The Television Thread

Discuss anything you want.
Post Reply
User avatar
boojiboyhowdy
Posts: 441
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2017 4:55 pm

Re: The Television Thread

Post by boojiboyhowdy » Fri Nov 23, 2018 5:09 am

Add Parks and Recreation to the list of Netflix recommendations.
User avatar
Thief
Posts: 1719
Joined: Sat Nov 25, 2017 10:20 pm
Location: Puerto Rico
Contact:

Re: The Television Thread

Post by Thief » Sat Nov 24, 2018 12:43 am

Torgo wrote:Mindhunter is a must if you're into David Fincher and/or gritty crime drama. The Wet Hot American Summer series are also great, but I recommend watching the movie first if you haven't yet.
As a Fincher fan, I hate to say I've waited too long to watch Mindhunter. Then again, I don't have Netflix either, so I'll have to use other means.
--- UNDER CONSTRUCTION ---
User avatar
DaMU
Posts: 582
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2017 10:19 pm

Re: The Television Thread

Post by DaMU » Sat Nov 24, 2018 1:10 am

Yeah, Season One of American Vandal was pretty goddamn amazing.
NOTE:
The above-written is wholly and solely the perspective of DaMU and should not be taken as an effort to rile, malign, or diminish you, dummo.
User avatar
Takoma1
Posts: 1945
Joined: Sat Nov 25, 2017 11:51 pm

Re: The Television Thread

Post by Takoma1 » Sun Nov 25, 2018 1:12 am

DaMU wrote:New MST3K (a childhood fave) is riffing Mac & Me (a childhood fave), and they just did a joke involving Fury Road (an adult fave), so my Thanksgiving is off to a good start.

Any absolute must-sees on the service?
"Witness me!!!"--yes, we watched about half of that episode yesterday morning.

American Vandal stays good in its second season, I'm really sad that they cancelled it.

I've heard good things about both Supergirl and Black Lightning.

If you somehow haven't seen The Good Place, jump on that stat.

I really like what I've seen of iZombie (I'm about halfway into the second season).

Big Mouth is awesome.

If you haven't seen The IT Crowd, that's one of my favorite shows. Give it an episode or two to get a feel for the vibe. My favorite episodes are season 1 episode 5 and season 2 episode 1.

I think that Crazy Ex-Girlfriend is something special.

Being Mary Jane is a pretty powerful (and often hilarious) drama series.

I would consider the miniseries Five Came Back to be essential.

I could only handle one season of it, but I really liked Happy Valley.

The parody series Documentary Now! is amazing. Their parody of Grey Gardens is one of the best I've seen.

A Young Doctor's Notebook is very unique--both quirky and heartbreaking--and John Hamm and Daniel Radcliffe make for an interesting pair.
User avatar
Jinnistan
Posts: 2505
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 5:47 pm

Re: The Television Thread

Post by Jinnistan » Sun Nov 25, 2018 8:16 am

Takoma1 wrote:The parody series Documentary Now! is amazing. Their parody of Grey Gardens is one of the best I've seen.
:up: Great show.

Also on Netflix, Wild Wild Country is essential viewing. Wormwood is an interesting mesh of doc and drama by Errol Morris. A new Orson Welles doc, They'll Love Me When I'm Dead, to accompany his "new" film Other Side of the Wind. The James Brown doc, Mr. Dynamite, is mandatory viewing. Black Mirror, in case you've been in a coma for a couple of years. And Altered Carbon is some pretty solid sci-fi-ing.
User avatar
Jinnistan
Posts: 2505
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 5:47 pm

Re: The Television Thread

Post by Jinnistan » Mon Nov 26, 2018 4:08 pm

I saw where The Chilling Adventures of Sabrina was recently sued by The Satanic Temple (which, I learn, is unrelated to LaVey's Satanic Church) for the copyright infringement of the statue of Baphomet.

Satanists tend to be shit people, I hope we can agree, but this offends me in a number of ways. Not least is the fact that their statue is, in fact, an almost exact replica of an illustration created by occult historian Eliphas Levi in the mid 1800s, if indeed it is a charge of plagiarism that we're supposed to care about. And obviously, Levi's illustration was drawn from symbolism that is hundreds of years older still. The name Baphomet dates back to the Gnostic era, the Greek word "bephe metus" ("baptism of wisdom"), and there's absolutely no corroboration outside of the hysterical accusations of the medieval Catholic Inquisitors that there's any "satanic" connection to this, at most, obscure pagan cult. So not only is an institution founded in 2012 trying to claim the copyright for medieval images (perhaps they've retained some of Disney's copyright lawyers), but doing so in such a way which not only perverts the image in question but reinforces and validates the perversion by the grossest and most abusive medieval Christian superstitions.

It's like Satan and PETA have finally decided to mate.
User avatar
Torgo
Posts: 1599
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 5:40 am
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: The Television Thread

Post by Torgo » Mon Nov 26, 2018 4:35 pm

Did anyone watch The Little Drummer Girl? I liked it, but it's a step down from AMC's previous Le Carre miniseries, The Night Manager. My main gripe is that the exposition and table setting is too convoluted. I'm not sure if it's because these scenes have a rushed feeling, are oddly edited or a combination of the two, but I wasn't 100% clear about anyone's motivations at any given time. Another episode or two would have helped flesh them out. It delivers on an abstract level - I got what the story says about the parallels of spying and acting - but since the detailed level is so flawed, my emotional involvement was much more limited than it was during The Night Manager. I have no complaints about the look and sound of the production, and the cast, especially Florence Pugh's star-making turn, is impressive. I'm a little tired of Alexander Skarsgard as yet another strong, silent type, though.

