TV/Movies Megathread

[Darth Wagtaros]

Even in the books Tolkien's world building is very weird. We are told The Shire is not considered important, but it's a huge chunk of real estate with intense farming using what appears to be 18th/19th century tech, and this while most of the rest of the world is various forms of wasteland. One of the few other places that we are told has intense farming is Nurn in Mordor.

And then you have the extremely insular (that's a week's ride away, no one has been there in hundreds of years) and static (steady slow decay in tech over thousands of years) human societies. Tolkien's interests were languages and purity of blood, not other things, and Middle-Earth reflects that.

It is set in a dark age.  The Shire was part of Arnor at some point.

[Barrister]

I mean depending on how deep you want to go - as someone who studied geology they very landforms of Middle Earth made no fucking sense.  How the hell do the mountain ranges around Mordor make 90 degree turns like that?  The Anduin river makes no sense - running parallel to the Misty Mountains, then also running through a nonsensical gap between the White Mountains and the mountains around Mordor.  You're extremely unlikely to get the lush Mirkwood in the rain shadow of the Misty Mountains (unless if somehow Middle Earth rotates the wrong way).

In a fantasy (or sci-fi) series the most you can really ask for is that the show or movie be internally consistent - that it doesn't break it's own rules.

Magik.

The where are the farms, why is the country just two cities, etc... Points are valid criticisms (as they are for many RPGs. Always bothered me in final fantasy you'd come to some tiny out of the way town nobody cares about but... Dude. It's the 3rd biggest town in the world)

But the geology and geography of middle earth... A world where it's actual history that until not too long ago the sun was a lamp and the sea went up into the sky and all sorts of wacky stuff... That is forgivable. It deals with the past rather than how things exist right now.

But I mean - it's basic physics.  Water flows downhill.

So as I'm looking at a map of middle earth, I'm baffled by the River Anduin.

Everywhere in the world, rivers run from the mountains down to the plains.  But Anduin does this impossible thing of running parallel to the Misty Mountains.  Then it runs in between two mountain ranges which is just impossible - you won't find that kind of landform anywhere.

So some of my critique was based on knowledge of continental plate mechanics, so perhaps I should cut Tolkien some slack since that wasn't known at the time he was writing (although still - mountain ranges don't make 90 degree turns anywhere).  But the Anduin River is just impossible.


I'm also slightly intrigued if in Middle Earth the sun might rise in the west and set in the east - but I seem to recall (but can be corrected) that when it talks about the elves sailing to the West it talks aboutthe setting sun.

[Barrister]

SO I was today years old when I realized there was a Ronald Reagan movie out in theatres.

I looked up the ratings:

https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/reagan_2024

Critics: 25%
Audience: 97%

So you tell me - is it just that critics are a bunch of left-leaning types biased against Reagan?  Quite possible.

Or is it only right-leaning movie goers who would go see a movie about Reagan, and thus biased in favour?  Also quite possible.

In any event - Reagan led a very interesting and consequential life, so while I'm not a huge fan of biopics you'd think there should be enough material to make an interesting one.  But it could very easily just be a hagiography, also.

[Sheilbh]

I think it's a propaganda piece like those Christian movies:

Striking that all the actors are known for being conservative.

There is a very interesting story to tell about Reagan (my instinct is the interesting stories are maybe not ones that would endear conservatives, but I don't think would be necessarily hostile).

But I think political biopics are rarely hagiographies but often just an impersonation. Last one I can think of that I think is a genuinely good movie is Nixon and obviously that's helped by Nixon being possibly the most psychologically fucked up man to ever be President (maybe Trump, who knows)

The outlier on all this are the Italians who have done numerous outstanding films and TV shows about their former leaders - particularly Aldo Moro and Andreotti (Good Morning, Night; Exterior Night; and Il Divo are all exceptional).

Total aside but years ago I saw Michael Frayn's play Democracy which is about Willy Brandt and Gunter Guillaume, his secretary and Stasi spy - which was really good. Roger Allam was incredible as Brandt. Since then I've always thought Brandt-Guillaume would make for an incredible biopic or TV series.

(One thing in common with Moro, Andreotti, Brandt, Nixon: all in the 70s...? )

[Barrister]

Striking that all the actors are known for being conservative.

There is a very interesting story to tell about Reagan (my instinct is the interesting stories are maybe not ones that would endear conservatives, but I don't think would be necessarily hostile).

But I think political biopics are rarely hagiographies but often just an impersonation. Last one I can think of that I think is a genuinely good movie is Nixon and obviously that's helped by Nixon being possibly the most psychologically fucked up man to ever be President (maybe Trump, who knows)

Reading a couple of the critics reviews the word "hagiography" comes up several times.  As does the fact the company that produced this movie typically does pro-Christian movies.

Yeah, I would think the most interesting stories would probably be the more personal - marriage and divorce from Jane Wyman, marriage with Nancy (which was apparently quite loving), his interesting relationship with his children (Ron Reagan is an outspoken leftist, Michael Reagan works for Newsmax).  Because otherwise while "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall" was a great moment I'm not sure there's much story to it.

