Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 11,018
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Aug 1, 2021 7:55:53 GMT -8
LOL. Well, maybe I’ll give it another go. I watched the first season of Whitechapel on Britbox. I’ve seen more complex characters, and a less predictable plot, in a Scooby-Doo episode. I don’t consider that an exaggeration. The Whitechapel series (at least the first season) looks like it was written by and for your typical 13-year-old yute. Simplistic. Predictable. Boring. One reviewer writes “Mediocrity at its best.” Hard to top that. That the British were bastards is without a doubt. That they were an overall positive influence on some of these shit-hole countries I think is obvious. Let’s remember what they found and what they left behind. But much of the credit probably belongs to the Indian people themselves (primarily Hindus and Sikhs). Britain had influence for a time in Iraq and other Middle East countries. But the goat-fuckers remained goat-fuckers for all intents and purposes.
|
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 11,018
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Aug 1, 2021 9:39:41 GMT -8
The implicit impression I got (especially from that one anti-British dork who wrote the man-eating tiger book) is that India was manageable as a colony if only because it was such a chaotic hodgepodge to begin with. And what little I read of Clive of India (assuming it was historically accurate) is that the British (same as the French) would ally against one Mogul or Prince against another. No Indian had a long-view of the British intrusions….just as no one (or damn few) have a long-view to the intrusion of the Communists of various stripes and causes.
We, today, are as surely being colonized by invaders (whether benevolent or not, you decide) just as the Indians were. No analogy is perfect. And certainly Trump as our Gandhi didn’t quite work out as well as we had hoped.
|
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 11,018
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Aug 1, 2021 9:51:21 GMT -8
I have long been fascinated by the fact that most Christians (Protestant or Catholic) are highly sensitive to sexual content or behavior but not violent content or behavior. One could come up with all sorts of plausible-sounding evolutionary explanations for this. But it definitely seems to be the case. I’ve witnessed it personally too often.
By rights, a 12-year-old boy glimpsing a titty in a movie ought to be considered far less damaging than the orgy of violence in even your typical PG-13 film. But that’s not the way it works out, in practice.
Of course, the deluge of internet porn of the last decade or so has likely tipped the balance. That is, whether anyone likes it or not, no matter how violent movies have become, that deluge is more than matched by the uptake of porn.
Now, if you believe Dennis Prager (and I do), parents are likely far more upset catching their kids smoking than if they are name-your-serious-transgression. He’s always giving real-world reports about asking parents if it would bother them more if their children cheated on a test and passed of if they failed the test honestly. Most parents he’s run into will easily overlook the cheating.
And with children (aided and abetted by the Communist state) can have hormone sex-change therapy without the consent of their parents, one wonders these days what transgressions will get the goat of your typical parent. My contention, of course, is that the role of parent has been degraded and corrupted by many forces until we see the weak, generally immoral, and waffling substitute for parenthood that is so common today. And many little entitlement-minded lazy-ass monsters is the result.
|
|
|
Post by kungfuzu on Aug 1, 2021 9:54:46 GMT -8
That's very close to my observation about American restaurants, to wit, "America has raised the culinary arts to a very high degree of mediocrity."
As to the series, I cannot recall much about, but I didn't find it terrible. I did find it a bit odd.
I think probably the worst thing about the Brits was their insufferable, condescending arrogance. This cost them a lot over the years.
While I was living in Hongkong, a Brit once observed that the late 19th century colonialist Brits must have been the most arrogant and self-regarding people in the world. The thought being that after such a long history of successful colonialism they had become very puffed up. In fact, they were this way long before the end of the 19th century. One only has to read about the buildup to the American Revolution to know this.
|
|
|
Post by kungfuzu on Aug 1, 2021 10:16:20 GMT -8
Perhaps this is the case due to the fact that for most people, it is much more likely that they will get involved with some sort of sexual sin than for them to be the next Charles Whitman. This is possibly also why the nuts who are sexually aroused by violence, commonly known as psychopaths, are at the top of the list of criminal behavior. Grading Evil
|
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 11,018
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Aug 1, 2021 10:26:03 GMT -8
A good observation. It should be noted that anything I actually spend the time to watch to the end must have something going for it. But the main lack was a pretty predictable plot and wafer-thin characters. I thought the dynamic between the experienced-but-unkempt cops and the somewhat Felix Unger-like DI (newly in charge of this group) was weak. The main character lacked charisma. He was just a cookie-cutter type. Granted, he was supposed to be portraying a desk-bound, fast-tracked, executive type. In that regard, maybe he was a fit. But the dynamic between him and his crew were neither believable nor satisfying. The only thing his crew could do was snarl, led by Phil Davis Davis adds some gravitas as an actor and the only character (other than the ripperologist) who seemed like a real person. And, indeed, I liked the ripperologist. And they attempted to make him find a conscience (and lose his rabid commercialism) at the end. And it sort of worked. But I just found that even this was done ham-fisted. As was the transition of the pencil-pushing, fast-tracked DI to “just one of the guys.” That transition from adversary to palsy-walsy was also unbelievable and ham-fisted in implementation. I know what they were trying to do. They just didn’t do it very well. But just for shits and giggle I may pick up season two. Another serial killer of some type is in the works. Are than any other crimes than serial killers in these series? Surprisingly, not very often.
|
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 11,018
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Aug 1, 2021 10:28:40 GMT -8
Yep. Ditto. Very well stated.
|
|
|
Post by kungfuzu on Aug 1, 2021 11:39:28 GMT -8
The impression I had of this character was that he was basically lost, had little idea of where or who he was. At least that's how I recall it several years after having seen it on PBS.
|
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 11,018
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Aug 1, 2021 11:44:15 GMT -8
All true. I’m just beginning the first episode of season two. And the sergeant gives a pretty good speech at an awards banquet in defense of his DI. Puts the rest of those asses to shame. That’s the first time this series has shown real chops.
|
|