Anyone Watching A Good Tv Show?

[Stevo985]

1 hour ago, Troglodyte said:

I was also disappointed with the Bake Off winner:

  Hide contents

He seems like a likeable guy and was probably the best baker overall, but his face really annoyed me. Was also unimpressed by the quality in the final overall.

And those of you watching Breaking Bad for the first time, I'm jealous. I rarely read or watch anything more than once, but I've watched BB through twice and intend to do so again at some point in the not too distant future. Better Call Saul is excellent too (and getting better and better with each season) but I doubt I'll watch anything as good as the original show for a long, long time.

Also on the back of recent talk on Making a Murderer, has anyone seen The Jinx? Heard a couple of good things about it and wondering if it's worth buying - the only place I can see it is on Amazon.

The Jinx is excellent.

Overall not as good as Making a Murderer. But the problem with these documentaries is, because they're real life, you rarely get a decent payoff at the end.

I think The Jinx is the exception.

[theboyangel]

Funniest thing on tv - Taskmaster on Dave.

 

each series gets more ridiculous but it floats my boat for an hour a week! 

[Stevo985]

28 minutes ago, Xela said:

A few at work have recommended SoA as well. I'll look into that after BB. 

I thought SoA was awful. I probably didn't give it enough time, I only watched about 5 episodes, but **** me they were terrible.

Going from BB to that will be like going from The Shawshank Redemption to Grown Ups.

Edited November 4, 2018 by Stevo985

[theboyangel]

Sons of Anarchy was junk but had its moments.

it was never going to win awards for acting was it! 

[Stevo985]

Just finished Making a Murderer 2.

Spoiler

 

After the first one, and some reflection, my conclusion was that Avery probably did kill her, but not in the way the state said he did, and they probably manipulated some stuff along the way. And I thought that Brendan Dassey had nothing to do with it. He was the biggest tragedy.

Now I'm back to thinking neither of them did it. Brendan is so obviously innocent it's genuinely upsetting. What annoyed me was that the debate in the 7th circuit or whatever it was called wasn't whether his confession was false, but just whether they'd broken any rules in getting it. It was almost as if they were saying "it doesn't matter if he's innocent, as long as the police didn't break any rules"

As for Steven, I think the documentary did an excellent job in focusing on the reasons why he could still be guilty that many people had pointed out after the first one, and addressing them.

I'm now convinced they're both innocent.

 

 

Oh, and Ken Kratz is a **** paedo

[villa4europe]

Completely agree avout brendan

Spoiler

You all those supposedly brilliant legal minds, take years doing it, presumably spend millions in the process...and all they look at is the way in which the police spoke to him...the legality of his confession, madness, based on what they showed its not like they looked at the other evidence or the case and looped around the confession to then try and sanity check it

The whole point to me says you watch the tapes and judge if he was coerced, thats half the story, the other half is what case is there if there is no confession? A good 75% of what brendan confessed to there is seemingly no way of proving, slitting her throat being one that comes to my head straight away, raping her is another, the idea that his confession must be true because he knows too much is laughable

 

[mjmooney]

2 hours ago, Troglodyte said:

And those of you watching Breaking Bad for the first time, I'm jealous. I rarely read or watch anything more than once, but I've watched BB through twice and intend to do so again at some point in the not too distant future. 

Interesting. BB is one of the greatest TV dramas I've ever seen, but I don't ever want to watch it again. 

The only extended series I keep coming back to for a repeat viewing is Heimat. Seen it three times now, and will again in another year or so. 

[Troglodyte]

2 hours ago, Stevo985 said:

Just finished Making a Murderer 2.

  Reveal hidden contents

 

After the first one, and some reflection, my conclusion was that Avery probably did kill her, but not in the way the state said he did, and they probably manipulated some stuff along the way. And I thought that Brendan Dassey had nothing to do with it. He was the biggest tragedy.

Now I'm back to thinking neither of them did it. Brendan is so obviously innocent it's genuinely upsetting. What annoyed me was that the debate in the 7th circuit or whatever it was called wasn't whether his confession was false, but just whether they'd broken any rules in getting it. It was almost as if they were saying "it doesn't matter if he's innocent, as long as the police didn't break any rules"

 As for Steven, I think the documentary did an excellent job in focusing on the reasons why he could still be guilty that many people had pointed out after the first one, and addressing them.

I'm now convinced they're both innocent.

 

 

Oh, and Ken Kratz is a **** paedo

 

1 hour ago, villa4europe said:

Completely agree avout brendan

  Hide contents

You all those supposedly brilliant legal minds, take years doing it, presumably spend millions in the process...and all they look at is the way in which the police spoke to him...the legality of his confession, madness, based on what they showed its not like they looked at the other evidence or the case and looped around the confession to then try and sanity check it

The whole point to me says you watch the tapes and judge if he was coerced, thats half the story, the other half is what case is there if there is no confession? A good 75% of what brendan confessed to there is seemingly no way of proving, slitting her throat being one that comes to my head straight away, raping her is another, the idea that his confession must be true because he knows too much is laughable

 

 

Spoiler

I'm in a similar boat. Like Stevo, I really wasn't sure after the first season, but came down on the side of him being guilty in some way - it was just that the police did a terrible job and the prosecution's case was flawed in many ways. And Ken Kratz makes my skin crawl.

