Jump to content

The TV Thread


RelentlessOblivion

Recommended Posts

To my great chagrin I have to join in with the Anglophilia here and say I think Sherlock is much better. My friend pointed out that it would have been much more interesting for Holmes to be female instead - you know, because Holmes has plain flaws. Watson is flawed, but in Liu's portrayal I see little more than the typical whiny 'strong female' archetype. In Sherlock Martin Freeman does an excellent Watson, someone who actually acts like a former soldier. Benedict Cumberbatch also does a good job portraying Holmes as an intelligent but frenetic, selfish introvert. The reason I have a fair bit to say on this is because I took an entire class on the Sherlock Holmes series for English.
I agree with you! I watch Elementary with my parents when I go home and it's not a bad show, but I don't see it as "sherlock". He could easily be called Dude Dudeson and it would be just another cup show. In Sherlock, I love the whole story around them, not just salving crimes but how they function together, how much Watson has to care for him and appreciate him to be willing to live with his bullshit, how Sherlock changes little by little and what he is ready to do for Watson, but still claims he has no interests in emotions. I love how Benedict Cumberbatch portraits him and how he and Martin Freeman fit together. I am starting to appreciate Benedict more and more as an actor and I hate that, since everybody's crazy about him nowdays, people think I like him because now is cool to like him. I've seen a lot of his work and I think he is a very good and talented actor who can do a lot of different roles.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't mind if someone wants to suggest he was a clever man (although I feel 'genius' is taking it a bit far). But when it's coming from someone who's clearly into a lot of Nazi and RAC bands' date=' it doesn't exactly look good.[/quote'] I like to watch slasher movies and listen to Mortician. Does that make me a serial killer? I like to watch porn and listen to porngrind. Does that make me a rapist? I like to watch war documentaries and listen to Oi!. Does that make me a nazi?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like to watch slasher movies and listen to Mortician. Does that make me a serial killer? I like to watch porn and listen to porngrind. Does that make me a rapist? I like to watch war documentaries and listen to Oi!. Does that make me a nazi?
Nope. Listening to Oi! most definitely doesn't make you a Nazi. Neither does necessarily listening to a Nazi band just because you like the sound (I don't, but that's more a reflection on my own personal threshold as the racist/homophobic lyrics are meant to be taken seriously, unlike those other things you listed). Having said that, given the fact that you have a good 4 far right bands as your most listened to artists, and then you claim Hitler is a 'genius', you can see how it might begin to look a certain way...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Been listening to Noie Werte mostly lately yes, but I also listen to those straight edge bands. Doesn't mean I'm against alcohol at all, as you know. To clear things up, yes I'm right. I'm also anti-religion so I'm not really a big fan of the things that happened in the last few decades here in the western world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: The TV Thread

Speaking on a purely economic level he was very good for Germany. Outside of that he was one of the most despicable' date=' loathsome, and batshit crazy people to ever draw breath.[/quote'] The Nazi Party didn't really have an economic platform, they figured that once that had conquered a number of other countries, the details would work themselves out. I would agree with the genius assessment of Hitler though, in that he convinced a nation to rally behind his irrational views through carefully calculated speeches and platform organization, placating his followers to do his bidding without realizing that he himself didn't meet his own ideal and didn't deserve the title of Fuhrer under his own regime. Really, were it not for the failed campaigns on the Eastern Front and the accidental sinking of the Bismarck via a downed fighter plane, we might all be speaking German right now... Sent from my HTC PH39100 using Tapatalk 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Really' date=' were it not for the failed campaigns on the Eastern Front and the accidental sinking of the Bismarck via a downed fighter plane, we might all be speaking German right now...[/quote'] I don't think so. Hitler seemed to have some political acumen, but militarily he was a total idiot. He's lucky he had talented guys like Rommel commanding his forces, because he had no bloody idea how to wage war; a pretty thick irony considering Nazism's fondness for the activity. He could not have defeated the United States and Britain unless he allied with the Soviet Union, which was essentially impossible long-term. That would have required a transatlantic campaign, an operation which Germany almost certainly could not have carried out, given its poor naval forces. Japan was far better equipped to wage a naval campaign and they still lost to the US. Hitler also frequently made personal recommendations on the tactical and operational level that tremendously hindered his talented engineers and his command staff. I highly doubt that Germany would have conquered the United States.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: The TV Thread

