Re: Currently watching.
Posted: 04 Mar 2019, 4:59pm
oh GOOD
oh GOOD
One of the most hateful pieces of TV!Kory wrote: ↑04 Mar 2019, 4:59pmoh GOOD
MASH at least was distinctly antiwar and positioned itself as a substitute for Vietnam. I can appreciate the criticism of the overtly funny first several seasons—I think I read that the author of the original MASH novel hated the series for tht—but there is a humanist foundation to it all. HH was just this weird fantasy where war is kinda fun, the enemy are kinda sympathetic goofs—even Hochsteder (sp?), the Gestapo major, is more Clouseau than sadist—and one of greatest crimes against humanity is apparently not even happening. There's a complete lack of conscience, for lack of a better word, to HH that makes it so unsettling.revbob wrote: ↑04 Mar 2019, 6:48pmI found the Wikipedia page on Hogan's Heroes to be very informative. I watched it as a kid and enjoyed it. I'm not sure how I would take it today. I know people who had similar criticisms of MASH. People who were in the middle of shit and who said the idea of making a comedy about war is just so far off base and that unless you've been in a war you're not going to get why it is such a horrible idea.
Huh. Would you suggest I just stop now? Like I said, haven't been totally in love with it but it's had a couple moments.Silent Majority wrote: ↑04 Mar 2019, 5:29pmOne of the most hateful pieces of TV!Kory wrote: ↑04 Mar 2019, 4:59pmoh GOOD
I definitely see the distinction between the two and dont disagree. I've tried watching MASH in recent years and while it has some moments it no longer tickles my funny bone either.Dr. Medulla wrote: ↑04 Mar 2019, 7:12pmMASH at least was distinctly antiwar and positioned itself as a substitute for Vietnam. I can appreciate the criticism of the overtly funny first several seasons—I think I read that the author of the original MASH novel hated the series for tht—but there is a humanist foundation to it all. HH was just this weird fantasy where war is kinda fun, the enemy are kinda sympathetic goofs—even Hochsteder (sp?), the Gestapo major, is more Clouseau than sadist—and one of greatest crimes against humanity is apparently not even happening. There's a complete lack of conscience, for lack of a better word, to HH that makes it so unsettling.revbob wrote: ↑04 Mar 2019, 6:48pmI found the Wikipedia page on Hogan's Heroes to be very informative. I watched it as a kid and enjoyed it. I'm not sure how I would take it today. I know people who had similar criticisms of MASH. People who were in the middle of shit and who said the idea of making a comedy about war is just so far off base and that unless you've been in a war you're not going to get why it is such a horrible idea.
The History channel here used to air it, and while I still love the funny seasons (despite some iffy humour that hasn't aged well at all, the latter seasons, when it became almost a dramedy, grew on me. It can be rightfully accused as being painfully earnest and the humour rather stale in those later seasons, but it did aspire to be more than just 23 minutes of ho ho ho. As I said above, I appreciate the humanism at its core, especially when network tv was getting dumber.revbob wrote: ↑04 Mar 2019, 7:25pmI definitely see the distinction between the two and dont disagree. I've tried watching MASH in recent years and while it has some moments it no longer tickles my funny bone either.Dr. Medulla wrote: ↑04 Mar 2019, 7:12pmMASH at least was distinctly antiwar and positioned itself as a substitute for Vietnam. I can appreciate the criticism of the overtly funny first several seasons—I think I read that the author of the original MASH novel hated the series for tht—but there is a humanist foundation to it all. HH was just this weird fantasy where war is kinda fun, the enemy are kinda sympathetic goofs—even Hochsteder (sp?), the Gestapo major, is more Clouseau than sadist—and one of greatest crimes against humanity is apparently not even happening. There's a complete lack of conscience, for lack of a better word, to HH that makes it so unsettling.revbob wrote: ↑04 Mar 2019, 6:48pmI found the Wikipedia page on Hogan's Heroes to be very informative. I watched it as a kid and enjoyed it. I'm not sure how I would take it today. I know people who had similar criticisms of MASH. People who were in the middle of shit and who said the idea of making a comedy about war is just so far off base and that unless you've been in a war you're not going to get why it is such a horrible idea.
Yeah this was also a show I watched when I was young and stupid. At the time I found the latter years to just not be funny.Dr. Medulla wrote: ↑04 Mar 2019, 7:38pmThe History channel here used to air it, and while I still love the funny seasons (despite some iffy humour that hasn't aged well at all, the latter seasons, when it became almost a dramedy, grew on me. It can be rightfully accused as being painfully earnest and the humour rather stale in those later seasons, but it did aspire to be more than just 23 minutes of ho ho ho. As I said above, I appreciate the humanism at its core, especially when network tv was getting dumber.revbob wrote: ↑04 Mar 2019, 7:25pmI definitely see the distinction between the two and dont disagree. I've tried watching MASH in recent years and while it has some moments it no longer tickles my funny bone either.Dr. Medulla wrote: ↑04 Mar 2019, 7:12pmMASH at least was distinctly antiwar and positioned itself as a substitute for Vietnam. I can appreciate the criticism of the overtly funny first several seasons—I think I read that the author of the original MASH novel hated the series for tht—but there is a humanist foundation to it all. HH was just this weird fantasy where war is kinda fun, the enemy are kinda sympathetic goofs—even Hochsteder (sp?), the Gestapo major, is more Clouseau than sadist—and one of greatest crimes against humanity is apparently not even happening. There's a complete lack of conscience, for lack of a better word, to HH that makes it so unsettling.revbob wrote: ↑04 Mar 2019, 6:48pmI found the Wikipedia page on Hogan's Heroes to be very informative. I watched it as a kid and enjoyed it. I'm not sure how I would take it today. I know people who had similar criticisms of MASH. People who were in the middle of shit and who said the idea of making a comedy about war is just so far off base and that unless you've been in a war you're not going to get why it is such a horrible idea.
