|
She also came back in a later episode
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2016 19:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 02:10 |
|
|
Mu Zeta posted:She also came back in a later episode But why wait to see what the show does later when you can complain about it now?
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2016 19:21
|
|
|
I was watching the Twilight Zone episode "Person or Persons Unknown" about a guy who wakes up in a world where nobody recognizes him. The funny thing is in the end he wakes up and his wife is a different person, except this new wife is much better looking than his old one. So maybe he should just kind of accept it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2016 19:35
|
|
|
imo the "killing our gays" TV thing recently, which did get horrifyingly bad in the last year or two to an historically unprecedented level, is a convergence of three factors. I can't completely take credit for it, it's kind of summarizing ideas from a Vox article. 1. TV writers are responding to pushes for greater representation in media, because it brings in passionate and enthusiastic fans, it offers new story possibilities, and it signals that they are good progressive people (which is not a bad thing as long as they're sincere, I just think a lot of them aren't) 2. Game of Thrones and a few other shows inspired writers to use death more in their storytelling, seeing that the "Anyone Can Die" aesthetic brings in a lot of viewers, and shock deaths are easy sources of dramatic tension. This has been taken to absurd extremes in the last TV season. 3. Most TV writers are still white straight men, which doesn't have to be a problem, but it mostly is because they have no perspective on their own writing, and put straight white male characters at the center of their narratives. Failing that, they put in straight white women, or straight black men. Because female, non-white, and LGBT characters tend to be supporting characters, they're expendable, from a showrunning perspective. They're not directly killed off due to those characteristics, but those characteristics put them in a position where it's easy for a writer to kill them off. #1 is a positive development, it's just unfortunate that it's coincided with #2, which is an annoying trend we'll all be glad to see the back of, I think. and #3 is possible to remedy, both through more diverse writers' rooms, and through people learning that "write what you know" is not an ironclad rule, but at the same time that writing what you don't know does require research. So writers should write gay characters into their shows, but they should talk to actual gay people first, and while the show is running gauge fan reaction and try to understand what those characters mean to the fans, so when it comes time to say "okay, someone's dying in this season finale" they know what the consequences are going to be if they choose the gay character to kill off. and I'm not calling for a moratorium on killing off gay characters (though, wait maybe I am?), but from interviews I've read, it seems like a lot of these showrunners are talking a big talk about respecting the fans and such; but if you read between the lines a bit it becomes clear they didn't really put that much thought into it, or understand the consequences ahead of time. The 100 showrunners unquestionably hosed up in numerous ways that should serve as a teaching moment to everyone in the industry.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2016 19:43
|
|
|
muscles like this? posted:I was watching the Twilight Zone episode "Person or Persons Unknown" about a guy who wakes up in a world where nobody recognizes him. The funny thing is in the end he wakes up and his wife is a different person, except this new wife is much better looking than his old one. So maybe he should just kind of accept it. Yeah but he new wife gave terrible head.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2016 19:44
|
|
|
Spatula City posted:imo the "killing our gays" TV thing recently, which did get horrifyingly bad in the last year or two to an historically unprecedented level, is a convergence of three factors. I can't completely take credit for it, it's kind of summarizing ideas from a Vox article. I mean, here's the problem: If your protagonist is a homosexual, then killing off their significant other means killing of a homosexual character. That's what happened in the 100. They made Clark bisexual. This should be considered a win. They killed off Clark's boyfriend. Then she got a girlfriend. Guess what happened? Turns out you can't be "The Commander of Death" who kills hundreds of people every season and not make some enemies who kill the people you love.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2016 19:51
|
|
|
Spatula City posted:The 100 showrunners unquestionably hosed up in numerous ways that should serve as a teaching moment to everyone in the industry. Except they haven't really? I mean, they hosed up in certain ways, but not in terms of representation. They actually seem to go out of their way to have minority characters on the show that aren't just expendable parts. Season 3 was problematic in its pacing, always putting plot ahead of character, but they've had plenty of non-minority deaths before Lexa was killed off. Her death wasn't a one-off raising the stakes either, it was hugely important in moving forward the season meta-arc and was a moment that started to join the 3 disparate plot threads running until then.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2016 19:55
|
|
|
The teaching moment? Don't kill off homosexual characters like they were hetrosexual characters. They need special significance.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2016 20:03
|
|
|
The teaching moment was don't write gay characters in a show where people die. No one flips out when you kill a straight character. Your best option is to write a show with a female lead and kill off her male love interests as needed. Anything else will be considered a fuckup. edit: In case it's somehow not clear, I don't think this is how it should be, but it certainly the lesson I would learn. It used to be risky to write homosexual characters because conservative audiences would be shocked/offended. Now it's dangerous to write them because vocal minorities will rip your head off for not doing it right. The big safe majority audience doesn't care either way. Snak fucked around with this message at 20:08 on Jun 5, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2016 20:05
|
|
|
Spatula City posted:
It doesn't really matter because tumblr/reddit explode at the drop of a hat so if a gay character dies, even for well scripted, well thought out reasons the internet brigade will explode and call the show-runners modern day nazis and demand a boycott. You literally can't win with these people so its not worth trying to appease them.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2016 20:28
|
|
|
"Kids, you tried your best, and you failed miserably. The lesson is, never try." 
