| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Joel,
As a fan of the WoT books, I felt like I got a cheap version of what could have been an epic series. (Even if some of the characters and a few of the plots had to be rewritten for today's audience.)
Seldom do the people claiming to use literary and theatrical critique to objectively define the value of a project actually use those conventions to evaluate a film.
You say seldom, but that's not never.
And those things, those basic blocks of a story, like setting, character, conflict, and plot, are present across pretty much all types of stories whether in theater or film or books... and they Are used by teachers and academics and critics to try and weigh a work.
Yes, each person has a different experience, a different lens, but you can judge the critique as much as you can judge the work being critiqued. And there are rules, or at least general guidelines, for that form of judgement, too.
It often becomes some appeal to nostalgia sprinkled atop the bad faith intent to present the subjective material as objectively measured and lacking.
And this is were I feel that you are either being accidentally or purposefully antagonistic. You are suggesting that almost everybody have their rose colored glasses and will engage in 'a sustained form of deception which consists of entertaining or pretending to entertain one set of feelings while acting as if influenced by another' rather than actually just discussing a thing...
Fine. You like what you like. I like what I like. And I must be some sort of backwards fool if I think I can discuss things like what makes something entertaining, what is good and bad in something that is intended as entertainment, and maybe I can find something that makes me rethink some of the things I've disliked in the past, in much the same way I've come back to books I didn't like at one point but then gained a new appreciation for after I'd gone through different experiences.
Let’s not force this conversation to go down that road
Can a proper value judgement be established? Yes.
Can a person argue against their own interest? Yes.Do you believe those two statements? All signs point toward No.
I wasn't referring to the Star War movies, Ep 7-9 were not good. But the Star Wars TV shows have been amazing and wonderful.
Hm... I'm not as well versed as most, because I've only just finished The Mandalorian and started Visions. I'll tentatively agree with you. The Mandalorian was a lot of fun, with it's call backs to a lot of different genres and it's faithfulness to characters. I didn't feel as in some shows where a character's actions are Plot Dictates This Must Happen... it all felt reasonable and organic. I liked the old serial feel in places, and some of the references to different media. The opener of season two where they go kill a krayt dragon had me chuckling how it's a blend of old western and a side quest in the Knights of the Old Republic video game.
I think Visions is fun in a What If... sort of way, in that they obviously are drawing more inspiration from the places Lucas drew inspiration from than from Lucas' worlds themselves, and it makes for some really fun genre blends. I'm digging it so far.
Similarly all of the MCU TV shows (order of preference can vary, but all were great to me). MCU movies have been all at least good, with most excellent.
I'll have to take your word for it at the moment. I haven't seen any of the tv shows yet, though I've seen some of them amusingly mocked in Honest Trailers and Pitch Meetings.
I've liked all the MCU movies I've seen, though the only phase 4 movie I've seen is Shang Chi. He's just such a slacker. I love it... I know the side character of Awkwafina is supposed to be funny, but her bits kept taking me out of the movie rather than being the normal character for audience exposition... but all in all, it was a lot of fun.
I'm enjoying and enjoying hating on the What If's. The episode where Strange destroys a reality is aggravating because you keep thinking he should know better... but he's only human, fallible as anyone else, and that's what makes a good tragedy, that if any one block were removed that it would have happened differently... and Everything had to go Wrong for this thing to take place. I don't like it... and I like not liking it. It provokes a genuine reaction in me, and I feel that is usually the mark of a well told story...
I'm also getting chuckles out of the throw away bits more than I should, I think, like the one shot where Colson has a discussion to Not bring in the Consultant to talk to Ross...
As for Star Trek, I'm not into Discovery, since I'm super bored with prequels, but Picard was great (didn't read any old white man stuff into it, if you did, ok I guess, but think that's your take rather than the show's).
