Being Human reveals its true colours after only two episodes
Agamemnon
at a comedy drama which can't resist the slightest whim to show naked mens
cocks and arses and simulated sex. I should have known. Just like Torchwood,
its firmly aimed at young immature teenagers, not adults. ITV's Demons which
is a poor copy of Buffy with the male and female, British and American roles
reversed, is far more adult and far superior, even though this weeks story
was completely moronic and the ending was badly written. Harpybird clearly
can't control herself when she turns into a killer, so instead of trying to
help her or giving her a chance to repent, they force her to change into a
harpy by spiking her drink so they can kill her in cold blood. But even Gene
Hunt's attempt at an American accent is less annoying than Jugears attempt
to do comic timing. No wonder fewer people are watching television when
writers don't have a clue about how to write drama for adults. It's doesn't
mean fake sex and nudity. That's nothing more than pornography.
Alan Sailsbury 2099
> So half of Torchwood this year has been replaced with this immature
> attempt at a comedy drama which can't resist the slightest whim to show
> naked mens cocks and arses and simulated sex. I should have known.
That's why you tuned in isn't it?
Michael Urban
Agamemnon <agam...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
>So half of Torchwood this year has been replaced with this immature attempt
>at a comedy drama which can't resist the slightest whim to show naked mens
>cocks and arses and simulated sex.
Hm. Where did you see a naked cock? Or are you referring to the plucked
chicken on the string?
Agamemnon
"Michael Urban" <ur...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:gm8ht0$a1u$1...@reader1.panix.com...
The vampire sex video at the end. The one where you couldn't see the vampire
but could see the naked man's arse and the top of his cock and pubes.
pbo...@aol.com
> "Michael Urban" <ur...@panix.com> wrote in message
>
> news:gm8ht0$a1u$1...@reader1.panix.com...
>
> > Agamemnon <agamem...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
> >>So half of Torchwood this year has been replaced with this immature
> >>attempt
> >>at a comedy drama which can't resist the slightest whim to show naked mens
> >>cocks and arses and simulated sex.
>
> > Hm. Where did you see a naked cock? Or are you referring to the plucked
> > chicken on the string?
>
> The vampire sex video at the end. The one where you couldn't see the vampire
> but could see the naked man's arse and the top of his cock and pubes.
Amazing that you were looking so closely, since everyone else missed
it... But you got the point of the vampire sex video, right? That the
characters all (except Mitchell) found it perverted, and that the porn
was shown as being as acceptable as feeding off someone? Plus they
were hardly going for a heartthrob to pull in viewers, now were they?
I think you've fallen foul of a non sequitur again, Aggy. Programmes
don't become adult by virtue of throwing in lots of sex scenes and
naked people. This is true. But it doesn't follow that a programme
targeted at adults therefore *can't* include sex scenes or naked
people on occasion if they serve the story. This isn't anything
comparable with that vile second Torchwood story, which had a plot
concocted entirely to show off people having sex.
Phil
Agamemnon
<pbo...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:582c99c9-10e3-4adf...@g3g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
On 3 Feb, 05:24, "Agamemnon" <agamem...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
> "Michael Urban" <ur...@panix.com> wrote in message
>
> news:gm8ht0$a1u$1...@reader1.panix.com...
>
> > In article <l-mdncbWy6U__hrUnZ2dnUVZ8uKWn...@eclipse.net.uk>,
> > Agamemnon <agamem...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
> >>So half of Torchwood this year has been replaced with this immature
> >>attempt
> >>at a comedy drama which can't resist the slightest whim to show naked
> >>mens
> >>cocks and arses and simulated sex.
>
> > Hm. Where did you see a naked cock? Or are you referring to the plucked
> > chicken on the string?
>
> The vampire sex video at the end. The one where you couldn't see the
> vampire
> but could see the naked man's arse and the top of his cock and pubes.
<<<Amazing that you were looking so closely, since everyone else missed
it... But you got the point of the vampire sex video, right? That the>>>
It was put there to show men's naked arses and genital areas.
<<<characters all (except Mitchell) found it perverted, and that the porn
was shown as being as acceptable as feeding off someone? Plus they
were hardly going for a heartthrob to pull in viewers, now were they?>>>
Why didn't they show a naked woman at least? And I don't mean ones which
huge unattractive breasts like that equally childish episode of Spooks The
Next Generation or whatever it was called did.
<<<I think you've fallen foul of a non sequitur again, Aggy. Programmes
don't become adult by virtue of throwing in lots of sex scenes and
naked people. This is true. But it doesn't follow that a programme
targeted at adults therefore *can't* include sex scenes or naked
people on occasion if they serve the story. This isn't anything>>>
Which it DIDN'T!
<<<comparable with that vile second Torchwood story, which had a plot
concocted entirely to show off people having sex.>>>
You mean Killercunt, or Lesbalien, or Pilotbird or
Captianjackdoescaptainjack?
pbo...@aol.com
> <pbow...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
> news:582c99c9-10e3-4adf...@g3g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
> On 3 Feb, 05:24, "Agamemnon" <agamem...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Michael Urban" <ur...@panix.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:gm8ht0$a1u$1...@reader1.panix.com...
>
> > > In article <l-mdncbWy6U__hrUnZ2dnUVZ8uKWn...@eclipse.net.uk>,
> > > Agamemnon <agamem...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
> > >>So half of Torchwood this year has been replaced with this immature
> > >>attempt
> > >>at a comedy drama which can't resist the slightest whim to show naked
> > >>mens
> > >>cocks and arses and simulated sex.
>
> > > Hm. Where did you see a naked cock? Or are you referring to the plucked
> > > chicken on the string?
>
> > The vampire sex video at the end. The one where you couldn't see the
> > vampire
> > but could see the naked man's arse and the top of his cock and pubes.
>
> <<<Amazing that you were looking so closely, since everyone else missed
> it... But you got the point of the vampire sex video, right? That the>>>
>
> It was put there to show men's naked arses and genital areas.
That's a 'no', then...
> <<<characters all (except Mitchell) found it perverted, and that the porn
> was shown as being as acceptable as feeding off someone? Plus they
> were hardly going for a heartthrob to pull in viewers, now were they?>>>
>
> Why didn't they show a naked woman at least? And I don't mean ones which
> huge unattractive breasts like that equally childish episode of Spooks The
> Next Generation or whatever it was called did.
Because it *wasn't* there to pull in crowds of porn-loving perverts?
> <<<I think you've fallen foul of a non sequitur again, Aggy. Programmes
> don't become adult by virtue of throwing in lots of sex scenes and
> naked people. This is true. But it doesn't follow that a programme
> targeted at adults therefore *can't* include sex scenes or naked
> people on occasion if they serve the story. This isn't anything>>>
>
> Which it DIDN'T!
You seem to have had difficulty following the story (as usual), not
putting you in a great position to make that assessment.
> <<<comparable with that vile second Torchwood story, which had a plot
> concocted entirely to show off people having sex.>>>
>
> You mean Killercunt, or Lesbalien, or Pilotbird or
> Captianjackdoescaptainjack?
I mean the second episode of season one - "Day One", was it? The one
with a sex alien.
Phil
Agamemnon
<pbo...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:a764b361-38e7-451d...@o36g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
> On 3 Feb, 08:27, "Agamemnon" <agamem...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
>> <pbow...@aol.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:582c99c9-10e3-4adf...@g3g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
>> On 3 Feb, 05:24, "Agamemnon" <agamem...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > "Michael Urban" <ur...@panix.com> wrote in message
>>
>> >news:gm8ht0$a1u$1...@reader1.panix.com...
>>
>> > > In article <l-mdncbWy6U__hrUnZ2dnUVZ8uKWn...@eclipse.net.uk>,
>> > > Agamemnon <agamem...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
>> > >>So half of Torchwood this year has been replaced with this immature
>> > >>attempt
>> > >>at a comedy drama which can't resist the slightest whim to show naked
>> > >>mens
>> > >>cocks and arses and simulated sex.
>>
>> > > Hm. Where did you see a naked cock? Or are you referring to the
>> > > plucked
>> > > chicken on the string?
>>
>> > The vampire sex video at the end. The one where you couldn't see the
>> > vampire
>> > but could see the naked man's arse and the top of his cock and pubes.
>>
>> <<<Amazing that you were looking so closely, since everyone else missed
>> it... But you got the point of the vampire sex video, right? That the>>>
>>
>> It was put there to show men's naked arses and genital areas.
>
> That's a 'no', then...
Wrong.
>
>> <<<characters all (except Mitchell) found it perverted, and that the porn
>> was shown as being as acceptable as feeding off someone? Plus they
>> were hardly going for a heartthrob to pull in viewers, now were they?>>>
>>
>> Why didn't they show a naked woman at least? And I don't mean ones which
>> huge unattractive breasts like that equally childish episode of Spooks
>> The
>> Next Generation or whatever it was called did.
>
> Because it *wasn't* there to pull in crowds of porn-loving perverts?
Yes it was. The problem is that the naked people in it were not attractive.
>
>> <<<I think you've fallen foul of a non sequitur again, Aggy. Programmes
>> don't become adult by virtue of throwing in lots of sex scenes and
>> naked people. This is true. But it doesn't follow that a programme
>> targeted at adults therefore *can't* include sex scenes or naked
>> people on occasion if they serve the story. This isn't anything>>>
>>
>> Which it DIDN'T!
>
> You seem to have had difficulty following the story (as usual), not
> putting you in a great position to make that assessment.
Wrong. There wasn't much of a story. The episode of Retaghost when Mr
Claypole went back to the time of Queen Matilda, which showed viewers how he
ended up becoming a ghost, and covered the same issues and plot line as this
week's episode of Being Human, was written far better and didn't require any
sex scenes in it to get viewers to watch it.
>
>> <<<comparable with that vile second Torchwood story, which had a plot
>> concocted entirely to show off people having sex.>>>
>>
>> You mean Killercunt, or Lesbalien, or Pilotbird or
>> Captianjackdoescaptainjack?
>
> I mean the second episode of season one - "Day One", was it? The one
> with a sex alien.
That was Killercunt.
>
> Phil
pbo...@aol.com
I asked you if you got the point. You said the point was to show naked
men. Since that was not, in fact, the point, you admitted to not
getting it.
>
>
> >> <<<characters all (except Mitchell) found it perverted, and that the porn
> >> was shown as being as acceptable as feeding off someone? Plus they
> >> were hardly going for a heartthrob to pull in viewers, now were they?>>>
>
> >> Why didn't they show a naked woman at least? And I don't mean ones which
> >> huge unattractive breasts like that equally childish episode of Spooks
> >> The
> >> Next Generation or whatever it was called did.
>
> > Because it *wasn't* there to pull in crowds of porn-loving perverts?
>
> Yes it was. The problem is that the naked people
Person.
in it were not attractive.
You don't know much about marketing, do you? If they'd wanted to make
a porn film, they *would* have chosen someone attractive. They didn't,
precisely because it would distract from the story if viewers were
paying more attention to the naked man than to the characters'
discussion about what was going on. Plainly you're so starved of
attention yourself, however, that you remained glued to the screen
eagerly searching for a glimpse of the guy's genitals instead of
following the plot.
> >> <<<I think you've fallen foul of a non sequitur again, Aggy. Programmes
> >> don't become adult by virtue of throwing in lots of sex scenes and
> >> naked people. This is true. But it doesn't follow that a programme
> >> targeted at adults therefore *can't* include sex scenes or naked
> >> people on occasion if they serve the story. This isn't anything>>>
>
> >> Which it DIDN'T!
>
> > You seem to have had difficulty following the story (as usual), not
> > putting you in a great position to make that assessment.
>
> Wrong. There wasn't much of a story.
Maybe not, but since you managed to get part of it wrong above, it's
plain you still weren't following such story as there was.
The episode of Retaghost when Mr
> Claypole went back to the time of Queen Matilda, which showed viewers how he
> ended up becoming a ghost, and covered the same issues and plot line as this
> week's episode of Being Human,
I appreciate that Rentaghost is closer to your mental age and
undoubtedly easier for you to follow, but since I don't remember it
very well could you elaborate on what the issues and plotline in that
Rentaghost episode were, to see whether you grasped the "issues and
plot line" of this week's Being Human? If you're suggesting that the
major point of this episode was to learn more about George's backstory
and the werewolf he encountered, you've missed the major thrust of the
narrative (and no, that's not a reference to the vampire porn).
was written far better and didn't require any
> sex scenes in it to get viewers to watch it.
If Being Human had required sex scenes to get viewers to watch it,
they'd only have tuned in in the last five minutes of the episode
(well, apart from the fact that the Mitchell-Lauren scene forms the
beginning of every 'previously' bit).
> >> <<<comparable with that vile second Torchwood story, which had a plot
> >> concocted entirely to show off people having sex.>>>
>
> >> You mean Killercunt, or Lesbalien, or Pilotbird or
> >> Captianjackdoescaptainjack?
>
> > I mean the second episode of season one - "Day One", was it? The one
> > with a sex alien.
>
> That was Killercunt.
Really? So if I were to look on the Torchwood website for the name of
the second episode, it would bring up the name "Killercunt"?
Phil
Alan Sailsbury 2099
...if you got reeeealy close to the screen and used your gay imagination.
Aggy, you are SO gay that you must be the only person in the world who
doesn't realise it yet!
Alan Sailsbury 2099
>
>
> It was put there to show men's naked arses and genital areas.
Which you LOVED so much you can't stop talking about it! I bet you went
SQUEEEE when it appeared and clapped your hands together.
>
>
> You mean Killercunt, or Lesbalien, or Pilotbird or
...or any other derogatory names you can invent, you women-hating weirdo.
Alan Sailsbury 2099
>
>>
>> Because it *wasn't* there to pull in crowds of porn-loving perverts?
>
> Yes it was. The problem is that the naked people in it were not attractive.
>
Why do you want to see attractive men having sex?
pbo...@aol.com
kay> wrote:
> Agamemnon wrote:
>
> > "Michael Urban" <ur...@panix.com> wrote in message
> >news:gm8ht0$a1u$1...@reader1.panix.com...
> >> Agamemnon <agamem...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
> >>> So half of Torchwood this year has been replaced with this immature
> >>> attempt
> >>> at a comedy drama which can't resist the slightest whim to show naked
> >>> mens
> >>> cocks and arses and simulated sex.
>
> >> Hm. Where did you see a naked cock? Or are you referring to the plucked
> >> chicken on the string?
>
> > The vampire sex video at the end. The one where you couldn't see the
> > vampire but could see the naked man's arse and the top of his cock and
> > pubes.
>
> ...if you got reeeealy close to the screen and used your gay imagination.
>
> Aggy, you are SO gay that you must be the only person in the world who
> doesn't realise it yet!
You know, I wonder how Aggy squares his admission that he used to look
for clones' cocks in sci-fi shows he watched as a kid with his
insistence that homosexuality doesn't manifest until puberty.
Phil
Agamemnon
"Alan Sailsbury 2099" <alansa...@yahoo.co.uk-kay-kay> wrote in message
news:tZqdnYGpLK5j0BXU...@bt.com...
