Printable View
Seen as only one person admitted to reading the UK's second most popular paper, I thought I'd start a thread with the best (or worst) stories from the Daily Mail each day.
Here's one for our older forumites.
This is a touching piece about a young woman growing up, which isn't hypocritical in the slightest....
I read the Daily Mail every weekend. I get it free and it's worth looking in to see if Nikalas has written for them again. I wouldn't read the Guardian even if it was for free and even if it had an article by Nikalas.
The Guardian does pay enough for me to sell my soul ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by christopher leigh
I had pretty well figured that out.
This one was doing the rounds on twitter the other day, another typical mail article.
Aw you don't do you? That's worse than your biting the hand that feeds you episode. You ought to catch up with the mail, it has had some give away weekends in the Lake District!Quote:
Originally Posted by nikalas
I can't believe what five-year-old children learn about in school these days...
Here's a really responsible article about breast cancer screening...
If I wanted to know:
what household items give or cure cancer (using inappropriately extrapolated data)
trivial items regarding people loosely associated with the royal family
how many children age X can't do X
how EU laws will destroy the fabric of our society
absolutely nothing, but with a picture of a lady in a nice dress
then, the Daily Mail would be my first choice.
You missed off hitherto unknown facts about Hitler.Quote:
Originally Posted by noel
We used to get it on Saturdays for the TV mag, before the days of Sky, and every week if you opened it to the centre pages you'd be guaranteed to have a nice big black and white picture of a jolly fuhrer looking back at you.
Apparently Hitler causes cancer.....Quote:
Originally Posted by L.F.F.
I was not aware of this. Everyone loves "news" about long-dead dictators.Quote:
Originally Posted by L.F.F.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/art...Des-Kelly.html
The second section 'It's time fitness was all the fashion' is thoroughl entertaining and a neat riposte to the tripe written previously. Not all that is written in this paper is rubbish.
Turns out Jimmy Krankie is no innocent schoolboy.....http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...dabi-dozi.html
Ah... that brings back memories. I'm sure I read that one in 1993.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dynamo Dan
So not only was he responsible for the holocaust, but he also tried to get out of a speeding fine as well! What a complete b@stard!
Suddenly the Crankies have gone up in my estimation.... not hard to do... especially when I read:
In other surprising revelations on the show, Ian told how he once punched TV magician Paul Daniels in a bar on Jersey, where he and Janette were doing a summer season.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz1gzideZZJ
'Alfresco romance' is a nice euphemism for dogging :closed:
'Argies'? God save us from the Blackshirt rag.
Got to hand to the mail for their "Murderers" front cover. Those bastards, who killed Stephen Lawrence never did sue did they?!
Someone posted this link on Twitter.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz...ed-scenes.html
Another case of the Mail getting outraged, and then giving everyone else who missed it the opportunity to get outraged too.
(And an excuse - were one needed - for me to post a link to pix of my new favourite lady!:o:w00t:)
Sherlock was the best TV I have seen for some time. Anyone upset by the nudity must go around with their eyes shut - and presumably their children are blindfolded ....
Loved this comment..... "I missed these scenes on tv, as I had to be in bed at 8.00pm. Cor blimey ! Thanks for showing me !" - WS , Aged 6. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by southernsoftie
She is lovely. Definitely no excuse needed.Quote:
Originally Posted by southernsoftie
And it is a good drama series as well.
No I disagree. I thought Sherlock was very poor this week. Yes 'crushes from leftfield' was attractive - but so what, most of the program was unintelligible. I'll still watch the next episode but if it doesn't improve it'll be 'off with it's head.'
Looking forward to the new series of 'Above Suspicion,' particularly the development of the two main characters.
I have now watched Sherlock and it amuses me how scenes of murder, mutilation, treason and various other illegal acts are seen as sexy. Whereas side-on nudity is seen as offensive. It's a mad mad mad mad world.
I find myself in the strange position of agreeing with CL. This week's episode was largely ridiculous. Since when was Sherlock an action hero?
