I watched the entire first series of Orphan Black. (Since you mentioned it on Saturday, Haldurson.) It was better than most programs. I really dislike cliffhangers though. I hope the second season will be good when they start cranking them out.
BTW, I managed to catch the season finale of "The Walking Dead" last night, and it was really good. Of course, it was a cliffhanger, but you also get the impression that Rick, the main character of the series is finally ready to handle just about anything (as he proved earlier in the episode). For most of the last half-season, the group had gotten split up, and most of the episodes since that happened have been telling more personal stories about the various characters, including some characters that we didn't know as well as we might have liked, or showing how some of them have changed since we first met them. Finally, most of the group has been reunited in Terminus because of a message posted on various railroad crossings and on the radio "Come to Terminus: Those that arrive, survive". And as it likely was no surprise to anyone who's been following the series, Terminus is not quite what they were hoping for. What it actually is, and what happened to the rest of their group (egs. Carol and Tyrese and Beth) we'll have to wait for the fall season premier to find out.
FYI, if you have BBC America, I BELIEVE that season 2 of Orphan Black premiers this weekend. I've already seen a couple of episodes from the new season of Continuum, and it's still worth watching. But if time travel and the hazards of changing history make your head spin... well, you've been warned. Btw: http://www.rogerebert.com/demanders...orphan-black-picks-up-right-where-it-left-off
I just watched the first five episodes of the new Cosmos series. It is good, but my major gripe is that while they do bother to say that many people in the past had the idea that things they could not imagine could not be the way things are, they then proceed to state rather "mater of fact"ly that life cannot exist without planets and that the entire Universe is made of the same elements we know our Solar system is made of. My complaint against life not being possible without planets is the fact that for all we know, there is life out there in the void between galaxies, and even inside stars. Everywhere we have looked for life on this planet we have found some. Even on the carbon control rods of nuclear reactors. So saying it cannot exist when we have not been there to look for it is a contradiction of the scientific method they did bother to explain. And my complaint against the entire Universe being made of the same elements as our Sol system is that they base this entirely off the lines made in a spectroscope. Nothing more or less than that. Has any Human ever managed to get even one single molecule of Neutronium? We believe it has to exist, but we have never had any to prove that either, and without knowing where it would fit in the spectroscope, they are again drawing a premature conclusion. (It may not fit anywhere in the spectroscope too.) And we have no definite proof that no other elements can exist. I do understand why they choose to say these things anyway. And they may not mean them as literally as I took them, but this is science damn-it. I expect perfection if they do not put a big bold warning label that says it was all pulled right out of their asses. Hell, if they bothered to say that some of the statements are still hypotheses, that would have satisfied me. I just hate to think someone could watch this to open their mind and be drowned in ignorance. And please take note, while I whine and bitch and moan about every little thing, I do think it is a good program, and I suggest you watch it if you have not already. I will continue watching it until I finish it.
One of my buddies, when I was studying marine biology, put it a way that I always liked best: "Science is the unending search for answers that we may never have, but most scientists think they know it all." I have yet to view the new Cosmos, but it's on my list! I'll watch it with OmniaNigrum's giant warning label in mind
It's definitely a simplistic statement because of the intended audience. But I have to agree with his statement (sort of). In order for life to exist in our universe, whether it's carbon-based, or some other unknown kind of life, what you need are atoms and molecules coming together to make complex structures, able to reproduce, take in energy from its environment, spread, and so on. We don't know just how specific those conditions have to be, but in all likelihood, you need liquid and gas in order to get those chemicals to mix together with lots of mixing and collisions in order to create those structures, but not so much energy that it tears apart any chemical bonds that are formed as soon as they are created. Generally, that means you need a planet. Star are too hot, and asteroids and comets don't have enough gravity to hold liquids and gases. Without planets, you are unlikely to have the conditions under which life and really complex molecules to form. Of course, unlikely does not mean impossible, but my guess is that it's so unlikely that it just won't and has not happened. That said, once you have those really complex molecules, who knows what variety can arise from them? So that's why I said "sort of". Neutronium is a theoretical substance, and if we actually really discover it, I'm sure that Mr. Tyson would be happy to revise his statement.
