|
There Bias Two posted:Every shot in this show is like a painting. The symmetry, the placement of the characters, the lighting... I don't understand how someone could watch this on 2x speed instead of taking all that in. It's part of the experience. People watching TV Badly is a noble TVIV tradition.
|
#
?
May 20, 2017 15:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 23:51 |
|
|
Rygar201 posted:People watching TV Badly is a noble TVIV tradition. Check the Better Call Saul thread for exactly this. 
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2017 16:00
|
|
|
There Bias Two posted:Every shot in this show is like a painting. The symmetry, the placement of the characters, the lighting... I don't understand how someone could watch this on 2x speed instead of taking all that in. It's part of the experience. It is delivering plot units at the inefficient ratio of 1.2 HOLKYFUCKS/act so I had to fastforward it to keep myself sustained on plot, the only reason to consume televisual entertainment product. plotty plot-plot 
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2017 16:07
|
|
|
McSpanky posted:It is delivering plot units at the inefficient ratio of 1.2 HOLKYFUCKS/act so I had to fastforward it to keep myself sustained on plot, the only reason to consume televisual entertainment product. plotty plot-plot The loving is part of the plot. The actors convey a lot of emotion with their body language that shows changes in how they are feeling toward one another. Much of the story is conveyed wordlessly, so if you start skipping scenes you miss out on details. e: oh wait you're kidding my bad
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2017 16:11
|
|
|
Do we HAVE to hear the kissing parts??
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2017 16:44
|
|
|
Die Sexmonster! posted:Do we HAVE to hear the kissing parts?? Not sure if joking, hah
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2017 16:49
|
|
|
Did anybody notice that some people wear red dresses and some people wear green dresses?
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2017 17:33
|
|
|
i find that this show is best consumed with the TV off and just my audio system going
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2017 18:57
|
|
|
Elizabeth Moss is really an exception to the rule that scientologists suck at acting imo. (I usually blame their TR0 training) She's been really good so far. Alexis Bledel was fantastic, and finally a show that could fully cash in on her very distinct eyes. She needs to get cast more. I do wish the direction/cinematography would dare to zoom out more, there's no need to play out this show in extreme closeups during dialogue.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2017 19:02
|
|
|
Stellar Curiosity posted:I do wish the direction/cinematography would dare to zoom out more, there's no need to play out this show in extreme closeups during dialogue. I'd agree with that. Still a fantastic looking show though.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2017 22:43
|
|
|
WeAreTheRomans posted:Huh. Well at the time we were watching I checked this with my partner (who is a heterosexual woman to my knowledge) and she agreed he was repulsive, but no accounting for taste I guess Yeah, people have very different tastes. I've dated literal models who said I was very attractive, and I've had gross people tell me I'm ugly. I just meant that I (as a pansexual dude) think Nick is attractive (in, like, an objective sense, since he's not my type) and I suspect he's "supposed" to scan as "dark/handsome". I'm just guessing at intent from context, obviously plenty of people will think he's ugly (plenty of people think Moss is ugly, as pointed out) but in the show's mind, I do think Nick is supposed to be attractive. Hope that makes sense.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2017 03:00
|
|
|
Yep!
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2017 03:08
|
|
|
FourLeaf posted:The flashbacks were great but the present day plot kind of went off the rails in this ep. I appreciate that they need to expand on the book to make it into a series but this latest plot development makes no sense. INH5 posted:Though the more this show emphasizes the infertility crisis aspect of the setting, the more jarring I find it that the flashbacks show a pre-Gilead world that's pretty much indistinguishable from our own apart from the hospital scenes in episode 2. It seems like a big failure of imagination to present something like this as causing no major social changes except the one specific change of inspiring a bunch of religious nutcases to overthrow the US government. pigdog posted:Actually fast-forwarding at 2X speed about half the time. The acting is good, I like Elizabeth Moss a lot, the theme of the show is fascinating, but they just. don't. have. enough. story. and therefore they pad the thing out. WeAreTheRomans posted:Huh. Well at the time we were watching I checked this with my partner (who is a heterosexual woman to my knowledge) and she agreed he was repulsive, but no accounting for taste I guess There Bias Two posted:\Every shot in this show is like a painting. The symmetry, the placement of the characters, the lighting... I don't understand how someone could watch this on 2x speed instead of taking all that in. It's part of the experience. 
