Watch, Watching, Watched -- Until the Sun Comes Up

[Ramsay B.]

12 hours ago, Isis said:

I segued straight into The Serpent after that. Some obvious commonalities with The Puppet Master. I liked this so much I am re-watching this weekend with my husband. Fascinating how not just one person can be sub-humanly awful, but also that person can persuade others to behave the same way. Does that make all of them psychopaths? Or just the cult-leader? This is brilliant television - it fully sucks you in and makes you interested in both the good and the bad characters.

I was intrigued by this but kinda forgot about it. There’s too many damn shows! I think I’ll give it a go. I also watched the first episode of The Puppet Master a few days ago and will finish it eventually.

Speaking of sociopaths/psychopaths, I watched Phoenix Rising. Obviously a disturbing one. The video shoot and a few of the other memories by Evan Rachel Wood were horrifying. It really sucks that Manson is free to victimize more women, and just enjoy life and make more of his shitty music.

Also, it has a 96% critic rating on RT and 44% audience. The incel/women hating crowd really went hard at this one. Fucking losers.

Viewed Fresh last night(Hulu). The less you know the better with this thriller, but it’s fucked up. Overall it was solid. Sebastian Stan and Daisy Edgar-Jones were both great and carried it. 

[Annara Snow]

13 hours ago, Tyria said:

Yeah, it's more Spartacus level cocks than Oz, but with only two eps so far, it's like all the cocks from Spartacus...

...but soooo many uncut ones, poor peens (don't want to trigger another cut vs uncut thread... but they looked so cold...and more exposed). 

Still laughed at at how you can watch a woman just walking around with her boobs out and think, yeah whatever, s'ok, but as soon as there are just penises everywhere, it's hilarious. I know it's because it's uncommon, but mostly because they do look just silly. Like Elaine said "I don't know how you guys walk around with those things"

 

12 hours ago, Deadlines? What Deadlines? said:

Breasts have been somewhat demystified for some time. Less so female genitalia and even less so male genitalia. It's been some time since I've been but Im sure you can still go to a Mediterranean or South American beach and see titties everywhere.

I remember seeing the bottomless pool party scene from Harold and Kumar and thinking it was pretty bold. Polly Walker made an impression in the first episode of Rome. But then bewbs and vajayjay's aren't conspicuous barometers of temperature, relative humidity or arousal. 

I have high hopes for the remaining episodes. 

I don\t think it's fait to compare boobs to cocks. Boobs are more on the butt level (male or female).

(It's interesting though that breasts are considered sexually explicit but male chest is not, although male chest - if good looking - is an extremely sexy part of a male body, which is why male shirtless scenes are so common - you aren't getting censored/R rated but you're getting people hot and bothered anyway).

On the other hand, comparing male and female genitalia on screen is tricky. I don't think I've seen female frontal nudity that much either. But the thing with female genitalia is that you normally don't actually see much even with full frontal nudity, because all that's interesting could only be visible with some... camera angles/zooming/spread legs - which would take you right into hard core porn territory, just like showing an erect penis would (at least this is how these things are usually classifiedl mind you, some arthouse films go into that 'hard core porn' territory). You may see lots of cocks in Minx, Oz or Spartacus, but I'm pretty sure you won't see any erect ones.

And the latter also puts certain limitations on sex scenes and nudity - you can only see a cock in relatively neutral situations, because showing one in a sex scene would either reveal there is no arousal, or. if there is one, slap a different rating on the film/not be allowed on most TV channels. On the other hand, you usually can't even see female genitalia well enough to tell if there's arousal, so you could just get a glimpse that would usually reveal nothing but the amount and color of pubic hair (or lack of it).

[Veltigar]

I watched The Godfather over the weekend, as well as The Legend of Vox Machina. I don't think there is much about The Godfather that I can say that has not already been said. Wonderful film, even though it definitely goes soft on the mob. In the end, having now watched both films in short order, I think The Godfather is better than its sequel, although I would say that the Michael storyline of The Godfather II is the best thing in both films. 

The Legend of Vox Machina was dumb fun. I'd recommend it for people who like the genre or D&D. Do not expect humor that will last the ages or deep storylines, but it was a nice, uncomplicated piece of fun. Some of the storylines were handled a bit messy, but in general it reminded me of reading dragon lance as a teenager. You knew it was shit, but you enjoyed it tremendously anyways.