Looks like the next one will be The Spy Who Came in From the Cold. Looking forward to it.
Last Great Movie Seen
John Wick: Chapter 3 (Stahelski, 2019)
User avatar
Rumpled
Posts: 1182
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2018 10:49 am
Location: England

Re: The Television Thread

Post by Rumpled » Thu Nov 29, 2018 9:02 pm

Manifest 1/10

Started off great with the mystery of what happened to flight 828 and some supernatural silhouette presence on pics and stuff... and then went into an absolute 8 episode snoozefest of goverment experimenting on 30 of the passengers (once coming back) who apparently are homeless and nobodies and who no one will know were on the flight... despite this being a flight that was trapped in time for 5 years and the entire universe is talking about?

Oh and not one word in 9 episodes about... Gee what did happen up there?

It's Lost all over again!!! :shock: Well i'm not being roped in this time goddam it :x
User avatar
Thief
Posts: 1719
Joined: Sat Nov 25, 2017 10:20 pm
Location: Puerto Rico
Contact:

Re: The Television Thread

Post by Thief » Thu Nov 29, 2018 9:08 pm

Rumpled wrote:Manifest 1/10

Started off great with the mystery of what happened to flight 828 and some supernatural silhouette presence on pics and stuff... and then went into an absolute 8 episode snoozefest of goverment experimenting on 30 of the passengers (once coming back) who apparently are homeless and nobodies and who no one will know were on the flight... despite this being a flight that was trapped in time for 5 years and the entire universe is talking about?

Oh and not one word in 9 episodes about... Gee what did happen up there?

It's Lost all over again!!! :shock: Well i'm not being roped in this time goddam it :x
My wife is seeing it, but wasn't very enthusiastic about it. Good to see she's not alone.
--- UNDER CONSTRUCTION ---
User avatar
Thief
Posts: 1719
Joined: Sat Nov 25, 2017 10:20 pm
Location: Puerto Rico
Contact:

Re: The Television Thread

Post by Thief » Thu Nov 29, 2018 9:09 pm

I'm afraid to ask but... I still haven't jumped into The Walking Dead's new season, but I have to admit I'm curious how's it going? Better? Worse? Same?
--- UNDER CONSTRUCTION ---
User avatar
Rumpled
Posts: 1182
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2018 10:49 am
Location: England

Re: The Television Thread

Post by Rumpled » Thu Nov 29, 2018 9:48 pm

Thief wrote:
My wife is seeing it, but wasn't very enthusiastic about it. Good to see she's not alone.
Has some of the laziest writing i've ever seen, and just copies so many formula's that may have worked in the past but people want bold, new, against the grain cutting edge stuff :up:
User avatar
boojiboyhowdy
Posts: 441
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2017 4:55 pm

Re: The Television Thread

Post by boojiboyhowdy » Thu Nov 29, 2018 11:34 pm

Thief wrote:I'm afraid to ask but... I still haven't jumped into The Walking Dead's new season, but I have to admit I'm curious how's it going? Better? Worse? Same?
A little better. It's still moving slow and they introduced a new twist that was a bit of an eye roller but I guess if you follow the comics you already knew where it was going. The reveal could be seen as interesting or promising by hardcore fans of the show but by this point I think it's coming off as lather, rinse, repeat.
Different season, different bad guys. The Governor, Terminus, The Wolves, Negan. Now "The Whisperers"
User avatar
Bandy Greensacks
Posts: 11539
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2010 3:08 am

Re: The Television Thread

Post by Bandy Greensacks » Fri Nov 30, 2018 12:11 am

Thief wrote:I'm afraid to ask but... I still haven't jumped into The Walking Dead's new season, but I have to admit I'm curious how's it going? Better? Worse? Same?
It's much better written, but it's still The Walking Dead. If you enjoyed Seasons 4-6, you'll probably enjoy Season 9.
User avatar
Stu
Posts: 25157
Joined: Sat Feb 20, 2010 6:49 am

Re: The Television Thread

Post by Stu » Fri Nov 30, 2018 6:19 am

Blade Runner anime series in the works at Adult Swim from the creator of Cowboy Bebop:
In the lead-up to Blade Runner 2049, Warner Bros. released a couple of prequel shorts giving little insights into what happened in the world between the first movie and Denis Villeneuve’s sequel, with one showcasing Jared Leto’s creepy dude and another showcasing Dave Bautista’s kind-hearted replicant dude. The best one, though, was a stylish anime short from Cowboy Bebop creator Shinichiro Watanabe about the growing anti-replicant sentiments in future Los Angeles that laid the groundwork for the underground replicant society that Ryan Gosling’s character briefly meets in 2049. Evidently, the popularity of that short in particular convinced the rights holders at Alcon that a Blade Runner anime would be a good idea, so it has partnered with Adult Swim, anime streaming service Crunchyroll, and Watanabe to develop a series “inspired by Blade Runner 2049.”

According to Variety, the 13-episode series will be called Blade Runner—Black Lotus, and it will be set in 2032 (after Watanabe’s short but before the actual movie). It will also include some “established characters” from the Blade Runner universe, but that could mean all sorts of things. Harrison Ford’s Rick Deckard would already be in hiding at that point after fathering the miracle replicant baby, so it could be about him going off on some cool guy adventures, but Deckard doesn’t exactly seem like a guy who goes on cool guy adventures. Ryan Gosling’s K probably wasn’t “born” yet, since he’s a Nexus-9 replicant and those weren’t created until later in the 2030s, but we don’t know for sure. That leaves the supporting characters, like Edward James Olmos’ Gaff (he might still be an LAPD cop) or Jared Leto’s Niander Wallace (he’s definitely hanging around, being an evil rich guy).

We don’t know when Black Lotus will premiere, but Adult Swim will air English-dubbed episodes on its anime-centric Toonami block while Crucnhyroll will control worldwide streaming. Watanabe will serve as the creative producer on the series, with Ghost In The Shell veterans Shinji Aramaki and Kenji Kamiyama directing the episodes. Also, given the timing of this announcement, it seems a bit poetic to have Watanabe turning a live-action American property into a Japanese cartoon just as his most famous Japanese cartoon is being turned into a live-action American property.
Last Movie Seen:
John Wick Chapter 3: 8

Recently Reviewed
User avatar
topherH
Posts: 582
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2013 4:05 pm

Re: The Television Thread

Post by topherH » Fri Nov 30, 2018 10:12 am

Deschain13 wrote: I personally love Seinfeld and still watch the reruns.

