TV/Movies Megathread

[Josephus]

For All Mankind. MILD SPOILERS.

So, overall it was enjoyable and kudos for the overall premise but the writers were not that good. Too much soap opera, too little space.

One of the problems is that the first 3 seasons went in hard on societal issues but Mad Men did the same in the exact same time period as the first two seasons, with far, far, far better writing.

And season 4's rush to become The Expanse felt super unrealistic. Also the ending conveniently skipped on closing the storylines of characters who were maneuvered into a dead end by the script.

Also regarding the focus on societal issues and of course with a firm progressive stand, the writers still managed to a) make most of the story be driven by, basically, the toxic masculinity of the main character and b) still have a female character be the cause of many of the problems by her being unable to control her emotions and desires. For me this made the whole societal message forced and insincere.

Overall, 5 Soviet moon landings out of 10.

Yeah it was one of those shows that started off brightly but lost steam with each passing season. The last season was pretty bad

[Savonarola]

I've been watching "The Seventh Seal" and going through the various commentary on the Criterion Channel.  This morning I was rather alarmed to see a gaunt, pale figure dressed head to toe in a black cloak walk by my window.  Before I could go find my chess board I realized it was my neighbor who, like most Floridians, overdresses in cooler weather.

[The Brain]

I've been watching "The Seventh Seal" and going through the various commentary on the Criterion Channel.  This morning I was rather alarmed to see a gaunt, pale figure dressed head to toe in a black cloak walk by my window.  Before I could go find my chess board I realized it was my neighbor who, like most Floridians, overdresses in cooler weather.

I love that movie.

[celedhring]

I've been watching "The Seventh Seal" and going through the various commentary on the Criterion Channel.  This morning I was rather alarmed to see a gaunt, pale figure dressed head to toe in a black cloak walk by my window.  Before I could go find my chess board I realized it was my neighbor who, like most Floridians, overdresses in cooler weather.

I love that movie.

Bill & Ted Bogus Journey? As well you should.

[crazy canuck]

I have started reading the Foundation series.  After the first few chapters I was struck by how fundamentally different the Apple adaptation is.

[Josquius]

I have started reading the Foundation series.  After the first few chapters I was struck by how fundamentally different the Apple adaptation is.

I really like that old classic sci-fi where characters are just necessary objects to push along the world building and/or plot rather than fleshed out people who matter as individuals and have their own stories.

[crazy canuck]

I have started reading the Foundation series.  After the first few chapters I was struck by how fundamentally different the Apple adaptation is.

I really like that old classic sci-fi where characters are just necessary objects to push along the world building and/or plot rather than fleshed out people who matter as individuals and have their own stories.

Yeah, Gaal is, so far, the literary device through which we are introduced to the world, since all the other characters have to explain everything to him.

The political structure of the Empire is also a lot more interesting in the book.  I didn't like the explanation in the adaptation for why the Empire would collapse.  In the first 20 or so pages we get a much more satisfying explanation which still resonates decades after the book was written.

 

[grumbler]

I have started reading the Foundation series.  After the first few chapters I was struck by how fundamentally different the Apple adaptation is.

I really like that old classic sci-fi where characters are just necessary objects to push along the world building and/or plot rather than fleshed out people who matter as individuals and have their own stories.

That was true of Asimov and Heinlein (among others, mostly Campbell writers), but not so much true for Pohl Anderson, Clifford Simak and the others in the stable of The Magazine of Fantasy & Science Fiction, which aimed at a much more literary style.

The Apple adaptation of the Foundation series was much more focused on the later-written books that Asimov was trying to use to bridge the gap between the original trilogy and his robot series, so as to make a coherent "future history."  The result was a mess. 

[The Minsky Moment]

I just viewed the Apple series as its own work inspired by Foundation and using certain characters and settings. As such, I think its OK. 

[crazy canuck]

I just viewed the Apple series as its own work inspired by Foundation and using certain characters and settings. As such, I think its OK. 

Yeah, I really liked the Apple series.  And I think I'm going to like the books, perhaps even more.

