|
Macrame_God posted:I finally caught up with the second episode. I'm still on board with it, mostly due to the killer Trent Reznor score, and it's mostly good. Some of the political commentary stuff is a bit ridiculous though. The long-winded content warning was silly to the point that it became downright cartoonish. I really hope the point they're trying to make here is "If liberals had their way they'd destroy society just like how the conservatives are so American politics is a lose-lose scenario" because that's amateur hour social commentary poo poo. I don't think its setting itself up to say "liberals would destroy the world because theyre just as bad/the answers always in the middle" bullshit. I think its very clearly attacking centrism masked as liberalism. It more appears to be saying even in some alternate reality liberal fantasy that racism is so deep rooted in our culture and history that it transcends legislation. Clearly some liberal policies like Reparations have obviously had a positive effect on the recipients, but theres more to the social and historical psychology of racism that needs to be confronted besides balancing a checkbook. That line in ep 1 where Topher calls the kid in his class a racist and Angela responds with "hes not racist, but hes off to a good start" is a clear indication, along with Judds KKK robe that its addressing racism as a generational issue that transcends party lines. Redford is clearly a Clinton stand in too, Clinton being hailed by liberals as some bastian of good liberal policy making despite his horrendous record towards minorities.
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2019 16:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 14:54 |
|
|
AccountSupervisor posted:I don't think its setting itself up to say "liberals would destroy the world because theyre just as bad/the answers always in the middle" bullshit. I think its very clearly attacking centrism masked as liberalism. Liberalism is centrism and is currently destroying the world.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2019 17:07
|
|
|
I'm not getting "liberalism is bad" vibes from this show. What is coming across very clearly is a critique of the authoritarian style of contemporary progressive politics. In that regard, the show is like extended argumentum ad absurdem.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2019 17:08
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:Faux-intellectual rumination and rampant third act problems. This show really moves compared to stuff like the Leftovers (which is a favorite of mine but it's definitely slow). Not a lot of rumination, but it's packed with detail so it's the kind of thing you can think about and poke at over a week. At the very least check out the first episode.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2019 17:15
|
|
|
Danger posted:The content warning was amazing and peak liberalism. we keep saying liberlism, but, is it actually liberlism? Or is is progressivism? captial L liberalism is about the free market getting to shape the world, not individual rights to people. the show seems to be more about individual liberties. Ersatz posted:I'm not getting "liberalism is bad" vibes from this show. quote:In that regard, the show is like extended argumentum ad absurdem.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2019 18:28
|
|
|
KoRMaK posted:we keep saying liberlism, but, is it actually liberlism? Or is is progressivism? captial L liberalism is about the free market getting to shape the world, not individual rights to people. the show seems to be more about individual liberties. So, taking the racist trailer park dude from episode 1 as an example, instead of loudly criticizing and ostracizing him from the larger community in the way that contemporary progressives might, Night, LG, Red et al. kidnap and extrajudicially murder him. This is said to be justified by his response to the "bias questions" being off the charts.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2019 19:00
|
|
|
People keep saying that night murdered that guy but do we have solid evidence of that?
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2019 19:29
|
|
|
Giggle Goose posted:People keep saying that night murdered that guy but do we have solid evidence of that?
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2019 19:36
|
|
|
That was piss? I thought she just water boarded him
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2019 20:24
|
|
|
Danger posted:From Hell is far and away Moore’s best work and maybe the best in the genre. This is probably a dumb question but, having only seen the movie adaptation, does the comic do/say anything politically interesting or is it just a really good story? Macrame_God posted:I finally caught up with the second episode. I'm still on board with it, mostly due to the killer Trent Reznor score, and it's mostly good. Some of the political commentary stuff is a bit ridiculous though. The long-winded content warning was silly to the point that it became downright cartoonish. I really hope the point they're trying to make here is "If liberals had their way they'd destroy society just like how the conservatives are so American politics is a lose-lose scenario" because that's amateur hour social commentary poo poo. I liked the juxtaposition of an extremely long-winded, comprehensive trigger warning prefacing a hyper-violent action sequence that was obviously not shot with any of those considerations in mind, made more ridiculous by the admonishment that no child should be watching even as a child watches with their parent's consent. just another fucked around with this message at 20:54 on Nov 1, 2019 |
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2019 20:43
|
|
|
KoRMaK posted:That was piss? I thought she just water boarded him On reflection, it's not really clear what the first liquid was. With either explanation, the meaning of the scene is essentially the same. In reality though, waterboarding takes longer than what we saw, since the victim needs to be strapped down, etc...
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2019 20:52
|
|
|
I thought the implication was she slammed him into a sink or toilet, shattering it, hence the quick flooding. But yeah the meaning is conveyed regardless.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2019 21:11
|
|
|
Oh on the topic of that long-winded advisory warning, was there even anything in that clip that could be considered “super-violent”, or am I just that desensitized??