Still got that reading comprehension problem I see. I was referring to the
breasts in Spooks TNG.
Agamemnon
<pbo...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:cd8292b3-f105-4e2e...@x6g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
Wrong. The point was to show men's naked arses and genital areas. That was
the one and only reason that story was written and filmed.
>
>>
>>
>> >> <<<characters all (except Mitchell) found it perverted, and that the
>> >> porn
>> >> was shown as being as acceptable as feeding off someone? Plus they
>> >> were hardly going for a heartthrob to pull in viewers, now were
>> >> they?>>>
>>
>> >> Why didn't they show a naked woman at least? And I don't mean ones
>> >> which
>> >> huge unattractive breasts like that equally childish episode of Spooks
>> >> The
>> >> Next Generation or whatever it was called did.
>>
>> > Because it *wasn't* there to pull in crowds of porn-loving perverts?
>>
>> Yes it was. The problem is that the naked people
>
> Person.
>
> in it were not attractive.
>
> You don't know much about marketing, do you? If they'd wanted to make
> a porn film, they *would* have chosen someone attractive. They didn't,
> precisely because it would distract from the story if viewers were
There was no story. The entire episode was there to show men's arses and
genital areas. I've seen better and far funnier episodes of Rentaghost.
> paying more attention to the naked man than to the characters'
But, that is exactly what viewers were forced to do. Pay attention to the
naked men and not the characters. Why else would they be naked.
> discussion about what was going on. Plainly you're so starved of
> attention yourself, however, that you remained glued to the screen
> eagerly searching for a glimpse of the guy's genitals instead of
> following the plot.
No. It was all in your face. The could have done it from the TV's eye view
looking at the people on the setter but didn't. They wanted to show porn.
>
>> >> <<<I think you've fallen foul of a non sequitur again, Aggy.
>> >> Programmes
>> >> don't become adult by virtue of throwing in lots of sex scenes and
>> >> naked people. This is true. But it doesn't follow that a programme
>> >> targeted at adults therefore *can't* include sex scenes or naked
>> >> people on occasion if they serve the story. This isn't anything>>>
>>
>> >> Which it DIDN'T!
>>
>> > You seem to have had difficulty following the story (as usual), not
>> > putting you in a great position to make that assessment.
>>
>> Wrong. There wasn't much of a story.
>
> Maybe not, but since you managed to get part of it wrong above, it's
> plain you still weren't following such story as there was.
Wrong.
>
> The episode of Retaghost when Mr
>> Claypole went back to the time of Queen Matilda, which showed viewers how
>> he
>> ended up becoming a ghost, and covered the same issues and plot line as
>> this
>> week's episode of Being Human,
>
> I appreciate that Rentaghost is closer to your mental age and
You are a fool.
> undoubtedly easier for you to follow, but since I don't remember it
> very well could you elaborate on what the issues and plotline in that
> Rentaghost episode were, to see whether you grasped the "issues and
> plot line" of this week's Being Human? If you're suggesting that the
> major point of this episode was to learn more about George's backstory
> and the werewolf he encountered, you've missed the major thrust of the
> narrative (and no, that's not a reference to the vampire porn).
The episode was supposed to be about Jugears coming to terms with the person
who made him into a werewolf and that was the same issue as the Rentaghost
episode that I was talking about which did it far better, was far funnier,
and didn't need to use porn to attract viewers.
>
> was written far better and didn't require any
>> sex scenes in it to get viewers to watch it.
>
> If Being Human had required sex scenes to get viewers to watch it,
> they'd only have tuned in in the last five minutes of the episode
> (well, apart from the fact that the Mitchell-Lauren scene forms the
> beginning of every 'previously' bit).
There was porn throughout the entire episode. It's what the episode was
written for.
>
>> >> <<<comparable with that vile second Torchwood story, which had a plot
>> >> concocted entirely to show off people having sex.>>>
>>
>> >> You mean Killercunt, or Lesbalien, or Pilotbird or
>> >> Captianjackdoescaptainjack?
>>
>> > I mean the second episode of season one - "Day One", was it? The one
>> > with a sex alien.
>>
>> That was Killercunt.
>
> Really? So if I were to look on the Torchwood website for the name of
> the second episode, it would bring up the name "Killercunt"?
Yes.
>
> Phil
pbo...@aol.com
And so the reason that whenever George was shown frontally while naked
he was covering that part of his anatomy was ... what, exactly?
> >> >> <<<characters all (except Mitchell) found it perverted, and that the
> >> >> porn
> >> >> was shown as being as acceptable as feeding off someone? Plus they
> >> >> were hardly going for a heartthrob to pull in viewers, now were
> >> >> they?>>>
>
> >> >> Why didn't they show a naked woman at least? And I don't mean ones
> >> >> which
> >> >> huge unattractive breasts like that equally childish episode of Spooks
> >> >> The
> >> >> Next Generation or whatever it was called did.
>
> >> > Because it *wasn't* there to pull in crowds of porn-loving perverts?
>
> >> Yes it was. The problem is that the naked people
>
> > Person.
>
> > in it were not attractive.
>
> > You don't know much about marketing, do you? If they'd wanted to make
> > a porn film, they *would* have chosen someone attractive. They didn't,
> > precisely because it would distract from the story if viewers were
>
> There was no story. The entire episode was there to show men's arses and
> genital areas.
See? You did have difficulty following the plot.
I've seen better and far funnier episodes of Rentaghost.
Rentaghost was meant to be funny. Being Human isn't.
> > paying more attention to the naked man than to the characters'
>
> But, that is exactly what viewers were forced to do. Pay attention to the
> naked men and not the characters. Why else would they be naked.
What, you think that people automatically pay more attention to
someone who's naked than to someone with clothes on?
> > discussion about what was going on. Plainly you're so starved of
> > attention yourself, however, that you remained glued to the screen
> > eagerly searching for a glimpse of the guy's genitals instead of
> > following the plot.
>
> No. It was all in your face. The could have done it from the TV's eye view
> looking at the people on the setter but didn't. They wanted to show porn.
How would we have known what the characters found disgusting, or
conversely what Mitchell found drawing him back to the dark side,
otherwise? From the trailer for next week, it's plain that Mitchell's
temptation back to the vampire world is going to be a major story
thread. I agree they wouldn't have lost anything by making the visible
porn bits a bit shorter, but it was very plainly not done to excite
the viewers.
> > undoubtedly easier for you to follow, but since I don't remember it
> > very well could you elaborate on what the issues and plotline in that
> > Rentaghost episode were, to see whether you grasped the "issues and
> > plot line" of this week's Being Human? If you're suggesting that the
> > major point of this episode was to learn more about George's backstory
> > and the werewolf he encountered, you've missed the major thrust of the
> > narrative (and no, that's not a reference to the vampire porn).
>
> The episode was supposed to be about Jugears coming to terms with the person
> who made him into a werewolf and that was the same issue as the Rentaghost
> episode that I was talking about which did it far better, was far funnier,
> and didn't need to use porn to attract viewers.
No, that wasn't quite what it was about - in fact most of George
"coming to terms" with Tully happened offscreen (which was mildly
irritating in its own right). The focus of the episode was on Tully
trying to turn George against his friends, and the effect his
inclusion had on the household, and their reaction to that.
> > was written far better and didn't require any
> >> sex scenes in it to get viewers to watch it.
>
> > If Being Human had required sex scenes to get viewers to watch it,
> > they'd only have tuned in in the last five minutes of the episode
> > (well, apart from the fact that the Mitchell-Lauren scene forms the
> > beginning of every 'previously' bit).
>
> There was porn throughout the entire episode. It's what the episode was
> written for.
No there wasn't. There was the final scene and the usual flashback to
Lauren - that was it.
> >> >> <<<comparable with that vile second Torchwood story, which had a plot
> >> >> concocted entirely to show off people having sex.>>>
>
> >> >> You mean Killercunt, or Lesbalien, or Pilotbird or
> >> >> Captianjackdoescaptainjack?
>
> >> > I mean the second episode of season one - "Day One", was it? The one
> >> > with a sex alien.
>
> >> That was Killercunt.
>
> > Really? So if I were to look on the Torchwood website for the name of
> > the second episode, it would bring up the name "Killercunt"?
>
> Yes.
Provide the appropriate link.
Phil
Agamemnon
<pbo...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:58697ea1-7f4e-494e...@v15g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
To emphasise the fact that he was embarrassed and couldn't get off with
women, like the scene with him trying to chat up Strictnursiebird who was
gagging for it, and ending up getting told off.
>
>> >> >> <<<characters all (except Mitchell) found it perverted, and that
>> >> >> the
>> >> >> porn
>> >> >> was shown as being as acceptable as feeding off someone? Plus they
>> >> >> were hardly going for a heartthrob to pull in viewers, now were
>> >> >> they?>>>
>>
>> >> >> Why didn't they show a naked woman at least? And I don't mean ones
>> >> >> which
>> >> >> huge unattractive breasts like that equally childish episode of
>> >> >> Spooks
>> >> >> The
>> >> >> Next Generation or whatever it was called did.
>>
>> >> > Because it *wasn't* there to pull in crowds of porn-loving perverts?
>>
>> >> Yes it was. The problem is that the naked people
>>
>> > Person.
>>
>> > in it were not attractive.
>>
>> > You don't know much about marketing, do you? If they'd wanted to make
>> > a porn film, they *would* have chosen someone attractive. They didn't,
>> > precisely because it would distract from the story if viewers were
>>
>> There was no story. The entire episode was there to show men's arses and
>> genital areas.
>
> See? You did have difficulty following the plot.
>
> I've seen better and far funnier episodes of Rentaghost.
>
> Rentaghost was meant to be funny. Being Human isn't.
Too true. Being Human isn't funny, even though it's attempting to be a
comedy drama in the manner of Red Dwarf. Now that didn't resort to showing
naked peoples arses, since it had goods script writers and good jokes and
funny situations.
>
>> > paying more attention to the naked man than to the characters'
>>
>> But, that is exactly what viewers were forced to do. Pay attention to the
>> naked men and not the characters. Why else would they be naked.
>
> What, you think that people automatically pay more attention to
> someone who's naked than to someone with clothes on?
That's what the writers and producers seem to think.
>
>> > discussion about what was going on. Plainly you're so starved of
>> > attention yourself, however, that you remained glued to the screen
>> > eagerly searching for a glimpse of the guy's genitals instead of
>> > following the plot.
>>
>> No. It was all in your face. The could have done it from the TV's eye
>> view
>> looking at the people on the setter but didn't. They wanted to show porn.
>
> How would we have known what the characters found disgusting, or
> conversely what Mitchell found drawing him back to the dark side,
> otherwise?
Excuses, excuses. Not matter how many you come up with, none of them can
justify the use of porn. These ideas could have been done far better in
other ways.
>From the trailer for next week, it's plain that Mitchell's
> temptation back to the vampire world is going to be a major story
> thread.
You mean more naked arses.
>I agree they wouldn't have lost anything by making the visible
> porn bits a bit shorter, but it was very plainly not done to excite
> the viewers.
Yes it was. The idiots devising these shows seem to think that this kind of
crap is what gets young teenagers wanting to watch the show and talk about
it in the school playground.
>
>> > undoubtedly easier for you to follow, but since I don't remember it
>> > very well could you elaborate on what the issues and plotline in that
>> > Rentaghost episode were, to see whether you grasped the "issues and
>> > plot line" of this week's Being Human? If you're suggesting that the
>> > major point of this episode was to learn more about George's backstory
>> > and the werewolf he encountered, you've missed the major thrust of the
>> > narrative (and no, that's not a reference to the vampire porn).
>>
>> The episode was supposed to be about Jugears coming to terms with the
>> person
>> who made him into a werewolf and that was the same issue as the
>> Rentaghost
>> episode that I was talking about which did it far better, was far
>> funnier,
>> and didn't need to use porn to attract viewers.
>
> No, that wasn't quite what it was about - in fact most of George
No, it was about showing naked men's arses and genital areas.
> "coming to terms" with Tully happened offscreen (which was mildly
> irritating in its own right). The focus of the episode was on Tully
> trying to turn George against his friends, and the effect his
> inclusion had on the household, and their reaction to that.
WRONG! It was nothing of the kind. Wolfman lost his wife and children and
wanted company, and being a werewolf with no one to share his experiences
with, he wanted to make Jugears who was his former victim into his foster
son. But you are so dim and the script was so badly written and filled with
unnecessary porn that you fail to see that.
>
>> > was written far better and didn't require any
>> >> sex scenes in it to get viewers to watch it.
>>
>> > If Being Human had required sex scenes to get viewers to watch it,
>> > they'd only have tuned in in the last five minutes of the episode
>> > (well, apart from the fact that the Mitchell-Lauren scene forms the
>> > beginning of every 'previously' bit).
>>
>> There was porn throughout the entire episode. It's what the episode was
>> written for.
>
> No there wasn't.
Yes there was. Jugears' arse, Wolfman's arse. Arses, arses, arses.
>There was the final scene and the usual flashback to
> Lauren - that was it.
That's Vampirebird right, not Ghostgirl?
>
>> >> >> <<<comparable with that vile second Torchwood story, which had a
>> >> >> plot
>> >> >> concocted entirely to show off people having sex.>>>
>>
>> >> >> You mean Killercunt, or Lesbalien, or Pilotbird or
>> >> >> Captianjackdoescaptainjack?
>>
>> >> > I mean the second episode of season one - "Day One", was it? The one
>> >> > with a sex alien.
>>
>> >> That was Killercunt.
>>
>> > Really? So if I were to look on the Torchwood website for the name of
>> > the second episode, it would bring up the name "Killercunt"?
>>
>> Yes.
>
> Provide the appropriate link.
See my original review of the episode.
>
> Phil
Hulahoop
> >> > Really? So if I were to look on the Torchwood website for the name of
> >> > the second episode, it would bring up the name "Killercunt"?
>
> >> Yes.
>
> > Provide the appropriate link.
>
> See my original review of the episode.
>
>
Why? Reading it once was bad enough
Kind regards
Ged
pbo...@aol.com
He wasn't with a woman at the time, you twit.
> > I've seen better and far funnier episodes of Rentaghost.
>
> > Rentaghost was meant to be funny. Being Human isn't.
>
> Too true. Being Human isn't funny,
As I said, Being Human isn't *meant* to be funny. It has jokes in it,
and some humorous elements. So did Life on Mars and Buffy - both
aiming to be more comic than Being Human.
even though it's attempting to be a
> comedy drama in the manner of Red Dwarf.
Now, in fairness, the BBC doesn't seem to understand what it means by
'comedy drama' (a pigeonhole which, in any case, Toby Whithouse has
objected to them using to label Being Human), so it's perhaps
understandable that you don't either. But what it is not is Red Dwarf,
which was purely and simply a sitcom. They aren't the same thing;
that's why the BBC invented a new name for 'comedy drama'. Being Human
is much closer to Life on Mars, except that while the whole point of
Life on Mars was that it was an excuse to take the piss out of both
'70s and modern cop shows, Being Human actually started life as a
fully-serious drama (before werewolves, vampires and ghosts were
introduced into the concept).
