|
I don't get why people think SHIELD would be a way better show if it was suddenly allowed to have actual superhero stuff in it. I mean, that'd certainly be neat, but there's nothing stopping them from coming up with actual interesting stories/characters/villains. If anything, having the freedom to make up their own poo poo should theoretically be better for the show than if they were forced to have Marvel C-List Hero #235235 on every week. The show is thoroughly unexciting because the dialogue is usually somewhere between bland and outright awful, the characters are stereotypes who haven't gotten any meaningful development (yet?), the stories each week aren't particularly interesting, and the set design and action sequences are out of a bad 90's straight-to-VHS movie. All of those things can (and hopefully will) be improved without the need to have an Iron Man cameo or a mini-arc about some other Marvel super hero.
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2014 08:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 00:39 |
|
|
I'm telling you this as calmly as possible:precision posted:Saying "gently caress Judd Apatow" isn't the same as saying "I hate Judd Apatow". I don't hate Tim and Eric, but I have no trouble saying "gently caress Tim and Eric". I don't hate Scary Movie, but I have no problem saying "gently caress Scary Movie". I disagree with Bill O'Reilly, but I have no trouble saying "gently caress Bill O'Reilly". It's shorthand for "I have concluded these people are too silly to care about". Just because you say it is, doesn't make it so. In fact, for somebody who obviously long ago decided not to care about these people, you sure jump at the chance to talk about them when the subject comes up. I mean we'd already moved past this conversation, but that didn't stop you from getting your two cents in. And as far as how you could have phrased yourself better initially? Well, for starters, "They're using misogyny as a cheap buzzword." A small change that makes a world of difference. But there's more, because you insisted on saying more: Your passive-aggressive behavior in your last post would have gone over a little better if you could recognize the self-righteousness within your previous posts -- particularly, having an ugly reaction to someone because they had an ugly reaction to an ugly question. You're right, precision, we're all friends here, and my definition of friendship is being honest and blunt when I feel it's necessary. So, honestly, bluntly, you're being a dick. And I'm not going to hold it against you too much because I've been a dick in the past and I'm being a dick right now. I will strive to be less of a dick in the future, but like with you, the right subject -- Girls is one of them -- will bring out my Inner Dick. (Go ahead and laugh.) And if you want to know what you can do to be less of a dick? Don't drop quotes about "not hating" when it's obvious that you've got plenty of room for hate, and maybe ease up from talking about shows you clearly don't care for. And yeah, watch how you phrase accusations of decoy misogyny because that can REALLY make you look like a dick. I'll let you in on a little secret: I stopped watching Girls halfway through season 2. Couldn't hang with the show anymore. When I talk about it, it's usually about how other people talk about it. The show itself no longer interests me, and neither do two of the three personalities behind it (I still like Apatow's movies). So I haven't really talked about the content of the show. I mean, CLEARLY it still hits a nerve with me, but it's got nothing to do with whatever stories are being told. Maybe that's vacuous (for want of the proper word) in its own right. I don't know. Point is, there's a million other things to talk about; when Henry Rollins says "Don't hate," I'd bet money that he also means "Don't waste your time." DivisionPost fucked around with this message at 08:55 on Jan 12, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2014 08:52
|
|
|
Manos del Sino posted:She spent the next five minutes explaining how SHIELD is dull by design
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2014 08:57
|
|
|
Manos del Sino posted:SHIELD will have to suffer through two seasons of being milquetoast before anything interesting will even be allowed. Ah, the infamous Dollhouse Defense.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2014 09:04
|
|
|
I can't defend lovely writing or casting, but I suspect that there are all sorts of limits on what SHIELD is allowed to do so as not to interfere with the movies.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2014 09:06
|
|
|
DivisionPost posted:Just because you say it is, doesn't make it so. In fact, for somebody who obviously long ago decided not to care about these people, you sure jump at the chance to talk about them when the subject comes up. I mean we'd already moved past this conversation, but that didn't stop you from getting your two cents in. I have nothing to add to your post (it's pretty good, and I agree with what you're saying) but I would like to point out that I don't check the forums every hour, every day or even every week and so when I saw "168 new posts" I wasn't jumping into a conversation that had been moved past, I was just responding as I read. And my first response was just agreeing with someone else anyway. Well, I'd also like to point out that I wasn't being passive-aggressive. I really, no kidding, have no interest in posting somewhere I'm not welcome. I make it a point to try not to tell other posters "get out" or "gently caress you" or use reductive, incendiary language about other posters because, while we can debate whether or not I "hate" Lena Dunham all day, there is no room for debate about the fact that Couch Chat is the