I find it difficult in some ways that the whole thing is so clearly biased. They obviously only show you what they want you to see and edit things accordingly. It's easy to forget that this is a man who (in days when he was 'young and stupid', but still nineteen years old) covered his family cat in petrol and threw it on a bonfire. Now of course that doesn't make him guilty of further crimes, but it's quite far removed from the almost saintly figure they portray him as at times. I also think that Brendan Dassey was led into many of his answers by the detectives, but at the same time I wonder what made him come up with the stuff about cutting Teresa, tying her up and raping her. They didn't seem to coerce him into giving those details and I'm sure it would have been highlighted in the show if they did. However, the fact that the evidence makes it incredibly difficult to believe that she actually was tied up in the bedroom and/or was wounded there.

I also don't particularly trust Kathleen Zellner. She's very interesting and my gut says that she does actually believe Steven is innocent, but I still don't fully trust her for some reason. Maybe it's just her face and the fact that she's clearly very wealthy, which would be unfair, but I genuinely don't know! And although I can see why she's doing it in legal terms, I have questions about how ethical it is to name other potential suspects in a TV show that's going to be seen by millions of people.

All that said, after season two I don't think he actually did it. But I'm still not totally convinced as there are so many questions.

 

[sharkyvilla]

3 hours ago, theboyangel said:

Funniest thing on tv - Taskmaster on Dave.

 

each series gets more ridiculous but it floats my boat for an hour a week! 

Even though they've had a few comedians on that I don't really find that funny, I end up actually quite liking them.  I think that's part of the charm of the show.  Would I Lie To You is a good laugh too.

[Stevo985]

The other thing I was suspicious of on Making a Murderer...

Spoiler

 

They go on and on about the stuff on Bobby Dassey's computer, and how the prosecution were being really misleading in calling it Brenden's computer on purpose and how Bobby had searched for all this stuff.

But then right at the end, Zellner drops in that it was the family computer and Brendan used it "less than anyone"

Well was it Bobby's computer or not? Because if it was just Bobby's then all that stuff he searched for points towards him. But if Brenden had access to it then couldn't it be argued that it was Brenden who accessed all that stuff?

 

 

The thing that convinces me about Steven is

Spoiler

 

Along with everything presented by the documentary, his story doesn't seem to have ever wavered. He never seems to have changed what he said happened, what he did, when it happened etc. You don't usually see that from someone who is guilty, let alone a person of less intelligence who is guilty.

He also never has any doubts about being questioned or anything. Like that "Brain fingerprinting" stuff at the start of this series. That may well be nonsense, but Steven doesn't know that, and he happily let himself be subjected to it.

 

 

[Stevo985]

1 hour ago, Troglodyte said:

 

 

  Hide contents

I'm in a similar boat. Like Stevo, I really wasn't sure after the first season, but came down on the side of him being guilty in some way - it was just that the police did a terrible job and the prosecution's case was flawed in many ways. And Ken Kratz makes my skin crawl.

I find it difficult in some ways that the whole thing is so clearly biased. They obviously only show you what they want you to see and edit things accordingly. It's easy to forget that this is a man who (in days when he was 'young and stupid', but still nineteen years old) covered his family cat in petrol and threw it on a bonfire. Now of course that doesn't make him guilty of further crimes, but it's quite far removed from the almost saintly figure they portray him as at times. I also think that Brendan Dassey was led into many of his answers by the detectives, but at the same time I wonder what made him come up with the stuff about cutting Teresa, tying her up and raping her. They didn't seem to coerce him into giving those details and I'm sure it would have been highlighted in the show if they did. However, the fact that the evidence makes it incredibly difficult to believe that she actually was tied up in the bedroom and/or was wounded there.

I also don't particularly trust Kathleen Zellner. She's very interesting and my gut says that she does actually believe Steven is innocent, but I still don't fully trust her for some reason. Maybe it's just her face and the fact that she's clearly very wealthy, which would be unfair, but I genuinely don't know! And although I can see why she's doing it in legal terms, I have questions about how ethical it is to name other potential suspects in a TV show that's going to be seen by millions of people.

All that said, after season two I don't think he actually did it. But I'm still not totally convinced as there are so many questions.

 

Spoiler

About Brenden, you're right, they didn't coerce him for those bits, but those are also all things that have never been proven. There's never been ever evidence that she was raped or tied up or had her throat cut. Obviously you can't really tell because they burned the body, but they never found any blood or semen or anything in the house(s). This from guys who supposedly left blood all over the Rav 4, yet they meticulously cleaned up the house after what must have been a blood bath? It doesn't add up to me.

 

[mjmooney]

I'm not really warming to The Little Drummer Girl. 

