Jump to content

IFR

Members
  • Posts

    294
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

IFR's Achievements

Hedge Knight

Hedge Knight (5/8)

  1. Oh, no worries! I don't take your post as antagonistic. To answer your question, the most notorious behavior of Kubrick, to my knowledge, was his abuse of Shelley Duvall. Perhaps you disagree that it was abuse, or perhaps think that it was the sort of abuse that is acceptable for the art that is produced? No one can draw that line for you, of course. It wasn't sexual assault, but to that I say so what? Sexual assault isn't the only damaging behavior that exists, and clearly Duvall was affected in a dramatic and deleterious way by her time in The Shining. And Kubrick had a general reputation as a very harsh and demanding director. What about Quentin Tarantino and Uma Thurman in Kill Bill? He seems remorseful now, but he deliberately put Thurman in a situation that jeopardized her life and resulted in serious injury. Is that an acceptable form of abuse for art? Then there's Bernard Bertolucci and The Last Tango in Paris, not to mention old Hollywood in general. Etc. Too many tales of Hollywood misdeeds to recite here. Sure, that's fine as a preference. Some people may even take that to its next step, and refuse to watch any movie with actors or directors who affiliate with a party that is disagreeable to one's own ideology. For me personally, if I lose my copy of Ender's Game I'll buy a new one without a second thought.
  2. Everyone is free to draw the line where they please. If what Whedon did is unacceptable but what Kubrick or Cameron did is acceptable is where one wants to land, that is certainly a preference. And not a wrong one. These things are relative to one's comfort. But it seems to me exhausting to not separate the artist from the art because so many people in power turn out to be awful. If the artist's actions are illegal, hopefully there will be legal consequences, or they can be held accountable by some punitive lawsuit or such. Beyond that, I can't bring myself to personally care. One's miles may vary, of course.
  3. I think people are setting themselves up for a good deal of disappointment and no small amount of cognitive dissonance if they expect those who provide a service to also be morally virtuous. We speak of Whedon and his numerous failings, Kubrick has already been mentioned, Hitchcock probably will be, there is no small notoriety associated with the likes of David O Russel, James Cameron, David Fincher and many, many others. Disney, Apple, and most other major players in the entertainment industry are falling over themselves trying to win over China, which is the modern day Nazi Germany with their ongoing genocidal activities. More power to people if they feel a thrilling surge of righteousness at loudly declaring how appalled they are at these sordid deeds, and if they so fancy, perhaps boycotting the work of the offensive rapscallions. I too will not watch Whedon's stuff, mostly because I think his work is substandard. No way will I ever have a problem with Hitchcock or Kubrick though. They may have been terrible people. A pity, but it certainly worked out for them, though - they were amazing storytellers. I will also continue watching Disney shows. People are for the most part incredibly evil. What can ya do?
  4. I absolutely agree, wrt to personal engagement. The Americans has acclaim, but I tried watching it and personally found it boring. It's not for me. That doesn't make it a bad series. I don't feel offended that others like it, or think that it makes them dumb. On the contrary, I can appreciate that a wide audience with their own preferences have an interest in this show, and I can respect that. In terms of personal engagement, I would say the same of Riverdale. If you like it, there is nothing wrong with that. But people on this thread speak of "quality" outside of their own specific preferences, or speak of the audience itself, and it's at that point where I think it's worth using metrics outside one's bubble to substantiate a disagreeing assessment. In fact, I entered this thread with the purpose of correcting the impression that liking GoT and not liking WoT was an indication of sexist stupidity, which I took issue to since *I'm* that audience. It was needlessly insulting. I didn't expect such a correction to be so controversial. @Werthead I agree with you on The Wire. That's my favorite show of all time, and it's not even a contest.
  5. If The Plot Against America counts David Simon into conversation, I would include him. Likewise Richard Price with The Outsider. I think the genre works are the weakest of the shows they've made but the rest of their credentials are exemplary. Otherwise, I would say David Lindelof and Ronald Moore. David Benioff and Dan Weiss may enter the conversation if they pull off The Three Body Problem.