place I post by far the most because it's the only thread where I pretty much literally like every single poster and enjoy reading their opinions, even when I disagree. I do look forward to a day, on the horizon, a glorious day, when we can discuss whether Girls is a good show based on its writing, acting and direction and nothing else. Let me use another music analogy. The band Suicide were tremendously important. It's hard to overstate how important they were, really. But as to the actual quality of their songs? Varies wildly, and yes, many of their simplistic drones are nice enough, but if we were simply discussing the songs as songs, without referencing "when they came out" or "who they influenced" or "how unusual they were at the time", it would be far different from discussing their place in the musical pantheon. I hope that clears up things a bit. And now I really do need to go to bed, I've been on an airplane for 10 hours today.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2014 09:07
|
|
|
precision I think you're a cool guy but your argument reads to me like "I don't like Girls, therefore I'm going to massively overstate the unprofessionalism of the producers compared to the reporter", because gently caress, I don't care how professional I'm meant to be, if someone asked me that question about a show I made I would do far more than make a couple of shots, and it absolutely would have ruined the rest of the event for me. Everything about the way the question was phrased is disgustingly offensive.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2014 09:53
|
|
|
David Fincher commentary on House of Cards is pretty awesome. "A lot of people said, 'You're shooting a lot of the same angles as Social Network and Dragon Tattoo.' Well how the gently caress else are you supposed to shoot someone at a computer?"
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2014 10:22
|
|
|
Josh Lyman posted:David Fincher commentary on House of Cards is pretty awesome. Haha. I love David Fincher and good commentary but don't really feel like sitting through House of Cards again, is it worth it to watch it soon or should I wait until I inevitably want to watch it in a couple years?
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2014 10:33
|
|
|
scary ghost dog posted:Haha. I love David Fincher and good commentary but don't really feel like sitting through House of Cards again, is it worth it to watch it soon or should I wait until I inevitably want to watch it in a couple years?
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2014 10:47
|
|
|
DivisionPost posted:When I talk about "creating discussions," I mean it in a general sense; race on TV, society's views of women, the "plight" of the millennial, our expectations of writers with non-traditional viewpoints, etc. These are all good discussions to have, if we can manage to breathe through them and not get so angry and/or sarcastic with each other. I'm starting to believe that It's often best not to have these discussions. Here it's just a contest to rationalize oneself as the most reasonable.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2014 11:20
|
|
|
My sister told me tonight that she didn't watch Hannibal because she thought it would be too tame, because it was on NBC. Obviously this is ridiculous even though it makes sense because Hannibal was insanely gory, just completely out there batshit with its death tableaus, but it also runs counter to what I assumed was the reason the show got so little exposure: The casual way in which it portrays cannibalism. It's incidental to the narrative that Hannibal is constantly feeding characters other characters, transparently or opaquely. He also makes them look freaking delicious. Do you think that people are afraid to like Hannibal because it practically glorifies cannibalism by presenting these meals of human in such an appetizing way? Edit: I mean look at this poo poo.  That looks so good.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2014 12:17
|
|
|
precision posted:I do look forward to a day, on the horizon, a glorious day, when we can discuss whether Girls is a good show based on its writing, acting and direction and nothing else. We still need a Girls thread for season 3 if you want to put one together. Rule #1: No canarying.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2014 13:40
|
|
|
Irish Joe posted:We still need a Girls thread for season 3 if you want to put one together. Hell, I'll do it, just as a mea culpa for my poor word choice earlier. And I swear I won't say anything negative (at least, not in the OP)! I'll do it tonight unless someone else really has a burning desire to do it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2014 14:28
|
|
|
Xandu posted:I can't defend lovely writing or casting, but I suspect that there are all sorts of limits on what SHIELD is allowed to do so as not to interfere with the movies. I think it's very clear that really Marvel want nothing to do with that show. I'm REALLY interested to see of anything from the show gets mentioned at all in the movies and I'm guessing it won't be. The show will exist, and reference things from the movies, but that's as far as it goes. I mean, they should in theory have all this Marvel back catalogue to go through, and instead they just make up sort of similar characters in lieu of using existing ones. Despite an episode or two of promise it's just a bad show. Honestly I'm not massive on Arrow but it does that whole thing better. The only thing SHIELD has going for it is Clark Gregg, who is good enough to elevate the material. And I think soon we'll be getting Cobie Smulders once HIMYM finishes.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2014 15:51
|
|
|
Is there a Golden Globes thread this year?
