What other TV shows do you watch?

[J.P.]

Twilight for boys - that's a good one.
It's hard to judge for me. It's the same problem old Holmesians have with Sherlock or old Tolkienists with LOTR and Hobbit. I cannot say I grew up with the books, they came when I was… 18? 19? and they were companions in my early 20s. They are part of my mental DNA though and it's hard to have an independent opinion, esp. on how others may receive the films. Plus: I don't know the PC games, which for many are the "canon" Witcher.

What I surely miss in the adaptation, is the tone of the novels - the kind of playfulness Sapkowski dealt with the material, his self-irony. I fear it's something that gets lost in translation already. I've read some parts, don't remember if it was German or English and they didn't have the same feel. I'm afraid you will have to see for yourself.

[Artemis]

I too have been re-watching "Sherlock" and new-watching "The Witcher".  "Twilight for boys".   

I've not read the books nor been exposed to any "Witcher" material previously, so it's brand new for me.  I'm only 2 episodes in, but so far I'm finding it melodramatic and cliche.  Geralt is the only character not annoying me, and honestly I don't know how he's not just constantly rolling his eyes at everyone else around him.

I'll keep watching it though, lol.  I'm interested enough to see more.

 

[J.P.]

On 12/29/2019 at 7:56 AM, Artemis said:

I'll keep watching it though, lol.

Did you also noticed that…
 

Spoiler

…the story of Renfri in the first episode is "the original story" of what later became Snow White in the fairytales?

 

[Artemis]

Yes I did.   

 

[J.P.]

Wow! Wonder how many ppl got it?
I'm afraid that the version robbed of one great aspect of the books - they were actually really funny, in a very witty way. I remember LOLing while reading The Last Wish.
I'm trying to be objective but it's really hard if you have them painted in my head for 30 years. Don't agree with the most of the cast, but it's more like how they act and not how they look. The main character I really like though, is Jaskier. Even if he's very differen from how I imagined him - and after seeing Ian Hallard in "The Robot of Sherwood" (Dr Who), who looked like an incarnation of the canon character.

[Carol the Dabbler]

8 hours ago, J.P. said:

I'm trying to be objective but it's really hard if you have them painted in my head for 30 years.

That's always difficult with adaptations of old favorites.  (I have the same trouble with Jackson's treatment of The Hobbit.)

[Sheerluck]

I've never read The Witcher or played the games so everything was new to me. What a mess. A typical Netflix mumblefest. You can barely understand half of what's being said an the rest was pretty bad. I gave up on the series pretty quickly. I know there are people that say if you can get to episode 4 it gets better but it's a dreadful slog and I can't manage it.

One thing that brings me straight out of these stories is every time they say F*** or shit or the like. It completely invalidates the verisimilitude for me. While I have no problem with swearing in fiction this sort of thing feels too modern and that the production is trying to wave at the audience saying 'Hey, look. We're hip and cool and oh so edgy.' Guess what, you ain't.

[J.P.]

While the writer play with anachronisms almost all the time, using a weird and humorous mix of magic and quite modern science*, it does not work in this adaptation, which is heavy, soooo serious and grumpy. Oh, and they used "okay" once - and that felt even more out of place then the occasional *beep*.

*there is a tiny little hint in the books that the whole story might take place not in the imaginary past, but in an imaginary future.

[Carol the Dabbler]

2 hours ago, J.P. said:

they used "okay" once - and that felt even more out of place then the occasional *beep*.

"OK" is a relatively modern expression for sure, dating back less than two hundred years, to around 1839.

[J.P.]

Yepp. Nobody in the Middle Earth ever said "okay".

[Artemis]

18 hours ago, Sheerluck said:

I know there are people that say if you can get to episode 4 it gets better

Hmm, I’m on episode 5 and I don’t know what those people are talking about.

18 hours ago, Sheerluck said:

One thing that brings me straight out of these stories is every time they say F*** or shit or the like. It completely invalidates the verisimilitude for me. While I have no problem with swearing in fiction this sort of thing feels too modern and that the production is trying to wave at the audience saying 'Hey, look. We're hip and cool and oh so edgy.' Guess what, you ain't.

