Author Topic: Netflix/Streaming Suggestions  (Read 213421 times)

mouldy_uk and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Tomato Deuce

  • Book Wanker
  • General Member
Re: Netflix suggestions
« Reply #550 on: Sunday 5 March 2017, 06:56:33 PM »
I can't believe we're still talking about this f***ing trial, some 20+ years later. Who cares.

Offline HTT

  • tl;dr
  • General Member
Re: Netflix suggestions
« Reply #551 on: Sunday 5 March 2017, 07:08:18 PM »
:lol:  The fact that HTT thinks OJ is innocent make me even more certain that Steven Avery is guilty.

Then you are an idiot. I would bet my savings SA is innocent btw, OJ it's just a hunch of mine.

The only real evidence that tied OJ to the murders was the blood, blood that contained EDTA for a start which renders it untrustworthy. Then there is the fact that his own blood was transported back to the crime scene by a cop and that the chain of evidence was broken several times. That and a vial of his blood was missing some blood too. Again the chain of evidence broken. The crime scenes were contaminated also.

The blood was planted IMO and so was the glove which contained blood that was wet some 7 hours after discovery. Experts agreed the blood would have dried up in that time. It was planted by the racist cop.

If he did kill them, where was the evidence of a struggle from the deceased against the killer? OJ had one small cut to his finger which experts have said could have been a cut from broken glass or even a paper cut.

Ron Goldman was of similar height and a black belt in Karate, he put up one hell of a fight against someone armed with a large blade, yet OJ had no signs of being in an altercation at all.

And all that blood, if he killed them and then jumped into his vehicle, there would have been much more blood.

I think Simpson is a narcissit and he looked guilty and all his attempts shout out as someone trying too hard to prove their innocence. But did he kill them? The evidence says no, a jury says no and everything I've watched and read since says no either. Although he clearly knows more and maybe even visited the crime scene. Perhaps he wanted Goldman beaten up... who knows. I highly doubt based on evidence he himself physically killed those two people though.
Wee Hughie - the greatest centre-forward Newcastle United ever had

Online Kaizero

  • General Member
Re: Netflix suggestions
« Reply #552 on: Sunday 5 March 2017, 07:15:49 PM »
The jury members also have said in later times that they voted to exonerate him as a direct payback for the Rodney King beaters walking.

He has previous for almost killing her with how badly he's beaten her. He has previous in displaying a private character vs a public character.

Everybody naturally has EDTA in their blood and it was only used as a defense to try their f*** the police angle.

There were a lot of blood in the Bronco and at Rockingham, and they never found the murder weapon or clothes (other than the gloves. The blood taken from OJ would not be near enough to be the same amount as what was found.

The timeline you're suggesting for a frame job is nonsensical. It is nigh impossible and would require prior knowledge of the murders for over fifteen cops in different departments all working together because they did not like OJ - when in fact the police were among OJs best friends and why he got special treatment troughout.

I don't know why this need arguing. Even some of his defense lawyers have come out and said he did it and expressed this case was a stain on their conscience.

Offline Pilko

  • General Member
  • Bunsen burner
Re: Netflix suggestions
« Reply #553 on: Sunday 5 March 2017, 10:42:08 PM »
I can't believe we're still talking about this f***ing trial, some 20+ years later. Who cares.

Errr... the huge audiences that the recent show has got proves it's still of interest surely?
"Does a struggling salesman start turning up on a bicycle? No, he turns up in a newer car. Perception." - David Brent

Offline Tomato Deuce

  • Book Wanker
  • General Member
Re: Netflix suggestions
« Reply #554 on: Sunday 5 March 2017, 10:45:35 PM »
I can't believe we're still talking about this f***ing trial, some 20+ years later. Who cares.

Errr... the huge audiences that the recent show has got proves it's still of interest surely?

Clearly plenty of people care, I admit. That they do makes no sense to me.

Offline Stifleaay

  • Heavy scarer of dogs
  • General Member
  • Come here you ginger bitch.
Re: Netflix suggestions
« Reply #555 on: Monday 6 March 2017, 12:20:01 AM »
I can't believe we're still talking about this f***ing trial, some 20+ years later. Who cares.