Scientists believe specifically that they DON'T know it all -- that's why they are scientists. IF they believed they knew everything, they'd instead be priests or prophets or oracles. The problem isn't that THEY believe they know everything, but that certain other people believe that they know everything.
In case it wasn't clear, that quote actually came from a scientist. You ever spend a lot of time around scientists? Second most conceited group of people I've ever spent time with, just behind doctors. The lofty goal of science is that we don't know everything, which is the first part of my quote. The sad reality is that a lot of scientists left that goal a long time ago. There are still plenty who try to live up to the ideals, and there are plenty that don't. ...but that's off-topic. Cosmos is on my Weekend Watch list and I'll see what I think of it!
For any of you who were fans of the cult classic television series, "Twin Peaks", guess what? It looks like it may be coming back to television in 2016. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt4093826/?ref_=fn_al_tt_2 If you haven't seen the original series, or want to refresh your memory, it's available on Netflix, and Hulu Plus. "Twin Peaks" was this really trippy television series set in a logging town of the same name. It was like nothing anyone had ever seen before on television. Season 1 was primarily about the investigation of the murder of Laura Palmer, led by an FBI agent played by Kyle MacLachlan, but there are so many other strange goings on in the town and all sorts of side stories. The show kind of lost focus in season 2, but it still was a lot of fun to watch. The show was a real cultural phenomenon. It had this excellently moody and unsettling musical score. And where else can you see David Duchovny in drag? /edit Also wanted to add this link:
I absolutely love the Psych episode that pays tribute to Twin Peaks, entitled, appropriately enough, Dual Spires.
I'm going to have to look for that now. I think I started watching the premier episode of psych, but couldn't bear to watch the whole thing (I think I thought it was trying too hard to be funny and clever, and failed miserably at both). Maybe it got better later on(?)
BTW, I have another show to recommend -- just watched the pilot for "The Flash" yesterday, and it was very enjoyable -- certainly I liked it much better than "Gotham" -- there's something about "Gotham" that I can't quite put my finger on, that I don't care for very much). Mostly, I like the characters in the show and some of the actors. It has a lot of charm. It's not emmy material, certainly, but it is fun.
To be honest, while I enjoy the first season of Psych, it's not their best. This is a show that got better as it went on, and definitely by the end of season 2 they were well into their groove. However, I also fully admit that the humor isn't for everyone. I happen to like it, but that doesn't mean everyone will. If you never watch another Psych episode, I would at least recommend the end of Season 2: Black and Tan: A Crime of Fashion. Although High Top Fade-Out is also excellent. As is.... seriously, it's probably tied for my favorite show. The characters have great chemistry, and the jokes just work for me for some reason.
Here's some interesting news about the SyFy channel, a channel that I have a real love-hate relationship with (mostly hate): http://doubtfulnews.com/2014/10/no-more-paranormal-un-reality-shows-on-syfy/#comment-229820 You can see my comment below the article. I remember way back when "Farscape" was on the air, and I attended a panel with the writers and creators of the show at the Worldcon that year. They were pretty frank about what they thought about the people running the SyFy channel, particularly how bad the channel got when they put this one particular person in charge, a person who really didn't give a damn whether the shows were SF related or not. This woman who didn't even like science fiction, much less would recognize it even on a brightly lit day was suddenly in charge of the programming, and she would get rid of halfway decent shows in favor of Wrestling and so on, because after all, regular people watch wrestling and science fiction is too cerebral for regular people.
I'm going to recommend an excellent miniseries currently running on BBC America here in the U.S. If you've read some of my previous reviews and comments in the movie and book topics, you may know, I love a good spy story. Well, there's a really good one running now called "The Game". It's a cold war spy thriller, with some definite noirish aspects to it. The premise is that a Soviet plot has been uncovered by MI-5, code-named 'Operation Glass'. The nature of this plot is unknown, but various soviet sleeper agents are being 'woken' for tasks related to this plot. The story is complicated by the fact that MI-5 agent Joe Lambe (played excellently by Tom Hughes) may have a personal vendetta against the soviet agent code-named "Odin". Further complicating the story is the suspicion that MI-5 has been infiltrated by a mole. Anyway, 2 out of 6 episodes have already aired here in the U.S., and it probably would have been better had I written about this after the 1st episode. But here it is. It's one of the best BBC America series I've seen recently.