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2017 03:32
|
|
|
Rygar201 posted:People watching TV Badly is a noble TVIV tradition. Seriously. What the gently caress. This show is great.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2017 04:09
|
|
|
Tiggum posted:Visuals, in general, do basically nothing for me. I'm not being facetious, but why not just read audiobooks?
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2017 04:10
|
|
|
Perhaps Nick's actor is a reasonably conventionally attractive man, but we all perceive attraction differently. I know, shocker. Also, I wonder if him being a literal tool of a fascist regime might be informing some of the 'hot or not'.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2017 04:29
|
|
|
WeAreTheRomans posted:I'm not being facetious, but why not just read audiobooks? I don't like audiobooks. I find most narrators irritating, and there's no way to skim over the boring parts as you can with a book. TV and movies are totally different because the actors add depth and detail to the characters and the visuals do contribute to the story. I don't enjoy the visuals as their own thing but I appreciate their ability to convey information. And I do like radio plays, but there's just not the quantity of them available to me that there is TV. And I want to watch the things that other people are watching so I can participate in conversation.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2017 06:13
|
|
|
That post depressed me more than this show
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2017 09:53
|
|
|
Tiggum posted:I don't like audiobooks. I find most narrators irritating, and there's no way to skim over the boring parts as you can with a book. TV and movies are totally different because the actors add depth and detail to the characters and the visuals do contribute to the story. What? Why would you skim over parts of a book? Hell, do you fast forward through songs so you can get to the hook? I'm genuinely puzzled by this. TV and movies have far less character depth than books, generally speaking.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2017 11:36
|
|
|
WeAreTheRomans posted:That post depressed me more than this show There Bias Two posted:What? Why would you skim over parts of a book? Hell, do you fast forward through songs so you can get to the hook? I'm genuinely puzzled by this. guys, please stop asperger's shaming
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2017 12:01
|
|
|
There Bias Two posted:What? Why would you skim over parts of a book?
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2017 14:16
|
|
|
WeAreTheRomans posted:That post depressed me more than this show I'm beginning to think psychopathy extends to the realm of hobbies and pastimes.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2017 14:53
|
|
|
Tiggum posted:I'm a very non-visual thinker. Descriptive bits are essentially meaningless to me so I skim over them. Out of curiosity, what do you do for a living?
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2017 15:39
|
|
|
There Bias Two posted:Out of curiosity, what do you do for a living? At the moment, nothing. I have worked in a call centre and other miscellaneous stuff in market research but mostly I've been a student living off Centrelink. Studied computer science for a while until I realised how boring it was and that I'd basically picked it because I didn't know what I wanted to do and I'd always been "good with computers". Most recently studied writing. Planning on going back to school again to become a teacher. I don't know why you ant to know any of that, but here you are.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2017 05:02
|
|
|
Tiggum posted:Visuals, in general, do basically nothing for me. Hahahaha, this forum owns.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2017 05:29
|
|
|
Tiggum posted:At the moment, nothing. I have worked in a call centre and other miscellaneous stuff in market research but mostly I've been a student living off Centrelink. Studied computer science for a while until I realised how boring it was and that I'd basically picked it because I didn't know what I wanted to do and I'd always been "good with computers". Most recently studied writing. Planning on going back to school again to become a teacher. I was just wondering what a person with your apparent lack of visual thinking would excel at. Good luck with teaching though; make sure to focus on strategies to better convey abstract ideas to students.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2017 11:11
|
|
|
There Bias Two posted:I was just wondering what a person with your apparent lack of visual thinking would excel at. Well, that could be a completely different question. Lots of people have jobs they're not good at.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2017 14:16
|
|
|
Wow, that is really loving depressing. I can't imagine going through life without being able to enjoy art.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2017 14:26
|
|
|
I don't take personal offense at someone not liking something I like or "watching TV wrong" and neither should you. Not everyone is going to like everything you like, and that's ok.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2017 18:31
|
|
|
tweet my meat posted:I don't take personal offense at someone not liking something I like or "watching TV wrong" and neither should you. Not everyone is going to like everything you like, and that's ok. I wonder how much I'd have to pay Lowtax to have he post-migration TVIV split into a "praise" subforum and a "discussion" subforum. Finally we could avoid the page long derails debating the right way to watch TV, or whether saying something critical about a show means you're an idiot. E: in fairness I'm just as guilty as getting off topic, so back to the actual discussion precision posted:The way they've changed Mrs. Waterford's backstory makes me even more suspicious she's going to end up helping June. I didn't walk away feeling like Mrs. Waterford was more likely to help June, even with the reveal of her backstory. I guess because of the way the dinner scene started? I'd be interested to hear what in particular stood out to you that felt like they'd go in that direction with the character. It would certainly be an interesting change from the book version, and I think I might like that even more, since book Nick's allegiance to Offred was more cut and dry, having Mrs. Waterford aiding her leaves that element of uncertainty in the story. whalesteak fucked around with this message at 19:18 on May 22, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 22, 2017 19:00
|
|
|
I think it's just the way Strahovski is playing her in these scenes, especially the flashbacks. She seems like someone who keeps thinking "Ah poo poo, I helped make this happen, and I may have made a terrible mistake". Since we're getting season 2 and they're not really padding the story out, giving her a redemption arc seems plausible, especially if they go beyond the events of the novel (which, let's face it, they kind of have to at this pace).
