• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

What TV are you watching and how would you rate it? [Revive from FRDB]

Walking Dead season 4 & 5

Not quite done with season 5 yet... but getting there. Well... what can I say... my hat off to them for keeping me entertained this long. And as usual sci-fi and horror are always best at progressive themes. I love how Carol, the insecure beaten and abused wife from season one has risen to take the lead of the group, while the hard-as-nails leader Rick loses it, and can't really keep his shit together. It happens so gradually that it's believable. That is brilliant TV!

But what the Walking Dead does is that they suck up every zombie movie or story ever made before and incorporate it into the show. I doubt there's a single bit of the Walking Dead that's genuinely creative. It's 100% pure expropriation. I really don't mind at all. I see it as a hommage to the zombie genre in general and I love it when I can spot where they stole each thing from. I love zombie movies... and horror in general.

I did think they rushed the Terminus story. We did't get to know Terminus well enough. But that's a minor complaint.

Good stuff
 
House M.D.

Recently re-watched all 8 seasons over a couple months.

Sometimes very good, sometimes bad, and frequently just good enough.

Like all procedurals, the bulk of the episodes have a very similar and predictable flow.

Overall, a 7.5/10
 
Hannibal 5/10

I've only seen four episodes so far. Is it worth it to keep going? As far as I can tell the series is about Mads Mikkelsens face. It's an impressive face. But it's hard to carry a show with that alone. The psycho killers in it are all really dumb. Preposterous even. Mushroom-man? Come on! The police work aspect is not believable at all. Who needs DNA anyway? I'm cool with that. But they behave like it matters when it doesn't. Makes me confused. The aspie, Will Graham, basically has super-powers. There's no deduction going on. This is "the force" from Star Wars. Whenever the script authors are stuck Graham gets a vision that drags the story along. Which is fine, but they rely on this way too much. It ends up removing the fun. It's lazy writing. And Hannibal takes crazy professional risks all the fucking time. Not believable. If he really is a genius mass murderer then he should fucking behave like it. Risks should be calculated.

It shouldn't be hard to write this. The template from Silence of the Lambs is excellent. His whole thing is how he gets under the skin of Clarissa Starling to make her do things to his benefit. In the series there's none of that.

Does it get better or is this all there is? Basically Mads Mikkelsens face. It is a gorgeous face.
 
Game of Thrones. Just started on series four. Wondering if it would be worth reading the books, and wondering which books correspond to which series.
 
DBT said:
Game of Thrones. Just started on series four. Wondering if it would be worth reading the books, and wondering which books correspond to which series.
Click to expand...

For your first wonder, I think it's safe to say that if you enjoy the show, you'll enjoy the books, assuming you enjoy long, sprawling fantasy epics with thousands of characters. A Wiki of Ice and Fire is an immense help.

As for your second wonder (which books correspond to which series), it's . . . it's complicated.

How Does the Game of Thrones Series Line Up With the Books?


As you can see from the graph at the Slate article, the first season lined up with the first book perfectly, but over time the series has become more scatter-shot. The show producer's have had to make some creative decisions that vary from the books, and those decisions are causing plot vectors that can't be easily remedied. Martin obviously has a creative hand on the show's tiller, but which will come first, the end of the book series or the end of the HBO series? Speculation abounds.

Another major issue is the rapid aging of the child actors. In the books, the children Bran and Arya begin the series at ages 7 and 9, respectively, and the first five books take place within two years (assuming Earth-like 365-day years.) But the child actors who portray them are currently ages 16 and 18, and they're not getting any younger, obviously.

It's going to be interesting to see what develops.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DBT
James Brown said:
DBT said:
Game of Thrones. Just started on series four. Wondering if it would be worth reading the books, and wondering which books correspond to which series.
Click to expand...

For your first wonder, I think it's safe to say that if you enjoy the show, you'll enjoy the books, assuming you enjoy long, sprawling fantasy epics with thousands of characters. A Wiki of Ice and Fire is an immense help.

As for your second wonder (which books correspond to which series), it's . . . it's complicated.

How Does the Game of Thrones Series Line Up With the Books?


As you can see from the graph at the Slate article, the first season lined up with the first book perfectly, but over time the series has become more scatter-shot. The show producer's have had to make some creative decisions that vary from the books, and those decisions are causing plot vectors that can't be easily remedied. Martin obviously has a creative hand on the show's tiller, but which will come first, the end of the book series or the end of the HBO series? Speculation abounds.

Another major issue is the rapid aging of the child actors. In the books, the children Bran and Arya begin the series at ages 7 and 9, respectively, and the first five books take place within two years (assuming Earth-like 365-day years.) But the child actors who portray them are currently ages 16 and 18, and they're not getting any younger, obviously.

It's going to be interesting to see what develops.
Click to expand...

Given the events through which both Bran and Arya live between the start of the story, when they are protected upper-class kids living at the top of the social order in a loving family, and the 'present' (ie where the books/TV series have reached), I think that it is quite appropriate for them to have aged beyond their years.
 
bilby said:
Given the events through which both Bran and Arya live between the start of the story, when they are protected upper-class kids living at the top of the social order in a loving family, and the 'present' (ie where the books/TV series have reached), I think that it is quite appropriate for them to have aged beyond their years.
Click to expand...

Sure, both kids have been through the ringer. But a rough life doesn't induce growth spurts--just the opposite, in fact.

