Random Irritations

[GB72]

Could be in any number of sections. On the plus side, the Premiership Rugby final is on regular TV as well as BT Sport but, just to show the regard that club rugby has, it is only deemed worthy to be on ITV4.

Now it may be that BT Sport agreed to share the rights on the condition that it was not on a main channel but still, a massive game, 2 top sides, about half of the England team playing and the live coverage only warrants ITV 4.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Tom Hanks says if he was offered the role of a gay man (as in Philadelphia) today, he wouldn't take it - this whole issue again that gay characters have to be played by gay men and so on all of a sudden. What is this rubbish? It's called acting isn't it?? And these people with the same breath will tell you there should be a black James Bond. Make your minds up. You wouldn't prevent a gay actor from playing a straight role so it should work both ways!

I’d simply say that a non-gay person has little or no understanding of what it is like to be; to think; and to be treated for being gay. Non-gay individuals have few, if any, of the very specific issues gay folk have to deal with, in fact the issues non-gay folk have are generally common across all gender or sexual orientation. I’d suggest that this makes it harder for a non-gay actor to get into the mindset of a gay character. The opposite much less the case.

 

[Orikoru]

I’d simply say that a non-gay person has little or no understanding of what it is like to be; to think; and to be treated for being gay. Non-gay individuals have few, if any, of the very specific issues gay folk have to deal with, in fact the issues non-gay folk have are generally common across all gender or sexual orientation.

And if that's the case they probably wouldn't get the part as they wouldn't be able to play it convincingly. It's the film-makers choice who they hire for roles. If they think it'll be a better portrayal to get a gay actor, then of course they should do that. All I'm saying is, I don't like this growing theory that it's wrong for a straight man to play a gay character. If he's a good enough actor to portray it then I don't see why it's an issue. As I said, if you reverse it and said a gay actor shouldn't be able to play a straight man, there would be outrage - the example I always like to give is Neil Patrick Harris in How I Met Your Mother, he played a womanising heterosexual brilliantly in that.

 

[Lord Tyrion]

And if that's the case they probably wouldn't get the part as they wouldn't be able to play it convincingly. It's the film-makers choice who they hire for roles. If they think it'll be a better portrayal to get a gay actor, then of course they should do that. All I'm saying is, I don't like this growing theory that it's wrong for a straight man to play a gay character. If he's a good enough actor to portray it then I don't see why it's an issue. As I said, if you reverse it and said a gay actor shouldn't be able to play a straight man, there would be outrage - the example I always like to give is Neil Patrick Harris in How I Met Your Mother, he played a womanising heterosexual brilliantly in that.

The clue is in the title of the job, actor. They pretend. Should Daniel Craig have been Bond when he has no concept of what it is like to kill someone, as far as I know, Johnny Depp has probably never run an industrial chocolate factory, Chris Pratt has never actually trained a dinosaur, has Tom Hanks ever flown a 747? It's all make believe. The idea that you have to 'be' the part is a nonsense.

 

[GreiginFife]

The clue is in the title of the job, actor. They pretend. Should Daniel Craig have been Bond when he has no concept of what it is like to kill someone, as far as I know, Johnny Depp has probably never run an industrial chocolate factory, Chris Pratt has never actually trained a dinosaur, has Tom Hanks ever flown a 747? It's all make believe. The idea that you have to 'be' the part is a nonsense.

It would make casting psychotic serial killers interesting ?

 

[Beezerk]

The clue is in the title of the job, actor. They pretend. Should Daniel Craig have been Bond when he has no concept of what it is like to kill someone, as far as I know, Johnny Depp has probably never run an industrial chocolate factory, Chris Pratt has never actually trained a dinosaur, has Tom Hanks ever flown a 747? It's all make believe. The idea that you have to 'be' the part is a nonsense.

Ha ha great answer ?

 

[bobmac]

Are you saying David Tennant wasn't/wont be from the future?

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

It would make casting psychotic serial killers interesting ?

Were there as few gay actors as there are ex-psychotic killer or ex-spy actors then maybe, but as there are stacks of gay actors then why not simply use a gay actor, having the advantages and insights any such actor will have playing a gay character, rather than use a ‘star’ for box office purposes.

Besides, in this case the views are those of Tom Hanks rather than any mandate being handed down to casting directors.

