I’ve finally gotten to watching Schitt’s Creek the past week or so (partway through S3 now), and frankly it’s just a nice comfortable watching experience that gradually gets its hooks in deeper as it goes. The episodes really clip along at only 21-22 minutes each, and it’s a refreshing change of pace from the more intense dramas or dark comedies I usually watch.
In the first few episodes it didn’t seem like much beyond the legendary names of Eugene Levy and Catherine O’Hara, but this show has a good heart and a great overall cast that keeps evolving in pleasant ways as things progress. Really glad I started watching now as an escape from, well, everything else.
New show, Queen’s Gambit is interesting so far. It also doubles as a period piece (1960s).
Finished it all. Great acting all around.
Grifman
1928
Agreed, I wanted a show about the adventure to Mars, not a soap opera in space and earth. To me the same thing happened at some point in Battlestar Galactica - there got to be too much personal soap opera so I finally just stopped watching it. I got through 3 or 4 episodes of this and was questioning whether to continue when I saw that it was cancelled so that confirmed for me what I was feeling.
If you’re a fan of Sarah Cooper’s Trump lip-syncing, she’s got a special up on Netflix.
mtkafka
1930
Dont worry you ain’t missing much. its a copy of the other Mars show with Sean Penn a couple years back. Who watches a space show to see an astronaut raise a spoiled teen? so stupid… ‘oh the humanity’. Yea we get it, you left behind SO much!
Also the Right Stuff remake suks ballz. actors are so charmless. I think the casting director looked at a sears catalog for the cast (compared to the movie these guys are a snorefest).
mtkafka
1931
sorta OT but after Schitt’s Creek I found a way to get Chris Eliots Get a Life… show was so ahead of its time!
Ah, but will it star Michael Fassbender?
Nesrie
1935
Finally got around to seeing this, and I liked it. The actors were really believable in the way they portrayed these individuals. I have to say the idea that the anti-Vietnam movement is portrayed, like it was a bunch of pot smoking guy who didn’t dress or do their hair or bathe is exactly how it was taught, at least it was to me.
I still love that movies based on history tends to stimulate interest in actual history, and this one wasn’t too far from the truth.
Except that’s a broad generalization. Early on the anti-war movement was made up of clean-cut college kids (as exemplified by Rennie Davis and Tom Hayden) and older war resisters like Dave Dellinger. The first wave of “hippies” wanted nothing to do with it, or any other politics for that matter.
Eventually the anti war resisters started growing their haiir out along with their beards, so the line between the two group began to blur. It wouldn’t be long before mainstream
Americans would turn against the war in greater numbers and you would start seeing suits and ties in the streets at the demonstrations.
Take it from one who was there.
OMG, Aubrey Plaza does QAnon QVC
Nesrie
1938
Well that was the point of that line in the movie. It’s not what the reality is but how it is perceived from the future generations… and they teach it exactly how Tom Hayden said he was afraid they would. I don’t know if that’s a real quote but it’s barely covered in school, some speeches, free love movement, nothing about the Chicago 7 and cops removing their badges to beat others up or a black man being bound and gagged in a court room.
It’s not about what actually happened, which is why they probably put that confrontation in there for the movie to begin with.
I don’t know if it’s still available, but at one time you could buy the transcript of the trial. It was even more outrageous than the movie
Nesrie
1940
I have no doubt about that or what you said, I just have the benefit and disadvantage of learning about Vietnam, the five minutes we spent on it in K-12 anyway, and suspecting that was the reason they put that conflict in there and the fear of what looking back might actually be like.
Anyway, it was a good movie, well done, good actors and accurate enough it seems to make it worthwhile.
This upcoming show looks hilariously shit, unless you’re 16 and super high, in which case it will probably be the best thing ever:
https://www.netflix.com/gb/title/80221410
jsnell
1942
I could imagine it being cool in the same way as Dougal Dixon’s speculative evolution books were.
I agree. Aaron Sorkin’s “The Trial of Chicago 7” has the clever, fast paced dialogue you’d expect from him. It is interesting looked at aftermath of the protest of the 68 Chicago DNC. I can’t say I remember the trial but I do remember Tom Hayden, being very earnest, and Abbie Hoffman being funny.
Just finished Away. Several people here complained about the melodrama and the scientific inconsistencies, and they are very right: this is NOT how a mission to Mars would ever be set up (the one that got me most was having only one secundary water system, which worked at half strength, so screwing up the main system is basically catastrofic. Sure, that’s how NASA would handle a fital system… not.)
Having said all that: I still liked it. A lot, even. I like the actors, the characters, I like the storylines (as melodramic and poorly written as they are), I like the build-in tension of space travel and fixing problems (in ridiculous ways). I like pretty much everything about it.
So, I can fully understand and appreciate why people hate it. But if you know what to expect (and what not to expect) and accept that this is something different, I’d still recommend it.
I’ve had my fill of stupid Mars melodrama from that recent French series, thanks.