Errr... the huge audiences that the recent show has got proves it's still of interest surely?
Misleading though. Plenty of people who remember it will watch it because it's a big event they watched unfold. A lot of younger people (my age and younger) will watch it because of the rise of the leftist culture where they perceive everyone and every organisation (including the criminal prosecution services) as being riddled with corruption and will see this as an example of that.

I don't think it's something that is still routinely brought up in conversation, but it is something people will watch largely down to those two reasons.

Online Kaizero

  • General Member
Re: Netflix suggestions
« Reply #556 on: Monday 6 March 2017, 02:56:06 AM »
I can't believe we're still talking about this f***ing trial, some 20+ years later. Who cares.

Errr... the huge audiences that the recent show has got proves it's still of interest surely?
Misleading though. Plenty of people who remember it will watch it because it's a big event they watched unfold. A lot of younger people (my age and younger) will watch it because of the rise of the leftist culture where they perceive everyone and every organisation (including the criminal prosecution services) as being riddled with corruption and will see this as an example of that.

I don't think it's something that is still routinely brought up in conversation, but it is something people will watch largely down to those two reasons.

What? What?! They'll watch it because it's hyped to f*** and is essentially is about the birth of reality TV and the Kardashians. Also it's got Ross from Friends playing a Kardashian they know little about. Like f*** will most of our generation put it on because they want confirmation the court system does not work. I mean, how? What? How? What even? What?!

Offline HTT

  • tl;dr
  • General Member
Re: Netflix suggestions
« Reply #557 on: Monday 6 March 2017, 12:28:39 PM »
The jury members also have said in later times that they voted to exonerate him as a direct payback for the Rodney King beaters walking.

He has previous for almost killing her with how badly he's beaten her. He has previous in displaying a private character vs a public character.

Everybody naturally has EDTA in their blood and it was only used as a defense to try their f*** the police angle.

There were a lot of blood in the Bronco and at Rockingham, and they never found the murder weapon or clothes (other than the gloves. The blood taken from OJ would not be near enough to be the same amount as what was found.

The timeline you're suggesting for a frame job is nonsensical. It is nigh impossible and would require prior knowledge of the murders for over fifteen cops in different departments all working together because they did not like OJ - when in fact the police were among OJs best friends and why he got special treatment troughout.

I don't know why this need arguing. Even some of his defense lawyers have come out and said he did it and expressed this case was a stain on their conscience.

His race obviously helped him get acquitted agreed, but a jury still found him innocent despite the prosecution's slam dunk 'evidence.'

He didn't have previous for almost killing her either, he had previous for hitting her, but not almost killing her. Huge difference.

EDTA levels were too high and the drops of blood at his home and in his car were minute. For such a bloody crime scene there was a distinct lack of blood in that respect.

Again, there was no physical evidence on OJ's person that he had been in a bloody struggle with two people, one a 6ft plus black belt in karate and another a highly strung, fiercely independent women. That is what stood out to me. That and missing blood from his vial, the so-called bloody glove which shouldn't have been soaking wet by the time it was found, and the poor chain of evidence and contamination of not only the crime scene but OJ's home and car.

It wouldn't have required 15 cops to be in on it either, it only takes one cop to plant the blood and that is what tied OJ to the case.

Just like the Steven Avery case, they homed in on him and went all out to get him.

If OJ was poor, given his race, he'd be on death row now or dead. That's scary.

As for why this needs arguing, its a discussion on the case which although decades old, has now resurfaced thanks to the show and I personally find it interesting and worth debating as its not a case of oh he did it or oh he didn't.
Wee Hughie - the greatest centre-forward Newcastle United ever had

Offline HTT

  • tl;dr
  • General Member
Re: Netflix suggestions
« Reply #558 on: Monday 6 March 2017, 12:34:21 PM »
I can't believe we're still talking about this f***ing trial, some 20+ years later. Who cares.

Errr... the huge audiences that the recent show has got proves it's still of interest surely?
Misleading though. Plenty of people who remember it will watch it because it's a big event they watched unfold. A lot of younger people (my age and younger) will watch it because of the rise of the leftist culture where they perceive everyone and every organisation (including the criminal prosecution services) as being riddled with corruption and will see this as an example of that.