For any who gave up on Agents of SHIELD early on in its first season, I seriously recommend they give it a chance. My wife and I just did a binge-watch of all of Season 1 and what's there of Season 2 (bought it on Amazon video). I personally don't mind a 'slow-burn' kind of show, but can see why people would have given up. Starting with Episode 10 of season 1, "The Bridge," things really started coming together. An interesting note, however, while it might have seemed 'slow' or somehow not connected, every episode prior to that introduces something that pays off later. (with the possible exception of #9, "Repairs," although we do find out why Agent May was given the nickname Cavalry.) Season 2 ramped the quality up even better than the last handful of episodes of Season 1, and that's saying something, because the episodes that tie into Captain America: The Winter Soldier are seriously epic. Season 1 is coming to Netflix in a couple of days, so I definitely say to give it a go if you like the Marvel Cinematic Universe.
I never watched any of Agents of SHIELD. I saw the word "Marvel" and just looked away. If I were a third my age, they may still have some interest to me, but I am simply not interested in fantasy stuff geared for children. I know, people always read that to mean that nothing Marvel makes is made for adults, and that is not what I mean. I mean merely that their primary audience is children and teens. Moreover, there is nothing wrong with an adult liking stuff made for kids. But I get annoyed by the general genre.
I consider Agents of Shield to be family-oriented. A lot of Marvel stuff falls into that category. Essentially, it's fantasy that is family-friendly, in that it's not particularly sophisticated nor unsophisticated, and it also is not geared towards children or teen issues, and relationships. For those reasons, I consider it a family show, not really a children or adult show. It's intended to appeal to a wider audience. It's kind of like James Bond without the sex or sophistication.
I just watched the last episode of the series, and I definitely still recommend it. I still think that the old BBC version of "Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy" is one of the best made-for-TV miniseries ever, but this is still pretty good. And it feels like it was inspired by John Le Carre (and I mean that in a good way). Right now, what I'm most looking forward to is Season 2 of the French series, "Les Revenants", It was originally supposed to premier on A&E in the US in November, but there were filming delays, and it should be coming sometime in 2015 instead. If you haven't seen season 1, and you are a fan of moody character-driven stories with dark and mysterious story arcs, then you definitely should look for it.
I was about to go out today to run some errands, and so on. HOWEVER, I quite accidentally discovered the existence of a brand new made-for-Amazon TV series based on an old science fiction classic, The Man in the High Castle, by Phillip K. Dick. The novel posits that the Allies lost WWII, and the US (and a lot of the world) became an occupied nation. Everything east of the Mississippi becomes part of Nazi Germany, the West coast belongs to Japan, and in the middle is a Nazi puppet state, serving as a buffer between the two. The pilot starts in 1962 -- only older adults remember what the USA was like before it was conquered. There's a kind of underground resistance. But really, Germany and Japan are in full control. Somewhere, there is an anonymous unknown party, nicknamed "The Man in the High Castle" who has written a novel, and been making a film of said novel (entitled "The Grasshopper Lies Heavy") of a fictional world where the axis powers actually lost WWII. The novel has been banned, as well as the film, and ownership of either is a crime. Note that right now, only the pilot for the series is available. What Amazon wants people to do is to view a variety of pilots that they have created and answer surveys and review the pilots, and this will help determine which of the pilots will become series. This is the only pilot I've seen so far, but I think it's a winner. It's not perfect, it may defy expectations, as it is NOT, as some people might gather, some kind of Red Dawn-type story with lots of action and fighting and super-patriotism. There is certainly a good deal of drama to it, but and there is a little bit of action here and there. But mostly, it's a slow-burner (and I mean that in a good way). BTW, the novel never really has a traditional ending. And from what I've read, Dick intended on writing a sequel. But he found that reading about/revisiting his studies of the Nazis was far too depressing, it never materialized. I'm just mentioning this, because this may leave the writers of the television series much room to expand upon Dick's story (for better or worse). Unfortunately, Phillip K. Dick died back in 1982, so if there ever is a sequel, Dick is unlikely to write it. You can watch the pilot for free here: http://smile.amazon.com/Man-High-Ca...48&sr=8-1&keywords=the+man+in+the+high+castle