[villa4europe]

44 minutes ago, Stevo985 said:

  Reveal hidden contents

About Brenden, you're right, they didn't coerce him for those bits, but those are also all things that have never been proven. There's never been ever evidence that she was raped or tied up or had her throat cut. Obviously you can't really tell because they burned the body, but they never found any blood or semen or anything in the house(s). This from guys who supposedly left blood all over the Rav 4, yet they meticulously cleaned up the house after what must have been a blood bath? It doesn't add up to me.

 

thats my biggest issue with it, criminal mastermind and idiot at the same time

Spoiler

 

in the garage they cleaned the blood but left the dirt, special talent that

edit, this is the garage - 

 

Edited November 4, 2018 by villa4europe

[Troglodyte]

1 hour ago, Stevo985 said:

  Hide contents

About Brenden, you're right, they didn't coerce him for those bits, but those are also all things that have never been proven. There's never been ever evidence that she was raped or tied up or had her throat cut. Obviously you can't really tell because they burned the body, but they never found any blood or semen or anything in the house(s). This from guys who supposedly left blood all over the Rav 4, yet they meticulously cleaned up the house after what must have been a blood bath? It doesn't add up to me.

 

Spoiler

Absolutely. What he said doesn't work out because there's no way those things happened and Steven cleared up afterwards (at a forensic level, leaving the place looking as it did before). I just can't fathom where Brendon's got it all from though. If he wasn't involved in anything at all, where the hell is all that coming from? I get he's no bright spark but it just doesn't add up to me that he's come out with some real gruesome stuff about a murder victim from nowhere. And as I said, none of those details seem to have been coerced at all - in fact I don't recall the show ever including the recordings of those parts.

 

[TheAuthority]

5 hours ago, mjmooney said:

Interesting. BB is one of the greatest TV dramas I've ever seen, but I don't ever want to watch it again. 

The only extended series I keep coming back to for a repeat viewing is Heimat. Seen it three times now, and will again in another year or so. 

I watched BB 3 times. Every time I notice different layers of dialogue visual clues that I missed the time before. It really is superb. Definitely worth another watch if you're ever bored Mike.  Cranston's development of Walter is fabulous too.

@Xela Sons is enjoyable enough if at times obvious and somewhat repetitive. It's Bisa Homes League of drama compared to Breaking though, which is firmly in the greatest of all time of TV.

[AVFCDAN]

8 hours ago, Troglodyte said:

  Hide contents

Absolutely. What he said doesn't work out because there's no way those things happened and Steven cleared up afterwards (at a forensic level, leaving the place looking as it did before). I just can't fathom where Brendon's got it all from though. If he wasn't involved in anything at all, where the hell is all that coming from? I get he's no bright spark but it just doesn't add up to me that he's come out with some real gruesome stuff about a murder victim from nowhere. And as I said, none of those details seem to have been coerced at all - in fact I don't recall the show ever including the recordings of those parts.

 

Spoiler

Didn't he take a lot of it from the film kiss the girls? A lot of what he said there was no actual evidence for happening and absolutely nothing to place him there at all, its madness really. The prosecution are always going to come up with a narrative for what happened but you just feel in this case what they are saying happened....just didn't. If they cant even nail down what hes supposed to have done then theres reasonable doubt for me.

 

[Stevo985]

8 hours ago, Troglodyte said:

  Hide contents

Absolutely. What he said doesn't work out because there's no way those things happened and Steven cleared up afterwards (at a forensic level, leaving the place looking as it did before). I just can't fathom where Brendon's got it all from though. If he wasn't involved in anything at all, where the hell is all that coming from? I get he's no bright spark but it just doesn't add up to me that he's come out with some real gruesome stuff about a murder victim from nowhere. And as I said, none of those details seem to have been coerced at all - in fact I don't recall the show ever including the recordings of those parts.

 

But surely he could have just invented it? He's probably seen a movie or two and just recited some shit off there. Or if his brother's internet searches are real, then his brother might have told him about some gory stuff he's seen on the internet.

I could come up with a great rape murder scene off the top of my head, but I certainly didn't actually do it (honest, officer)

Edited November 5, 2018 by Stevo985

[PieFacE]

15 hours ago, Stevo985 said:

Oh, and Ken Kratz is a **** paedo

He's an absolute creep. Just watching him on screen makes me feel.... weird and freaked out. He's like a closet psycho or something, definitely something wrong with him.

Different subject.... SoA is absolutely woeful television. You've got this supposed hard-as-nails biker gang, yet they're constantly hugging each other and telling each other they love them in every other **** scene. It's painful. Also, they're criminals, selling guns etc..... Why are they always skint? If selling guns doesn't pay well then get a job a Morrisons or something. 

[Troglodyte]

1 hour ago, Stevo985 said:

I could come up with a great rape murder

 

And yeah I assume he did get it from a film or something, and it's highly unlikely that he's guilty (there's certainly reasonable doubt to say the least) but I just find it weird, even given his IQ, that he'd come out with stuff like that in such a situation.

[Demitri_C]

Finally started daredevil season 3. Good opening episode. Hope they don't not it like they have with iron fist