Author Topic: Sigh.  (Read 6393 times)

Offline Tarquin Thunderthighs lll

  • .
  • Posts: 5847
  • They call me Tarqs... and other stuff.
Re: Sigh.
« Reply #15 on: September 10, 2008, 07:01:04 PM »
I do enjoy a Big Bang.
I apologise, in advance.

Vulture

  • Guest
Re: Sigh.
« Reply #16 on: September 10, 2008, 08:31:39 PM »

peter

  • Guest
Re: Sigh.
« Reply #17 on: September 10, 2008, 08:34:53 PM »

Offline Tarquin Thunderthighs lll

  • .
  • Posts: 5847
  • They call me Tarqs... and other stuff.
Re: Sigh.
« Reply #18 on: September 10, 2008, 08:51:11 PM »
I do enjoy a Big Bang.

I've forgotten......

Understandable - it was about 13.73 billion years ago.
I apologise, in advance.

Rob Baker

  • Guest
Re: Sigh.
« Reply #19 on: September 10, 2008, 09:42:39 PM »

For those of you unlucky enough to miss today's Mirror:



But at least the Star tucked it away in the corner to concentrate on the real news :



Sigh indeed

Offline Roger Kettle

  • Roger
  • *
  • Posts: 5008
  • Ho! Ho! £$%^&* Ho!
Re: Sigh.
« Reply #20 on: September 10, 2008, 09:55:30 PM »
I am so proud to work with the quality press.

Offline Max

  • .
  • Posts: 284
Re: Sigh.
« Reply #21 on: September 10, 2008, 09:56:21 PM »
Taken from a catty columnist in the Sun I think.. Victoria Beckham set the trend with the figure of a small boy.. now she has a haircut to match.

I just don't see it. not the haircut, not the fashion or God help me, even the body.  A nobody from a piss poor girl band (they didn't even let her sing) who married a relatively talented but hard of thinking footballer.

It's the cult of celebrity I can't stand to be honest, I buy the Star to read the Peep strip (I read it to Kate every morning for eight years) and for the last AGE it's been full of who is doing what to whom in Big Brother.
These people are now deemed to be celebrities because they managed to stay in a house for a few weeks......  why?
Now they will make a zillion pounds and never be out of the papers, because....... for what? They got drunk? Shagged another loser, split from another loser?

So from now on, I'm only buying the Daily Mail, but only because I need to be put into a state of fear and alarm while I eat my cornflakes (if I ate cornflakes).


Offline The Peepmaster

  • .
  • Posts: 5845
Re: Sigh.
« Reply #22 on: September 10, 2008, 10:43:33 PM »
Naughty Roger! You never told us about Naomi's day in a soup-kitchen...
Nostalgia is not what it used to be. 😟

Jack

  • Guest
Re: Sigh.
« Reply #23 on: September 10, 2008, 11:19:20 PM »
And here was me worrying about today's experiment to recreate the "Big Bang" which formed the universe.

I think you'll find they are not actually trying to create another Big Bang and another universe. I'd stick to hair styles: you seem to understand those.
The headline on B.B.C. ceefax says "experts recreate 'big bang' ." Get on to them, Mincey! THEY'RE WRONG AS WELL!




In all fairness, they are. But then "Holy crap, they're making another Big Bang!" probably sells better than "Oh my goodness, they're simulating how the conditions were a bit after the Big Bang!"

Malc

  • Guest
Re: Sigh.
« Reply #24 on: September 11, 2008, 07:45:53 AM »
I'm not worried about the cult of celebrity being there, I'm worried that it's getting worse.

In the past, the womens mags carried major stories about royals to the exclusion of everything else. Princess Margaret was a "managed" royal, in other words she was controversial, but mostly beyond real criticism, as she was kept from the press (the isle of Mustique apart).
There was the occasional bit of tat about Liz Taylor, but PR people in those days were employed by big studios, not the stars themselves, and photographers were employed by specific mags. The deal was that if you went to town in a bad way on one star, the studio would block your paper's access to all the others.