> >> > paying more attention to the naked man than to the characters'
>
> >> But, that is exactly what viewers were forced to do. Pay attention to the
> >> naked men and not the characters. Why else would they be naked.
>
> > What, you think that people automatically pay more attention to
> > someone who's naked than to someone with clothes on?
>
> That's what the writers and producers seem to think.
No, it's what you seem to think since you're the one who said it.
Stand back and admire your illogic here:
Observation: There are naked people in Being Human.
Premise: This is because the writers want people to pay more attention
to characters not wearing any clothes.
Counterpoint: People don't normally pay more attention to someone just
because they don't have clothes on.
You: The writers must think they do, or they wouldn't have put naked
people in Being Human.
See the circularity? Now look at how a similar argument would work if
constructed using real-world logic:
Observation: There are naked people in Being Human.
Premise: This is because the writers want people to pay more attention
to characters not wearing any clothes.
Counterpoint: People don't normally pay more attention to someone just
because they don't have clothes on.
Conclusion: Since the original premise is flawed, the writers have
other motives in including naked people.
> >> > discussion about what was going on. Plainly you're so starved of
> >> > attention yourself, however, that you remained glued to the screen
> >> > eagerly searching for a glimpse of the guy's genitals instead of
> >> > following the plot.
>
> >> No. It was all in your face. The could have done it from the TV's eye
> >> view
> >> looking at the people on the setter but didn't. They wanted to show porn.
>
> > How would we have known what the characters found disgusting, or
> > conversely what Mitchell found drawing him back to the dark side,
> > otherwise?
>
> Excuses, excuses. Not matter how many you come up with, none of them can
> justify the use of porn. These ideas could have been done far better in
> other ways.
By that logic the whole show could be done much better on radio. Or in
a book. You *do* get the point of television, right? Hint: pay
attention to the last two syllables of "teleVISION". It rather defeats
the point to make a TV show and then have all the plot points happen
offscreen. At least unless you're writing Battlestar Galactica.
> >From the trailer for next week, it's plain that Mitchell's
> > temptation back to the vampire world is going to be a major story
> > thread.
>
> You mean more naked arses.
No, I mean Herrick and Lauren tempting Mitchell back to being an evil
bloodsucker. Are you following the story at all or just watching it in
the hope of more naked arses?
> >I agree they wouldn't have lost anything by making the visible
> > porn bits a bit shorter, but it was very plainly not done to excite
> > the viewers.
>
> Yes it was. The idiots devising these shows seem to think that this kind of
> crap is what gets young teenagers wanting to watch the show and talk about
> it in the school playground.
No, Aggy, that's you making up their motivations. We have a scene in
which, we both agree, an unattractive man was shown naked and, come to
that, not actually having sex since there wasn't anyone else in the
room. We also both agree that that's unlikely to turn anyone on. Now,
this leads to two conclusions - either that the writers are
fantastically ignorant of what people find attractive, *or* they
aren't trying to turn anyone on. The second is by far the more likely,
and doesn't require us to make up motives in order to criticuse them.
> >> > undoubtedly easier for you to follow, but since I don't remember it
> >> > very well could you elaborate on what the issues and plotline in that
> >> > Rentaghost episode were, to see whether you grasped the "issues and
> >> > plot line" of this week's Being Human? If you're suggesting that the
> >> > major point of this episode was to learn more about George's backstory
> >> > and the werewolf he encountered, you've missed the major thrust of the
> >> > narrative (and no, that's not a reference to the vampire porn).
>
> >> The episode was supposed to be about Jugears coming to terms with the
> >> person
> >> who made him into a werewolf and that was the same issue as the
> >> Rentaghost
> >> episode that I was talking about which did it far better, was far
> >> funnier,
> >> and didn't need to use porn to attract viewers.
>
> > No, that wasn't quite what it was about - in fact most of George
>
> No, it was about showing naked men's arses and genital areas.
Ah, so this is what Rentaghost did better, I take it. I hadn't
realised they were renting ghosts for quite that reason...
> > "coming to terms" with Tully happened offscreen (which was mildly
> > irritating in its own right). The focus of the episode was on Tully
> > trying to turn George against his friends, and the effect his
> > inclusion had on the household, and their reaction to that.
>
> WRONG! It was nothing of the kind. Wolfman lost his wife and children and
> wanted company, and being a werewolf with no one to share his experiences
> with, he wanted to make Jugears who was his former victim into his foster
> son.
Afraid you're getting muddled again, Aggy. Tully's *motivation*, as we
learned at the end of the episode, was to obtain a surrogate family to
replace the one he presumably ate. Motivation is not the same as plot,
and that motivation wasn't the focus of the episode - that was such
things as Tully assaulting Annie after convincing George that women
loved that sort of thing (so that to George Annie's reaction seemed
unreasonable), goading George into turning against Mitchell (all his
"I'm surprised Mitchell didn't tell you that..." insinuations) and the
whole thing summed up in "Your friends will never understand".
Though it's nice to see you admit that your Rentaghost comparison was
a load of rubbish.
> >> > was written far better and didn't require any
> >> >> sex scenes in it to get viewers to watch it.
>
> >> > If Being Human had required sex scenes to get viewers to watch it,
> >> > they'd only have tuned in in the last five minutes of the episode
> >> > (well, apart from the fact that the Mitchell-Lauren scene forms the
> >> > beginning of every 'previously' bit).
>
> >> There was porn throughout the entire episode. It's what the episode was
> >> written for.
>
> > No there wasn't.
>
> Yes there was. Jugears' arse, Wolfman's arse. Arses, arses, arses.
I knew you were going to say that. Aggy, the bottom is not a sexual
organ, and it speaks volumes about you that you regard it as an object
of sexual desire (which is what porn's about). Showing naked people
from behind, if they aren't posing provocatively or engaged in sexual
activity, is not porn.
> >There was the final scene and the usual flashback to
> > Lauren - that was it.
>
> That's Vampirebird right, not Ghostgirl?
How short is your attention span? You watched the episode two days
ago, plus I gave you a handy synopsis in the last thread explaining
which character was which. Do you genuinely have this problem with
names, and that's why you make up juvenile substitutes?
> >> >> >> <<<comparable with that vile second Torchwood story, which had a
> >> >> >> plot
> >> >> >> concocted entirely to show off people having sex.>>>
>
> >> >> >> You mean Killercunt, or Lesbalien, or Pilotbird or
> >> >> >> Captianjackdoescaptainjack?
>
> >> >> > I mean the second episode of season one - "Day One", was it? The one
> >> >> > with a sex alien.
>
> >> >> That was Killercunt.
>
> >> > Really? So if I were to look on the Torchwood website for the name of
> >> > the second episode, it would bring up the name "Killercunt"?
>
> >> Yes.
>
> > Provide the appropriate link.
>
> See my original review of the episode.
Point to the part of the Torchwood website where your review appears,
then.
Phil
Agamemnon
<pbo...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:307064e5-b422-4340...@r39g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
When did I say he was? He's still embarrassed at taking his clothes off.
>
>> > I've seen better and far funnier episodes of Rentaghost.
>>
>> > Rentaghost was meant to be funny. Being Human isn't.
>>
>> Too true. Being Human isn't funny,
>
> As I said, Being Human isn't *meant* to be funny. It has jokes in it,
As I have pointed out in the past, you don't have a clue about humour. Being
Human has been attempted to be written and performed and a comedy drama,
hence Jugears appearance and mannerisms and everyone else's lines, except it
isn't funny. With Red Dwarf which did comedy drama, all of the main actors
were established comedians or comic actors and could do the timing properly.
They were also give decent scripts to work with. Being Human doesn't have
any decent scripts, or actors who have a clue about comic timing, hence the
use of porn in a feeble attempt to attract viewers.
> and some humorous elements. So did Life on Mars and Buffy - both
> aiming to be more comic than Being Human.
Nope. Life on Mars and Buffy were written in a serious manner and had
humorous moments. Being Human is being attempted to be written as a comedy
drama from the start. Demons has been written more seriously than Being
Human. Being Human is a feeble attempt to do Red Dwarf crossed with
Rentaghost, and is nothing more than immature porn. This is what comes from
the BBC being run by morons with their heads stuck up their own arses. They
think it's the only way they can attract the young teenage viewers. Just
look at Manuelgate and Jonathan Ross's disgusting and immature comments
about sex to his guests on his chat show.
>
> even though it's attempting to be a
>> comedy drama in the manner of Red Dwarf.
>
> Now, in fairness, the BBC doesn't seem to understand what it means by
> 'comedy drama' (a pigeonhole which, in any case, Toby Whithouse has
> objected to them using to label Being Human), so it's perhaps
Pigeonhole my arse. It comedy drama, and the reason Toby Whitehouse objects
to it is because he doesn't have a clue about how to write it properly.
> understandable that you don't either. But what it is not is Red Dwarf,
That's because Red Dwarf as funny and mature, and attracted both a teenage
and adult audience. Being Human is not.
> which was purely and simply a sitcom. They aren't the same thing;
Yes they are. You've hit the nail on the head. Being Human is a situation
comedy. There is a situation, everyone being half-lifes to use the
terminology from Demons, and there is an attempt made to find humour in it,
except is isn't very funny only after two episodes it has descended into
porn. Red Dwarf never needed to do that.
> that's why the BBC invented a new name for 'comedy drama'. Being Human
Poppycock.
> is much closer to Life on Mars, except that while the whole point of
Being Human is nothing remotely like Life on Mars. Life on Mars is mature
adult drama. Being Human is an immature sitcom for immature teenagers.
> Life on Mars was that it was an excuse to take the piss out of both
> '70s and modern cop shows, Being Human actually started life as a
> fully-serious drama (before werewolves, vampires and ghosts were
> introduced into the concept).
Ah, so it was trying to be Two Pints, yes I wondered why there is no new
series of that, and failed. So someone have the bright idea of changing all
of the characters into half-lifes. We it still fails. Two Pints was funny
and when it wasn't funny it was still humorous, and didn't resort to porn.
Being Human attempts to be funny and humorous, but can't hack it. It can't
even do serious, and Demons is bad enough, but it's still more serious than
Being Human.
>
>> >> > paying more attention to the naked man than to the characters'
>>
>> >> But, that is exactly what viewers were forced to do. Pay attention to
>> >> the
>> >> naked men and not the characters. Why else would they be naked.
>>
>> > What, you think that people automatically pay more attention to
>> > someone who's naked than to someone with clothes on?
>>
>> That's what the writers and producers seem to think.
>
> No, it's what you seem to think since you're the one who said it.
> Stand back and admire your illogic here:
>
> Observation: There are naked people in Being Human.
>
> Premise: This is because the writers want people to pay more attention
> to characters not wearing any clothes.
Idiot. It's because the writers think the people are more likely to watch
the show for pron.
>
> Counterpoint: People don't normally pay more attention to someone just
> because they don't have clothes on.
But the writers and the BBC are so stupid they don't realise that. That's
why we had Manuelgate.
>
> You: The writers must think they do, or they wouldn't have put naked
> people in Being Human.
Correct.
>
> See the circularity? Now look at how a similar argument would work if
No. You don't understand drama or comedy either, whereas I understand both.
I am the only one her who has written a script. I am the only one here who
has read Aristotle.
> constructed using real-world logic:
>
> Observation: There are naked people in Being Human.
>
> Premise: This is because the writers want people to pay more attention
> to characters not wearing any clothes.
It's because the writers think the people are more likely to watch the show
for pron.
>
> Counterpoint: People don't normally pay more attention to someone just
> because they don't have clothes on.
That depends on one major criteria. Are they attractive. The ones on Being
Human aren't attractive to anyone, except maybe to gays. And that's another
problem with the BBC. It's entirely run by gays who are intent on promoting
their own personal agenda.
>
> Conclusion: Since the original premise is flawed, the writers have
> other motives in including naked people.
So, you've concluded that they're putting them in for gays as well. Well
done. One out of two isn't so bad, but it would have been better if you'd
got both reasons.
>
>> >> > discussion about what was going on. Plainly you're so starved of
>> >> > attention yourself, however, that you remained glued to the screen
>> >> > eagerly searching for a glimpse of the guy's genitals instead of
>> >> > following the plot.
>>
>> >> No. It was all in your face. The could have done it from the TV's eye
>> >> view
>> >> looking at the people on the setter but didn't. They wanted to show
>> >> porn.
>>
>> > How would we have known what the characters found disgusting, or
>> > conversely what Mitchell found drawing him back to the dark side,
>> > otherwise?
>>
>> Excuses, excuses. Not matter how many you come up with, none of them can
>> justify the use of porn. These ideas could have been done far better in
>> other ways.
>
> By that logic the whole show could be done much better on radio. Or in
Well actually, if the show was any good it could, but it's not. One of the
golden rules for writing good drama is, can it be done on the radio. If it
can't then don't do it. Even Star Wars was done of the radio, I think twice,
by the BBC, that was when Bill Cotton was running it, before it went down
the toilet as regards being entertaining.
> a book. You *do* get the point of television, right? Hint: pay
> attention to the last two syllables of "teleVISION". It rather defeats
So the VISION in your statement refers to PORN, right.
> the point to make a TV show and then have all the plot points happen
> offscreen. At least unless you're writing Battlestar Galactica.
You just don't get it do you. With TV you can have something called ACTION
and the action isn't meant to refer to porn. The whole point of the action
sequence, and I have to explain everything to you, since you are a complete
novice as regards the dramatic medium, is that it gives the viewer time to
absorb and try to make sense of what has already happened in the story and
predict what is going to occur next. If you were reading a book you would
just pause between each chapter, but you can't do that with TV. In ancient
Greek drama and even comedy you had the chorus which gave you the time to
appreciate what had already happened, since it explicitly summarised it for
you and also gave you clues as to what the possible outcomes might be. Now
as drama evolved, writers were able to do most of the plot summery in the
actual script, so the chorus became unnecessary, but there were still
intervals between acts so you could think things over. On radio you have
commercial breaks, maybe that's why the ITV seems to be able to do it
better, or breaks between episodes and the same with TV, except Being Human
isn't episodic drama. It's not a serial, it's a sitcom, and it doesn't have
a clue how to do it. Menander, Terrance and Plautus didn't need porn.
Neither did Shakespeare. Where was the porn in The Merchant of Venice?
>
>> >From the trailer for next week, it's plain that Mitchell's
>> > temptation back to the vampire world is going to be a major story
>> > thread.
>>
>> You mean more naked arses.
>
> No, I mean Herrick and Lauren tempting Mitchell back to being an evil
That would be Vampirecop, Vampirebird, and Vampirebloke right?
> bloodsucker. Are you following the story at all or just watching it in
> the hope of more naked arses?
Fool! That is precisely what the produces want you to do, but since I'm
neither immature, or gay, it's not going to work.
>
>> >I agree they wouldn't have lost anything by making the visible
>> > porn bits a bit shorter, but it was very plainly not done to excite
>> > the viewers.