There's also an interesting philosophical history to Reagan, as he did as much as anyone to popularize "conservatism" as a coherent political ideology - and one that could win.  As well, his evolution from being a California democrat and union leader to being a Republican.  But again, not sure there's much there to make a movie about.

[Norgy]

I think it's a propaganda piece like those Christian movies:

(One thing in common with Moro, Andreotti, Brandt, Nixon: all in the 70s...? )

Thing is, too recent events open up for lawsuits.
Here we are readying ourselves for a movie about Quisling. And no, that is not a comparison to the other politicians.

Dramatisation of our near history may not be all bad. Our state broadcaster NRK had great success with a series called "Makta" about the internal struggles of the Labour Party from the late 70s to the late 80s. It had one twist: While set back in time, they made no effort to hide it was present-day Oslo with EVs and whatnot.

I sort of not loved it. The character portrayals were spot on. But for old-fashioned me, that 4th dimension is needed.

[HVC]

Watched the first episode of Kaos. Not sure how I feel yet. Goldblum is playing peak Goldblum, with all the pluses and minuses that entails. I didn't enjoy American Gods (a book a very much liked), but I think the myth themes can make for an enjoyable experience. So we'll see.

[viper37]

Time Cut' - High school student accidentally travels back to 2003 and decides to stop the serial killer who murdered her sister.

An upcoming movie on Netflix.

Now, where have I seen this exact same plot before?
(hint: Totally Killer, set in the 80s)

[Syt]

Today I learned that Peter Cushing played Dr Who on the big screen.

[Syt]

Lady Chatterly's Lover (2022). It's ok. Good historical flavor and it doesn't skimp on the class divide and the plight of miners/workers (though always seen tangentially through Lady C.'s eyes). Lord Chatterly was a good representative of the old aristocracy crippled by war, and while believing to be good, also having absolute disdain for the lower classes (and the Irish).

The sex scenes are fine; they're going for more of a naturalist than romanticized depiction and fairly tasteful. And Emma Corrin and Jack O'Donnell aren't terrible to look at, of course. If anything, the movie felt not quite emotional enough IMHO.

7/10.

[Admiral Yi]

The chick is smoking.

The hard part for me with that movie was we're supposed to root for a girl who married a crippled dude who couldn't fuck then changed her mind.

[Norgy]

A football fan's review of three seasons of Ted Lasso

As expected, the actual football is not the primary focus of the series. Which is good. Sudeikis is disarmingly charming, yet a bit of an empty vessel.
While remaining fairly true to football culture, and what I remember from locker rooms, its main weakness is that it gets a bit soppy. Funny? Yes. Definitely. Hilarious at times. Yet two episodes could easily have been left out. Coach Beard after midnight and the Amsterdam one.

It is predictable in its own way.
I've known a few Roy Kents through my lifetime (well, not footballers all of them), but Brett Goldstein's portrait of a former big star, isn't bad. A bit one-dimensional, maybe.

I still don't get why Keeley is "fit".

The idea of running a football club to the ground is not too far removed from reality for it to be believable. The examples from real life are many.

It is a good piece of work, making three season with very little story, yet managing to get the numbers that the series had. The stereotypical British are there, the dumb Americans, the superstar Zava. I believe they managed to merge Zlatan Ibrahimovic with Eric Cantona in that character.

If there is a season four, I will watch it. And probably laugh.
I think it is a series that is what it says on the tin. Light-hearted, superficial, yet entertaining.

[Darth Wagtaros]

The chick is smoking.

The hard part for me with that movie was we're supposed to root for a girl who married a crippled dude who couldn't fuck then changed her mind.

Yeah, except for the smoking part.

[viper37]

Or is it only right-leaning movie goers who would go see a movie about Reagan, and thus biased in favour?  Also quite possible.

The later.

Only Conservatives/Republicans will want to see a Reagan biopic with such an atrocious trailer.


Look at another similar movie, Let there be light featuring Kevin Sorbo.
After a near-death experience, the world's most famous atheist must reinvent himself to save his family and his soul.

27% critics score.  74% audience score.

It appeals to a certain audience.
In another register entirely, you have The Crow (2024). First marketed as a remake by the studio, then the movie director came out after release to say it wasn't a remake.  It's the same two characters from the original, but the story does not have much to do with the original.

But it pleases a certain crowd: those who like kitsch love story movies rather than gothic action movies.  Hence the discrepancy.  People quickly learn what's it's about and only those interested go see it.

[Barrister]

A football fan's review of three seasons of Ted Lasso

As expected, the actual football is not the primary focus of the series. Which is good. Sudeikis is disarmingly charming, yet a bit of an empty vessel.
While remaining fairly true to football culture, and what I remember from locker rooms, its main weakness is that it gets a bit soppy. Funny? Yes. Definitely. Hilarious at times. Yet two episodes could easily have been left out. Coach Beard after midnight and the Amsterdam one.

Those two are, I believe, some of the best regarded ones of the whole series.

I mean you comment that the show is predictable, and yes in it's very basic structure it is - the fish out of water Ted winds up in fact bringing success to the team when nobody would have expected it.

But those two episodes were where the show reached perhaps the furthest to be weird and unexpected.

Glad you liked it though - there is apparently a Season 4 coming at some point.