I haven't seen Discovery. I'm not shelling out for CBS, but I bought Picard as a gift for my daughter who loves Next Generation. We binged TNG not too long ago and it was so endearing how much she enjoyed it. Then we started Picard. The first episode was amazing. I thought 'This is so Cool. Where are they going to go from here?' Then he gets his crew together, and it feels like every character at least once an episode had to take a run at him for 'You quit, and so all the world's problems are your fault because you didn't stay and fix them.' sort of spiel. It just got old fast for me. He was already old when he retired, and now they kept blaming him for things he did not himself do... A lot of the other plots felt predictable in a bad way... Some stories I can see where they're going and think 'This is going to be good.' Others make me think 'They're not going there are they?... Yep. They went there. *eye roll*' And that sort of sums up why I stopped at the first season.
So yeah, I liked Data and Picard, and I felt bad that they trotted the character back out to make him the somewhat whipping boy for an addict that lost her son due to her own issues or an orphan who lacked a father figure and attached too much meaning to a stranger who was passing through or a tech that was willing to sell out her life's work on the promise of another person's belief that it was the right thing to do. The only part I really wound up enjoying was Santiago Cabrera's character and the many different artificial exaggerated versions of himself. It felt like a fun twist on dissociative identity disorder... when it's actually just different facets of his personality like everyone has. But it wasn't enough to change the overall tone to me away from the unbounded negativity. Star Trek is an oddly hopeful take on the future... and this one wasn't. It kept pushing the 'everything goes to sh!t' mindset that I feel is antithetical to pretty much everything that came before.
The DC shows on HBO max are great (DCU movies, not so much). Just some examples. I also like all of the Arrowverse shows (except Batwoman which has crashed and burned after season 1), their mileage can vary, but I've been entertained and they do a good job building plots which play out over time, even if some of the characters act stupidly (often in character if they're younger or emotionally driven, though sometimes not).
Witcher has been a blast, Wheel of Time, not as much (not a fan of the books). The Expanse and The Boys are top tier amazing fun shows.
I could go on, but think that gives a good idea.
I don't have HBO... so I can't say. I liked Arrow and Flash for a while until the drama for drama's sake got to me, and I put them down. I agree 100% on The Witcher. Cavill really lost himself in the role. He did a wonderful job. The Boys is all kinds of subversive and gory fun. I keep meaning to get into The Expanse. It's sort of a critical mass where enough people who like wildly different thing have suggested it, and I think 'It's got to be good when people who don't agree agree it's Good.'
But yeah, I think I take your meaning now. There are a dearth of options that weren't available a decade or two ago, and you can lay a lot of those options to the commercial success of titles that launched more book and comic adaptations.
So I'll step back a bit and agree that 'We're in the - age of greatly expanded geek content and it's interesting.' There's something out there for everybody. Then again, I'm a firm subscriber to the bell curve. You've got a small amount of really good stuff, a small amount of really bad stuff, and a lot of stuff that's really just in the middle... but you can enjoy it even with it's relative warts.
Which, after all my tangential ramblings, brings me back to the Lord of the Rings. Peter Jackson did a great job with the original movies. As I'm given to understand, he was hamstrung with some limitations with The Hobbit movies, like he wanted to just do two Kill Bill style and the suits wanted three even though there wasn't enough material for three... or something along those lines. I'm not entirely sure. I've just picked up some second hand stuff which I've not delved into. But he liked the thing he was making. He made faithful adaptations as well as he could. The product came first.
I'm not sure that's the case with The Rings of Power. And just to be clear, 'I Want To Be Wrong.' I hope they furnish an excellent story both faithful to the original material and expands on it in ways both casual and hardcore fans can appreciate. ... but I don't necessarily trust that hope in myself anymore because of experience.
We will see.
Teachers use critique to instruct, Critics use critique to evaluate for recommendation and academics use critique for in depth analysis and comparative study.
Would you say your comments on Flash, Arrow, Picard and the MCU in your response to Joel use literary and theatrical critique to do any of those things?
It doesn’t, nor is it using literary or theatrical critiques. Most people on Internet forums don’t actually use these methods of critique either - they just use the TERMS of critique to disguise to justify complaint.