>>
>> Yes it was. The idiots devising these shows seem to think that this kind
>> of
>> crap is what gets young teenagers wanting to watch the show and talk
>> about
>> it in the school playground.
>
> No, Aggy, that's you making up their motivations. We have a scene in
No. That's me recognising their motivations.
> which, we both agree, an unattractive man was shown naked and, come to
> that, not actually having sex since there wasn't anyone else in the
> room.
He was simulating sex with an invisible vampire woman.
>We also both agree that that's unlikely to turn anyone on. Now,
Right. So the writers fucked up big time, didn't they.
> this leads to two conclusions - either that the writers are
> fantastically ignorant of what people find attractive, *or* they
> aren't trying to turn anyone on. The second is by far the more likely,
> and doesn't require us to make up motives in order to criticuse them.
There is a third option which you conveniently missed out or overlooked.
The writers don't have a clue about what people actually want to watch.
People do not want to see porn in that particular situation, or introduced
in such a manner, period. People do not tune in to watch Being Human to
watch a porn film. If they wanted to watch a porn film then they would go
out and watch an actual porn film which met all the pre-requisites of being
a good porn film, like having good looking actors, if that's what the
performers in porn films are called, and actually showing them being fucked
in full frontal, with all the lights on and so forth.
>
>> >> > undoubtedly easier for you to follow, but since I don't remember it
>> >> > very well could you elaborate on what the issues and plotline in
>> >> > that
>> >> > Rentaghost episode were, to see whether you grasped the "issues and
>> >> > plot line" of this week's Being Human? If you're suggesting that the
>> >> > major point of this episode was to learn more about George's
>> >> > backstory
>> >> > and the werewolf he encountered, you've missed the major thrust of
>> >> > the
>> >> > narrative (and no, that's not a reference to the vampire porn).
>>
>> >> The episode was supposed to be about Jugears coming to terms with the
>> >> person
>> >> who made him into a werewolf and that was the same issue as the
>> >> Rentaghost
>> >> episode that I was talking about which did it far better, was far
>> >> funnier,
>> >> and didn't need to use porn to attract viewers.
>>
>> > No, that wasn't quite what it was about - in fact most of George
>>
>> No, it was about showing naked men's arses and genital areas.
>
> Ah, so this is what Rentaghost did better, I take it. I hadn't
> realised they were renting ghosts for quite that reason...
It realised that they were renting a ghost not a boy.
>
>> > "coming to terms" with Tully happened offscreen (which was mildly
>> > irritating in its own right). The focus of the episode was on Tully
>> > trying to turn George against his friends, and the effect his
>> > inclusion had on the household, and their reaction to that.
>>
>> WRONG! It was nothing of the kind. Wolfman lost his wife and children and
>> wanted company, and being a werewolf with no one to share his experiences
>> with, he wanted to make Jugears who was his former victim into his foster
>> son.
>
> Afraid you're getting muddled again, Aggy. Tully's *motivation*, as we
Tully? Which one's Tully? Is he Wolfman?
> learned at the end of the episode, was to obtain a surrogate family to
> replace the one he presumably ate. Motivation is not the same as plot,
That's what I just told you FOOL! And which you expressly contradicted in
your initial response, which is what I had to set you straight.
> and that motivation wasn't the focus of the episode - that was such
Yes it was.
> things as Tully assaulting Annie after convincing George that women
Annie, who's she? Ghostgirl?
> loved that sort of thing (so that to George Annie's reaction seemed
Pubwench?
> unreasonable), goading George into turning against Mitchell (all his
Vampirebloke?
> "I'm surprised Mitchell didn't tell you that..." insinuations) and the
> whole thing summed up in "Your friends will never understand".
>
> Though it's nice to see you admit that your Rentaghost comparison was
> a load of rubbish.
Wrong. Rentaghost was far better.
>
>> >> > was written far better and didn't require any
>> >> >> sex scenes in it to get viewers to watch it.
>>
>> >> > If Being Human had required sex scenes to get viewers to watch it,
>> >> > they'd only have tuned in in the last five minutes of the episode
>> >> > (well, apart from the fact that the Mitchell-Lauren scene forms the
>> >> > beginning of every 'previously' bit).
>>
>> >> There was porn throughout the entire episode. It's what the episode
>> >> was
>> >> written for.
>>
>> > No there wasn't.
>>
>> Yes there was. Jugears' arse, Wolfman's arse. Arses, arses, arses.
>
> I knew you were going to say that. Aggy, the bottom is not a sexual
> organ, and it speaks volumes about you that you regard it as an object
Gay's seem to think it is.
> of sexual desire (which is what porn's about). Showing naked people
> from behind, if they aren't posing provocatively or engaged in sexual
> activity, is not porn.
It's disgusting, and people do not watch TV to be disgusted.
>
>> >There was the final scene and the usual flashback to
>> > Lauren - that was it.
>>
>> That's Vampirebird right, not Ghostgirl?
>
> How short is your attention span? You watched the episode two days
> ago, plus I gave you a handy synopsis in the last thread explaining
> which character was which. Do you genuinely have this problem with
> names, and that's why you make up juvenile substitutes?
The writers of Being Human do not have a clue about how to give the
characters appropriate names, which is something which American shows do
best. I can still remember the characters names from Buffy after all these
years, since Buffy look like a Buffy, Cordelia looked like a Cordelia,
Xander looked like a Xander. George doesn't look like a George, at least
none that I know, and I know lots. He's no George Lazenby. Lauren? Is that
Vampire bird, short dark hair, short and fat? Doesn't look like a Lauren to
me. Lauren Bacall was tall and elegant, slim and had long hair styled in a
1930s manner.
>
>> >> >> >> <<<comparable with that vile second Torchwood story, which had a
>> >> >> >> plot
>> >> >> >> concocted entirely to show off people having sex.>>>
>>
>> >> >> >> You mean Killercunt, or Lesbalien, or Pilotbird or
>> >> >> >> Captianjackdoescaptainjack?
>>
>> >> >> > I mean the second episode of season one - "Day One", was it? The
>> >> >> > one
>> >> >> > with a sex alien.
>>
>> >> >> That was Killercunt.
>>
>> >> > Really? So if I were to look on the Torchwood website for the name
>> >> > of
>> >> > the second episode, it would bring up the name "Killercunt"?
>>
>> >> Yes.
>>
>> > Provide the appropriate link.
>>
>> See my original review of the episode.
>
> Point to the part of the Torchwood website where your review appears,
> then.
It's in rec.arts.drwho you fool. That is where we normally post.
>
> Phil
Stephen Wilson
"Agamemnon" <agam...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote in message
news:TLCdnWDME9F_ahTU...@eclipse.net.uk...
>>>
>>> >> >> That was Killercunt.
>>>
>>> >> > Really? So if I were to look on the Torchwood website for the name
>>> >> > of
>>> >> > the second episode, it would bring up the name "Killercunt"?
>>>
>>> >> Yes.
>>>
>>> > Provide the appropriate link.
>>>
>>> See my original review of the episode.
>>
>> Point to the part of the Torchwood website where your review appears,
>> then.
>
> It's in rec.arts.drwho you fool. That is where we normally post.
Read the above exchange again, fool, and work out what you were asked. You
said the episode is titled "Killercunt". You were asked where, on the
Torchwood website, such an episode title could be found.
Of course, we all know it can't be found there. It's just your witty
nickname for it (except you're the only one that finds it amusing). And the
only person in the entire world that refers to it as "Killercunt" is
yourself.
Alan Sailsbury 2099
>
>
> No. You don't understand drama or comedy either, whereas I understand
> both.
ROTFLMAO! Not on the evidence of anything you've ever posted here. You
have a VERY blinkered view of everything, including drama and comedy.
>I am the only one her who has written a script.
WRONG. You might be the only one here who's posted some half-assed
attempt at a script but that's all.
>I am the only one
> here who has read Aristotle.
>
I doubt you are, but if so, so what?
Agamemnon
"Alan Sailsbury 2099" <alansa...@yahoo.co.uk-kay-kay> wrote in message
> Agamemnon wrote:
>>
>
>>
>> No. You don't understand drama or comedy either, whereas I understand
>> both.
>
> ROTFLMAO! Not on the evidence of anything you've ever posted here. You
> have a VERY blinkered view of everything, including drama and comedy.
You are a fool. You don't have a clue about either drama or comedy.
>
>
>>I am the only one her who has written a script.
>
> WRONG. You might be the only one here who's posted some half-assed attempt
> at a script but that's all.
It's a better script than anything from Being Human.
>
>
>>I am the only one here who has read Aristotle.
>>
>
> I doubt you are, but if so, so what?
It means I actually know something about drama whereas you don't.
Agamemnon
"Stephen Wilson" <stephen.wils...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:l0nil.16601$Hb6....@newsfe20.ams2...
>
> "Agamemnon" <agam...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote in message
> news:TLCdnWDME9F_ahTU...@eclipse.net.uk...
>>>>
>>>> >> >> That was Killercunt.
>>>>
>>>> >> > Really? So if I were to look on the Torchwood website for the name
>>>> >> > of
>>>> >> > the second episode, it would bring up the name "Killercunt"?
>>>>
>>>> >> Yes.
>>>>
>>>> > Provide the appropriate link.
>>>>
>>>> See my original review of the episode.
>>>
>>> Point to the part of the Torchwood website where your review appears,
>>> then.
>>
>> It's in rec.arts.drwho you fool. That is where we normally post.
>
> Read the above exchange again, fool, and work out what you were asked. You
> said the episode is titled "Killercunt". You were asked where, on the
> Torchwood website, such an episode title could be found.
No, you ignorant fool. I was asked where on the Torchwood website my review
was. Learn to read and understand English.
>
> Of course, we all know it can't be found there. It's just your witty
My review, no of course not. I never posted it there.
Stephen Wilson
"Agamemnon" <agam...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote in message
>
> "Stephen Wilson" <stephen.wils...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> news:l0nil.16601$Hb6....@newsfe20.ams2...
>>
>> "Agamemnon" <agam...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote in message
>> news:TLCdnWDME9F_ahTU...@eclipse.net.uk...
>>>>>
>>>>> >> >> That was Killercunt.
>>>>>
>>>>> >> > Really? >>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> > Provide the appropriate link.
>>>>>
>>>>> See my original review of the episode.
>>>>
>>>> Point to the part of the Torchwood website where your review appears,
>>>> then.
>>>
>>> It's in rec.arts.drwho you fool. That is where we normally post.
>>
>> Read the above exchange again, fool, and work out what you were asked.
>> You said the episode is titled "Killercunt". You were asked where, on the
>> Torchwood website, such an episode title could be found.
>
> No, you ignorant fool. I was asked where on the Torchwood website my
> review was. Learn to read and understand English.
LOL! The question is in this very post. And you've still got it wrong.
Taking lessons from Yads? Nobody was interested in your "review".
I quote (see above): "So if I were to look on the Torchwood website for the
name of the second episode, it would bring up the name "Killercunt"?"
To which you replied: "Yes"
>>
>> Of course, we all know it can't be found there. It's just your witty
>
> My review, no of course not. I never posted it there.
Not that you'd be able to even if you tried...
pbo...@aol.com
What do you mean his appearance? George looks like the actor who plays
him.
and mannerisms and everyone else's lines, except it
> isn't funny. With Red Dwarf which did comedy drama, all of the main actors
> were established comedians or comic actors and could do the timing properly.
And yet, Danny John Jules *still* consistently failed to be funny for
practically all of Red Dwarf's run.
> They were also give decent scripts to work with. Being Human doesn't have
> any decent scripts, or actors who have a clue about comic timing,
Aggy, IT'S NOT A COMEDY. It's certainly not a sitcom. It's a drama
with occasional humorous situations - the way you claim Life on Mars
was.
hence the
> use of porn in a feeble attempt to attract viewers.
You mean the way Life on Mars did? Being Human hasn't had scenes with
the heroes bursting in on a character being given a blowjob, or a
dream sequence unnecessarily interspersed with a repeated sequence of
the central character being raped and chained.
> > and some humorous elements. So did Life on Mars and Buffy - both
> > aiming to be more comic than Being Human.
>
> Nope. Life on Mars and Buffy were written in a serious manner and had
> humorous moments.
Rubbish. There wasn't anything serious about Life on Mars, and little
about Buffy.
Being Human is being attempted to be written as a comedy
> drama from the start. Demons has been written more seriously than Being
> Human. Being Human is a feeble attempt to do Red Dwarf crossed with
> Rentaghost, and is nothing more than immature porn.
Uh, what? So, if you cross Red Dwarf with Rentaghost you get immature
porn? Would that be Rentadwarf?
> > even though it's attempting to be a
> >> comedy drama in the manner of Red Dwarf.
>
> > Now, in fairness, the BBC doesn't seem to understand what it means by
> > 'comedy drama' (a pigeonhole which, in any case, Toby Whithouse has
> > objected to them using to label Being Human), so it's perhaps
>
> Pigeonhole my arse.
That sounds painful.
> > understandable that you don't either. But what it is not is Red Dwarf,
>
> That's because Red Dwarf as funny and mature,
You have a very strange definition of "mature".
and attracted both a teenage
> and adult audience. Being Human is not.
I don't know what demographics Being Human attracts, but it's aimed
more at adults and less at a Red Dwarf crowd of teens who get a giggle
out of sex jokes.
> > which was purely and simply a sitcom. They aren't the same thing;
>
> Yes they are. You've hit the nail on the head. Being Human is a situation
> comedy. There is a situation, everyone being half-lifes to use the
> terminology from Demons, and there is an attempt made to find humour in it,
Again, if that literalism was the definition of a sitcom, Life on Mars
is a sitcom. There was nothing to Life on Mars *except* "Let's throw
someone from 2006 into 1973 and turn the culture clash into a source
for *all* our jokes". So far, the only humour in Being Human that's
contingent on the situation is the sequence where George runs around
in the woods looking for somewhere to change and keeps running into
people. Again, bear on mind the show's origin - the characters were
turned into undead more or less at the last minute; the core story
Whithouse wants to tell is still one of a bunch of social misfits
stuck together in a flat, and that's where most of the humour comes
from.
> except is isn't very funny only after two episodes it has descended into
> porn. Red Dwarf never needed to do that.
> > Life on Mars was that it was an excuse to take the piss out of both
> > '70s and modern cop shows, Being Human actually started life as a
> > fully-serious drama (before werewolves, vampires and ghosts were
> > introduced into the concept).
>
> Ah, so it was trying to be Two Pints, yes I wondered why there is no new
> series of that,
Because it's crap? But I thought that was meant to be a sitcom? The
comparison Whithouse made was a show called This Life.
> > See the circularity? Now look at how a similar argument would work if
>
> No. You don't understand drama or comedy either, whereas I understand both.
> I am the only one her who has written a script.
One which demonstrates your complete failure to understand either
drama or comedy. I've climbed a mountain; that doesn't mean I'm an
expert in mountaineering.
