|
That Bo Burnham special was incredibly good and I really like that he went wild with his creativity, even if a couple of the jokes didn't land for me. He manages a lot of subtlety for such an over the top special.
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2016 01:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 15:37 |
|
|
Everyone should go watch Zach Stone is Gonna be Famous if you like Bo Burnham. Sadly, I think it is only available on amazon for purchase now but it is honestly worth the $15 or whatever they are asking.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2016 07:30
|
|
|
Glad to see so much Bo Burnham love. His style of comedy is right up my alley, but he's pretty divisive among my friends. I saw him in Boulder on the Make Happy tour, but still really enjoyed watching it again on Netflix. I think what. is still his best special though, that thing is just completely solid.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2016 21:44
|
|
|
I haven't watched any Bo burham stuff since he was getting popular and don't think I will anytime soon but very happy to see positive reactions to his new special. Massachusetts, baby!
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2016 22:14
|
|
|
A bunch of stuff is expiring from Netflix on July 1st including The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance so watch that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2016 23:00
|
|
|
People should watch the Original Series Star Trek movies if they have any interest in them, because while Netflix currently has All 6 movies (The Motion Picture, Wrath of Khan, Search for Spock, Voyage Home, Final Frontier, Undiscovered Country) and they will *all* be gone as of July 1. I would only recommend The Motion Picture if you're a big fan in which case you have already seen it. But if you somehow have never watched The Wrath of Khan, then you should give it a shot. You don't *really* need to know much of anything about Star Trek to watch and enjoy it, and frankly it's a lovely piece of classic American sci-fi, not to mention better than any Star Trek film that's come out in about a couple decades. kaworu fucked around with this message at 23:24 on Jun 26, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2016 23:22
|
|
|
So i'm on netflix and i notice bojack horseman has german audio and subtitles available! That's cool, want to keep on german poo poo. Weird thing is they apparently sent out the translation job to two totally separate places for each--the dubs say one thing, and the subs have a completely different approach to it. Wouldn't it be cheaper to get someone to dub it and have somebody transcribe that script? It's super interesting but very disorienting to get two interpretations at the same time. I need both audio and CC because my German is not that great.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 06:45
|
|
|
kaworu posted:People should watch the Original Series Star Trek movies if they have any interest in them, because while Netflix currently has All 6 movies (The Motion Picture, Wrath of Khan, Search for Spock, Voyage Home, Final Frontier, Undiscovered Country) and they will *all* be gone as of July 1. It's me, I'm the guy who will go to bat for Star Trek 5. Then again I hate The Next Generation so my taste in matters Star Trek may be flawed.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 08:53
|
|
|
precision posted:It's me, I'm the guy who will go to bat for Star Trek 5. Then again I hate The Next Generation so my taste in matters Star Trek may be flawed. TNG is HIGHLY overrated. ST 5 isn't that bad. I think the biggest problem with it is the production values. Everything looks cheap and marginally better than the sets on TOS.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 12:15
|
|
|
precision posted:It's me, I'm the guy who will go to bat for Star Trek 5. Then again I hate The Next Generation so my taste in matters Star Trek may be flawed. It's okay, I don't disagree with you. I just think Shatner's direction was a travesty in that one, and probably done out jealousy for Nimoy directing such a fantastically weird and awesome Trek film in The Voyage Home. Since I am a big fan of homoerotic subtext, I have to say that I have a soft spot for The Motion Picture because I strongly believe that the secondary plot with Kirk and Spock is basically a story of pathos/love/longing that echoes the main story thread with Decker and Ilia. It's a deeply flawed but (in my opinion) very good film. It's also really cool because it does not even TRY to be an action film, and Star Trek has always been at its best when it sticks to cerebral stuff. I also have grown to dislike TNG more and more as the years have past, and I like TOS more and more. It's almost kind of sad because there are probably a dozen episodes between seasons 1 and 2 of TOS that are worlds better than any Star Trek film ever made, production values don't loving matter when you have great characters and a great story.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 14:12
|
|
|
TNG and DS9 are both far overrated. I haven't seen ST5 since it was in the theaters, so my memories on its quality are suspect.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 14:19
|
|
|
I'll recommend Star Trek: The Motion Picture. It's actually pretty ambitious, and heavily inspired by 2001. But a warning: it is slooow. It's not afraid to just sit still. Maybe they expected the audience to be stoned? Anyway it's a solid piece of of 70s sci fi, definitely made in the wake of Star Wars but also looking back to 2001 and other older sci fi ideas. Nimoy and Shatner are both great in it, too. (Oh, and Star Trek V is unwatchable, and makes me feel embarrassed for all those aging actors forced to give up their dignity. I'm amazed any of you finished it.)