Season 1 is not great but stick with it.
I laughed quite often during each episode. I checked ranker and will probably watch their top 50 episodes and move on as my attention span can't handle an entire series anymore. I noticed season 5-7 had a huge portion of the top ranked episodes....
State of Siege |Gavras, 1972| +
Deadpool |Miller, 2016| +
Z |Gavras, 1969| -
The Confession |Gavras, 1970| +
Missing |Gavras, 1982| +
The Revenant |Inarritu, 2015| +
The Hateful Eight |Tarantino, 2015| +

+ Recommended
User avatar
Thief
Posts: 1719
Joined: Sat Nov 25, 2017 10:20 pm
Location: Puerto Rico
Contact:

Re: The Television Thread

Post by Thief » Sat Dec 01, 2018 6:35 pm

This guy is good...

--- UNDER CONSTRUCTION ---
User avatar
boojiboyhowdy
Posts: 441
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2017 4:55 pm

Re: The Television Thread

Post by boojiboyhowdy » Sat Dec 01, 2018 8:49 pm

Bumping Mics with Jeffrey Ross and Dave Attell on Netflix.

I'll watch anything with Dave Attell in it and I like what I've seen of Jeffrey Ross on the Celebrity Roasts. This is a three episode special weighing in at under two hours so it's easy to plow through in one sitting. I guess these guys are long time friends which means they take turns eviscerating each other, doing bits, calling up fellow standups onstage (along with Ross' aunt) and pointing out an eclectic list of celebrities in attendance. If you're a fan of either of these guys (100% Dave Attell for me) then this is worth your time.
User avatar
Takoma1
Posts: 1945
Joined: Sat Nov 25, 2017 11:51 pm

Re: The Television Thread

Post by Takoma1 » Sun Dec 02, 2018 11:07 pm

I'm looking to get into a new show, specifically looking at some shows that I've had on my Netflix queue for a while now. Favorites out of the following?

Grimm
Degrassi High
Strike Back
Banshee
Justified
Veep


I watched the first 3/4 of the first season of Justified and liked it but didn't love it. I've seen the first season of Grimm in a crazy binge and liked it but just haven't gone back to it.
User avatar
Thief
Posts: 1719
Joined: Sat Nov 25, 2017 10:20 pm
Location: Puerto Rico
Contact:

Re: The Television Thread

Post by Thief » Sun Dec 02, 2018 11:12 pm

Takoma1 wrote:I'm looking to get into a new show, specifically looking at some shows that I've had on my Netflix queue for a while now. Favorites out of the following?

Grimm
Degrassi High
Strike Back
Banshee
Justified
Veep


I watched the first 3/4 of the first season of Justified and liked it but didn't love it. I've seen the first season of Grimm in a crazy binge and liked it but just haven't gone back to it.
The only one I've seen of those is Justified. You should give it some time, cause it gets better. I think I also dropped it halfway through Season 1, but then picked it up later. Like many similar shows, the first season suffers from a procedural feeling, but that's only as characters are introduced and the subplots are established.
--- UNDER CONSTRUCTION ---
User avatar
Torgo
Posts: 1599
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 5:40 am
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: The Television Thread

Post by Torgo » Sun Dec 02, 2018 11:15 pm

I recommend Justified. I also lost interest in the last part of season 1, but I stuck with it and it ended up being one of my top series of all time. Season 2 is my personal favorite.
Last Great Movie Seen
John Wick: Chapter 3 (Stahelski, 2019)
User avatar
Rumpled
Posts: 1182
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2018 10:49 am
Location: England

Re: The Television Thread

Post by Rumpled » Sun Dec 02, 2018 11:19 pm

Line of Duty Seasons 1-4 7/10


True Detective Bailed at episode 2 :down:
The Little Drummer Girl Bailed at Episode 3 :down:
User avatar
Takoma1
Posts: 1945
Joined: Sat Nov 25, 2017 11:51 pm

Re: The Television Thread

Post by Takoma1 » Sun Dec 02, 2018 11:21 pm

Part of my problem with Justified was the obvious and annoying stupidity of the affair/sexual relationship. I largely didn't buy the romantic chemistry in the first place, and everything about it as a plot point seemed like such a bad choice by all involved.
User avatar
Thief
Posts: 1719
Joined: Sat Nov 25, 2017 10:20 pm
Location: Puerto Rico
Contact:

Re: The Television Thread

Post by Thief » Sun Dec 02, 2018 11:27 pm

Recent TV shows I've seen...

Generation Kill (mini-series) :up:
Jack Ryan (saw one episode) :down:
Lethal Weapon (saw four eps, it was fun, but all the BTS drama turned me off)
Animal Kingdom :up:
The Looming Tower (mini-series) :up:
--- UNDER CONSTRUCTION ---
User avatar
Jinnistan
Posts: 2505
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 5:47 pm

Re: The Television Thread

Post by Jinnistan » Sun Dec 02, 2018 11:28 pm

Takoma1 wrote:Veep
One of the best comedies of the decade, imo. A menagerie of awful souls you love to hate barbed by highly enriched profanity. Perversely reassuring in its cynicism of incompetence.
User avatar
Thief
Posts: 1719
Joined: Sat Nov 25, 2017 10:20 pm
Location: Puerto Rico
Contact:

Re: The Television Thread

Post by Thief » Sun Dec 02, 2018 11:29 pm

Takoma1 wrote:Part of my problem with Justified was the obvious and annoying stupidity of the affair/sexual relationship. I largely didn't buy the romantic chemistry in the first place, and everything about it as a plot point seemed like such a bad choice by all involved.
I tend to agree with you. I think the show was stronger when it focused on the family dynamics of the characters and the Raylan/Boyd relationship.
--- UNDER CONSTRUCTION ---
User avatar
Deschain13
Posts: 145
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2018 10:49 pm

