The Expanse #4: Amazon Rising (spoilers for book only up to last episode)

[Heartofice]

9 hours ago, karaddin said:

If you think it takes magic telepathy to pay attention to what someone says over an extended period of time or recognise dog whistles and talking bullshit maybe you're not quite as good at measuring objective reality as you think.

The same sort of magic telepathy I guess that allows me to predict that you almost never engage anyone on anything they have actually said, but instead throw around accusations of racism or bigotry because that is a much easier way to shut people down? Yes I guess I have seen that pattern before. Or is it because you rarely actually say what you mean, you instead assume others behave in the same way as you?

Either way, I am giving up a valid criticism of an actress I believe to be woefully out of her depth and whose performances tend to spoil what could have been an important and mesmeric role. I could name any number of foreign female actresses who regularly give fantastic performances and who are 100 times her superior, so your argument doesn't really hold any water. 

But then would they look so good in colourful dresses, which we all know is the true measure of an actress. 

[karaddin]

33 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

The same sort of magic telepathy I guess that allows me to predict that you almost never engage anyone on anything they have actually said, but instead throw around accusations of racism or bigotry because that is a much easier way to shut people down? Yes I guess I have seen that pattern before. Or is it because you rarely actually say what you mean, you instead assume others behave in the same way as you?

Either way, I am giving up a valid criticism of an actress I believe to be woefully out of her depth and whose performances tend to spoil what could have been an important and mesmeric role. I could name any number of foreign female actresses who regularly give fantastic performances and who are 100 times her superior, so your argument doesn't really hold any water. 

But then would they look so good in colourful dresses, which we all know is the true measure of an actress. 

I've literally engaged two other posters in this thread on this topic (DaveSumm) and a separate one (Corvinus - I even conceded that he was right and I was reading too much into Alex's low profile in the trailer) at the same time as we've been having this delightful exchange, addressing what they've said with nary an implication about either of their characters. Perhaps you should lay off the magic telepathy and try actually reading the posts in the thread since you don't seem to be so good at the telepathy.

But you're right about one thing, I do sometimes point out when someone is being racist to try shut down their racism. That is a definite pattern you've managed to observe there. I guess you have a good view most of the time it happens.

Bolded - there you go! You managed to avoid a blatant dogwhistle like stating that a woman of colour can't speak English and restricted yourself to just your opinion of her performance. You're still including more than a light dose of hyperbole, but I'm hardly without sin on that front so go off I guess.

[Derfel Cadarn]

What is ‘speaking English’ anyway?

If you listen to native Glaswegians speak to one another, it’s barely recognisable as English.

The consonants often becone soft, or dropped altogether of at the end of a word. Thr vowels get mixed up, and words are made up. Example:

Whi’ ye dae’in? - What are you doing?

Gonnae no? - going to not do that?

 

[Relic]

3 hours ago, Heartofice said:

The same sort of magic telepathy I guess that allows me to predict that you almost never engage anyone on anything they have actually said, but instead throw around accusations of racism or bigotry because that is a much easier way to shut people down? Yes I guess I have seen that pattern before. Or is it because you rarely actually say what you mean, you instead assume others behave in the same way as you?

Either way, I am giving up a valid criticism of an actress I believe to be woefully out of her depth and whose performances tend to spoil what could have been an important and mesmeric role. I could name any number of foreign female actresses who regularly give fantastic performances and who are 100 times her superior, so your argument doesn't really hold any water. 

But then would they look so good in colourful dresses, which we all know is the true measure of an actress. 

Seeing as you are in the minority here, your insistence is...amusing? Mildly annoying? Unnecessary? You really can't express all the views you have expressed in here over the last however many years and NOT expect the reaction you're getting. It comes as no surprise to anyone who has had to read your posts while wading through these threads that you would find a woman of color to single out, and criticize. Own up to who you are. 

[Heartofice]

22 minutes ago, Relic said:

Seeing as you are in the minority here, your insistence is...amusing? Mildly annoying? Unnecessary? You really can't express all the views you have expressed in here over the last however many years and NOT expect the reaction you're getting. It comes as no surprise to anyone who has had to read your posts while wading through these threads that you would find a woman of color to single out, and criticize. Own up to who you are. 

Oh believe me I know exactly what to expect from this place, it is entirely predictable. It's not like I was looking for agreement, it is quite obvious who will respond a certain way, which posters will drop in to slyly insinuate something untoward, and you could probably place a bet on how many times the moronic term 'dogwhistle' will get bandied about. It's just how certain people operate and that is just the way it is. 