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2019 22:48
|
|
|
just another posted:I liked the juxtaposition of an extremely long-winded, comprehensive trigger warning prefacing a hyper-violent action sequence that was obviously not shot with any of those considerations in mind, made more ridiculous by the admonishment that no child should be watching even as a child watches with their parent's consent. Oh yeah, I got the joke. I just felt like it dragged on for too long. Halfway through it I was like "I get it. It's a glorified government mandated trigger warning. Understood show. Social commentary is very social." I'm liking the show so far, but the story still has way too many blanks in it and that's coming from someone who read the original Watchmen. I understand that's the tone they're going for, but I'm left with the feeling that this could all easily lose focus halfway through and start flying off the rails at the end like some Stephen King novel. I'm hoping that doesn't happen though because I really want to love this show. Jay-V posted:Oh on the topic of that long-winded advisory warning, was there even anything in that clip that could be considered “super-violent”, or am I just that desensitized?? You mean from the American Hero Story clip? Uh, yeah? Did you not see that guy get his skull crushed?
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2019 22:49
|
|
|
Macrame_God posted:You mean from the American Hero Story clip? Uh, yeah? Did you not see that guy get his skull crushed? Uhh guess I uh forgot, hah just another posted:This is probably a dumb question but, having only seen the movie adaptation, does the comic do/say anything politically interesting or is it just a really good story?
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2019 22:53
|
|
|
Is it even an issue whether Sister Night killed that dude in the bathroom when immediately afterwards she and her friends go and murder all of that dude's friends, up to and including the chief of police being so bloodthirsty that he deliberately endangers his own life and the life of one of his women simply to slaughter fleeing suspects with righteous, purging flame?
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2019 22:58
|
|
|
Jay-V posted:Uhh guess I uh forgot, hah Not sure how one can forget watching a man's cranium get turned in to cherry cobbler, but a'ight. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2019 22:58
|
|
|
Ok I just rewatched and it was “violent” for sure but it was mostly just a bunch of blood and you don’t ACTUALLY see brains, so totally normal IMO
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2019 23:31
|
|
|
The disclaimer also says the program contains nudity and a bunch of other things we definitely don't see in the clip. Possibly we're meant to infer that the clip is not the whole program and it gets more advisory-worthy after the first couple of minutes.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2019 23:41
|
|
|
Jay-V posted:Ok I just rewatched and it was “violent” for sure but it was mostly just a bunch of blood and you don’t ACTUALLY see brains, so totally normal IMO Oh yeah, it's not like Day of the Dead violent or anything, but it's understandable why they'd put an absurdly long-winded warning at the start of it. Also, I can't believe I didn't immediately pick up on the fact that the whole American Hero Story scene was supposed to be a dig at Zack Snyder.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2019 23:43
|
|
|
I'm sure the next clip of American Hero Story they show will have an adequate level of violence for you! Not much to add, I'm absolutely loving this show, from the acting to the direction, editing, music, and world-building. I was initially sceptical despite my love for Leftovers, but have gladly been massively surprised. Can't wait for Sunday.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2019 23:46
|
|
|
Which part of the clip was antisementic? It was in the disclaimer but I didn't see it in the clip
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2019 00:00
|
|
|
There wasn't any nudity, either. The content warning for for the entire episode that the characters watched (Angela's husband and son), not for the 2 minute intro clip that was shown to us, the viewers of the 2nd episode of TVs Watchmen.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2019 00:11
|
|
|
just another posted:This is probably a dumb question but, having only seen the movie adaptation, does the comic do/say anything politically interesting or is it just a really good story? It is by far his most audacious work. It is very expressly about the birth of post-modern liberalism from the subjugation of the working class and translates some of his nutty magical schtick into a pretty plain marxist dialectic. It’s good. Edit: this is pretty much the central thesis from probably its most well known chapter and is essentially the concept of historical materialism: quote:Fourth dimensional patterns within Eternity's monolith would.. seem merely random events to third-dimensional percipients, events rising towards inevitable convergence like an archway's lines. Let us say something peculiar happens in 1788… a century later, related events take place. Then again, 50 years later. Then 25 years, then 12. An invisible curve rising through the centuries. Can history then be said to have an architecture? The notion is most glorious and most horrible. Danger fucked around with this message at 01:03 on Nov 2, 2019 |
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2019 00:14
|
|
|
anastazius posted:There wasn't any nudity, either. The content warning for for the entire episode that the characters watched (Angela's husband and son), not for the 2 minute intro clip that was shown to us, the viewers of the 2nd episode of TVs Watchmen. yea, I know I was just being an absurd tviv poster who lacks object permanence or the sense of inference
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2019 01:09
|
|
|
The shows inside the show https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Shw2-7uazc0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQ_w5I728Tk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IIqPN3S4F4k [the heavy handed intro is good here and not eye rolly at all because it gives them time to show 3 different context, including the loving suicide vest. seriously. whenever the show gets overwrought with words, it always seems to be for a reason and usually is showing info during that time that cuts it and gives another layer to it.] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nk93vpl6FsE makes for an intresting, almost no context needed slideshow. good for showing friends or acquaintances that havent watched it, without really spoiling anyhing, what the show can deliver KoRMaK fucked around with this message at 03:55 on Nov 2, 2019 |
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2019 03:52
|
|
|
you have to wonder how many takes the seventh cavalry needed to make that long zoom-out shot look just right
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2019 05:18
|
|
|
Danger posted:It is by far his most audacious work. It is very expressly about the birth of post-modern liberalism from the subjugation of the working class and translates some of his nutty magical schtick into a pretty plain marxist dialectic. It’s good. Moore's magical world-view was pretty embryonic at this stage of his career, he didn't really start seriously diving into it until after writing From Hell.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2019 18:34
|
|
|
This little segment was really well done, but I wonder what accounts for the inconsistencies in this version of events? John and Janey share a beer immediately before the accident, they met over a beer but those events were months apart. John goes back to get Janey's watch, originally it was his (father's?) watch. Dr. Manhattan doesn't spawn with the hydrogen symbol on his head, he puts it there after a PR team tells him he needs a symbol. Janey doesn't stay for the accident, Wally Weaver did, she left because she couldn't watch. Janey's dialogue is overwrought but Veidt is writing this so that's understandable. I wonder what's responsible for this corruption of events. Is Dr. Manhattan's memory getting faulty?
