38 Responses to Recap 1 of 2

  1. I’ve got to say though, your recaps are much better than The Tudors’. But then they ought to be, your plot being better as well.
    I’ve recently began watching that, expecting it to be a masterpiece like everyone’s been saying, but I’m very disappointed. Mostly because I hate unnecessary, wild, cheap changes to historical events and figures. And cheap drama too.
    But I’ll persevere just so I can watch Tamzin Merchant(mmm…) appear, and get beheaded, of course.
    Expect many annoying ramblings regarding it to follow.

    • I thought the only real reason to watch that was because you wanted the nudity of True Blood without the Vampires……or because you wanted the nudity of True Blood and it wasn’t on at the moment.

      Anna Paquin….mmmmmmm.

      • Actually, I didn’t realize it had so much sex in it, and it’s another reason I’m annoyed by it.
        It’s got so much nudity and sex scenes in it, thrown about for no apparent reason but to titillate viewers, which is apparent by the fact that all the main male parts have been aged-down so audiences wouldn’t hurl when they see an aging 40+ y-o king who lusts again and again after 15-20 y-o women(then again that WAS the way back then, in present days and probably in the future). So instead they give us a shaved Irish model.

        It only seems that they’re inserting those abundant sex scenes in there to keep the ratings(and other parts) up, and to proclaim themselves “brave”,”daring” and “for adults”, somewhat like little boys using lots of sexual curse-words.
        If they truly wanted to show how “brave” and “adult” they were then they wouldn’t have put in homosexual couples.
        Why, you ask? Because they sprinkle them like some token black guy in a movie, while probably braying that they’re so very proud of how realistic and “brave” they are.
        While hetero’ sex scenes are on the verge of soft-core porn, all they ever gave until now(almost done with 2nd season) the homo’s are some faint kisses where the actors seem about to flee in revulsion. So why even bother with that?

        And I just don’t know why, but all their attempts in drama and supposedly tear jerker moments seem wasted on me. It all just looks exaggerated and fake. And really, am I supposed to feel sorry for some fanatic Catholic who only a few episodes before was burning “heretics” alive and cry when he himself is beheaded, because they plaster “humanist” over his name all the time?

        Argh, where’s my Tamzin, gods-dammit?!

        • For sexy TV look no further than “Spartacus: Blood and Sand”, or as I like to call it, “Gladiators Gone Wild”. There is more than enough penis to make any little gayboy happy, and it’s hyper-Roman, so the sex is actually a very integral part of the show. It doesn’t feel at all tacked on. It’s more like glue.

          Spartacus is campy, it’s wild, and it’s fun. It has zero pretensions, and lots and lots of blood and sex. It is nearly perfect TV.

        • Wait, 40+ year old men are no longer considered sexy? When did that happen? Has Sean Connery died?

          I mean, look at actor James Marsters during his younger, Buffy-the-Vampire-Slayer years, and then recently, playing a recurring character in Torchwood’s second season. Mrrrow.
          Discuss.

          • No, he is continually being aged to perfection, which at the moment is 80 or so. Thereby leaving a mere 40+ totally in the dust.

            Allow me to illustrate a point if i may.

            – He was voted People magazine’s “Sexiest Man Alive” in 1989 at age 59.

            BUT!!!!

            – Voted ‘Sexiest Man of the Century’ by People Magazine. [1999] when he was 69.

            So in ten years he had gone from being the sexiest man alive to the sexiest man for the whole century, counting every man in that century, alive or dead!
            He is probaby ranked as sexiest in the Milky Way now and if he make it to being 100 years he will probably be the sexiest in the whole Galaxy.
            (Hmmm, Heinleins books has pretty much the same thing in them, about the older a man is the more irrisistable he will be for any female aged 15-29, for some odd reason. πŸ˜† )

            • As an irresistible 43 year old, I suppose I should point out that 40 is no barrier to sexiness. (Delusional overconfidence helps too.) However, gay men are looking for different things than straight women are, and I believe that may have been what Orald was alluding to.

              • I think copious amounts of intoxicants consumed might also help some to overcome said barrier. πŸ˜‰

                But you should read my post below to better understand what I meant.

                Also, gay men have various tastes, and while mine are basically represented by the likes of, say, William Moseley, and are probably “mainstream”, I too can have some exceptions.

                And I’m not “gay”, I’m bisexual, and quite far along the axis towards womenfolk as it happens.
                I’m true Neutral, I go both ways.

          • Both you and Kevin have misunderstood my words, though in Kevin’s case I was expecting it.

            Re: Gay sex scenes: I’m not lamenting the fact that there isn’t any gay sex in The Tudors, on the contrary, with their choice of actors I’m thankful for it as I still want to use my retinas afterward.
            My beef is about their overuse of sex, while probably marketing it at a selling point to show how “mature” and “daring” they are, and the sharpest contrast I could imagine between their treatment of hetero’ and homo’ relationships.
            I think we can all acknowledge that this is all about fan-service.

