Babylon 5 a few months before Paramount announced DS9. Paramount did, however, premier DS9 a few months before Babylon 5 premiered, leading many Trekkies to conclude that Babylon 5 ripped off DS9.

 

[NobleSavage]

I've been watching the still pictures that came with my Chromecast. 10/10

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

You managed to list almost all the things that made me roll my eyes when watching DS9. Too much soap opera, too little scifi... watching it didn't feel like Star Trek, it felt like poor man's Babylon 5 set in a Star Trek universe. A Star Trek show doesn't really need a story arc or a timeline: TNG was best when it merely used the characters as vehicles to explore some neat concept, and then moved on.

One genre of sci-fi is known as 'space opera', and Babylon 5 fits comfortably within that genre. Really, the only thing keeping most Star Trek series' from being space opera is the lack of significant story arcs.

DS9 didn't have an arc? Voyager going home isn't much to be considered an arc.

J. Michael Straczynski, the creator of Babylon 5 has maintained that Paramount actually stole the idea of DS9 from him, as he pitched the idea to them 5 years before either series premiered. He then pitched the show to WB, who announced the development of Babylon 5 a few months before Paramount announced DS9. Paramount did, however, premier DS9 a few months before Babylon 5 premiered, leading many Trekkies to conclude that Babylon 5 ripped off DS9.

And based on my rather neutral position, having loved DS9 when it came out and never even saw Babylon 5 for well over a decade (and see Seasons 2 through 4 beating out DS9 easily (only DS9's really good episodes compare), there is very little in common with the two shows and the idea it was stolen seems silly. The only thing in common is that they both take place on a stationary ship.

 

[Underseer]

DS9 has some camp, but it has a timeline. Bajoran power struggle, the Marquis, the Dominion/Cardassians, and even the secret Section 31. DS9 at least went to different places and had much better characters particularly Gul Dukat, Garak, Quark, and Kai Winn (did you hate any character in the Star Trek universe more than her?). And the Defiant is the coolest ship ever.

You managed to list almost all the things that made me roll my eyes when watching DS9. Too much soap opera, too little scifi... watching it didn't feel like Star Trek, it felt like poor man's Babylon 5 set in a Star Trek universe. A Star Trek show doesn't really need a story arc or a timeline: TNG was best when it merely used the characters as vehicles to explore some neat concept, and then moved on.

DS9 was more about exploring the politics of the Star Trek universe, and for me that was the main appeal. Characters had to live with the consequences of their actions many episodes later, while most other Star Trek series had episodes that were entirely self-contained and you could watch the episodes in any order without really losing track of very much.