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2016 20:39
|
|
|
Is there any easy way to skip the mediocre Vikings stuff and just get to when it starts being great? Or do you definitely need to watch it all?
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2016 20:43
|
|
|
You need to watch it all and none of it is mediocre. The entire show is built on character motivations that begin in episode one and play out through the entire series. Skipping it would be a bad decision because it's good and because it's important.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2016 20:47
|
|
|
MrAristocrates posted:A thing I learned from the response to PoI is that apparently some of these shippers don't even watch the show outside of the scenes with their favorite pairing, which seems absolutely absurd. People complaining about a website they don't read vs. people complaining about a show they don't watch. Whoever wins, nobody cares.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2016 21:21
|
|
|
Netflix can go to hell for putting the entire latest season of Peaky Blinders on American Netflix before it finishes in the UK and breaking all the proxies
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2016 22:24
|
|
|
X-O posted:You need to watch it all and none of it is mediocre. The entire show is built on character motivations that begin in episode one and play out through the entire series. Skipping it would be a bad decision because it's good and because it's important. I have really enjoyed Vikings. It gets a little soapy, but not bad. Watch it. Everyone. Now.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2016 22:29
|
|
|
hope and vaseline posted:Except they haven't really? I mean, they hosed up in certain ways, but not in terms of representation. They actually seem to go out of their way to have minority characters on the show that aren't just expendable parts. Season 3 was problematic in its pacing, always putting plot ahead of character, but they've had plenty of non-minority deaths before Lexa was killed off. Her death wasn't a one-off raising the stakes either, it was hugely important in moving forward the season meta-arc and was a moment that started to join the 3 disparate plot threads running until then. Their real gently caress-up was in how they engaged with the fan community, and how they seemed to underestimate just how mad people would be. To me it seemed like they made the decision purely based on the needs of the plot without realizing just how much it'd piss off fans. They're operating on an older paradigm of storytelling where the story takes total primacy over not alienating the fanbase. Their commitment to representation is commendable, and the lesson isn't no representation, or not even "don't kill off gay characters". The lesson is to be very, very careful in dealing with fans, and if you're trying to actively engage with fans and have a closer relationship with them, it can't be superficial. You have to factor them into even your decisions about plot. Too often in general, authors don't ask themselves "how are my readers going to respond to this?", and the same goes for showrunners. This issue is especially critical when it comes to the treatment of LGBT characters.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2016 22:34
|
|
|
Creators should never ever be beholden to fans. And the attitude that fans take these days that they should have some kind of say in what happens in the things they like is ridiculous. The only thing worse is the creators that cave to this kind of thing because it makes them more popular on Twitter.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2016 22:46
|
|
|
Some of those fans (claim to) started watching Fear the Walking Dead instead, so joke's on them forever.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2016 22:53
|
|
|
X-O posted:Creators should never ever be beholden to fans. And the attitude that fans take these days that they should have some kind of say in what happens in the things they like is ridiculous. The only thing worse is the creators that cave to this kind of thing because it makes them more popular on Twitter. I still can't believe that season 3 of Hannibal actually worked "murder husbands" into the script.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2016 22:58
|
|
|
Aphrodite posted:Some of those fans (claim to) started watching Fear the Walking Dead instead, so joke's on them forever. Did they swear off that show when they killed off a gay love interest on it this season? Or did it not count?
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2016 22:58
|
|
|
They should just do that every season, have a new love interest for Clarke and kill them off in increasingly gruesome ways.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2016 23:10
|
|
|
I'm about to wrap up my binge of Fringe (got about 3 episodes to go). Am I correct that it was popular in here back when it was airing?