Re: The Television Thread

Post by Deschain13 » Sun Dec 02, 2018 11:49 pm

Jinnistan wrote: One of the best comedies of the decade, imo. A menagerie of awful souls you love to hate barbed by highly enriched profanity. Perversely reassuring in its cynicism of incompetence.
I’ll also highly recommend Veep, especially the later seasons showrun by Dave Mandel. Absolutely hilarious.
User avatar
Takoma1
Posts: 1945
Joined: Sat Nov 25, 2017 11:51 pm

Re: The Television Thread

Post by Takoma1 » Mon Dec 03, 2018 12:21 am

Rumpled wrote:The Little Drummer Girl Bailed at Episode 3 :down:
Tell me more--I'd heard/read really good things about this one.
Jinnistan wrote: One of the best comedies of the decade, imo. A menagerie of awful souls you love to hate barbed by highly enriched profanity. Perversely reassuring in its cynicism of incompetence.
Cringe-comedy and unlikable characters are very hard for me to handle--it's the kind of comedy that I can appreciate in an abstract sense but don't actually enjoy--, and that vibe is what has kept me from watching it. But I love Louise-Dreyfus. But I hate awkward silences.
User avatar
Jinnistan
Posts: 2505
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 5:47 pm

Re: The Television Thread

Post by Jinnistan » Mon Dec 03, 2018 12:35 am

Takoma1 wrote:Cringe-comedy and unlikable characters are very hard for me to handle--it's the kind of comedy that I can appreciate in an abstract sense but don't actually enjoy--, and that vibe is what has kept me from watching it. But I love Louise-Dreyfus. But I hate awkward silences.
There aren't a lot of silences in Veep, its machine-gun dialogue pace is one of its best attributes.

The "awful people" thing is relative. I could say the same thing about Seinfeld (except maybe Kramer), but the key is in balancing the audience's empathy - George Costanza is one of TV's most beloved assholes. Similarly, the ensemble in Veep are objectively awful but in that kind of adorable way that allows you to care about them without pity. The strength of the cast - Anna Chumlsky, Matt Walsh, Reid Scott, Tony Hale, Gary Cole, Kevin Dunn, Sufi Bradshaw - are just excellent enough to make you care. Even the worst character by some margin, Jonah Ryan (Timothy Simmons), manages to be an almost priceless resource for ridicule without ever wanting him to be absent for a single episode.

If you aren't hooked in the first four episodes, then I guess you know your taste better than I do, but I'd recommend the cursory dip.
User avatar
Oxnard Montalvo
Posts: 1394
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2017 4:27 am

Re: The Television Thread

Post by Oxnard Montalvo » Mon Dec 03, 2018 4:59 am

ever since 2016 happened I found myself unable to stomach Veep. I don't hold that against the show itself though as I remember it being pretty good if very acerbic.
User avatar
Rumpled
Posts: 1182
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2018 10:49 am
Location: England

Re: The Television Thread

Post by Rumpled » Mon Dec 03, 2018 11:02 am

Takoma1 wrote:
Tell me more--I'd heard/read really good things about this one.
So far it's mostly focus's on the relationship between skargard and pugh, she's like a spoilt brat and he's "the quiet yet rugged if only he'd notice me type" and it's booooooooooring :( I rejoice when theres a scene without them
User avatar
boojiboyhowdy
Posts: 441
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2017 4:55 pm

Re: The Television Thread

Post by boojiboyhowdy » Mon Dec 10, 2018 6:46 pm

The director of A Most Violent Year J.C. Chandor and starring Ben Affleck, Oscar Isaac, Charlie Hunnam, Garrett Hedlund and Pedro Pascal. And completely free (provided you have Netflix)

Triple Frontier https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fo3yRLLrXQA
User avatar
boojiboyhowdy
Posts: 441
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2017 4:55 pm

Re: The Television Thread

Post by boojiboyhowdy » Mon Dec 10, 2018 6:52 pm

"What if Superman was Michael Meyers?"

Brightburn https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g6eB0JT1DI4
User avatar
Thief
Posts: 1719
Joined: Sat Nov 25, 2017 10:20 pm
Location: Puerto Rico
Contact:

Re: The Television Thread

Post by Thief » Mon Dec 10, 2018 7:21 pm

Are any of the MCU TV shows worth watching? I'm going through the MCU films chronologically and, although I'm not overly crazy about them, they are mostly fun. I was wondering if I'm "missing" anything by not watching the shows (Agents of SHIELD, Daredevil, Luke Cage?).
--- UNDER CONSTRUCTION ---
User avatar
Deschain13
Posts: 145
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2018 10:49 pm

Re: The Television Thread

Post by Deschain13 » Mon Dec 10, 2018 9:21 pm

Thief wrote:Are any of the MCU TV shows worth watching? I'm going through the MCU films chronologically and, although I'm not overly crazy about them, they are mostly fun. I was wondering if I'm "missing" anything by not watching the shows (Agents of SHIELD, Daredevil, Luke Cage?).
Daredevil and Jessica Jones are excellent, but they don’t tie into the MCU other than small references. I don’t really like Agents of Shield. Luke Cage is spotty in quality and Iron Fist is pretty mediocre.