I am the only one here who
> has read Aristotle.
Again, you're certainly the only one who's demonstrated a failure to
understand Aristotle. So the fact that you've read him is even more
immaterial than it would be otherwise.
> > Counterpoint: People don't normally pay more attention to someone just
> > because they don't have clothes on.
>
> That depends on one major criteria. Are they attractive.
No, no it doesn't. When I find someone attractive, I find them
attractive with clothes on - more so, in fact, than without. If you
find someone attractive you'll pay attention to them, sure, regardless
of whether they have clothes on or not.
The ones on Being
> Human aren't attractive to anyone, except maybe to gays.
Why do you imagine gay people have different tastes from straight
women, or that they like unattractive men?
> > Conclusion: Since the original premise is flawed, the writers have
> > other motives in including naked people.
>
> So, you've concluded that they're putting them in for gays as well.
No, that they aren't putting them in for any sexual reason whatsoever.
Do try to keep up with logic, dear boy.
> >> >> > discussion about what was going on. Plainly you're so
starved of
> >> >> > attention yourself, however, that you remained glued to the screen
> >> >> > eagerly searching for a glimpse of the guy's genitals instead of
> >> >> > following the plot.
>
> >> >> No. It was all in your face. The could have done it from the TV's eye
> >> >> view
> >> >> looking at the people on the setter but didn't. They wanted to show
> >> >> porn.
>
> >> > How would we have known what the characters found disgusting, or
> >> > conversely what Mitchell found drawing him back to the dark side,
> >> > otherwise?
>
> >> Excuses, excuses. Not matter how many you come up with, none of them can
> >> justify the use of porn. These ideas could have been done far better in
> >> other ways.
>
> > By that logic the whole show could be done much better on radio. Or in
>
> Well actually, if the show was any good it could, but it's not. One of the
> golden rules for writing good drama is, can it be done on the radio. If it
> can't then don't do it. Even Star Wars was done of the radio, I think twice,
> by the BBC, that was when Bill Cotton was running it, before it went down
> the toilet as regards being entertaining.
I can't see any reason it couldn't be done on radio. But it's not
being done on radio, and they need to have enough stuff to fill up the
screens these television doohickeys come with.
> > a book. You *do* get the point of television, right? Hint: pay
> > attention to the last two syllables of "teleVISION". It rather defeats
>
> So the VISION in your statement refers to PORN, right.
No, it refers to vision. Strange, that.
> > the point to make a TV show and then have all the plot points happen
> > offscreen. At least unless you're writing Battlestar Galactica.
>
> You just don't get it do you. With TV you can have something called ACTION
> and the action isn't meant to refer to porn.
You can have action in a novel. TV is not there as a medium for space
battles, special effects and comic-book martial arts. It is there to
tell whatever story it's telling visually.
The whole point of the action
> sequence, and I have to explain everything to you, since you are a complete
> novice as regards the dramatic medium, is that it gives the viewer time to
> absorb and try to make sense of what has already happened in the story and
> predict what is going to occur next. If you were reading a book you would
> just pause between each chapter, but you can't do that with TV. In ancient
> Greek drama and even comedy you had the chorus which gave you the time to
> appreciate what had already happened, since it explicitly summarised it for
> you and also gave you clues as to what the possible outcomes might be.
These days we have the "Previously..." sequence to perform that role.
Now
> as drama evolved, writers were able to do most of the plot summery in the
> actual script, so the chorus became unnecessary, but there were still
> intervals between acts so you could think things over.
I'm not sure what point you're getting at here. Why can't you tune out
during visually unpleasant scenes like sex scenes to do exactly the
same thing, as you suggest people do during action scenes? Personally
I don't find I have enough difficulty following what's happening to
need to consolidate it during breaks in the episode; if you genuinely
have as much difficulty following plots and names as you seem to,
perhaps you should focus less on the arses and use that time to recall
what's just happened instead.
On radio you have
> commercial breaks,
I must admit I've never listened to a Radio 4 drama that had advert
breaks.
maybe that's why the ITV seems to be able to do it
> better, or breaks between episodes and the same with TV, except Being Human
> isn't episodic drama.
How do you work that out? It's a drama in, so far, six episodes.
> > bloodsucker. Are you following the story at all or just watching it in
> > the hope of more naked arses?
>
> Fool! That is precisely what the produces want you to do, but since I'm
> neither immature, or gay, it's not going to work.
And yet, you're the only one watching who regarded naked bottoms as
worthy of comment.
> > which, we both agree, an unattractive man was shown naked and, come to
> > that, not actually having sex since there wasn't anyone else in the
> > room.
>
> He was simulating sex with an invisible vampire woman.
How many people do you know who are likely to be turned on by an
invisible vampire woman? Even a naked invisible one?
> >We also both agree that that's unlikely to turn anyone on. Now,
>
> Right. So the writers fucked up big time, didn't they.
No, because they weren't intending to turn anyone on. Do you see the
logic yet?
> > this leads to two conclusions - either that the writers are
> > fantastically ignorant of what people find attractive, *or* they
> > aren't trying to turn anyone on. The second is by far the more likely,
> > and doesn't require us to make up motives in order to criticuse them.
>
> There is a third option which you conveniently missed out or overlooked.
>
> The writers don't have a clue about what people actually want to watch.
Which is even less likely since they'd be fired in short order if this
was the case. Instead Toby Whithouse is helming a show that only made
it to production at all because fans clamoured for it to be made.
> People do not want to see porn in that particular situation, or introduced
> in such a manner, period. People do not tune in to watch Being Human to
> watch a porn film. If they wanted to watch a porn film then they would go
> out and watch an actual porn film which met all the pre-requisites of being
> a good porn film, like having good looking actors, if that's what the
> performers in porn films are called,
In the one you've claimed to have watched, I thought they were called
"dogs". Or was it a horse?
and actually showing them being fucked
> in full frontal, with all the lights on and so forth.
I can see you frothing at the mouth with desire as you type.
> >> > "coming to terms" with Tully happened offscreen (which was mildly
> >> > irritating in its own right). The focus of the episode was on Tully
> >> > trying to turn George against his friends, and the effect his
> >> > inclusion had on the household, and their reaction to that.
>
> >> WRONG! It was nothing of the kind. Wolfman lost his wife and children and
> >> wanted company, and being a werewolf with no one to share his experiences
> >> with, he wanted to make Jugears who was his former victim into his foster
> >> son.
>
> > Afraid you're getting muddled again, Aggy. Tully's *motivation*, as we
>
> Tully? Which one's Tully? Is he Wolfman?
Aggy, if you can't remember the names you should be able to grasp it
from context. And you can't say he doesn't look like a Tully - he even
wears a Tully hat...
> > learned at the end of the episode, was to obtain a surrogate family to
> > replace the one he presumably ate. Motivation is not the same as plot,
>
> That's what I just told you FOOL!
No, Aggy, read again, the PLOT was the focus of the episode, not
Tully's motivation. You were mistakenly describing his motivation as
the focus of the episode.
And which you expressly contradicted in
> your initial response, which is what I had to set you straight.
You see, if you'd read just one sentence further you wouldn't have
made this mistake. The plot is the one I've characterised the same way
twice now.
> > and that motivation wasn't the focus of the episode - that was such
>
> Yes it was.
No it wasn't - we only learned he'd had a family at the end.
> > "I'm surprised Mitchell didn't tell you that..." insinuations) and the
> > whole thing summed up in "Your friends will never understand".
>
> > Though it's nice to see you admit that your Rentaghost comparison was
> > a load of rubbish.
>
> Wrong. Rentaghost was far better.
I mean, your comparison with the plot of Rentaghost was a load of
rubbish, as you've just admitted it was completely different from the
way you first characterised it.
>
>
> >> >> > was written far better and didn't require any
> >> >> >> sex scenes in it to get viewers to watch it.
>
> >> >> > If Being Human had required sex scenes to get viewers to watch it,
> >> >> > they'd only have tuned in in the last five minutes of the episode
> >> >> > (well, apart from the fact that the Mitchell-Lauren scene forms the
> >> >> > beginning of every 'previously' bit).
>
> >> >> There was porn throughout the entire episode. It's what the episode
> >> >> was
> >> >> written for.
>
> >> > No there wasn't.
>
> >> Yes there was. Jugears' arse, Wolfman's arse. Arses, arses, arses.
>
> > I knew you were going to say that. Aggy, the bottom is not a sexual
> > organ, and it speaks volumes about you that you regard it as an object
>
> Gay's seem to think it is.
I imagine most have enough experience to realise that the buttocks
aren't actually part of the area involved in sexual gratification, any
more than the hips are part of the genitalia. You appear to be the
exception.
> > of sexual desire (which is what porn's about). Showing naked people
> > from behind, if they aren't posing provocatively or engaged in sexual
> > activity, is not porn.
>
> It's disgusting, and people do not watch TV to be disgusted.
Plenty of things in dramas aren't pleasant to look at - compared with
people having their throats torn by vampires or turning into
werewolves (or come to that ugly naked actors gyrating), showing
someone naked running through a wood is hardly the most disgusting
thing they could show.
>
>
> >> >There was the final scene and the usual flashback to
> >> > Lauren - that was it.
>
> >> That's Vampirebird right, not Ghostgirl?
>
> > How short is your attention span? You watched the episode two days
> > ago, plus I gave you a handy synopsis in the last thread explaining
> > which character was which. Do you genuinely have this problem with
> > names, and that's why you make up juvenile substitutes?
>
> The writers of Being Human do not have a clue about how to give the
> characters appropriate names, which is something which American shows do
> best. I can still remember the characters names from Buffy after all these
> years, since Buffy look like a Buffy, Cordelia looked like a Cordelia,
> Xander looked like a Xander. George doesn't look like a George, at least
> none that I know, and I know lots. He's no George Lazenby. Lauren? Is that
> Vampire bird, short dark hair, short and fat? Doesn't look like a Lauren to
> me. Lauren Bacall was tall and elegant, slim and had long hair styled in a
> 1930s manner.
Buffy isn't a real name, Aggy. Xander isn't a real abbreviation. And
Angel didn't look very angelic, come to that. Oz didn't look
Australian. Spike wasn't especially spiky. Your excuses for clinging
to infantile nicknames get worse by the day. And Herrick can look
however he wants since that's not a real name either.
> >> >> >> >> <<<comparable with that vile second Torchwood story, which had a
> >> >> >> >> plot
> >> >> >> >> concocted entirely to show off people having sex.>>>
>
> >> >> >> >> You mean Killercunt, or Lesbalien, or Pilotbird or
> >> >> >> >> Captianjackdoescaptainjack?
>
> >> >> >> > I mean the second episode of season one - "Day One", was it? The
> >> >> >> > one
> >> >> >> > with a sex alien.
>
> >> >> >> That was Killercunt.
>
> >> >> > Really? So if I were to look on the Torchwood website for the name
> >> >> > of
> >> >> > the second episode, it would bring up the name "Killercunt"?
>
> >> >> Yes.
>
> >> > Provide the appropriate link.
>
> >> See my original review of the episode.
>
> > Point to the part of the Torchwood website where your review appears,
> > then.
>
> It's in rec.arts.drwho you fool. That is where we normally post.
So why, when I asked "So if I were to look on the Torchwood website
for the name of the second episode, it would bring up the name
"Killercunt"?", did you say "yes"? Or are you calling it Killercunt
because the episode didn't look like a Day One to you?
Phil
Agamemnon
>
> "Agamemnon" <agam...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote in message
> news:t_idnYmvFOxnmRfU...@eclipse.net.uk...
>>
>> "Stephen Wilson" <stephen.wils...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
>> news:l0nil.16601$Hb6....@newsfe20.ams2...
>>>
>>> "Agamemnon" <agam...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote in message
>>> news:TLCdnWDME9F_ahTU...@eclipse.net.uk...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> >> >> That was Killercunt.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> >> > Really? >>>>>
>>>>>> >> Yes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> > Provide the appropriate link.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> See my original review of the episode.
>>>>>
>>>>> Point to the part of the Torchwood website where your review appears,
>>>>> then.
>>>>
>>>> It's in rec.arts.drwho you fool. That is where we normally post.
>>>
>>> Read the above exchange again, fool, and work out what you were asked.
>>> You said the episode is titled "Killercunt". You were asked where, on
>>> the Torchwood website, such an episode title could be found.
>>
>> No, you ignorant fool. I was asked where on the Torchwood website my
>> review was. Learn to read and understand English.
>
> LOL! The question is in this very post. And you've still got it wrong.
> Taking lessons from Yads? Nobody was interested in your "review".
>
> I quote (see above): "So if I were to look on the Torchwood website for
> the name of the second episode, it would bring up the name "Killercunt"?"
> To which you replied: "Yes"
That was not the question you were reading. That was "Point to the part of
the Torchwood website where your review appears, then."
>
>
>>>
>>> Of course, we all know it can't be found there. It's just your witty
>>
>> My review, no of course not. I never posted it there.
>
> Not that you'd be able to even if you tried...
Which is not the question.
Hulahoop
> Pigeonhole my arse.
I have never heard it called that, but whatever turns you on
Regards
Ged
Agamemnon
<pbo...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:799d5fa4-c1a2-4779...@p23g2000prp.googlegroups.com...
Oh, really. I couldn't have guessed. You mean those big sticking out ears
are not comedy props?
>
> and mannerisms and everyone else's lines, except it
>> isn't funny. With Red Dwarf which did comedy drama, all of the main
>> actors
>> were established comedians or comic actors and could do the timing
>> properly.
>
> And yet, Danny John Jules *still* consistently failed to be funny for
> practically all of Red Dwarf's run.
Poppycock. Cat was one of the funniest characters.
>
>> They were also give decent scripts to work with. Being Human doesn't have
>> any decent scripts, or actors who have a clue about comic timing,
>
> Aggy, IT'S NOT A COMEDY. It's certainly not a sitcom. It's a drama
Yes it is and yes it is.
> with occasional humorous situations - the way you claim Life on Mars
> was.
WRONG! It has nothing remotely in common with Life on Mars. It's a comedy
drama which fails to be either dramatic like Demons or funny and amusing
like Two Pints.
>
> hence the
>> use of porn in a feeble attempt to attract viewers.
>
> You mean the way Life on Mars did? Being Human hasn't had scenes with
Life on Mars did no use porn. You might have it confused with episode 1 of
Ashes to Ashes where the guys promised to bare their behinds if
Bollykinickers let them stamp her arse. Now whereas that was not
pornographic and was actually funny and amusing, the nudity in Being Human
was the complete opposite and totally inappropriate.
> the heroes bursting in on a character being given a blowjob, or a
> dream sequence unnecessarily interspersed with a repeated sequence of
> the central character being raped and chained.
You mean where Bollykinickers fantasised about having sex with he uncle and
with DCI Hunt? Not Life on Mars, and it was all linked to the story line
about he uncle having had and affair with her mother, and that was what
caused her father to attempt to blow the entire family up. Oh, look, now
I've spoiled the ending for you. Do you know the meaning of gratuitous? The
right meaning. Being Human was gratuitous. There was no reason for it and it
wasn't funny or amusing. It was disgusting and unwarranted.