I don't think it's something that is still routinely brought up in conversation, but it is something people will watch largely down to those two reasons.

What? What?! They'll watch it because it's hyped to f*** and is essentially is about the birth of reality TV and the Kardashians. Also it's got Ross from Friends playing a Kardashian they know little about. Like f*** will most of our generation put it on because they want confirmation the court system does not work. I mean, how? What? How? What even? What?!

I seriously doubt people watched it or watch it because its hyped to f*** and because Ross from Friends is in it. That's a snobbish view IMO. Its a docu-series about a courtroom, what could be more boring?

I suspect people are watching it because they are fascinated by the whole OJ case having been too young when it was actually being played out live (I'd be one such person) and of course because of other factors like race and justice (things that also interest me).

I couldn't tell you which Kardashian is which and I don't look at Ross from Friends when I see David Schwimmer I see that c*** Captain Sobel from Band of Brothers.
Wee Hughie - the greatest centre-forward Newcastle United ever had

Online Kaizero

  • General Member
Re: Netflix suggestions
« Reply #559 on: Monday 6 March 2017, 01:47:51 PM »
I can't believe we're still talking about this f***ing trial, some 20+ years later. Who cares.

Errr... the huge audiences that the recent show has got proves it's still of interest surely?
Misleading though. Plenty of people who remember it will watch it because it's a big event they watched unfold. A lot of younger people (my age and younger) will watch it because of the rise of the leftist culture where they perceive everyone and every organisation (including the criminal prosecution services) as being riddled with corruption and will see this as an example of that.

I don't think it's something that is still routinely brought up in conversation, but it is something people will watch largely down to those two reasons.

What? What?! They'll watch it because it's hyped to f*** and is essentially is about the birth of reality TV and the Kardashians. Also it's got Ross from Friends playing a Kardashian they know little about. Like f*** will most of our generation put it on because they want confirmation the court system does not work. I mean, how? What? How? What even? What?!

I seriously doubt people watched it or watch it because its hyped to f*** and because Ross from Friends is in it. That's a snobbish view IMO. Its a docu-series about a courtroom, what could be more boring?

I suspect people are watching it because they are fascinated by the whole OJ case having been too young when it was actually being played out live (I'd be one such person) and of course because of other factors like race and justice (things that also interest me).

I couldn't tell you which Kardashian is which and I don't look at Ross from Friends when I see David Schwimmer I see that c*** Captain Sobel from Band of Brothers.

It is a snobbish view, but that doesn't change that that's how it is. I'm a TV snob. I watch s*** for different reasons than the average person my age, evident by the people I know that are my age who watch stuff. Sure, certain exceptions exist - but I guarantee you most will have checked it out because it was hyped to f***. They wanted to check out what the hype was about due to the FOMO people of this generation have. The Kardashian hype angle was also massive when it aired on TV, as well as the hype surrounding David Schwimmer acting again. Now, the Kardashian/Schwimmer hype was only going on when it actually aired - the second wind on Netflix is down to the hype the show has gotten since it aired.

Online Kaizero

  • General Member
Re: Netflix suggestions
« Reply #560 on: Monday 6 March 2017, 01:53:52 PM »
The jury members also have said in later times that they voted to exonerate him as a direct payback for the Rodney King beaters walking.

He has previous for almost killing her with how badly he's beaten her. He has previous in displaying a private character vs a public character.

Everybody naturally has EDTA in their blood and it was only used as a defense to try their f*** the police angle.

There were a lot of blood in the Bronco and at Rockingham, and they never found the murder weapon or clothes (other than the gloves. The blood taken from OJ would not be near enough to be the same amount as what was found.

The timeline you're suggesting for a frame job is nonsensical. It is nigh impossible and would require prior knowledge of the murders for over fifteen cops in different departments all working together because they did not like OJ - when in fact the police were among OJs best friends and why he got special treatment troughout.

I don't know why this need arguing. Even some of his defense lawyers have come out and said he did it and expressed this case was a stain on their conscience.

