Jump to content
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Michael*

  1. Yeah, I would say The Hand's plot (which was already very vague with a rather ropey evil plan involved), and Castle's plot both became somewhat less effective as the season rolled on. Looking back, I think the writers were seemingly a little too preoccupied with setting up the next season, as well as the big Defenders showpiece of course. What absolutely made S2 for me was the dynamic between Castle and Murdock. Parts of the third episode were positively spellbinding. The Punisher is, as a character, such a great foil for Daredevil.
  2. It does seem like Hulu has already revealed an interest in acquiring Daredevil, at the very least. I'd imagine that when the purchase of Fox eventually goes through, Hulu would be a decent choice for Disney to show its more adult aimed properties on. Overall though, as great as Marvel traditionally is at marketing, this feels like something of a misstep. Letting all these shows be cancelled (and of course, we can now add Punisher and Jessica Jones to that list) with little word on their future, is just going to frustrate and disappoint the fans.
  3. Perhaps even a little bit questionable for Olivia Colman to be nominated as leading actress, with Emma Stone and Rachel Weisz as supporting actresses, since all the parts were roughly about the same size. Still, I think it would be fair to say that Colman’s performance was probably the best of the three. Ethan Hawke missing out for best actor for First Reformed seems the biggest snub, although Bradley Cooper not being nominated comes close. Not that I was crazy about A Star Is Born, but it was still a surprising omission.
  4. My perception of Coleman shifted a little afterwards, for the most part he comes across as an amiable guy who perhaps didn't deserve to be parachuted into something so disfunctional, and you could obviously see how much it meant to him when that radgie confronted him outside the stadium. However, he seemed to reach the end of his tether remarkably quickly, with the aforementioned summarisation by Aiden McGeady of his capabilities feeling like a bit of a wakeup call. I’d assumed, mainly from his stint with Wales, that Coleman was a modern, innovative coach who put hours of work into tactics and coaching the players to be better, but McGeady cut right through all that with a single withering assessment. Perhaps his particular management style just didn't work in such a toxic environment where the confidence of the squad was already totally shot. Looking forward to the second series, presumably with each episode dedicated to one of our attempts to land Will Grigg.
  5. I suppose that line in the cancellation statement put forth by Netflix about the characters still being a part of future projects will have given people a glimmer of hope, either that Marvel is planning to use some of them in the MCU (maybe post Thanos when many of the current Avengers are likely out of the picture) or that Disney continue the shows on their own streaming service. Honestly though, as much as of a thrill as either of those scenarios would be to see, I don't know if I could see them happening anytime soon, if at all.
  6. I'd consider Laura to be one of our most consistent artists and certainly one of our best, but at this point she's probably more of a critical favourite than a commercial one. She keeps a very low profile between releases and doesn't do a lot of media or fan engagement, so unless something unexpected were to happen in the future, it would be hard to see her 'breaking out', so to speak. Hopefully somewhere along the line though she makes that heavy metal album she keeps hinting at in interviews, that would be a lot of fun to listen to. My first experience of her music was similarly random, when I just so happened to catch a performance of hers on the Jools Holland show one week. Twelve years later, she's still the owner of one of the most understated but effortlessly pure voices I think I've ever heard.
  7. I had no clue who he was until about a year ago when the Channel 4 interview happened, after which I read up on him a little. Honestly, I'm not convinced he has an overarching philosophy beyond some fairly routine takes on gender roles, self reliance and not expecting the world to owe you a favour. The rest feels more like of a mosaic of notions, gathering together his observations on evolutionary biology, a pinch of Nietzsche and Jung, and a rather stern biblical take on creation. I think his biggest error is to hold up the west as a paragon of virtue, which obviously chimes with his traditional take on things, but doesn't acknowledge that the same set of values has also failed to prevent some of the worst behaviour that the relative modern world has ever seen, or allow for the possibility that those values might easily be subverted, to a catastrophic extent. That's not to say that some of what he dislikes completely misses the mark, but he seems downright myopic about the myriad of flaws in a system he values so much. As for his railing against Post Modernists and Marxists (two groups which aren't nearly as interchangable as he imagines), he appears to make a very simplistic leap of logic from his disdain for some Marxists and academics to an apparent supposition that some kind of totalitarian cabal is responsible for most of the ills of the 20th century, and has subsequently mutated into a potent force in education trying to unpick all the glue that holds western civilisation together. If that is indeed what he's saying and not just how I'm interpreting things, then there's more than a whiff of silly conspiracy theory there and frankly, I don't buy it for a minute. Of course, the problem with that sort of thing, as with flat earthers, climate change deniers etc, is that it's actually quite difficult to engage without acknowledging an alternate reality on which it's based and spending a lot of time unpicking it, and doing so seems to confer some sort of spurious credibility. Anyway, hopefully some of that was coherent, apologies for what is essentially a stream of consciousness rant.
  8. That's more or less what I meant by 'Twitter style debate', as in that little game of trying to box your opponent into a corner where they’re perceived to have said something stupid or objectionable. That lack of reasonable discourse is usually what happens when opinions and gut instincts are treated with equal importance to facts and context. We seem to have found ourselves in an age where people get to claim that the truth doesn't tell the whole story, which is completely insane. Peterson's own takes on practical everyday stuff are probably where he's on the strongest ground and of course, if he didn't resonate with people, he wouldn’t have an audience. A lot of the other things he says are obviously silly, but he says all of it with similar gusto and conviction, which as a result makes him fairly easy to criticise. At the same time though, I get that sinking feeling that if it hadn't been for the silly stuff, he wouldn't be anything like as popular or famous as he is now. Plus, he once posed for a photo with Mumford & Sons. I'd like to see even his most ardent supporters try to justify that.
  9. I must confess, I'd never heard of him until the now-infamous Channel 4 interview took place, but I'd imagine that he would only be considered a genuine intellectual by folks for whom the Twitter style of debate has become a way of life. He essentially operates like an experienced stand up comedian, well-practiced ‘schtick’ with clearly defined ‘bits' and therefore can bat aside any 'hecklers' with relative ease. Where he falls down is that he seemingly tries to combat so-called 'undergrad' identity politics with Fox News identity politics, basically just bucketing together large groups of people that he doesn't like. 
  • Create New...