JonArryn

Members
  • Content count

    1,197
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About JonArryn

  • Rank
    Council Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

1,810 profile views
  1. The hacking might not be important, I agree on that. It was just one small example of where I think they were pretty lazy. They could have made the hacking better but seem to not care. It's the same thng with Woldfgang single-handedly taking out a whole criminal enterprise. With one handgun he goes into a room and takes out 4 guys who has semi automatic rifles and shotguns. Sure, you might not care, but that whole scenario is unplausible. And Riley's boyfriend driving like a maniac in the middle of a blizzard with a pregnant girlfriend. I mean, that thing is so stupid from a logic viewpoint. It's only there to get to the car crash, but in a unrealistic way. No boyfriend in a sane mind would drive 140 up a mountain with a girlfriend when the way is full of ice. I don't know. Even if I liked all the characters and stories I would still critique those things. Sometimes the devil is in the details. Imagine if Kubrick told his crew on Barry Lyndon that it doesn't matter how they stand in the war scene because the movie is really about Barry Lyndon rise and fall. Sometimes the small things are important too.
  2. Indeed. It is in the eye of the beholder. And I've noticed that this show has divided a lot of watchers. Since I don't think it delivered on what some people have made it out to be. Maybe too high expectations going in. And regarding hacking. Just compare this with Mr. Robot. I've seen Mr. Robot's first two seasons, and while it's not a favorite show in any way, the way they portray hacking there and in Sense8 is like two different worlds. And it actually does matter. Why? Because if you choose to drive plot action because one of your characters has hacking skills you need to make it realistic within the world. Will's whole mission in S1 finale is hinging on if the hacking is working or not. To have it simply as a macguffin to move the plot to where you be is actually a writer sin. Then that character is a hacker because the writers need it. It's kinda like saying that a show is about a cop but your character can't handle guns and write police reports that are three sentences long. So that's why that element doesn't work.
  3. Fair point. Since you considered my points I considered yours and I'll give it to you to an extent. I'd say that Sun and Wolfgang at least have some depth. Especially Sun. She was an interesting character and some interesting family dynamics. But it's the execution of this that makes it uninteresting for me any way. If you look at Lito for example. I liked him as a character in the beginning. A fun guy and they played a little with tropes about gays. But then we get into his arc. The way he reacts to Hernando leaving him is just forced and heavy-handed. The only reason they do it is to bring that to the next tevent, which is Lito going to the mob guy and fighting. But before that event we get two episodes where he cries in the bathtub and conveniently enough the gun he has is a fake. And it's weird that he plays it like he don't know it's a lighter. Especially since he's the only smoker of the three in the household. It's these things where the writers are shouting for depth but it just gets silly that makes the show not work. So Lito may have had depth but in a whole season nothing showed it for me. And characters like Will, Riley and Kala were just cardboard. Having a scene with a character sitting on a mountain does not amount to storytelling. If the reason she was there was logical in the story it could have been a good moment. But considering the events leading up which are just strange and heavy-handed it didn't amount to anything in her arc. I'm not gonna give an opinion on the other two characters though. Just that the way hacking is portrayed in this show is one of the most silly and ridiculous ways of portraying hacking in shows.
  4. Watched season 1 recently. Since it was the Wachowskis and had an intiguing premise I went in with high expectations for this. But it did not deliver on any front. I'd put this on par with Frontier for the worst Netflix shows actually. A show has to have either a good story or good characters, preferably a mix of both, but this show has neither. What this show is is just one long boring monologue. The characters don't have own goals or own ambitions, they are just papers for the writers to get their monologues out. Monologues about love and evolution that you have heard dozens of times before. And when you have a character watch over their city once it can bring something, when you do it 10 times it's getting repetitive and shows that something is lacking behind how the show is made. When out of ideas, just put in a montage where the characters are hearing the same song. The acting is melodramatic and wooden, the writing is bad and the potential is wasted. A permise which has a lot of potential amounts to no storytelling what so ever. Another thing is how black and white this show is. Characters are either wholly good or evil, and there's no grey scale what so ever. It's like 80's cliche characters walking around. And if one main character is in trouble, just wait, because it will solve itself by another senaste after some tedious build-up. There's no struggle here. Since The Wachowskis started strong but seems to be going downhill maybe it should have been expected. Matrix 1 is brilliant, and the trilogy on its whole is enjoyable and interesting. V For Vendetta is a great movie. Cloud Atlas is ok but have flaws. Jupiter Ascending is just a terrible movie. And this show seem to be following Jupiter Ascending. So The Wachowskis have either lost their touch, or they never had it to begin with as some people have been saying for long. I never really agreed with the argument that Matrix was just a rip-off from better ideas and movies, but maybe there's something to it. It's not often i quit shows but I don't know if season 2 is worth it.
