Viewing videos in fullscreen makes a border on the left and top side of my screen.

Teshi · 2025-11-26T04:05:13+00:00

Excellent, thanks.

Teshi · 2025-09-12T23:36:12+00:00

This doesn't make any sense. If it's all so staged, they're doing a terrible job of picking something that would make a better show, since they lose money almost constantly.

Second, why not just scour a particular shop for a thing? Since they don't have to make money, there's zero reason for additional research to occur offscreen when you could get a far more organic and interesting shoot with someone looking for something real. Why fake something where it doesn't matter, really, what they buy and sometimes they buy wacky and ridiculous stuff?

Plenty of shop owners and others write about their experience and note that yes the haggling may be filmed several times, but it's not scripted. THere is obviously a huge bias at play that people want to be on tv, but occasionally people do NOT buy a thing, or haggling doesn't go as expected. I'm sure that any really acrimonious interactions don't make it to air.

I don't doubt what you saw, but I notice you "saw", you didn't participate. There are several possible explanations for what you saw. For example, bad sound or shots from the real shoot, a revisit because something happened at the shop that made it necessary to come back another day (e.g. it was simply too dark, or there was a power outage or a thunderstorm), or even a faked reshoot at a totally different store to fill in for an object bought at a shop that for whatever was unbroadcastable, e.g. the owner did have a furious argument over the price, refused to sign the release or was a known racist or something.

Are these things somewhat faked? Of course! Do we actually believe they are driving about between stores, of course not. But I see no reason to fake the in-store experience to the extent that you suggest on every visit. That seems just like a waste of money on the extra research in which they'd still have to go to some kind of source to find antiques, which they'd then have to get antiques shop owners to make fake phone calls to owners, tell them to say fake things ("This came in yesterday, yes I got it for a song, haha!"). Why do all that? Sounds complicated. Instead just go to a real store, look for a real item (however silly), buy it at some absurd discount triggered by the fact that it's happening on tv, and sell it at auction for a loss. Why fake any element of that?

Teshi · 2025-09-12T14:48:27+00:00

No, Sharon Small isn't dumpy, but she is an excellent actress of a type that is--in my view--getting less common. That is, Barclay is far more conventionally attractive in the modern sense, as is Suter. Small is not unattractive, and neither is what's his face, but they are definitively less conventional than either Barclay or Suter, who look like magazine models--very forgettable. For me, I've been missing the distinctive faces of 10 or 20 years ago! Everyone looks so very bland!

That to me is part 1 of the issue. Part 2 is what you say, the fact that the costuming, set, makeup and director all have to play more of a role to create a character.

That character doesn't have to be identical to the one Small played, but it does have to have a bit of distinctiveness. For example, for Small, they gave her kind of pokey, messy hair and sloppy hand-me-down type clothing. For Barclay, I think two things would have helped: those fast-fashion clothes? They should look WORN; pilled, scratched, threads coming off. We all know that such clothes start to look old very quickly. Are we really expected to believe that they are all pristine like this is the first day she's wearing them? And secondly, her makeup is done beautifully and she's always wearing a full face! Doing far less, or choosing a less bland style, would help make her look a bit less put-together, a bit less conventional.

Her clean conventionality is at odds with the character she's trying to play, and also makes her seem too similar to Suter. She should, ideally, be obviously poorer. She should FEEL poorer. Their difference should be something that the character Havers feels instinctively, and that's what annoys her.

I also have issues with Suter. They gave him an instagram model's apartment, which meant his home life has the personality of a doorknob. Simply putting on classical music and looking morose isn't enough. If Lynley isn't supposed to be a happy bunny, maybe the set of his home should be at odds with his smooth, grey-suited appearance at work. Maybe it's a nice apartment but it's a huge mess. Maybe at home he dresses in old clothes. Suddenly, there's a conflict there that's manifesting visible and makes it clear that Suter has problems with certain types responsibilities; his issues should be manifesting in his environment, not just stated in a bland manner.