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2019 18:50
|
|
|
Typical biopic. 1/4 stars for sure.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2019 19:01
|
|
|
TheOmegaWalrus posted:This little segment was really well done, but I wonder what accounts for the inconsistencies in this version of events? Probably cause Veidt didn’t have his copy of the graphic novel handy and had to go by memory
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2019 19:04
|
|
|
beanieson posted:Probably cause Veidt didn’t have his copy of the graphic novel handy and had to go by memory Chances are he only has second hand accounts of everything from that era; don't think he would have been born/old enough to really gain any genuine intimate knowledge of Manhattan's origin?
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2019 20:41
|
|
|
w0o0o0o posted:Chances are he only has second hand accounts of everything from that era; don't think he would have been born/old enough to really gain any genuine intimate knowledge of Manhattan's origin? Even the "nothing ever ends" line from Manhattan is weirdly wrong. He says it directly to Veidt, not to Janey.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2019 20:51
|
|
|
The dude is writing a play for himself to watch and reinforce his beliefs. He's not making a documentary.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2019 20:53
|
|
|
feedmyleg posted:The dude is writing a play for himself to watch and reinforce his beliefs. He's not making a documentary. Yes. It’s a purposefully revisionist narrative. I assumed the point of the scene was to highlight how delusional and disconnected from reality Veidt has become since the original story. He’s still the same amoral bastard who’ll kill his underlings for minor reasons, but now he’s doing it purely to serve his own vanity. This play is some odd attempt to turn Dr. Manhattan’s story into some classical mythos he controls and understands, but he’s just doing it for himself. It’s very strange.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2019 23:50
|
|
|
Xealot posted:Yes. It’s a purposefully revisionist narrative. I will have a good chuckle if Veidt is nothing more than a red herring this season.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2019 23:57
|
|
|
I really want to know what Judd's deal was. When he headed out to the hospital I was convinced he was going there to finish off the cop that just woke up. The murder briefly put paid to that, but I'm leaning back that way now. The only thing nagging at me is why was he so recklessly intent on taking down the plane if he was actually part of the 7th?
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2019 00:19
|
|
|
Lemon posted:I really want to know what Judd's deal was. When he headed out to the hospital I was convinced he was going there to finish off the cop that just woke up. The murder briefly put paid to that, but I'm leaning back that way now. If he was involved in the 7th and they are, potentially, part of a larger movement by Keene or Veidt or whoever to enact Squid-invasion level world change, he may have realized what was going on and had a change of heart. If he was the second gunman during the White Night, his change of heart would explain why he didn’t kill Sister Night and why he was killed after the raid and taking down the plane. “It’s my funeral” because he was finally going to act directly in opposition to the larger conspiracy. Keene seemed to know Night was still a cop. He may have been angry at Judd for not following through, but Judd convinced him to spare her.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2019 00:30
|
|
|
Edit: double post
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2019 00:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 14:54 |
|
|
I don't see how the cop response to the 7th Kav at the farmhouse was overbearing. They already knew this group was violent, just talking up and knocking on the door was not going to work. Plus they could have easily destroyed it before the Kav could respond with the Owl Ship. They didn't start deadly force until after coming under fire from the .50 cal. They were prepared but their lethal force was in reaction. That being said, Judd being so insistent on taking down the plane, with what we know from episode 2, i wonder if he was trying to cover his tracks? He didn't want this cell to be taken alive to implicate his involvement maybe. And I think this Klan Fucker  Is Judd's grandfather when he was younger. There's no reason for the camera to linger on him so long, as there are many other Klansmen in the scene and none get the camera focusing on them for as long as that fucker does.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2019 00:54
|
|