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2014 17:43
|
|
|
Not that I've seen. Just realised there's still not a True Detective thread - I'll make it within the next few hours unless anyone else really wants to.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2014 17:49
|
|
|
ufarn posted:Is there a Golden Globes thread this year? What's the point? The GGs are clearly a joke this year for not recognizing Jonah Hill's brilliant performance in The Wolf of Wall-Street.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2014 18:00
|
|
|
True Detective looks amazing, can't wait till tonight.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2014 18:20
|
|
|
Manos del Sino posted:I asked a friend this question who watches and is a fan of the show. She spent the next five minutes explaining how SHIELD is dull by design, largely due to Marvel something something and ABC something else something else, the gist being that SHIELD will have to suffer through two seasons of being milquetoast before anything interesting will even be allowed. VDay posted:I don't get why people think SHIELD would be a way better show if it was suddenly allowed to have actual superhero stuff in it. I mean, that'd certainly be neat, but there's nothing stopping them from coming up with actual interesting stories/characters/villains. If anything, having the freedom to make up their own poo poo should theoretically be better for the show than if they were forced to have Marvel C-List Hero #235235 on every week.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2014 18:55
|
|
|
Agents of SHIELD is a SHIELD show I guess, about SHIELD agents and poo poo they're equipped for. If you want to see a superhero TV show in the Marvel Movie Canon, Disney is putting several up on Netflix. A Daredevil show and a couple others, I think.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2014 18:59
|
|
|
Irish Joe posted:What's the point? The GGs are clearly a joke this year for not recognizing Jonah Hill's brilliant performance in The Wolf of Wall-Street.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2014 19:01
|
|
|
scary ghost dog posted:Agents of SHIELD is a SHIELD show I guess, about SHIELD agents and poo poo they're equipped for. They have multiple giant flying carrier ships and ridiculous amounts of hi-tech weaponry. Agents of SHIELD isn't a show about SHIELD agents and the poo poo they are equipped for, it's about bargain basement SHIELD agents and the petty poo poo they are allowed to deal with.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2014 19:36
|
|
|
Pretty disappointed in the new scifi/fantasy shows so far. Almost Human, SHIELD, and Helix are boring to terrible.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2014 19:54
|
|
|
Almost Human has only had one really bad episode for my money, and it's had at least three that I loved, so I think it's doing just fine. If there's a second season, I think it'll stabilize. Also, Revolution is a legitimate Good Sci Fi Show now. SHIELD is kind of boring, but I just can't stop watching it, Clark Gregg is amazing and yet I can't figure out why.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2014 20:05
|
|
|
Mu Zeta posted:Pretty disappointed in the new scifi/fantasy shows so far. Almost Human, SHIELD, and Helix are boring to terrible. I was disappointed in Helix too, since I thought it was going to be a sci-fi show but it turns out it's mainly a horror/mystery show as far as genre goes rather than sci-fi. And it's the lazy, cheap kind of mystery show too, the "this could all be solved in half an hour if the characters just talked to each other instead of all acting so ridiculously secretive" kind that gets stretched out tediously over an entire season.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2014 20:12
|
|
|
I'll enjoy HELIX only if there is absolutely no character development. All but a couple actors are struggling just being clinical so any attempt at humanity may turn the audience's blood black.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2014 20:13
|
|
|
I count The River, Harpers Island and freaking Siberia as better examples of what Helix is trying to do in the horror/suspense genre. I really can't haven't been able to take seriously any arguments so far that try to make it out to be sci-fi. On another note, Revolution was so uncomfortable in its first season that I just couldn't continue past the 10th/12th episode from memory. Were there big changes? I didn't like the acting, everyone was a character I could neither appreciate nor like and there seemed to be a Lost-like focus on mysteries that turned out to be ridiculous and mundane. I was really interested too, given its pedigree (big fan of Supernatural and Fringe).
