|
I liked evil Dr. Phlox. Exact same education and he's still serving on the Earth ship for some reason, except he's also evil.
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2014 19:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 16:46 |
|
|
So True Detective starts on Sunday and critics are heaping praise but from early reviews and the trailer I'm getting a Low Winter Sun vibe. I really hope I'm wrong.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2014 20:20
|
|
|
It's official y'all. I'm am old British grandma. I was going through recommended stuff on Netflix, and there, taunting me for ages, has been Midsomer Murders (because I like sherlock). I caved in to watching it the other day, not realizing there are 14 seasons. I think it's awesome. Now, get off my loving lawn, you young bastards. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2014 20:25
|
|
|
I had the idea earlier tonight for a catch-all sitcom thread for anything that a handful of us might watch but that wouldn't get anywhere near enough posts to sustain its own thread. More of the B/C grade stuff like Cougar Town, The Millers, Ground Floor, etc. There's been a precedent for discussing multiple sitcoms in one thread set with the Ben and Kate/Mindy Project thread last season and Goldbergs/Trophy Wife this season, as well as the Adult Swim/Toonami thread that manages to sustain itself well, and it could maybe get more of the sitcom people into stuff that could fly under their radar and provide discussion for the shows people like but don't bother posting about because they don't think there's enough of a point. Possible downsides are that it could get insanely convoluted depending on how many discussions ended up happening at once, and Davincie pointed out on IRC that technically that's what this thread is for. But I still think there's a chance it could work and I'd be happy to make the OP. What does anyone think? Yoshifan?
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2014 21:36
|
|
|
Bown posted:I had the idea earlier tonight for a catch-all sitcom thread for anything that a handful of us might watch but that wouldn't get anywhere near enough posts to sustain its own thread. More of the B/C grade stuff like Cougar Town, The Millers, Ground Floor, etc. There's been a precedent for discussing multiple sitcoms in one thread set with the Ben and Kate/Mindy Project thread last season and Goldbergs/Trophy Wife this season, as well as the Adult Swim/Toonami thread that manages to sustain itself well, and it could maybe get more of the sitcom people into stuff that could fly under their radar and provide discussion for the shows people like but don't bother posting about because they don't think there's enough of a point. I think it's a good idea. For one, I had no idea there was a Trophy Wife thread of any sort up while I was still watching it. I tend to just read this thread and then flip through the first three pages of TVIV rather than bookmark individual threads for all the shows I follow. If a thread doesn't get much activity (or it happens in spurts when I happen to be forum lite) then I won't see it. Yes, I am aware of the search function, but that is still a lot more work than just skimming a few pages of thread titles, to be honest. For another, it seems like discussion on sitcoms that happens here, the thread this is for as you mention, gets shut down pretty quickly with a blanket "Oh my god, it's a sitcom and you either like it or you don't. There is nothing to discuss. Sitcom." Or there is no response either because there isn't really that much to discuss, little interest (both cool) or the perception that that isn't what this thread is for. Also Super Fun Night is pretty loving dire. I just had to get that out.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2014 21:54
|
|
|
zoux posted:Also it's got that girl from Emily Hart MD that has the Rumer Willis uncanny valley face. Assuming you're talking about Mamie Gummer - it basically became impossible for me to watch her in anything when I found out that she's Meryl Streep's daughter. There's something really disconcerting about watching her knowing that. Also Faith Of The Heart is a ridiculous and fantastic opening, haters step off.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2014 21:55
|
|
|
zoux posted:Between this and True Detectives, I'm wondering when Matthew McConaughey became a prestige actor I heard a while ago that when he decided to get serious he printed out and read every review he could find of everything he's been in to see what his flaws in his performances were, as seen by critics. Sounds pretty simple but I think a lot of people, once they've 'made it' just try to ignore criticism. Not because they feel they're above it but because it can be very easy to get caught up in it instead of just trying to do a good job.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2014 01:19
|
|
|
Matthew McConaughy's second film was Dazed and Confused, always remember this. Guy picks films he know will make bank, but he's always been a good actor. A lot of people won't see something like Magic Mike, by jumping to conclusions rather than realise it's a Steven Soderbergh picture and actually watch it, and just presume it's a bad film and that McConaughy is bad in it. Also how DARE you all miss my Trophy Wife thread. It's a hotbed of activity, for 15 minutes every fortnight.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2014 02:19
|
|
|
Apparently the people who brought you Girls had some kind of meltdown at a press eventquote:“Do you have a girlfriend?” Apatow asked the reporter. “Does she like you?”
