Vexed
11:01 Sun May 10
Re: Gangs of London
|
This is terrible. Terribly cast, the main character just isn't convincing as a gangster and his mate Carlton Banks is just as bad. Why are they all so weedy and posh?
Why the fuck are the "pikeys" Welsh? Storyline is ridiculous too.
Yet somehow I've watched three episodes of it. Gomorrah is much better, but warning to WHOers - you do need to be able to read to watch it.
|
On The Ball
9:43 Sun May 10
Re: Gangs of London
|
Stick with it, ted. It's not the greatest but you've watched two thirds of it!
|
ted fenton
8:03 Sun May 10
Re: Gangs of London
|
OK FH I'll let you know ;-)
|
Fortunes Hiding
7:11 Sun May 10
Re: Gangs of London
|
It’s worth sticking with Ted
|
ted fenton
5:12 Sun May 10
Re: Gangs of London
|
Watched up to episode 6 and so far not impressed some hard pikey stapling his guts together then taking around 10 bullets FFS !!
I think I'm done with this.
|
Bexley Ironworks
3:09 Fri May 1
Re: Gangs of London
|
Watched episode 1. Gangsters who sounded like they were from Eton and Gypsies from the Welsh valleys. What next, Yardies from Somerset and Triads from Newcastle?
|
Nagel
1:47 Fri May 1
Re: Gangs of London
|
I think alfs is right to the extent that all the competing streaming and TV channels are concentrating on making their own exclusive content, so you're going to get an element of quantity over quality.
On the other hand they'll need better scripts to attract the quality film actors and directors who bring in viewers. So, in the end there's likely to be more crap and more good stuff as well.
Expecting a TV adaptation of Taken to be "brilliant" is very silly though.
|
Haz
1:39 Fri May 1
Re: Gangs of London
|
Loving this series! Proper binge TV.
And the action scenes are some of the best I've seen. Apart from that Korean film, The Raid. Then someone told me it was the same director? Makes sense.
Gotta be honest, I'm enjoying DEVS too.
|
PeterJ
12:04 Fri May 1
Re: Gangs of London
|
So I’m right then Alfs? We are not entering the age of throwaway tv? That happened a long time ago.
Just because you work in a certain field, doesn’t mean you know what you are talking about or are any good
|
Joe C
9:59 Thu Apr 30
Re: Gangs of London
|
Yeah, episode 5 was mental
|
collyrob
8:21 Thu Apr 30
Re: Gangs of London
|
Have to agree with sold0. Very much enjoyed it. Some of the actions scenes were amazing. The gaf shoot up in episode 5 was incredible.
Overall 7.5/ 10
|
Northern Sold
6:42 Thu Apr 30
Re: Gangs of London
|
Well I certainly enjoyed it... more than decent ... plotlines along with the Long Good Friday but with just far far more carnage... have seen far far worse...
solid 8/10
|
Swiss.
5:50 Thu Apr 30
Re: Gangs of London
|
I agree Alfs. They've got us by the balls. Will make sure we'll watch every bit of dross archive while keeping the subscriptions and in fact increasing under Covid.
Won't be spending a lot of dosh will they on new stuff. Of course its hard to anyway.
|
rochesterjohn
6:55 Wed Apr 29
Re: Gangs of London
|
Bang on the money Alfs.
Comedy, the same scenario, live & TV.
Most don’t understand that it takes 10 years + to cobble together a live 20/30 minute bullet proof set and I’m including the biggest names.
TV the same, bashed out to fill the vast amount of airtime.
I have (or had anyway as we’re all sat at home doing fuck all and looking at what minimum wage career to pursue) many discussions saying that this is a dark time for comedy, in years to come we’ll look at the content and think “what the actual fuck” is this shit?
Joke writing / structure is being replaced by performance, it’s awful.
I know acts doing their 4th & 5th Edinburgh 1 hour shows that haven’t got a bankable 20 min circuit set.
Anyway I’m off to buy some rope.
|
Alfs
5:36 Wed Apr 29
Re: Gangs of London
|
Yes, throwaway tv has been around ever since Proctor and Gamble started producing soap operas back in the 1950s.
My point is that now it's all, ALL, about new content so the writing and development are seriously compromised.
Take Killing Eve for example. Great series 1 so they rushed out series 2, which was meh. Then rushed out series 3. Meh again. What began with massive plaudits ended up being an okay but forgettable series.
My fear is great tv such as The Sopranos, Breaking Bad etc etc will disappear as content replaces quality.
Peter J, no I'm not an idiot, I've spent a great portion of my life working in tv as a scriptwriter and have an acute understanding of the industry.
Thanks for your fascinating and enlightening input anyway.
|
PeterJ
3:52 Wed Apr 29
Re: Gangs of London
|
Entering the throw away tv? Yeah because that didn’t happen in the 90’s? Or reality tv recently. Jesus you’re an idiot
|
lowermarshhammer
3:52 Wed Apr 29
Re: Gangs of London
|
"Entering the age of to throwaway TV''...
Clearly you weren't around in 1982 when Channel4 kicked off.
|
Alfs
3:49 Wed Apr 29
Re: Gangs of London
|
I've been dipping into lots of Netflix and Amazon shows since lockdown and I've noticed a quite dramatic reduction in quality. Not budget, but script development, story arcs, etc.
It seems we're entering the age of throwaway tv. Make it, get it out there forget it.
I began watching Taken, the prequel tv series on Amazon. It could have/should have been brilliant but by episode 2 it's like the A-Team with a bigger budget. All action, no character, formulaic.
|
collyrob
10:02 Tue Apr 28
Re: Gangs of London
|
Sean Wallace = a young Kevin Nolan
|
peroni
2:41 Tue Apr 28
Re: Gangs of London
|
Justin
I've heard Extraction is worse than Gangs of London
|
whu
2:38 Tue Apr 28
Re: Gangs of London
|
it's watchable
like the bourne identity, unrealistic but watchable
|
| 
