JSDOUVRES wrote: ↑Mon 01 Feb 2021, 10:53 pm
They kept playing bits of It's a sin and were talking about this series on talkSport Drive in the UK today and the presenter Adrian Durham was giving it huge praise! Came as quite a surprise to hear the song on that show, must be helping to sell a good few copies of the albums too, surely?!
They are having a daily 'It's a sin' this week too, with songs from the soundtrack. Cool!
Just played on Match of the Day too.
I saw that. And it was the remix version too..! Obviously someone in the Match of the Day editing suite is a fan..
There is beauty in ugliness and ugliness in beauty.
JSDOUVRES wrote: ↑Mon 01 Feb 2021, 10:53 pm
They kept playing bits of It's a sin and were talking about this series on talkSport Drive in the UK today and the presenter Adrian Durham was giving it huge praise! Came as quite a surprise to hear the song on that show, must be helping to sell a good few copies of the albums too, surely?!
They are having a daily 'It's a sin' this week too, with songs from the soundtrack. Cool!
Just played on Match of the Day too.
I've just put the clip in the YouTube section.
There is beauty in ugliness and ugliness in beauty.
A lovely segment on Sounds of the 80s, where Gary Davies plays It's a Sin and then we hear Russel T Davies mention some favourite 80s tracks. https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000rwvx
I find odd they name a Show like a song but only used a few seconds on an episode and not even hear it sings it, just the intro....
Also find that if Neil and Chris saw this show they would be devastated as its a reminder of a sad time where they lost very close friends
If the writer is a fan, , which obviously is not, would have made an opening with and named the show" It Couldnt Happen Here" and it would have been much more accurate, dramatic and fitted perfectly.
How do you infer Mr Davies is not a fan? For not playing the entire 5 minutes of it? Everyone knows it, the fact the show is named after it says enough to anyone with half a brain.
From Wayne's site: "An official Doctor Who novel titled Damaged Goods, written by Russell T. Davies and published in 1996, is set primarily in 1987 Britain, during the Pet Shop Boys' "imperial phase" of peak popularity, and contains some explicit PSB references. For instance, at one point it refers quite pointedly to "It's a Sin." It notes that the Doctor himself is completely ignorant of the Pet Shop Boys. And at one point a character specifically describes one of the novel's villains—a nasty medical consultant who tries to kill the Doctor—as looking "like Neil Tennant," which really doesn't mean anything to the Doctor since, after all, he doesn't know who Neil Tennant is."
There is an interview in Spanish wit Olly talking about PSB. I have to admit I didn't like when he says he is not interested on playing a role of a person if he is not gay. If a straight person say something in the opposite direction it would sound homophobic. So I don't know if we could say the sentence of Olly is heterophobic. https://shangay.com/2021/02/10/olly-ale ... ntrevista/
No, you can't. Gay people are still underrepresented, and if there's a chance for representation, he will fight for it. Reading the translation, it was even a self-deprecating joke, since he's too unapologetically himself that he wouldn't pass as straight. And again, it's his personal decision.
You can't be racist against white people, and can't be heterophobic, because straight people/white people are still dominating the discourse, and have used the status quo to discriminate and exploited the privileges of being deemed "the only normal" for far too long. I'm begging you to educate yourself, it's 2021.
Eleven wrote: ↑Tue 09 Feb 2021, 11:30 pmI find odd they name a Show like a song but only used a few seconds on an episode and not even hear it sings it, just the intro...
Nothing odd about it. It's not a promo piece!
If the writer is a fan, , which obviously is not
The writer is a fan.
would have made an opening with and named the show" It Couldnt Happen Here" and it would have been much more accurate, dramatic and fitted perfectly.
Nah. The title refers to the lack of response to the AIDS crisis.
Nickname wrote: ↑Wed 10 Feb 2021, 4:36 pm
There is an interview in Spanish wit Olly talking about PSB. I have to admit I didn't like when he says he is not interested on playing a role of a person if he is not gay. If a straight person say something in the opposite direction it would sound homophobic. So I don't know if we could say the sentence of Olly is heterophobic. https://shangay.com/2021/02/10/olly-ale ... ntrevista/
You really make the most silly comments sometimes, you know that?
“Unless you consciously include, you will unconsciously exclude” -Stephen Frost
Nickname wrote: ↑Wed 10 Feb 2021, 4:36 pm
he says he is not interested on playing a role of a person if he is not gay. If a straight person say something in the opposite direction it would sound homophobic. So I don't know if we could say the sentence of Olly is heterophobic.
I don't agree that there would be any phobia in either case. Simply not being interested in playing certain category of people does not necessarily mean phobia towards them.
I am, however, struck by his obsession with demonstrating his orientation. His statement sounds like the orientation of a film character needs always be apparent. Like there could not be any roles to play but roles demonstrating some sort of sexual behaviour. Imagine an actor who says he won't play anybody but characters of a certain occupation. Bizarre, if not narrow-minded.
Nickname wrote: ↑Wed 10 Feb 2021, 4:36 pm
he says he is not interested on playing a role of a person if he is not gay. If a straight person say something in the opposite direction it would sound homophobic. So I don't know if we could say the sentence of Olly is heterophobic.
I don't agree that there would be any phobia in either case. Simply not being interested in playing certain category of people does not necessarily mean phobia towards them.
I am, however, struck by his obsession with demonstrating his orientation. His statement sounds like the orientation of a film character needs always be apparent. Like there could not be any roles to play but roles demonstrating some sort of sexual behaviour. Imagine an actor who says he won't play anybody but characters of a certain occupation. Bizarre, if not narrow-minded.
The fact that you think it's "bizarre" means that the world hasn't got where it needs to be yet and he is doing totally the right thing.
“Unless you consciously include, you will unconsciously exclude” -Stephen Frost
