|
|
Post by Pink Betty on Jan 4, 2012 15:53:04 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by aubrey on Jan 17, 2012 12:22:54 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by aubrey on Jan 17, 2012 13:57:21 GMT
I don't think there is an undercurrent. They love each other, but not like that.
And Holmes did react to her nakedness in the way that a gay man might.
|
|
|
|
Post by ncsonde on Jan 17, 2012 13:57:44 GMT
Not all scotch are homosexuals.
|
|
|
|
Post by ncsonde on Jan 17, 2012 14:00:03 GMT
I don't think there is an undercurrent. They love each other, but not like that. Ahhh, Meatloaf. Good song. Have you been to the fishmongers dressed like that? |
|
|
|
Post by aubrey on Jan 19, 2012 14:46:22 GMT
1. Yes, the Mail love this tactic.   2. I wondered about the 10 year olds watching too. I know you won't think there's anything wrong with it, Aubrey, but I thought it was unnecessary. Or badly done, maybe. Plus, it was the worst of all six episodes anyway. I've advised people to skip it. Not worth the trouble. 3. I don't think that quote about disspelling any idea of a homosexual undercurrent can be quite right: Series co-creator Steven Moffat said he had given Holmes an overtly sexual sparring partner to scotch speculation about a homosexual undercurrent to the relationship between him and Dr John Watson, played by Martin Freeman.  It did nothing to scotch any undercurrent. If anything it added to it. And the undercurrent is part of the storyline.... Seriously, Lady, even if it had been nudity, which it wasn't, what would have been wrong with it? I know I always say it: but why is the image of a man being tortured to death ok for 10 year olds to see, but that of a naked body isn't? |
|
|
|
Post by Lounge Lizard on Jan 19, 2012 17:22:16 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by aubrey on Jan 19, 2012 20:08:55 GMT
I think I watch TV with kids, sometimes: but you're right, it's not often: and they wouldn't be mine. But friends who have kids seem to think the same as me, at least as far as swearing goes (not asked about nakedness). But I think we have a weird attitude to nakedness, generally.
What was wrong with Stargazing?
|
|
jean
Madrigal Member 
Posts: 8,546
|
Post by jean on Jan 21, 2012 22:13:59 GMT
Here's a Christ who really is properly naked except for some baptismal water. It's not a very common image in the Western church, I grant you.  |
|
jean
Madrigal Member
Posts: 8,546
|
Post by jean on Jan 21, 2012 22:41:16 GMT
Oops - I just changed my image for an even better version. Not common in Western Christian art, no. But I was reminded of it because yet another version, the one below, was shown on BBC2 last week, in Sicily Unpacked. It's from the Capella Palatina in Palermo, at the time of a remarkable fusion of Western, Greek and Arab art under the Norman kings. The programme went out at 9 o'clock, IIRC.  |
|
|
|
Post by aubrey on Jan 22, 2012 10:35:11 GMT
This is completely bye the bye: but I always feel bad for these artists. They must have taken such pains to get it right, and then they stand back and it looks nowt like! All the bits are right, so what could they have been doing wrong? It took them years to work it out, didn't it?
|
|
jean
Madrigal Member
Posts: 8,546
|
Post by jean on Jan 22, 2012 10:41:22 GMT
You mean naked men don't really look like that? They had no excuse, really. I mean, they were all men themselves, and they only had to look down... Whereas when they were painting women, you can understand it:  |
|
|
|
Post by aubrey on Jan 23, 2012 22:15:09 GMT
No, the perspective.
All the parts are right (more or less) but put together, no.
Walk like an Egyptian - "No, we don't walk like that, what do you mean? Oh."
|
|
bets taking a peek camelot
Guest
|
Post by bets taking a peek camelot on Jan 24, 2012 15:31:25 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Sweaty Betty on Feb 13, 2012 18:15:25 GMT
Want to attract a lover this Valentine’s Day? Make sure you’re SWEATY, say scientistsA new book claims men and women should hang on to their perspiration in order to attract new lovers, as well as to maintain the interest of their current ones. |
|