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 14:52
|
|
|
Overrated vs what? Enterprise and Voyager? TNG and to a lesser extent Ds9 were sci fi where scifi with good production values and solid acting, when few shows of that nature made it past 1 season. (and were watchable)
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 15:05
|
|
|
Junkie Disease posted:Overrated vs what? Enterprise and Voyager? TNG and to a lesser extent Ds9 were sci fi where scifi with good production values and solid acting, when few shows of that nature made it past 1 season. (and were watchable) Though ironically most people consider TNG's (and I think DS9's) first few seasons as irredeemable trash.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 15:14
|
|
|
Junkie Disease posted:Overrated vs what? Enterprise and Voyager? TNG and to a lesser extent Ds9 were sci fi where scifi with good production values and solid acting, when few shows of that nature made it past 1 season. (and were watchable) Yeah, it's basically like saying the original Star Wars is overrated because The Martian (I haven't seen it so I can't confirm or deny) is better. Cultural impact does count in my opinion, because maybe something can't exactly hold up to a modern standard if it came out today, but it can't be written off. computer parts posted:Though ironically most people consider TNG's (and I think DS9's) first few seasons as irredeemable trash. That's mostly what the first few seasons were like of most shows back then. These days leeway is pretty much out the window, if it's not in it's stride right out of the gate, it rarely makes it through the season.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 15:23
|
|
|
Junkie Disease posted:Overrated vs what? Enterprise and Voyager? TNG and to a lesser extent Ds9 were sci fi where scifi with good production values and solid acting, when few shows of that nature made it past 1 season. (and were watchable) As good science fiction. They were terrible shows with good production values.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 15:35
|
|
|
The original Star Trek was often "Twilight Zone in spaaaaaaaaace" which is totally in my wheelhouse.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 17:17
|
|
|
precision posted:The original Star Trek was often "Twilight Zone in spaaaaaaaaace" which is totally in my wheelhouse. TOS is also visually really awesome and psychedelic with (in my opinion) a pretty goddamn awesome, psychedelic visual aesthetic that's never really been effectively replicated before or since. The sound design is also really brilliant. So many wonderful sound effects in TOS and freat bits of camerawork here and there. It's such a sharp contrast to, say, TNG where everything is drab and grey and shot in absolutely flat and boring lighting in nearly every single scene. I do like episodes but.. It's flaws have gotten way more glaring to me.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 18:29
|
|
|
Look at what it was up against and the peers of the era
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 18:32
|
|
|
kaworu posted:TOS is also visually really awesome and psychedelic with (in my opinion) a pretty goddamn awesome, psychedelic visual aesthetic I'm extremely sad that they never had Kirk, Spock and McCoy time travel to the 60s. It's such an obvious idea that would have been so obviously good, I can't believe it never happened. The couple time travel episodes they did do were so good.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 18:38
|
|
|
precision posted:I'm extremely sad that they never had Kirk, Spock and McCoy time travel to the 60s. It's such an obvious idea that would have been so obviously good, I can't believe it never happened. The couple time travel episodes they did do were so good. Honestly, whenever they use time travel in TOS it's pretty goddamn awesome, all the way from the first time travel episode, which was actually "The Naked Time" and about a virus that makes everyone either aggressive, horny, or drunk and the Enterprise is in chaos and about to be destroyed and they manage to find a cure for the virus, save the ship and everyone on it, and they also invent a practical and repeatable formula for Time Travel in the process. Fantastic episode that is better than anything from the latter series, frankly. Then there was... Return to Tomorrow, was it? They do go back to the '60s in that one but it's mostly about just covering up their presence and not loving up the timeline. Obviously "City on the Edge of Forever" is the truly great and classic time travel episode for Star Trek, and I would recommend it to anyone - it's just fantastic and as good as anything the show ever did. Though they go to depression-era NYC (or somewhere) in that episode, as far as I can gather. They do go back to the sixties in this odd episode at the end of season 2 which was actually like a backdoor pilot for a show starring Robert Lansing and Teri Garr - it's