His race obviously helped him get acquitted agreed, but a jury still found him innocent despite the prosecution's slam dunk 'evidence.'

He didn't have previous for almost killing her either, he had previous for hitting her, but not almost killing her. Huge difference.

EDTA levels were too high and the drops of blood at his home and in his car were minute. For such a bloody crime scene there was a distinct lack of blood in that respect.

Again, there was no physical evidence on OJ's person that he had been in a bloody struggle with two people, one a 6ft plus black belt in karate and another a highly strung, fiercely independent women. That is what stood out to me. That and missing blood from his vial, the so-called bloody glove which shouldn't have been soaking wet by the time it was found, and the poor chain of evidence and contamination of not only the crime scene but OJ's home and car.

It wouldn't have required 15 cops to be in on it either, it only takes one cop to plant the blood and that is what tied OJ to the case.

Just like the Steven Avery case, they homed in on him and went all out to get him.

If OJ was poor, given his race, he'd be on death row now or dead. That's scary.

As for why this needs arguing, its a discussion on the case which although decades old, has now resurfaced thanks to the show and I personally find it interesting and worth debating as its not a case of oh he did it or oh he didn't.

Same jury who has stated after the fact they only aquitted as revenge for the Rodney King policemen walking.

"Juror Carrie Bess, who is now in her 70s, is asked whether “there are members of the jury that voted to acquit OJ because of Rodney King.”

“Yes,” she says simply. Then says that she was one of them."


He had previous for almost beating her to death, and was put under arrest - but escaped saying he was gonna change his clothes, then called his police friends to get him off.

They were not. And it is not weird at all that there were not too much blood at Rockingham even if the actual crime scene was bloody.

Goldman and Brown did not fight back against the killer. Evidence from the crime scene and the bodies back it up. The bloody glove could easily still be wet at the time, as proven by the forensic experts during the actual case.

The blood was not planted. There is no discernable way to even back up that statement. Yes, the policeman took with him the vial prior to booking it - but the blood evidence was taken from both crime scenes prior to the police taking OJs blood. The glove was also not planted, over fifteen policemen arrived before Fuhrman and all reported that there was only one glove at the crime scene - again, prior to Fuhrman even arriving.

If OJ was poor he'd probably be on death row, yes. And justice would have prevailed.
« Last Edit: Monday 6 March 2017, 02:12:12 PM by Kaizero »

Offline HTT

  • tl;dr
  • General Member
Re: Netflix suggestions
« Reply #561 on: Monday 6 March 2017, 04:15:08 PM »
I can't believe we're still talking about this f***ing trial, some 20+ years later. Who cares.

Errr... the huge audiences that the recent show has got proves it's still of interest surely?
Misleading though. Plenty of people who remember it will watch it because it's a big event they watched unfold. A lot of younger people (my age and younger) will watch it because of the rise of the leftist culture where they perceive everyone and every organisation (including the criminal prosecution services) as being riddled with corruption and will see this as an example of that.

I don't think it's something that is still routinely brought up in conversation, but it is something people will watch largely down to those two reasons.

What? What?! They'll watch it because it's hyped to f*** and is essentially is about the birth of reality TV and the Kardashians. Also it's got Ross from Friends playing a Kardashian they know little about. Like f*** will most of our generation put it on because they want confirmation the court system does not work. I mean, how? What? How? What even? What?!

I seriously doubt people watched it or watch it because its hyped to f*** and because Ross from Friends is in it. That's a snobbish view IMO. Its a docu-series about a courtroom, what could be more boring?

I suspect people are watching it because they are fascinated by the whole OJ case having been too young when it was actually being played out live (I'd be one such person) and of course because of other factors like race and justice (things that also interest me).

I couldn't tell you which Kardashian is which and I don't look at Ross from Friends when I see David Schwimmer I see that c*** Captain Sobel from Band of Brothers.

It is a snobbish view, but that doesn't change that that's how it is. I'm a TV snob. I watch s*** for different reasons than the average person my age, evident by the people I know that are my age who watch stuff. Sure, certain exceptions exist - but I guarantee you most will have checked it out because it was hyped to f***. They wanted to check out what the hype was about due to the FOMO people of this generation have. The Kardashian hype angle was also massive when it aired on TV, as well as the hype surrounding David Schwimmer acting again. Now, the Kardashian/Schwimmer hype was only going on when it actually aired - the second wind on Netflix is down to the hype the show has gotten since it aired.