Edit: Forgot about the Netflix Punisher show, which is also excellent.
User avatar
Takoma1
Posts: 1945
Joined: Sat Nov 25, 2017 11:51 pm

Re: The Television Thread

Post by Takoma1 » Mon Dec 10, 2018 9:53 pm

Thief wrote:Are any of the MCU TV shows worth watching? I'm going through the MCU films chronologically and, although I'm not overly crazy about them, they are mostly fun. I was wondering if I'm "missing" anything by not watching the shows (Agents of SHIELD, Daredevil, Luke Cage?).
I quite enjoyed the first two seasons of Agents of SHIELD and the first season of Daredevil.
User avatar
Jinnistan
Posts: 2505
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 5:47 pm

Re: The Television Thread

Post by Jinnistan » Mon Dec 10, 2018 10:45 pm

I've heard good things about Marvel's Mrs. Maisel.
:shifty:
Melvin Butterworth
Posts: 629
Joined: Thu Nov 23, 2017 5:11 am

Re: The Television Thread

Post by Melvin Butterworth » Mon Dec 10, 2018 11:48 pm

Jinnistan wrote:I saw where The Chilling Adventures of Sabrina was recently sued by The Satanic Temple (which, I learn, is unrelated to LaVey's Satanic Church) for the copyright infringement of the statue of Baphomet.


Mess with the goat, you get the horns, I suppose?

People tend to giggle and high-five when Satanists stick it to Christians,



but I suppose we all get offended when it's our turn.
Jinnistan wrote:Satanists tend to be shit people, I hope we can agree,


I don't know a lot of Satanists. I can't say.
Jinnistan wrote:but this offends me in a number of ways. Not least is the fact that their statue is, in fact, an almost exact replica of an illustration created by occult historian Eliphas Levi in the mid 1800s, if indeed it is a charge of plagiarism that we're supposed to care about.


I am more offended at Disney stealing our folktales and deploying hordes lobbyists and lawyers to stretch out public domain law every time Mickey is about to be set free.
Jinnistan wrote:And obviously, Levi's illustration was drawn from symbolism that is hundreds of years older still. The name Baphomet dates back to the Gnostic era, the Greek word "bephe metus" ("baptism of wisdom"), and there's absolutely no corroboration outside of the hysterical accusations of the medieval Catholic Inquisitors that there's any "satanic" connection to this, at most, obscure pagan cult. So not only is an institution founded in 2012 trying to claim the copyright for medieval images (perhaps they've retained some of Disney's copyright lawyers), but doing so in such a way which not only perverts the image in question but reinforces and validates the perversion by the grossest and most abusive medieval Christian superstitions.

It's like Satan and PETA have finally decided to mate.
Netflix settled and I think they may have removed it via CGI.

This is interesting in that it parallels another suit over an artwork featured in a devil narrative

https://www.nytimes.com/1997/12/05/us/s ... -suit.html

It's really too bad that this film was mangled for a scruple over the use of that image. If you still have your DVD, it's a very cool effect. If you have the Blu Ray, however, it's been digitally removed and now it is just lame swirling clouds.
User avatar
Deschain13
Posts: 145
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2018 10:49 pm

Re: The Television Thread

Post by Deschain13 » Tue Dec 11, 2018 12:31 am

Jinnistan wrote:I've heard good things about Marvel's Mrs. Maisel.
:shifty:
I like it a lot. It’s funny and warm, but also big and theatrical. There’s a lot of great camera work in it and if you’re a fan of standup comedy it’s all about that. I was suprised how good it is.
User avatar
crumbsroom
Posts: 2106
Joined: Sat Nov 25, 2017 3:15 am

Re: The Television Thread

Post by crumbsroom » Tue Dec 11, 2018 12:40 am

Takoma1 wrote:I'm looking to get into a new show, specifically looking at some shows that I've had on my Netflix queue for a while now. Favorites out of the following?

Degrassi High
If only Netflix offered the pure stuff--original 80's Jr. High--then we might be talking.

The reboot was nothing more than a slightly better than average show about highschool years. Passable vanilla. Absolutely no broomheads or nerbo's to be found.
User avatar
Takoma1
Posts: 1945
Joined: Sat Nov 25, 2017 11:51 pm

Re: The Television Thread

Post by Takoma1 » Tue Dec 11, 2018 12:45 am

crumbsroom wrote:
If only Netflix offered the pure stuff--original 80's Jr. High--then we might be talking.

The reboot was nothing more than a slightly better than average show about highschool years. Passable vanilla. Absolutely no broomheads or nerbo's to be found.
The one in my queue is the 80s version.
User avatar
crumbsroom
Posts: 2106
Joined: Sat Nov 25, 2017 3:15 am

Re: The Television Thread

Post by crumbsroom » Tue Dec 11, 2018 12:57 am

Takoma1 wrote:
The one in my queue is the 80s version.
Way to go Netflix.

The high school years are definitely worthwhile, but they don't quite possess the awkward weirdo charm of Jr High. A lot of the best characters either left or had their screen time cut back. There was also a real day to day grit to those episodes that got a bit cleaned up by the time they got to highschool. For me it's the single greatest Canadian accomplishment to the arts, and probably the only show about student drama that I'd say I love even more than Freaks and Geeks. Some people would find the obvious low budget off putting, but to me it only adds to my affection of it.

So hopefully they also have the Junior High episodes there as well. Because, most importantly, in Jr. High, there was no such thing as a Claude

Image
User avatar
boojiboyhowdy
Posts: 441
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2017 4:55 pm

Re: The Television Thread

Post by boojiboyhowdy » Tue Dec 11, 2018 1:28 am

There was a time when I was hooked on 80's era DeGrassi High.
User avatar
Jinnistan
Posts: 2505
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 5:47 pm

Re: The Television Thread

Post by Jinnistan » Tue Dec 11, 2018 2:45 am

Melvin Butterworth wrote:People tend to giggle and high-five when Satanists stick it to Christians

but I suppose we all get offended when it's our turn.
A couple of things. They aren't Satanists, but atheists trolling with "Satanic" imagery, as in they have no legitimate claim to owning said imagery. They are, like PETA, litigation trolls. Trolling the use of the Ten Commandments in US courthouses is not an anti-Christian gesture, but an important point about church/state, so I don't see how this is "sticking" it to anyone except those who would prefer the state-sanctioned supremacy of Christianity. Now that's one thing. But when they also sue to strip memorial crosses off of US highways? Not even considering the various non-Christian uses of the cross symbol (it's an elementary representation of finitude=death), there's already SCOTUS precedent in Salazar v Buono, and I honestly can't see legitimate claim of harm arising from simply seeing a cross (unless you're a fucking vampire or something). So, as with all things, this isn't quite so B&W. There are valid claims of church/state separation, and there's also more militant anti-religious tendencies, and these things shouldn't be confused.

