SPOILER WARNING: Prestige Television Discussion

Space wrote:
ggw wrote:
Season 2 of Ozark was pretty good (7.5/10). Better than season 1. They definitely focused much more on the women in season 2. Charlotte is kind of meh but Wendy, Ruth, and Darlene are great. I was disappointed in the finale. Obviously we are getting a season 3.


I first heard of this show the other day. How does it compare to Justified?


Similar settings and both stories revolve around crime, but that's about the extent of it.  There are no real "good" guys in Ozark and the bad guys aren't as colorful as in Justified.  There's no Raylan-Boyd dynamic.  And Jason Bateman's character isn't really likable nor could he carry the show on his own.  In terms of entertainment - it's nowhere near as good as Justified's good seasons, but it's better than the weak ones.
Barry - 7/10 - A bit uneven and the love interest is really annoying, but it can be very, very funny at times.

Maniac - 7/10 - Very entertaining but a little weak on storyline and character development.
deadwood is coming back as a movie with most of the original cast…set ten years later
The Romanoffs is disappointing.  Entertaining and very well shot, but ultimately a bit bloated.  The first episode has been the best so far.

Homecoming is pretty good, but Bobby Cannavale has yet to meet a role he couldn't destroy with his patented overacting.  He is less awful than he was in Vinyl, but I can't grasp how this guy continues to land big roles.
ggw wrote: but Bobby Cannavale has yet to meet a role he couldn't destroy with his patented overacting. 

IMO Bobby does a fantastic reading of Chapter 13 in the Beastie Boys audio book
delivers it like a beat poet with a thick accent
Sidehatch wrote:
ggw wrote: but Bobby Cannavale has yet to meet a role he couldn't destroy with his patented overacting. 

IMO Bobby does a fantastic reading of Chapter 13 in the Beastie Boys audio book
delivers it like a beat poet with a thick accent

it's hard to over-act on audio only.
sweetcell wrote:
Sidehatch wrote:
ggw wrote: but Bobby Cannavale has yet to meet a role he couldn't destroy with his patented overacting. 

IMO Bobby does a fantastic reading of Chapter 13 in the Beastie Boys audio book
delivers it like a beat poet with a thick accent

it's hard to over-act on audio only.


But I bet you can feel him gesticulating madly behind the mic.
ggw wrote:
sweetcell wrote:
Sidehatch wrote:
ggw wrote: but Bobby Cannavale has yet to meet a role he couldn't destroy with his patented overacting. 

IMO Bobby does a fantastic reading of Chapter 13 in the Beastie Boys audio book
delivers it like a beat poet with a thick accent

it's hard to over-act on audio only.


But I bet you can feel him gesticulating madly behind the mic.


I'd almost be disappointed if he wasn't.
ggw wrote:
The Romanoffs is disappointing.  Entertaining and very well shot, but ultimately a bit bloated.  The first episode has been the best so far.

Homecoming is pretty good, but Bobby Cannavale has yet to meet a role he couldn't destroy with his patented overacting.  He is less awful than he was in Vinyl, but I can't grasp how this guy continues to land big roles.


I will always know him as the guy with the funky tasting spunk (their words, not mine) on Sex and the City.

Did like him in Boardwalk Empire though.

I listened to the podcast, but haven't gotten into the show yet. Kinda pissed Catherine Keener isn't in the main role…
Jack Whitehall: Travels with My Father

My favorite travel series, ever.
Scream real loud!

K8teebug wrote:
I will always know him as the guy with the funky tasting spunk (their words, not mine) on Sex and the City.

i'm having something of a senior moment here, so let's run with it:

when first read that parenthetical, i got "(in other words, not mine)" - and that generated sooooo many questions in my head… i'll spare you from those questions, but in essence i was wondering if you were going all Space on us.
I've just watched Sex and the City one too many times…and a show like that sticks with ya (pun intended).
I would have never predicted that HBO would become one of my primary sources for news

Bill Maher…yes it's satire and yes it's liberal, but it's loaded with facts and spot on commentary.  been a fan for over 20 years

John Oliver Last Week Tonight.  The format is great…few funny bits with one deep dive into a topic that others just skim the surface.  This is really one of the best shows on TV. 

