You watched all of Black Mirror and only enjoyed one episode?


There was only one A-Team, NFB, the show from the 80s.

That show came out before NFB was born so he apparently doesn't know about it.

Yes Sir!



This? $9.99 a season Amazon with all their billions $ couldn't put it in HD?

https://www.amazon.com/The-A-Team-Season-1/dp/B000W4Q9TU

Music is nice



I'll check out sesaon 1.

I attempted to watch these.

Fear Street Part One on Netflix https://www.imdb.com/title/tt6566576/

American Horror Stories on FX https://www.imdb.com/title/tt12306692/

Turn both of them off.. They (writers and directors) had a list of agenda and made sure everything was included. Both shows would still had worked without those things. If I want those things in TV show or movie, I go watch the news.

Feuertaufe (Baptism of Fire) https://www.amazon.com/Feuertaufe-Baptism-Fire-German-Luftwaffe/dp/B095N9Y6Q8

Some of it on YouTube

Just begin episode 1/6

https://www.c21media.net/screenings/abacusmediarights/how-the-nazis-lost-the-war/17873/

https://tv.apple.com/au/show/how-the-nazis-lost-the-war/umc.cmc.6qygbjq2pq9mpf5ftgs5ib167

Also I watched 3 episodes of A-Team. Very bizarre!

The show has not aged well due to its copious amounts of typical 80's campy acting.

A-Team is bizarre cos at the end of the first 3 episodes I've seen, there is a big fight. Cars flying and crashing. Explosions throwing people in the air. Good guys and bad guys shooting automatic weapons. A biplane strafing bad guys. Flamethrower. Artillery. No one dies!!

These are from the same first and second episodes I seen.



Firing M-16 at a jeep driving directly toward you and miss. Not even a bullet hole in the windshield.



I won't be buying another season after I watch season 1.

I can understand a kid's show like "GI JOE" not having anyone die from all-out shooting battles but an action series on prime time network tv?? And I know this wasn't because of any network censors because plenty of other 80's shows showed people dying.

Killing off characters is a loaded writing decision. On one hand, you're feeding them a sheet sandwich, which is always a good thing because it takes a story in an unexpected direction and forces the writers to exercise their mental muscle to solve a problem in a creative way they otherwise might not have wanted to in the first place. On the other hand, killing off characters permanently alters the synergy and character dynamics with the other characters--which could be a very bad thing, especially if the dynamics and synergy were already excellent.

Many a series or story has been killed because the writers made the wrong decision on whom to kill off or disable.

The element of plot armor, however, can expose a veil of disbelief, and serve to hamper any potential tension. If there are only a handful of characters in a series of ten novels, odds are pretty high none of those characters will die, they wear plot armor, so in any given situation the reader/viewer can sigh relief and know that everything will be fine. Great writers such as George R. R. Martin overcome this limitation by introducing hundreds of characters, and then develop several handfulls of them exceedingly well. For a view/reader, this can be mentally taxing, but the payoff is huge, because not only can you keep feeding the characters and story sheet sandwiches continuously after the first third, but you can also start killing them off, sparingly, in situations that have profound implications for other characters, without sacrificing that all-too-important synergy that is present among a sacred few.

Imagine if Murtaugh died in Lethal Weapon 2 before retiring, having chosen to stay on the force, when he was stuck on the toilet. Imagine if that house had exploded. Would that have changed the story for the better? Depends. If that was the last movie, then absa-friggen-lutely, coulda made for a killer ending. But knowing that more films were on the way, or episodes... probably not. Riggs may have then ended up with some annoying pissant of a partner even more annoying than Joe Pesci...

Remember this rule the next time you watch an average show and they kill someone off: Almost always after someone dies does a new, permanent character show up on the show. This is true in almost any serialized work of fiction because of character dynamics and synergy.


In the A-Team, if B.A. Baracus died because his hernia flared up while he was lifting a car over his head and ended up losing his grip, smashing himself, would the show have been better for this?

We would have laughed our arses off, probably, and then experienced great sadness--in that one of our beloved characters had died, and simultaneously watched a great show jump the shark into farce territory.

If any one of those main characters were killed off, the synergy would have been ruined.

We're not even necessarily talking about the main characters on the cast. We're talking about guest stars and supporting actors who played the bad guys. None of those died either!

Eh, guest stars and supporting actors are all red shirts, as far as writers are concerned. I call that missed opportunity.

I guarantee if Michael Ironside starred in an episode, he would not only gladly have had his character die, he would have insisted so when negotiating his contract.

I saw two good movies this weekend, which is a bummer because that means next weekend I will see crummy ones:

1) "Ms. 45" -- Assaulted twice in the same day, this lady has had enough. Watch as she snaps, is pushed over the edge, and shows her fellow man what a woman scorned can really do. Or so a tagline could read. Not only is this film fantastic, it should be required viewing for anyone seriously interested in the horror/revenge/slasher/thriller/crime genres. Many a director has drawn influence from this picture, including the likes of Quentin Tarantino. This is essential viewing. Billed as a crime revenge thriller, this movie is more. For the first time we have a "reverse slasher" film. In typical slashers, the focus is on the victims and their survival. In this film, we have someone bent on revenge who isn't so in the "justified" Bronson "Death Wish" way, but instead along the likes of Mike Myers and Jason Voorhees, where the focus is on the killer, not her subjects. She, the harmed, maimed and defamed, becomes lady death herself. I give this film a lofty rating of *** 3/4 stars out of 4. A true work of art.