>
>> > and some humorous elements. So did Life on Mars and Buffy - both
>> > aiming to be more comic than Being Human.
>>
>> Nope. Life on Mars and Buffy were written in a serious manner and had
>> humorous moments.
>
> Rubbish. There wasn't anything serious about Life on Mars, and little
> about Buffy.
Hogwash. As I said before you don't have a clue about drama or comedy.
That's why you think slapstick is alright for Doctor Who.
>
> Being Human is being attempted to be written as a comedy
>> drama from the start. Demons has been written more seriously than Being
>> Human. Being Human is a feeble attempt to do Red Dwarf crossed with
>> Rentaghost, and is nothing more than immature porn.
>
> Uh, what? So, if you cross Red Dwarf with Rentaghost you get immature
> porn? Would that be Rentadwarf?
No. Do you know what the meaning of attempt is? Immature porn in Being Human
an unsuccessful attempt to do Red Dwarf crossed with Rentaghost.
>
>> > even though it's attempting to be a
>> >> comedy drama in the manner of Red Dwarf.
>>
>> > Now, in fairness, the BBC doesn't seem to understand what it means by
>> > 'comedy drama' (a pigeonhole which, in any case, Toby Whithouse has
>> > objected to them using to label Being Human), so it's perhaps
>>
>> Pigeonhole my arse.
>
> That sounds painful.
>
>> > understandable that you don't either. But what it is not is Red Dwarf,
>>
>> That's because Red Dwarf as funny and mature,
>
> You have a very strange definition of "mature".
No. You just don't understand what it means.
>
> and attracted both a teenage
>> and adult audience. Being Human is not.
>
> I don't know what demographics Being Human attracts, but it's aimed
> more at adults and less at a Red Dwarf crowd of teens who get a giggle
> out of sex jokes.
No. Dwarfers do not giggle at sex jokes. It's the immature twats that Being
Human is being aimed at that do.
>
>> > which was purely and simply a sitcom. They aren't the same thing;
>>
>> Yes they are. You've hit the nail on the head. Being Human is a situation
>> comedy. There is a situation, everyone being half-lifes to use the
>> terminology from Demons, and there is an attempt made to find humour in
>> it,
>
> Again, if that literalism was the definition of a sitcom, Life on Mars
> is a sitcom. There was nothing to Life on Mars *except* "Let's throw
> someone from 2006 into 1973 and turn the culture clash into a source
> for *all* our jokes". So far, the only humour in Being Human that's
Poppycock. You don't understand the difference between humour and comedy and
don;t have a clue about what a sitcom is.
> contingent on the situation is the sequence where George runs around
> in the woods looking for somewhere to change and keeps running into
> people.
Which wasn't very funny, because the scriptwriters don't have a clue of how
to write comedy, which is what they were attempting to do. Being Human is
trying to do Two Pints (the young people living together and having sex
stuff) crossed with Rentaghost (the half-lifes stuff). It fails.
>Again, bear on mind the show's origin - the characters were
Someone's sex fantasy. They obviously wanted to make a porn film featuring
vampires.
> turned into undead more or less at the last minute; the core story
What? Vampireguy has been a Vampire for over a century. Vampirecop was one
even longer.
> Whithouse wants to tell is still one of a bunch of social misfits
> stuck together in a flat, and that's where most of the humour comes
> from.
Except it's not funny. Wasn't Whitehouse the one who tried to write a comedy
series about a child molester?
>
>> except is isn't very funny only after two episodes it has descended into
>> porn. Red Dwarf never needed to do that.
>
>> > Life on Mars was that it was an excuse to take the piss out of both
>> > '70s and modern cop shows, Being Human actually started life as a
>> > fully-serious drama (before werewolves, vampires and ghosts were
>> > introduced into the concept).
>>
>> Ah, so it was trying to be Two Pints, yes I wondered why there is no new
>> series of that,
>
> Because it's crap?
No. Do you think that whatshername, Blondebird, what plays Paul McGann's new
assistant in the Big Finnish audios is crap? I don't think so.
>But I thought that was meant to be a sitcom? The
It is.
> comparison Whithouse made was a show called This Life.
Er? Is that the one that he wrote the child molester character for?
>
>> > See the circularity? Now look at how a similar argument would work if
>>
>> No. You don't understand drama or comedy either, whereas I understand
>> both.
>> I am the only one her who has written a script.
>
> One which demonstrates your complete failure to understand either
No! It demonstrates your complete failure to understand either drama or
comedy.
> drama or comedy. I've climbed a mountain; that doesn't mean I'm an
> expert in mountaineering.
I've climbed a mountain too. It's doesn't mean it had to be a very big one.
That makes me a mountaineer, and my cousin too, who I climbed it with.
>
> I am the only one here who
>> has read Aristotle.
>
> Again, you're certainly the only one who's demonstrated a failure to
> understand Aristotle. So the fact that you've read him is even more
> immaterial than it would be otherwise.
Wrong. You are the one who doesn't understand him, just like you don't
understand Plato, as I demonstrated some years ago.
>
>> > Counterpoint: People don't normally pay more attention to someone just
>> > because they don't have clothes on.
>>
>> That depends on one major criteria. Are they attractive.
>
> No, no it doesn't. When I find someone attractive, I find them
> attractive with clothes on - more so, in fact, than without. If you
> find someone attractive you'll pay attention to them, sure, regardless
> of whether they have clothes on or not.
Well then. All the more reason why they shouldn't be showing this disgusting
porn. It's totally unnecessary.
>
> The ones on Being
>> Human aren't attractive to anyone, except maybe to gays.
>
> Why do you imagine gay people have different tastes from straight
> women, or that they like unattractive men?
Not even a straight woman would find a naked man's arse attractive.
>
>> > Conclusion: Since the original premise is flawed, the writers have
>> > other motives in including naked people.
>>
>> So, you've concluded that they're putting them in for gays as well.
>
> No, that they aren't putting them in for any sexual reason whatsoever.
They are putting them in to attract gays and immature teenagers.
> Do try to keep up with logic, dear boy.
Follow the conversation you fool.
I can see a very good reason. Because it's crap, and immature teenagers the
writers seem to think want to watch this kind of immature crap, isn't going
to listen to it, cause they can't see nude men's arses to talk about in the
school playground. Just think about it. "Oh, did you listen to Being Human".
"Yer, it was really funny with the naked man showing his arse to everyone".
> being done on radio, and they need to have enough stuff to fill up the
> screens these television doohickeys come with.
Oh, so the porn was put there as filler? What's a doohickey? Country
bumpkin?
>
>> > a book. You *do* get the point of television, right? Hint: pay
>> > attention to the last two syllables of "teleVISION". It rather defeats
>>
>> So the VISION in your statement refers to PORN, right.
>
> No, it refers to vision. Strange, that.
For you it refers to porn.
>
>> > the point to make a TV show and then have all the plot points happen
>> > offscreen. At least unless you're writing Battlestar Galactica.
>>
>> You just don't get it do you. With TV you can have something called
>> ACTION
>> and the action isn't meant to refer to porn.
>
> You can have action in a novel.
No. What you have is description.
>TV is not there as a medium for space
> battles, special effects and comic-book martial arts. It is there to
YES IT IS! That the problem with the British producers. They don't have a
clue what teleVISION is all about. It's the vision part that's important,
not the tele part. The tele part can be done just as well on radio. Maybe if
the changed the name of radio to teleAUDIO they might get a clue. In fact, I
henceforth lay copyright to the term. Teleaudio the kind of brilliant
marketing idea that the tossers who put DOG SHIT all over arouse screens
would pay a fortune for when they look for new ways of promoting DAB now
that it's practically dead and buried.
> tell whatever story it's telling visually.
Like with space battles, special effects and comic-book martial arts.
VISUALLY! Otherwise its just Teleaudio with pictures.
>
> The whole point of the action
>> sequence, and I have to explain everything to you, since you are a
>> complete
>> novice as regards the dramatic medium, is that it gives the viewer time
>> to
>> absorb and try to make sense of what has already happened in the story
>> and
>> predict what is going to occur next. If you were reading a book you would
>> just pause between each chapter, but you can't do that with TV. In
>> ancient
>> Greek drama and even comedy you had the chorus which gave you the time to
>> appreciate what had already happened, since it explicitly summarised it
>> for
>> you and also gave you clues as to what the possible outcomes might be.
>
> These days we have the "Previously..." sequence to perform that role.
>
> Now
>> as drama evolved, writers were able to do most of the plot summery in the
>> actual script, so the chorus became unnecessary, but there were still
>> intervals between acts so you could think things over.
>
> I'm not sure what point you're getting at here. Why can't you tune out
> during visually unpleasant scenes like sex scenes to do exactly the
> same thing, as you suggest people do during action scenes? Personally
What? It's being inflicted on me without any choice, so how can I tune out?
> I don't find I have enough difficulty following what's happening to
> need to consolidate it during breaks in the episode; if you genuinely
That's what you think.
> have as much difficulty following plots and names as you seem to,
> perhaps you should focus less on the arses and use that time to recall
> what's just happened instead.
I have no problem following the plots and names of American TV. British TV
writers don't have a clue about how to make follow plots, just look a Spooks
and last weeks episode of Hustle, or a clue about how to give people
appropriate names you can associate with their characters.
>
> On radio you have
>> commercial breaks,
>
> I must admit I've never listened to a Radio 4 drama that had advert
> breaks.
The probably have a posh interval or intermission.
>
> maybe that's why the ITV seems to be able to do it
>> better, or breaks between episodes and the same with TV, except Being
>> Human
>> isn't episodic drama.
>
> How do you work that out? It's a drama in, so far, six episodes.
No. Being Human is a sitcom. It's a different story, and much the same
situation every week.
>
>> > bloodsucker. Are you following the story at all or just watching it in
>> > the hope of more naked arses?
>>
>> Fool! That is precisely what the produces want you to do, but since I'm
>> neither immature, or gay, it's not going to work.
>
> And yet, you're the only one watching who regarded naked bottoms as
> worthy of comment.
Worth of derision you mean.
>
>> > which, we both agree, an unattractive man was shown naked and, come to
>> > that, not actually having sex since there wasn't anyone else in the
>> > room.
>>
>> He was simulating sex with an invisible vampire woman.
>
> How many people do you know who are likely to be turned on by an
> invisible vampire woman? Even a naked invisible one?
That's another thing the writers missed. If you're going to do porn do it
properly. What was in these weeks porn sequence for the men, I mean apart
from the gays. What was in if for the women either. Women don't fancy naked
men's bottoms either.
>
>> >We also both agree that that's unlikely to turn anyone on. Now,
>>
>> Right. So the writers fucked up big time, didn't they.
>
> No, because they weren't intending to turn anyone on. Do you see the
> logic yet?
They thought they would.
>
>> > this leads to two conclusions - either that the writers are
>> > fantastically ignorant of what people find attractive, *or* they
>> > aren't trying to turn anyone on. The second is by far the more likely,
>> > and doesn't require us to make up motives in order to criticuse them.
>>
>> There is a third option which you conveniently missed out or overlooked.
>>
>> The writers don't have a clue about what people actually want to watch.
>
> Which is even less likely since they'd be fired in short order if this
> was the case. Instead Toby Whithouse is helming a show that only made
> it to production at all because fans clamoured for it to be made.
And look at how disappointed they are now that it has. And to think
Torchwood was sacrificed for it.
>
>> People do not want to see porn in that particular situation, or
>> introduced
>> in such a manner, period. People do not tune in to watch Being Human to
>> watch a porn film. If they wanted to watch a porn film then they would go
>> out and watch an actual porn film which met all the pre-requisites of
>> being
>> a good porn film, like having good looking actors, if that's what the
>> performers in porn films are called,
>
> In the one you've claimed to have watched, I thought they were called
> "dogs". Or was it a horse?
That was a different one, and there was a pig in it too and a chicken.
>
> and actually showing them being fucked
>> in full frontal, with all the lights on and so forth.
>
> I can see you frothing at the mouth with desire as you type.
No, but you must be.
>
>> >> > "coming to terms" with Tully happened offscreen (which was mildly
>> >> > irritating in its own right). The focus of the episode was on Tully
>> >> > trying to turn George against his friends, and the effect his
>> >> > inclusion had on the household, and their reaction to that.
>>
>> >> WRONG! It was nothing of the kind. Wolfman lost his wife and children
>> >> and
>> >> wanted company, and being a werewolf with no one to share his
>> >> experiences
>> >> with, he wanted to make Jugears who was his former victim into his
>> >> foster
>> >> son.
>>
>> > Afraid you're getting muddled again, Aggy. Tully's *motivation*, as we
>>
>> Tully? Which one's Tully? Is he Wolfman?
>
> Aggy, if you can't remember the names you should be able to grasp it
> from context. And you can't say he doesn't look like a Tully - he even
> wears a Tully hat...
What? He looks nothing like Suzanne Tully, you know Suzanne was it, from
Grange Hill and Michelle Fowler from Eastenders. Give him a decent name for
fucks sake.
>
>> > learned at the end of the episode, was to obtain a surrogate family to
>> > replace the one he presumably ate. Motivation is not the same as plot,
>>
>> That's what I just told you FOOL!
>
> No, Aggy, read again, the PLOT was the focus of the episode, not
> Tully's motivation.
No it wasn't.
>You were mistakenly describing his motivation as
> the focus of the episode.
Because that is what it was about.
>
> And which you expressly contradicted in
>> your initial response, which is what I had to set you straight.
>
> You see, if you'd read just one sentence further you wouldn't have
> made this mistake. The plot is the one I've characterised the same way
> twice now.
Plot, what plot? Sod all happened. We were left with the same characters we
started off with as if nothing whatsoever had happened to them. So how can
there be a plot?
>
>> > and that motivation wasn't the focus of the episode - that was such
>>
>> Yes it was.
>
> No it wasn't - we only learned he'd had a family at the end.
The final revelation of what the story was all about.
>
>> > "I'm surprised Mitchell didn't tell you that..." insinuations) and the
>> > whole thing summed up in "Your friends will never understand".
>>
>> > Though it's nice to see you admit that your Rentaghost comparison was
>> > a load of rubbish.
>>
>> Wrong. Rentaghost was far better.
>
> I mean, your comparison with the plot of Rentaghost was a load of
> rubbish, as you've just admitted it was completely different from the
> way you first characterised it.
Wrong. It was exactly the same. You've not even watch Rentaghost so you are
in no position to talk about it.
>
>>
>>
>> >> >> > was written far better and didn't require any
>> >> >> >> sex scenes in it to get viewers to watch it.
>>
>> >> >> > If Being Human had required sex scenes to get viewers to watch
>> >> >> > it,
>> >> >> > they'd only have tuned in in the last five minutes of the episode
>> >> >> > (well, apart from the fact that the Mitchell-Lauren scene forms
>> >> >> > the
>> >> >> > beginning of every 'previously' bit).