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2017 20:34
|
|
|
I don't quite get that impression in the flashbacks. I think she's portraying her as someone who fully believes in this revolution and religion but who also chafed under it. It's not quite a regret and not even a "maybe I didn't think this through". But something where she's hitting a very low glass ceiling, likely lower than she initially thought it would be. Maybe now, after it's proceeded this far and Offred is with them now, she's questioning it all. But in the beginning, she was glad it started.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2017 02:02
|
|
|
That's actually what I meant yeah, I wasn't quite clear enough with regards to my speculative time line. Also my phone tried to autocorrect speculative to "speculum".
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2017 02:09
|
|
|
There Bias Two posted:TV and movies have far less character depth than books, generally speaking. Um, what? This thread is revealing all sorts of odd opinions goons have.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2017 04:21
|
|
|
Comparing written texts to visual media is always gonna be an apples and oranges comparison, just look at how vastly different any book is from even the most faithful film or tv adaptation.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2017 04:51
|
|
|
Text can tell us about a character's depth. Film and television can show us that depth, if the actor is good at nonverbal communication (which all good actors are). It is indeed kind of ridiculous to even compare them (but NOT ridiculous because one is better than the other) It's also a common mistake to equate quantity of information vs. quality (note that in my opinion neither is necessarily good or bad). Look at the scene where Moss realizes she can manipulate Fred, in this latest episode. A book would have told us what she was thinking, and that's fine, but being able to tell by looking is more satisfying (IN MY OPINION). There is also a thing called Non-Verbal Learning Disability, which is similar to a kind of autism (BEING AUTISTIC OR HAVING AUTISTIC-LIKE SYMPTOMS IS NOT A BAD THING), and which makes it very hard for a person to pick up on any of that stuff. But just because you ("you" here means "someone") don't pick up on it doesn't mean nobody does. precision fucked around with this message at 09:05 on May 23, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 23, 2017 04:55
|
|
|
You must have autism if you do not agree with my opinions and prefer books to the clearly superior televison format. There's simply no other explanation for someone not sharing my objectively correct opinions.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2017 06:27
|
|
|
FourLeaf posted:Um, what? That's not a controversial opinion. Books let you get inside the character's head much more easily.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2017 06:59
|
|
|
Y'all need to chill the gently caress out itt and stop interpreting everything as personal attacks.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2017 07:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 23:51 |
|
|
tweet my meat posted:You must have autism if you do not agree with my opinions and prefer books to the clearly superior televison format. There's simply no other explanation for someone not sharing my objectively correct opinions. This is so strange. I thought I was implying that each form of media has pros and cons, and making a blanket statement about books being better didn't make much sense. But apparently I was the person saying one is inherently superior all along? Die Sexmonster! posted:That's not a controversial opinion. Books let you get inside the character's head much more easily. Character depth and literally reading a character's thoughts aren't the same thing. There are other ways to establish character depth, and, shockingly, some are even unique to a visual format!
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2017 07:24
|
|