|
Irisi posted:terrible bisected vaginas I have no idea what this is but am now imagining a Phillips-head penis. Thanks, guy.
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2011 22:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 20, 2024 02:23 |
|
|
Irisi posted:It's baffling. I don't understand why or how they live with these problems for years. Especially the bloke walking about with a hernia the size of a newborn baby hanging off his abdomen Sometimes these hings grow from nothing over a period of time at which point the individual has grow accustom to it being there and accepts that it's a part of them so don't think it's something that needs to be sorted.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2011 22:36
|
|
Surely the first time you saw it poking out and wobbling gently you would be like "Welp, time to see a surgeon"
|
When did people start using "skits" instead of "sketches" ? I'd never even heard the word used until I joined here and lots of 'mericans were using it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2011 22:40
|
|
|
Brainwrong posted:When did people start using "skits" instead of "sketches" ? I'd never even heard the word used until I joined here and lots of 'mericans were using it. Skits are like short sketches.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2011 22:43
|
|
|
reflir posted:I have no idea what this is but am now imagining a Phillips-head penis. Thanks, guy. It's not really bisected, I suppose, it's called uterus didelphys. The poor lass has two sets of reproductive organs: two uteruses, two cervixes and two vaginas seperated by a thin wall of muscule tissue. It makes having sex and trying for a baby a bit of an unusual experience for all concerned. It's not that uncommon; in my line of work I see this or one of the other uterine malformations (unicornate, bicornate, septum) a couple times a month. Never met a woman willing to have vaginal examinations and talk about it on telly before though. Mind you, I suppose if it gets another few worried, silent women to go to their GP and get examined then more power to the show.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2011 22:52
|
|
|
Brainwrong posted:When did people start using "skits" instead of "sketches" ? I'd never even heard the word used until I joined here and lots of 'mericans were using it. The American use of English is akin to Fred West's use of runaways. Edit: well that brings the phrase "DVDA" into an entirely new light. Lovely Joe Stalin fucked around with this message at 22:59 on Jan 28, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2011 22:56
|
|
|
Sion posted:for every good documentary like that there’s three “the boy who’s skin fell off”, “Michael Jackson and Bubbles: The untold story” and “The Worlds Largest Breasts and Me”. Why is "The Boy Who's Skin Fell Off" in this list? I cried like a baby watching this. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2011 23:02
|
|
|
Replace it with Channel 4's classily named Crip On A Trip.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2011 23:22
|
|
|
Just watched 10 O'Clock Live. More actual satire than last week is good, and then you have that thoroughly appalling Campbell interview, which was like watching the curb-stomping scene from American History X on a loop. I don't get why anyone involved thinks that anyone on that show can hang with the likes of Campbell or Willetts in a straight interview.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2011 23:40
|
|
|
Watching Question Time on iPlayer now. Holy gently caress, Katie Hopkins is thick as pigshit.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2011 23:46
|
|
|
Corrode posted:Watching Question Time on iPlayer now. Holy gently caress, Katie Hopkins is thick as pigshit. It is pretty delightful.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2011 02:24
|
|
|
Trin Tragula posted:Just watched 10 O'Clock Live. More actual satire than last week is good, and then you have that thoroughly appalling Campbell interview, which was like watching the curb-stomping scene from American History X on a loop. I don't get why anyone involved thinks that anyone on that show can hang with the likes of Campbell or Willetts in a straight interview. Exactly how I feel. A big improvement on last week (as we all suspected would happen), but Jesus Christ, who thought it would be a good idea for David Mitchell to interview Alistair loving Campbell for his second ever (?) interview? I know it's been said in this thread already, but loving hell.....