>>
>> >> >> There was porn throughout the entire episode. It's what the episode
>> >> >> was
>> >> >> written for.
>>
>> >> > No there wasn't.
>>
>> >> Yes there was. Jugears' arse, Wolfman's arse. Arses, arses, arses.
>>
>> > I knew you were going to say that. Aggy, the bottom is not a sexual
>> > organ, and it speaks volumes about you that you regard it as an object
>>
>> Gay's seem to think it is.
>
> I imagine most have enough experience to realise that the buttocks
> aren't actually part of the area involved in sexual gratification, any
> more than the hips are part of the genitalia. You appear to be the
> exception.
It showed Vampirefucker's frontal groin and pubic region along with the top
of his dick.
>
>> > of sexual desire (which is what porn's about). Showing naked people
>> > from behind, if they aren't posing provocatively or engaged in sexual
>> > activity, is not porn.
>>
>> It's disgusting, and people do not watch TV to be disgusted.
>
> Plenty of things in dramas aren't pleasant to look at - compared with
> people having their throats torn by vampires or turning into
> werewolves (or come to that ugly naked actors gyrating), showing
> someone naked running through a wood is hardly the most disgusting
> thing they could show.
It's still disgusting and totally uncalled for. It was not even funny.
>
>>
>>
>> >> >There was the final scene and the usual flashback to
>> >> > Lauren - that was it.
>>
>> >> That's Vampirebird right, not Ghostgirl?
>>
>> > How short is your attention span? You watched the episode two days
>> > ago, plus I gave you a handy synopsis in the last thread explaining
>> > which character was which. Do you genuinely have this problem with
>> > names, and that's why you make up juvenile substitutes?
>>
>> The writers of Being Human do not have a clue about how to give the
>> characters appropriate names, which is something which American shows do
>> best. I can still remember the characters names from Buffy after all
>> these
>> years, since Buffy look like a Buffy, Cordelia looked like a Cordelia,
>> Xander looked like a Xander. George doesn't look like a George, at least
>> none that I know, and I know lots. He's no George Lazenby. Lauren? Is
>> that
>> Vampire bird, short dark hair, short and fat? Doesn't look like a Lauren
>> to
>> me. Lauren Bacall was tall and elegant, slim and had long hair styled in
>> a
>> 1930s manner.
>
> Buffy isn't a real name, Aggy. Xander isn't a real abbreviation. And
What? Buffy is a real name, like in the girls magazine, and Xander is an
abbreviation of Alexander. Didn't you see the episode about Xander's
relationship with his dad?
> Angel didn't look very angelic, come to that. Oz didn't look
Angel's real name is Angelus and he looks almost Italian or Greek.
> Australian.
But he looks Turkish, sort of.
>Spike wasn't especially spiky. Your excuses for clinging
He had spiky hair.
> to infantile nicknames get worse by the day. And Herrick can look
> however he wants since that's not a real name either.
Who's Herrick? Vampirecop?
It was called Killercunt because the main subject of the story was a killer
who killed people with her cunt.
>
> Phil
Alan Sailsbury 2099
>
>
> It was called Killercunt because the main subject of the story was a
> killer who killed people with her cunt.
>
She employed you as a hit man? Didn't see that episode.
pbo...@aol.com
So what do you mean about his appearance implying the show's meant to
be a comedy? You do know Martin Clunes has done serious documentaries,
right? Prince Charles too, I believe.
> > and mannerisms and everyone else's lines, except it
> >> isn't funny. With Red Dwarf which did comedy drama, all of the main
> >> actors
> >> were established comedians or comic actors and could do the timing
> >> properly.
>
> > And yet, Danny John Jules *still* consistently failed to be funny for
> > practically all of Red Dwarf's run.
>
> Poppycock. Cat was one of the funniest characters.
Well, he was in the top five, I'll give you that. But it got more than
a little thin that he only had two jokes throughout most of the show's
run, repeated ad nauseam - his vanity and his sex obsession.
> > with occasional humorous situations - the way you claim Life on Mars
> > was.
>
> WRONG! It has nothing remotely in common with Life on Mars. It's a comedy
> drama which fails to be either dramatic like Demons or funny and amusing
> like Two Pints.
None of the trailers I've ever seen for Two Pints suggest that the
words "funny and amusing" can be applied to it.
> > hence the
> >> use of porn in a feeble attempt to attract viewers.
>
> > You mean the way Life on Mars did? Being Human hasn't had scenes with
>
> Life on Mars did no use porn. You might have it confused with episode 1 of
> Ashes to Ashes where the guys promised to bare their behinds if
> Bollykinickers let them stamp her arse. Now whereas that was not
> pornographic and was actually funny and amusing, the nudity in Being Human
> was the complete opposite and totally inappropriate.
No, I'm referring to the episode where Sam tries to take down the
town's top gangster, who's busy paying cops to look the other way. The
gangster responds by sending Sam a girl 'in distress' who persuades
him to give him sanctuary at his house, whereupon she chains him up
while he's asleep and rapes him (unpleasantly shown in between Sam's
dream sequence). After this, Sam and Gene burst in on the villain to
find him being given a blowjob by a rentboy. There's nothing that
vulgar in Being Human, and unlike the Being Human sequence, the
blowjob scene serves no story purpose whatsoever, it's just there for
Gene to make a cheap shot.
> > Being Human is being attempted to be written as a comedy
> >> drama from the start. Demons has been written more seriously than Being
> >> Human. Being Human is a feeble attempt to do Red Dwarf crossed with
> >> Rentaghost, and is nothing more than immature porn.
>
> > Uh, what? So, if you cross Red Dwarf with Rentaghost you get immature
> > porn? Would that be Rentadwarf?
>
> No. Do you know what the meaning of attempt is?
Yes, and it doesn't mean "include something which isn't in any of the
things it's attempting to be". The only thing that comes even remotely
close in either is the fact that Red Dwarf was filled with tiresome
crude sex jokes.
> >> > understandable that you don't either. But what it is not is Red Dwarf,
>
> >> That's because Red Dwarf as funny and mature,
>
> > You have a very strange definition of "mature".
>
> No. You just don't understand what it means.
Not if it means lager louts, mysogyny and sex jokes, no.
> > and attracted both a teenage
> >> and adult audience. Being Human is not.
>
> > I don't know what demographics Being Human attracts, but it's aimed
> > more at adults and less at a Red Dwarf crowd of teens who get a giggle
> > out of sex jokes.
>
> No. Dwarfers do not giggle at sex jokes.
So why do they watch the show? It was mostly sex jokes, especially in
its first couple of years.
> > contingent on the situation is the sequence where George runs around
> > in the woods looking for somewhere to change and keeps running into
> > people.
>
> Which wasn't very funny, because the scriptwriters don't have a clue of how
> to write comedy, which is what they were attempting to do.
Poppycock. You don't understand the difference between humour and
comedy. And plainly don't have a good sense of humour (hence finding
Two Pints funny). It was cliched, but quite amusing.
Being Human is
> trying to do Two Pints (the young people living together and having sex
> stuff) crossed with Rentaghost (the half-lifes stuff). It fails.
So, not Red Dwarf any more?
> >Again, bear on mind the show's origin - the characters were
>
> Someone's sex fantasy. They obviously wanted to make a porn film featuring
> vampires.
And then decided that vampires can't be caught on camera (except for
BBC studio cameras, of course...)
> > turned into undead more or less at the last minute; the core story
>
> What? Vampireguy has been a Vampire for over a century. Vampirecop was one
> even longer.
I mean in production terms. The show was originally pitched with fully
human characters and wasn't picked up, so Whithouse tacked on the
supernatural stuff - but he still wanted to tell the same story he did
originally, not a vampire story.
> > Whithouse wants to tell is still one of a bunch of social misfits
> > stuck together in a flat, and that's where most of the humour comes
> > from.
>
> Except it's not funny. Wasn't Whitehouse the one who tried to write a comedy
> series about a child molester?
Haven't the faintest idea. But he's not trying to write a comedy here.
> >> except is isn't very funny only after two episodes it has descended into
> >> porn. Red Dwarf never needed to do that.
>
> >> > Life on Mars was that it was an excuse to take the piss out of both
> >> > '70s and modern cop shows, Being Human actually started life as a
> >> > fully-serious drama (before werewolves, vampires and ghosts were
> >> > introduced into the concept).
>
> >> Ah, so it was trying to be Two Pints, yes I wondered why there is no new
> >> series of that,
>
> > Because it's crap?
>
> No. Do you think that whatshername, Blondebird, what plays Paul McGann's new
> assistant in the Big Finnish audios is crap? I don't think so.
I think the new Paul McGann audios are crap, full stop. Most of the
old ones I've heard too, come to that. I'm not sure of the relevance,
however.
> > comparison Whithouse made was a show called This Life.
>
> Er? Is that the one that he wrote the child molester character for?
Quoth Wikipedia:
"This Life was a BBC television drama, produced by World Productions
and screened on BBC Two, running for two series in 1996 and 1997 and a
reunion special in 2007.
The series centred on the life of five twentysomething law graduates
embarking upon their careers while sharing a house in south London."
Note the lack of any reference to "comedy drama".
> > drama or comedy. I've climbed a mountain; that doesn't mean I'm an
> > expert in mountaineering.
>
> I've climbed a mountain too. It's doesn't mean it had to be a very big one.
Then it's called a hill, Aggy.
> That makes me a mountaineer, and my cousin too, who I climbed it with.
Jolly good. Now try K2.
> > I am the only one here who
> >> has read Aristotle.
>
> > Again, you're certainly the only one who's demonstrated a failure to
> > understand Aristotle. So the fact that you've read him is even more
> > immaterial than it would be otherwise.
>
> Wrong. You are the one who doesn't understand him, just like you don't
> understand Plato, as I demonstrated some years ago.
You know, now I'm beginning to understand why you misunderstand things
so completely, You've demonstrated how difficult it is for you to
follow simple plots that unravel over 45 minutes; no wonder you
consistently recall old arguments backwards.
> >> > Counterpoint: People don't normally pay more attention to someone just
> >> > because they don't have clothes on.
>
> >> That depends on one major criteria. Are they attractive.
>
> > No, no it doesn't. When I find someone attractive, I find them
> > attractive with clothes on - more so, in fact, than without. If you
> > find someone attractive you'll pay attention to them, sure, regardless
> > of whether they have clothes on or not.
>
> Well then. All the more reason why they shouldn't be showing this disgusting
> porn. It's totally unnecessary.
You still aren't getting the point - the scene *wasn't there to appeal
to viewers*.
> > The ones on Being
> >> Human aren't attractive to anyone, except maybe to gays.
>
> > Why do you imagine gay people have different tastes from straight
> > women, or that they like unattractive men?
>
> Not even a straight woman would find a naked man's arse attractive.
How do you know? How do you know gay men do?
> > I can't see any reason it couldn't be done on radio. But it's not
>
> I can see a very good reason. Because it's crap, and immature teenagers the
> writers seem to think want to watch this kind of immature crap, isn't going
> to listen to it, cause they can't see nude men's arses to talk about in the
> school playground. Just think about it. "Oh, did you listen to Being Human".
> "Yer, it was really funny with the naked man showing his arse to everyone".
Except that you're the only one paying such close attention to that
scene that you forgot the actual story. Most people would talk about
the story events - and not in the school playground since it's not
aimed at kids.
> > tell whatever story it's telling visually.
>
> Like with space battles, special effects and comic-book martial arts.
Among other things. You're getting cause and effect backwards - people
came up with special effects because they had a visual medium that
allowed it, it's not the reason television was created.
> VISUALLY! Otherwise its just Teleaudio with pictures.
Ah, you're getting it. Yes, TV is basically radio with pictures.
That's *why* it's said that a good drama can be done on radio just as
it can be done on TV.
> > Now
> >> as drama evolved, writers were able to do most of the plot summery in the
> >> actual script, so the chorus became unnecessary, but there were still
> >> intervals between acts so you could think things over.
>
> > I'm not sure what point you're getting at here. Why can't you tune out
> > during visually unpleasant scenes like sex scenes to do exactly the
> > same thing, as you suggest people do during action scenes? Personally
>
> What? It's being inflicted on me without any choice, so how can I tune out?
You claimed yourself that action sequences were there so that you can
assimilate information during a break in the plot when you're not
paying as much attention. So, I repeat, why can't you do the same
thing during sex scenes?
> > On radio you have
> >> commercial breaks,
>
> > I must admit I've never listened to a Radio 4 drama that had advert
> > breaks.
>
> The probably have a posh interval or intermission.
A posh interval? Is that one that marries a dim footballer? And no
intermissions that I've noticed - I'm sure I'd have remembered the guy
selling albatross.
> > maybe that's why the ITV seems to be able to do it
> >> better, or breaks between episodes and the same with TV, except Being
> >> Human
> >> isn't episodic drama.
>
> > How do you work that out? It's a drama in, so far, six episodes.
>
> No. Being Human is a sitcom. It's a different story, and much the same
> situation every week.
So's Star Trek. That doesn't make Star Trek a sitcom.
> >> > bloodsucker. Are you following the story at all or just watching it in
> >> > the hope of more naked arses?
>
> >> Fool! That is precisely what the produces want you to do, but since I'm
> >> neither immature, or gay, it's not going to work.
>
> > And yet, you're the only one watching who regarded naked bottoms as
> > worthy of comment.
>
> Worth of derision you mean.
Worthy of obsession on your part, apparently.
> >> > this leads to two conclusions - either that the writers are
> >> > fantastically ignorant of what people find attractive, *or* they
> >> > aren't trying to turn anyone on. The second is by far the more likely,
> >> > and doesn't require us to make up motives in order to criticuse them.
>
> >> There is a third option which you conveniently missed out or overlooked.
>
> >> The writers don't have a clue about what people actually want to watch.
>
> > Which is even less likely since they'd be fired in short order if this
> > was the case. Instead Toby Whithouse is helming a show that only made
> > it to production at all because fans clamoured for it to be made.
>
> And look at how disappointed they are now that it has.
I haven't heard of any negative reception for this show except yours;
quite the reverse. No, I don't think they've had an episode as good as
the pilot yet, but we're only two in and the pilot set the bar pretty
high.
And to think
> Torchwood was sacrificed for it.
Was it? Who says?
> >> People do not want to see porn in that particular situation, or
> >> introduced
> >> in such a manner, period. People do not tune in to watch Being Human to
> >> watch a porn film. If they wanted to watch a porn film then they would go
> >> out and watch an actual porn film which met all the pre-requisites of
> >> being
> >> a good porn film, like having good looking actors, if that's what the
> >> performers in porn films are called,
>
> > In the one you've claimed to have watched, I thought they were called
> > "dogs". Or was it a horse?
>
> That was a different one,
Ah, so you're admitting to having watched multiple porn videos.
and there was a pig in it too and a chicken.
I see you appreciated the variety.
> >> >> > "coming to terms" with Tully happened offscreen (which was mildly
> >> >> > irritating in its own right). The focus of the episode was on Tully
> >> >> > trying to turn George against his friends, and the effect his
> >> >> > inclusion had on the household, and their reaction to that.