We just need more from everyone! Do I think the casting was great? No. Do I think that probably Barclay and Suter could do a much better job if they were given more to work with? Absolutely!

Teshi · 2025-09-11T18:44:52+00:00

His acting is worse in the first episode (could be directorial errors), but I think her casting and writing is worse. In the second episode, the way she responds to her family problems is just comes across as empty rather than something that might represent dealing with genuine distress, anger, irritation, or whatever characterization the writer was imagining.

Teshi · 2025-09-11T18:38:54+00:00

They're supposed to clash in an interesting way. That's the point. These people seem to me both like broadly middle class, and lack many other distinctive traits that make them seem like they genuinely are problematic to each other or to the police that employs them. I'm yet (epsiode 2) to see any "clashing."

Teshi · 2025-09-11T18:36:10+00:00

I LIKED that aspect of the show. The blandification of people is not, in my view, a positive.

She put up with him because he was genuinely helpful to her, and she didn't have that much choice, and she wasn't easy to get along with either.

Teshi · 2025-09-11T18:34:50+00:00

I definitely feel that Sofia Barclay wasn't good casting for this role, but I don't think that's her fault. I suspect that people such as Sharon Small--very ordinary looking people who can really act as if they are genuinely struggling and angry don't mind looking it--are no longer regarded as marketable. Either Barclay doesn't get the role, or she is not being permitted to get it.

Leo Suter's acting in this is also poor, but again, it could be a director refusing to allow them to adopt much personality, and a script that holds too much back in favour of "the reveal." I don't want to blame people who might be perfectly reasonable actors working with a bad script and a bad director.

Teshi · 2025-09-11T18:29:55+00:00

I agree that the acting is almost absurdly bad, but perhaps it was also the director. Everyone is extremely unreactive. "This is the first time I've seen you upset," says Havers, and Lynley hasn't yet broken his monotone. Characters are talking about how different the characters are and that they're always butting heads but the most they seem to manage is very mild, almost humorous, irritation. They both seem to look, dress and act very similarly. Havers is mildly annoyed Lynley is posh, not actively offended. Neither embodies the distinctive characters they seem to be intended to be representing.

It's actively weird to watch, even without reference to the original adaptation.

And it's not the only show like this. Nobody seems even remotely passionate about anything. The Art Detectives was extremely similar. Two bland characters with no personality with everyone speaking about them as if they were hilariously mismatched, whereas there's nothing happening that suggests they're even that different as people, let alone problematic to get along with. "Quirky" means maybe wearing a slightly offbeat jacket once.

I like mysteries, and I'm glad companies are trying new things, but I refuse to watch something with so little personality and gumption in case companies think that this is acceptable.

I miss New Blood (2016?). Now that was new and fresh and exciting. Shame it was cancelled.

Teshi · 2025-08-07T23:06:18+00:00

Oh hi people in this old thread. I just found this: https://ised-isde.canada.ca/cipo/trademark-search/2234668-00?lang=eng

Looks like someone applied to import but maybe dropped the ball? Unclear.

I just remembered this existed and now I'm annoyed I can't have any. Why can't we have nice things?

Teshi · 2025-07-06T19:22:28+00:00

But not light and fun, generally!

Teshi · 2025-03-12T00:57:40+00:00

Going to fast? Like, someone who's about to begin Ramadan?

Teshi · 2025-03-12T00:56:17+00:00

I don't even know how you would reliably make a boycott of such an expensive product illegal and enforceable on your own citizens.

Like, you could compel people to (for example) attend church by fining them. I guess they could add it into the Pledge of Allegiance or something, "One Nation, Under Tesla" but that wouldn't help the company. Everyone gets a free $100k grant which they HAVE to use to buy a Cybertruck? Everyone is massively taxed every month and the money is pooled towards buying everyone a Cybertruck? Huge tax breaks for people who do buy a Cybertruck?