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2014 20:40
|
|
|
I stopped watching Revolution partway through season 1. I started watching again in season 2 and I can follow it fine. They changed it significantly. There are now wizards with magic fire and one of the characters is Batman. The only thing I dislike is that Gus Fring is off on his own little adventure and he doesn't interact with the other cast.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2014 21:04
|
|
|
Man, I've been showing a friend HANNIBAL again and I really want to write something about that show. It's certainly layered, in the writing and the performing. But there's something about the way it actually treats death and violence. It's occasionally beautiful to look at but death is death, and it treats it with a gravitas that few other shows do. In CASTLE you feel like murder is part of the fun, on HANNIBAL it's just treated with a sigh.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2014 21:10
|
|
|
I think my favorite thing about Hannibal is that while it presents everything with a kind of horrifying beauty, it never lets go of the horrifying part - the stuff that happens in Hannibal is hosed up and wrong, and the show makes it overwhelmingly clear that this poo poo is bad. Lesser shows would fall into the trap of glorifying it, but Hannibal doesn't.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2014 21:21
|
|
|
Never stop talking about Hannibal. Its great. Been trying to power through Maron and failing miserably. Any other Pete Holmes guest appearances? He was one of the few glimmers of humor that I've caught so far. Lastly, gonna go watch Borgen or The Americans. I don't really hear much talk around these parts around the former, and there was just something about the latter that made me push it towards the bottom of my NEED TO WATCH IMMEDIATELY list. EDIT: VVV Dave Foley was fun, as are most of the guest comedians, and I hate to mimic the nerdy fans (since I am one), but the more show goes into his every day neurosis and self-indulgence, the less I check out. I just don't think its for me. Shageletic fucked around with this message at 21:53 on Jan 12, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2014 21:30
|
|
|
Shageletic posted:Never stop talking about Hannibal. Its great. Have you watched the Dave Foley episode? It's glorious.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2014 21:47
|
|
|
Just got done watching the first season of Orphan Black. It was good.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2014 22:31
|
|
|
Is anyone planning on throwing up a Face Off thread for Tuesday's season premiere? I've done the last couple but I'd like to give someone else a shot at it, and probably putting much more effort into it than I did.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2014 22:57
|
|
|
Is it ridiculous that most negative critiques of Girls make the show sound better and more interesting than the positive reviews? It also appeals to me because it seems like it joins Breaking Bad in the misogyny litmus test club, somehow magically driving people who have heretofore carefully concealed their dislike of womenfolk out into the open. I'm not saying critics of Girls are misogynists, but misogynists are critics of Girls (if they willingly watch the show in order to bash it). Lena Dunham and Skylar as played by Anna Gunn demonstrate that men are bothered by complicated women.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2014 23:51
|
|
|
I find Orange is the New Black to be more transgresive genderwise than either shows, but it doesn't nearly get the same amount of flack. Maybe because its just less well known?
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2014 00:01
|
|
|
Shageletic posted:I find Orange is the New Black to be more transgresive genderwise than either shows, but it doesn't nearly get the same amount of flack. Maybe because its just less well known?
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2014 00:14
|
|
|
Spatula City posted:Is it ridiculous that most negative critiques of Girls make the show sound better and more interesting than the positive reviews? It also appeals to me because it seems like it joins Breaking Bad in the misogyny litmus test club, somehow magically driving people who have heretofore carefully concealed their dislike of womenfolk out into the open. I'm not saying critics of Girls are misogynists, but misogynists are critics of Girls (if they willingly watch the show in order to bash it). Lena Dunham and Skylar as played by Anna Gunn demonstrate that men are bothered by complicated women. Skyler. Her name was Skyler.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2014 01:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 00:39 |
|
|
Spatula City posted:Is it ridiculous that most negative critiques of Girls make the show sound better and more interesting than the positive reviews? It also appeals to me because it seems like it joins Breaking Bad in the misogyny litmus test club, somehow magically driving people who have heretofore carefully concealed their dislike of womenfolk out into the open. I'm not saying critics of Girls are misogynists, but misogynists are critics of Girls (if they willingly watch the show in order to bash it). Lena Dunham and Skylar as played by Anna Gunn demonstrate that men are bothered by complicated women. I've not seen too many people say they dislike Hannah because she's a complicated woman. Lena Dunham has even said that it is ostensibly intentional that Hannah is unlikeable. "Complicated", in a vacuum, is not always desirable. Jeffrey Dahmer was a very complicated person. Now let me lay some disclaimers down to avoid a horrible thread spiral. I know that misogynists exist, and I can make an educated guess that some misogynists do in fact dislike the television show Girls. What I object to is this reduction of criticism. Does anyone talk about people not liking Seinfeld because they're anti-Semitic? People who don't like The Sopranos or Jersey Shore because they "hate Italians"? People who don't watch The Wire because they hate black people? Basically: Isn't it possible to dislike someone because of their personality, persona, or acts? I'm sure there are misandrists who hate Marc Maron and Louis CK. And one more: You say "most" negative reviews, but don't link them or quote them. You say it drives "people" to expose their hatred of women. I do not really think that being so completely nebulous, talking about "them" and "those people", achieves much.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2014 01:17
|
|