The Omnibox: all things television

[Angel4Truth]

Do any of you have a subscription to pureflix, i wonder if its good, i am thinking about getting that, after cancelling my cable this week.

 

[Lighthouse]

I'm going to try The Great Indoors tonight. I like Joel McHale and was saddened to lose both of his shows, so I'd like to see if this one is any good. But Community was about more than just him, so the new show will depend a lot on the rest of the cast and the writing. McHale won't be able to save it if the rest of it is junk.

 

[Lighthouse]

I'm going to try The Great Indoors tonight. I like Joel McHale and was saddened to lose both of his shows, so I'd like to see if this one is any good. But Community was about more than just him, so the new show will depend a lot on the rest of the cast and the writing. McHale won't be able to save it if the rest of it is junk.

Not worth it.

 

[Tambora]

Anybody here watching WestWorld?

I tell you what, Anthony Hopkins, after playing roles in Magic, Silence of the Lambs, and now WestWorld, --------- he can sure play one real creepy guy!

Watching the first couple of episodes, I thought it was going to be rather cliche.
But then it got real interesting trying to figure out who was who and what was what.


I can envision a lot of commentary on this show from everything between artificial intelligence, evolution, reincarnation, alien manipulation, and the reason one looks for a god.
Not sure which direction the show is going in, but the possibilities are endless.

 

[Tambora]

Another series I am watching is called Channel Zero: Candle Cove

This show is of the horror genre.

The show is about children in a community that start acting a bit strangely.
They talk about and draw pics of characters from a TV show they watch called Candle Cove.
This sparks memories of their parents who also did the same when they were kids.

The problem is that the parents of those parents that remember the show when they were young say they remember their children talking about the show, but there never was a show.
The kids just sat and stared at static on the TV, and then they would go outside to play and pretend they were the characters of the show and have adventures.

Now the parents (that remembered) are concerned about their own children now displaying the same oddness they did as kids.
But when they were kids, a few of them ended up murdered and one missing that was never found.

The show they supposedly watched was a puppeteer show of a pirate ship (that talks) called Laughingstock and it's crew.
Poppy - the adult pirate, brave and protective, but with a temper.
Percy - a young pirate lad that is rather cowardly and is afraid of everything and everyone.
Jancie - a girl.

They set out on adventures.
As the show goes on, other characters are introduced, each being a bit more ominous than the other.
Horace the Horrible - a one eyed character.
The skintaker - a skeleton wearing a cape and pirate hat. (It is later revealed that the skintakers's cape is made of children's skin).

The parents scramble to try and figure out how the show got started and why only children can see it.
Each time the parents get involved, they start to remember more of the show's characters and what it caused them to do as kids.

 

[Lighthouse]

Anybody here watching WestWorld?

I tell you what, Anthony Hopkins, after playing roles in Magic, Silence of the Lambs, and now WestWorld, --------- he can sure play one real creepy guy!

Watching the first couple of episodes, I thought it was going to be rather cliche.
But then it got real interesting trying to figure out who was who and what was what.


I can envision a lot of commentary on this show from everything between artificial intelligence, evolution, reincarnation, alien manipulation, and the reason one looks for a god.
Not sure which direction the show is going in, but the possibilities are endless.

I'm enjoying it. And the "What door?" in the last episode? That just about floored me. I had read someone online theorizing that, but their evidence was just plain dumb. Of course, they'll think otherwise now that it turned out they were right.

 

[Tambora]

I'm enjoying it. And the "What door?" in the last episode? That just about floored me. I had read someone online theorizing that, but their evidence was just plain dumb. Of course, they'll think otherwise now that it turned out they were right.

Well I hope this doesn't spoil anything.
But there is a rumor going around that Anthony Hopkins is actually a droid that Arnold (his partner from the beginning, and hasn't been seen since) made to help him with his project.
The droid rebelled and took over, and has Arnold locked away somewhere.
That's not official, just a rumor.

The way the show has progressed, it could go in any number of directions!

 

[Lighthouse]

Well I hope this doesn't spoil anything.
But there is a rumor going around that Anthony Hopkins is actually a droid that Arnold (his partner from the beginning, and hasn't been seen since) made to help him with his project.
The droid rebelled and took over, and has Arnold locked away somewhere.
That's not official, just a rumor.

The way the show has progressed, it could go in any number of directions!

Yeah, I've heard that rumor.

 

[nikolai_42]

Currently (re)watching 2007 TV Series "Life" on Netflix. One series that did what it had to do in a couple seasons and didn't try to expand the plot past the point of being manageable. Falsely imprisoned cop (played by Damian Lewis) gets out with undisclosed (very large) cash settlement but goes back to work on the force - primarily to investigate who REALLY committed the murder that was pinned on him. Witty dialog (cop becomes very zen in prison and is not your typical detective) and quirky characters make for an interesting program.

