How political-correctness ruined the Pirelli calendar

"Savageduck" wrote

| I guess you never saw "Breaking Bad", or "The Wire".
|

? I've never even heard of most of what you list.
You must watch a lot of TV. I haven't really been a TV
watcher since I was a teenager. Last night was typical.
We were trying to decide between the PBS documentary
about Shia vs Sunni or the movie I'd just picked up at
the library: Last Flag Flying.

I'm curious about the PBS piece, but wasn't feeling
so ambitious. We watched the movie. It was wonderful.
(Award material, I though. Best actor for Bryan Cranston.
But of course it wasn't up for an Oscar or a Golden
Globe because it wasn't released between December
1 and January 15.)

If it hadn't been PBS or a movie DVD I probably
wouldn't have watched anything.

I don't even check the major networks and don't have
cable. The 5 PBS stations we get have something interesting
maybe twice per week. (Lately there's been an interesting
British series about household health hazards in Victorian
times.) Nova? Used to be good before they tried to increase
ratings by documenting the lifestyle of the researchers
rather than the research. ("Today Tom and Sarah need to
climb down into the cave. If they fail, all will be lost. Will
the weather cooperate? They start the day securing their
tent and preparing a light breakfast. Clouds on the horizon
look ominous...." Wait. I thought this was a documentary
about amazing bones found in a cave? Are we going to have
to instead hear about Tom and Sarah deciding to have sex
in their tent during a blizzard, and then going home?

Neil deGrasse Tyson? What?! Why has science been replaced
by carnival barkers wielding special effects? I guess it's
probably due to the lack of funding. PBS have gradually turned
into a commercial network who don't quite admit that's
what they are. And since few people are *really* interested
in science, science has to be recast as either sci-fi special
effects or emotional drama.
I though Alan Alda did a wonderful job of bridging that gap
without downgrading the science. Alas, he's apparently quit
TV.

Mayayana wrote:
"Savageduck" wrote

| I guess you never saw "Breaking Bad", or "The Wire".
|

? I've never even heard of most of what you list.
You must watch a lot of TV.

Not really. Most of that stuff was viewed over a 25-30 year period, and
much of it is available via Netflix, and Amazon Prime. I am certainly not a
followed of any of the major networks.

My ISP, and cable provider is Charter-Spectrum and I have a package which
gives me some good programming beyond the typical network stuff. I also
access UK BBC streaming, and that has some excellent programing which
includes some great documentaries. Even YouTube has some very good
streaming for events which never make to the mainstream.

I haven't really been a TV
watcher since I was a teenager. Last night was typical.
We were trying to decide between the PBS documentary
about Shia vs Sunni or the movie I'd just picked up at
the library: Last Flag Flying.

I'm curious about the PBS piece, but wasn't feeling
so ambitious. We watched the movie. It was wonderful.
(Award material, I though. Best actor for Bryan Cranston.
But of course it wasn't up for an Oscar or a Golden
Globe because it wasn't released between December
1 and January 15.)


Of course “Breaking Bad� was the vehicle to allow Brian Cranston to display
his talent as a great actor.

If it hadn't been PBS or a movie DVD I probably
wouldn't have watched anything.

I don't even check the major networks and don't have
cable. The 5 PBS stations we get have something interesting
maybe twice per week. (Lately there's been an interesting
British series about household health hazards in Victorian
times.) Nova? Used to be good before they tried to increase
ratings by documenting the lifestyle of the researchers
rather than the research. ("Today Tom and Sarah need to
climb down into the cave. If they fail, all will be lost. Will
the weather cooperate? They start the day securing their
tent and preparing a light breakfast. Clouds on the horizon
look ominous...." Wait. I thought this was a documentary
about amazing bones found in a cave? Are we going to have
to instead hear about Tom and Sarah deciding to have sex
in their tent during a blizzard, and then going home?

Neil deGrasse Tyson? What?! Why has science been replaced
by carnival barkers wielding special effects? I guess it's
probably due to the lack of funding. PBS have gradually turned
into a commercial network who don't quite admit that's
what they are. And since few people are *really* interested
in science, science has to be recast as either sci-fi special
effects or emotional drama.
I though Alan Alda did a wonderful job of bridging that gap
without downgrading the science. Alas, he's apparently quit
TV.






--
Regards,
Savageduck

"Savageduck" wrote

| Of course "Breaking Bad" was the vehicle to allow Brian Cranston to
display
| his talent as a great actor.
|

Yes. I think of him as one of the top actors, but
I've never seen Breaking Bad.