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2011 03:04
|
|
|
I bet for the next interview David would want a cricket bat and his Agent.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2011 03:07
|
|
|
Saw an advert for the new channel Sky Atlantic that's replacing sky three, there showing Six Feet Under, Big Love, Sopranos, Battlestar and Curb all from the first episode. Pretty awesome, I've wanted to watch nearly all of them.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2011 09:14
|
|
|
Yeah, it kind of makes me wish I had Sky again. It's basically HBO UK with some stuff from other channels thrown in, I think. I hope they start showing Breaking Bad, that desperately needs a UK airing people are actually aware of (I'm sure they've shown it here somewhere because seasons 1+2 are out on DVD but I have no idea where)
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2011 09:21
|
|
|
Its on FIVE US.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2011 09:32
|
|
|
Doakes posted:Saw an advert for the new channel Sky Atlantic that's replacing sky three, there showing Six Feet Under, Big Love, Sopranos, Battlestar and Curb all from the first episode. Pretty awesome, I've wanted to watch nearly all of them.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2011 09:46
|
|
|
Trin Tragula posted:I don't get why anyone involved thinks that anyone on that show can hang with the likes of Campbell or Willetts in a straight interview. But David Mitchell is so intelligent, everyone says so! It's the same kind of mentality that makes people who aren't experts in a topic feel like they have a valid opinion because all the company they keep are constantly telling them how clever they are. Makes you appreciate what Paxman and ilk do alot more now. It's obviously very hard.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2011 11:20
|
|
|
Pablo Bluth posted:Officially Sky3 is moving slot and being renamed 'Pick TV'. I think they've dropped all pretence of it being anything other than a 'bed blocker' to stop two precious Freeview spaces being used for something that might tempt people away from bending over for Murdoch. Ditto Channel One, which is being closed down and replaced with Challenge TV, the home of gameshow repeats. Does that mean Challenge is gonna be on Freeview? I miss my student days of watching Takeshi's Castle and Ninja Warrior over dinner
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2011 11:43
|
|
|
Really enjoyed Fast and Loose again, I don't think I could breathe from laughing so hard when Greg Davies was being an angry French teacher. If you haven't seen it yet and ever got a laugh out of Whose Line is it Anyway? then I suggest checking it out on the iplayer. It's not perfect yet, bt it's already improved over the course of just 3 episodes.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2011 11:51
|
|
|
Uncertain Frog posted:Really enjoyed Fast and Loose again, I don't think I could breathe from laughing so hard when Greg Davies was being an angry French teacher. If you haven't seen it yet and ever got a laugh out of Whose Line is it Anyway? then I suggest checking it out on the iplayer. It's not perfect yet, bt it's already improved over the course of just 3 episodes. Agreed. Although my favourite bit was Marek's pretentious line which slowly broke everyone.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2011 11:55
|
|
|
Do the BBC show films on some kind of cycle. I remember watching Requiem for a Dream at about this time last year.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2011 12:34
|
|
|
Finally watched this week's Ten O'Clock Live. Thought it was a pretty substantial improvement on last week's, if I were to make criticisms I would say: 1. I was pretty close to throwing my hands in the air and saying "chuck Jimmy Carr", because his 'Watch Crime' (really?) sketch was only slightly less abysmal than last week's sketch about Turkey but his interview with the financial expert was good and parts of his monologue (when he's not ejaculating atrocious lines about flying planes into Saudi buildings) reminded me of the olden days of Have I Got News For You, back when that show actually was a powerful satirical tool rather than a rolling collection of sustained gimmicks. But seriously, his sketch in between two excellent monologues from Mitchell and Brooker was so jarring, plus if they hadn't done Watch Crime they could have had time to continue with their analysis of the morning's papers, which was heading in such a loving fantastic direction. 2. Poor, poor David Mitchell. It's a worn point by now but putting him one-on-one with Alistair loving Campbell was just plain cruel. Did they seriously expect Mitchell to be able to throw anything Campbell's way that Campbell didn't have to deal with every single day when Labour were in power? Hell, I'd even doubt Paxman's abilities against Campbell. Will say for balance that Mitchell's roundtable discussion was terrific and the only moment that made me glad the show was live. 3. I want Lauren Laverne to do more stuff like her genuinely great monologue at the end. Seriously, that right there was a perfect summation of what I want this show to become, a satirical tool that calls for actual action rather than an hour of the four hosts sniggering to themselves. Oh, and she needs to do less of the "do I have this right??" stuff. So yeah, big improvement on last week. Felt a lot less rushed, a lot more focussed and everyone seemed a little less nervous. I think everyone's starting to find their legs, and I'm actually really looking forward to next week's episode. 