Anyone watching Marco Polo on Netflix? I enjoy detailed historical dramas, but don't know this history that well so couldn't tell if it was accurate or not. I started the first season when it came out in 2014 but for a few episodes at least, it felt like they were trying to be too much like HBO (read: heavy on the sex and violence). I didn't finish it then, but with a new season (and having watched the half hour teaser for it), I'm thinking it might be worth a second look.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

I posted this in the wrong thread and am now trying to get things corrected:

The Fall[FONT=&quot] on Netflix (three seasons) is worth a view. Just finished watching this psychological thriller involving a female British criminal investigator ([/FONT]Sculley,[FONT=&quot] X-Files!) and a serial killer set in Belfast.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]AMR[/FONT]

 

[Tambora]

Just finished watching this

Goody!

I gotta ask you a question about it.

Spoiler

I'm just gonna come out and ask the question and then tell you why I ask.

Did the investigator and the killer both act they way they did because it was expected of them?

Both of them were hunting prey to totally own.
He was the victim in her web, as others were victims in his web.

But what made them act that way?
Abuse in their childhoods?
We know the killer was abused, and there were hints that the investigator's father abused her, and is suspected that is why she has meaningless sex with strangers (usually younger men that she treats as just a sex toy - ie. dominated which is just a form of owning) to satisfy her anxious moods.
Much like the killer suffocated women (dominated/owned) to release his anxiousness.

Both the investigator and the killer were playing cat and mouse with each other.
And both wanted to outsmart the other (to own as their inferior).

And then there is the scene where another man confesses to the murders and is put away in prison.
When the killer was asked why a man that did not do the killings would confess, he answered, "Maybe he felt like he should confess".
Well, why DID the guy confess???
Was it because others expected that of him and convinced him that he was a monster????

The killer was very passive while locked up.
UNTIL the investigator drilled him that he should remove his mask and own up to the dark hollowness that was his very soul.
He viciously attacked her, punching her in the face several times, knocking her to the floor and then stomping on her head.
A guard that tried to break it up got his arm snapped and his head bashed into the wall.

Did he go from passive to brutal because he felt that was all anyone expected of him?
Or did he go berserk just to show her that he was not as 'owned' as she made him out to be?

The show ends with the investigator staring at the killer and letting him know that he will never get out of jail and folks will forget about him like the nothingness he is.
She owned him.

But he, not wanting to give her the satisfaction of owning him, killed himself in his cell before it went to trial.
And then there is this long scene with her sitting in the dark drinking a glass of wine, saying nothing, just staring into the dark.
You can't tell if she's happy or sad.
Happy it's over?
Or sad because she lost her prey before she could finish him off?


So the question arises ........ do people react how they think others expect them to?
If you tell a child they are 'special' at the same time you are abusing them, will they grow up thinking abuse of others for your pleasure is just a normal part of life?

I'm not sure what direction the author was trying convey or what thoughts he wanted the audience to think about.

But the fact that there could be so many implications made the ending of the show not be such a disappointment.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Goody!

I gotta ask you a question about it.

Spoiler

I'm just gonna come out and ask the question and then tell you why I ask.

Did the investigator and the killer both act they way they did because it was expected of them?

Both of them were hunting prey to totally own.
He was the victim in her web, as others were victims in his web.

But what made them act that way?
Abuse in their childhoods?
We know the killer was abused, and there were hints that the investigator's father abused her, and is suspected that is why she has meaningless sex with strangers (usually younger men that she treats as just a sex toy - ie. dominated which is just a form of owning) to satisfy her anxious moods.
Much like the killer suffocated women (dominated/owned) to release his anxiousness.

Both the investigator and the killer were playing cat and mouse with each other.
And both wanted to outsmart the other (to own as their inferior).

And then there is the scene where another man confesses to the murders and is put away in prison.
When the killer was asked why a man that did not do the killings would confess, he answered, "Maybe he felt like he should confess".
Well, why DID the guy confess???
Was it because others expected that of him and convinced him that he was a monster????

The killer was very passive while locked up.
UNTIL the investigator drilled him that he should remove his mask and own up to the dark hollowness that was his very soul.
He viciously attacked her, punching her in the face several times, knocking her to the floor and then stomping on her head.
A guard that tried to break it up got his arm snapped and his head bashed into the wall.

Did he go from passive to brutal because he felt that was all anyone expected of him?
Or did he go berserk just to show her that he was not as 'owned' as she made him out to be?