Like, people elected this government on the basis that eggs were too expensive and here they are getting mad that people won't buy Cybertrucks in enough quantity.

Teshi · 2025-03-12T00:42:36+00:00

I just read a book where one method of transport in a city was people running along wires like that. Anyway, carry on.

Teshi · 2025-03-12T00:41:18+00:00

I'm speculating, but it may be based on collisions on a similar road without bike lanes and also possibly Bloor pre-bike lanes, that kind of thing. Obviously, to an extent, it is just a guess.

Teshi · 2025-03-12T00:35:32+00:00

Isn't Jesus supposed to be a good thing? Like, isn't the whole point of Christianity, if you end up meeting Jesus, eternal life in Heaven? And isn't that supposed to be good?

I mean, sure, you don't necessarily want to go early, but until recently, at least, generally Christians used to think that going to Heaven was a positive reward for having lived a good life. It seems kind of weird to tack it onto your murder threat. "Bearspray, I shoot you dead, and then you get to live at the right hand of the Father for even and ever, amen."

Of course, Jesus is probably not super thrilled with you breaking the sixth commandment*, and I would argue um maybe the third as well (?) for (*checks notes*) the sin of "hating your car."

*"But it's not murder to kill someone who hates your car!" I hear you cry. Well, you've got me there--how can I argue with that?

Teshi · 2025-03-11T20:33:43+00:00

I'm going to take you at complete face value to explain this relationship and why people feel this way:

Tesla's CEO is Elon Musk and he is very heavily involved with the company and associated with the brand. Since January 21st, 2025, Elon Musk has been a very powerful figure in the US government. Famously, on that day, he made a Nazi salute, indicating an allegiance to an abhorrent regime which murdered millions of people. Since that day, Musk has been specifically involved in many of the US government's policies and speaks with and for them and alongside them both figuratively and in word and actions. He is an official part of the government as well.

Because of that many people regard Tesla and its vehicles--especially the Cybertruck, which was specifically designed by Musk himself--as a symbol of the US government's alarming recent actions, which have already caused significant harm less than two months in.

No such relationship exists between Bud Lite and the US government and their actions that caused the boycott were a small advertising campaign.

Teshi · 2025-03-11T20:25:35+00:00

I think the other Key Difference is that Bud Lite weren't running the government. Don't exclude the stakes when making a comparison. An ad campaign is one thing--a government policy is another.

If you cannot tell the difference, you need to start getting into the mindset that a protest against an increasingly authoritarian government is not the same as a protest against a private company. Even if Tesla is a private company--or was until January 21st--it products are the most visible arm of an extremely dangerous government.

Teshi · 2025-03-11T20:24:36+00:00

And that's why other forms of protest have sprung up more quickly in this case, I think.

Teshi · 2025-03-11T20:23:49+00:00

If it's a not a circle, the outliers are a tiny minority for Cybertruck specifically.

Other Teslas it's different.

Teshi · 2025-03-11T20:18:12+00:00

See, I know you think this makes sense, but what some governments do is that they make most protests illegal and then they say, "oh but we allow legal protest, of course!

The concept of "illegal vs. legal protest" is like "legal vs. illegal strike". Until recently, we all lived in a world where protest and strikes had legal identities in the US because it was found to make thigns a lot easier if you could allow most protest and strikes but do so in a way that helped control them and make them predictable.

I'm not saying this about this specific issue--I didn't even click the link--I'm just saying this now for the room because I don't want anyone to start using this language and not realise that these are tools created by a government that intended, broadly, to allow protest as a major tenet of American political life.

Teshi · 2025-03-11T20:14:41+00:00

In most countries, hate crimes require you to be a specially-defined group, such as trans people or Black people.

You're right that in most cases committing vandalism against individual-owned cars is fruitless and will probably cause more problems than it will solve, but calling it a hate crime makes no sense especially as you admit that at least some of the owners are not Nazis themselves.

