Corona | Coming Attractions

I watched an episode of Buffy yesterday. True story!!!

I can tell you what I'm NOT watching....BUFFY!

Dalty, can you rename this thread "What are you NOT watching?"

I could......

I get the feeling I'm not welcome to talk about anything I watch in these "What are you watching?" threads. You should call this series of threads the "Tell Us What You're Watching as Long as You're not Goiter" thread series.

This attitude of ours seemed to manifest itself around the time it was revealed Goits was watching Little Man 3 times a day.

Can I post here if I am watching Goiter?

The dreaded double post strikes again!

 Goiter watching is welcome.  What Goiter is watching is also welcome.

As long as none of it involves Buffy.

Okay, so his posts will be like "Garfield without Garfield?"

Daltons chin dimple wrote:

 Goiter watching is welcome.  What Goiter is watching is also welcome. As long as none of it involves Buffy.

Angel talk is all right, though?

 It has the stench of Buffy.

Fucking hell Goiter, you have done it again.  All we are talking about in this thread is goddamn Buffy. Stop it!

I haven't mentioned it once. Don't blame me.

 You are making us mention Buffy, like some evil puppet master!

I have watched the first two episodes of the second season of "Sherlock"

So far I don't care much for it, can't realy see the point.

 Did you watch the first season?

The first season acts as a good buffer for the second.

I just like watching it so I can say "Benedict Cumberbatch" over and over in my hand. Thought the last episode of the second season was pretty good, though.

Watched the first ep of Childrens Hospital. Even though it was the first episode, it starts off with "Previously on Childrens Hospital...", which made me think I had the wrong ep, but I downloaded it as well and it started off the same. And then at the end the bald dude (from Hot Tub Time Machine) said it was the first couple of eps, so that clinched it. That last scene was definitely the topper, as he explained how Childrens Hospital came to be, from his early days of acting out scenes in his basement with this other guy, who one time had him take off his pants... The telling of that scene does not end as happily as it started.

I have not seen the first season of "Sherlock", I was told it was not terribly important I do so and I agreed due to the difficulty of making it appear on television and the fact that it is only three episodes long.

That also is part of my hang up and why I can't make the show fit in my little world. It's a three episode TV show, which is the average amount of episodes I give a show to make me want to watch it. With tight, top-notch writing I can see a six episode show working, but really that borders on mini-series length. This is clearly three episodes of an average show, with nothing exceptional jumping out at me.

Perhaps I'm supposed to come into the show with my previous knowledge of Holmes lore and apply it to this to help build character...but that seems a bit lazy and also, why make it? But if I'm not, then three episodes are not enough to really give me a lock on why I should watch this show. Especially the Irene Adler ep which I found very boring and, again, pointless.

Also I can't decide if I would like the show more if it was a completely new character in the same setting, or not. I think I'm a bit hung up on it being the actual Holmes set in present time, though that throws me since I do tend to appreciate tales where known characters are adapted to different settings. But the references seem mostly tacked on. 'Hounds of Baskerville' could have easilly been called 'Vipers of some-other-location' and been done with completely original protagonists.

Or perhaps I'm burnt out. I mean I loved "Monk" and "House" was ok for two-and-a-half seasons. So modern Sherlocks have worked and were mostly enjoyable...

So yeah...I don't see the point. It's a very short show that relies on already digested information while adapting the source material in new ways. No one seems to be turning in steller performances and the scale of the show seems to be standard TV fare. 

I apologize for the rambling.
Perhaps the third episode will convert me.

I just saw the Bunheads ad in this thread. Why can't I get it to show up in my Bunheads thread? WHY????????????????

 I am watching a lot of Diamond Jubilee celebrations in honour of Her Maj!

I'm watching a "special," double-length episode of some show called Finding Bigfoot that was aired on Animal Planet. This is from the second season, so the show was apparently popular enough to get at least two seasons. In this episode, they go to the original Patterson-Gimlin site with Gimlin and attempt to recreate the footage with the original 16mm camera (or was it just the same model? I wasn't paying close attention) used for the Patterson film. They film it with one of the guys standing in for Patty. He's a cryptozoologist and a self-describe "squatcher," so he has the walk down fairly well.

Whenever you see people defending the footage as genuine, their main focus is usually on two things: the muscles moving beneath the hair and the arms, which they claim are proportionally longer than any human's arms. They bring both of these things up in the episode. What they don't point out when they're showing their recreated footage is that the fingers of the dude they have walking like Patty sweep just below the knee, same as Patty's fingers.

It always makes me roll my eyes when someone on a show says this or that couldn't have been faked in the era, then brings on some special effects whiz from Hollywood to say there was no way known to the industry during that era to fake something like this, then uses this as "irrefutable proof" that something couldn't be faked. One of the guys on the show has already claimed the Patterson film is "irrefutable proof." They haven't brought on a special effects whiz, but this is a second season episode of a show whose other episodes I've never seen, so maybe they already coaxed that old warhorse out of the stable for an earlier episode.

Anyway, the show's pretty dumb. Now they're stomping around in the forest at two in the morning with the night vision and the cameras pointed at their faces like they're on one of those ghost hunting shows. The chick in the group thought she heard a child scream out something that sounded like "Hey!" and then it cut to someone else out in the forest saying that the sound of children playing and child-like vocalizations made late at night have "been associated with Bigfoot for a long time."

Something tells me that you could throw anything at this guy, and he'd say it has "been associated with Bigfoot for a long time."

"Something smells like rotting turnips out here."
"The smell of rotting turnips has been associated with Bigfoot for a long time."

I wasn't buying this story at all, right up until the rotting turnips bit. That is definitely irrefutable proof that the video is real.

The "been associated with Bigfoot for a long time" guy has decided to stay behind for a few days and camp in the forest. It's daytime, and he's prodding at some dried bear scat. He just called bears the "other large omnivore" living in the woods. He says, "it is very important to look through bear scat to find out what they are foraging on. If we can find out what the bears are going after for food, then we have some idea of what the sasquatches are utilizing as a foodsource, as well."

The eat the same stuff, do they? Maybe that's because it's all bears.

He goes on to say the bears appear to be using this sort of cover, and he expects sasquatches are probably using the same sort of cover. To listen to this guy talk bears and sasquatches are behaviorally identical. Again, maybe that's because it's all bears.

Early on in the episode, he found some bear tracks. He pointed out how bear tracks are often mistaken for sasquatch tracks, because a bear's back foot will land just behind where its front foot landed, thus extending its track and making it look like a giant human foot.

It's weird how this guy basically says "all signs point to bear" while still asserting with a straight face that Bigfoot exists.