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2014 03:01
|
|
|
Jonad posted:Apparently the people who brought you Girls had some kind of meltdown at a press event I love Girls just for the amount of drama that it creates.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2014 03:19
|
|
|
Wow, Judd Apatow is a humorless douche. I never would have guessed that from his movies.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2014 03:32
|
|
|
The reporter sounded like a bigger douche and was pretty insulting.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2014 03:34
|
|
|
enuma elish posted:Assuming you're talking about Mamie Gummer - it basically became impossible for me to watch her in anything when I found out that she's Meryl Streep's daughter. There's something really disconcerting about watching her knowing that. She is amazing on The Good Wife. She's a recurring guest star and really holds her own among the rest of the outstanding cast.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2014 03:36
|
|
|
Mu Zeta posted:The reporter sounded like a bigger douche and was pretty insulting. Seemed like a fair question. Why is she naked all the time if it adds nothing to the story?
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2014 03:38
|
|
|
Mu Zeta posted:The reporter sounded like a bigger douche and was pretty insulting. At least he learned his lesson: a reporter's job is not to ask challenging questions, but to silently promote vacuous projects by blowhard celebrities.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2014 03:39
|
|
|
CAPTAIN CAPSLOCK posted:Seemed like a fair question. Why is she naked all the time if it adds nothing to the story? Not to really be defending Judd's reaction (it was over the top) but I feel like he has a point. No one ever complains about the T&A in Boardwalk Empire or Game of Thrones, so why are people making such a big deal about Leah being nude in Girls? [Edit: I mean, I know why. Leah isn't conventionally attractive, especially compared to the nudity in Game Of Thrones, so it's a whole undercurrent of "EEEW look at this ugly woman not being ashamed of her body" though the complaining. To be fair, the reporter is right--people would probably react the same way if Louie C.K. was frequently naked on his show.] \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/The show pretty much popularized sexposition, which has been used successfully in many, many shows since. There's been a bit of backlash, but I think you'll find far more people happy with the nudity in GoT than unhappy about it. South Park notwithstanding. asecondduck fucked around with this message at 03:59 on Jan 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2014 03:48
|
|
|
lelandjs posted:Not to really be defending Judd's reaction (it was over the top) but I feel like he has a point. No one ever complains about the T&A in Boardwalk Empire or Game of Thrones, so why are people making such a big deal about Leah being nude in Girls? Haha no one complains about GoT nudity.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2014 03:53
|
|
|
CAPTAIN CAPSLOCK posted:Seemed like a fair question. Why is she naked all the time if it adds nothing to the story? Because it adds to the character.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2014 04:14
|
|
|
lelandjs posted:Not to really be defending Judd's reaction (it was over the top) but I feel like he has a point. No one ever complains about the T&A in Boardwalk Empire or Game of Thrones, so why are people making such a big deal about Leah being nude in Girls? Okay, I know, I know, that this isn't point but I have never thought the people in GoT were all that...attractive. Maybe I'm just spoiled by Spartacus... Anyway, people ALWAYS complain about T'n'A in tv. There has never been a show where no one complains about nudity, regardless of intention. That said, my feelings on it are that it's all in the setting. GoT is viewed through a medieval 'wild-west' lens, while Girls is viewed through the 'modern' lens. It could be that because certain shows are set in older time periods, they have less pushback against nudity. Or it could be that Girls actors are less attractive than the others. v  vEdit: It might also be context. Where most nudity is used to show sex or debauchery, this is used in mundane contexts. *Full disclosure* I am biased as I hate 'Girls' and loathe Judd Apatow flicks. Postal Parcel fucked around with this message at 04:21 on Jan 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2014 04:17
|
|
|
lelandjs posted:To be fair, the reporter is right--people would probably react the same way if Louie C.K. was frequently naked on his show. Louis C.K.'s wiener was hanging out all the time in Lucky Louie, and besides it's not a fair comparison since FX is basic cable and Girls is on HBO. Even with the ridiculous amounts of freedom they give him one of his only stipulations is that he still has to follow S&P.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2014 04:28
|
|
|
zoux posted:Haha no one complains about GoT nudity. I do. Non enough gender balance.  The question was phrased horribly, and I have no issue with the response to it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2014 04:44
|
|
|
Here's the full context to the question: http://www.deadline.com/2014/01/tca-girls-countenances-no-questions-about-lena-dunham-nudity/ quote:“I don’t get the purpose of all the nudity – particularly by you,” some guy said to Lena Dunham at the start of the Q&A for her HBO comedy series Girls. It went downhill from there. The Random Guy Who Covers TV said he gets the point of all the nudity on HBO’s Game of Thrones, explaining it’s an attempt to “be salacious and titillate people.” So basically the guy made it a point of comparison that GoT's nudity was there to titillate viewers, while saying Dunham's clearly isn't. Well no poo poo she isn't going to appreciate that question.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2014 05:03
|
|
|
"Listen, Ms Dunham. I don't understand why you get naked all the time on your show. I mean, obviously you aren't hot, like the women on Game of Thrones, so it can't be to titillate. So why does your character on your show- a show ostensibly intended as a realistic glimpse into this character's life- get naked?"
