2. Am I the only one who finds it odd that in the picture walking out of the church that he is holding her arm instead of the other way around? I would think he would be very formal in this instance. Maybe in UK the man takes the woman's arm instead of the woman taking the man's arm?
But - oh yeah. Love, love, love the pics!
DM has impeccable manners. He has the manners of someone in the 1950's and prior. When you are walking with a lady on a street and there is step out of a building or a curb you always take her by the arm or elbow to alert her that it is not a smooth sidewalk. I believe I see a slight step just coming out of the church, and Louisa looks like she is in seventh heaven at that moment. The doc is cautiously avoiding a misstep on LE's part.
For those of you who haven't seen them, here are my pictures from Buckham Fair...you'll have to skip through the first couple of them. I was really pleased with how they turned out!
For those of you who haven't seen them, here are my pictures from Buckham Fair...you'll have to skip through the first couple of them. I was really pleased with how they turned out!
Did you notice that the episode title for S6 E1 is "Sickness and Health"? This is interesting because for some unknown reason Acorn renamed the S3 episodes on the DVD's sold in North America. The non-wedding episode, originally "Happily Ever After", was called "In Sickness and in Health".
Not sure if this is a spoiler. I'll hide it just in case.
Maybe Acorn will call s6e1 Happily ever After?
I can understand cutting the music for the American eps and changing names they didnt understand (boho with a shotgun) but don't really understand why they changed s3e8-seems a bit like unnecessary interfering to me?
Maybe Acorn will call s6e1 Happily ever After?
I can understand cutting the music for the American eps and changing names they didnt understand (boho with a shotgun) but don't really understand why they changed s3e8-seems a bit like unnecessary interfering to me?
They changed every episode title in S3. Not a clue why.
For those of you who haven't seen them, here are my pictures from Buckham Fair...you'll have to skip through the first couple of them. I was really pleased with how they turned out!
This link doesn't seem to work. The first one does, but I'm not sure if we should look under albums or where once we're at your FB page. Sorry; I'm a lot of trouble.
They changed every episode title in S3. Not a clue why.
That's weird. We don't even get to know the titles on TV in Oz. The DVDs have the titles I think, I can check later if they correspond to the official ones.
Buckham Fair vid with MC and Emily in the bright green/ yellow t shirt. There's a funny bit with dogs including Buddy/Dodger. Much teasing about the rudeness of DM.
This link doesn't seem to work. The first one does, but I'm not sure if we should look under albums or where once we're at your FB page. Sorry; I'm a lot of trouble.
However, I'm with MC, simply because his statement on Daybreak is one in which he named names and could be sued for slander by the reporter if the reporter could prove he wrote the truth.
Quoting MC: "...Unfortunately this was something Tim Oglethorpe in the Readers Digest wrote. Thought 'Oh, I can say what Martin said better than he did' and it didn't really happen like that...." (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ycv3mxsZxtg&feature=youtu.be)
I've noticed that this practice of calling out the name of the troublemaker has been used by MC before when confronting the selling of the first marriage story by his first wife and through a particular publicist, Max Clifford, who incidentally is in a lot of UK hot water right now when I did a little research. MC just simply calls a spade a spade when I think he feels in the right and justified to do so. It certainly would be a warning to others about dealing with those people in its own way.
The issue of slander vs. libel was niggling at my brain and so I researched it and read a lot more only to find out that because this was in print (reporter) and on TV (MC), it would be libel instead of slander, in either case of a suit.
But I do agree with mmDerdekea that it'll just all blow over and no real harm was done in the long run.
At least I think I've got it right this time, but don't quote me. I'm not a lawyer, though I do find that sorting my way through legalese boosts my ego a bit!:)
I just had a thought due to all the discussions about the various writers and the changing personality of our Doc and Anthony Minghella's role. It seems to me that AM had the challenging job of creating a character for a new series, especially episode 1 that engaged the audience to get them to watch in the first place. We see Doc as new in town, new job, totally different milieu of people, and out of his depth for it, while we recognize him being a reasonable person as he goes about things, and he ends up being a sympathetic figure for all he has to go through just to try to do his job and shows his hero status at the end when he doesn't decide to cut and run after all. Brilliant job of capturing an audience in my mind! I'm impressed all over again.
That being said I can also fast forward to the next series and be glad that in those series, I wasn't still watching the exact same Doc as in the first. The character keeps developing, changing, and still moving us in such a way as to addict us to his presence in our lives.