I still think a good majority will have watched it not for those reasons you've mentioned. I personally never saw or felt the hype because I've only just watched it obviously. That's me all over mind, I seem to catch up on things years later. Breaking Bad, The Office etc. I did watch Making a Murderer when it first come out though thanks to this forum.
Wee Hughie - the greatest centre-forward Newcastle United ever had

Offline HTT

  • tl;dr
  • General Member
Re: Netflix suggestions
« Reply #562 on: Monday 6 March 2017, 04:45:52 PM »
Same jury who has stated after the fact they only aquitted as revenge for the Rodney King policemen walking.

"Juror Carrie Bess, who is now in her 70s, is asked whether “there are members of the jury that voted to acquit OJ because of Rodney King.”

“Yes,” she says simply. Then says that she was one of them."


I'm in no doubt that was a factor (its so obvious), but I personally think they also genuinely thought he was not guilty also based on reasonable doubt and that is the way cases should always be judged. Even if he did it, there was enough reasonable doubt that he didn't and therefore one has to reach a not guilty verdict in such cases.

Quote
He had previous for almost beating her to death, and was put under arrest - but escaped saying he was gonna change his clothes, then called his police friends to get him off.

To almost beat someone to death is a severe beating, she never suffered such a beating during their marriage/relationship. He beat her up of course, but there is a big difference again between almost killing someone and beating them up.

Quote
They were not. And it is not weird at all that there were not too much blood at Rockingham even if the actual crime scene was bloody.

The blood from OJ at Rockingham was consistent with small bleeding while the blood from Nicole and Ron and could have also been planted as it wasn't consistent with how blood would naturally drip. If he has just committed a horrific bloody murder there would be far more blood in his home and in his car as well.

Quote
Goldman and Brown did not fight back against the killer. Evidence from the crime scene and the bodies back it up. The bloody glove could easily still be wet at the time, as proven by the forensic experts during the actual case.

So two people simply allowed their attacker just to kill them without putting up a fight whatsoever? Nicole had blood and other DNA underneath her fingernails that didn't match OJ and Ron had bruises on his knuckles suggesting he at least punched his attacker. No bruises on OJ and only a small cut which is not consistent with anything relating to how they were killed. The only way they wouldn't have put up a fight is if the killer came from behind, slit their throats and then stabbed them repeatedly. They were confronted and the throat slit came after the stabbings. Their bodies lay in positions suggesting they were struggling with their attacker as did the actual blood spatter around their bodies. 

I'm not buying that two people would not put up a fight while being attacked. Ron was a black belt in Karate for f*** sake.

Quote
The blood was not planted. There is no discernable way to even back up that statement. Yes, the policeman took with him the vial prior to booking it - but the blood evidence was taken from both crime scenes prior to the police taking OJs blood. The glove was also not planted, over fifteen policemen arrived before Fuhrman and all reported that there was only one glove at the crime scene - again, prior to Fuhrman even arriving.

You can't say the blood wasn't planted when it contained EDTA beyond what is already in blood and that the drops and spatter were not consistent with blood dripping naturally. There was no blood around the glove, but there were drops in the drive which suddenly stopped? Did OJ find a plaster to stop himself from bleeding?

Back to the glove, if he committed these murders and was covered in blood and got changed, ditched the knife etc. why would he then allow a glove to drop somewhere obscure to the side of the garage? He would have surely ditched that too and why would he have went to the side of the garage anyway, it didn't lead anywhere? It just doesn't make sense. That glove was planted. The blood inside and on the outside of it would have dried up or clotted in the time it took to be discovered.


Quote
If OJ was poor he'd probably be on death row, yes. And justice would have prevailed.

That's if he really was guilty which you obviously think he was. Me, I'm very insure. Although I think he may have been involved somehow. I do not believe he himself physically killed those two people.