[Admiral Yi]

Mystic River for the 3rd time.  Still tremendous.

[Threviel]

Spoilers ahead:

I think the Apple series fundamentally changed the story. Asimovs original was a scientist finding out how to read the future based on data and how that data should be changed to avoid a bad future. Thus by having an algorithm and introducing the foundation thousands of years of political instability could be avoided.

The Apple series makes the same premise, but the difference here is that the actions of the scientist is more or less the cause of the empire's fall. In this adaptation he has borderline magical powers to predict details centuries in advance, the location of the old battleship, the location of the mother swarm and so on. And based on those observation he more or less orchestrates the fall of the empire.

[Sheilbh]

I have started reading the Foundation series.  After the first few chapters I was struck by how fundamentally different the Apple adaptation is.

I really like that old classic sci-fi where characters are just necessary objects to push along the world building and/or plot rather than fleshed out people who matter as individuals and have their own stories.

As not much of an SF reader that sounds like the negative stereotype of the genre that always slightly puts me off, plus some experiences where it seems to be true.

[Josquius]

I have started reading the Foundation series.  After the first few chapters I was struck by how fundamentally different the Apple adaptation is.

I really like that old classic sci-fi where characters are just necessary objects to push along the world building and/or plot rather than fleshed out people who matter as individuals and have their own stories.

As not much of an SF reader that sounds like the negative stereotype of the genre that always slightly puts me off, plus some experiences where it seems to be true.

I think as I've gotten older I've matured a bit. I can today enjoy a story where 'nothing happens' but somebody's personal journey.
When I was a teen however I absolutely valued plot, worldbuilding, and, material rather than inner change, over any form of characterisation.

Spoilers ahead:

I think the Apple series fundamentally changed the story. Asimovs original was a scientist finding out how to read the future based on data and how that data should be changed to avoid a bad future. Thus by having an algorithm and introducing the foundation thousands of years of political instability could be avoided.

The Apple series makes the same premise, but the difference here is that the actions of the scientist is more or less the cause of the empire's fall. In this adaptation he has borderline magical powers to predict details centuries in advance, the location of the old battleship, the location of the mother swarm and so on. And based on those observation he more or less orchestrates the fall of the empire.

Perfectly possible he could have examined historical records to calculate the battleship's location. That has happened lots of times for ship wrecks on Earth.
The mother swarm... There too perhaps he was able to triangulate the appearance of spacer ships over time to its location from there extrapolate a location.
The only magic I'd see here is in where he got the time for this- though tracking down a shipwreck with maths does seem the sort of thing a mathematic genius might do in his free time or set his assistant as a task.
The magic is more about the vault being this weird mysterious floating multi-spacial object way above the understanding of anyone else. It strikes me as less believable a mathematical genius would be able to develop such a thing and get it built and shipped out.
I hope there's an explanation for this some day.

I find it interesting how the Foundation series at first starts fairly on track with the books, the only changes being obvious modernisations of gender flips, giving the characters substance, the absolutely genius introduction of the genetic dynasty so there could be a continuous antagonist, and so on.

With series 2 it hints that its largely following this track; are we doing Gaia now? But with the finale makes it clear it has diverged hugely.
I think it intentionally hints at this itself early in series 2 with the timeline mapping.

Also on Seldon knowing details...a curious change is him not just being recordings but continuing to be a character via AI (understandable from a TV production perspective). This also opens up possibilities for knowing details in advance- his AI seems to be actively working on stuff.

Oh. And the bodily resurrection. Now that was mad magic.,

[Tamas]

When I was a teen however I absolutely valued plot, worldbuilding, and, material rather than inner change, over any form of characterisation.

Yeah I still wish though that not every plot ever was centered around the OH SO IMPORTANT inner conflicts of a couple of key characters. I guess this is why I like history. Caesar might had been a ruthless ethnic cleanser conqueror because, IDK, his mother was too harsh with him, but I don't have to suffer through reading/watching about MOTHER MOTHER STOP IT to get to the fun bits.