It’s even less valid critique when it starts before the project is even released.
If people want to complain about what they don’t like, that’s great, but don’t present it as objective analysis. Call it personal complaint.
|
Witcher has been a blast, Wheel of Time, not as much (not a fan of the books). The Expanse and The Boys are top tier amazing fun shows.
Same here. I just discovered the Expanse last week, after ignoring it for years. Wow! I'm having a treat now with a seemingly unending supply of goodness! (although not really limitless supply, as somehow I'm already mid Season 3... can't stop watching it... :P)
Teachers use critique to instruct, Critics use critique to evaluate for recommendation and academics use critique for in depth analysis and comparative study.
True enough.
Would you say your comments on Flash, Arrow, Picard and the MCU in your response to Joel use literary and theatrical critique to do any of those things?
No. They are examples of my tastes and impressions up to a point. I already made a brief statement up thread about how one can separate their tastes in something from whether or not it's objectively a good piece of something, or should I say whether or not it holds up to the basics of coherent plot, characters with believable motivations, reasonable conflict, and a well built setting. Yes, and even that brief statement is insufficient for a true outline of the principles of critique, but you get my meaning. A genuine critique Is a detailed analysis of a thing. At best most casual conversations hit what might be present in the introductory outline of a critique and are not themselves critiques.
What did you want me to say? You got me. I'm responding to Joel's statement of likes with either my agreements or disagreements and my whys, but none of my responses is a critical analysis of the items in question.
It doesn’t, nor is it using literary or theatrical critiques. Most people on Internet forums don’t actually use these methods of critique either - they just use the TERMS of critique to disguise to justify complaint.
No, you're not wrong, though many times they touch on the things that make a story strong or weak, like, as I keep harping on, believable characters and coherent plot and whatnot.
I like a lot of B movies. The acting is bad (wooden or inept). The plot is bad (corny). The special effects are bad. I acknowledge that they're bad movies, but me liking them is not directly linked to their intrinsic merit or the skill with which they were constructed. I find them amusing or entertaining for various reasons. Some I like because they're so silly, like a child telling unfunny jokes because they're working out how this humor thing works, or there's an interesting core to the project though poor implemented, or maybe I'm just MST3King the entire thing in my head... There's a plethora of reasons bad things can be enjoyable despite relative performance.
If I can understand that, why can't you understand that the relative quality of something can be uncoupled from the relative enjoyment of something for various reasons.
And you point out that some of the newer incarnations of things...
. . . that plenty of actual fans have enjoyed the properties you listed and their new iterations. those properties have expanded their fan bases and made a considerable amount of money. . . .
...have made money. Is that your metric? If so, I suppose that's as reasonable way to set parameters as any other... which in turn means things like Frozen is a 'better' movie than Joker or The Twilight movies are 'better' than Forrest Gump...
People can enjoy a bad movie. A bad movie can make money. And that is not always a good thing. ... 'NEVER UNDERESTIMATE A HYPE TRAIN!'-Ryan George
It’s even less valid critique when it starts before the project is even released.
Also true enough.
If people want to complain about what they don’t like, that’s great, but don’t present it as objective analysis. Call it personal complaint.
I took your 'Let's not go down that road' as non-interest in an actual analysis. So, yes, now I'm only complaining in vague generalities.
I like a lot of B movies. The acting is bad (wooden or inept). The plot is bad (corny). The special effects are bad. I acknowledge that they're bad movies, but me liking them is not directly linked to their intrinsic merit or the skill with which they were constructed. I find them amusing or entertaining for various reasons.
As a champion of literary and theatrical critique you would of course note that an academic critique would excuse the crudity of the production as a product of its time to assess it on its own merit and not immediately define it as simply “bad.”
If I can understand that, why can't you understand that the relative quality of something can be uncoupled from the relative enjoyment of something for various reasons.
I absolutely can understand that and made no claim to the opposite, you’re inventing that argument whole cloth. The properties you have mentioned: MCU, Star Wars, Star Trek and the latest Terminator films are not objectively low quality productions so there is no need for such an uncoupling. Or as I would plainly argue: your subjective opinion of those properties is not objective fact.