Anyway the whole Steven Avery case make me not take things for granted when it comes to law and justice in the States and the OJ case is no different. It was one f***ed up case from start to finish. In the UK a lot of the so-called evidence would not have been admitted into court due to contamination and the chain of evidence being broken, especially regarding his blood vial which instead of being booked into evidence after it was drawn, was then taken back to OJ's home. For what purpose? Planting surely!
Wee Hughie - the greatest centre-forward Newcastle United ever had

Offline thomas

  • NO's Best Foreigner - Participant
  • General Member
  • t(' ' t)
Re: Netflix suggestions
« Reply #563 on: Monday 6 March 2017, 05:05:27 PM »
Cochran played a blinder imo. That's what good lawyers are for tbh, to come up with fantastic ways of creating reasonable doubt. OJ probably would be on death row if he had a public defender, HTT.

Offline HTT

  • tl;dr
  • General Member
Re: Netflix suggestions
« Reply #564 on: Monday 6 March 2017, 05:31:00 PM »
Cochran played a blinder imo. That's what good lawyers are for tbh, to come up with fantastic ways of creating reasonable doubt. OJ probably would be on death row if he had a public defender, HTT.

Agreed.

Its kind of unsettling to know that most public defenders are so exhausted (work-load) and underfunded that they literally often have no real chance of getting their client off. I'm sure I read a figure that shows in the US a high percentage try to strike plea deals or compromise. Likewise most people simply cannot afford a good lawyer and are therefore also hamstrung twice kind of. Scary stuff.

I think in the OJ case the prosecution f***ed up badly and many a time which only served to help the defence. As much as the defence got it right, the prosecution got it wrong.

Steven Avery had good lawyers, very good lawyers, but he had no chance of winning his case even if he really was innocent (which I think he 100% is). The fact his then lawyers did as good as a job as they did speaks volumes even though they themselves f***ed up once or twice. I'm pretty certain if he gets a retrial or even gets acquitted, ineffective council will be one of the factors.

The deck was stacked against them from the start, however. First with Ken Kratz' press conferences which removed his innocent until proven guilty presumption and then with the Denny rule which meant his defence couldn't bring others who may have committed the 'murder' into the equation. The poor bloke had nothing other than that the cops framed him, which in a small town was considered absurd. His actual exoneration was considered juts a shitty thing to have happened, no wrong doing by the powers that be etc. and even then many though he still did it despite DNA evidence proving otherwise.

OJ's case coming pretty soon on the back of the Rodney King thing helped his cause and Johnnie Cochran used the race card magnificently despite his client, although black, was anything but in all reality. I genuinely think OJ resented being classed as a black guy or worse for him African American.

He was gentile royalty.

To be fair, it should never be about race, anything at all, and hopefully in the future we can all look beyond race. Simpson when asked if he was an African American said hell no, I'm OJ Simpson.

Its a fascinating case. I actually watched the documentary OJ Made in America first which got me into the docu series and the case. That is one brilliant documentary btw. A must watch.
Wee Hughie - the greatest centre-forward Newcastle United ever had

Online Kaizero

  • General Member
Re: Netflix suggestions
« Reply #565 on: Monday 6 March 2017, 08:02:50 PM »
We'll not agree, so I'll just leave it there since I can't do more than appeal to your common sense. Some of the arguments (re: blood/gloves) is borderline as insane as some of the worst 9/11 conspiracies :lol:

On another note, I found it so funny that the first thing OJ does after eight months of making the LAPD his scapegoat is throwing a party where the LAPD are security and his best LAPD mates are his guests :lol:

Offline B-more Mag

  • General Member
  • Only here for the GC.
Re: Netflix suggestions
« Reply #566 on: Tuesday 7 March 2017, 01:23:16 PM »
Just stopped by to say


Offline 54

  • NUFC54
  • General Member
  • Remember...
Re: Netflix suggestions
« Reply #567 on: Friday 10 March 2017, 12:02:09 PM »

Offline LoveItIfWeBeatU

  • General Member
Re: Netflix suggestions
« Reply #568 on: Friday 10 March 2017, 08:30:17 PM »
2 episodes in to 'Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency' and I'm really enjoying it.
Thier is not a word. "Their" is the correct spelling.

