On 04/12/2012 09:57 AM, turquoiseb wrote: > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu<noozguru@...> wrote: >> On 04/12/2012 07:51 AM, turquoiseb wrote: >>> So finally the airwaves contain images of spiritual >>> life that are almost as spiritual as Fairfield Life. :-) >>> >>> I don't think we've had any poisonings or murders >>> here, so thus far the Borgia Popes are ahead w.r.t. >>> body count, although it may be a tossup w.r.t. revenge >>> fantasies. >>> >>> Seriously, it's a pretty good series, especially if >>> you enjoy seeing the seamy underside of spirituality. >>> Even the TMO and the Srivastavas seem tame compared >>> to the Borgia Popes. >>> >>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xZ6Qr4kxc3U >> You seem to have a thing for medieval times which I don't, >> so I figured I wouldn't miss "The Borgias" even though I >> tried an episode or two the first season. > I completely understand this, and do not fault you > for feeling this way. I am attracted to the medieval > period because I feel that it provides the clearest > parallel to our own times.
I can see the parallel but they often throw in the romanticism of the era which doesn't interest me. I find the parallel to the late 19th century more relevant or even the 1920's with "Boardwalk Empire." Interesting that not much has been done about the late 1800s and the corruption that existed in the US then, at least as a series. Too revealing or "close to home" I would guess. We can look at films like "There Will Be Blood" for that. And though you don't believe in astrology the US is going through similar patterns today that it went through with the corruption of 120 years ago (Vimshottari cycle being 120 years and then repeats). >> I might look at an episode of "Game of Thrones" though it >> doesn't sound like my cuppa tea either. > It's challenging. First, it's a fantasy series, which > means that it's not everybody's cuppa tea. Second, it > has an *enormous* cast, all with weird names, so most > Americans almost by definition don't have the attention > span to follow it. For the same reason I dropped "Lost Girl" because it was more fantasy than occult. I like occult and that is why I still watch "Supernatural" even though they drifted into Biblical fantasy for a while which I have no use for. They're back at ghosts and occult phenomena. And then there is just I have too much TV to watch. Geez, I recall in the 1970s, 80s and 90s I hardly watched TV. I found broadcast TV mostly droll and in the late 80s started watching more movies on rentals which has continued. Then there is just the understanding that broadcast TV is a contrived medium mainly where a showrunner pitches a show and if bought by the network turns more into a meal ticket than a true form of entertainment. We are "strung along" with many episodes of something that could have been condensed to a 4 or 6 hour mini series. People feel that their time is cheated with the latter and that is why broadcast TV in the US is having a hard time these days. The old formulas don't work anymore. This may also be the reason that some of the cable nets and premium channels are turning to remakes of BBC series because most were originally shorter and better written. If you string along BBC watchers you are playing with their subscriptions fees and they might not take too kindly to that. That said, I was actually reluctant when offered the deal by Comcast to take it. But I knew I would probably sign up for HBO, hopefully at promo come summer for "True Blood" (if It returns then) so it took care of that and I could see if the second tier is really worth anything. And the other part of the deal I didn't mention was that I could cancel in 30 days if I didn't want it at no charge. And for those who wonder why I don't read a book instead, I spend the day doing close eye work programming. Looking at a 53" screen 8' from me is actually relaxing on the eyes (and at least one optometrist agrees).