I singled her out mainly because I do believe that in a cast of mostly bland, tv quality actors, she stands out due to being noticeably bad. She really does seem to be reading lines for the first time in every scene, or is struggling somewhere with her words. It might well be because either she lacks talent or because she's more comfortable in her first language, it is a totally valid suggestion.

Whereas the rest of the cast it's pretty clear they are trying but are on the whole pretty limited in their range. 


 

[HexMachina]

"TV quality actor", heh

[DaveSumm]

14 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

and you could probably place a bet on how many times the moronic term 'dogwhistle' will get bandied about.

I think it’s a valid term if Trump is saying something with the specific intention of telling white supremacists that he’s on their side, but who exactly you’re supposed to be whistling to I have no idea. Are there racist lurkers here on the forum who PM you to pat you on the back?

It should be fairly straight forward: if you think HoI isn’t acting in good faith, ignore him. If he’s truly being racist (and I mean being, not ‘technically not but I think he secretly is’,) then report him for what is obviously a breach of forum rules. If there’s an argument worth engaging with, then engage with it and don’t drag in ad hominem attacks. But I guess it’s not as fun as pretending he’s a dog.

[Ran]

Drifting off topic, and folks do know (as Dave suggests) that attacking an argument because of who is making it rather than attacking the argument on its merits isn't really within the bounds of the forum's rules. If you have issues with a person, PM them about it, or put them on ignore. Easy enough.

[karaddin]

50 minutes ago, DaveSumm said:

I think it’s a valid term if Trump is saying something with the specific intention of telling white supremacists that he’s on their side, but who exactly you’re supposed to be whistling to I have no idea. Are there racist lurkers here on the forum who PM you to pat you on the back?

It should be fairly straight forward: if you think HoI isn’t acting in good faith, ignore him. If he’s truly being racist (and I mean being, not ‘technically not but I think he secretly is’,) then report him for what is obviously a breach of forum rules. If there’s an argument worth engaging with, then engage with it and don’t drag in ad hominem attacks. But I guess it’s not as fun as pretending he’s a dog.

You're right than any bad faith bullshit is not really signaling to a silent audience that might be influenced in this thread, and for that reason I should have ignored him. His act irritated me and I called it out. But in other threads and contexts it is absolutely angled to influence the "audience" of the conversation, it's not harmless like you make it out to be. If you think there aren't significant numbers of people actively trying to influence people to be more susceptible to their hateful ideology on online forums exactly like this one, leading them gently down the path to extremism and harming a whole fuck of a lot of people, then you haven't been paying attention to how the internet has been moving these last few years.

I strongly disagree with the idea that we can only engage with the surface level meaning of what someone posts, with that post existing in a vacuum from the rest of their posting history. I don't expect to be treated that way, we know and interact with many of the same posters for years and some longer than a decade. 

For the record for both you and the post that Ran has just made, HoI is perfectly free to dislike Shoreh's performance, dislike her accent, and find it hard to understand her. What I objected to was claiming that she's objectively a bad actor who can't speak English. The former is the sort of arrogant shit we all say from time to time, while the latter is absolutely the sort of thing racists have always said about people of colour/immigrants to belittle them and deny them opportunities. 

Ran - I'll drop this now, most of the post was written when yours popped up and while you may well declare that I'm wrong with respect to the rules here on my second paragraph I wanted to at least state my opinion on it.

[Werthead]

Quote

 

Well those are words you are putting into my mouth.

 

No. Those are the words you put in your own mouth.

If you didn't mean to say that, then admit you voiced the criticism incorrectly. Or if you mean it, stand by what you said. Don't try to weasel out of it after the fact and pretend that somehow absolutely everyone else misunderstood what you were saying. I know it's your MO but it's beyond tiresome at this point.

Quote

its that I suggest there are basic objective measures when it comes to acting and that I don’t think she is hitting them.

You could say that, but it would be quite strikingly ignorant to do so. She has an enormous body of work and regular employment in multiple countries across forty years as a professional actress. She has been nominated for an Oscar and won an Emmy. Saying that you don't like her acting is fine. Saying she is "objectively" a bad actress is clearly wrong. Her record and her achievements starkly contradict that.

[Heartofice]

Again those are the terms you are putting it in and I’m sure how you can see your own dishonesty, suggesting I have a problem simply because she is foreign. I don’t, i could easily replace her with any number of actresses for whom English is not their first language and I’m sure they would do a better job.

