|
VagueRant posted:Is Supernatural the kind of show you enjoy for the overarching story, or more for the individual episodes, or a mix of both? Mix of both, honestly. At least for the first five seasons, after that the overarching plot of each season tends to be really hit or miss and you wind up being in it more for character interactions and some good episodes.
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 09:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 01:06 |
|
|
Popelmon posted:Germany? As the other poster said, use Hola. It lets you access everything on the US Netflix. And there is a ton of Ken Burns so watch that first France. I got Hola, thanks.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 09:24
|
|
.
|
Go watch Spartacus if you haven't yet. This goes for everyone else too. This has been your yearly reminder that Spartacus was a really drat good show.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 09:27
|
|
|
Supernatural is a mix of both I'd say. Though the first season is pretty monster of the week for the first two thirds. Also yes watch Spartacus.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 09:28
|
|
|
Zaggitz posted:Supernatural is definitely worth it for the first five seasons. Given the action/genre shows you listed that you enjoyed, maybe also give Person of Interest a try? He said he can't do shows with extended downtime so you pick a show which is boring as poo poo for most of its first season. VDay posted:This has been your yearly reminder that Spartacus was a really drat good show. This is your yearly clarification that it's only a really drat good show after the first five episodes, which are terrible-to-mediocre. It's gold after that, though. whowhatwhere fucked around with this message at 09:55 on Sep 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 09:39
|
|
|
Ruth Fisher, the mom from Six Feet Under, is pretty drat close to my mom. When I watched the series the first time, I was surprised at how many times I thought "Holy poo poo, this is something my mom would do." But Ruth is less conservative than my mom, if you can imagine.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 09:42
|
|
|
whowhatwhere posted:He said he can't do shows with extended downtime so you pick a show which is boring as poo poo for most of its first season. I didn't pick the show. I just clarified on the question he asked. Zaggitz fucked around with this message at 09:55 on Sep 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 09:46
|
|
|
Talking about POI, not SPN.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 09:49
|
|
|
Spartacus is 110% worth the time investment. The insane boost in quality it makes even makes parts of those earlier bad eps pretty okay looking back.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 10:10
|
|
|
Zaggitz posted:Spartacus is 110% worth the time investment. The insane boost in quality it makes even makes parts of those earlier bad eps pretty okay looking back. ONLY in retrospect though. Don't actually go back and think that maybe you were wrong about them. You weren't, and you'll hate yourself a little for even trying.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 10:16
|
|
|
VagueRant, just watch The Sopranos.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 10:26
|
|
|
Also watch the newest season of 24 when you can get your hands on it because it is really great.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 12:44
|
|
|
Annakie posted:Also watch the newest season of 24 when you can get your hands on it because it is really great. I, also, cannot even begin to specifically stress how true this is. It was one of the best seasons ever. The truncated format of 12 hours cut down on a lot of fat and ridiculous B and C-plots that the prior format suffered from.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 12:46
|
|
|
VagueRant posted:...Ooh, colour me intrigued by Daybreak. Never heard of it before.... Yeah you should like Daybreak. I've said the same critisms as you before even the Breaking Bad one that got me poo poo on for a moment, but we do disagree on one thing. I've totally cried from a Doctor Who episode! I'll also throw on Deadwood if you haven't seen it. The way the characters speak is almost Shakespearean. If I got to choose one show in history to come back and finish their run it would be Deadwood. An Ounce of Gold fucked around with this message at 15:18 on Sep 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 14:43
|
|
|
VagueRant posted:The problem is, while I really like the high points of TV shows, I can't stand the boredom of the low points, of the filler and all the other trappings that come with a medium of twenty-four episode orders, each stretched out to the same length, and of stories entirely made up as they go along, despite pretentions of a master plan. Edgar Wright is my favorite director, and this is insane to me.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 15:12
|
|
|
As we get farther away from the finale more and more people are going to say that Breaking Bad was "overrated".
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 15:24
|
|
|
I do think giving someone the same Emmy year after year gets tiring though. They should be promoting new shows and actors even if Cranston/Paul/Gunn were the best.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 15:29
|
|
|
Why? As everyone knows, the only comedic actor worth paying attention to is Jim Parsons from The Big Bang Theory. Any other actor's attempts to be funny are mere sophistry compared to his mordant wit.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 15:30
|
|
|
Yeah it's almost like the Emmy's are worthless garbage.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 15:30
|
|
|
RC and Moon Pie posted:I shouldn't be surprised because it's Burns and Burns rocks, but was pleasantly surprised so see it so even-handed to the extent that Teddy comes off as a right rear end in a top hat. The last few Burns major docus haven't been as good as some of his early ones. This one is really even handed and even goes into how different people view the FDR in history. Hyde Park on the Hudson is one of the biggest wastes of an idea.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 15:45
|
|
|
What was the last huge Burns documentary, The War?