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2014 05:16
|
|
|
Lena Dunham would have come across much better if her response to the question wasn't "If you’re not into me, that’s your problem, and you are going to have to work that out with whatever professionals you’ve hired."
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2014 05:21
|
|
|
Irish Joe posted:Wow, Judd Apatow is a humorless douche. I never would have guessed that from his movies. Try listening to the commentary on any one of them.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2014 05:28
|
|
|
I love Girls because people on the internet always whine that there should be more shows that take risks and try new things and let the showrunners have full creative control and then Girls happens and it's just non-stop bitching from those same people because it isn't targeted at them.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2014 05:47
|
|
|
hcreight posted:Here's the full context to the question: Throwing nudity in simply to titillate viewers is not something normally said as a compliment to an artistic endeavor. Real answer: Lena Dunham gets naked on the show because we talk about Lena Dunham getting naked on the show. It's not about a positive or negative body image; it's because she can't stand people NOT talking about her. It seems to be incredibly successful, too, cause here we are. Despite the phrasing of the question, jumping into ad hominem attacks is just as lovely and unprofessional. Instead of statement on art and meaning, we got a pissing match. If you take the reporters side, you're a misogynist, and there isn't really anywhere else to go. Here is the reporter's article: http://tv.msn.com/tv/article.aspx?news=846618&ocid=ansent11 Irish Joe posted:At least he learned his lesson: a reporter's job is not to ask challenging questions, but to silently promote vacuous projects by blowhard celebrities. Exactly this. If they didn't want to answer questions like this, they shouldn't have had a public forum.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2014 06:08
|
|
|
My take on the Lena hate is that those who became interested in the stories she has to tell weren't expecting her artistic revelation to be how okay she is with her own unpleasant nudity.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2014 06:11
|
|
|
That's weird. I though Dunham got naked on the show because it's supposed to be a realistic look at a character's life, and real people very often get naked.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2014 06:14
|
|
|
Look, I'm all for professionalism and rising above, but if someone asks you an rear end in a top hat question -- and I think we can at least agree that that was an rear end in a top hat question -- you're not always an rear end in a top hat for responding in kind. EDIT: Dan Fienberg live-blogged the panel, and agrees that it was a shame that substantial questions were shouted down; like he said, Apatow came for a fight, not to think. Still, I'd argue that a question like that poorly phrased nudity question would throw anybody into a lovely mood and leave them on the defensive. Which is a shame, because if any show deserves a long, thoughtful, chilled-the-gently caress-out conversation about what's going on, it's this one. DivisionPost fucked around with this message at 07:15 on Jan 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2014 06:44
|
|
|
I'm more surprised at all the chauvinist goons claiming she gets naked on camera as a way of forcing audiences to look upon her gross body, asymmetrical and with multiple aesthetically displeasing fat deposits, inconsistent in its attractiveness. Truly she is a TV Terrorist. Edit: Also she can't stand people not talking about her so she gets naked, a criticism never applied to actors on any other show in history. Dunham must really tweak the misogynist nerve. scary ghost dog fucked around with this message at 07:15 on Jan 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2014 07:13
|
|
|
scary ghost dog posted:I'm more surprised at all the chauvinist goons claiming she gets naked on camera as a way of forcing audiences to look upon her gross body, asymmetrical and with multiple aesthetically displeasing fat deposits, inconsistent in its attractiveness. Truly she is a TV Terrorist. See, there's truth to this, but the problem -- and I don't think you're necessarily doing this, sgd, I'm speaking from general observation -- is that it's also used in attempts to Kevlar over any real criticism of the show. By the time I post this reply I'll bet somebody will have said something to the effect of "GOD DAMMIT BEING ANNOYED BY THESE CHARACTERS OR THINKING LENA DUNHAM'S A RACIST DOES NOT MAKE ME A MISOGYNIST." And they're not wrong! I think at the very least, love the show, loathe the show, we should acknowledge that it hits the raw nerves and open wounds we have in society -- intentionally or otherwise -- and some of the conversations that come out of it are extremely productive. No other show is doing that. I'm not all that sure any show in the past has done that. I don't think it needs to be watched and enjoyed, but on some level it should be respected.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2014 07:38
|
|
|
There are literally zero valid criticisms of her nudity.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2014 07:43
|
|
|
I watched the first episode of Girls and didn't like it. As far as I can tell, it has serious race and class issues, yet all the criticisms of it are steeped in creepy misogyny. That reporter sounds like he should be covering the AVN Awards. "Miss Dunham! Miss Dunham! Howcomes I didn't get as big a hardon during Girls as I did for Game of Thrones?"