^ Yes, this!

16 hours ago, J.P. said:

it does not work in this adaptation, which is heavy, soooo serious and grumpy.

I think that might be my main problem with it.  It’s taking itself sooo seriously, and that just makes its lameness more... lame.

 

[J.P.]

It might suffer from the underlying assumption that people watching it know what's going on anyway, so you don't have to be clear.

I never thought I would say that but: the Polish production from 2001 did some things better than this one.

PS. is there enough interest for making this into an extra-thread?

 

Moderator Comment:

As you may have noticed, I've moved this conversation here, rather than creating a new thread for it … mostly because, given all the negative comments, I have a feeling it won't be discussed much more. We can always create a new thread in the future if interest warrants, though.

Edited January 4, 2020 by Arcadia

[Artemis]

Season 1 of Moftiss' "Dracula" is up on Netflix!  I'm currently making my way through season 3 of "The Crown" (its best season yet in my opinion), but "Dracula" will be next.  (Judging from the trailers it looks pretty gross, I hope it's not unwatchable.)

 

[Carol the Dabbler]

2 hours ago, Artemis said:

Judging from the trailers it looks pretty gross....

If you mean gory, maybe just as well that we don't have Netflix. 

[J.P.]

Another one: after everybody was gushing about Fleabag I decided to have a look.

And I found it incredible dull, boring, predictable. All about who's banging whom… social situations… small talk…

It might be something for normal people, but to me it was as interesting as watching a government commission planning budget for something.

[Van Buren Supernova]

Mr. Robot. Some members mentioned it earlier, and I have just starting to get on it. Now I'm convinced why sometimes I delay getting into something, because when I get into it, I will get into it! So I crammed seven episodes only last night and I was right that it is the show I think I would like. I like the character, I like the complexity and unpredictability, although haven't reached the level of thinking that it's great, it is in good level now but there are so many more episodes that could make or break it.

I keep thinking that the main cast is perfect and having a hard time picturing someone else in that spot, but the character and the way he speaks reminds me of someone else, aha! I think British actor Iwan Rheon (Ramsay Bolton) would be very fitting as well, judging from his portrayal in Misfits.

So lack of sleep again tonight, I am strong, the only thing that can break me is temptation. Any moderate tempation. 

[Van Buren Supernova]

On 1/8/2020 at 2:20 PM, J.P. said:

....but to me it was as interesting as watching a government commission planning budget for something.

You don't think it's interesting to see how those governments come to their budget decision? I think it'd be hilarious! 

[Artemis]

I finished "Dracula" last night.  I was disappointed in the final episode.  It started out promising, with lots of potential and interesting directions it could have taken.  But then the focus shifted to what was, for me, a very dull storyline, and the ending was flimsy and anticlimactic.  Bummer.

 

[Carol the Dabbler]

25 minutes ago, Artemis said:

I was disappointed in the final episode.  It started out promising, with lots of potential and interesting directions it could have taken.  But then the focus shifted....

When you say "it started out," are you talking about that final episode or the overall series?  Just wanted to be sure, because the way you worded it, you presumably mean the episode, in which case that sounds like an awfully quick downward spiral. 

[Artemis]

2 minutes ago, Carol the Dabbler said:

When you say "it started out," are you talking about that final episode or the overall series?  Just wanted to be sure, because the way you worded it, you presumably mean the episode, in which case that sounds like an awfully quick downward spiral. 

Indeed, I meant the episode.

 

[J.P.]

I hear the voices in the wind bitching about Moffat's female characters and have to agree to an extent. But after going through the original material, some things make more sense now - and give the appearance of Mark's character a humorous touch. And, as it was with Sherlock, it's a funny game: watching where and in which disguise the original characters will pop up. Especially the 3rd ep feels a bit better to me now.

Not to mention all the Easter eggs placed by the set designers.

And to my own surprise - I liked that slightly cheesy ending. The last line really moved me, so afterwards, I felt really satisfied, like after a good meal. And I have to say, I loved the "blood is lives" approach to the topic. At least to me, it was something new and original.