An unexpected surprise was seeing Dog, the directorial debut of Channing Tatum in theatre. Total feel-good movie and there is never any doubt about how it is going to end, but I felt like it was much better than it had any right to be. The story was told with a lot of flair and it exuded feeling. There were a few scenes that were single-tear worthy so I'd definitely recommend this to anyone in need of a pick-me up.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

13 hours ago, Deadlines? What Deadlines? said:

I remember seeing the bottomless pool party scene from Harold and Kumar and thinking it was pretty bold. Polly Walker made an impression in the first episode of Rome. But then bewbs and vajayjay's aren't conspicuous barometers of temperature, relative humidity or arousal. 

That's because Polly Walker is a fucking goddess. 

[Deadlines? What Deadlines?]

2 hours ago, Annara Snow said:

I don\t think it's fait to compare boobs to cocks. Boobs are more on the butt level (male or female).

(It's interesting though that breasts are considered sexually explicit but male chest is not, although male chest - if good looking - is an extremely sexy part of a male body, which is why male shirtless scenes are so common - you aren't getting censored/R rated but you're getting people hot and bothered anyway).

It isn't the breast so much as the nipple. You can show a woman in a string bikini with almost non existent cups, or even pasties or tape, and you can still get a PG-13 and show it on primetime TV in the US. Show even a hint of areola, forget it. 

Check out the documentary This Film Is Not Yet Rated. 

2 hours ago, Annara Snow said:

On the other hand, comparing male and female genitalia on screen is tricky. I don't think I've seen female frontal nudity that much either. But the thing with female genitalia is that you normally don't actually see much even with full frontal nudity, because all that's interesting could only be visible with some... camera angles/zooming/spread legs - which would take you right into hard core porn territory, just like showing an erect penis would (at least this is how these things are usually classifiedl mind you, some arthouse films go into that 'hard core porn' territory). You may see lots of cocks in Minx, Oz or Spartacus, but I'm pretty sure you won't see any erect ones.

And the latter also puts certain limitations on sex scenes and nudity - you can only see a cock in relatively neutral situations, because showing one in a sex scene would either reveal there is no arousal, or. if there is one, slap a different rating on the film/not be allowed on most TV channels. On the other hand, you usually can't even see female genitalia well enough to tell if there's arousal, so you could just get a glimpse that would usually reveal nothing but the amount and color of pubic hair (or lack of it).

When it comes to female pubic hair, often times that isn't even real. It's a pubic hair piece. 

Regarding cocks, I would imagine there's pushback from actors as well. Going full frontal or erect on screen could be a career limiting or typecasting move. You become known as the actor with such-and-such dick and get judged on it. Rumor has it that Willem Dafoe's member will break your mind. Liam Neeson...

1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

That's because Polly Walker is a fucking goddess. 

You know it. 

She was in Patriot Games. I haven't seen Patriot Games. I need to see Patriot Games.  

[Kalbear]

Watched guardians of justice. It was fine, occasionally very weird, and actually a bit surprising at times and went a very different way than I expected. Not exactly good, but short enough that it didn't get old.

[BigFatCoward]

Talking about cocks, the righteous gemstones has some of the ugliest 'on screen' cocks it's been my unfortunate pleasure to witness. 

[RumHam]

2 hours ago, BigFatCoward said:

Talking about cocks, the righteous gemstones has some of the ugliest 'on screen' cocks it's been my unfortunate pleasure to witness. 

But always deployed for maximum comedic effect.

"Keefe, that shirts not as long as you think it is buddy."

 

[Nictarion]

3 minutes ago, RumHam said:

But always deployed for maximum comedic effect.

"Keefe, that shirts not as long as you think it is buddy."

 

Keefe getting poked in the eye through the hole in the canvas covering his little prison cell was my favorite.

[Rippounet]

3 hours ago, BigFatCoward said:

Talking about cocks, the righteous gemstones has some of the ugliest 'on screen' cocks it's been my unfortunate pleasure to witness. 

That show felt like revenge for all the boobs on Game of Thrones.

It was an ok show btw.  It has a special brand of cringy humor that it executes very well. Otoh, I expected a bit more depth to the show at first (it ends up being a family comedy and not much more imho).

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

4 hours ago, Deadlines? What Deadlines? said:

You know it. 

She was in Patriot Games. I haven't seen Patriot Games. I need to see Patriot Games.  

I'm surprised I haven't seen her in anything else. She's gotten steady work over the years, but I don't recognize anything she's in.

[Zorral]

I thought a docu adaptation from Loomis's book, Edward VIII: Britain's Traitor King, had been made a long time ago.

