Jump to content

millwall32

Members
  • Content Count

    1,231
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

millwall32 last won the day on April 7 2012

millwall32 had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

112 Excellent

About millwall32

  • Rank
    Post-Twunt
  • Birthday 26/04/1979

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Above ground.

Recent Profile Visitors

5,461 profile views
  1. millwall32

    Films with entirely dead casts

    And that's beforen we even get into the question of whether the above and this ( Roundhay Garden Scene (1888) (youtube.com)) from a few years earlier count as "films". They were publicly shown, people paid to see them, so I guess they do.
  2. millwall32

    Films with entirely dead casts

    Which leads to the logical question: What is the second film ever made where we can say with confidence/prove that the entire cast is now dead?
  3. millwall32

    Films with entirely dead casts

    I quite enjoy this thread. But I do see the point you're making. Thinking it through, every film ever made will be eligible eventually so we're setting ourself one heck of an admin job. For example, the cast of this might be the first entire cast of a film to all be dead. [Actual 4K Scan] The Arrival of a Train at La Ciotat Station - Lumière Brothers - 1896. (youtube.com) I can't track down dates of birth/death but the cast is Marcel Koehler Self Mrs. Auguste Lumière Self Jeanne-Joséphine Lumière Self Rose Lumière Self Suzanne Lumière Self All presumably 'mort'/ And the behind the camera talent is Directing/Producing Auguste Lumière (died 1954) Louis Lumière (died 1948)
  4. millwall32

    Last appearances

    Arthur Lowe being interviewed on Pebble Mill 16 hours before he died.
  5. millwall32

    Dave Swarbrick (And Fairport Convention)

    They've had a bit of bad luck with drummers . Their first big line-up change involved a drummer flying through the windscreen near Scratchwood Services.
  6. I've learned quite a lot about the concept of "less is more" by reading his book.
  7. Anita Bryant is an interesting example. As far as I can tell she was/is simply "anti-gay". IIRC, the original stance on Gay Rights which made her famous was that she wanted to repeal a law that outlawed discriminating against gays in employment . recruiting . Or to put it another way, she wanted to make it legal to not recruit people for being gay. I don't think Linehan is saying anything similar. He's not saying it should be illegal to transition, or that transitioning is wrong per se. In an odd way his position on the trans issue is more nuanced and tolerant than Bryant's on Gay Rights. And I'd agree that they both have the odd salient point mixed in with everything else. Maybe the key difference in presentation is that while Bryant was widely despised and mocked she always came across as a slightly dotty aunt; Linehan comes across as an obsessive who's fighting individuals. NB- Do we know anything about Bryant's current health for the main List. All IO can find is that she's 84, and seems to be running a ministry in Oaklahoma.
  8. Having said all that, I'm more interested in what others think. Any thoughts DL'ers??
  9. I've just got to the end of his book and I have a couple of conclusions, good and bad. 1) Great comedy writer. If you look at the thread on Cook's and Bomb'd , link above, there's a very obvious feeling of those who wrongly consider themselves to be comedy talents kicking a man when he's down. (Or perhaps, more accurately, kicking a man when he's too mentally distracted to fight back.) 2) He's obsessive. I can't think of any autobiography I've ever read that focusses so much on one topic that isn't strictly related to the reason the subject is famous. For example, if you read a celebrity "recovery memoir", you won't find that 80% of it is related to AA meetings, drug dealers, and *other people's* drug use. Linehan's story is around 4/5 related to the trans issue. He's allowed himself to become solely associated with it. Maybe he thought that he'd get more support or be able to parle it into a positive career branch. That won't happen since he's come to be seen as obsessed with trans rather than informed about it. 3) He has no presentation skills on the Trans issue. He shares the truly horrifying stories: men being allowed into women's prisons and women's spaces, abuse of children, blackmail, online abuse etc. But tends to come across as angry and nothing else. I think the key is that there's not a single constructive suggestion anywhere about what to do for trans people in legal or legislative terms. One of those, anywhere, would change the whole tone. Maybe this comes from the fact he's a writer. They're not supposed to be emotionally intelligent in the real world, only in abstract. 4) He's too reactive. If you're in an online argument about an issue you should never allow yourself to get personal while criticising the other party. This is the exact stage at which you've lost the argument and they've won on presentation grounds. You are, in effect, drowning your own argument out. This is doubly so if you are wholly or in part in the right. And from time to time, he is in the right. I'm far from being a media expert, but I'd say he'd be far better off sharing the evidence of the shocking stories he's come across and then *not* commenting on them further. Let others do their own working out so that he doesn't come across as haranguing on the issue. NB- I'm in the States at the moment. Los Angeles to be precise. I had a coffee with a trans friend yesterday, asked them if they'd ever heard of Graham Linehan and they hadn't. So maybe the ultimate irony here is that there's been no "cut through" in media terms.
  10. Sure, maybe. But what exactly are you saying makes him an arsehole? I definitely see objective evidence of him being obsessive. Mind you, are you saying that the sheer level of obsession makes him an areshole?
  11. That's one of the elements that confuses me : "obsessed with genitals". It does seem to have become an obsession for him. Having said that, I can't see much that he's saying which isn't factual. Even if his "spin' on the facts may be extreme. It may be one of the oldest problems for anyone discussing any subject- "It's not what you're saying, it's *how* you're saying it."
  12. He's been dead 44 years. He won't say much at all. Out of interest, why do you go straight to "divorcee" ?
  13. Well, if you can see anything uncordial in what I've written point it out to me and I'll change it. Genuine question, sincerely asked.
  14. There's another forum which I'm banned from that has several very long threads about Graham Linehan. Trans Mania: Graham Linehan is an Obsessive Transphobe (cookdandbombd.co.uk) (Note Deathlist admins: I got banned from it for using the word "retarded". Not even for calling someone retarded, but for using the word "retarded'". It's a very PC/woke space.) I've had a bit of free time in the last few days and I went through most of the Graham Linehan threads on there and listened to the audiobook of his autobiography on a plane. I wondered what people on here thought of the whole "Graham Linehan Trans Row". I can't decide between his own self image (defender of women's rights who's also bravely raising and publicising severe abuse of children) and the more critical view of him (basically raging transphobe/ homophobe who's literally gone insane over the subject and is a severely nasty piece of work.) Having listened to his story from his point of view in a bit more depth I'm still totally undecided. Do Deathlisters have any thoughts on him?
×

Important Information

Your use of this forum is subject to our Terms of Use