I mentioned that when David Ogden Stiers died, the episodes where Winchester is humanized, less of an unchanged pompous ass, are ones that I've come to appreciate now. One that stands out is when he has a near-death encounter and becomes obsessed with the idea of what happens when people die.revbob wrote: ↑04 Mar 2019, 8:11pmYeah this was also a show I watched when I was young and stupid. At the time I found the latter years to just not be funny.Dr. Medulla wrote: ↑04 Mar 2019, 7:38pmThe History channel here used to air it, and while I still love the funny seasons (despite some iffy humour that hasn't aged well at all, the latter seasons, when it became almost a dramedy, grew on me. It can be rightfully accused as being painfully earnest and the humour rather stale in those later seasons, but it did aspire to be more than just 23 minutes of ho ho ho. As I said above, I appreciate the humanism at its core, especially when network tv was getting dumber.revbob wrote: ↑04 Mar 2019, 7:25pmI definitely see the distinction between the two and dont disagree. I've tried watching MASH in recent years and while it has some moments it no longer tickles my funny bone either.Dr. Medulla wrote: ↑04 Mar 2019, 7:12pmMASH at least was distinctly antiwar and positioned itself as a substitute for Vietnam. I can appreciate the criticism of the overtly funny first several seasons—I think I read that the author of the original MASH novel hated the series for tht—but there is a humanist foundation to it all. HH was just this weird fantasy where war is kinda fun, the enemy are kinda sympathetic goofs—even Hochsteder (sp?), the Gestapo major, is more Clouseau than sadist—and one of greatest crimes against humanity is apparently not even happening. There's a complete lack of conscience, for lack of a better word, to HH that makes it so unsettling.revbob wrote: ↑04 Mar 2019, 6:48pmI found the Wikipedia page on Hogan's Heroes to be very informative. I watched it as a kid and enjoyed it. I'm not sure how I would take it today. I know people who had similar criticisms of MASH. People who were in the middle of shit and who said the idea of making a comedy about war is just so far off base and that unless you've been in a war you're not going to get why it is such a horrible idea.
I remember the time when he got hooked on speed.Dr. Medulla wrote: ↑04 Mar 2019, 8:23pmI mentioned that when David Ogden Stiers died, the episodes where Winchester is humanized, less of an unchanged pompous ass, are ones that I've come to appreciate now. One that stands out is when he has a near-death encounter and becomes obsessed with the idea of what happens when people die.revbob wrote: ↑04 Mar 2019, 8:11pmYeah this was also a show I watched when I was young and stupid. At the time I found the latter years to just not be funny.Dr. Medulla wrote: ↑04 Mar 2019, 7:38pmThe History channel here used to air it, and while I still love the funny seasons (despite some iffy humour that hasn't aged well at all, the latter seasons, when it became almost a dramedy, grew on me. It can be rightfully accused as being painfully earnest and the humour rather stale in those later seasons, but it did aspire to be more than just 23 minutes of ho ho ho. As I said above, I appreciate the humanism at its core, especially when network tv was getting dumber.revbob wrote: ↑04 Mar 2019, 7:25pmI definitely see the distinction between the two and dont disagree. I've tried watching MASH in recent years and while it has some moments it no longer tickles my funny bone either.Dr. Medulla wrote: ↑04 Mar 2019, 7:12pm
MASH at least was distinctly antiwar and positioned itself as a substitute for Vietnam. I can appreciate the criticism of the overtly funny first several seasons—I think I read that the author of the original MASH novel hated the series for tht—but there is a humanist foundation to it all. HH was just this weird fantasy where war is kinda fun, the enemy are kinda sympathetic goofs—even Hochsteder (sp?), the Gestapo major, is more Clouseau than sadist—and one of greatest crimes against humanity is apparently not even happening. There's a complete lack of conscience, for lack of a better word, to HH that makes it so unsettling.
He was way punk before the punks were born.revbob wrote: ↑04 Mar 2019, 9:12pmI remember the time when he got hooked on speed.Dr. Medulla wrote: ↑04 Mar 2019, 8:23pmI mentioned that when David Ogden Stiers died, the episodes where Winchester is humanized, less of an unchanged pompous ass, are ones that I've come to appreciate now. One that stands out is when he has a near-death encounter and becomes obsessed with the idea of what happens when people die.revbob wrote: ↑04 Mar 2019, 8:11pmYeah this was also a show I watched when I was young and stupid. At the time I found the latter years to just not be funny.Dr. Medulla wrote: ↑04 Mar 2019, 7:38pmThe History channel here used to air it, and while I still love the funny seasons (despite some iffy humour that hasn't aged well at all, the latter seasons, when it became almost a dramedy, grew on me. It can be rightfully accused as being painfully earnest and the humour rather stale in those later seasons, but it did aspire to be more than just 23 minutes of ho ho ho. As I said above, I appreciate the humanism at its core, especially when network tv was getting dumber.
Couldn't stomach more than two or three episodes.101Walterton wrote: ↑04 Mar 2019, 8:08pmI loved it. Gets a bit weird in places but otherwise brilliant.
Did it make you hungry?Olaf wrote: ↑04 Mar 2019, 9:37pmCouldn't stomach more than two or three episodes.101Walterton wrote: ↑04 Mar 2019, 8:08pmI loved it. Gets a bit weird in places but otherwise brilliant.