  5. Six episodes in and enjoying it. Does it have some flaws? Sure. But overall, it brings something fresh to Netflix Marvel stuff. I don't think it shows Frank in a good light at all. The only reason he is kind towards Lieberman's family is because they're a stand-in for his own family. So it's not as much about his kindness as it is about him reliving the past in some ways. I do like Madani's character. They haven't done much yet, but hopefully they can make something compelling out of the potential. Ben Barnes i'm a bit torn about. He looks great for the role, but sometimes his acting is a bit bland. Dunno, not a big issue though. Bernthal is awesome though. Really good fit for the character. One thing I'd want to criticize it about is the fight scenes. They have been good, but no scene yet have managed to reach the level of some scenes in DD S2. Frank's prison scene, DD vs Frank and Daredevil's tracking shots in S2 were really great. The one that has gotten close is when Frank went psycho in the building in Afghanistan. They need to step that up. One thing I'm wondering though. In DD S2 The Punisher was put on trial, but was it a closed trial? Billy should easily have been able to get the information from the trial, but maybe they didn't disclose Frank's name. Because if the trial is public knowledge then no one should be surprised that Frank isn't dead. I don't remember completely but it's weird if it is. He escaped from the prison later too. Has no one been reading Hell's Kitchen news since they got back from Afghanistan? Nice that Karen is in this too. She brings a good counterpart to Frank and connects the two series. What is fresh about this series is that he's not really a superhero. He's more an anti-villain than an anti-hero too, which make it a fresh take on the genre in some ways.
  6. Well. I saw Okja, which also is a Netflix film, and that was great. So first Netflix movie which I actually think has been solid. Maybe that has more to do with the director, Bong Joon Ho, which is one of the best directors working today. So at least there one that I could recommend now. It's not a masterpiece by any means, but an enjoyable movie with some nice characters and a nice theme. I still think it worth giving Mudbound a shot, it would be interested hearing other opinions about it. I'm still enjoying Punisher. Seems like the critics are divided, but fans seem more positive to it. Agree that the beginning was a little slow. But it's just refreshing to have a main character who don't give a damn about killing. He's just out on a revenge train that no one can stop. So at least it offers something different then most of the suuperhero stuff we get nowadays. Longmire seem interesting, I've seen an episode on tv I think. Western setting and Katee Sackhoff seem like something that could be interesting.
  7. Mudbound was dissappointing. Actually most movies from Netflix have been. They have a lot of really good shows. But their movies don't work imo. I watched 6 Days, and that was a quite bad movie. Mudbound had a really good trailer so I thougt they'd make a hit with that one. But the characters were so cardboard that it became unengaging very fast. And the story was nonexistant. Considering the premise here they could have done something much more engaging than what they did. 2 episodes into The Punisher and really like it. Continuing on from Daredevils brilliant second season.
  8. Enough digression, sure. I'm done with this subject after this post. And I have no idea why you are so attached to the word politics. It's a juvenile debate, concerning meaning of words, when everyone know what we're talking about. And your definition of the word is wrong. The word politics is specifically aimed at states and cities. So I don't know why we're even discussing this anymore. And no, race ain't a social construct. It's straight up science and things that separates races. Not saying any race is superior, but to say it's a political construct makes me question if you even believe in evolution theory. Soon the leftists wil go after biology too, just a question of time. You are clouded by your ideology so it's no use in even trying. And to say Freud and Jung are totally discredited today means you have no insight into what they laid the groundwork for. That there is a debate about Freud, sure. But to say it's totally discredited because that's the point of view from your political side, that just ridiculous.
  9. Good points. You didn't start anything really, but my response to it seemed to have opened a mini version of Pandoras Box in the thread. And as I said before, I didn't direct my points at you, but to society in general. But that people will have different politcal views is inevitable, and I kind of knew the political leanings here before I brought it up. People aren't telling artists what to do, yet. We'll disagree here but I think that art is more politicized today then it's ever been. When Lennon started becoming a political figure, people wondered what was going on, and this was late 60's. He even got flak from his band members for becoming to involved politically, and they thought it wasn't their role to play. Today every other musician is shouting from the rooftoops what party is the best, or what candidate people should vote for. So I just can't agree with you, that it's only because of my views that I see this. I think it's clear with facts. Marlon Brando is another example. When he stood up for the civil rights movement people were a bit surprised, and inspired. Artists before hadn't really done things like that, and today you see it all the time. I agree with you about realism to the story though, and your example regarding the Mk. experiments is a great one.
  10. Well, what you're referring to here is more about human nature then politics. Power structures that is inherent to humans are not what politics are about. As you linked the definition, it's quite clear. Politics is about affairs referring to states and cities. How a state should be built and hov government should be structured etc. Your example with clans is way before humans had cities or states, therefore it's not political in the sense that we have been debating. And that is one example. A lot of prehistorical art wouldn't have been made because of whole clans approval either. And it's hard to say anyway, there were both larger groups and smaller during a very large span of history. But painting a bull and different symbols on a cave wall makes a political point? I'd say the evidence is much more in favor for it having religious statements rather then political ones. And I don't know how much we should go into the history or our probably differing views of it but anyway. Were there power structures during this time? Of course. Out of necessity, people did what they were most suited for. Men hunted, women gathered and took care of children. Because a clan is built that way it's not a political point, it's how humans survived. Any other structure and the clan might not make it through winter. I know we won't agree, but this thing with everything being political is a pretty late view on it and pretty much a marxist one. You seem to like to repeat points a lot. You repeating them doesn't really enhance them, just a pointer. Two times often suffices. Well, you seem to be able to do this all night, which ideologically possessed people often can. If you think that the way society is going regards to free speech and how more and more things are affected by what is deemed pc and not, then by all means, that's on you. If people in art starts to give in because of what some people think is pc and not, then we will head in more of a totalitarian direction. Which you said you didn't want, but your opinions and statements say the opposite.