But it sounds as though this is another, new, adaptation, to be released March 27 in the UK. But, is it new?  Remain confused!

https://militarygogglebox.com/2022/03/20/edward-viii-britains-traitor-king-2022/

 

 

[dbunting]

7 hours ago, Annara Snow said:

On the other hand, comparing male and female genitalia on screen is tricky. I don't think I've seen female frontal nudity that much either. But the thing with female genitalia is that you normally don't actually see much even with full frontal nudity, because all that's interesting could only be visible with some... camera angles/zooming/spread legs - which would take you right into hard core porn territory, just like showing an erect penis would (at least this is how these things are usually classifiedl mind you, some arthouse films go into that 'hard core porn' territory). You may see lots of cocks in Minx, Oz or Spartacus, but I'm pretty sure you won't see any erect ones.

 

Agree with you on this. Seeing male frontal nudity IMO is the equivalent of seeing a shaved female from the front, and not from a mile away, like Rosario Dawson did.  That's about as equal as you will get unless you get into NC17 or X 

[Ramsay B.]

I went and saw X today and it was good. Pretty much just an updated version of old school slasher movies, but not as boring as the older ones could be. First half is buildup(with boobs of course)and the second half is murder. I’d give it around a 7/10.

[Heartofice]

So I've been trying to make the most of my Disney+ package before my sub runs out.

So I watched some of the more recent animation offerings. Encanto, Turning Red and Luca.

Of the 3 I think I found Luca to be the most charming and likeable of the bunch, with maybe Encanto a close second. Turning Red was also quite good in places, but it didn't have that Disney / Pixar spark of creativity that I'd hope for, being essentially Teenwolf. Luca I really liked though, it had a sense of innocence and joy that was really enjoyable, and there were some very funny performances by some side characters. I'd never heard of it before so I'm surprised it went under the radar for me.

[Isis]

Finished my fourth Lost rewatch. For some reason I have not really gone down the rabbit hole of wanting to read a bunch of theories and explanations about the final season before (I guess I must have done on this board when it first aired?). So please hit me with any good sources on that.

Spoiler

WARNING SPOILERS FOR A SHOW THAT ENDED IN 2010 BELOW. 

Sorry, but I cannot get the spoiler text to work here, please PM me or whatever (or edit, if you're a mod/admin).

 

 

 

 

 

[spoiler]

Help me out here...Ok so, Jack dies on the island and all the stuff with him back in LA, having a son* etc is not real? So it's just in his head? But also in the head of everyone else? Presumably the previous flash forward stuff where he went back, got engaged to Kate etc WAS real? Because the concurrent flash back stuff (i.e. Sawyer and Juliet living together in the 1970's) was obviously real as well. So the Oceanic Six did get rescued, get off the island (really really) and then go back again. But then we they went back again, Jack died to save the island, Hurley and Ben hang out on the island still, but everyone else escapes on the plane (including Richard! - will he ever age or just not bother?).

But hang on, why was Desmond the one to gather everyone? Was he just more enlightened than everyone else?

Then, Jack has his afterlife reunion with all his island buddies - but only once they are all actually dead as well? Soooooo, they just kinda didn't really exist for a while until all of them were dead and could be reunited again? Is that right?

*played by that dude from 13 Reasons Why [/spoiler]

 

[RumHam]

@Isis They removed that type of formatting with the last update. You have to highlight the text and click the eye symbol that's at the top of the editor along with the bold, italics, underline, etc.

Spoiler

Yeah, the "oceanic six" stuff was all real. Only the "flash-sideways" stuff was not real life. It was basically where their "souls" or whatever killed time until they were ready to truly move on. Presumably time works differently in the afterlife so no one had to wait around for the last of them to die.

 

[DMC]

1 hour ago, Isis said:

Spoiler

Help me out here...Ok so, Jack dies on the island and all the stuff with him back in LA, having a son* etc is not real? So it's just in his head? But also in the head of everyone else? Presumably the previous flash forward stuff where he went back, got engaged to Kate etc WAS real? Because the concurrent flash back stuff (i.e. Sawyer and Juliet living together in the 1970's) was obviously real as well. So the Oceanic Six did get rescued, get off the island (really really) and then go back again. But then we they went back again, Jack died to save the island, Hurley and Ben hang out on the island still, but everyone else escapes on the plane (including Richard! - will he ever age or just not bother?).

But hang on, why was Desmond the one to gather everyone? Was he just more enlightened than everyone else?