>
> >> >> WRONG! It was nothing of the kind. Wolfman lost his wife and children
> >> >> and
> >> >> wanted company, and being a werewolf with no one to share his
> >> >> experiences
> >> >> with, he wanted to make Jugears who was his former victim into his
> >> >> foster
> >> >> son.
>
> >> > Afraid you're getting muddled again, Aggy. Tully's *motivation*, as we
>
> >> Tully? Which one's Tully? Is he Wolfman?
>
> > Aggy, if you can't remember the names you should be able to grasp it
> > from context. And you can't say he doesn't look like a Tully - he even
> > wears a Tully hat...
>
> What? He looks nothing like Suzanne Tully, you know Suzanne was it, from
> Grange Hill and Michelle Fowler from Eastenders. Give him a decent name for
> fucks sake.
Ah, this is your problem - you imagine everyone is a woman and/or a
character from a soap opera.
To me, on the other hand, Tully is the name of a rural town in
northern Queensland, and sounds somewhat like Tilly, a famous make of
outdoor hat (looking somewhat like the hat Tully wore, reinforcing the
connection) - so the character's name conjures up images of a rustic
type who spends a lot of time in the great outdoors.
> >> > learned at the end of the episode, was to obtain a surrogate family to
> >> > replace the one he presumably ate. Motivation is not the same as plot,
>
> >> That's what I just told you FOOL!
>
> > No, Aggy, read again, the PLOT was the focus of the episode, not
> > Tully's motivation.
>
> No it wasn't.
Aggy, look up what a plot is.
> >You were mistakenly describing his motivation as
> > the focus of the episode.
>
> Because that is what it was about.
No, Aggy, an episode is never about something that gets a passing
mention at the end.
> > You see, if you'd read just one sentence further you wouldn't have
> > made this mistake. The plot is the one I've characterised the same way
> > twice now.
>
> Plot, what plot? Sod all happened. We were left with the same characters we
> started off with as if nothing whatsoever had happened to them. So how can
> there be a plot?
Plot isn't the same as character development, and in any case we
weren't left with the same characters. George is more comfortable with
what he is and more in control. Mitchell is being tempted to the dark
side. And between last week and this, Annie's become more scared of
people and less solid.
> >> >> >> > was written far better and didn't require any
> >> >> >> >> sex scenes in it to get viewers to watch it.
>
> >> >> >> > If Being Human had required sex scenes to get viewers to watch
> >> >> >> > it,
> >> >> >> > they'd only have tuned in in the last five minutes of the episode
> >> >> >> > (well, apart from the fact that the Mitchell-Lauren scene forms
> >> >> >> > the
> >> >> >> > beginning of every 'previously' bit).
>
> >> >> >> There was porn throughout the entire episode. It's what the episode
> >> >> >> was
> >> >> >> written for.
>
> >> >> > No there wasn't.
>
> >> >> Yes there was. Jugears' arse, Wolfman's arse. Arses, arses, arses.
>
> >> > I knew you were going to say that. Aggy, the bottom is not a sexual
> >> > organ, and it speaks volumes about you that you regard it as an object
>
> >> Gay's seem to think it is.
>
> > I imagine most have enough experience to realise that the buttocks
> > aren't actually part of the area involved in sexual gratification, any
> > more than the hips are part of the genitalia. You appear to be the
> > exception.
>
> It showed Vampirefucker's frontal groin and pubic region along with the top
> of his dick.
No one else noticed; I imagine no one else was looking closely.
> >> > of sexual desire (which is what porn's about). Showing naked people
> >> > from behind, if they aren't posing provocatively or engaged in sexual
> >> > activity, is not porn.
>
> >> It's disgusting, and people do not watch TV to be disgusted.
>
> > Plenty of things in dramas aren't pleasant to look at - compared with
> > people having their throats torn by vampires or turning into
> > werewolves (or come to that ugly naked actors gyrating), showing
> > someone naked running through a wood is hardly the most disgusting
> > thing they could show.
>
> It's still disgusting and totally uncalled for.
Aggy, George is a werewolf, not The Incredible Hulk. He doesn't keep
his pants on when he changes. And what's more this episode taught him
the trick of bringing a spare set of clothes (why he's too dim to
figure that out for himself I don't know), so we may not see him
unclothed in future episodes anyway.
It was not even funny.
Who said it was meant to be? It was meant to be logically consistent -
if you turn into a wolf, your clothes aren't going to turn with you.
> >> >> >There was the final scene and the usual flashback to
> >> >> > Lauren - that was it.
>
> >> >> That's Vampirebird right, not Ghostgirl?
>
> >> > How short is your attention span? You watched the episode two days
> >> > ago, plus I gave you a handy synopsis in the last thread explaining
> >> > which character was which. Do you genuinely have this problem with
> >> > names, and that's why you make up juvenile substitutes?
>
> >> The writers of Being Human do not have a clue about how to give the
> >> characters appropriate names, which is something which American shows do
> >> best. I can still remember the characters names from Buffy after all
> >> these
> >> years, since Buffy look like a Buffy, Cordelia looked like a Cordelia,
> >> Xander looked like a Xander. George doesn't look like a George, at least
> >> none that I know, and I know lots. He's no George Lazenby. Lauren? Is
> >> that
> >> Vampire bird, short dark hair, short and fat? Doesn't look like a Lauren
> >> to
> >> me. Lauren Bacall was tall and elegant, slim and had long hair styled in
> >> a
> >> 1930s manner.
>
> > Buffy isn't a real name, Aggy. Xander isn't a real abbreviation. And
>
> What? Buffy is a real name, like in the girls magazine, and Xander is an
> abbreviation of Alexander. Didn't you see the episode about Xander's
> relationship with his dad?
I said it's not a *real* abbreviation - you don't really find
characters called Alexander who abbreviate their names to Xander.
That's why they gave the character the name; it was distinctive
because no one else had it. And did he look like an Alexander anyway?
It was positively odd in the episode where they lost their memories
and characters started calling him Alex.
> > Angel didn't look very angelic, come to that. Oz didn't look
>
> Angel's real name is Angelus and he looks almost Italian or Greek.
No he doesn't.
> > Australian.
>
> But he looks Turkish, sort of.
Uh, what? He doesn't look vaguely Turkish, and so what if he did? How
many Turks do you know with the name Daniel Osborne?
> >Spike wasn't especially spiky. Your excuses for clinging
>
> He had spiky hair.
No he didn't, he had a crewcut.
> > to infantile nicknames get worse by the day. And Herrick can look
> > however he wants since that's not a real name either.
>
> Who's Herrick? Vampirecop?
See, you know all this, you're just being silly.
I see you're still struggling with the idea of a name or title. It was
called "Day One" because that was the name of the episode.
Phil
Alan Sailsbury 2099
>
> None of the trailers I've ever seen for Two Pints suggest that the
> words "funny and amusing" can be applied to it.
You're right. I've watched a few episodes and it's shit. Full of actors
who aren't natural comedians trying to be funny. It's very downmarket
though, which explains why Aggy likes it as he always follows dumbed
down crap on tv. (Eurovision, Strictly Come Dancing, etc.)
Aggy's just a STUPID IGNORANT really isn't he? ;-)
pbo...@aol.com
kay> wrote:
> pbow...@aol.com wrote:
>
> > None of the trailers I've ever seen for Two Pints suggest that the
> > words "funny and amusing" can be applied to it.
>
> You're right. I've watched a few episodes and it's shit. Full of actors
> who aren't natural comedians trying to be funny.
Obviously, for once trailers gave an accurate impression of the whole.
The way Aggy described it, it sounds as though it's targeted at people
who found Coupling too subtle and highbrow.
It's very downmarket
> though, which explains why Aggy likes it as he always follows dumbed
> down crap on tv. (Eurovision, Strictly Come Dancing, etc.)
>
> Aggy's just a STUPID IGNORANT really isn't he? ;-)
Ah yes, but that makes it all the funnier that he makes pretences to
being highly educated and well-informed, while simultaneously
suggesting that Radio 4 is too "posh" and that Red Dwarf is the height
of upmarket comedy.
Phil
Stephen Wilson
"Agamemnon" <agam...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote in message
>
>>
>> I quote (see above): "So if I were to look on the Torchwood website for
>> the name of the second episode, it would bring up the name "Killercunt"?"
>> To which you replied: "Yes"
>
> That was not the question you were reading. That was "Point to the part of
> the Torchwood website where your review appears, then."
Very good Aggy dear. So is it you taking lessons from Yads or Yads taking
lessons from you? You can't remove the posts by editing later ones. I'll
remind you of the sequence, shall I?
Aggy: You mean Killercunt, or Lesbalien, or Pilotbird or
Captianjackdoescaptainjack?"
PBowles: "I mean the second episode of season one - "Day One", was it? The
one
with a sex alien."
Aggy: "That was Killercunt."
PBowles: "Really? So if I were to look on the Torchwood website for the name
of the second episode, it would bring up the name "Killercunt"?"
Aggy: "Yes."
PBowles: "Provide the appropriate link."
Well Aggy? We're still waiting...
doi...@gmail.com
> <pbow...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
> news:799d5fa4-c1a2-4779...@p23g2000prp.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On 4 Feb, 20:17, "Agamemnon" <agamem...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
> >> <pbow...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
> >>news:307064e5-b422-4340...@r39g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> The ones on Being
> >> Human aren't attractive to anyone, except maybe to gays.
>
> > Why do you imagine gay people have different tastes from straight
> > women, or that they like unattractive men?
>
> Not even a straight woman would find a naked man's arse attractive.
>
>
straight women?
Hint: Many straight women do find men's arses attractive.
[snip]
>
> > Phil
>
>[no sig provided; poster was Agamemnon]
--
Doire
What are you assuming now?
Agamemnon
That is not the question you were addressing. That was "Point to the part of
the Torchwood website where your review appears, then."
What you are referring to now is a completely different question.
peachy ashie passion
Oh yes. Yum.
solar penguin
Agamemnon wrote:
To which you replied "rec.arts.drwho," which raises another question:
since when has rec.arts.drwho been "part of the Torchwood website"?
>
> What you are referring to now is a completely different question.
You haven't got the hang of this "conversation" thing, have you Aggy?
The idea is that each question and statement follow on naturally from
the ones that went before.
Alan Sailsbury 2099
Weird isn't it? Yads had the same problem!
The Doctor
Alan is a freaking troll!
--
Member - Liberal International This is doc...@nl2k.ab.ca
Ici doc...@nl2k.ab.ca God, Queen and country! Beware Anti-Christ rising!
Never Satan President Republic!
Christian(n): A Jew that believe Christ is Messiah and Saviour and alive
lonev...@rocketmail.com
Michaelangelo's David? The sex scenes (albeit brief) in the both
beautiful and funny film Amelie? If I posted any of the nudes I had
spent hours drawing would you find Daniel's penis offensive? or his
'naked arse'? (A very beautiful one at that. Daniel was an awesome
model) Would you find Hilary's breasts and pubic area disgusting? Or
Christine's backside? Am I a dirty pervert for working with naked
people? Is my boyfriend disgusting for taking photos of his best
friend Lauren stark naked on top of a mountain? Addmitedly, a
television show designed purely for entertainment cannot be compared
to works of art which have a different purpose, but it is still a
creation, made through great effort by a team of people each giving
their creative and artistic input)
Agamemnon, honey, you're missing the point. You've got being offended
right, but for the wrong reasons. Both of the nude scenes hotly
debated here were designed to be offensive. The directors -want- you
to find George's transformations terrifying and vaguely repulsive.
They are trying to show how he is going from being at his most human
and vulnerable (naked, and as born, terrified of what he will do) to
something animal and not himself. They want you to be offended. But
not by his nudity, which is neccessary in this case.
In the case of both 'vampire pr0nz', nakedness is neccessary- have you
ever seen a sex scene where people aren't naked (excluding fast up
against the wall quickies)? That scene was necessary to show the
danger that Mitchell is, to introduce the prospect of a new vampire,
and to show something sensual going straight to something macabre.
Finally, the scene in which the characters took offense to the
'vampire porn', was most definitely designed to be repulsive and
offensive, we were supposed to empathise with the characters who were
disgusted by it, and engage in their puzzlement at Mitchell's lack of
offense. The most effective way to get viewers to share an opinion
with characters about something, is to give them the same experience
that the characters had. It would be unnefective to adopt a TV's eye
view, as you suggested, as there would be nothing for the viewer to
empathise over.
PS. No, I haven't read much aristotle, though I believe he did write
on tragedy, so I'm assuming he also wrote on other forms of drama, I
researched him briefly when I was writing on Nietzsche's views on
tragedy. And whilst I haven't read Aristotle, I have read and studied
Plato, Descartes, Sartre, Nietzsche, Mill and Wittgenstein. (as well
as some more obscure contemporary philosophers such as Kripke and
Searle when I was attempting to address the mind/body issue, which
just like philosophers for thousands of years prior to my existence, I
failed to do, and still cannot claim myself a dualist- though the
prospect of dualism is nice)
peachy ashie passion
> So, anything that is naked is offensive to you, Agamemnon?
> Michaelangelo's David? The sex scenes (albeit brief) in the both
> beautiful and funny film Amelie? If I posted any of the nudes I had
> spent hours drawing would you find Daniel's penis offensive? or his
> 'naked arse'? (A very beautiful one at that. Daniel was an awesome
> model) Would you find Hilary's breasts and pubic area disgusting? Or
> Christine's backside? Am I a dirty pervert for working with naked
> people? Is my boyfriend disgusting for taking photos of his best
> friend Lauren stark naked on top of a mountain? Addmitedly, a
> television show designed purely for entertainment cannot be compared
> to works of art which have a different purpose, but it is still a
> creation, made through great effort by a team of people each giving
> their creative and artistic input)
>
> Agamemnon, honey, you're missing the point. You've got being offended
> right, but for the wrong reasons.
Thank you for the beautiful and thoughtful post. It was well thought
out and well written.
Aggy will now post and call you a pervert for drawing nudes.
--
“There is no mistaking love...it is the common fiber of life, the flame
that heats our soul, energizes our spirit and supplies passion to our
lives.” ~ Elisabeth Kubler-Ross
Hulahoop
wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
And assuming that the poster is female he will call her a deranged
whore
Kind regards
Ged
pbo...@aol.com
A deranged lesbian whore, don't forget, as evidenced by the fact that
she draws naked women.
Phil
peachy ashie passion
Oh! Possibly. I had assumed the poster was male. It will be
interesting to see which way he goes.
lonev...@rocketmail.com
(sorry, there should have been a semicolon not a comma after 'drama'
in the Aristotle paragraph)
lonev...@rocketmail.com
pbo...@aol.com
wrote:
Ah, well in that case he'll naturally be gay.
Phil
peachy ashie passion
Welcome to the party! We are glad to have you with us.
Hulahoop
>
>
> Poppycock. Cat was one of the funniest characters.
>
Is that one of the chat up lines you have tried to use previously?
Regards
Ged