And you point out that some of the newer incarnations of things have made money. Is that your metric?
It is one of the metrics I used to reinforce the other statements made to counter an argument of yours I said that
plenty of actual fans have enjoyed the properties you listed and their new iterations. those properties have expanded their fan bases and made a considerable amount of money
In response to your statement:
it's what happens when you hand stories with histories to people who aren't necessarily fans of the material to do with as they please... and what they please doesn't suit actual fans of the worlds in question... and isn't sufficiently good enough to make new fans.
I counter the “actual fans” and “new fans” before mentioning the profit margin which serves as a proof that those two groups are supporting the property financially both in box office and in the secondary market. Thus, they were obviously satisfied.
So, yes, now I'm only complaining in vague generalities
You were only complaining in vague generalities before I made my comment about not going “down that road.” You then made it a conversation about the validity of critique - but it was not one prior.
That said, I think this has diverted far enough from Rings of Power
I mean we could divert it further if we wanted to, dirtypool...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The first two episodes dropped today.
It was okay. Khazad-dum I think was the standout storyline, Owain Arthur was outstanding as Prince Durin, moving from proud dwarven bluster to a family man to a friend angry at having been left hanging for too long. Dwarves have been very undersold in any fantasy TV show or movie that uses them, even LotR to some extent (as Gimli devolved into comic relief in the movie trilogy and in the book was just kind of hanging out there), and one of the sole saving graces of the Hobbit trilogy was how it tried to give the dwarves more depth and more of a sense of civilisation (although they then got sidetracked by the romance and battle scenes and kind of forgot about the dwarves in the company in the end). This tried the same thing and was much more successful.
The Southlands I think was the weakest story of the bunch. None of the actors were very good (Arondir is the weakest link in the main cast), the plot dynamics were weak and the Arondir/Bronwyn romance didn't really gel as we are introduced it mid-flow. It would have made more sense to have had it established from the start here. The idea of having elves keeping an eye on former allies of Morgoth/Sauron is also fine, but keeping that going 1700 (or 3400, depending on how they're treating the timeline) years later with zero sign of Sauron being around feels extreme, even for the elves.
The elves were mostly okay, at least to start with. Elrond is fine, but the actor was a much better Young Ned Stark. Gil-galad was okay, probably the most Jacksonian of the elven performances, the depictions of Lindon and Ost-in-Edhil did feel inverted (Lindon should be the glittering city by the sea, Ost-in-Edhil should be smaller, although being over-engineered did feel on-point for Celebrimbor). Morfydd Clark was occasionally outstanding as Galadriel (the light Welsh accent and rolling Rs felt appropriate for the language) but hamstrung by an odd script that tried very hard to spell out her motivations but seemed to leave them confused. There's a very interesting idea here about elves' immortal memories making it difficult to move on from trauma and pain, but I feel that's probably better-handled in a grimdark fantasy series and not a Tolkien one.
Galadriel saying, "f this noise, peace out," and jumping into the ocean a thousand miles or more from land with no way of surviving was...a choice. Maybe the idea was she was being encouraged to stay by the Valar or something, so was confident something would show up to save her, but that wasn't really hinted at. I'm also not sure we needed the "jump in the ocean, find a raft, get thrown in the ocean again, return to the raft, get knocked in the ocean again, return to the raft," cycle. That was repetitive.
The Harfoots were probably the most improved idea from expectations. The actors were solid (Markella Kavenagh has some real potential, I think), everyone seemed to get the memo and they didn't go overboard on the humour, which was a concern. The whole Meteor Man idea remains dumb as hell, but they at least made the mystery vaguely interesting, and the fact everyone saw the meteor apart from Team Galadriel when they were travelling across the ocean to Aman suggests he didn't come from Valinor, which lessens the strength of the Maiar/Gandalf/Blue Wizards idea and enhances the Sauron/random bad guy one.