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 15:50
|
|
|
Prohibition got a lot of buzz (heh heh)
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 15:52
|
|
|
Yeah but that was only three episodes. I'm talking old school Civil War/Baseball/Jazz Burns.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 15:54
|
|
|
I almost don't want to respond to these posts because I feel like I'm making GBS threads on everyone's favourite shows. Just remember I am a sad picky bastard who hates pretty much all TV?  Tried Spartacus (the entire first season) back when people recommended it in the binging thread after I made a stupidly long post about Nikita. While it's one of those shows I have a sort-of-respect for (I caught up via wiki and youtube, and saw most of the much vaunted finale), the show just didn't do it for me overall. Even though Andy Whitfield was a charismatic lead and the bloodbath at the end of season 1 was ultra satisfying. (I understand the new guy in Vengeance and WotD won everyone over eventually too?) Bown posted:VagueRant, just watch The Sopranos. Annakie posted:Also watch the newest season of 24 when you can get your hands on it because it is really great.  I thought it was boring, dumb (not in a fun way) and I complained about how they had turned Jack into Steven Seagal - even before the bit with the samurai sword.The defenestration was legitimately badass, mind. And him shooting an innocent protester to cause a distraction was SO DUMB it wrapped around into being entertaining, but...Yeesh. I really hate what that show and that character became.  SymfonyMan posted:Yeah you should like Daybreak. I've said the same criticsms as you before even the Breaking Bad one that got me poo poo on for a moment, but we do disagree on one thing. I've totally cried from a Doctor Who episode! Just out of curiosity, what Doctor Who episode was it? I don't think I've actually seen any of the ones considered tearjerkers. I watched the first season of Deadwood, I liked the dialogue, and I liked Bullock (and a few others) but I never really got a sense of narrative momentum from it. It pretty much just felt like random characters doing random stuff without much of an end point. (Hell on Wheels was slightly more to my tastes, but unfortunately not enough to keep me watching that either!) Chamberk posted:Why? As everyone knows, the only comedic actor worth paying attention to is Jim Parsons from The Big Bang Theory.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 16:00
|
|
|
zoux posted:Yeah it's almost like the Emmy's are worthless garbage. Except when things I like win.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 16:07
|
|
|
VagueRant posted:Supernatural Supernatural gets a lot better... and then it gets a lot worse. I agree with the general consensus is that you should watch at least up to season 5 since that was where the show up to that point concluded from a plot standpoint and it just kind of becomes meandering nonsense after that. Either way, season 1 is not a great barometer for what the rest of the show is like. It's mostly fun and dumb and goofy, and if that's not what you're looking for then you probably won't enjoy it much. If fun, dumb, and goofy supernatural poo poo is what you're looking for, however, you should watch Sleepy Hollow and catch up on it before season 2 starts next week. Aphrodite posted:Except when things I like win. Win or lose, I've never understood why people who have no stake in awards shows give so much of a gently caress about them. They're all pretty much just industry back-patting sessions that serve as multi-hour commercials at best, and for some reason this is something that people want on their televisions for an entire evening. raditts fucked around with this message at 16:15 on Sep 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 16:12
|
|
|
Watch Utopia. The opening scene will tell you whether you'll like it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=01VGtX9xfh0
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 16:17
|
|
|
raditts posted:Win or lose, I've never understood why people who have no stake in awards shows give so much of a gently caress about them. They're all pretty much just industry back-patting sessions that serve as multi-hour commercials at best, and for some reason this is something that people want on their televisions for an entire evening. People who have absolutely no stake in things being hilariously interested in them is the entire premise of professional sports. It's not that surprising. I mean I guess you could be personally invested if you gamble on the outcome, but that's anything.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 16:29
|
|
|
zoux posted:What was the last huge Burns documentary, The War? The War, and he got killed for that one.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 16:56
|
|
|
sbaldrick posted:The War, and he got killed for that one. In terms of effort or critics?
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 16:57
|
|
|
zoux posted:In terms of effort or critics? Big uproar about not specifically mentioning latinos, hobbits, or elves in the war effort.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 17:21
|
|
|
Oh right I remember the hastily added postscript with the Indian and Hispanic dudes.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 17:25
|
|
|
VagueRant posted:I almost don't want to respond to these posts because I feel like I'm making GBS threads on everyone's favourite shows. Just remember I am a sad picky bastard who hates pretty much all TV? 
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 17:25
|
|
|
zoux posted:In terms of effort or critics? Critics, he also got blasted as he glossed over every other country on the planet fight the war.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 17:52
|
|
|
sbaldrick posted:Critics, he also got blasted as he glossed over every other country on the planet fight the war. That's dumb because it was specifically about four American towns and the impact of the war on them.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 17:56
|
|
|
Even with a narrow focus, to be meaningful a study of history has to have an appreciation of the broader context.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 18:14
|
|
|
Rapey Joe Stalin posted:Even with a narrow focus, to be meaningful a study of history has to have an appreciation of the broader context. no it emphatically does not there have been plenty of examples of historically relevant media removed entirely from any broader context whatsoever, and as a matter of fact many historians place a high value on "commoner" perspectives of historical events and time periods since it personalizes the more mundane aspects of exciting periods of time in a way that makes such events relatable i mean sure having an understanding of the broader forces at play helps with the comprehension and digestion of historical media but to say that it has to have it to be relevant is silly and factually incorrect NieR Occomata fucked around with this message at 18:28 on Sep 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 18:21
|
|
|
whowhatwhere posted:ONLY in retrospect though. Don't actually go back and think that maybe you were wrong about them. You weren't, and you'll hate yourself a little for even trying. I don't know what you're talking about, started from the second episode and it was fantastic from then on.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 18:46
|
|
|
I unashamedly love Hell on Wheels, aka The Wild West Adventures of Trainsporter Chief Obrien, and goddamn the latest episode was pretty incredible, even though it meant the end of one of my favorite rapper/actors.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 19:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 01:06 |
|
|
I think there is some stuff you could cut from Breaking Bad, but not much. The stuff with the twins, in retrospect, didn't seem terribly necessary, for example. But every TV show and almost every movie or book is going to have something you could say "could" be cut, so it's kind of a silly thing to talk about. Though it's funny he mentioned Edgar Wright since Hot Fuzz is one of the few things that I think needs every single scene to work.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 19:50
|
|