Lady Di was the one who really pushed the stupidity boat out. independent paparazzi from the UK and Europe had started to realise that they could make huge money covering her alone. It all went to sh*t when she became engaged to Charles and it got worse until she tragically died. In fact it carried on well after that because of the manner of her death.

Now paparazzi, fluf and puff pieces, as well as C and D-list celebrity are facts of life. Womens mags abound in newsagents, there seem to be fifty times what there were in the 70s, and there is also the growing phenomenon of the feminization of TV.

Pick through the garbage on cable or prime time and think of how many TV programmes are aimed almost exclusively at women. Gardening makeovers, house makeovers, plastic surgery makeovers, Rosemary and Thyme, Midsomer Murders, Medium, the Hallmark channel, Dog Whisperer, John Edwards, Oprah, breakfast shows, and many more.

They're womens magazines in TV form. Each show (like the "lists" we mentioned earlier) is merely a traditional womens mag feature writ large and broadcast for half an hour.

I'm waiting for another corner of the womens magazines to be plundered and turned into a show.

How about "Spot The Difference" or "Odd Man Out"? remember those two almost identical pics where eight changes had been made from Pic 1?

I wonder what other traditional womens mag fare could be turned into TV? You can bet your boots the network execs are already doing it.

Offline Tarquin Thunderthighs lll

  • .
  • Posts: 5847
  • They call me Tarqs... and other stuff.
Re: Sigh.
« Reply #25 on: September 11, 2008, 07:58:24 AM »
Can't argue with any of that, Malc, but the one word counter from the female side is "SPORT!".
I apologise, in advance.

Calypso

  • Guest
Re: Sigh.
« Reply #26 on: September 11, 2008, 01:03:15 PM »
Quote
I wonder what other traditional womens mag fare could be turned into TV? You can bet your boots the network execs are already doing it.

"Sex and the City" was based on a column in the NY Star, I think.  Watching the program was sort of like reading an issue of Cosmo. I liked "Sex and the City" because it was smart, witty and funny.

As far as Victoria Beckham is concerned, when she arrived in America most here had no idea who she was. Although the press has tried to force her on us as some sort of "icon" and "beauty" (?), she has not made much of a splash here. And why is she so sour-looking all the time?

Offline Tarquin Thunderthighs lll

  • .
  • Posts: 5847
  • They call me Tarqs... and other stuff.
Re: Sigh.
« Reply #27 on: September 11, 2008, 01:27:57 PM »
I think you answered your own question immediately before you asked it, Calypso.
I apologise, in advance.

Malc

  • Guest
Re: Sigh.
« Reply #28 on: September 12, 2008, 12:26:33 AM »
Calypso, I share your bemusement totally.
Victoria Beckham was the worst looking in a very ordinary looking, talentless girl band. Why David Beckham was so smitten with her is inexplicable.

To me, the stunning beauties of today are Sophie Monk (she's also a former talentless girl band member who's gravitated to bad movies), Angelina Jolie, Liv Tyler, Anne Hathaway, etc...

Posh Beckham is a skinny, unattractive wee nyaff (to use a Scottish term).

Calypso

  • Guest
Re: Sigh.
« Reply #29 on: September 12, 2008, 12:36:32 AM »
Malc:

Quote
Calypso, I share your bemusement totally.
Victoria Beckham was the worst looking in a very ordinary looking, talentless girl band. Why David Beckham was so smitten with her is inexplicable.

I'm sure she has talents we can't see.


Quote
Posh Beckham is a skinny, unattractive wee nyaff (to use a Scottish term).

I'm so glad you said that. If I'd said it I might be accused of being jealous or something.

Quote
To me, the stunning beauties of today are Sophie Monk (she's also a former talentless girl band member who's gravitated to bad movies), Angelina Jolie, Liv Tyler, Anne Hathaway, etc...

I work in the beauty/fashion industry and some of my picks, besides yours, include Charlize Theron, Halle Berry, Michelle Pfeiffer, Aishwarya Ray (or however it's spelled), Isabelle Adjani and Catherine Zeta-Jones.

« Last Edit: September 12, 2008, 12:44:03 AM by Calypso »