Jump to content

Pindrop

Member
  • Content count

    150
  • Joined

Community Likes

321 Excellent

About Pindrop

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Location
    London

Recent Profile Visitors

665 profile views
  1. I have never watched his show. I watched in shock as he was dismissed as a result of an x-girlfriend. It was insane. I am glad common sense prevailed.
  2. All Episodes Talk: Just One More Thing

    Yes, the 70’s were better, but there was also the mobile phone episode with Captain James T Kirk (I forget it’s name) from the 80s/90s period. Shatner is .... always fun.... to watch.
  3. S02E05: Perverts Are People, Too 2018.06.29

    For a show that actually has some subtlety and nuance, I felt the social commentary was a little too on the nose in the Debbie/Ruth scene. It would have been more effective if they had dialled it back to a resigned "oh shit", rather than speechifying.
  4. All Episodes Talk: Tread Carefully

    I've worked as an expert witness in civil cases occasionally as part of my job. It is odd, because you are paid by one party, but you sign a statement expressing that you are working impartially for the court. The main reason you do so is that your reputation and professional status are on the line if you fail to do so, and yes, your opinion may be detrimental to the party who engaged you. I should add that it does prevent one party frivolously engaging an "expert witness" to steel-man a weak position, and as a result saves cost and time.
  5. All Episodes Talk: Tread Carefully

    I probably explained my point badly. Attacking the credibility of the prosecution's expert witnesses, their methodology and their stated version of events were all on the nose, and identified a potential miscarriage and major flaws in the system. The problem is that (as I understand it, and unlike Britain where expert witnesses are non-partisan), you can essentially pay a shill to say whatever you want them to say in the US justice system (I may be wrong here though, happy to be corrected). As such we had the slap-stick comedy version of events where people kept falling up and down stairs then slipping in their own blood and repeatedly landing head first against the wall, which frankly belonged in a Naked Gun movie (ahem, probably a bad choice of film). The flipping of the burden of proof came where, having concocted this version of events, the documentary then posited that the prosecution failed to disprove it. They may as well have said that the prosecution failed to disprove there is a teapot in orbit around the sun for its relevance. The fact is that the prosecution, in the mind of the jurors, did prove their version beyond reasonable doubt, they are not then required to disprove every possible alternative, however remote. I tend to err towards Occam's Razor. That said, if evidence was incorrectly gathered and that was central to their case, then it points towards a potential miscarriage. The issue I have here is that the documentary overstated the significance of the questionable evidence, and completely failed to mention other evidence that strongly indicated MP's guilt.
  6. All Episodes Talk: Tread Carefully

    I am fairly convinced of his guilt, despite the flaws in the prosecution case. Firstly the documentary was clearly cherry-picking the positive (from MP's perspective) and filtering out the negative, which led me to read a little more around the case and the evidence that was skimmed over or hand-waved. Secondly, the entire case for the defence rested upon stretching the definition of reasonable doubt to its broadest extreme and flipping the burden of proof disingenuously; they were essentially saying "you can't prove a negative, therefore innocent" (or for example "we're asserting that fairies did it aided by the spaghetti monster, and the prosecution must prove us wrong in order for reasonable doubt to disappear") and by that logic every criminal would be on the streets.
  7. All Episodes Talk: Tread Carefully

    I enjoyed that aspect. What intrigued me was that for an utterly partisan and biased documentary, they failed so incredibly to demonstrate innocence (or non-guilt), or even to make MP a sympathetic character. I enjoyed the insight into the mind of a narcissist, who probably also leans heavily towards psychopathy. It certainly demonstrates why the defence did not want to put MP on the stand.
  8. Characters We Hate

    I only watched SVU occasionally, but always found something incredibly pious about it. I think it was that everyone was overly serious all of the time. I know it was a serious subject matter, but people still crack jokes or laugh at adversity, or just act plain silly to relieve the stress. It desperately needed some levity, and for its characters to behave like real people. Instead it constantly sermonised on how terrible the crimes were and how damaging the job was to the main characters... we know the crimes are bad, we are not stupid; introducing levity and realistic character interactions won't numb us to it.
  9. Give The Devil His Due: Lucifer In The Media

    WOW, I did not expect that given the last season. If we get back to season 1 and 2 quality, then I am happy; but if we continue with season 3 quality I will soon turn it off.
  10. All Episodes Talk: Tread Carefully

    Utterly compelling. The last few episodes are fantastic, and it is with dismay that you realise that Peterson's lawyer had convincingly identified all of the blatant flaws ten years before anyone else came to recognise them. I cannot comment on guilt or innocence because... erm ... well ... (this is a thoroughly partisan documentary, yet it fails to establish innocence spectacularly), but it is not really about guilt or innocence but about the failings in the system. I thoroughly enjoyed the series.
  11. I am slightly imagining a cross between The Hobbit and TWD. An unlikely MC must travel across a foreign world whilst avoiding zombies and meeting a plethora of colourful characters, who set him on his classical hero’s journey to save the kingdom. It will be slightly light-weight, comedic (in that anything serious will be undercut with a moment of gratuitous slapstick), and it will feel more Pratchett than GRR, or perhaps it will feel GRR Tolkien. Game of Thrones: The Desolation of Martin
  12. Yes, once you have jumped the shark, you can't then ask people to take you seriously (or once you have become ridiculous you cannot expect not to be ridiculed).
  13. My problem with this show isn't that it is crazy; crazy can be fun. It is two-fold: - 1) It had the opportunity to be a Twin-Peaks for the current generation, and it missed that opportunity. 2) There is too much crazy; too many storylines with threads that are left hanging or become lost in the plethora of random shit that is going on elsewhere, and too many contrivances to sew up earlier dangling threads in an unsatisfying way. They need to cut out half the sub-plots and just properly plot, write and execute an A, B and C, and if they do that they can be as crazy as they like.
  14. All I will add is that I actually think Jane Goldman is a great choice given her repertoire. She has a history of involvement in movies that are character-centric, often subversive and often reinvigorating of tired franchises. That is a genuine glimmer of hope for me.
  15. I sort of answered that question in my next sentence. The only issue I have with the pacing is that the movements of the characters were impossible, or vanishingly unlikely, given the world painstakingly developed over the previous seasons. The time jumps also had the effect of making a large and dangerous world feel small and safe. So the faster pacing was a mistake in my opinion, but a minor mistake. My problem was that the plotting and writing made no sense or was overly reliant on the tropes that had previously been so expertly subverted. What was Baelish' motivation? Why did Arya reveal her abilities so readily? Why did anyone travel north of the wall? Why was there a scene with Theon getting kicked in the (non-existent) balls? Why was the cave of convenience contrived into the plot? Why was Daenerys so schizophrenic the entire season? Why was Tyrion suddenly incompetent? Why was there so much plot armour? None of these things made sense other than to hit the next plot point. If these contrivances of plot, fan service, deus ex machina and plain bad writing existed in the first season, I would not have watched the second.