I don't think so. Hitler seemed to have some political acumen, but militarily he was a total idiot. He's lucky he had talented guys like Rommel commanding his forces, because he had no bloody idea how to command a military force. He could not have defeated the United States and Britain unless he allied with the Soviet Union, which was essentially impossible long-term. That would have required a transatlantic campaign, an operation which Germany almost certainly could not have carried out, given its poor naval forces. Japan was far better equipped to wage a naval campaign and they still lost to the US. Hitler also frequently made personal recommendations on the tactical and operational level that tremendously hindered his talented engineers and his command staff. I highly doubt that Germany would have conquered the United States.
Many experts I have read stated that the Bismarck would have decimated our navy were it not for their rudder being taken out. They conquered most of Europe with ease, and England was fighting a losing battle until we joined. Even then, were it not for D-Day being a surprise that turned the tide, they could have conquered much more before their lack of a financial plan caved in their infrastructure. But then, the blitzkrieg would have been an effective way to seize assets and resources to replenish what they would have no longer needed from winning the war economically. Sent from my HTC PH39100 using Tapatalk 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Many experts I have read stated that the Bismarck would have decimated our navy were it not for their rudder being taken out. They conquered most of Europe with ease' date=' and England was fighting a losing battle until we joined. Even then, were it not for D-Day being a surprise that turned the tide, they could have conquered much more before their lack of a financial plan caved in their infrastructure. But then, the blitzkrieg would have been an effective way to seize assets and resources to replenish what they would have no longer needed from winning the war economically.[/quote'] They might have conquered Europe although I'd consider that unlikely. The US is a completely different animal. Furthermore, the Bismark was sunk by torpedo bombers, and old torpedo bombers at that. Given that the US had two superb torpedo-bombers in the SBD Dauntless and the TBM Avenger I doubt it would have been much of a fiasco.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Japan attacks and the US retaliate.
Not against Germany; the US' decision to attack Germany came later. It wasn't exactly a direct result of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. Actually, it was Germany who decided to attack the United States (although the US replied with a reciprocal declaration of war), as a result of alleged breaches in neutrality by the United States with regards to German shipping.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would like to add that an evil genius like him' date=' doesn't need to know much about military strategies because he had persons like Rommel for him to worry about that. That's what leadership is. He was a genius to manipulate an entire nation with this horrible point of view.[/quote'] In wartime he was a crap leader who doomed his nation to failure by micromanaging the armed services and being generally strategically incompetent. His decision to go picking a fight with Stalinist Russia was unwise, even if the grievous winter hadn't set in - and his subsequent decision to fight the United States was an even bigger mistake. If he'd been a bit more prudent in picking his theaters then maybe Nazi Germany could have survived for a longer time, but as it was he bungled the whole affair. One of his roles as a leader was to translate political ideology into objectives, and he did that very poorly. If I'm perfectly honest I don't even think he was that intelligent from a political point of view. In large part the Allies are responsible for what happened; they screwed up the post World War I terms of peace by nearly ruining the German economy instead of seeking reconciliation and stability, which made Hitler's peculiar brand of nationalism seem appealing to the victimized German population. Now Bismarck...there's a nationalist German with some proper acumen.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Didn't all the great leaders doomed their nation because they were gods? Napoleon, Charles the Great, whoever was in charge during the romans (I believe after Augustus it went downhill). But they are geniusses because they had so many people following them. Even Jesus may be considered a genius for that mather. Just manipulate people with their weaknesses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Didn't all the great leaders doomed their nation because they were gods? Napoleon, Charles the Great, whoever was in charge during the romans (I believe after Augustus it went downhill). But they are geniusses because they had so many people following them. Even Jesus may be considered a genius for that mather. Just manipulate people with their weaknesses.
The ability to draw supporters is not a reliable indication of genius. If that were the case I'd have to call Black Veil Brides geniuses. That said, Robert Mugabe is far more of a genius than any of the examples you've listed, given that he's stayed in power for almost 30 years now and still has a substantial support base even after having run his country into the ground. Furthermore, empires tend to crumble from over-extension and incompetence, not the mere fact of executive power.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Join Metal Forum