 

[GB72]

I guess that you then have a tough decision to make. Do you use the massive appeal and star power of someone like Hanks to get the message of the film across to as wide an audience as possible or do you hire someone lesser known but more appropriate for the roll and risk the film not being seen by as many people as possible. Sadly great performances do not always translate to bigger audiences but star names ensure a certain level.

 

[RichA]

Were there as few gay actors as there are ex-psychotic killer or ex-spy actors then maybe, but as there are stacks of gay actors then why not simply use a gay actor, having the advantages and insights any such actor will have playing a gay character, rather than use a ‘star’ for box office purposes.

Besides, in this case the views are those of Tom Hanks rather than any mandate being handed down to casting directors.

I have no opinion either way on the subject being discussed, but do you think there were many gay actors queuing up to play Dennis Nilsen when David Tennant got the gig?

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

I guess that you then have a tough decision to make. Do you use the massive appeal and star power of someone like Hanks to get the message of the film across to as wide an audience as possible or do you hire someone lesser known but more appropriate for the roll and risk the film not being seen by as many people as possible. Sadly great performances do not always translate to bigger audiences but star names ensure a certain level.

…which would have been the case when Philadelphia was made and released in 1993 and so therefore not that many years after AIDS began to spread across the gay community. This film with Hanks in the lead playing the role superbly may well have made many change their views about gay men infected with AIDS because we should not forget the way that community were spoken about at the time, and how they were shunned by many.

 

[GB72]

…which would have been the case when Philadelphia was made and released in 1993 and so therefore not that many years after AIDS began to spread across the gay community. This film with Hanks in the lead playing the role superbly may well have made many change their views about gay men infected with AIDS because we should not forget the way that community were spoken about at the time, and how they were shunned by many.

Pretty much what I was alluding to but, the again, back in the early 90's people would not have batted an eyelid if an actor played a character of a different sexual orientation, nationality or even colour.

 

[GreiginFife]

Were there as few gay actors as there are ex-psychotic killer or ex-spy actors then maybe, but as there are stacks of gay actors then why not simply use a gay actor, having the advantages and insights any such actor will have playing a gay character, rather than use a ‘star’ for box office purposes.

Besides, in this case the views are those of Tom Hanks rather than any mandate being handed down to casting directors.

I don't suppose we'll know how many psychotic killer actors there are, it's not something that they are likely to promote.

The volume of the resource is not the point though, although I suspect you already know that, it's that to act a part (that is to make believe - it's not really real, you know) do you actually have to have experience of something? The best actor should get the role, the one that plays the part most convincingly is the one that should get the part, regardless.

 

[Slime]

Could be in any number of sections. On the plus side, the Premiership Rugby final is on regular TV as well as BT Sport but, just to show the regard that club rugby has, it is only deemed worthy to be on ITV4.

Now it may be that BT Sport agreed to share the rights on the condition that it was not on a main channel but still, a massive game, 2 top sides, about half of the England team playing and the live coverage only warrants ITV 4.

It's just a case of supply and demand.
It only warrants being on ITV4 because it's not of sufficient interest to enough people.

 

[Blue in Munich]

Could be in any number of sections. On the plus side, the Premiership Rugby final is on regular TV as well as BT Sport but, just to show the regard that club rugby has, it is only deemed worthy to be on ITV4.

Now it may be that BT Sport agreed to share the rights on the condition that it was not on a main channel but still, a massive game, 2 top sides, about half of the England team playing and the live coverage only warrants ITV 4.

So it's getting shown free to air rather than a pay channel but that's wrong because it's the wrong free to air channel; you'd only be happy if it bumped Royal Ascot from the main channel?

 

[3offTheTee]

EasyJet has just cancelled a flight which was going out on my birthday. Saw a similar time with Ryanair, around £25 more expensive. Took it but Ryanair was ‘thinking’ or my IPad was and it would not accept.

Had to start again and other people were booking and now increased by a further £25 which makes it a round £100 for 2 of us.

I know it is not going to happen but it would be reasonable for EasyJet to pay the difference.

Also do not understand how flight companies can cancel, within their T and C’s within certain timescales but customers cannot.


What a mess The Airline Industry/ Airports are in at present. Cannot see it being resolved for a long time. The CEO @Heathrow said as much this week. It is called PLANNING.