I just had a thought due to all the discussions about the various writers and the changing personality of our Doc and Anthony Minghella's role. It seems to me that AM had the challenging job of creating a character for a new series, especially episode 1 that engaged the audience to get them to watch in the first place. We see Doc as new in town, new job, totally different milieu of people, and out of his depth for it, while we recognize him being a reasonable person as he goes about things, and he ends up being a sympathetic figure for all he has to go through just to try to do his job and shows his hero status at the end when he doesn't decide to cut and run after all. Brilliant job of capturing an audience in my mind! I'm impressed all over again.
Hi Susie,
It was Dominic Minghella who wrote for Doc Martin. Anthony was his older brother, a talented film director, who unfortunately died in 2008.
I just had a thought due to all the discussions about the various writers and the changing personality of our Doc and Anthony Minghella's role. It seems to me that AM had the challenging job of creating a character for a new series, especially episode 1 that engaged the audience to get them to watch in the first place. We see Doc as new in town, new job, totally different milieu of people, and out of his depth for it, while we recognize him being a reasonable person as he goes about things, and he ends up being a sympathetic figure for all he has to go through just to try to do his job and shows his hero status at the end when he doesn't decide to cut and run after all. Brilliant job of capturing an audience in my mind! I'm impressed all over again.
That being said I can also fast forward to the next series and be glad that in those series, I wasn't still watching the exact same Doc as in the first. The character keeps developing, changing, and still moving us in such a way as to addict us to his presence in our lives.
Dominic M did write most of S2 also, with his sister Edana. A very talented family. Parents still live on the Isle of Wight, where they make and sell Minghella ice cream -- apparently delicious
The issue of slander vs. libel was niggling at my brain and so I researched it and read a lot more only to find out that because this was in print (reporter) and on TV (MC), it would be libel instead of slander, in either case of a suit.
But I do agree with mmDerdekea that it'll just all blow over and no real harm was done in the long run.
At least I think I've got it right this time, but don't quote me. I'm not a lawyer, though I do find that sorting my way through legalese boosts my ego a bit!:)
My daughter told me that in England, the defendant, has to prove in court that the alleged libel or slander he propagated is true, and that is a very difficult burden. It's the only civil tort in England that has a jury trial. Whereas, in the U.S., it's the plaintiff who has to show that what the defendant said is untrue. At least that's what I gathered from what she told me.
Just saw the extensive interview with MC where he says he lost about three stone since January. Not sure whether he's coupling in the weight loss from his illness or not. Now he says he has to gain some weight back. Finally an acknowledgment that e en he thinks he got too thin.
Dominic M did write most of S2 also, with his sister Edana. A very talented family. Parents still live on the Isle of Wight, where they make and sell Minghella ice cream -- apparently delicious
And they did write an addicting character!
They ought to create a new ice cream flavor called Doc Martin. It could have many layers to it: At first you don't think you're going to like it, then it becomes very scintillating and you like this taste on your tongue. Then your mouth starts to burn like you just ate a habenero. :eek: Just when you don't think you can stand it anymore, it slowly starts to taper off into a taste you can almost learn to live with, then...
From ReneeBird: Hi Susie,
It was Dominic Minghella who wrote for Doc Martin. Anthony was his older brother, a talented film director, who unfortunately died in 2008.
Dominic M did write most of S2 also, with his sister Edana. A very talented family. Parents still live on the Isle of Wight, where they make and sell Minghella ice cream -- apparently delicious
And they did write an addicting character!
Thanks, Renee and NewPark for the clarifying correction. I do know it is Dominic not Anthony, but the heat is getting to me today and I slipped a gear!:)
My daughter told me that in England, the defendant, has to prove in court that the alleged libel or slander he propagated is true, and that is a very difficult burden. It's the only civil tort in England that has a jury trial. Whereas, in the U.S., it's the plaintiff who has to show that what the defendant said is untrue. At least that's what I gathered from what she told me.
Very interesting, NewPark, and thank you for asking your expert! I am ready to put that whole issue to bed now.
I've just watched the Buckham Fair footage on YT and just think that a person who puts so much into a day for charity that he could easily support in a much easier way, well, he just rises above the ordinary and keeps on his own path. And I find that admirable.