Vice News…some of the best investigative reporting out there IMO.Covering stories that no one else is.  Biggest problem for me, is it is such a depressing show, as there is so much hate and injustice in the world and they are just shining a light on it.  The recent one on mexico just floored me.

Axios.  Wow this is really good. Only seen one episode, but I love it.  The bouncy hand held camera stuff gets a little old though…guess we gotta get those millennials watching?  Run by some of the top brass that left Politico in 2016  (only a 4 episode series…maybe they will keep doing it?)

Pod Save America …this was some really good stuff leading up to the election.  Yes was VERY liberal (but hey aren't all the smart good looking people liberal anyway).  They did a great job discussing the hot topics of the moment and also giving people ACTUAL ideas of things they could do right now to help the democrats win
How is it "news" if it's all "very liberal?"

That's like calling Fox News "news."
Space wrote:
How is it "news" if it's all "very liberal?"

That's like calling Fox News "news."


the problem is there are very few equivalent sources for the non-liberal
Maher and PSA wear their liberalism on their shirt
but I do think Vice and Axios …while they tend to be harsh on trumpetts and the like…are generally objective…which can't be said for the counterparts on fox et all

I'm curious what the intelligent and discerning Conservative watches (yes GGW…I'm asking you)

As Faux News, Infowars, Rush, newsmax, BrietBart, The Blaze, The Daily Caller (Tucker!), The Gateway Pundit and drudge(I know not really a news site, but an agg) are all crap …on the lines of total fiction a majority of the time. To me it appears that their audience could care less…


I did a search on conservative news…and RT America came up as one of the top…Russian TV is a go to source for the conservatives?!
these are some dark times

I'm amazed at the power Trump has wielded to change the minds of ALL the conservatives in just a short period of time
Russia, tariffs, FBI/CIA credibility, executive power (I guess only an issue when it's not their exec)
Well Fox news has had a big role in this, but he does deserve credit for skipping the middle man with Twitter (tell me why he can't be shut down for hate speech/bullying)

sorry for turning the prestige tv thread political
Bothsidesism is killing America


How people can compare CNN to Fox News is beyond me
For the record, I am not a Republican.  I'm not sure "conservative" fits either, although my core belief is that government has become too big (although for the best of intentions) and that is the root of many of today's problems.  Many years ago we had all these colonies.  Some dudes said, hey, let's have some central government to take care of things like national defense that don't make sense to do on the colonial level.  Great idea!  Later on, other dudes started saying, hey, since we have this central government thing, let's use it for all sorts of other things too!  Not a bad idea on its face, except that it encourages the formation of interest groups to lobby the central government to enact policies which benefit the interest group.  Again, nothing inherently wrong with that.  Except we have gone way past interest groups now.  Today, interest groups have morphed into "identity" politics.  It may seem like a small distinction, but I don't believe it is.  "Identity" implies something incredibly personal.  So now politics imbues everything.  Moreover, people of other "identities" are now viewed adversarially - If you are not an us, you are a them.  When government is smaller, people are forced to work together to get things done and must find a way to get along.  When government is big, people just join together and then compete with one another to get the government to favor their group over others competing for the same resources, which encourages animosity, not cooperation.  Also, there is the whole principal-agent problem with government trying to have its hand in everything.

As far as the media question - I have a love-hate relationship with the media.  I consume vast quantities of it, but much of it I find flawed and rapidly getting worse.  I don't think I have ever seen Fox News.  I like facts, stripped of biases.  Fox News is obviously not that.  But nobody else is anymore.  I have read the New York Times daily since I was a kid.  It used to be a great paper.  They were always left-leaning, but they kept that part to the op-ed pages.  They dealt with a lot of hard news and had great cultural coverage as well and largely succeeded in keeping the general news operation as bias-free as possible.  Today, the entire paper is wildly left-leaning.  Like the Washington Post, business concerns pushed them to make a conscious decision to abandon generalism and gear the paper toward its base - A very liberal and cosmopolitan readership.  I've been thinking of canceling my subscription for years, but just can't do it after it being a daily touchstone for 40+ years.  But the NY Times is regularly awful now.  They just published their list of the 100 Notable Books of 2018.  They try to force politics into all the reviews, even when the book doesn't say anything about politics (explicitly or implicitly).  For example, one book [Cherry] they cite as a great statement on the "United States’ failure to provide adequate support to veterans."  I read the book.  Yes, the main character is a veteran.  But it has absolutely zero to do with the subject of the treatment of veterans.  A few months ago, the Sunday New York Times had at least one Trump-related story (all negative, of course) on the front page of every single section - all 10 of them.  Sports?  Arts & Leisure?  The Travel section!?!?  I mean, they really had to try hard to do that.  Being political in every subject, every section, every day, is probably what their base wants.  But I don't.