All of that aside, it is another matter entirely for the Satanic Temple (a non-Satanic organization founded in 2012) to lay a copyright claim not only on symbolism that it only facetiously claims to represent but that has also existed for hundreds of years prior to the establishment of their organization. Oh, and symbolism that, btw, isn't even Satanic in the first place, unless you happen to legitimize the very kind of religious hysteria that they're claiming to combat. They are fools, and Netflix is, apparently, quite generous with their legal fund.
Melvin Butterworth wrote:I don't know a lot of Satanists. I can't say.
I know a lot fewer since, say, high school, but I have also, on rare occasion, been given the confidence of more than one person who has claimed to me, earnestly, of being a vampire. I just tend to blame Anne Rice and Trent Reznor, bathe thoroughly, and move on with my life.

If it isn't clear by now, I am a strong proponent for vampire discrimination. I don't want them in my schools, in my neighborhood, dating my daughter or using the same bathrooms that I use. These people are crazy and deserve our constant shaming.
Melvin Butterworth wrote:I am more offended at Disney stealing our folktales and deploying hordes lobbyists and lawyers to stretch out public domain law every time Mickey is about to be set free.
This isn't a competition. I've been very consistent in denouncing the Mouse for this very reason.
Melvin Butterworth wrote:This is interesting in that it parallels another suit over an artwork featured in a devil narrative
I would think that this, and all work "donated" to public buildings, would be considered "public domain". It also reminds me of the recent case where the artist behind Chicago's Cloud Gate successfully sued the NRA for using its image in one of its propaganda videos. At the very least, it appears to be original works of art. The problem with the Baphomet statue is that it is about 95% identical to the Eliphas Levi illustration from the 1850s. Had either of these other two artworks been copied so faithfully from arcane sources, then perhaps I would agree.
Melvin Butterworth
Posts: 629
Joined: Thu Nov 23, 2017 5:11 am

Re: The Television Thread

Post by Melvin Butterworth » Tue Dec 11, 2018 3:57 am

Jinnistan wrote:A couple of things. They aren't Satanists, but atheists trolling with "Satanic" imagery, as in they have no legitimate claim to owning said imagery.
There are theistic versions too. Some seem to be in-between. Frankly, I think many of them are just confused.
Jinnistan wrote:They are, like PETA, litigation trolls. Trolling the use of the Ten Commandments in US courthouses is not an anti-Christian gesture, but an important point about church/state, so I don't see how this is "sticking" it to anyone except those who would prefer the state-sanctioned supremacy of Christianity.


Right, but to make that point, they're sticking it to the Christians whom they feel have not adequately self-reflected about it. It's meant to be provocative, but one persuaded against his will is of the same opinion still.
Jinnistan wrote:Now that's one thing. But when they also sue to strip memorial crosses off of US highways? Not even considering the various non-Christian uses of the cross symbol (it's an elementary representation of finitude=death), there's already SCOTUS precedent in Salazar v Buono, and I honestly can't see legitimate claim of harm arising from simply seeing a cross (unless you're a fucking vampire or something).
You mean those cluster-memorials for unlucky souls who wipe out on "dead man's curve"? Seeing as how those are memorials and warnings, they seem to serve a legit purpose.

I knew a person years ago who reported feeling creeped out and oppressed by seeing Church crosses along Southern highways. I don't think he was a Satanist. It never really occurred to me that one might feel that way, but if you're an outsider to a faith it must be off-putting. I would feel the same way if the "call to prayer" will blasted through my neighborhood five times a day, but then I've never thought much about church bells clanging either.
Jinnistan wrote:So, as with all things, this isn't quite so B&W. There are valid claims of church/state separation,


There are also valid claims of copyright. Also, they took issue with the show depicting Satanists as traditionally Satanic. This makes me chuckle (Get over it!), but a film that depicted Jews poisoning wells wouldn't be so cute.
Jinnistan wrote:I would think that this, and all work "donated" to public buildings, would be considered "public domain". It also reminds me of the recent case where the artist behind Chicago's Cloud Gate successfully sued the NRA for using its image in one of its propaganda videos. At the very least, it appears to be original works of art. The problem with the Baphomet statue is that it is about 95% identical to the Eliphas Levi illustration from the 1850s. Had either of these other two artworks been copied so faithfully from arcane sources, then perhaps I would agree
The older I get, the less I believe in IP. It all seems ego-driven (control, credit, self-importance--the Satayn Randian impulse to center on thyself). The older you get, the more you realize that there is nothing new under the Sun and that ideas thrive when they're allowed to roam free--but as you know, I am a bit of a heretic in this department.
User avatar
Jinnistan
Posts: 2505
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 5:47 pm

Re: The Television Thread

Post by Jinnistan » Tue Dec 11, 2018 4:44 am

Melvin Butterworth wrote:Right, but to make that point, they're sticking it to the Christians whom they feel have not adequately self-reflected about it. It's meant to be provocative, but one persuaded against his will is of the same opinion still.
I have very few qualms with provoking self-reflection in particularly self-righteous people. This reminds me of the recent story where a pastor complained about the new Muslim congresswomen, explicitly asserting the Judeo-Christian foundation of America. I don't see any alternative to vigorously challenging this worldview.
Melvin Butterworth wrote:I don't think he was a Satanist.
I doubt he would be. The vast majority of those who have taken legal action against such religious displays in public have been atheist. I may have forgot to point out that The Satanic Temple is not Satanist, but atheist.
Melvin Butterworth wrote:I would feel the same way if the "call to prayer" will blasted through my neighborhood five times a day, but then I've never thought much about church bells clanging either.
I personally would prefer to avoid a lot of direct religious interventions in my daily life, but I do have a small collection of ethnic religious music from around the world, and not an inconsiderable amount of classic black church gospel.
Melvin Butterworth wrote:There are also valid claims of copyright.
Yes, there are. My point being that this particular one by The Satanic Temple is not one of those valid claims for the reasons that I mentioned. And that's further enforced by the other point about their redefining what "traditional Satanism" looks like. They want Satanism to mean what they prefer (atheists in goth drag). Why do these people feel entitled to change the definition of a medieval term? Why should we grant their authority? And why should they be the sole profiteers off of images that they neither produced nor exhalt?