The timeline being messed up wasn't really an issue in these first two episodes. That will become more apparent when Galadriel reaches Numenor. I still think this is the weakest idea in the entire project and I'm pretty certain now that they're going to have Durin's Bane showing up an entire Age early (they even vaguely allude to it in the second episode). Like, I understand why that's an attractive idea, but just because having the Romans fighting Napoleon's army is a cool idea for five seconds, that's no reason to do it. Maybe having the Bane show up, the dwarves defeat it and it returns to slumbering under the mountain, but even that feels unnecessary.
So far, stronger than The Wheel of Time. I don't think it's as strong an opening as House of the Dragon but it's not as far off as I anticipated. Intrigued to see how it does, but I think it will sink or swim based on Numenor and how it handles Sauron and the cult storyline. It also has very slow and deliberate pacing, which isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it does mean by the end of these first two episodes we're a quarter of the way through the season and the full shape of the story and the stakes still feels very vague.
** spoiler omitted **
well....the Orcs had to do a lot of digging to set that up, but ...yeah
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The show definitely took an interesting turn last week. I'll stick around to see how the rest of the season plays out.
A friend of mine was upset that someone called Galadriel a Mary Sue. I told her that all of Tolkien's elves are Mary Sues.
My family is kind of enjoying it. I mean sure it's pretty damn slow and the volcano things was just kind of ...huh?
but mostly it's an ok watch during tea time.
would kind of like story with the Harfoots to move a little more though.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
More watchable than LARPing in Westeros, I mean House of the Dragon
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
I'm enjoying the show, but this last episode had a big head scratcher in it with the sword was a key to break the dams. The "divert the rivers to make the volcano erupt" was actually pretty cool, but why would they have first created an elaborate key mechanism with the dams in the first place? Just dig the tunnels and get them to the dams, and then break the dams with brute force labor just like the tunnels were dug.
I do hope they eventually use some magic to make the ash cloud of the volcano stay put for a few thousand years though. Otherwise their plan to create Mordor would be pretty short lived.
I think the original plan when the Dam and the Key were originally made would have been "Flood the Valley and drown all our enemies", which honestly was what I thought was about to happen until I saw it all going into the tunnels.
I think Father just kind of adapted it thinking "If we dig a bunch of tunnels and dump the water on the lava, BOOM!! Orc Town"
All I know is I'm going to wait until both series are finished before I try to make sense of which deserves my eyes. While I saw two episodes, I stopped because I've had other things crowding my views. IE life.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've never watched anything so bad
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've never watched anything so bad
oh I've seen plenty worse things.
Adventures of Sinbad is one of the first things to come to mind if you want to talk about bad fantasy shows, but there are tons of shows worse than this| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've sat through Battlefield Earth in theaters. Trust me, there's worse.
|
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
I've sat through Battlefield Earth in theaters. Trust me, there's worse.I read one of the Battlefield Earth books because I was on a 6 hour bus ride and I'd read everything else.
It was actually just 1 book, but 1000 pages long. I actually liked the book, but never bothered with the movie, since a) its reputation for being horrible, and b) you have a zero percent chance of doing a good job adapting a 1000 page book into a single movie.
Trust me guys, it was not an experience I'm longing to repeat. I'd much rather sit through Hellraisers III, VI, and VII.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
because I was on a 6 hour bus ride and I'd read everything else.
Like, on the planet?
I've never watched anything so badoh I've seen plenty worse things.
Adventures of Sinbad is one of the first things to come to mind if you want to talk about bad fantasy shows, but there are tons of shows worse than this
I mean if a show is bad you just stop, but in this case I continued watching cause of the source material and invested funds, expecting at least something decent, and now it hurts my soul, this sacrilege. I remembered one similar show, Shannara, but there I could stop after a few episodes of cringe.
The trouble with Shannara is it hasn't aged well. (The source material, not necessarily the show though from what I heard...not great either)
Eh... I just can't see an adaptation that works well for it, Joel. But that's me.