I can't answer the CNN vs. Fox question because I don't watch either.  However, I do think of NBC (and its affiliates) as the Left's Fox.  I'll give you some examples.  Savannah Guthrie on the night of the election looked like she was going to vomit any second.  Every time a state went for Trump you could feel her pain, anger, and hurt.  She would say things like, "I can't believe this is happening?"  and, "Oh, this is awful."  Guthrie is certainly entitled to her opinion, but as the Co-Head Anchor (along with Lester Holt) of NBC News, I think she should at least feign being impartial.  Then there is Andrea Mitchell.  She is Hillary's BFF and has been for decades.  And this is who NBC News has covering Trump during their Presidential election coverage?  Another example - Shortly before the election NBC did a piece on Orange County, CA.  They said they were going to this "republican bastion" to take the pulse before the election.  But they cast the piece like a safari.  The story started with the crew going to a train station (in LA) and boarding a train to travel to the OC (apparently they don't have roads in the OC?) and, in hushed voice, they spoke with such surprise that actual Republicans could be found so close to LA!  The whole report was cast like an explorer heading deep into the Amazon to find a lost tribe that had never encountered civilization.  I don't doubt that many at NBC News truly believe that Republicans are some strange alien tribe.  Much like the NY Times, I still watch NBC even though I think its gone to shit.

Beyond that I read the Wall Street Journal and the Financial Times every day.  I skip the WSJ political coverage and just focus on business and markets.  The FT is obviously primarily a financial paper, but their political coverage is very good and more international.  I read the Economist weekly also.  I read these three in hard format because I am old.  Online I read Bloomberg and have started reading Axios periodically.  I read tons of global macro research, which obviously touches on politics and economics. I watch NBC News and BBC World News occasionally. PBS NewsHour is still pretty good, but I got away from it when Gwen Ifill passed.

Obviously Hatch's question touched a nerve, as this may be the longest post I have ever written.  Like I said, I have a love-hate relationship with the media.  I still love it enough that I gorge on it, but I really hate it because I feel like there are no high quality generalist news sources left.  20 years ago (maybe even more recently) I felt like reading the New York Times gave me an excellent, largely bias-free handle on what's going on in the world.  Back then, even the Washington Post was half decent (emphasis on "half").  Today, I don't feel like there are any truly non-biased sources left out there. 
ggw wrote:
Obviously Hatch's question touched a nerve, as this may be the longest post I have ever written. 

Today, I don't feel like there are any truly non-biased sources left out there.

Yowza and quite a retort.
was by no means a finger poke,
I was honestly curious as I do respect your opinion
thanks for the detail…
ggw wrote:
For the record, I am not a Republican.  I'm not sure "conservative" fits either, although my core belief is that government has become too big (although for the best of intentions) and that is the root of many of today's problems.  Many years ago we had all these colonies.  Some dudes said, hey, let's have some central government to take care of things like national defense that don't make sense to do on the colonial level.  Great idea!  Later on, other dudes started saying, hey, since we have this central government thing, let's use it for all sorts of other things too!  Not a bad idea on its face, except that it encourages the formation of interest groups to lobby the central government to enact policies which benefit the interest group.  Again, nothing inherently wrong with that.  Except we have gone way past interest groups now.  Today, interest groups have morphed into "identity" politics.  It may seem like a small distinction, but I don't believe it is.  "Identity" implies something incredibly personal.  So now politics imbues everything.  Moreover, people of other "identities" are now viewed adversarially - If you are not an us, you are a them.  When government is smaller, people are forced to work together to get things done and must find a way to get along.  When government is big, people just join together and then compete with one another to get the government to favor their group over others competing for the same resources, which encourages animosity, not cooperation.  Also, there is the whole principal-agent problem with government trying to have its hand in everything.

