Heartland

Kelly's Heroes on Ch5, sooooo good

iesus wrote:

Wasn't very good was it.

I don't know why I keep watching to be honest with you. Too much surface as far as I can see, and what depth you can find is really quite boring.

I (we) quite enjoyed new episode, the new depth is what seems to be common in nowadays - to know charaters from psychological view. In case of (this) Sherlock it's natural way, since we know a little about him. I see some mockering, at least that's how i read it, from Sherlock the marvelous, the Genious. It's just three episodes, and since there's nothing closely good as this, i'll be watching.

In general i agree with most written from Bartek. Also i will add that there was a different pace that makes introduction to that new triplet of episodes and their narration. The feeling is that of a new construction over the previous that change what we all already thought was stable to something that looks unstable at first but soon will find its balance in the next second episode. And create a peak and cliffhanger in the third movie. Expectation is that we will see the removal of a couple of characters that we used to deal with in the previous seasons, perhaps with a dramatic touch that will contradict our stereotypes about the series.

iesus wrote:

Set the sky box to record this while we were out last night and sat down earlier tonight to watch it. Just getting into it an hour in, only to discover that a power cut interrupted the recording and we don't have the last half hour, aarrgh

I was slightly dissapointed by the very end, I mean that sentimental part. However episode and series was good. I hope that after few years This Sherlock Holmes and This Dr John Hamish Watson will back.

>>>not being controversial for the sake of it (i'm too polite for that) but the books of sherlock holmes are dull as ditchwater,. as is all of agatha christie's nonsense and possibly every book written about "detectives". enid blyton's "the five-find-outers and dog" (fatty, larry, pip- philip by rights- daisy and bets) used all that invisible ink and tobacco-ash guff with disguises and they weren't on drugs. i appreciate that these are undoubtedly new, better stories written by people who didnt belive in fairies, so why not create new characters and get rid of holmes? do you know that the post office has to employ someone to deal with all the letters sent to the fictional holmes at 221b baker street, an address that doesnt even exist! ? and my last GP was called Dr Moriarty and didnt he love it, the fucktard. (and....breathe. feel better now.)

I guess because Sherlock Holmes and Dr Watson is trademark well-known around the world - it's easy to sell. Out of laziness, out of not trying to invent the wheel, basing on stories that people know.

I find most novels boring, even when it isn't - i just don't want to wast time on something completly made-up. So usually i'm reading one, maybe two novels a year.

if you never read another novel you must read "...and the ass saw the angel" by nick cave. best novel ive ever read.

Now i'm reading All Quiet on the Western Front by E. M. Remarque, next in line, from novels, is Jaroslav Hasek with his The Good Soldier Svejk: and His Fortunes in the World War. Because both are about IWW.

i've read all quiet on the western front, quite a while ago though.. the first world war fascinates me. my great-grandfather lost his leg at the 3rd battle of ypes at age 17 (lied about his age to join up.)

Same here, but no personal reasons. I have no knowledge about any family member being drafted and fight in WWI, but it's more than possible than one of my grand-grand father fight in Eastern Front. But i see it (WWI) as Grand Father of everything that happened in XX centrury, with outcomes even now. I'm fascineted not abut blood, gun powder, casualties, but about orgings and outcomes of WWI.
Plus, it's a bit neglected in Poland, even that is brought independence after of 100 years of partisation. Luckly 100th anniversary hepled a bit, and there are few books to read.

Bartek wrote:Same here, but no personal reasons. I have no knowledge about any family member being drafted and fight in WWI, but it's more than possible than one of my grand-grand father fight in Eastern Front. But i see it (WWI) as Grand Father of everything that happened in XX centrury, with outcomes even now. I'm fascineted not abut blood, gun powder, casualties, but about orgings and outcomes of WWI.
Plus, it's a bit neglected in Poland, even that is brought independence after of 100 years of partisation. Luckly 100th anniversary hepled a bit, and there are few books to read.

there has been a bit of ignorant racism here towards poles and eastern european workers generally -"taking all our jobs" s**t, you know. when my step-son came home from school going on about the f**ing polish i had a serious word with him. apart from every pole ive ever met being friendly hardworking and respectful i told him that most of the reason Poland is a fairly poor country is because we -the british- let them down so terribly at the start of 2nd world war. not only did we let hitler do exactly what he wanted up to the invasion which left our help far too late, when we defeated germany we just let USSR march in and annexe poland for next 40 years. the polish airmen who fought bravely for the RAF in particular were instrumental in keeping england uninvaded; and more than anything the polish guy next door just gave you a f**king smartphone!!! he got the message.