Adrianics fucked around with this message at 12:59 on Jan 29, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2011 12:57
|
|
|
Royality posted:But David Mitchell is so intelligent, everyone says so! It's the same kind of mentality that makes people who aren't experts in a topic feel like they have a valid opinion because all the company they keep are constantly telling them how clever they are. Part of the problem is what you say; I don't particularly take seriously anything they have to say on any matter. Mitchell is the only one who seems vaguely well informed, which is why he does the 'hard stuff', except he's clearly not as good as the people they pit him against. The last bit kind of summed it up, when they were sitting around a table and Laverne brought up control orders, and asked for opinions. I'm not sure what qualifies anyone around that table to give an opinion more than a vox pox, but the only response that comes is Brooker who makes a Big Brother joke. In 2011. Then they move on. If you had people like Will Self or Mark Thomas giving their opinions or interviews, then I'd sit up and listen. Bird and Fortune wouldn't be picked up again, but if they could find a younger version of those (who started off in their 20s themselves), they would fit here. This is a good example, although of course I wouldn't demand something of this standard, but maybe of this type. I think Carr is OK since he's actually a pretty good presenter and ab-libber, and his 'police scared of the dark' comment at the end was pretty good. Just don't get him to do anything but present. It just seems a shame that because they clearly market it at 20-35 age bracket, they feel it has to be a bit dumbed down too. Fat Turkey fucked around with this message at 14:24 on Jan 29, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2011 14:14
|
|
|
See normally I'd be pissed off when an interviewee dodges the questions and comes back with rehearsed answers but I think there's two things that set the "serious bits" in 10o'clock apart. One, they seem to be slowly taking the gloves off and ditching some of the politeness to ask some of the stuff people never say. It doesn't actually matter what the answer is to these things, it's just good for these people to hear them said, and feel that the audience isn't on their side. Secondly, if they DON'T try and answer them, they get a round-the-table kicking later on. Far too often on other shows they just wind up the interview and say "thanks so much for coming on". Here they seem to be saying "what did you think of that guy, then. He was a bit of a slimy oval office".
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2011 21:23
|
|
|
holy crap Requiem for a Dream is on iplayer.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2011 22:39
|
|
|
Requiem is probably being shown because Black Swan just came out here.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2011 22:42
|
|
|
HauntedRobot posted:See normally I'd be pissed off when an interviewee dodges the questions and comes back with rehearsed answers but I think there's two things that set the "serious bits" in 10o'clock apart. One, they seem to be slowly taking the gloves off and ditching some of the politeness to ask some of the stuff people never say. You will never, ever, ever, ever get a comedian to be able to beat a politician or associated hanger-on in a serious interview. It just won't happen. They're too good at serious interviews, otherwise they wouldn't have survived. It doesn't matter what you ask them; even if you do try to say "well hang on a minute, didn't some of your policies suck donkey balls?", they know how to come out of it looking good. Alistair Campbell represents, to me, everything that is wrong with politics and the Labour Party, and yet halfway through that interview I was hoping he'd give Mitchell's lovely questioning the treatment it deserved (and was quite enjoying watching him run rings round the guy). I've said before, I'll say it again; they need to start ripping Jon Stewart off more. Don't challenge Alistair Campbell to seriously justify his time in power, he's spent the entirety of the last 15 years doing that. Challenge him to be funny. He's not used to that. You get that atmosphere going, and you get some repeat guests as they swarm up the greasy pole and/or they think "I can be funny too, this isn't so hard", and then after a time you get moments like Stewart asking John McCain right before his presidential bid "Are you freaking out on us? Because if you're freaking out and you're going into the crazy base world - are you going into crazy base world?" and McCain saying right back "Yeah, I'm afraid so". Stewart can get those results cos he's got his "I'm just a comedian, trying to be funny, please explain things to me O expert" vibe going on, and he gets these people feeling comfortable while in an area they have little experience with, and sometimes he gets something interesting out of them. Right now it's the other way round - the guests are in their element and Mitchell's trying to be comfortable despite not being able to match them on expertise. That's always going to end badly. quote:Secondly, if they DON'T try and answer them, they get a round-the-table kicking later on. Far too often on other shows they just wind up the interview and say "thanks so much for coming on". Here they seem to be saying "what did you think of that guy, then. He was a bit of a slimy oval office". Which just makes the show look petty. Their guy's just been comprehensively outmanouvered, so now after the guest has won the interview and has gone back to the green room and is no longer able to defend himself, they're going to put the boot in? That's not fair at all. You have a guy on your show and he wins, he wins. You can't say "but we know he's a horrible poo poo really." That's cheating.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2011 22:43
|
|
|
Channel 4 would have been better off just bringing back the Mark Thomas Comedy Product.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2011 22:59
|
|
|
