TV/Movies Megathread

[The Larch]

why?

Apparently it comes from a 2019 fan film which came to Will Smith's attention, who really liked it and got the guy who made it to turn it into a show.

Edit: Tyr'ed.

[Grey Fox]

Peacock needs content too.

Also, nothing that is TV is for children/teens anymore. It's all for us 30-55 crowd.

[Malthus]

I keep trying to find the right state of mind to watch the last seasons of Bojack Horseman but I just can't - a bunch of it hits way too close to home 

I'm a big fan - I even did some fan art. Sarah Lynn as Ophelia:

[Berkut]

It seems that iconic 90s sitcom "The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air", which launched Will Smith to stardom, is getting, of all things, a remake, and not any kind of remake but a gritty and dramatic one... this is quite a head scratcher for me.

Trailer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rQ1uG91Bbls

That looks....promising.

[HVC]

Some amateur guy made a trailer for...some reason. That sort of thing is normal on youtube, gritty dark reimagining of childhood classic.
Will Smith saw it and thought that's actually a good idea and set things in motion.

I dunno. It could be a half decent commentary on class. No reason to expect it'll automatically be bad. My expectations are it never gets much attention in the UK and is thoroughly meh.

So it got the Archie treatment.

[Darth Wagtaros]

Some amateur guy made a trailer for...some reason. That sort of thing is normal on youtube, gritty dark reimagining of childhood classic.
Will Smith saw it and thought that's actually a good idea and set things in motion.

I dunno. It could be a half decent commentary on class. No reason to expect it'll automatically be bad. My expectations are it never gets much attention in the UK and is thoroughly meh.

So it got the Archie treatment.

YOu mean this?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=djRAiiFlCy8

[HVC]

Indeed I do.  Better then the actual show too.


Been watching peacemaker. Surprisingly good.

[Admiral Yi]

Just finished Munich-The Edge of War.

There is some writing over the closing credits.  It ends up with the extra time bought by the Munich agreement enabled Britain and her allies to prepare for war and ultimately led to Germany's defeat.

So weird, both from a historical revisionist POV and because it goes completely against the theme of the movie, which is that Chamberlain made a huge mistake signing the agreement.

[Sheilbh]

Isn't that bit true, though? My understanding is the UK would absolutely lose the air war if we went to war in 1938 - or is that wrong?

[Josquius]

Just finished Munich-The Edge of War.

There is some writing over the closing credits.  It ends up with the extra time bought by the Munich agreement enabled Britain and her allies to prepare for war and ultimately led to Germany's defeat.

So weird, both from a historical revisionist POV and because it goes completely against the theme of the movie, which is that Chamberlain made a huge mistake signing the agreement.

Thats a pretty standard narrative on appeasment no?
Every delay saw the Brits and French rearm more than the Nazis.
The only sticking point is the Germans getting 1/4 of their armour from the Czechs for free and how long the Czechs could have feasibly held them off.

[The Brain]

Yes, Hitler was desperately hoping to go to war with the West in 1938. And he would have gotten away with it too, if it wasn't for those pesky appeasers. When war finally came in 1939 he was overjoyed.

FWIW I've never heard that appeasement worked in the West's favor.

[Josquius]

Yes, Hitler was desperately hoping to go to war with the West in 1938. And he would have gotten away with it too, if it wasn't for those pesky appeasers. When war finally came in 1939 he was overjoyed.

FWIW I've never heard that appeasement worked in the West's favor.

Thats strange, its a really common argument.
The general consensus I gather is that in hindsight it was probably an error but based on intelligence of the time vastly over-estimating German military strength it seemed the smart move.

[Admiral Yi]

I'm not familiar with the argument that the Allies came out ahead on appeasement.  Which is not the same as saying it's false.

Whether France rearmed faster than Germany or not, it's difficult to make the case that their rearmament 1938-1940 ultimately led to Germany's defeat, since they lasted a couple weeks.

As Squeeze acknowledged, Germany got three divisions worth of excellent Czech tanks.  Plus they didn't have to fight through the fortifications in the Sudetenland.

I remember reading a quote in Len Deighton's Blitzkrieg in which the British overall commmander says to Chamberlain I will support you Prime Minister if this means rearmament, to which Chamberlain replies but don't you see, I have gotten us peace for our life time!  Or something like that, suggesting why bother rearming?

I'm interested to hear other views though.

[Sheilbh]

I'm not familiar with the argument that the Allies came out ahead on appeasement.  Which is not the same as saying it's false.

Whether France rearmed faster than Germany or not, it's difficult to make the case that their rearmament 1938-1940 ultimately led to Germany's defeat, since they lasted a couple weeks.

As Squeeze acknowledged, Germany got three divisions worth of excellent Czech tanks.  Plus they didn't have to fight through the fortifications in the Sudetenland.

I remember reading a quote in Len Deighton's Blitzkrieg in which the British overall commmander says to Chamberlain I will support you Prime Minister if this means rearmament, to which Chamberlain replies but don't you see, I have gotten us peace for our life time!  Or something like that, suggesting why bother rearming?

I'm interested to hear other views though.

I don't know about France.

I thought that was the argument though - that actually the real baddy of appeasement was Stanley Baldwin and Chamberlain (as Chancellor) because they didn't do rearmament earlier in the 30s etc. Once Chamberlain becomes PM he launches rearmament (I think because he was told Britain could deal with a crisis in one theatre only: the Med, Far East, or Western Europe).

He just about doubles the RAF's budget, for example, but that was only done in the second half of 1937 (over Labour opposition because Labour at this point were moving from being an anti-appeasement/anti-rearmament party to anti-appeasement/pro-rearmament). In 1938 because of his decisions as Chancellor, Britain was nowhere near read for a war. By 1939 because of his decisions as PM, it just about was. There is an enormous and inadequate attempt to catch up because of the decisions earlier in the 1930s.

That doesn't necessarily mean that appeasement was right or that the allies came out ahead - I think it's that (from a purely British perspective) the decision in 1938 might have been right and justified because of all the decisions appeasement led to in the previous five years which were wrong and meant that in 1938 the UK was not in a position to fight a war.

[Admiral Yi]

Assuming for the sake of argument that British rearmament 38-40 made the difference in the Battle of Britain, that still begs two questions in my mind. 

Did Hitler in fact delay his next move because of the Munich "undertaking?'

And did victory in the Battle of Britain mean the difference between winning and losing WWII?  That statement seems pretty UK-centric.