Just saw the extensive interview with MC where he says he lost about three stone since January. Not sure whether he's coupling in the weight loss from his illness or not. Now he says he has to gain some weight back. Finally an acknowledgment that e en he thinks he got too thin.
Where did you see this? Can you provide a link? Thanks.
My daughter told me that in England, the defendant, has to prove in court that the alleged libel or slander he propagated is true, and that is a very difficult burden. It's the only civil tort in England that has a jury trial. Whereas, in the U.S., it's the plaintiff who has to show that what the defendant said is untrue. At least that's what I gathered from what she told me.
That is correct and, generally speaking. proving the truth is a lot harder than proving lack of truth. Further, the loser is responsible for the attorney fees of the winner, which is a huge dis-incentive to litigate rather than just settle. Even worse, matters of opinion can be the basis for a libel suit. One restaurant in Belfast sued a newspaper because its restaurant reviewer said the food was not very good (in his opinion). He didn't win, but if he did, say goodbye to negative reviews about any restaurant or other service (including posts on Yelp).
All of this is clearly illustrated by one case when John Cleese sued the Standard newspaper whose critic said his "star's career in the US was faltering." In the U.S. this would be completely protected primarily because it was opinion but also because he was a public figure, which carries a higher standard of proof of actual malice. But in England he was awarded 13,500 pounds by the court. Further, the Standard had to pay 120,000 pounds of attorneys fees. (See http://www.theguardian.com/media/2003/feb/06/pressandpublishing2 or Google "Cleese Libel" and get the news reports.)
Incidentally, several U.S. Courts have refused to enforce English libel judgments against U.S. residents because they have been issued without the protections of the 1st Amendment and several states have passed laws to the same effect. (Prominent people, including third world oligarchs, have sued American authors for libel in England for books or articles written in the U.S. that criticize them. The authors have no assets in England so they have tried to enforce the judgments in the U.S. A U.S. court will enforce English judgments in ordinary cases--personal injury, contract violations etc.)
That is correct and, generally speaking. proving the truth is a lot harder than proving lack of truth. Further, the loser is responsible for the attorney fees of the winner, which is a huge dis-incentive to litigate rather than just settle. Even worse, matters of opinion can be the basis for a libel suit. One restaurant in Belfast sued a newspaper because its restaurant reviewer said the food was not very good (in his opinion). He didn't win, but if he did, say goodbye to negative reviews about any restaurant or other service (including posts on Yelp).
All of this is clearly illustrated by one case when John Cleese sued the Standard newspaper whose critic said his "star's career in the US was faltering." In the U.S. this would be completely protected primarily because it was opinion but also because he was a public figure, which carries a higher standard of proof of actual malice. But in England he was awarded 13,500 pounds by the court. Further, the Standard had to pay 120,000 pounds of attorneys fees. (See http://www.theguardian.com/media/2003/feb/06/pressandpublishing2 or Google "Cleese Libel" and get the news reports.)
Incidentally, several U.S. Courts have refused to enforce English libel judgments against U.S. residents because they have been issued without the protections of the 1st Amendment and several states have passed laws to the same effect. (Prominent people, including third world oligarchs, have sued American authors for libel in England for books or articles written in the U.S. that criticize them. The authors have no assets in England so they have tried to enforce the judgments in the U.S. A U.S. court will enforce English judgments in ordinary cases--personal injury, contract violations etc.)
Wow, that is complicated! I think just a bit of name-calling and finger-pointing will do in this case.
Where did you see this? Can you provide a link? Thanks.
It's in the press pack about page 2.
The info in the press pack will be copied (in various bits) over the next few weeks by any media outlet that reports about the show. It saves MC from doing too many interviews.
Comments
Sorry, BlooSky already gave us this info. Oh, well. Can't say it enough, I guess.
https://www.facebook.com/sarah.baker.18007/media_set?set=a.10201701189629557.1073741826.1174595269&type=1
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10201701200949840&set=a.10201701189629557.1073741826.1174595269&type=3&theater
I can understand cutting the music for the American eps and changing names they didnt understand (boho with a shotgun) but don't really understand why they changed s3e8-seems a bit like unnecessary interfering to me?
They changed every episode title in S3. Not a clue why.
This link doesn't seem to work. The first one does, but I'm not sure if we should look under albums or where once we're at your FB page. Sorry; I'm a lot of trouble.
That's weird. We don't even get to know the titles on TV in Oz. The DVDs have the titles I think, I can check later if they correspond to the official ones.