Trin Tragula posted:I've said before, I'll say it again; they need to start ripping Jon Stewart off more. I actually think Jimmy Carr's been purposely trying to do that in his interviews. Both of them seemed to have that style and were a lot more interesting, informative and entertaining than Mitchell's were. Only problem is that Carr is obviously not gonna be used for the A-list interviews and there's no way he's knowledgeable enough to pull off the hard-hitting questions anyway. However, if he did put the effort in I think he'd be in with a chance of getting there, and that's more than I think Mitchell's got.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2011 23:12
|
|
|
What's Britain like with pre-agreements for interviews? I know some Americans can pretty much tell the interviewer what three questions to ask otherwise they'll walk out. I get the feeling 10 o'clock is too new to step on anyone's toes and wants to get a nice rep off everyone, and then when/if it manages to get some critical praise, then they can begin to let loose.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2011 00:11
|
|
|
They don't really exist. It's why lots of American stars don't handle UK interviews very well. Meg Ryan on Parky and the Bee Gees on Clive Anderson come to mind.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2011 00:17
|
|
|
Eurovision chat: Via twitter: @bbceurovision: We're very proud to announce that the rumours are true - Blue is the UK representative for Eurovision this year. Full details to come... @MrDuncanJames (A member of Blue I guess) Yes the rumour r true!! We r representing the uk in this yrs EUROVISION! We r really excited and cant wait till u hear the song!! ITS BIG!!! So how do we feel about not even getting to choose the song or singer at all this year? Because it pisses me off. Other countries go through a very lengthy selection process that the whole country gets involved in (think X-Factor but on a national pride level) whereas we toss out any old failed pop band and leave them to it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2011 00:48
|
|
|
I like how loads of people get really annoyed at England getting battered every year at the Eurovision song contest and blaming it on jealousy or just because we're unpopular because of the stuff the country has done over the last decade. Its absolutely definitely not got anything to do with the fact that every single year we put up some of the shittest songs imaginable.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2011 00:55
|
|
|
Oh look, the song is one of their new songs. And oh look they reformed in 2009 and have been gigging, now writing new material in 2010. And oh look they want some free publicity. And there's going to be a documentary about them. http://www.bbc.co.uk/eurovision/news/2010/announcement_2011.shtml No no no, I wanted a good, well established band to try but not like this... not like this 
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2011 01:25
|
|
|
Bown posted:Yeah, it kind of makes me wish I had Sky again. It'll likely be on Virgin/BT given time, we're in talks with them at the moment but I'm not sure how it's actually going. Still, you can get it on the absolute basic Sky package for only £19.50. I guess it depends how much you want to watch the HBO content. I'm looking forward to Game of Thrones. I hope it can match up to the book. quote:I like how loads of people get really annoyed at England getting battered every year at the Eurovision song contest and blaming it on jealousy or just because we're unpopular because of the stuff the country has done over the last decade. And then when they lose, they just shrug and go oh well, at least we took part and it was fun. Wheras here it seems like if we don't instantly win everyone gets mad and calls the contest poo poo. It's the worst sort of sportsmanship and it bothers me greatly. Yes there's political voting but usually it doesn't change who wins, and in many cases it's because if an artist is huge in Bosnia Herzegovina they're huge in Serbia too - and probably Serbian themselves. I am pretty chuffed that almost all of Europe is taking part this year. Even the Italians are back! Taear fucked around with this message at 02:54 on Jan 30, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2011 02:49
|
|
|
Gorn Myson posted:I like how loads of people get really annoyed at England getting battered every year at the Eurovision song contest and blaming it on jealousy or just because we're unpopular because of the stuff the country has done over the last decade. It's that we're not putting forward the right shittest song. If we seriously wanted to win the thing (though why would we) we need to take a look at the rest of Europe and the sort of things they put forward. They don't want a generic boyband song, they want something stuck in the late 80's / mid 90's, plenty of neon, smoke machines, fans and pyrotechnics and hopefully an electric violin or two. If you can find someone you think would have make a perfect guest on Eurotrash then there's your lead singer. I find Eurovision one of the greatest comedies of the year and always make it an excuse to get as drunk as possible. Thats not to belittle it though, sometimes they can come up with something great, the Madcon dancing around Europe thing from last year was amazing and well worth checking out. The "we almost killed the entire audience" floating water and naked people thing from the year before was pretty good as well.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2011 09:01
|
|
|
DaWolfey posted:No no no, I wanted a good, well established band to try but not like this... not like this Hey, at least it's better than selecting a complete novice and expecting them to perform live on stage in front of an audience of thousands. And, um, I was in love with Blue first time round.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2011 11:05
|
|
|
I never understood why Israel is in eurovision. Turkey I guess is stretchable because at least (a small) part of it is on the european continent.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2011 11:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 20, 2024 02:23 |
|
|
Metrication posted:I never understood why Israel is in eurovision. Turkey I guess is stretchable because at least (a small) part of it is on the european continent. Because Israel is a member of the European Broadcasting Comission (I think that's it's name). See also, Israel's participation in the European section of World Cup qualifiers.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2011 11:15
|
|