2) "Stormy Monday" -- I didn't expect much from this noir-thriller. The cast seemed simple enough with some top talent including Sting of all folks, Sean Bean and Melanie Griffith, and while I expected to be bored and the plot typical and cliche, I was pleasantly surprised with a nice character drama that wasn't afraid to hide the purpose or direction of the story for much of the film. This was a picture about a few days in the lives of the characters and the challenges they faces as the world unfolds around them. Good movie. *** out of **** stars.

Heh, I think Sting is largely remembered for two roles when it comes to his film career: Dune and Quadrophenia.

Star Trek (reboot) 2009 release. 4K Ultra HD. Old, but I had never seen it.

On the package they say: "'Star Trek' is a burst of pure film making exhilaration". And they ain't kidding. The best movie I've watched in years. Grade A++. I was "emotional" while watching.

In grading, realize that I watch movies to enjoy them -- I do not look for flaws. Rather, I try to "get into it", be "enveloped by it", without judging it. Others, may be more perceptive of flaws i did not look for and could not see -- so they will enjoy it less.

This is a reboot of the original TV series and movies. Those were grade B -- but, I liked them. Watched them when they first came out. Also read a "ton" of Science Fiction novels in my youth, and was a "Space Scientist" in real life so this movie hit the sweet spot for me.

The reboot gives Kirk a new background. The story starts the day Kirk is born, literally. That day, his father/Kirk is in space on a star ship giving his life to save his crew, his mother/Kirk is escaping the dying ship with Kirk moments from birth. As the story progresses Kirk enters his late teens as a feisty, fearless, tough, brilliant, A+++ personalty who lives "outside the box". Then, one day, seemingly "out of the blue", he's offered a chance to join Star Fleet as a raw recruit (largely due to his superior intelligence). The movie introduces all the members of the Enterprise crew in the new reality (excellent casting of folks who look similar to the faces of the 1960s series).

The new reality came about due to "time travel" back and forth. It was done believably. The new Kirk really is Kirk, the new Spock really is Spock, and down the line of characters we all knew. New movies based on the "new reality" should make sense -- and this first Star Trek reboot does.

The acting, story, sets, music were spot on to my eyes and ears. We do have a nice setup -- 4K 76" QLED TV in front of us, noise cancelling headphones that are set for our ears and envelop us in the sounds without interruption, etc. I can really "get into" the movie with this setup.

We'll be watching the next two movies in the new series. Hopefully, they will maintain the quality. But, it will be hard to match the story line of the first Star Trek (2009) in the next two episodes.

Star Trek Into the Darkness sucked. They couldn't think of a new enemy for the Enterpise and recycled Khan instead. Star Trek Beyond was worse. Now with the actor who played Chekov gone and the role won't be recast, you can't have a Star Trek movie without Chekov.

The third movie is really bad, the second is nice enough in a sort of trying to be "Wrath of Khan" kind of way, but is inferior.

Y'all prefer headphones over a hi-fi with subwoofer?

I thought he was in "Caligula", but that was somebody else apparently.

Yes! That has something to do with my defective ears. My left ear hears up to 1000Hz ok. Higher frequencies fall off fast -- so, for example, the left ear only understands exceedingly loud clearly enunciated words. My right ear is more normal but the high frequencies fall off -- bad for musical appreciation.

The "TV Room" has 7.1 channel surround sound built in. We have (high-end, large) right, center, left, speakers and subwoofer in separate "speaker boxes". Side right, side left, back right, back left are installed in the ceiling (strictly speaking not perfectly ideal locations). That setup is ages old and we've used it for years. Speaker tuning experiments could not give the fidelity any more (our ears are changing).

Thing is, we've recently found that (for our "old" ears) modern Blu-tooth headphones with noise cancelling (hooked up to the high-end audio system that runs the surround and tuned for our ears) sound much clearer and more real than the speakers around the room. The various frequencies from low to high are actually clearer -- conversations are clearer. We literally hear things we did not hear before.

Meantime, I won't be shocked if I agree with those of you who panned the 2'd and 3'd movies -- the first movie was unique and ideal for my sensibilities. Going forward, I don't mind Khan as a "reboot" (not having seen it yet). But, it has to be done right to rise above grade B. Heck, they could reboot everything -- however, as noted above, I thought all the original Star Trek was "grade B". In particular, the movies were disappointing. That was one reason I never had watched the New Star Trek series that started in 2009.

The Rockford Files; S1E6-7. Oh the rolodex, paper directories, tape stations and green CRT monitors! Not to forget the iconic answering machine. And though the Firebird looks a bit cheap today, there’s nothing wrong with the sound of it.. Also I noted the blessedly minimal amount of music score during the episodes. It did not hinder the dialogue yet was very groovy when present. And overall the dialogue was clear and succint.