".But it was I, Dio....I mean Sauron"
Ok so...the series was slow, but I think the last episode was fairly good. If they do a season 2 I will probably watch it and hopefully they iron out the things that didn't work in season 1. Could have been better but I think it has potential
|
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
They’ve already greenlit the second season, but they haven’t started shooting or anything and the producers have said it will be 2 or 3 years before viewers will see it on screen
They've essentially greenlit 5 seasons based on the amount they paid for the license (and the fact that season 1 was a huge hit for Prime Video). They actually did just start production on season 2 a week or two ago, shifting their primary production to London.
|
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
I think that season 2 is about the same so far 4 episodes in as season 1 is. If you liked that season, you'll like season 2, if you didn't, then you won't. Supposedly they took the criticism that it was too slow moving to heart with season 2, but I see no evidence of that. It's just as slow moving, and the characters aren't engaging enough to make a slow moving plot interesting on it's own.
The show is just as beautiful and gorgeous as ever, the actors do a good job with cool pronunciations of proper names (I can't say how authentic they are, but they sound much cooler than most fantasy shows proper names).
Overall I enjoy the show, but I don't love it. It's better than other stuff, but far from a top show in my rotation.
As for why they keep making it, as I said 2 years back in the comment above yours, they pre-greenlit 5 seasons, since they paid such an astronomical sum for the licensing. I don't know if this show is cancellable, or if it is, it would have to do REALLY bad in terms of viewership. Essentially, as long as it pays for the cost to produce at this point, I'm guessing we're going to get 5 seasons and exactly 5 seasons, no more, no less. And with the launch of ads on Prime Video, I would guess that it will make at least incremental revenue each season, even if it's a loss after factoring in the licensing cost.
The agreement with the Tolkien family allows them to make five seasons, it doesn't mean they've pre-greenlit five seasons (they haven't, and they haven't even greenlit Season 3 yet but that is incoming) and if the viewership drops significantly, they'll take the short-term financial hit rather than carrying on making a very expensive show and taking a bigger and bigger long-term hit.
Season 2 seems to have gotten 40 million viewers for its initial episode release over the first ten days or so, which is down somewhat on Season 1 (53 million in the same time period), but still pretty healthy compared to the current streaming market. This seems to be in line or still exceeding Amazon expectations. Any further slip, or the revelation that they had a poor completion rate for Season 2, might complicate that further.
|
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Still think that the math they do on this show is completely different from any other show, since they paid the sunk cost licensing for 5 years, so as long as each season makes at least a little incremental revenue for them, they'll keep going far longer than most shows which didn't have such expensive licensing.
Could it dip below even that point and get cancelled, sure, but it would have to drop a lot lower. If this were any other show without that licensing already paid for, it would likely get cancelled now, but since it's so front loaded in the costs, it has to only do okay. It would also be a huge prestige hit for them to cancel it before 5 seasons, so they'll likely even keep it going if it makes slightly less than break even.
Was talking it over after watching episode 4 today and the consensus we came to is that there are Good Scenes in this but those scene are then tied together with the flimsiest of string.
They just don't seem to put a lot of effort in getting to each of the good scenes.
Overall it's ok but it should be better
|
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Can you say "ad blocker"?
:D
Sure, but the VAST majority of people aren't going to use them for streaming TV. Most do that on their smart TV, or set top box, not on a computer where it's a lot easier to ad block. And sooner or later that will get blocked, then ad blockers will find a way around it, then it will get blocked again, etc. So, for some small percent of people, sure, they'll ad block, but more will simply pay $3 a month for the ad free option. It's a lot easier.
|
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
Not only the costumes, but the sets, props, and majestic vistas are all great. The show is gorgeous all around. Just doesn't have enough of a good story, pacing or characters. That being said, I'm still moderately enjoying it, but it's slow, and the plot is the best part, the characters in and of themselves aren't that engaging (Tom Bombadil was fun though - I can't say how accurate he is, as I'm not a Tolkien expert, but in and of himself, he was an engaging character.)