a weird episode, needless to say. I think possibly the best bit of Time Travel might be in Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home, which I *heartily* recommend and is going away from Netflix in a couple days, too. It is actually Star Trek as a fish-out-of-water comedy, with the older TOS cast traveling to loving 1980s San Francisco (of all places) and trying to snatch a pair of Humpback Whales to bring back to the future where they are extinct, but needed to respond to a destructive alien probe that has arrived. And it's just brilliant. It takes this absurd sci-fi premise and these ridiculous characters and sticks them in the real world and it's just a goddamn riot. It's the best thing Nimoy ever directed, probably, and it's just... really, really fun if you're familiar with the characters.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 20:20
|
|
|
My favorite part of TOS is how new and unestablished it is in hindsight to the 30 years of newer properties built on top of it. It's fascinating to watch the show work out what the Star Trek universe is and isn't. And almost no technobabble because the show's attention span for the fake science and tech behind everything is basically nil. My least favorite part of TOS is it's a 60s television show which means it's nearly 30 episodes a season and most of the episodes have to fill 50 minutes with 20 minutes worth of story. It's slow. And very often extremely boring.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 20:24
|
|
|
kaworu posted:Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home I love how we're recommending stuff to the hypothetical lurking Netflix users on somethingawful.com who have never seen the original Star Trek movies.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 20:35
|
|
|
david_a posted:Just binge the complete trilogy (2, 3, 4). The Search for Spock is by no means a great movie but it has its moments and makes the fourth one better. It's true, the whole thing is basically one long connected story (those three films) and you really ought to just watch them all. Even though The Search for Spock is lackluster and pretty heavily flawed, it *does* have some great moments, as you say. Actually, one of the things it really has going for it is that Wrath of Khan ends on a real goddamn cliffhanger, and I cannot believe anyone would not want to watch a sequel called "The Search for Spock" after finishing Wrath of Khan. It's like you have no choice in the matter because you're likely emotionally invested enough at that point. Also, Christopher Lloyd is a surprisingly awesomely vile Klingon villain that you just plain *hate* in Search for Spock, and he really makes the most of what could have been a really, really lovely role in the hands of a lesser actor. It's just fun to see him chew the scenery and be an absolutely irredeemable prick. And of course after Search for Spock, you still want to know what happens next because it essentially ends on another cliffhanger of sorts. And then The Voyage Home is absolutely nothing like the previous two movies, which turns out to be a really awesome thing. And I think it's good to recommend the original Star Trek movies because a lot of people who are familiar with later iterations of Star Trek really haven't seen the TOS movies. They're not as easily accessible as the Trek series, and I'm willing to bet that most people 20 years old and under have probably seen the JJTrek movies and probably don't even know that there are *six* goddamn TOS movies that got made. They probably know the "KHHHAAAAAN" meme and nothing else. I was big Trek fan for years who just like TNG and DS9 at the time, and never watched the TOS series or movies until a few years ago. So I figure, if I took that long to see them and I'm freaking 31 and grew up watching TNG from when I was like 6, then there must be *tons* of people out there who have no clue how awesome these movies (or many TOS episodes) are.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 21:41
|
|
|
precision posted:I'm extremely sad that they never had Kirk, Spock and McCoy time travel to the 60s. It's such an obvious idea that would have been so obviously good, I can't believe it never happened. The couple time travel episodes they did do were so good. There are a few episodes where they go to a planet that is basically the 60s with one thing changed: "this planet is basically Earth but a virus killed all adults!" "This planet is basically Earth but America is the Roman Empire!" etc.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 21:50
|
|
|
kaworu posted:I think possibly the best bit of Time Travel might be in Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home, where a giant future space tube wants whales, so they go to the 80's to get them. Edited for clarity.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2016 06:02
|
|
|