Ever since Robert Downey Jnr. portraited him as such in the films.Quote:
Originally Posted by noel
Completely agree with your first point, Noel. Di & me watched it last night after Emma had gone to bed to see if it was suitable for a 12 year-old and we agreed it was far better for her to watch that than play some of the violent computer games that much younger children partake in.
The fact that it's set in the 21st century and often revolves a great deal around modern technology is surely departure enough? If it was a faithful rendering of the original texts they were going for, it would be as per the classic Basil Rathbone versions.
It's been spruced up for a modern audience and to reflect its contemporary setting. To quibble over whether Conan Doyle originally wrote him as an action hero seems to be missing the point.
That said, not disputing views of the story as ridiculous: each to their own. I thought it was entertaining enough in an easy watching kinda way (and sure, the lady may have helped!).
Quote:
Originally Posted by southernsoftie
I decided to catch up on it last night (based on a recommendation by SS :D ). I was laughing out loud especially at that bit where he was weighing up Watson with the analytical once over. Definitely a different Sherlock Holmes but a refreshing one. I liked it :thumbup:
Sherlock Holmes is supposed to be about the genius mind but not even a genius could make the ridiculous deductions made by Sunday's character. It was all hocus pocus fungus mungus.In fact it's becoming like CSI, which after a while gets on one's nerves.Quote:
Originally Posted by southernsoftie
Script writers today-with rare exception-know how to write good series, dramas and films. Instead they just vandalise the achievements of the past. Look at the James Bond films over the past 40 years: most of them were turned into tongue in cheek parodies which reflect nothing of Ian Fleming's original works. Even Casino Royle- which was a better film-has some silly moments that almost mess it up.
Yes forumites I am hard to please.
Converting a book into a film rarely works well in my opinion (at least for fans of the book). best example being the Lord of the rings for me, so much missed out or changed that the story is quite different and not close enough to the book for me to enjoy watching it. Another example would be the Bourne films, which I do love, but are completely (and I mean completely) different to the book. Only the vaguest premise of the story has been followed and the rest is completely made up. That said, I think because I saw the films before reading the book it doesn't seem to be a problem.
The only film I can think of off the top of my head that was a successful rendition of a book is the green mile, that was pretty accurate I think.
The conversion doesn't work too well because the film writers substitute the intellectual base of the book for special effects, stunts and crude violence. Most of the best films I've seen - bar 'The Wizard of Oz'-have no special effects (and even that film isn't great solely because of them). Some of them also didn't cost tens of millions to produce but dwarf those films in plot structure.
I also think many of today's actors and actresses know little about what makes a great film. Liam Neeson is a good actor but he goes and spoils it by starring in such trash as the awful 'Taken.' How does he reconcile that with 'Schindlers List?'
He was a Bartitsu practitioner, that's action enough for me.Quote:
Originally Posted by noel
Bless you!Quote:
Originally Posted by mr brightside
Film/series makers are heavily constrained by time: squeezing a whole book into an hour show, a two hour film, or even a two part series inevitably leads to some scriptwriting and production shorthand. At it's worst this leads to an over reliance on special effects, or major gaps in plot. This is inevitable. Gotta just go with it...or turn over if you feel it's to the detriment of the show/film.
If you're able to dedicate the time to it you can end up with a fairly faithful portrayal of the book and a classic piece of entertainment. Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy (series) which I was raving about on here recently is a case in point. Not sure how this will compare to the film, but I'm willing to forgo some aspects of the story given its greater time constraint.
Giant ants are coming for us: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...ntic-jaws.html
How can you sit on your arse for an hour and a half?
Quote:
Originally Posted by southernsoftie
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alf
Quote:
Originally Posted by christopher leigh
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob Furness
Quote:
Originally Posted by mr brightside
and he looks pretty hot if you imagine him with his legs in the airQuote:
Originally Posted by Grouse
Is that a Generalization?Quote:
Originally Posted by millipede