    joinus-home.jpg

  • Our picks

    • Whichever tier of thrash metal you consigned Sacred Reich back in the 80's/90's they still had their moments.  "Ignorance" & "Surf Nicaragura" did a great job of establishing the band, whereas "The American Way" just got a little to comfortable and accessible (the title track grates nowadays) for my ears.  A couple more records better left forgotten about and then nothing for twenty three years.  2019 alone has now seen three releases from Phil Rind and co.  A live EP, a split EP with Iron Reagan and now a full length.

      Notable addition to the ranks for the current throng of releases is former Machine Head sticksman, Dave McClean.  Love or hate Machine Head, McClean is a more than capable drummer and his presence here is felt from the off with the opening and title track kicking things off with some real gusto.  'Divide & Conquer' and 'Salvation' muddle along nicely, never quite reaching any quality that would make my balls tingle but comfortable enough.  The looming build to 'Manifest Reality' delivers a real punch when the song starts proper.  Frenzied riffs and drums with shots of lead work to hold the interest.


      There's a problem already though (I know, I am such a fucking mood hoover).  I don't like Phil's vocals.  I never had if I am being honest.  The aggression to them seems a little forced even when they are at their best on tracks like 'Manifest Reality'.  When he tries to sing it just feels weak though ('Salvation') and tracks lose real punch.  Give him a riffy number such as 'Killing Machine' and he is fine with the Reich engine (probably a poor choice of phrase) up in sixth gear.  For every thrashy riff there's a fair share of rock edged, local bar act rhythm aplenty too.

      Let's not poo-poo proceedings though, because overall I actually enjoy "Awakening".  It is stacked full of catchy riffs that are sticky on the old ears.  Whilst not as raw as perhaps the - brilliant - artwork suggests with its black and white, tattoo flash sheet style design it is enjoyable enough.  Yes, 'Death Valley' & 'Something to Believe' have no place here, saved only by Arnett and Radziwill's lead work but 'Revolution' is a fucking 80's thrash heyday throwback to the extent that if you turn the TV on during it you might catch a new episode of Cheers!

      3/5
      • Reputation Points

      • 10 replies
    • I
      • Reputation Points

      • 2 replies
    • https://www.metalforum.com/blogs/entry/52-vltimas-something-wicked-marches-in/
      • Reputation Points

      • 3 replies

    • https://www.metalforum.com/blogs/entry/48-candlemass-the-door-to-doom/
      • Reputation Points

      • 2 replies
    • Full length number 19 from overkill certainly makes a splash in the energy stakes, I mean there's some modern thrash bands that are a good two decades younger than Overkill who can only hope to achieve the levels of spunk that New Jersey's finest produce here.  That in itself is an achievement, for a band of Overkill's stature and reputation to be able to still sound relevant four decades into their career is no mean feat.  Even in the albums weaker moments it never gets redundant and the energy levels remain high.  There's a real sense of a band in a state of some renewed vigour, helped in no small part by the addition of Jason Bittner on drums.  The former Flotsam & Jetsam skinsman is nothing short of superb throughout "The Wings of War" and seems to have squeezed a little extra out of the rest of his peers.

      The album kicks of with a great build to opening track "Last Man Standing" and for the first 4 tracks of the album the Overkill crew stomp, bash and groove their way to a solid level of consistency.  The lead work is of particular note and Blitz sounds as sneery and scathing as ever.  The album is well produced and mixed too with all parts of the thrash machine audible as the five piece hammer away at your skull with the usual blend of chugging riffs and infectious anthems.  


      There are weak moments as mentioned but they are more a victim of how good the strong tracks are.  In it's own right "Distortion" is a solid enough - if not slightly varied a journey from the last offering - but it just doesn't stand up well against a "Bat Shit Crazy" or a "Head of a Pin".  As the album draws to a close you get the increasing impression that the last few tracks are rescued really by some great solos and stomping skin work which is a shame because trimming of a couple of tracks may have made this less obvious. 

      4/5
      • Reputation Points

      • 4 replies
×
×
  • Create New...