  6. I'm honestly surprised at the trend on this thread to depict GoT as some pure disaster. It went off the rails at the end - one could blame the showrunners for lacking the ability to write an ending for Martin. I personally don't think anyone would have been up to the task. Even Martin doesn't seem to be, considering the book series is moribund. Maybe someone could still have done better at the end, but almost no one could have done as well at the beginning. Further, this perplexing gaslighting that all the metrics which indicated GoT acclaim are irrelevant seems crazy to me. How can we say anything is a good series, independent of our own bubble? Breaking Bad is rated 9.5 on imdb, won several Emmys, and is often well regarded among critics. Are we saying that all of this is meaningless because it's not an inviolable system to gauge whether something is "good"? The Wire is rated nearly as high as Breaking Bad on imdb. It hasn't won Emmys, but it did receive a lot of critical acclaim during its life, judging by metacritic. Are these series no better than Riverdale, because acclaim is imperfect and therefore means nothing? Taste is subjective, of course, but it's nice to have some reference independent of one's bubble to evaluate quality. Otherwise we can make the argument that Fifty Shades of Grey is just as good a romance as Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. GoT certainly wasn't a perfect series, but the first season was about as loyal an adaptation of a book as you're likely to find, and the book was excellent. There were more changes as the story went on, but it was still faithful up to season 4. Season 1 of WoT and season 2 of The Witcher probably have changed more of the content of their respective books than season 6 of GoT. Anyway, I don't want to turn the thread into a GoT vs other fantasy shows thread, but I do feel like I've entered the Twilight Zone here. It's fine to not like GoT, but to then proceed and call The Witcher, Wheel of Time, and Shadow and Bone, which all provide the same bland, unsophisticated, internally inconsistent and plot-contrived YA storytelling as good is a very striking position.
  7. This is a book I haven't heard of. I'm personally not into romance (unless they are unique and highly dysfunctional, so it becomes less about the "love" of individuals and more about the dysfunction itself - Gone Girl and Who's Afraid of Virginia Wolf are examples of "romances" I like). But they do seem to have appeal. YA series have had some success in movies, so maybe the purportedly more faithful Percy Jackson TV show will have some success. But otherwise, the sentiment in this thread that it's difficult to predict this kind of thing is one I agree with. Before now, in terms strictly of popularity and not confining it to fantasy, there was The Walking Dead and Game of Thrones. Before that was what? ER, Sopranos, The West Wing, House, The Big Bang Theory, Friends, Seinfeld, Frazier, Cheers, MASH, and I'm sure there are other shows that I'm missing (I did a quick Google on successful shows before 2010s). It used to the case that success would more likely be found in a comedy sitcom, but I think that no longer applies. I thought the popularity of Squid Game (which I believe Netflix claims is their biggest show) came out of nowhere. It's also a challenge to even compare shows now. We rely on internal data from streaming companies rather than a single levelized quantity from Nielson.
  8. @Annara Snow Conduct yourself like an adult and I may engage with you further. I refuse to respond to someone who - and I can't believe I'm saying this - immediately throws a tantrum when someone else has the audacity to express a difference of opinion. I would absolutely love to see the Warlord trilogy brought to screen. And the Farseer series. I don't know if Cornwell's material could achieve GoT kind of broad appeal, though. I rather like the adaption of The Last Kingdom, to list a somewhat similar Cornwell adaptation, but that doesn't seem to be hugely popular. I'm curious if you have the metrics to indicate any of these shows have the same popularity as GoT? For a while, GoT was the most popular show in the world. WoT is popular for an Amazon show (for now; considering how poorly it ended, I have to wonder about its audience retention for next season), and The Witcher is one of the more popular shows on Netflix, but is it one the top shows in the world? Critically, of course, none of the shows come close to matching what GoT achieved. I have a very hard time thinking of The Witcher or WoT being nominated for a writing or directing award alongside a show like Succession, which is one of the current favorites of critics.
  9. I don't know if this was intentional, and I apologize for the presumption if I misunderstood you, but to me this seems like you are implying that UnplayableChar is an alt of mine, who you previously noted was unrelentingly negative about the show and viewed everything in the worst possible light. Let me assure you that is not the case. Also, I believe the admin and mods can see user IP addresses, so they would call someone out who was trying that. I am absolutely enjoying and agreeing with both UnplayableChar and Ran's comments, but I'm finished discussing aspects of the show itself. UnplayableChar is making very perceptive criticisms that are theirs, and I wouldn't want any suspicion that they are an alt to take away from that. If I misunderstood your post, I apologize. Please continue, UnplayableChar! I love your comments.
  10. You are allowed to find whatever you want as compelling. I noticed your confusion about why these other series were not achieving popularity, and why they are subjected to criticisms where GoT was not. I provided an explanation that your conclusion was an inaccurate representation of why someone would like GoT and not those shows, from someone who holds that stance (yours truly). I also provided a link to hundreds of concurring opinions, many of them expressing in detail their stance. You then went into a long post expressing your opinion why you personally thought GoT was not a good show or had satisfying complexity. I disagreed and noted examples of other people who happen to be very intelligent and disagree with you. (As an aside, the show also won more Emmys than any other Prime Time show, was scoring rave reviews from critics until the sixth season, and had nearly universal acclaim up to that point. It also is rated a one of the top 20 shows on