Buckham Fair vid with MC and Emily in the bright green/ yellow t shirt. There's a funny bit with dogs including Buddy/Dodger. Much teasing about the rudeness of DM.
Sorry, I'm technologically challenged! Let me see what I can do...https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10201709338993286&set=a.10201701189629557.1073741826.1174595269&type=3&theater
I don't know if this will work. If it takes you to my pictures, just click on the Beaminster trip album.
The issue of slander vs. libel was niggling at my brain and so I researched it and read a lot more only to find out that because this was in print (reporter) and on TV (MC), it would be libel instead of slander, in either case of a suit.
But I do agree with mmDerdekea that it'll just all blow over and no real harm was done in the long run.
At least I think I've got it right this time, but don't quote me. I'm not a lawyer, though I do find that sorting my way through legalese boosts my ego a bit!:)
That being said I can also fast forward to the next series and be glad that in those series, I wasn't still watching the exact same Doc as in the first. The character keeps developing, changing, and still moving us in such a way as to addict us to his presence in our lives.
Hi Susie,
It was Dominic Minghella who wrote for Doc Martin. Anthony was his older brother, a talented film director, who unfortunately died in 2008.
Dominic M did write most of S2 also, with his sister Edana. A very talented family. Parents still live on the Isle of Wight, where they make and sell Minghella ice cream -- apparently delicious
And they did write an addicting character!
My daughter told me that in England, the defendant, has to prove in court that the alleged libel or slander he propagated is true, and that is a very difficult burden. It's the only civil tort in England that has a jury trial. Whereas, in the U.S., it's the plaintiff who has to show that what the defendant said is untrue. At least that's what I gathered from what she told me.
They ought to create a new ice cream flavor called Doc Martin. It could have many layers to it: At first you don't think you're going to like it, then it becomes very scintillating and you like this taste on your tongue. Then your mouth starts to burn like you just ate a habenero. :eek: Just when you don't think you can stand it anymore, it slowly starts to taper off into a taste you can almost learn to live with, then...
Thanks, Renee and NewPark for the clarifying correction. I do know it is Dominic not Anthony, but the heat is getting to me today and I slipped a gear!:)
Very interesting, NewPark, and thank you for asking your expert! I am ready to put that whole issue to bed now.
I've just watched the Buckham Fair footage on YT and just think that a person who puts so much into a day for charity that he could easily support in a much easier way, well, he just rises above the ordinary and keeps on his own path. And I find that admirable.
I'm sorry--can someone please tell me the name of the song being played again? I want to add it to my Ipod.
I really love that clip.
The song is Obvious Bicycle by the band Vampire Weekend.
Where did you see this? Can you provide a link? Thanks.
That is correct and, generally speaking. proving the truth is a lot harder than proving lack of truth. Further, the loser is responsible for the attorney fees of the winner, which is a huge dis-incentive to litigate rather than just settle. Even worse, matters of opinion can be the basis for a libel suit. One restaurant in Belfast sued a newspaper because its restaurant reviewer said the food was not very good (in his opinion). He didn't win, but if he did, say goodbye to negative reviews about any restaurant or other service (including posts on Yelp).
All of this is clearly illustrated by one case when John Cleese sued the Standard newspaper whose critic said his "star's career in the US was faltering." In the U.S. this would be completely protected primarily because it was opinion but also because he was a public figure, which carries a higher standard of proof of actual malice. But in England he was awarded 13,500 pounds by the court. Further, the Standard had to pay 120,000 pounds of attorneys fees. (See http://www.theguardian.com/media/2003/feb/06/pressandpublishing2 or Google "Cleese Libel" and get the news reports.)
Incidentally, several U.S. Courts have refused to enforce English libel judgments against U.S. residents because they have been issued without the protections of the 1st Amendment and several states have passed laws to the same effect. (Prominent people, including third world oligarchs, have sued American authors for libel in England for books or articles written in the U.S. that criticize them. The authors have no assets in England so they have tried to enforce the judgments in the U.S. A U.S. court will enforce English judgments in ordinary cases--personal injury, contract violations etc.)
Wow, that is complicated! I think just a bit of name-calling and finger-pointing will do in this case.
It's in the press pack about page 2.
The info in the press pack will be copied (in various bits) over the next few weeks by any media outlet that reports about the show. It saves MC from doing too many interviews.