I've never watched a full episode of any star trek but the whale one was one of my favorite movies as a kid. It had whales in it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2016 06:09
|
|
|
When I was growing up, in the early 90s The Original Series was already off the air but the local (IIRC) Fox station would play TNG all Saturday afternoon after the cartoons were over and basically every weeknight at 9:00 pm so all I ever grew up with was The Next Generation with TOS being in my mind's eye as weird old person poo poo like disco music and bell bottoms.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2016 15:10
|
|
|
DeathSandwich posted:When I was growing up, in the early 90s The Original Series was already off the air but the local (IIRC) Fox station would play TNG all Saturday afternoon after the cartoons were over and basically every weeknight at 9:00 pm so all I ever grew up with was The Next Generation with TOS being in my mind's eye as weird old person poo poo like disco music and bell bottoms. TOS is really hard for me to get into. 20 minutes of content stretched out to an hour is about right.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2016 18:08
|
|
|
Jack Gladney posted:There are a few episodes where they go to a planet that is basically the 60s with one thing changed: "this planet is basically Earth but a virus killed all adults!" "This planet is basically Earth but America is the Roman Empire!" etc. It's part of the broader symptom of "this planet is basically Earth but mumble mumble whatever sets were leftover from other shows this week".
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2016 19:42
|
|
|
The new pricing tiers for Netflix are kind of stupid. Like I can kind of understand the screen sharing I guess, but the 7.99 only lets you watch standard def is pretty bullshit. Considering most all tv's these days are HD.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2016 16:41
|
|
|
The_Rob posted:The new pricing tiers for Netflix are kind of stupid. Like I can kind of understand the screen sharing I guess, but the 7.99 only lets you watch standard def is pretty bullshit. Considering most all tv's these days are HD. If the alternative is no lower pricing tier (like it was before), it still seems reasonable. There's lots of people on lovely DSL/sattelite or with bandwidth caps that have to watch everything in SD. Why should they pay the same to receive an inferior product?
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2016 16:46
|
|
|
wa27 posted:If the alternative is no lower pricing tier (like it was before), it still seems reasonable. There's lots of people on lovely DSL/sattelite or with bandwidth caps that have to watch everything in SD. Why should they pay the same to receive an inferior product? I kind of feel like they should just take the 7.99 tier away. Just do 9.99 and throw in the sd/hd option.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2016 16:50
|
|
|
A significant chunk of people are watching on phones, tablets and laptops, too.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2016 16:51
|
|
|
I think it would be more worth complaining if HD wasn't just $2 more.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2016 16:51
|
|
|
morestuff posted:A significant chunk of people are watching on phones, tablets and laptops, too. That doesn't stop people from wanting to pay extra money for bandwidth and resolution that will provide zero benefit on a 5"wide screen because "It's HD!". https://youtu.be/wKiIroiCvZ0 Fake edit: Me irl 
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2016 17:25
|
|
|
david_a posted:TOS is really hard for me to get into. 20 minutes of content stretched out to an hour is about right. I think that was just TV in general back in the day. I was watching old Rockford Files episodes and it seemed like every one had at least 10 minutes of footage of Rockford just driving places.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2016 22:56
|
|
|
LogisticEarth posted:That doesn't stop people from wanting to pay extra money for bandwidth and resolution that will provide zero benefit on a 5"wide screen because "It's HD!". I can tell that's a standard def video on my iphone 5s
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2016 23:11
|
|
|
LogisticEarth posted:That doesn't stop people from wanting to pay extra money for bandwidth and resolution that will provide zero benefit on a 5"wide screen because "It's HD!". bit rate is an important factor that people tend to ignore. Youtube has HD that look shittier than Vimeo's because they're more highly compressed. I bet SD video on Netflix is full of artifacts.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2016 00:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 15:37 |
|
|
Buca di Bepis posted:bit rate is an important factor that people tend to ignore. Youtube has HD that look shittier than Vimeo's because they're more highly compressed. I bet SD video on Netflix is full of artifacts.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2016 01:12
|
|
