Torrent details for "Mary.And.George.S01.COMPLETE.720p.NOW.WEBRip.x264-GalaxyTV" Log in to bookmark
Controls:
Language:
EnglishTotal Size:
1.57 GB
Info Hash:
b86cf4549d6581c0d81ff28edd6f2372043ea711
Added By:
Added:
07-03-2024 08:45
Stats:
| Update
Genres:
Thanks for rating :
malingo
(5), xSLYGUYx
(5), helpme (5), thundershield (5), EmGregor
(2), art27 (5), ProtosW (5), KingRagnar (5), PeakBadass (5), TWDGOTfan (5), BreakingNote (5),
malingo
(5), xSLYGUYx (5), helpme (5), thundershield (5), EmGregor (2), art27 (5), ProtosW (5), KingRagnar (5), PeakBadass (5), TWDGOTfan (5), BreakingNote (5), Name
DL
Uploader
Size
S/L
Added
-
1.58 GB
2,500
[17/12]
07/11/24 08:55
Uploaded by GalaxyTV | Size 1.58 GB | Health [17/12] | Added 07/11/24 08:55 |
[img][/img]
Mary.And.George.S01.COMPLETE.720p.NOW.WEBRip.x264-GalaxyTV[TGx]
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt26246248
SERIES INFO
Genre: Drama History
Stars: Julianne Moore, Nicholas Galitzine, Tony Curran
Series Plot: Mary George is based on the true story of Mary Villiers, Countess of Buckingham, who in 17th century England moulded her beautiful son, George, to seduce King James I and become his all-powerful lover. Through outrageous scheming, the pair rose from humble beginnings to become the richest, most titled, and influential players the English court had ever seen, and the King's most trusted advisors.
Included subtitles
English, English
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SCREENSHOTS
(Click to enlarge)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MEDIAINFO
Container = Matroska (mkv)
Duration = 00:49:33.003
Filesize = 240 MiB
Overall bitrate = 677 kb/s
Video
Codec info = AVC High@L3.1 | V_MPEG4/ISO/AVC
Resolution = 1280x720
Display AR = 1.778 | 16:9
Bitrate = 7 742 kb/s
Framerate = CFR 25.000
Color space = YUV
Chroma subsampling = 4:2:0
Encoder = x264 - core 164
Audio
Codec info = AAC | A_AAC-2
Channels = 2
Bitrate = 192 kb/s
Samplerate = 48.0 kHz
Language = English
Need anything from us?
Drop your request @
User comments Sort newest first
by xSLYGUYx
on 2024-03-07 09:00:56
 | Just watched the trailer this def looks like my kind of series. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OYI7FtJr20c |
by ToweringInferno
on 2024-03-07 15:38:05
 | They dont teach this in your high-school history class, folks! |
by Guest-1001
on 2024-03-07 23:10:06
 | Because it's revisionist bullshit from subversive Marxists who are trying to retroactively normalize "queer theory" lies about history. |
Like 2
by Guest-1832
on 2024-03-08 04:10:10
| Of course not. It's called 'erasure.' You know - same way the mods here allow homophobes to have free rein in the comments while filtering out any posts that challenge them in order to make them look normal. |
Like 4
by LiberalLesbo
on 2024-03-08 16:35:47
 | Ooooh boy, doesn't take much to send this conversation into the weeds does it? People, when you learn stuff in school, you learn what curriculum developers think are the most important, salient parts... c'mon, I don't think anybody would say this fits that bill. Oh, and BTW, Marx was quite a homophobe too  |
Like 5
by Guest-1679
on 2024-03-08 23:15:19
| I wasn't aware this was a documentary. I certainly wouldn't base any history class on it; particularly since there's apparently some debate about the issue. Though it seems possible I'm sure this piece of fluff will exaggerate the salaciousness to titillate those inclined to drool over such drivel. |
Like 3
by Guest-3483
on 2024-03-08 23:25:59
| Guest-1832 I hardly think you can make a case for 'erasure' in schools in this day and age. If anything it is skewed in the other direction: i.e. over-representation and biased re-interpretation of historical facts. |
Like 0
by fluffybits
on 2024-03-11 16:28:54
| Much of whats taught at school is bullshit, if it wasn't, in history class we would have learnt about Tartaria, a huge part of the world found on early maps up until about 1900, it spanned across many countries including the whole of Europe. Fact that today kids are being taught gender is a choice proves my point. |
Like 0
by Guest-3445
on 2024-03-08 23:23:10
| The reason people may be 'pissed off' is not necessarily that the series depicts homosexuals. I am happy to avoid it personally. The issue is that almost every series now simply must depict homosexuals - it's difficult to get away from it, if it's not your cup of tea. |
Like 1
Liked by - johnny807
by LiberalLesbo
on 2024-03-09 02:17:33
| "[A]lmost every series now simply must depict homosexuals..." even if that were factually correct, an estimated 7% of US adults declare themselves LGBTQ+. Therefore, if it were to reflect reality, any show/movie with a cast of more than 12 would have an LGBTQ+ character. Some people are overly-sensitive to "realitea." |
Like 6
by Guest-1066
on 2024-03-09 16:27:41
| A nielsens report from 2020 mentions that 26 percent of the top 300 shows have LGBTQ - that far outstrips the 4.5% to 7% estimate for the general population if you're speaking on a strictly quota basis.'Almost every series' might be hyperbole - but less so than the persecution ravings of the Alphabet community. |
Like 0
by LiberalLesbo
on 2024-03-10 05:59:23
| 1066, that's a misunderstanding of statistics. If 7% of the population are LGBTQ+, that would mean that about 1 in 12 characters would be LGBTQ+ in order to reflect reality. Thus, if each of the 300 shows had more than 12 cast members, then every one should have at least one LGBTQ+ character. |
Like 4
by Guest-1413
on 2024-03-10 15:08:53
