Renewed appreciation for Spectre

Exactly. “You can never go home again.”, “No man ever steps in the same river twice, for it’s not the same river and he’s not the same man.” All that guff.

Of course, there’s stuff I watch now which may well look back on in future and think, “I can’t believe I watched that crap! What was I thinking?”

I’m reminded of an episode of Frasier in which Frasier and Niles fondly recall a childhood experience watching an actor named Jackson Hedley (played by a thoroughly game Sir Derek Jacobi) perform Hamlet, though he’s now reduced to playing an android on a schlocky sci-fi show titled Space Patrol. They decide to re-stage Hamlet with him - but it turns out the guy’s a terrible, hammy actor, and an old footage proves he always has been, and they do all they can to cancel the show on opening night before the two of them are humiliated!

In other words, they were impressionable youths who were easily awed, and were unable to enjoy the same thing after that particular period of life.

I can’t remember how we got onto this topic now :slight_smile:

4 Likes

I do remember the EURGGGGGHHHHH BRILLIANT EPISODE!

The fact Jacobi pulled that off shows why he got a Knighthood

2 Likes

Frasier is amazing (well, for it’s first six seasons, at least, with a few scattered strong episodes thereafter).

2 Likes

Yeah…once they put Daphne and Niles together, they really seemed like they didn’t knoW what to do with them

2 Likes

Definitely. Very anti-climactic.

I’ve been watching Cheers on Ch4 on weekdays, and (though I think Frasier’s glory years were much stronger and certainly less silly) they were able to keep the quality for longer, in my view. This was probably because each episode of Cheers could take any of the gang as the lead in that week’s episode, thereby allowing the stories to be more diverse, whereas Frasier had to revolve around one man. Even those episodes which involve Niles or Martin were more centered on how Frasier reacted to it.

1 Like

I’m all in for some Frasier and Cheers appreciation! I remember the Jackson Hadley episode: priceless!!! My fav is when he is persuaded to stand against the tyrannical chair of the residents’ committee over his rogue door knocker! Honourable mention to Niles’ dinner party that is interrupted by a rotten seal washed up on the beach: they did good old fashioned farce so we’ll. Cheers is also superb and benefits from Kirsty Alley in ditzy mode. Conversely, I remember enjoying the Golden Girls but now that is being repeated on 5, I find myself wondering what I ever saw in it.

2 Likes

My favourite Frasier epis are the farce ones too - ‘The Ski Lodge’, ‘The Two Mrs Cranes’, ‘Halloween’, among them.

1 Like

Awesome eps all!

2 Likes

Obviously, appreciating SPECTRE leads to appreciating 30 year old sitcoms.

4 Likes

Niles owes a gang boss a favour - has to find a job for his moll.
Martin gets a charge out of dialing Niles’ office.
“Noils Crane, p-syk-ee-a-trist.”

3 Likes

On the subject of watching or reading things because of nostalgia, I’m also slightly baffled by how millennials are still obsessed (and I do mean obsessed) with Harry Potter. These were great books, but - you know - they need to move on.

You mean, like we have?

4 Likes

I thought I would need to elaborate sigh

I loved the Harry Potter books. They were great reads and excellent adventure-thrillers. They weren’t original - they owed enormously to previous popular books and were, broadly speaking, a mixture of Enid Blyton’s many mystery-adventure series and her school stories (along with, of course, the rest of the boarding-school genre of children’s fiction, like the wildly popular and long-running Frank Richards’ Greyfriars and Anthony Buckeridge’s Jennings series).

But Harry Potter is - quite literally - a closed book. The series finished thirteen years ago. It’s fine for people to see Cursed Child or Fantastic Beasts, but they’re still poring over memes and fan theories and teasing out more details, and large swathes of such fans aren’t reading other books.

When the series first became popular, it was the era of the first PlayStation, and parents and teachers were concerned that children were dedicating too much time to it and encouraged them to read as well. That’s a major part of its initial success. Parents read them to children, and then told their friends and relatives how good these books were and how they could be read by adults too.

Unfortunately, though writers like Phillip Pullman and Anthony Horowitz benefited from this resurgence of Young Adult fiction (it was this period which popularized the term), many HP fans didn’t explore a great deal else in the long term. Other books have come into fashion, of course, like Twilight and The Hunger Games, and that’s great, but what about the thousands of other books which have been published since that time? I speak from experience, and this is purely anecdotal, but I’ve noticed this through my time in school, college and university with HP fans. The series was talked about and some people reacted with shock when I said I couldn’t remember them as vividly as they could (having read them only once or twice - which is normal, surely).

Bond, on other hand, is ongoing. Since the last Harry Potter novel was released, there have been fifteen Bond novels, over a dozen non-fiction books, and another dozen graphic novels, and four films of new material have been filmed. And more of all this - perhaps many more - are expected to be released in the future.

I just want books to be read and be a success, and as I love reading, it’s a slight frustration to see so many great books - books just as good as HP - go ignored because they aren’t buoyed by marketing muscle or because they’re simply new and untested.

I’m glad the Harry Potter books are favourites of many young people. But what about their future favourites?

That’s all I’m saying.

Don´t worry, they are reading other books.

And, um, Bond ended after the last Fleming novel was published. Everything else is fan fiction, and rest assured: Potter will live on in that, too. The play was only step one.

Gee, and why not? Everybody should enjoy what they want. It´s not like other classics prohibited people from reading new stuff.

“Damn, this Dickens and his “Great Expectations” - people should move on, there are so many other writers and novels to explore…”

1 Like

I never said it wasn’t great or anything. But as I also said above, it’s just a little disappointing that the encouraging wave of young readers didn’t lead to a lifetime of it. It’d have been great if many subsequent books had led to midnight releases and que-around-the-block mania.

On a related topic, I actually think Shakespeare has been clogging up the curriculum for far too long. All of the English Literature students I knew had never heard of Alan Bennett, Alan Bleasdale, John Osborne, Terence Rattigan, Tennessee Williams or Noel Coward, and I blame this not on them but on those who make them study so much Shakespeare instead. I don’t mean we shouldn’t have no Bard on there, but keep it to Macbeth, Hamlet and Romeo and Juliet or else rotate them, as it otherwise gives a very narrow understanding of the history of English-language theater and literature.

But that’s my soap-box :slight_smile:

Do you have data to base that on?

I’m not saying at all that there aren’t millions of people who have come to reading because of HP. Obviously. I am, though, saying that if every one of them had continued on to other books, we would have had - as I put it above - successive instances of midnight releases and que-around-the-block mania. Over and over again.

Bit unrealistic, that expectation, isn’t it?

I don’t mean for ever, or even up to the present day. But it would’ve been nice to see it happen for maybe seven or eight books afterwards. And It’s not quite so unrealistic when you consider the thousands of people around the world who queued overnight for a thousand pound iPhone a couple of years ago.

But… are sales these days only made in stores? C‘mon.