Speaking of valid claims of copyright, can you image the shitshow if the Catholics tried to claim copyright infringement over The Nun? But essentially, what's the difference?
Melvin Butterworth wrote:The older I get, the less I believe in IP. It all seems ego-driven (control, credit, self-importance--the Satayn Randian impulse to center on thyself). The older you get, the more you realize that there is nothing new under the Sun and that ideas thrive when they're allowed to roam free--but as you know, I am a bit of a heretic in this department.
Yes, I know that you believe that all creative people are blinging in their ivory towers with their cocaine and supermodels. However, the reality is that most creative people receive a very slight % of the profits from their creations. Funny how it's selfish for creative people to expect compensation for their labor. I'm not sure if I've seen many lawyers accused of being "ego-driven" for expecting payment for their services. Out of all of the vocations on the planet, the artists are the ones who should give their sweat away for free, because Gandhi, I guess?

Tell you what though. If you want to propose an allotted living wage for people to develop creative properties, then we can talk about it. Last time I checked, in America today, artists have to pay for their rent like everyone else, and people with creative gifts should have the opportunity to make a living off of their hard work.
Melvin Butterworth
Posts: 629
Joined: Thu Nov 23, 2017 5:11 am

Re: The Television Thread

Post by Melvin Butterworth » Tue Dec 11, 2018 5:55 am

Jinnistan wrote:I have very few qualms with provoking self-reflection in particularly self-righteous people.
I don't think that it does provoke self-reflection, however. I think it's cultural trolling. Trolling with a point, but trolling. Not necessarily "bad," not likely to be "effective" with the alleged target demo. Think of the 4Chan "it's OK to be white" campaign which was an obvious troll which drove cultural observers into freak-out mode, arguing that it was a call for white supremacy.
Jinnistan wrote:Yes, I know that you believe that all creative people are blinging in their ivory towers with their cocaine and supermodels.


I get to install microwave ovens. Custom kitchen deliveries. That ain't workin'! Money for nothin'.

Seriously, I think creatives get screwed over in our little capitalist goldrush to monetize EVVEEEERRYYTHING (insert Gary Oldman GIF) and will get screwed over either way. I would rather roll-back IP and benefit the largest group (the consumer) than to continue to encourage the bloat of the self-imposed middle-men who stop the circulation of culture.
Jinnistan wrote:However, the reality is that most creative people receive a very slight % of the profits from their creations.


And Bono still has a jet that cost tens of millions. The creed is greed. Other artists think they are temporarily frustrated Bonos.

I am not against all copyright protections, however, I consistently lean in the direction letting the spice flow because the artist will always be a pauper anyhow and the few princes (Bono) who benefit from the system are over-rewarded in terms of utility.
Jinnistan wrote:Funny how it's selfish for creative people to expect compensation for their labor.


The utilitarian is concerned with doing the greatest good for the greatest number. The utility of making "the author" a mini-God with absolute control over that which they basically took from other people's work (as your own analysis of the history of the iconography of Baphomet proves). We can benefit one or we can benefit the human race. Easy choice.

I care about rights, sure. That stated, your personal rights (freedom of belief) to physical things (tokens) are not of the same order as your right to non-physical things which are not truly private (types). That is, this issue doesn't really get into what I see as brightline deontological concerns. That which is inherently cultural (literature and other forms of art) is much harder to situate as genuinely belonging to anyone. I'll fight to the death for your right to keep your physical copy of Pink Floyd, but I will shrug when someone copies it or remixes it.
Jinnistan wrote: I'm not sure if I've seen many lawyers accused of being "ego-driven" for expecting payment for their services. Out of all of the vocations on the planet, the artists are the ones who should give their sweat away for free, because Gandhi, I guess?


By all means. Get paid for the performance, but stop trying bottle the tune.
Jinnistan wrote:Tell you what though. If you want to propose an allotted living wage for people to develop creative properties, then we can talk about it. Last time I checked, in America today, artists have to pay for their rent like everyone else, and people with creative gifts should have the opportunity to make a living off of their hard work.
It is hard work stealing something from somewhere else which was itself stolen and refashioning it into something that seems "new." There is undoubtedly labor there which deserves compensation. I am for limited copyrights of say ten or twenty years. Heck, I can even see government patronage for artists whose work is determined to be of substantial value. But the Disney vault has to go. Culture belongs to everyone.
User avatar
DJ Rkod
Posts: 10234
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 10:51 am

Re: The Television Thread

Post by DJ Rkod » Tue Dec 11, 2018 6:02 am

I'm an artist (musician) and for the record, fuck perpetual copyright all to hell.
we sing to ourselves in our cars, music is our sanctuary. anywhere you put it it's ours, our living voice, our living testament
User avatar
Jinnistan
Posts: 2505
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 5:47 pm

Re: The Television Thread

Post by Jinnistan » Tue Dec 11, 2018 6:10 am

DJ Rkod wrote:I'm an artist (musician) and for the record, fuck perpetual copyright all to hell.
I didn't mention perpetual copyright. I'm talking about a limited copyright which allows a creator proprietary ownership of his creation. Or, outside of Disney (the closest perpetuator or perpetual copyright currently in existence), what is now commonly accepted as standard copyright protection.
User avatar
Jinnistan
Posts: 2505
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 5:47 pm