The actor who plays Bran is probably safe, since he spends all his screen time slumped on the floor, so that's easy to hide the notion that a nine-year-old is pushing six feet tall. The actor playing Arya looks like one of those people who appear much younger than their age.

I also don't recall anyone mentioning specific passages of time in the shows--and not very often in the books, for that matter--so that probably keeps audiences from noticing the sudden surge of secondary sex characteristics.
 
Speaking of growth spurts... what's with Sansa Stark being taller than Little Finger on the show? I know Sophie turner is 5'9" and Aiden Gillen is 5'10", but on TV, she is made to be noticeably taller (despite being, what, 16 or so?)... is that because Little Finger is meant to be a short guy, or that Sansa's character is meant to be particularly tall?
 
Jayjay said:
Speaking of growth spurts... what's with Sansa Stark being taller than Little Finger on the show? I know Sophie turner is 5'9" and Aiden Gillen is 5'10", but on TV, she is made to be noticeably taller (despite being, what, 16 or so?)... is that because Little Finger is meant to be a short guy, or that Sansa's character is meant to be particularly tall?
Click to expand...

She just has a regal bearing.

It's like how Patrick Stewart is kind of a short guy, but he always seems so much taller than everyone else around him because he has so much presence. It's different than how Tom Cruise looks tall because they have him stand on a box when in a scene with other people.
 
This is a good week.

An Honourable Woman. Only seen the first ep.but it is shaping up to be interesting.

Watching Humans on FTA and have Real Humans out of the library because I missed the first 9 eps. Interesting to note the changes to allow for cultural differences. Both are very well done.

Stories I want to tell you in Person.
 
My recent netflix binging has included mostly sci-fi shows:

The 100: it's not particularly original, but it is entertaining enough to want to see the second season when it comes to netflix.

Ascension: a short miniseries, that appears to have been ended abruptly. You have to stick with it for a couple of episodes to get to the heart of the show. I have mixed feelings about it. It was an interesting idea, but perhaps not as well executed as it could have been.

Alphas: only about four episodes in, but it looks like good characterization so far.
 
Blunt Talk (8/10)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blunt_Talk

This is a new series starring Patrick Stewart. He plays the role of an in every way decadent and despicable television news presenter. This is not intended to be realistic at all. It's almost cartoonish in how the main character is an American stereotype of a British aristocrat. It's not even a modern stereotype. It's taken from 18'th or 19'th century depictions of corrupt aristocrats. He even has a butler... lol.

Anyway...it all works. Stewart does a smashing job of portraying blunt. His news team of incompetent yes-men is fun. His greedy and short sighted boss is also a nice character. So far it's really only Blunt who has been allowed to take space. I'm hoping the other characters come alive a bit more in the future. The actor playing the butler is a bit... meh. Still all good.

Jokes are on point and not so one-linery. Which I like. Stewart has good comedic timing. He does a good pervert. It's almost like he's reprising his role in Extras. A very similar character. I'm going to keep watching. But it's very episodic. I got no impression there's going to be any build of characters.
 
Such a departure for the Shakespearean Stewart. I'm looking forward to giving this show a try.
 
currently rewatching the Sarah Connor Chronicles. I forgot how much I liked Series one. Series two, not so much though.
 
Vikings Season 1+2
Ok so I just finished going through the first two seasons of the T.V Series Vikings
And I quite like it
The action is great, the characters are interesting and the scripts are all well put together
Can't wait for Season 3
 
The Colourful Jester said:
Doctor Who - The Magician's Apprentice.
Dear lord this was good, and really nothing happened in it. Promising start to the new season. :boom:
Click to expand...

Heh.

I was just coming to post my review of this.

Terrible.

The season premiere was boring and I almost switched channels half-way through.

Why?



1) They bring back a villain thought dead - again.
2) They "kill" off the Doctor's companion - again - who we all know isn't dead.
3) They use as the main villain the infamous Daleks - again, even though they were supposedly destroyed during the 50th anniversary of the Doctor special.
4) The doctor is 'dying' - which we all know is untrue since he has a whole season ahead of him.



IOW, repetitively boring tropes, already overdone in this series. I felt absolutely no suspense for the cliffhanger ending to part 1.

They're going to have to do much better than this.
 
credoconsolans said:
The Colourful Jester said:
Doctor Who - The Magician's Apprentice.
Dear lord this was good, and really nothing happened in it. Promising start to the new season. :boom:
Click to expand...

Heh.

I was just coming to post my review of this.

Terrible.

The season premiere was boring and I almost switched channels half-way through.

Why?



1) They bring back a villain thought dead - again.
2) They "kill" off the Doctor's companion - again - who we all know isn't dead.
3) They use as the main villain the infamous Daleks - again, even though they were supposedly destroyed during the 50th anniversary of the Doctor special.
4) The doctor is 'dying' - which we all know is untrue since he has a whole season ahead of him.



IOW, repetitively boring tropes, already overdone in this series. I felt absolutely no suspense for the cliffhanger ending to part 1.

They're going to have to do much better than this.
Click to expand...
You know they won't. I'm about ten minutes into the episodes now, but I have absolutely no hope anymore of Steven Moffat being able to come up with anything original. It's all monsters with eye-themes and mysterious figures asking for the Doctor and Daleks and sexist jokes (ok, none so far in the first ten minutes, but still...).

.... and here was the first sexist joke now. Predictable.
 
I've started watching Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. So far it is enjoyable and I love the classic Joss moments.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom