Television Whats on TV?

Clearly Norfolk wasn't exciting enough for the Americans.

1733995793881.webp



 
Watched the first 3 episodes of season 2 of Gen V.

The first series was a good spin off from The Boys.

So far season two has been plodding in pace, full of dull characters and seems to be going nowhere story wise

It's also sadly lacking in the dark comedy that marked the early series of Boys.

Overall, the whole thing seems tired and has lost its way. I hope it picks up.
 
ive never watched any series of the traitors before, it just past me by even though the last series it was the most watched non sporting tv show of the year. at about 10m. but the celebrity Traitors is interesting me. because i think it might be the greatest list of celebrities for a celebrity TV show there has been.
 
Gen V series 2 episode 5 was a huge improvement on the earlier episodes. The content of eps 1 to 4 could have been contained in 1 episode such was the pace and dull writing.
 
I started S2 and it's okay.
Definitely getting a last season of The Boys vibe with the "woke" stuff.

The Marie character is annoying though.
It was clear to me from the start that she doesn't need to cut herself to manipulate blood - just extract it from herself directly, or better yet, whoever she's fighting.
And if she can move other blood filled objects, then she can also clearly "fly".

Hence why the new dean said she could be the most powerful ever.
 
Definitely getting a last season of The Boys vibe with the "woke" stuff.
One of my biggest issues with modern writing is how screen writers have completely lost the art of allegory.

A golden rule of writing is to allow your audience to work certain things out for themselves which is rewarding and gets people more engaged with the characters and story.

All of that seems to have gone out of the window and modern writing seems to assume that unless everything is explicit the audience won't get it.

There's no reward for the audience in doing that. They just feel as if they're being preached at.
 
The new series of Grand Designs has just started on C4. I love and loathe this programme in equal parts. On one side, I love to see process of creating the house, the struggles the people go through, and what the end result is. On the other side, I am sick to the back teeth of people talking utter bollocks about creating an "eco" house, and only using "sustainable " building materials when 9 times out of 10 they rip down a perfectly good house, which all the carbon used to build it has long been written off, dig out huge amounts of earth, throwing carbon in to the atmosphere, and chopping down numerous trees and digging up huge amounts of plants.

Rant over.
 
when 9 times out of 10 they rip down a perfectly good house
you make a good point but there also now houses where sometimes it doesn't need heating because they've got triple glazing & solar panels. the old house yes would be better but technology has moved on & it would be draftier
 
Haven't seen it yet. It has been ramping up really well after a slow start.

From episode 4 onwards it's been great.
 
watching richard osman house of games, they had this great question that split my household, i was delighted to get it correct,. explanation in spoiler

Monza - 75 times
Monaco - 71
Silverstone - 60
thank you pandemic

1762862764557.webp
 
Do the producers honestly address the multiple counts of cheating by the team management or the main driver? If not, I have no desire to watch it.
 
Red Eye Series 2.

Absolute bollocks of the first degree.

I hate lazy writing that creates but doesn't recognise total ineptitude in people to allow events to take place that are absolutely absurd.

You know the typical type of stuff such as "There's a murderer on the prowl so we'll all split up and go everywhere on our own"

The bulk of the plot telegraphs itself in large letters from approximately half way through episode 2.

Even the ending is remotely satisfying.

Don't waste your time.
 
Do the producers honestly address the multiple counts of cheating by the team management or the main driver? If not, I have no desire to watch it.
No... This was the Nigel Farage view of the world... All of the "complaints" about Benetton were because "The establishment" couldn't see an upstart new team (that was a jersey manufacturer) beating the established teams...

There were lots of interesting omissions or talking points:
  1. No talk about effectively plagiarising the Reynard F1 project (through Byrne and Symonds)
  2. Apparently Johnny Herbert was considered for the 1988 season, but he was rejected because the Benetton team wanted an italian driver. (There was a shoot-out, where Herbert was considerably faster than either of the other two drivers, but the team "adjusted" the timings to ensure that Nannini was fastest). Had Herbert been given the Benetton drive in 1988, history could have really been different - he would never have broken his feet, and he could well have become world champion.
 
I'm not sure the complaints about cheating were unfounded and a reaction by the establishment. The code for a launch control system was found in their engine management software but "never used under race conditions". The team modified the fuelling rig to bypass the flow restrictions, which caused the huge fire that engulfed Jos Verstappen in Germany. And, of course, Schumacher deliberately drove in to Damon Hill in Adelaide to force Hill in to retirement and secure his first Word Title.

Oh, and Flavio Briatori and Pat Symonds are both proven cheats. Additionally, Briatori is an odious man who deserves nothing but contempt and shouldn't even be allowed to attend an F1 race as a spectator. Not that I hold strong opinions on the matter ;-)
 
Back
Top Bottom