Things that piss you off Page 1,412

RC is bit like a pirate, he buries his wisdom in islands of bullshit.

The current cancer campaigns chill me a bit for a few reasons. First of all not everyone see's it as a great battle to be won, most people who die of cancer are quite old.
And some, well some just want a quiet dignified end not an extra year or 2 (Marie Curie had a very good ad on this)

Secondly there's something quite bullying about it all. Don't go out for a night, have a night in with our party pack and cheap chardonnay, because we want all your money. Appear on facebook with no make up and we reserve the right to harass you in the street, by phone, by email.
It's like a cult or something out of North Korea. And we will bully you and bully you until you give.

And finally what are they actually doing with all that money? Well what? Having worked for a charity, a lot of good but they're rarely honest about exactly what. Charities should be more honest about the fact that mostly they supplement government funds.

Quote: Shandonbelle @ 22nd March 2014, 11:10 AM GMT

Oh for the love of God! You really think writers work within that mindset??? Bonkers RC

View original

I shall look forward to Mike Leigh's remake of Melrose Place or Ken Loach's Desperate Housewives.

Our television drama is mostly unattractive people in period costume or middle aged dysfunctional police detectives. We don't create many shows featuring sexy people doing glamorous things, it's usually just misery and depression.

Whereas American productions such as Game Of Thrones go out of their way to cast attractive British actors, in this country it's seen as flashy or gaudy for some strange reason. Like you're somehow diminishing the art.

And when we do try, we only get it half right - take the 1995 version of Pride and Prejudice - people always go on about Colin Firth as Mr. Darcy, but no one can name the actress who played Elizabeth Bennett.

The result of this constant stream of ugliness is some people reacting angrily when they do see attractive people on the telly.

The last couple of shows I watched were Jonathon Creek, Line of Duty and Holly Oaks (don't ask)

and all 3 were full of talented, highly attractive actors.

In terms of US TV it would be The Sopranos, which other than Badda Bing girls was not a show of beauty.

Basically this is bollocks.

Really please try a vaguely sensible windup.

And I'm glad who ever casted Line of Duty they chose Kealey Hawes, a very attractive and hugely talented if not gamine actress.

Quote: sootyj @ 22nd March 2014, 11:43 AM GMT

And finally what are they actually doing with all that money? Well what? Having worked for a charity, a lot of good but they're rarely honest about exactly what. Charities should be more honest about the fact that mostly they supplement government funds.

View original

This is beyond true. The misconception is that every penny you give to a cancer charity goes straight into building a high tech laboratory full of hard working scientists slaving away 24/7 to cure the disease.

The reality is somewhat different. They mainly offer support and nursing services and occasionally carry out the odd study. Take the newly opened MacMillan Cancer Centre in London, it's full of the latest, high tech, cancer treatments - but MacMillan only provided 10% of the funding. The rest came from the big medical companies in the private sector. MacMillan has basically done an Emirates or an Etihad, by securing naming rights.

Well charities do a number of things;

1 Pressure the government into doing stuff. So £1 can go to research or it can make the government spend £10 on research and £10 on annciliary care like nurses, benefits etc.
I know which one I think is better.

2 Pressure pharma companies, P&C will spend more money if associated with Marie Curie, or if they think they'll make the NHS pay for their wonder drugs

3 Provide advocacy, advice and support. So when you've got an awful disease, you won't lose your house and you can talk to someone.

These things are all important, vital even. But in the fierce battle for the last pennies of charity, they get lost.

Quote: sootyj @ 22nd March 2014, 12:00 PM GMT

The last couple of shows I watched were Jonathon Creek, Line of Duty and Holly Oaks (don't ask)

and all 3 were full of talented, highly attractive actors.

In terms of US TV it would be The Sopranos, which other than Badda Bing girls was not a show of beauty.

Basically this is bollocks.

Really please try a vaguely sensible windup.

View original

The last shows I watched were Hannibal, The Walking Dead, The Blacklist, American Horror Story, Arrow and Marvel's Agents of Shield.

Funny that you mention Hollyoaks - not for one second do I believe you watched it recently - but it is worthy of a mention in the debate. It was created as a British version of 90210 and because it was working off that blueprint - young, attractive people having affairs - it was forced to cast those roles to young, attractive people.

As for you cherry picking three or four British shows and insisting that this is the norm and not the exception to the rule - basically this is bollocks.

Quote: Renegade Carpark @ 22nd March 2014, 11:53 AM GMT

And when we do try, we only get it half right - take the 1995 version of Pride and Prejudice - people always go on about Colin Firth as Mr. Darcy, but no one can name the actress who played Elizabeth Bennett.

View original

Eh? because she's not a household name... what are you saying? (I also do know her name)

Quote: sootyj @ 22nd March 2014, 12:00 PM GMT

Basically this is bollocks.

View original

You got that right.

I do end up randomly watching HollyOaks at times, it's sort of on 4 and I go to turn it off.
And there's some super weird story that the guy who owns a flower shop is a hitman, or the gay teacher got raped by his chav pupils.
It's just weirdly engaging.

I watched the other 2 one in horrified fascination the other because it's the best thing on telly since The Sopranos.

They're just the shows I watch regularly. The 5 US shows you mention, I watch a few episodes of each and they bored me rigid.

The Walking Dead is just sadistic and violent to no aim and American Horror Story.

I've seen Twin Peaks already (not a reference to Sherylin Fenn)

Quote: sootyj @ 22nd March 2014, 12:22 PM GMT

The Walking Dead is just sadistic and violent to no aim

View original

You're dead to me.

The character development on that show is awesome.

Oh and Cheers, Cheers is great and it's the show where Kirsty Alley and Ted Danson are the 2 token sexy persons.

Danson and Alley it's like Uncle Fester and Cousin It.

Quote: Matthew Stott @ 22nd March 2014, 12:19 PM GMT

Eh? because she's not a household name... what are you saying?

View original

Household name? Colin Firth was a barely known jobbing TV actor before Pride and Prejudice, it was that role that rocketed him into the showbiz stratosphere.

I'm saying that British productions seemingly go out of their way to cast plain or unattractive actresses as the lead roles. Please don't make me mention 'Call The Midwife' as a prime example of this trend.

Quote: zooo @ 22nd March 2014, 12:23 PM GMT

You're dead to me.

The character development on that show is awesome.

View original

I tried watching it, but like the Wire it's just sort of dull. I don't care abut the characters at all. It's actually got an over written, developed plot for the tastes.

But then I gotta be honest Zombies are just dull.

Ah, you didn't give it enough of a go. It's one of the best programmes of the last 10 years.

Quote: Renegade Carpark @ 22nd March 2014, 12:26 PM GMT

Household name? Colin Firth was a barely known jobbing TV actor before Pride and Prejudice, it was that role that rocketed him into the showbiz stratosphere.

I'm saying that British productions seemingly go out of their way to cast plain or unattractive actresses as the lead roles. Please don't make me mention 'Call The Midwife' as a prime example of this trend.

View original

I watched a couple of episodes of that, so I Google imaged.

And well there's some very pretty ladies in the lead role, what are you talking about?

If you want to wind up you need at least a pinch of rationality.

And right now you're past Fred Phelpps and he's dead.

Quote: sootyj @ 22nd March 2014, 12:22 PM GMT

They're just the shows I watch regularly. The 5 US shows you mention, I watch a few episodes of each and they bored me rigid.

View original

They're definitely no Hollyoaks, that's for sure.