  11. Except that the greek word was Politika. And that literally means "affairs of the states". Says so in the first lines of the definition. I was referring to the discussions after Force Awakens was released. So basically almost two years ago. And since then Rey's character has been discussed and I don't think we're gonna bring anything new to it either. Jung and Freud are old, sure. So is Dostoyevsky. I don't think when things were made is much of a point to make at all. Agree with you on last part. Art is important and should discuss it. My pov is just that it doesn't have to be all art. Take from that what you will.
  12. Your definition of the word was wrong. But when in doubt, backtrack instead, sure. I have a vague recollection of maybe discussing The Force Awakens with you before, but I'm too lazy to look it up. And no, I wasn't triggered. I liked having a woman as the lead role and Daisy Ridley's look was great for the role. Before the film. The utter trite of writing and the terrible characterization changed it for me. A good female jedi character would have been great. A trite Mary Sue-type with no development what so ever. Not so much. How am I the only one wanting to discuss Billy? I specifically respond to your point about the character. I have no problems with the character. If he's gay that's fine and if he's straight that's fine. To be honest, I don't care about his orientation. But if he is gay, would it be weird to get all that pent up rage because of supressed homosexuality? Maybe you should google Freud or Jung and we could have a discussion about it after. Or maybe they're too patriarchal to be worthy of your time. And as for your point about political crisis, I agree. There is similar situations all across the globe now. But if you think Hillary would have brought the world in a better direction, then I suggest you look into her and her husbands past. The crisis you are referring too is brought on by the very same people that whine most about it.
  13. I never said it was about the current political system. And you seem to actually have kind of a weird take on the word too. From what I gather the word originated from the greeks, and they very much meant it in the sense of how to organize and govern a state, and in a smaller scale, how to organise groups. Seem like you are the one who isn't really sure about definitions. You seem to encompass all of the human nature aspects in the word politics, which was my point. If it originated with the greeks, that kind of disproves your point. Just check wikipedia and it will be a bit more clear. Well, many of the raging PC people tend to blend together. Maybe you're different, maybe not. You both gather in the same safe space rooms where you talk about how high you are above everyone else morally without every actually contributing to something. Well, my general point from the beginning was that I don't think today's current political climate has to affect such a large quantity of the art that gets made. Somewhere along the way, I got into a debate with you about semantics instead, which made it a lot less interesting, but you seem to enjoy it at least, so there's that. Of course, we need to treat political subjects in art. It's one of the best things about art. But that doesn't mean that we should sit with a magnifying glass and look for things to be triggered about. You seem triggered about Billy now too. And why? There are a lot of great gay characters in fiction so why is this one a problem? Because it's 2017 and you come from the pc pov. No one whined about Omar, because he was one of if not the best character in The Wire. But if it's Billy, who is unsymphatetic, then we need to have a big debate about it. Double standards.
  14. Seemed like the patriarchy comment was a soft spot. Why use the word politics then? Seems like human nature explains it a hell of a lot better regarding those things. Or group dynamics, or the dominance hierarchy, or whatever one wants to call it. And secondly, is that you made a new debate with that. My post didn't even use the word politics, it used "political" regarding art. A straw-man argument from your side. We were discussing political points regarding Stranger Things, and you are well aware that we didn't talk about politics, but political points and different political sides. Another instance of you marking words instead of giving any constructive arguments. Kind of like when three people are having a discussion. Two people try to reach ideas and points, and one person is just sitting there and marking words. Your argument before was that all art is political, and I don't agree with that. This is the first post you started making different definitions, probably because you know that you don't have any other arguments to bring. Way to go trying to twisting it, but it didn't work.
  15. When out of arguments, make it personal. Calling someone coward over the internet, that's a first. I try and end a discussion that has amounted to nothing, on both sides, and you escalate. And then you make a rather poor try at making me agitated. That post says more about your psyche than mine I'd say. Your constant need of being correct on every line, online, well I could go in further on that, but it's not even worth it. And regarding virtue signalling. Wake up, honey. This is the internet, why would anyone virtue signal online? Anyone who's even checked youtube comments know that. If this was a discussion irl, you could make an argument about virtue signalling. But truth is, I stand for everything I've written, and think I have a lot of things to stand on. You haven't really taken a shot at my arguments, what you've done is taken a shot at my way of structuring sentences and choosing words. Sure, I might confuse it, I give you that. But it still doesn't change my point of view about this. I don't think all art is political and not all art has to be. Every good work of art raises interesting questions, but I don't agree about you that it's fundamentally about how we structure as a society. The political system is a pretty new addition to human history, if we don't have way separate definitions of it.