As far as the media question - I have a love-hate relationship with the media.  I consume vast quantities of it, but much of it I find flawed and rapidly getting worse.  I don't think I have ever seen Fox News.  I like facts, stripped of biases.  Fox News is obviously not that.  But nobody else is anymore.  I have read the New York Times daily since I was a kid.  It used to be a great paper.  They were always left-leaning, but they kept that part to the op-ed pages.  They dealt with a lot of hard news and had great cultural coverage as well and largely succeeded in keeping the general news operation as bias-free as possible.  Today, the entire paper is wildly left-leaning.  Like the Washington Post, business concerns pushed them to make a conscious decision to abandon generalism and gear the paper toward its base - A very liberal and cosmopolitan readership.  I've been thinking of canceling my subscription for years, but just can't do it after it being a daily touchstone for 40+ years.  But the NY Times is regularly awful now.  They just published their list of the 100 Notable Books of 2018.  They try to force politics into all the reviews, even when the book doesn't say anything about politics (explicitly or implicitly).  For example, one book [Cherry] they cite as a great statement on the "United States’ failure to provide adequate support to veterans."  I read the book.  Yes, the main character is a veteran.  But it has absolutely zero to do with the subject of the treatment of veterans.  A few months ago, the Sunday New York Times had at least one Trump-related story (all negative, of course) on the front page of every single section - all 10 of them.  Sports?  Arts & Leisure?  The Travel section!?!?  I mean, they really had to try hard to do that.  Being political in every subject, every section, every day, is probably what their base wants.  But I don't.

I can't answer the CNN vs. Fox question because I don't watch either.  However, I do think of NBC (and its affiliates) as the Left's Fox.  I'll give you some examples.  Savannah Guthrie on the night of the election looked like she was going to vomit any second.  Every time a state went for Trump you could feel her pain, anger, and hurt.  She would say things like, "I can't believe this is happening?"  and, "Oh, this is awful."  Guthrie is certainly entitled to her opinion, but as the Co-Head Anchor (along with Lester Holt) of NBC News, I think she should at least feign being impartial.  Then there is Andrea Mitchell.  She is Hillary's BFF and has been for decades.  And this is who NBC News has covering Trump during their Presidential election coverage?  Another example - Shortly before the election NBC did a piece on Orange County, CA.  They said they were going to this "republican bastion" to take the pulse before the election.  But they cast the piece like a safari.  The story started with the crew going to a train station (in LA) and boarding a train to travel to the OC (apparently they don't have roads in the OC?) and, in hushed voice, they spoke with such surprise that actual Republicans could be found so close to LA!  The whole report was cast like an explorer heading deep into the Amazon to find a lost tribe that had never encountered civilization.  I don't doubt that many at NBC News truly believe that Republicans are some strange alien tribe.  Much like the NY Times, I still watch NBC even though I think its gone to shit.

Beyond that I read the Wall Street Journal and the Financial Times every day.  I skip the WSJ political coverage and just focus on business and markets.  The FT is obviously primarily a financial paper, but their political coverage is very good and more international.  I read the Economist weekly also.  I read these three in hard format because I am old.  Online I read Bloomberg and have started reading Axios periodically.  I read tons of global macro research, which obviously touches on politics and economics. I watch NBC News and BBC World News occasionally. PBS NewsHour is still pretty good, but I got away from it when Gwen Ifill passed.

Obviously Hatch's question touched a nerve, as this may be the longest post I have ever written.  Like I said, I have a love-hate relationship with the media.  I still love it enough that I gorge on it, but I really hate it because I feel like there are no high quality generalist news sources left.  20 years ago (maybe even more recently) I felt like reading the New York Times gave me an excellent, largely bias-free handle on what's going on in the world.  Back then, even the Washington Post was half decent (emphasis on "half").  Today, I don't feel like there are any truly non-biased sources left out there. 


G.Y.O.F.B.