But the way she performs lines, it’s as if she is struggling with English as her first language, which is how I couched it. It really is. She drawls out everything in a strange monotone, emphasising the wrong words and unable to communicate simple emotions. 
 

And again, yeah I do think there are objective things I can judge her on. Her ability to communicate, perform lines, act with other people. She doesn’t tick those boxes in The Expanse I’m afraid.

As for the rest of her career.. I’m not sure what you are seeing when you talk about her career. There is little shame in being a middling actress with some bit parts in long running network tv shows and getting a few scenes in a couple of sci fi movies off the back of the Expance.. but that’s all there is really.

House of Sand and Fog, again, she’s barely even in it, and speaks mostly in Iranian or in purposely broken English which doesn’t help your point. I guess she got an Emmy for House of Saddam, a show I’ve literally never heard of ( despite apparently being a BBC production ) and which from the clips I’ve seen looks like trash. Anyway I’d have thought by now we’d have learnt that awards are not given out for talent.. just to read any of the Oscars threads.

But enough derailment of the thread, I’m sure this is as tiresome for everyone else as it is for me.  Enjoy Season 5 everyone, let me know how it goes and if it is hopefully a big improvement on the last season

[JGP]

I thought the last season was great, personally.

Anywho, Amazon is definitely going with the new release schedule a lot of streamers seem to be adopting, airing with three episodes then a single per week [in case anyone was wondering]

[felice]

4 hours ago, JEORDHl said:

Anywho, Amazon is definitely going with the new release schedule a lot of streamers seem to be adopting, airing with three episodes then a single per week [in case anyone was wondering]

*headdesks* Great, so bingers still have to wait for most of the show, but people watching one episode a week will be a couple of episodes behind for the whole run. Who came up with that brilliant idea?

[Jace, Extat]

12 minutes ago, felice said:

*headdesks* Great, so bingers still have to wait for most of the show, but people watching one episode a week will be a couple of episodes behind for the whole run. Who came up with that brilliant idea?

HBO

[briantw]

I honestly enjoy weekly episodes for big shows more than an all-at-once release because it allows for a lot more discussion and theorizing, which is what has made shows like Lost, Breaking Bad, and Game of Thrones into the mega-hits they are.  There's a reason why Netflix has plenty of shows people like but nothing that has really moved the needle anywhere close to the way Game of Thrones did, and it's because we don't spend a week between every episode of their biggest hits chatting online or at the water cooler about what's going to happen next.  That's how shows become a cultural phenomenon rather than forgotten about until next season like every Netflix show.  No one spends weeks talking about Stranger Things because we all watched the damn thing all at once, spent a few days talking about it, and then moved on.

[Corvinus85]

37 minutes ago, felice said:

*headdesks* Great, so bingers still have to wait for most of the show, but people watching one episode a week will be a couple of episodes behind for the whole run. Who came up with that brilliant idea?

Who are these mythical people who, when given the opportunity to watch 3 episodes in quick succession, choose to still only watch one per week? Do they also break 2-part pilots or finales in 2 episodes a week apart?

[felice]

2 hours ago, Corvinus85 said:

Who are these mythical people who, when given the opportunity to watch 3 episodes in quick succession, choose to still only watch one per week?

People who don't have all that much TV-watching time, and are already watching other things? Slotting one new show into the rotation isn't a big deal, but we don't want to watch the same thing three nights in a row, and we don't want to put everything else on hold.

[Corvinus85]

2 hours ago, felice said:

People who don't have all that much TV-watching time, and are already watching other things? Slotting one new show into the rotation isn't a big deal, but we don't want to watch the same thing three nights in a row, and we don't want to put everything else on hold.

Well if you have the time one night out of the week to watch a long movie, 3 episodes is equivalent. I would say the strength of web series over traditional TV is not in being able to binge watch, but in having access to the content at any time. Prior to DVRs that wasn't possible on TV, and even with DVRs you have limited space. So you don't necessarily have to fall behind by a week or more, maybe just a few days, as schedule permits.

Raised by Wolves had an interesting release schedule. Started with 3 episodes, then went to 2, and the finale was solo. I ended up staggering the episodes so I watched one every 3-4 days.

[Caligula_K3]

Yeah, I have no problem with the new model. People who want to binge can just wait till the whole season is out, which will take less time than in the usual one episode per week model, while those of us who want to discuss the show still have a few hours of content each week. I wonder if this will affect the way shows are made, with every three episodes split into more distinct arcs or ending on a "holy shit" moment.

[Jace, Extat]

Wow. It's like day-one dlc all over again.