imdb, even after the disastrous final season.) Now if you want to go ahead and believe that the only explanation for people liking GoT and not liking a show such as WoT is because they must be a sexist idiot...have at it. I'm merely providing an alternative explanation, take it or leave it. I suggest you not presuppose someone's gender. I'm not personally offended at being misidentified, but it's good decorum to not make that assumption. And yes, I did make that statement. It's a common sentiment. The first five seasons were excellent. After that, the show depreciated in quality, but still had entertaining high points. Anyway, to the main topic - as I said earlier, I don't think any of the shows listed will come near to GoT in popularity or acclaim. Because once again, fantasy is hard to pull off. I think it will be a Korean drama, actually. Those seem to be building in their potential.
  11. Or maybe GoT had complexity and good writing in the view others, even if you do not see it. I mean, people like Barack Obama and Elizabeth Warren (among many, many other politicians, academics, et al) were fans. Do you think they're mindless drones incapable of identifying sophisticated plotting and good storytelling? At any rate, one of my criticisms of Wheel of Time show was that it was violating the tone of the books and inadroitly trying to be too grim. It didn't work at all for that particular show. It needed to be lighter, and have the charm and humor of the books. Brandon Sanderson, among others, also made this criticism. So make of that what you will, I suppose.
  12. @Annara Snow You are certainly welcome to your opinions, but I think you are making a strawman out of those with whom you disagree. Of recent adaptations, I found Foundation and Wheel of Time to be abysmal. It's like the writers had no consideration for the source material, and just wanted to put in their own greatly inferior original material. The Witcher is much the same way, but the original material is actual merely subpar, not outright disastrous. I haven't read the source material for Shadow and Bone, but I found the show to be a deeply unimpressive, extremely generic and fairly mindless show. Not a TV show,, but I loved Dune. I thought Game of Thrones was terrific up to season 6. Even season 6-7 provided enough high points that it became a fun, mindless show. 8 was really bad though. I guess if you want to accuse me of being a self-hating woman or whatever narrative in order to justify this difference of opinion, you're welcome to it. Your comment did make me laugh because I was coincidentally reading this thread on reddit, on a subreddit dedicated to the Wheel of Time, on whether WoT or GoT was a better adaptation. Reddit thread. -- Anyway, I don't think the next Game of Thrones is going to be a fantasy. That genre is way too difficult to get right. It too often comes off as silly.
  13. I guess I'm having my fake retirement already. Wanted to drop this interview with Rafe Judkins, which I think will add a lot to future discussions. Interview here. OK, now I'm really peacing out.
  14. She literally womansplained his job to him. Anyway, I have a few final complaints I want to get out of my system before I retire from the show and the conversation regarding it. Ishamael's end game philosophy was given to the Darkfriend in episode 3. Rand's epiphany that helped him avoid the path of world destruction was given to Logain. Egwene and Nynaeve already have essentially established themselves as legends among channelers. What exactly is this show building towards? Even Dumai's Well, if the show actually does that, will come off as non-event. So a bunch of male challengers took down several thousand Aiel? Big deal. We saw five untrained women annihilate an army of 15000 Trollocs. It's one thing to see the Dragon Reborn - who should be feared among the world, with the aid of the Eye of the World - do it, but only a few episodes ago Egwene could barely channel, and Nynaeve had her channeling through emotional moments, and they demolished the forces of the Dark One. Why, the Dark One is a barely a concern, considering how little it takes to defeat him. The finely tuned rules of the One Power have been reduced to anime magic, where anyone who is in a desparate strait can deus ex machina themselves out of it. And death is hardly a threat any more because there have been so many fake outs already. It seems like this season ensured that the high points of the books series, if they choose to go there, will be reduced in their impact. But I guess that is the end for me. Good luck, everyone! I may pop back occasionally to see what's going on, but I think for the most part that's it for me.
  15. Yes, after this discussion I'm persuaded that Moiraine was merely shielded. Which of course makes Ishamael a bit of an idiot, but I guess the writers wanted Moiraine to be in the next season, wanted to provide Egwene and Nynaeve potentially with more material to demonstrate how inherently amazing they are by removing the shield, and the writers couldn't figure out how to set all this up in any kind of clever fashion, so they just allowed Ishamael to be dumb. Also, who knows if Nynaeve was dead or not. It's a bit moot. Either way, Egwene went from untrained and hardly able to channel to doing miraculous healing (either resurrection or healing someone who was burned out and on the cusp of death). I don't see how she could be drawing power from Nynaeve either, because again, at the very least Nynaeve was burned out. Or maybe the writers changed the rules there? They are so free about changing every detail, maybe burning out doesn't mean you can't channel any more?
×
×
  • Create New...