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2016 00:01
|
|
|
I wouldn't say popular, but it was very well liked among those that watched it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2016 00:02
|
|
|
X-O posted:I wouldn't say popular, but it was very well liked among those that watched it. John Noble's emotional scenes can be very tear-jerking, he's a joy to watch. Anna Torv has the acting range of a 2x4 which tends to drag Olivia centric episodes down a bit.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2016 00:04
|
|
|
Rhyno posted:I'm about to wrap up my binge of Fringe (got about 3 episodes to go). Am I correct that it was popular in here back when it was airing? To find a Fringe fan in TVIV would certainly be a trek, it wasn't very popular.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2016 00:15
|
|
|
Fringe had huge threads (created by Aatrek with tons of gifs)
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2016 00:16
|
|
|
Toxxupation posted:To find a Fringe fan in TVIV would certainly be a trek, it wasn't very popular. Nah, I remember the threads. Mu Zeta posted:Fringe had huge threads (created by Aatrek with tons of gifs) Yeah. gently caress.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2016 00:23
|
|
|
Also Fringe gets really fun near the end of season 1. Until then it feels like a boring, cheaper X-Files knockoff and then the show goes full wacky.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2016 00:53
|
|
|
Mu Zeta posted:Also Fringe gets really fun near the end of season 1. Until then it feels like a boring, cheaper X-Files knockoff and then the show goes full wacky. Season 2 is bonkers as hell and I loved nearly every episode.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2016 01:04
|
|
|
As someone whose working his way through X-Files for the first time since it originally aired, Fringe is much more refined and exciting.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2016 01:08
|
|
|
Rhyno posted:John Noble's emotional scenes can be very tear-jerking, he's a joy to watch. Anna Torv has the acting range of a 2x4 which tends to drag Olivia centric episodes down a bit. She ended up being pretty good. Fringe owned.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2016 01:15
|
|
|
Tortolia posted:She ended up being pretty good. She does get better but nothing ground breaking. Lance Reddick is always a joy to watch.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2016 01:17
|
|
|
GreenNight posted:As someone whose working his way through X-Files for the first time since it originally aired, Fringe is much more refined and exciting. In some ways, yes. But Fringe also has very few actually interesting ideas. A lot of the episodes are really straightforward monster of the week poo poo with the most predictable resolution. Fringe definitely has some really good episodes that are interesting, and X-Files has plenty of boring episodes, but X-Files has a lot more just loving weird poo poo. X-Files also has a greater variety of tones, in my opinion. Fringe definitely has humor, but, off the top of my head, I don't really remember any comedy episodes. Fringe feels like a very effective, somewhat safe, modern update of X-Files, at least in the beginning, before it goes all crazy arc.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2016 01:23
|
|
|
In the full run of the show there are more "ho-hum" episodes of X-Files than great ones.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2016 01:24
|
|
|
The latter third of Season 1 through the Season 3 finale was incredible. Some of the most fun and exhilarating TV I've ever watched. I felt that the major status quo changes in Season 4 and especially 5 weren't the greatest, but it was still better than most other shows of its type. I'll argue in favor of Anna Torv's acting any day (especially the joyful "Faux-livia"), and that it was a more enjoyable show than X-Files.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2016 01:25
|
|
|
Rhyno posted:Season 2 is bonkers as hell and I loved nearly every episode. I liked random religious agent that showed up for a couple of episodes and then just completely disappeared.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2016 01:26
|
|
|
Big Bad Voodoo Lou posted:The latter third of Season 1 through the Season 3 finale was incredible. Some of the most fun and exhilarating TV I've ever watched. I felt that the major status quo changes in Season 4 and especially 5 weren't the greatest, but it was still better than most other shows of its type. I'll argue in favor of Anna Torv's acting any day (especially the joyful "Faux-livia"), and that it was a more enjoyable show than X-Files. The rewritten timeline is a bit headache inducing if you didn't pay very close attention to every second of the prior seasons. Like I said, I have 4 episodes to go and I need one more thing to happen for me to be satisfied with the series.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2016 01:32
|
|
|
Anna Torv is pretty unremarkable in season one and the wider opinion is by season three she's great and one of the highlights of the show and continues to be great through the end.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2016 01:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 02:10 |
|
|
Rhyno posted:In the full run of the show there are more "ho-hum" episodes of X-Files than great ones. No, I agree with that. But I don't Fringe has the spectrum of weird and interesting that X-Files does, either. Fringe is a shorter, more focused, and generally more modern show. I love X-Files, but I doubt I would recommend it to the average tv watcher today.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2016 01:36
|
|