The show ends with the investigator staring at the killer and letting him know that he will never get out of jail and folks will forget about him like the nothingness he is.
She owned him.

But he, not wanting to give her the satisfaction of owning him, killed himself in his cell before it went to trial.
And then there is this long scene with her sitting in the dark drinking a glass of wine, saying nothing, just staring into the dark.
You can't tell if she's happy or sad.
Happy it's over?
Or sad because she lost her prey before she could finish him off?


So the question arises ........ do people react how they think others expect them to?
If you tell a child they are 'special' at the same time you are abusing them, will they grow up thinking abuse of others for your pleasure is just a normal part of life?

I'm not sure what direction the author was trying convey or what thoughts he wanted the audience to think about.

But the fact that there could be so many implications made the ending of the show not be such a disappointment.

I was disappointed with the ending. Too much violence crammed into the final episode, mostly gratuitous.

Reader Note: Some show spoilers appear next, so avoid the following if you have yet to see the show.

Spoiler

The showrunner's trick of trying to cast Spector as a character to be somewhat pitied and that his impulses were somehow the result of his childhood traumas was too formulaic. For me, while his childhood was terribly awful, Spector did what he did because he just liked to do it and relished the rush of power he felt from his deeds.

The man who took the fall for Spector for an earlier murder was in the same children's home as Spector. Both were friends abused by the priest now incarcerated. Spector was the priest's "favorite" for a year. The priest made his favorite pick a successor at the end of the year. When the time came in the room with other boys, Spector went past his friend and chose some other child. Spector's friend repaid him when Spector's sexual proclivities resulted in the death of the woman that had took them both home for drunken sex. The man's gratitude for not being nominated by Spector to be Anderson's (the priest) favorite "daily for an entire year" was so profound that he apparently felt that life in prison was satisfactory payment.

Stella's hauteur was the right match for Spector. I saw no hints that she was perhaps abused by her Father. Instead it was only Spector who tauntingly made that claim, as well as that Stella was entertaining incestuous fantasies when he made an entry in her dream diary after breaking into her hotel room.

Both Spector and Stella were control freaks. Unfortunately, Spector's escape from the tedium of such an existence was murder, while Stella's escape was casual sex.

Spector's reaction after being caught in his amnesia deception and the taunting of Stella could only end up being violent. Realizing that his charade was up, violence was Spector's only resort from the control he tried to maintain in his life, following a childhood wherein he was at the mercy and control of others.

Stella's return to her flat in London at the end provides some peek into her private life. A sterile and very tidy flat, the hallmark of the fastidious, wherein the thrill of the chase has come to a close, and what remains is but ennui and the tedium to come...until season four that is.

AMR

 

[Lighthouse]

I've been watching Shooter. Awesome show!

For strangeness there's Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency. I downloaded the book to my Kindle, as well. I'm on the 5th chapter.

 

[Town Heretic]

Just finished watching the spy film Page Eight, on Amazon as the first part of the Worricker Trilogy, starring Bill Nighy. Very interesting and thoughtfully done. He's a wonderful actor to watch and this is a fine vehicle for his talent. Recommended, though you won't get explosions, gadgets, or a lot of gunfire...by which I mean any.

About to take a look at The Expanse...mtf.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Just finished watching the spy film Page Eight, on Amazon as the first part of the Worricker Trilogy, starring Bill Nighy. Very interesting and thoughtfully done. He's a wonderful actor to watch and this is a fine vehicle for his talent. Recommended, though you won't get explosions, gadgets, or a lot of gunfire...by which I mean any.

About to take a look at The Expanse...mtf.

Sounds like a 'proper' spy film then.

 

[annabenedetti]

Sounds like a 'proper' spy film then.

A proper spy film? I can recommend a proper spy film. You can trust me. Honest.

 

[Town Heretic]

A proper spy film? I can recommend a proper spy film. You can trust me. Honest.

I keep telling her, "No, Jackie Chan isn't in any proper spy films." :nono:

 

[annabenedetti]

I keep telling her, "No, Jackie Chan isn't in any proper spy films." :nono:

:think: I think I've only seen Jackie Chan in Rush Hour, and he's not a spy.




I really liked that movie. :chuckle:

 

[Arthur Brain]

A proper spy film? I can recommend a proper spy film. You can trust me. Honest.

lain:

 

[ok doser]

Just finished watching the spy film Page Eight, on Amazon as the first part of the Worricker Trilogy, starring Bill Nighy.

watched it years ago when i was following michael gambon's career - michael gambon, ralph fiennes, rachel weisz...

and spud from trainspotting :noway:


watching it now on dailymotion :thumb: