|
esperterra posted:oh my goooooooooood 
|
#
¿
Feb 14, 2018 02:30
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 08:56 |
|
|
dead comedy forums posted:the level of bullshit semantics is reaching staggeringly high levels itt Buttressed by generous piles of unproven assumptions.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 14, 2018 03:37
|
|
|
Zaphod42 posted:Not having molecules of art doesn't mean subjective doesn't exist. I watch a movie and I feel things; the subjective exists. QED. Ahahahahahaha. Demonstrate to my subjective experience that you even have an independent subjective experience of your own*. That D at the end of QED is gonna gently caress you up every time. *Please don't.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 17, 2018 01:24
|
|
|
Neddy Seagoon posted:No it isn't, that's all the series' bullshit. Altered Carbon's conventional medical technology in the book makes Star Trek's look like field triage. In the 1800's. Cybernetics exist, but they tend to be crude and merely-functional things because biotechnology just outperforms cybernetics on almost every level due to having biology solved down a fundamental mechanical level. There is no "well now we sit and hope it works because the human body is a mysterious thing" with a treatment or surgery, medical science is solved down to the point of being merly organic maintenance. None of this is relevant to the TV show if in it's version of the world these medical advances are less developed or prohibitively expensive, or don't exist at all. I get that you're disappointed that they didn't stick more closely to the books but what is and isn't possible in the TV version should be informed by what is shown or said in its depiction of the world. In the TV version Ortega's arm is something that it isn't in the books, saying that this is simply "wrong" repeatedly by citing the books as the only acceptable source of "truth" isn't helpful. As it is there has been so much belabouring of "but in the books it says ____ therefore ____!" in this thread that I feel that I'm going to have to watch the show again just to remind myself what that version of this story actually says. The show is far from perfect but should perhaps be engaged with as it's own thing rather than a horribly flawed historical account. The books are fiction, nothing about their speculative future is inherently "correct" so any adaptation cannot be "wrong" no matter how far from the original they take the story.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 27, 2018 21:10
|
|
|
Neddy Seagoon posted:The problem is that the series's plot is directly taken from the book. It isn't a loose adaptation where elements are adapted for an original story, you can pick out exactly where and when you are in the book by the series' progression. And when it deviates from that, we're not bemoaning that it has strayed from the holy gospel, we're remarking that the changes tend to be utter crap or boring cliches in place of something that was actually interesting. It's less the plot details* and more these huge screeds about "how the tech works" based only on the books that I have a problem with. Arguing that something which has not been referenced in the show must be such and such because that is how it is in the books is not useful when discussing either. Do like that you refer to changes leading to "clichés" when these books have a fair helping of the ur-clichés of cyberpunk already in them. I'd have been very surprised if the show had managed to avoid clichés when they are part of its literary DNA. *Actually no, some of the plot details complained about too have this problem. Lizzie "not being Bancroft's type" is a good example, there was nothing I recall from the show that indicated that he had a type in the way the book does. He doesn't need to have such a specific type for the story as told in the show so bringing it up is just more "not the same therefore bad". There are also things that I'm pretty sure the show does mention which have been overlooked - like the Envoys uprising not being confined to a single planet (even if all the flashbacks are in the same piece of woodland). Though I agree that the show doesn't help itself by being muddled and unclear about far too much. I will do a rewatch at some point (and make notes if I have to) but I think you are letting the text of the book determine too much of your expectations. *Disclaimer* Read the first book back when it was new and haven't since, never read the others, so my attachment to the material is much less than yours and my expectation likewise less.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 28, 2018 01:48
|
|
|
That link doesn't say anything about a second season including a Quell/Kovacs love-in though? It does say that Kinnaman is unlikely to return and that future seasons would be in a self-contained anthology format and "not in the same place with the same people".
|
|
#
¿
Jun 15, 2018 15:16
|
|
|
So an earlier interview that may have been superseded by later decisions?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 15, 2018 17:19
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 08:56 |
|
|
Neddy Seagoon posted:The problem we have is Quell and the Young Adult Superhero Camp stuff are all the writer's own initiative, while the good parts of the show all came from the book, and anything past here is all from the writers. Coming from a perspective of having read the book and knowing what came from where in the show (along with how aspects were changed), it's very easy to recognize just how one-sided the quality is between the source material and the writer's efforts. So Poe wasn't created for the show? Wish you readers would make up your minds.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 16, 2018 16:26
|
|