 

[GB72]

So it's getting shown free to air rather than a pay channel but that's wrong because it's the wrong free to air channel; you'd only be happy if it bumped Royal Ascot from the main channel?

As I have said before, just because I am randomly irritated, it does not mean that my irritataion is rational. I appreciate the standing of club rugby in the grander scheme of things. Part of the irritation is that the channels are crying out for international rugby matches but the club game does not benefit from that coverage in the way it should. Personal feeling is that any contract to show the 6 Nations or any other international matches should be tied to an obligation to show a number of peak time club matches. The club matches on Channel 4 this year actually got decent figures.

As I said, this could be posted in many areas including things that gladden the heart as it is at least on free to air TV (note the first line of my post stating just this) and further note that the irritation is the regard in which club rugby is held especially bearing in mind the desire to broadcast the international game. Part of that was that i did not even know there was an ITV4 and part was the fact that this is being kept off ITV2 by a bad dance movie and ITV3 by Murder She Wrote.

 

[AmandaJR]

As I have said before, just because I am randomly irritated, it does not mean that my irritataion is rational. I appreciate the standing of club rugby in the grander scheme of things. Part of the irritation is that the channels are crying out for international rugby matches but the club game does not benefit from that coverage in the way it should. Personal feeling is that any contract to show the 6 Nations or any other international matches should be tied to an obligation to show a number of peak time club matches. The club matches on Channel 4 this year actually got decent figures.

As I said, this could be posted in many areas including things that gladden the heart as it is at least on free to air TV (note the first line of my post stating just this) and further note that the irritation is the regard in which club rugby is held especially bearing in mind the desire to broadcast the international game. Part of that was that i did not even know there was an ITV4 and part was the fact that this is being kept off ITV2 by a bad dance movie and ITV3 by Murder She Wrote.

I'm glad you posted as it's now in my Planner!

 

[Blue in Munich]

As I have said before, just because I am randomly irritated, it does not mean that my irritataion is rational. I appreciate the standing of club rugby in the grander scheme of things. Part of the irritation is that the channels are crying out for international rugby matches but the club game does not benefit from that coverage in the way it should. Personal feeling is that any contract to show the 6 Nations or any other international matches should be tied to an obligation to show a number of peak time club matches. The club matches on Channel 4 this year actually got decent figures.

As I said, this could be posted in many areas including things that gladden the heart as it is at least on free to air TV (note the first line of my post stating just this) and further note that the irritation is the regard in which club rugby is held especially bearing in mind the desire to broadcast the international game. Part of that was that i did not even know there was an ITV4 and part was the fact that this is being kept off ITV2 by a bad dance movie and ITV3 by Murder She Wrote.

ITV2 is primarily aimed at the 16/18–34 age group, just like BBC Three, E4 and Sky Max

ITV3 is known for UK dramas, movies, US dramas, and including sequential reruns of Agatha Christie's Poirot, Classic Coronation Street, Classic Emmerdale, Heartbeat and Inspector Morse, amongst others. Most of these dramas were originally broadcast on ITV or originated from ITV Studios.

ITV4; in line with the corporate rebranding of ITV, ITV4 received a new look on 14 January 2013. The channel received a "slate grey" logo and became the "home of sport and cult classics". ITV4 HD's high definition content includes films, and sports events which currently include British Touring Car Championship, Tour de France, horse racing, snooker, darts (including the UK Open and the Players Championship Finals) and French Open tennis as well as highlights of other sporting events and content from the ITV Sport archives.

Looks from that like it's in the right place.

 

[fundy]

As I have said before, just because I am randomly irritated, it does not mean that my irritataion is rational. I appreciate the standing of club rugby in the grander scheme of things. Part of the irritation is that the channels are crying out for international rugby matches but the club game does not benefit from that coverage in the way it should. Personal feeling is that any contract to show the 6 Nations or any other international matches should be tied to an obligation to show a number of peak time club matches. The club matches on Channel 4 this year actually got decent figures.

As I said, this could be posted in many areas including things that gladden the heart as it is at least on free to air TV (note the first line of my post stating just this) and further note that the irritation is the regard in which club rugby is held especially bearing in mind the desire to broadcast the international game. Part of that was that i did not even know there was an ITV4 and part was the fact that this is being kept off ITV2 by a bad dance movie and ITV3 by Murder She Wrote.

sport is always on ITV4 if not on the main ITV channel