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2014 08:00
|
|
|
scary ghost dog posted:There are literally zero valid criticisms of her nudity. Sorry, I misread your post. 100% agreed.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2014 08:03
|
|
|
scary ghost dog posted:I'm more surprised at all the chauvinist goons claiming she gets naked on camera as a way of forcing audiences to look upon her gross body, asymmetrical and with multiple aesthetically displeasing fat deposits, inconsistent in its attractiveness. Truly she is a TV Terrorist. If I came across as saying this, I apologize, as that's not at all what I meant. I don't think of her as gross at all--after all, I could be described as asymmetrical with aesthetically displeasing fat deposits. Pot, kettle, black. I think it's honestly near impossible to know why exactly she gets naked in Girls, but I'd be willing to bet that Division Post is pretty drat close. It's to create discussions. And like every talking point, the good, bad, and the ugly will come out to have their say about it I'd like to think I'm part of the good but then again I'm a white cis privileged male so 
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2014 08:42
|
|
|
scary ghost dog posted:There are literally zero valid criticisms of her nudity. That's fair, and I was not attempting to criticize the show in my comments--the statement about why she gets naked was overreaching by me. My criticism of Dunham was also wrong, and I'll get to that. There are many reasons to portray nudity, and I certainly made an assumption about her reasons for doing it. For many societal reasons, we won't be having this same argument about a male actor/writer. Or the chances are very slim, at least. This certainly is due to a fundamental difference in how men and women are treated differently in all aspects of the misogynistic society we live in. The fact that we are having this discussion is certainly a credit to Lena Dunham. Death of the author is something I believe in wholeheartedly, as well, so I figured criticism against her shouldn't be taken as criticism of Girls, and vice versa. Plenty of good people have made lovely art, and plenty of great artists have been terrible people. You can pretty much say the same of all groups of people, not just those who create art. Lena Dunham brings a lot of controversy, and said controversy definitely brings interesting conversation into the mix. So, even if her getting naked on the show is simply for attention, that doesn't mean the end goal is bringing the attention to herself as opposed to the societal issues that seem to surround her and Girls. It could even be just to bring attention to the show and/or the statement she is trying to make with it. None of these are things I would've had an issue with if I thought it when I first heard of the issue. Were it to have been a man in Lena Dunham's spot, I don't believe it would've elicited the same response. That is lovely of me. Lena Dunham have the same rote response she's given to very similar questions in the past, so the criticism of her shouldn't be any different than it has been, the only difference this time is that Judd Apatow made an ad hominem attack. That was a lovely way to answer a question that wasn't even directed toward him, and saying that was unprofessional and fatuous is the only part of my previous statement I stand by. I don't think Lena Dunham is some kind of disgusting monster, nor that her nudity is only there to elicit a positive or negative sexual response. Whether or not the viewer gets a sexual response, and what that response is only says something about the viewer. The fact that I find her body attractive is irrelevant to what Girls is, and the nudity is not shoehorned in. Assuming that the nudity is there to disgust or add pleasure is to assume that of all female nudity in film, and that is a misogynistic viewpoint to take. Because the phrasing the reporter used implied that, it certainly was just as unprofessional as Apatow's response. So, the reporter deserves just as much criticism as I put upon Apatow. Even asking the question implies that there is only one reason for each separate scene depicting nudity, as if each instance cannot have its own situational circumstances to justify the decision. As long as we are all watching and talking about Girls and Lena Dunham with this fervor and contemplation means that this is certainly art, if nothing else. Great art evokes a response, and many people have certainly given that. Girls is definitely something I appreciate, but I've felt the characters a little spot-on to be funny. I think I need to watch it again from another perspective.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2014 09:38
|
|
|
Kaizoku posted:Assuming that the nudity is there to disgust or add pleasure is to assume that of all female nudity in film, and that is a misogynistic viewpoint to take. Utterly obtuse. So what is up with Korean gameshows with twists, thread?
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2014 09:59
|
|
|
Honestly, I would have straight-up kicked that piece of poo poo reporter out of the room. What a horrible, offensive question. Of course people are twisting it to be about the big mean Girls producers.Kaizoku posted:Real answer: Lena Dunham gets naked on the show because we talk about Lena Dunham getting naked on the show. It's not about a positive or negative body image; it's because she can't stand people NOT talking about her. What the hell is this? Seriously, what in the gently caress is this statement?
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2014 10:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 16:46 |
|
|
soapgish posted:Utterly obtuse. Not all women naked in paintings, photographs, and film are naked for you to wank to or be disgusted by. Thinking that they are only naked for those reasons is misogyny. Sorry about not phrasing that better.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2014 10:19
|
|