On 2/21/2018 9:18 AM, Mayayana wrote:
"PeterN" wrote

| That may be true, but it was leading in a sociological way. It had
| people in highly responsible roles, regardless of their sex, race, or
| religion. It had interracial kissing, which was considered taboo at the
| time.
|
Also, the ideal of helping democracy everywhere while
avoiding cultural interference. Of course that was idealism,
not an accurate portrayal of American industrial imperialism.
But it was a good message.

And the "lifestyle" model was revolutionary. It was
basically a benign socialism brought about by the fruits
of technology. And they had Siri before anyone had
imagined the idea. It featured ubiquitous computing.

And doors that opened as you approached them.


--
PeterN

On 2/20/2018 10:38 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , PeterN
wrote:

Last year there was a Star Trek exhibit on the Intrepid. It combined the
original with the Next Generation. I was told that most of the actors
were nice, regular guys. William Shattner was charging for his
autograph. I leave the name for that, up to the readers.

most of them do that. they know the fans will pay, so why not.

Not when they are being paid for the appearance. And the fans are making
a generous donation to a charity.
BTW I used to represent entertainers. Most thought it beneath them to
charge for an autograph. They either declined, or gave one free. I don't
know the source for your statement, but I KNOW it's not true.



He also got
paid for his appearance.

of course. they don't work for free.



--
PeterN

On 2/21/2018 12:16 AM, RichA wrote:
On Tuesday, 20 February 2018 22:21:00 UTC-5, PeterN wrote:
On 2/20/2018 1:05 PM, Mayayana wrote:
"Savageduck" wrote

| I never found the appeal, just as I never found the appeal with "Star
Trek"
| and its offspring.

Holy Moley! Get outta town!!

Y O U N E V E R L I K E D S T A R T R E K???!!!



Last year there was a Star Trek exhibit on the Intrepid. It combined the
original with the Next Generation. I was told that most of the actors
were nice, regular guys. William Shattner was charging for his
autograph. I leave the name for that, up to the readers. He also got
paid for his appearance. I went to the exhibit, but not on the opening
night. it was neat to sit in the Captains chair.


--
PeterN

It also made clear that only the best of the best got on Starships, unlike progressivism today and its dire need to promote those less capable BECAUSE of race, sex, etc.


And today only the best qualify for special ops units, regardless of race.

--
PeterN

In article , PeterN
wrote:

Last year there was a Star Trek exhibit on the Intrepid. It combined the
original with the Next Generation. I was told that most of the actors
were nice, regular guys. William Shattner was charging for his
autograph. I leave the name for that, up to the readers.

most of them do that. they know the fans will pay, so why not.

Not when they are being paid for the appearance. And the fans are making
a generous donation to a charity.

yes when they're being paid for the appearance.

i've been to several cons and paying for autographs and/or photos is
standard fare.

the lines are long, so few people find it to be an issue.

BTW I used to represent entertainers. Most thought it beneath them to
charge for an autograph. They either declined, or gave one free. I don't
know the source for your statement, but I KNOW it's not true.

personal experience is my source.

"PeterN" wrote

| And doors that opened as you approached them.
|

There you go. No one thought of that until at
least 1960.

"Whisky-dave" wrote

| I didn't. But I guess by then I had grown up and
| wasn't watching much TV.
|
| I'm not sure growing up has much to do with it.
|
Work. Socializing. Othr activities. In my experience
the 20-somethings seem to watch the least TV.

On 2/21/2018 1:37 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , PeterN
wrote:

Last year there was a Star Trek exhibit on the Intrepid. It combined the
original with the Next Generation. I was told that most of the actors
were nice, regular guys. William Shattner was charging for his
autograph. I leave the name for that, up to the readers.

most of them do that. they know the fans will pay, so why not.

Not when they are being paid for the appearance. And the fans are making
a generous donation to a charity.

yes when they're being paid for the appearance.

i've been to several cons and paying for autographs and/or photos is
standard fare.

the lines are long, so few people find it to be an issue.

BTW I used to represent entertainers. Most thought it beneath them to
charge for an autograph. They either declined, or gave one free. I don't
know the source for your statement, but I KNOW it's not true.

personal experience is my source.

You go to charitable events where the donation is between $500 and
$1,000 per person, and then paid for an autograph?
I have difficulty believing that.

--
PeterN