BTW,  coworker of me said, the show was too scary for her. Cannot say I understand. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Carol the Dabbler]

27 minutes ago, J.P. said:

I hear the voices in the wind bitching about Moffat's female characters and have to agree to an extent.

Having read some reviews (with no intention of seeing the show), I'm of the opinion that Moftiss followed the lead of prior adaptations (rather than going back to the original), much as they did with Irene Adler.  They seem to find that sort of treatment "more interesting."  I'd presumably be disappointed too.

27 minutes ago, J.P. said:

... coworker of me said, the show was too scary for her. Cannot say I understand.

Maybe she meant "gory"?  I've heard there's a lot of blood, one reason I'm not particularly interested in seeing the show.

[J.P.]

There is a plenty of nods to the older Dracula films, but - in their own way - they worked with elements that didn't find much attention in other adaptations. The most shallow female character (being the weak point in Ep 3) can also be interpreted as quite shallow in the book.

No, she meant scary. She was scared as hell, she said, but she's a self-proclaimed movie-coward.

[Artemis]

I wasn't bothered by the treatment of the female characters in particular; but then it didn't bother me in "Sherlock" either, so maybe I'm just weird.

**Spoiler Alert for the following!**  (I'm not using a spoiler box because they've been acting funky. )  *Ed. note: I put it in a spoiler box for you, Artemis. But if that means you or anyone else has trouble reading it, let me know and I'll unspoiler it again. -- Arcadia

Spoiler

What disappointed me about episode 3 was that they dropped potentially interesting storylines in favor of a love triangle/"romance", if that's what you can call it.  I was intrigued and enjoying it very much up until Dracula escaped from his prison and started "dating" Lucy, at which point it seemed like the episode changed tunes, and I was left wondering what happened to the story they'd been setting up in the first half.  If Lucy had been a side story it might have been alright, but I didn't like it as the main focus.  I would have much preferred to see more about Dracula exploring the future, his plan for "world domination" (if that was serious, lol), or the Harker Foundation: their motivations for wanting to study Dracula, and the internal corruption that was hinted at.  Lucy was boring, and could have happened in any century.  They didn't need to bring Dracula to the future for that.

The ending, while cheesy, mostly disappointed me because I felt the explanation of his fear of the cross was anticlimactic.  I can see why they came up with it, and I'm sure for others watching the show it seemed very thoughtful.  But after all the mystery, for me it was "meh".

I was almost moved by the last line, but I couldn't quite get there because I didn't feel it was earned yet.  It started with "After all this time," but there wasn't that much time.  He knew Agatha rather briefly in 1897, and then briefly again 123 years later as Zoe/Agatha.  (Speaking of which, Zoe had no personality, and I would have preferred if they'd scrapped Zoe and just had her be Agatha from the start.)  For him, it was only a matter of months prior that he was trying to have her hanged, and he didn't seem too concerned then.  Adding to that, Dracula is extremely psychopathic, and I didn't get the impression at any point that he was capable of caring enough about someone to give up his own life.  I didn't find it realistic, either, that the alleged fear and shame that drove him to kill and hurt people horrifically for hundreds of years in order to prolong his life would suddenly dissipate enough for him to accept death in five minutes.  It just didn't make sense to me.  You don't change that quickly after living that single-mindedly for so long.  Maybe after another season or two, it would have felt more natural.  It really needed more time.

As a side note, I thought it was a little strange that Dracula had his own blood.  The "big reveal" at the end relied on it, but it seemed senseless to me.  What would Dracula need his own blood for?  I thought vampires traditionally lacked blood because they are undead, cold and lifeless, with no breath and no heartbeat.

 

[Carol the Dabbler]

*****  Spoiler  Alert  ***** 

 

I haven't attempted a spoiler box recently, but I'm in no mood to fight the software either.

 

 

So what explanation did they give for Dracula's fear of the cross?  Can't think I've ever seen any attempt to explain that -- or his aversion to garlic, for that matter.