That's very good that you trying to show other side, deepen knowledge. But facts are facts - Poles are second minority in UK's prison (AFIK).
That's not telling good about my fello countrymen. On the other hand, there's not many social-benefit-takers either. So keep balance, keep woth cold heart and open mind.

To clarify..

The UK did actually declare with Germany over their invasion of Poland although the UK was in no position to do anything about it.
With hindsight one can say that we should have taken a more aggressive stance once Hitler re-militarised the Rhineland, however with all the guilt of the huge losses of WW1 still fresh and the feeling that the Versailles Treaty had been a bit harsh that wasn't going to happen.

I agree what was the point of going to war to free Poland from one Tyranny just to let it fall under another. But at the end of WW2 the UK was absolutely f**ked and in no position to go to war with the Soviet Union.

million voices wrote:To clarify..

The UK did actually declare with Germany over their invasion of Poland although the UK was in no position to do anything about it.
With hindsight one can say that we should have taken a more aggressive stance once Hitler re-militarised the Rhineland, however with all the guilt of the huge losses of WW1 still fresh and the feeling that the Versailles Treaty had been a bit harsh that wasn't going to happen.

I agree what was the point of going to war to free Poland from one Tyranny just to let it fall under another. But at the end of WW2 the UK was absolutely f**ked and in no position to go to war with the Soviet Union.

thats exactly why little countries make alliances- and as poland's allies we should have made a stand as soon as hitler and stalin came to their agreement which made it clear that they were carving poland up between them. chamberlain didnt believe hitler when he declared "peace in our time" but britain was so desperate to avoid another european war that literally hoping the germans wouldnt invade was all they had left.
also agreed re Russia, but the whole thing could have turned out differently if we hadnt operated a policy of appeasemnt in the first place.

Bartek wrote:That's very good that you trying to show other side, deepen knowledge. But facts are facts - Poles are second minority in UK's prison (AFIK).
That's not telling good about my fello countrymen. On the other hand, there's not many social-benefit-takers either. So keep balance, keep woth cold heart and open mind.

i'm merely trying to bring my kids up to not be racist.

eastmidswhizzkid wrote:

million voices wrote:To clarify..

The UK did actually declare with Germany over their invasion of Poland although the UK was in no position to do anything about it.
With hindsight one can say that we should have taken a more aggressive stance once Hitler re-militarised the Rhineland, however with all the guilt of the huge losses of WW1 still fresh and the feeling that the Versailles Treaty had been a bit harsh that wasn't going to happen.

I agree what was the point of going to war to free Poland from one Tyranny just to let it fall under another. But at the end of WW2 the UK was absolutely f**ked and in no position to go to war with the Soviet Union.

thats exactly why little countries make alliances- and as poland's allies we should have made a stand as soon as hitler and stalin came to their agreement which made it clear that they were carving poland up between them. chamberlain didnt believe hitler when he declared "peace in our time" but britain was so desperate to avoid another european war that literally hoping the germans wouldnt invade was all they had left.
also agreed re Russia, but the whole thing could have turned out differently if we hadnt operated a policy of appeasemnt in the first place.

I do understate situtation of Western countries bleeded out after stupidest war of all - WWI. I do understand that they were reluctant to bring people to another war; Why Die for Danzig? I was that simple. It wasn't only being cynical, i was just lack of will.

And in the end, i personally believe that if something will happen, some sort of attack (vide: Little green men) will take place on Baltic states, Lithuania or Poland, NATO nor any other multilateral or bilateral agreement will not help. Agreement will be worth less than paper on which it was signed. It's not based on long gone history, but more recent facts. Europe will talk, will condemn, some sort of faux sanctions - easy to bypass, becasue it's better to have money than not, because the biggest cash are made on death (war) - but that will be all.
But i'm trying to comfort myself: next big think will happen in Asia. Europe is nothing more than touristic destination.

And btw, we made long way from Sherlock, books (novels), to war, international policy and history.

I finally caught up with Sherlock. It's fine, but it's not really Sherlock Holmes, is it?

I think that's been the biggest complaint about this recent season.
There is still a thread of solving stuff, but no real "sleuthing" to speak of.
I did enjoy the season though. I thought Mrs Hudson was excellent, especially with her Aston Martin that Watson couldn't believe was hers

I enjoyed it, but if I want any Holmesiana on TV I'll dig out my copies of the old Granada TV Sherlock Holmes with Jeremy Brett.

Nah, Basil Rathbone's the one.

I rather liked my Sherlock






yes that's me