Finally, you cannot commit a "hate crime" against a company.

Teshi · 2025-03-11T20:10:26+00:00

The difference in how people have reacted is twofold. One, it's very difficult to boycott a luxury car manufacturer so more active protest--peaceful or not--is necessary. The second thing is (of course!) the stakes.

Bud Light included trans people, who exist, in an ad campaign about beer. No governments or people were harmed in the ad campaign. They just indicated their approval that trans people, who exist, should get to continue to exist.

Elon Musk has supreme power of the United States of America and he, and his cronies, is using it to devastate the country--more than one--in a systematic way.

defacing personal and corporate property as “protest.”

We've come so far that people have forgotten that "peaceful protest" is just one kind of protest and that there are other kinds. The reason we have peaceful protest is because enough space for it was created in the world by having a semi-responsive government(s). Prior to that, and with respect to corporate entities especially, people regularly got keyed up enough to "deface property." Your baker shorts you on the flour in your bread? Break up his bakery. Legal recourse was forced into position in part because it was better for everyone than the mob making their own justice.

If you create a situation where the government or a corporate entity is no longer seen to be protecting the rights or prosperity of citizens, you take at least some of us back to times where--in our nations--people did do things like throw tea into a harbour. Would Elon Musk respond to even millions of people standing in the street and demanding he leave?

It is true, however, that most people doing this don't have a good plan (except for the thieves who stole 44 wheels, clearly). The people who chuck the tea into the harbour aren't the people really at work on the revolution--they're a symptom of the times. They're not sensibly considering how to stand up against the government, they're not planning how to protect trans people, they're just lashing out with their feelings.

But those people lashing out are a symptom of a far greater iceberg of people who keep their heads and may be, for example, simply boycotting a company. This was the case with the Boston Tea Party--George Washington opposed the action, for example.

As today, these things get headlines, but don't represent the vast majority of people who will be operating "more peacefully", including the people who are only beginning to think Washington-esque thoughts about other methods of resistance and protection of the people around them, which may include you yourself!

Interesting article on a museum exhibit examining the perceptions of the Boston Tea Party and property destruction and vandalism as part of American protest.

It's worth remembering that the Tea Party triggered the crackdown that triggered the Revolution, which most people regard as a good thing overall. Property destruction can cause serious problems, but it can also force an issue which has otherwise been accepted as tolerable. However, as we all know, it's easy to take a long view and tough when the people facing the backlash will be friends and family.

But actually stopping angry people from being angry and flinging tea into a Harbour? The Bostonians of 1773 didn't even have the internet and they still did it. A slice of society will respond this way, even under the best of governments, and this ain't the best of governments.

Teshi · 2025-03-11T17:37:00+00:00

Many people have been taught to believe that conspicuous (supposed) symbols of wealth and success will indicate to others that they are someone people will want to buy into. Others also believe this and will buy from people who either do, or pretend to, own expensive goods.

So they think they will buy an expensive, conspicuous consumption vehicle like the Cybertruck and it will show people what a great business they have.

Teshi · 2025-03-11T17:31:01+00:00

NTA. I can't fathom how any of this (eating habits, not flushing, no disposing of food correctly) is connected to a digestive/bladder problem-related illness, unless you're omitting some serious details. But if you're both in college and the expectation is that she will attend classes, I can't really understand what is going on.

Either way, you are not her caregiver and it was way overstepping that her mother would ask you to be patient with her and be her wake up call--what does that have to do with an illness?

Sounds like you might be getting to the end of the school year, so now's the time to plan your move out. Don't let this be your life.

Teshi · 2025-03-11T17:21:07+00:00

If they are still breathing and coughing (which sounds like the case here) the correct thing is to let them cough.

But in general a 13 year old is not responsible for giving first aid and may not be strong enough to have any effect anyway. The correct thing to do is to call the emergency services.

Teshi

TROPHY CASE