Win, Lose or Draw. NOT "Loose"!

Offline cubaricho

  • General Member
Re: Netflix suggestions
« Reply #569 on: Saturday 11 March 2017, 06:59:52 AM »
Season Two of Love just came out today. Totally binge watched the whole thing and while it's a really good and real show, the last two episodes infuriated me. Hopefully some other people catch up and I can talk about it.
▒▓██ N █ U █ F █ C ██▓▒

Online Si

  • General Member
  • I dont handle change well.
Re: Netflix suggestions
« Reply #570 on: Saturday 11 March 2017, 09:39:44 AM »
Enjoyed season 1 will definitely be watching over the weekend.
Bearings Straight!

Offline Carlito

  • General Member
Re: Netflix suggestions
« Reply #571 on: Saturday 11 March 2017, 01:57:13 PM »
Season Two of Love just came out today. Totally binge watched the whole thing and while it's a really good and real show, the last two episodes infuriated me. Hopefully some other people catch up and I can talk about it.

Just binged watched all of season 2 last night and love it every bit as much as season 1. It became my favourite show in ages as soon as I watched season 1 early last year. Just brilliant stuff from top to bottom and I'm really glad they gave the go ahead for season 3 already.

Spoiler
[close]

Offline cubaricho

  • General Member
Re: Netflix suggestions
« Reply #572 on: Saturday 11 March 2017, 06:15:21 PM »
Season Two of Love just came out today. Totally binge watched the whole thing and while it's a really good and real show, the last two episodes infuriated me. Hopefully some other people catch up and I can talk about it.

Just binged watched all of season 2 last night and love it every bit as much as season 1. It became my favourite show in ages as soon as I watched season 1 early last year. Just brilliant stuff from top to bottom and I'm really glad they gave the go ahead for season 3 already.

Spoiler
[close]

I agree with that spoilered stuff. And like I said, I loved the second season and I especially love how real the show feels. But... (massive spoilers)

Spoiler
[close]

I still loved the whole series though. I wish there were more shows like this. Ones that are light on gimmicks and just honest-to-goodness characters that you get attached to and constantly want to see more of.
▒▓██ N █ U █ F █ C ██▓▒

Offline Carlito

  • General Member
Re: Netflix suggestions
« Reply #573 on: Saturday 11 March 2017, 08:39:10 PM »
Season Two of Love just came out today. Totally binge watched the whole thing and while it's a really good and real show, the last two episodes infuriated me. Hopefully some other people catch up and I can talk about it.

Just binged watched all of season 2 last night and love it every bit as much as season 1. It became my favourite show in ages as soon as I watched season 1 early last year. Just brilliant stuff from top to bottom and I'm really glad they gave the go ahead for season 3 already.

Spoiler
[close]

I agree with that spoilered stuff. And like I said, I loved the second season and I especially love how real the show feels. But... (massive spoilers)

Spoiler
[close]

I still loved the whole series though. I wish there were more shows like this. Ones that are light on gimmicks and just honest-to-goodness characters that you get attached to and constantly want to see more of.

Yea I agree with that.

Spoiler
[close]

I've been watching a few shows in that kind of style lately. Lovesick I think is a really good one on Netflix. British with some really good humor in it throughout and strong characters. Master of None and Easy are good as well, though Easy is more one-off stories that are intertwined, which admittedly makes it difficult to get invested in the characters like you can with Love. One that's also similar but isn't on Netflix right now is You're The Worst. Might be worth checking out if you haven't already.

Offline ElDiablo

  • General Member
Re: Netflix suggestions
« Reply #574 on: Saturday 11 March 2017, 10:52:33 PM »
EDIT - I'm on about the Fear of 13, not the Seven Five.  :buck2:

Watched it a few days ago and did a bit of research on it to see what the guy was up to now.

Turns out he's moved over here, married and had three daughters. The youngest of which was still only a baby when she suddenly died in January this year. Absolutely shocked me. This poor, poor f***ing bloke. As if life hadn't thrown enough at him already. :(

Weirdly, he's been on the True Geordie podcast recently.

« Last Edit: Sunday 12 March 2017, 12:23:10 AM by ElDiablo »