Then, Jack has his afterlife reunion with all his island buddies - but only once they are all actually dead as well? Soooooo, they just kinda didn't really exist for a while until all of them were dead and could be reunited again? Is that right?

 

Spoiler

I've always thought Christian explained all of this pretty clearly in the finale - which was obviously Lindelof and Cuse trying to head off these questions by having Jack ask them:

Quote

Jack: Are you real?

Christian: I sure hope so.  Yeah, I’m real.  You’re real.  Everything that’s ever happened to you is real. All those people in the church, they’re all real too.

Jack: They’re all- they’re all dead?

Christian: Everyone dies sometime, kiddo.  Some of them before you, some long after you.

Jack: But why are they all here now?

Christian: Well there is no now here.

Jack: Where are we, Dad?

Christian: Well this is a place that you, that you all made together so that you could find one another.  The most important part of your life was the time that you spent with these people.  That’s why all of you are here.  Nobody does it alone, Jack.  You needed all of them and they needed you.

The flash-sideways timeline is an afterlife reality that the survivors "created" to find one another before moving on to..full afterlife, I guess...which based on the finale imagery, as well as Charlie's description of seeing Claire when he was suffocating in the flash-sideways timeline, appears to just be your standard straight-up heaven. 

When Juliet dies, she says she has something very important to tell Sawyer, and then Miles later tells him she wanted to say "it worked."  The clear implication is that Faraday's attempt to change the future/past so the Oceanic flight never crashed did "work" in creating that place for all of them to find each other.  (Note when Juliet dies and starts speaking nonsense to Sawyer, what she's actually saying is the conversation she has with Sawyer in the flash-sideways timeline when they "find" each other.)

As for Desmond, yeah, the reasoning basically can be chalked up to he's special - as he clearly is emphasized throughout the series as unique, especially after imploding the hatch (which arguably is when he acquired his time and perhaps universe-bending abilities).

Finally, on Richard aging - when he and Miles are rowing to Hydra Island to try and blow up the plane, Miles finds a grey hair on Richard's head.  Richard then smiles and says something to the effect of "I just realized I want to live."  I've always interpreted that as Richard started aging once Jacob died, but he'll start from whatever age he was when Jacob gave him his gift, so he's still probably at least got a good 40 years or so left.

 

[Deadlines? What Deadlines?]

21 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

I'm surprised I haven't seen her in anything else. She's gotten steady work over the years, but I don't recognize anything she's in.

Seriously , she's the only reason I started watching Bridgerton. Now I'm hooked on this lame soap opera. Will Daphne marry the Duke of Hastings? His father was so mean to him! Don't tell me you bastards!!!

[Zorral]

Having watched a few current seasons of ITV and BBC shows, I see why the right is so up in arms over the BBC, at least.  As matter-of-course w/o any comment we have primaries who aren't white / male.  We have supporting regulars who aren't either. We even have differently abled -- which I began to see in the later Veras, adapted from the Ann Cleeves book series.  It's quite nice to see the variety of people who live in the UK reflected on the screen in which their non-whiteness and cultures aren't used as a plot, i.e. a problem to be solved.  So often, even for well meaning efforts, as with women in roles where screens generally didn't place them in ye good old golden days, they were still viewed as "a problem."

So for instance one of the good ones, Bay, has a criminal forensic pathologist who not only is a woman -- they mostly have been, for a while at least, even in Midsomer Murders, so much so it's almost a trope now -- but has hearing challenges.  Nothing is made of this as a problem.  But -- this is so cool -- often, particularly when initially arriving at a murder scene, she shuts off her hearing aids, as this allows her to concentrate without any distraction. Nobody needs to explain this to us in words, as there moments at the scene where the victim has been discovered, when one of her co-workers gently touches the chief pathologist, indicating that the boss cop investigators have arrived and want to talk to her. It's just another aspect of team work, not a problem.

There are reflections of many of the current issues the UK faces (as do we all, though it does seem that still, so far, the UK doesn't have our always dreadful gun problem, which is now accelerating at rates not ever seen before -- last weekend the US had 8 EIGHT! mass shootings!).  Most of what I watch are mystery-crime-cop dramas, contemporary social issues are often front-and-center.  Season 2 of Traces, for instance, the primary storyline/crime to be solved, is a series of bombings committed in Dundee by an INCEL.  Nearly every episode has a scene where the police and forensic scientists have to explain what is and INCEL -- and they invariably begin with this INCEL thing is mostly American, but it is growing and spreading here, and maybe most are harmless, but there's a significant number who are not, who are criminally determined to kill women.