            Re: Sexy old men: While no one will ever deny Sean Bean’s sexiness(and he’s gonna be Eddard Stark soon, sqeee!), the fact is that +40 y-o men do not evoke for the modern North American audience a truly acceptable love-interest for 15 y-o girls. Some would even say that’s illegal(I those are called “law enforcement”).
            It’s obvious that the reason they made the king and just about everyone else who’s sexually-active-yet-not-supposed-to-be-a-gross-lecherous-bastard is that it’d be both PC for them to have wild, passionate(hetero’ only!) sex and to keep their audiences.
            Also a minor point would be to make it so the plot is all about women actually falling in love with Mr. Henry and enjoying said passionate sex scenes, which is oh-so-sweater to modern audiences than realizing he’s one of the most powerful people in the world, they’re just women(i.e sex-toys, political tools etc) in a highly patriarchal society and that, surprise surprise, some tiny(or not…) minority of women actually attach themselves to powerful men not because of their sagging, shrinking manhoods, but because of the potential for power for them and their children(which is a huge boost in evolutionary terms in complex human societies, much greater than getting a young, good-looking DNA provider who can’t give you a high social rank).
            From what I’ve heard Mr. Henry would also not gain weight, and from various pics I’ve seen the only sign of aging is his silly little facial hair(did I mention the facial hair they keep off of their “sexier” characters, chiefly Mr. Henry himself?) getting some gray makeup.

            Clearly the more I watch the more desperate I become to see Tamzin beheaded. Oh, and her sex scenes too, I think.

            But now Dexter’s* 5th season premier awaits me…Blood, squee!!!

            *Oh boy, do I have a mouthful to say about this show…

  2. Yay! Chicken feathers!

    Bunker’s theme song is playing in my head. DOOO-do-do. Do-do/do. DOOO-do-do. (That’s Seasame Street in case you were wondering.)

  3. “The current storyline began…. when the comic was still in color.” :mrgreen:

    (It took me several moments to realize that this was the reason, and not that Kevin had posted today’s strip half-finished so that people would have something to look at while he was busy coloring in the remaining panels.)

    “Flotation devices”….. πŸ˜†

    Welcome back, Kevin!

  4. As for sex and tv-shows…try HBOs “ROME”. I suspect it is fairly historically accurate too, even if i can’t remember if there were any on-screen gay sex. I haven’t seen this one in ages.

    • Argh, I’m not looking for gay sex scenes! I’m looking for self-proclaimed “brave” producers to stop flaunting tits everywhere in the name of “maturity” unless they’re willing to flaunt some man-on-man action too. All I want is some equality if some author or director is including so much skin for “artistic” reasons.
      I feel there’s too much gratuitous sex on the screen as it is anyway.

      But thanks for reminding me of Rome, I’ll have to watch that too…Didn’t it get canceled halfway because of the production costs or something?

      • They made two seasons out off five and then full stop.

        http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/104955-HBO_To_Sack_Rome_After_Season_2.php

        I especially liked the way the “much to expensive” bit was framed.

        The decision, according to HBO Chairman/CEO Chris Albrecht had to do with the fact that the notoriously expensive show was developed as a miniseries under a two-year contract with the BBC and it would have been difficult for the BBC to stay on for longer. πŸ˜†

          • They finished it off properly. I understand they were planning to set season 3 entirely in Egypt with Anthony and Cleopatra, with season 4 being Octavian’s transformation into Emperor Caeser Augustus and season 5 dealing with the rise of the Messiah in Palestine. But when they learnt the show was being cancelled, they rescripted it and gave most of the characters a decent ending of sorts.

            • I’m pretty sure the whole thing with this “messiah” in Judea was at best a hiccup at the time, even for the Roman governor involved, what with all the other people killed there, hardly something that a series centering on the Roman empire needs devote a big story arc for.
              Just because those minor and commonplace events which must have gone “under the radar” of the great and powerful at the time proved tremendously important(to the world’s woe, it would seem) in hindsight doesn’t mean anyone in Rome gave a fuck back then.

              So really, was it mentioned at the time as anything more than the common, minor civil and religious unrest in some backwater, distant province?

              As an afterthought, I fail to see why he’s called “messiah” anyway, not like the Jews(whose “messiah” he was supposed to be, after all) got saved by him, not to mention the deeper mud they sank into because of that…Lets just say that the world would’ve doubtless been a better place without him and his followers(and their followers, the Muslims).
              Hell, we could’ve all been exchanging and gods and mixing pantheons all over the place, and no one would’ve paid much attention to the quirky Jews and their weird monotheism.

  5. Welcome back, Kevin!

    Also, a heartfelt “Thank You” to Lena for keeping our little goldfish minds occupied with tasty artistic tidbits during your little treasure hunting exile. :mrgreen:

  6. Speaking of recaps and new seasons, today(which means I’ll only get to d/l tomorrow or the day after) comes out the new, 2nd season of Stargate Universe, hopefully with Robert Carlyle getting to do another “nervous breakdown” scene, ’cause he’s so funny cursing and spitting with that accent of his.

    Then exactly one week later comes the second half of Caprica’s 1st season(or is it 2nd season?), hopefully getting into business rather than being mushy about Paula Malcomson getting all teary eyed about this or that.
    Also, how can one not like a show with the cute Magda Apanowicz? And I’m fond of Eric Stoltz too(not THAT way!) for some unknown reason, even if I’m hard-pressed to name more than 2 films he appeared in that I watched.