MovieChat Forums > Geff > Replies
Geff's Replies
If you think the show is more complex than the graphic novel, then you don't truly "get" the graphic novel. The graphic novel subverts typical expectations of morality. There aren't "good guys" and "bad guys" in the graphic novel, as superhero media are wont to depict. Watchmen the show goes back to the traditional good guy/bad guy trope therefore abolishing the core message of Watchmen the graphic novel.
I have a suspicion that Jon at the Vietnamese bar was played by Damon Lindelof, creator of this show, who is also Jewish.
...episode, and serves to further reinforce what Mando sacrificed when he betrayed the guild. Mando was a high ranking highly reputable figure in the guild, he sacrificed all this for the kid. It was clear from the first episode when he delivers a bunch of bounties that he doesn't care that much about the income from bountrying, he cares more about the guild reputation. This episode shows that this high valuing of guild reputation is not unique to Mando, guild reputation is a major feature in the considerations of everyone, in this post-Empire world.
Furthermore, it is clear that the sniper/bounty target's relationship to a broader context will be revealed in future episodes. I appreciate foreshadowing and connective tissue being formed between episodes.
As some people have already mentioned, the series is highly episodic, where each episode is a different stand-alone-ish adventure with very little cohesive glue. Some people like this narrative style and some people dislike it. My personal preference doesn't necessarily matter, but I'll say it anyway, I prefer long arcs like Westworld, Game of Thrones, Altered Carbon etc.
Your definition of "filler" vs. "non-filler" seems to hinge largely on how much the episode contributes to characterization and world building. By this definition, I think your analysis is incorrect. I personally think that episode 2 was much much more "filler" than this one. While, as you say, he did discover the force power of his bounty, this made up a small part of the episode. The whole episode seemed to have a highly contrived conflict (having ship parts be stolen and going on a quest to retrieve an egg in order to reclaim ship parts). Episode 2 doesn't even build his relationship with the alien guy who helped him, that relationship was already built in the previous episode. The alien just continues to be a one dimensional helper guy who shallowly helps due to him harboring an arbitrary sense of reverence towards the Mandalorian culture.
Episode 5 is actually much more informative if you notice the information being presented. Episode 5 develops the post-Empire economy of the the world and the unique economy of the guild. Credits actually mean less in this post-Empire economy than reputation, specifically guild reputation, this expounds upon the earlier refusal by Mando to take Imperial credits from the guild. The repair shop takes Imperial credits, but it is strongly hinted that currency actually means very little in this world. Imperial currency has undergone massive inflation after the fall of the Empire. The need to purchase repair service provides good impetus for reluctant guild bountying once again.
Depicting the high value of guild reputation takes center stage in this...
I'm not sure if it's said explicitly, but it's implied.
No, you would know why he slashed his throat if you paid attention to his depressive dialogue. It was his final trick (along with the will), an act that was intended to have an impact on his family.
1. He was protecting the maid from his grandson. He already suspected that his grandson switched the bottles. He knew that the goal was to pin the death on the maid. Immediately he mentioned that switching the bottles would be a good murder attempt, the maid mentions that 5 minutes is required for full symptoms to appear and 10 minutes required for death. He experienced no symptoms in 6 minutes.
Impressive.
You misheard. She said that he will die in 10 minutes and show full symptoms in 5 minutes. To this Harlan says that they have 8 minutes left. Later (before she leaves) he says that 6 minutes has passed, no symptoms are shown at this point. Marta stupidly doesn't get what's going on eventhough Harlan basically spells everything out. Harlan immediately initially suspected murder attempt by his grandson by switching the bottles, but he waited 6 minutes to make sure.
You cannot be young again and it's a tragedy. You are going to die and the more time that passes the farther away you go from life and the closer you get to death. One can respond to this tragedy by lashing out. One can respond to this tragedy through envy towards he youth.
Nostalgia is a beautiful drug.
HBO's Dune miniseries still holds up, in my opinion, inspite of the dated effects. That counts as a TV show, doesn't it?
I'm glad that we as a society are coming together in order to celebrate ignorance. 9/11 really united people in a spectacular way. It's beautiful to watch. We are living in a utopia.