Re: The Television Thread

Post by Jinnistan » Tue Dec 11, 2018 6:27 am

Melvin Butterworth wrote:I don't think that it does provoke self-reflection, however.
Some people (religious zealots especially) are not susceptible to reason. That sucks for them.
Melvin Butterworth wrote:Seriously, I think creatives get screwed over in our little capitalist goldrush to monetize EVVEEEERRYYTHING (insert Gary Oldman GIF) and will get screwed over either way. I would rather roll-back IP and benefit the largest group (the consumer) than to continue to encourage the bloat of the self-imposed middle-men who stop the circulation of culture.
So just getting rid of the bloated self-imposed middle man is off the table? Weird, considering how we now have the technological capabilty to deliver creative products directly to the consumer without them.
Jinnistan wrote:And Bono still has a jet that cost tens of millions. The creed is greed. Other artists think they are temporarily frustrated Bonos.
I understand that non-creative people can get very resentful over those with the gift that they cannot exercise. Maybe by stereotyping all working artists as Bono will help wipe away these tears.
Melvin Butterworth wrote:the artist will always be a pauper anyhow
Oh!
Melvin Butterworth wrote:The utilitarian is concerned with doing the greatest good for the greatest number. The utility of making "the author" a mini-God with absolute control over that which they basically took from other people's work (as your own analysis of the history of the iconography of Baphomet proves). We can benefit one or we can benefit the human race. Easy choice.
Good thing that your insights haven't been cobbled together from other people's work. Aren't you a professor or something? Seriously, what are you paid to do that's more valuable?

Anyway, I think that there's a perfectly reasonable explanation for why creative people don't tend to be utilitarians.
Melvin Butterworth wrote:I care about rights, sure. That stated, your personal rights (freedom of belief) to physical things (tokens) are not of the same order as your right to non-physical things which are not truly private (types).
I think I have a personal right to my thoughts as much as a personal right to my works, but the latter are obviously physical things. They are artifacts, in fact.
Melvin Butterworth wrote:I'll fight to the death for your right to keep your physical copy of Pink Floyd, but I will shrug when someone copies it or remixes it.
Well, I appreciate your devotion to my consumerist objects, but those things that I create are far more valuable than what I purchase. You have to create things to understand this value.
Jinnistan wrote:Get paid for the performance, but stop trying bottle the tune.
Sometimes, the tune is the performance.
Melvin Butterworth wrote:Culture belongs to everyone.
OK, comrade. Culture also needs to eat, and, again, I think it's revealing who's expected to rely on coins in hats around here.
Melvin Butterworth
Posts: 629
Joined: Thu Nov 23, 2017 5:11 am

Re: The Television Thread

Post by Melvin Butterworth » Tue Dec 11, 2018 7:16 am

Jinnistan wrote:Some people (religious zealots especially) are not susceptible to reason. That sucks for them.


LOL, doubling-down. OK.
Jinnistan wrote:So just getting rid of the bloated self-imposed middle man is off the table? Weird, considering how we now have the technological capabilty to deliver creative products directly to the consumer without them.


The internet was great while it lasted. China has already moved on to its Black Mirror "Sesame Credit" dystopia. Social Medial in the U.S. directly feeds the NSA and Axiom corporation. Have the wrong opinion and you'll get kicked off of Patreon. YouTube is a minefield of real and alleged copyright strikes. The party is over. Our parents figured out how to program the VCR. Enjoy your future of trying skim pennies out of streaming services.
Jinnistan wrote:I understand that non-creative people can get very resentful over those with the gift that they cannot exercise. Maybe by stereotyping all working artists as Bono will help wipe away these tears.


Seeing as you don't have a jet, I guess you don't have it either? Shall we mention the role that luck plays in all this?

So long as wealth inequality works out for benefit of the least advantaged members of society (e.g., the poor, the musically talentless who have to depend on Bono to write music for them), I am all for it. But when the assertion of an absolute right to property predicated on outmoded metaphysical claims of originality, genius, and creation results in the monetization of singing Happy Birthday in public for most of my life, that is not working out for the greatest good.
Jinnistan wrote:Good thing that your insights haven't been cobbled together from other people's work. Aren't you a professor or something? Seriously, what are you paid to do that's more valuable?


I am just a ball of yarn. And this isn't about me. It's not about what I am owed. It is about letting culture breathe and circulate. The muse is as promiscuous as she is fertile. And that's a good thing.
Jinnistan wrote:Anyway, I think that there's a perfectly reasonable explanation for why creative people don't tend to be utilitarians.
I am not claiming utlitarianism as the only answer here. However, it is the case the utiltiarian considerations are commonly relevant to questions of public policy. It is "a" perspective which we can and should consult about these matters. We should balance ends with means, but when I look to means I see no special right to own ideas which animate the whole human race.
Jinnistan wrote:I think I have a personal right to my thoughts as much as a personal right to my works, but the latter are obviously physical things. They are artifacts, in fact.
You don't own your thoughts. They are only yours so long as you never set them free. Once you do, they enter the great stream of consciousness and belong to it. The more you type here, the more your thought are "ours." Your physical things you can keep succesfully. The Pentatonic scale and Kino-Eye, however, belong to everyone along with archetypical tunes and stories.
Jinnistan wrote:Well, I appreciate your devotion to my consumerist objects, but those things that I create are far more valuable than what I purchase. You have to create things to understand this value.
I've "created" things. I am a published author. I have composed songs (and put them up for free download on the internet comrade!). The greatest compliment I have been paid has been to see people run with ideas. The greatest assurance I've ever had of my own ideas is to discover the greater minds who articulated those thoughts before I did.
Jinnistan wrote:Sometimes, the tune is the performance.


Only if it can't be copied.
Jinnistan wrote:OK, comrade. Culture also needs to eat, and, again, I think it's revealing who's expected to rely on coins in hats around here.
Sure, how about a 10-20 year right to monetize your relatively/contextually "original" re-arrangement of the furniture?
Post Reply