| Liberal Lesbo - Wrong. you're not accounting for clustering in populations based on cultural, racial, and other affinities - things are not that evenly distributed. I wouldn't expect the same breakdown for something set in San Francisco vs Gilette Wyoming as an extreme example. |
Like 1
Liked by - supersecretkahn
by LiberalLesbo
on 2024-03-10 16:52:30
| 1413... I'm not going to debate statistical interpretation with you here, get an account and PM me if it means that much to you. But I believe that the generalizable nature of the source data would support my prior statement. I'm always open to talking data critique, and would love to discuss this in more detail |
Like 5
by FauxGojira
on 2024-04-20 06:27:19
 | re: ''about 1 in 12'' - that word 'about' is doing some heavy lifting by adding fully 20% (ie, ''7%'' is just 80% of 1/12) |
Like 0
by FauxGojira
on 2024-04-20 06:43:44
| FWIW, I think it's fine. From what I can tell, it appears to be inspired by fact. What bothers is when people try to inject contemporary ideas into correspondence from people who spoke and wrote differently in order to push a dubious narrative. The King James VI/I story seems IMHO perfectly reasonable based on avai |
Like 0
by Guest-1523
on 2024-03-08 23:16:45
| I don't begrudge the gays for having television that appeals to them. It would just be nice not to shoehorn such a minority population into everything and mark their entertainment clearly so I can avoid it. |
by LiberalLesbo
on 2024-03-09 02:25:15
| Maybe put a pink hexagram on all things considered LGBTQ+... now where have I seen something like that before? |
Like 3
by Guest-3258
on 2024-03-09 16:04:45
| It's not contagious mate. Unless you avoid it because you're worried it might trigger appetites you're scared to confront. It's always the closet cases that doth protest too much. |
Like 3
by Guest-1250
on 2024-03-09 16:34:28
| I don't see anything wrong with labeling media and filtering content on streaming. unless you are fixated on forcing people to watch things that align with your ideology, why does that trouble you? Frankly, I'm simply not interested in seeing Alphabet relationships - I prefer those that align to my orientation |
Like 0
by LiberalLesbo
on 2024-03-09 20:00:32
| Perfectly reasonable preference 1250. But when you have a normal sector of society, i.e., LGBTQ+, African, muslim, atheist, represented in a movie, and they do not align with your philosophical stance, would you appreciate a warning label... "Warning: May contain queers/non-white/non-Judeo-Christians?" |
Like 3
by Guest-4198
on 2024-03-10 05:03:26
| Ah,3258 - the old canard of calling any critic a closeted homosexual eh? Sorry my clever friend, I simply find it distasteful; nothing else. |
Like 0
by LiberalLesbo
on 2024-03-09 20:30:50
| Personally I preferred "The Favourite (2018)...
... but yeah, great isn't it?  |
Like 3
by Guest-3682
on 2024-03-08 23:19:13
| I don't begrudge you having entertainment that pleases you. The only thing I'd ask is not to fly off the handle when I and others say 'Count me out!' (Not saying you specifically do but your comment was simply a good jumping off point) |
Like 0
by LiberalLesbo
on 2024-03-09 02:29:23
| Odd that 3682, because after a history of criminalization, censorship, and denial by government and thus media production companies, hundreds of millions of LGBTQ+ people worldwide are only now beginning to enjoy a certain amount of artistic freedom, and we would ask that straight people not do the same to us. |
Like 4
by Guest-3288
on 2024-03-09 16:30:21
| 'Only now beginning to enjoy?' It's gone into overrepresentation mode over the last 10 - 15 years. What exactly about the 'I don't begrudge you' is equivalent to wanted to hunt you down and criminalize you in your mind? |
Like 0
by LiberalLesbo
on 2024-03-10 06:08:01
| 3288, that's not what I said, I referred to a societal history. Your "not begrudging" however, is--in your own words--conditional upon labelling media. LGBTQ+ are still under-represented despite your over-sensitivity to what you are witnessing, but don't worry, I'm sure you'll get used to it if things improve. |
Like 3
by Guest-2583
on 2024-03-10 15:23:12
| All so-called 'tolerance' is conditional and based on compromise of some sort. My wanting labels or categories to better inform my viewing being a sore point for you is telling. I am for informed choice - you seem to want to force a specific representation ratio. Who is the more oppressive? |
Like 0
by LiberalLesbo
on 2024-03-10 16:59:15
| No 2583, I don't want to enforce anything of the sort. But I would like to see media reflect reality where appropriate. I would however, be against labelling perfectly normal members of society portrayed in movies according to sexuality or other minority status, just to appease the biases of the prejudicial. |
Like 2
Liked by - KingRagnar BreakingNote
BreakingNote
by justsomedude6x
on 2024-03-07 18:23:48
| Seems the rich and powerful always turn to perverted lifestyles. Hard pass. |
by LeeUnagi
on 2024-03-08 21:02:12
| This is so true. Even the series is trying to prove the rich always have found evil ways to ascend to power. And yet...today idiots are still in denial and vocal whenever someone says something about it. |
Like 0
Comments need intelligible text (not only emojis or meaningless drivel).
No upload requests, visit the forum or message the uploader for this.
Use common sense and try to stay on topic.
No upload requests, visit the forum or message the uploader for this.
Use common sense and try to stay on topic.