I'm skeptical of this series because I'm so passionate about the original watchmen. It asked some deep philosophical questions and displayed moral ambiguity.
Writer Alan Moore was not involved in the series. The writer/director clearly has moral biases which are apparent in the series, although there is room for subversion, time will tell.
An aspect of the series which i've grown to hate is the constant callbacks and rehashing. Rather than doing something original it keeps repeating themes from the book. This is similar to JJ Abram's (Linelof's colleague's) treatment of Star Wars. The position of privelage that JJ Abrams and Lindelof find themselves in Hollywood (being that they are Jewish men) is particularly abrasive because Lindelof couldn't have greenlit such a series if it were not for his ethnic background and connections. Contrast this with Alan Moore's background, he's a non-Jew who came from a poor working family and did terrible jobs growing up until he displayed his talent (he worked in a slaughterhouse). Point is Alan Moore had to prove himself, Lindelof and his ilk rely on nepotism.
Abar is Silk Spectre rehashed, Laurie is her father (Comedian) rehashed, Lady Trieu is Ozymandias rehashed, Looking Glass is Rorschach rehashed. The worst part is each second you have to be painfully reminded that these characters are rehashes. Each line is a blaring siren screaming: Look at me, I'm a rehash! Not only does Looking Glass have to be a conservative anti-degeneracy conspiracy theorist, like Rorschach, but he also has to eat beans like Rorschach. Come on!
I hated all of Lindelof's previous works. He is a charlatan who must stand on the shoulders of giants. Him and JJ Abrams are made from the same cloth. Their original work "Lost" was absolute garbage, they must rehash franchises from the past (Star Wars, Star Trek and now Watchmen) in order to flex their privileged Hollywood muscles.
Veidt made that creature and transported it into the middle of Manhattan, then the news was spread that it's from another dimension. It isn't, that's the hoax. The hoax was meant to cease cold world tensions as it was speculated that if people focused their anxiety on inter-dimensional space monsters they would focus less on anxiety towards eachother and this would stop the cold war.
When the monster was teleported to NY, it teleported into buildings, buildings got stuck inside its body and it immediately died. This was intended. Veidt made it so that as soon as it monster dies it immediately releases a psychic blast which kills people. As we discovered in the episode, mirrors minimize the blast's effects of the blast which is why Wade survived.
(Actually, I can't remember if Veidt made the monster or if he actually found the monster in space/another dimension. If he found it, then the hoax was that it teleported to NY randomly rather than put there by Veidt with a specific intent. He might have lied in the video about him making it.)
Angela was arrested because she withheld information about a murder by not revealing that she knew about the murderer, thereby protecting the murderer.
"‘Scuse me: is “intersubjective” the same as “objective”?"
No, a collection of agreeing subjective opinions cannot make that opinion objective. Objective is independent of subjective notions. I can't think of an example.
Ofcourse people are "projecting their own ideas of attractiveness" there is always a level of subjectveness in the pereption of aesthetics. But, there is also some intersubjective similarities in perception based on genetics. A common one cited all the time is: symmetrical faces look better than non-symmetric ones, possibly due to genes being better at producing good symmetry and healthy organs.
There is clearly some intersubjective similarities in perception otherwise we would see fat or facially scarred fashion models.
There isn't any what the kids call "chemistry" there.
Who cares about age? In film all that matters is the appearance and the appearance of age. Uma Thurman looking old is a boon from the perspective of the characterization requirements.
Her face is melting! Look at her jawls. Her body is girthy and fat.
Compare her to Uma Thurman in The House that Jack Built or Michelle Pfeiffer in Maleficient 2, there is no comparison. Uma Thurman and Michelle Pfeiffer are actually hot. They also show observable signs of aging, a required feature for this role.
While I didn't see Kim Basinger in her recent movies (Fifty Shades for instance), she looked very good in The Door in the Floor(2004) in which she played an older lover.
No, that's not it. It's an indie movie I vaguely recall it's about a woman, very puritanically dressed, who takes over as lighthouse keeper after her husband dies and there is some drama about how lighthouse keepers are always men. It might not be recent now that I think about it. Maybe from the mid/late 2000's.