Television Anyone recommend me any TV Shows?

jm99 said:
Also, Mr robot is an incredible and very underrated TV show
Click to expand...
It’s a weird one because it cleaned up the Emmys in season one, was really popular, and has always gotten amazing critic reviews, but just sorted faded into the background a bit. I don’t know why, it’s a top 20 tv show for me.
 
Wing Attack Plan R said:
@Cheimoon This article in NY Times today focuses on shows being “faithful” to the source material (https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/01/arts/television/movie-tv-book-adaptations.html) which can be applied to true stories.

In the end, adaptation isn’t a marriage. At best, it’s an open relationship. Faithfulness is a great quality in real life, but when it comes to fiction, betrayal inevitably makes a better story.
Click to expand...
Sorry, I had missed this. I don't have access to the article, but certainly for any work of fiction, I couldn't care less about faithfulness. Each narrative art form (book, movie, series, album, etc.) has its own framework (with its own set of things that work well and less well in that context) and intentions (from the writer, director, etc.), and I don't think there is any need to limit those by a need to be faithful to whatever fictional work of art provided the inspiration. I do think it's good to be honest about that, and say that e.g. a movie that strays from the 'original' book is 'inspired by' rather than 'based on', and maybe even change the title; but anyway.

I mean, I get that fans of books are disappointed when a movie/series doesn't represent their favorite bits the way they would have liked, and I feel the same way myself sometimes. And as much as that's even entirely justified, I don't think the screenwriter/director actually have an obligation to stay within those boundaries. It's their art, their decision (and their risk in commercial terms - unfortunately).

My point in the other thread was really more about art that represents actual historical events and explicitly says that it does. In that case, I think there might be more of an obligation to reliably represent key events, character traits, and that sort of thing, since e.g. movies can have a huge impact on the public consciousness, and a misrepresentation can become the public 'truth'. (As you pointed out.) I'm really not sure where that starts/ends though - I can just tell when I've watched a movie, read about the historical events afterwards, and then feel let down.
 
Last edited:
Cheimoon said:
Sorry, I had missed this. I don't have access to the article, but certainly for any work of fiction, I couldn't care less about faithfulness. Each narrative art form (book, movie, series, album, etc.) has its own framework (which it's own set of things that work well and less well in that context) and intentions (from the writer, director, etc.), and I don't think there is any need to limit those by a need to be faithful to whatever fictional work of art provided the inspiration. I do think it's good to be honest about that, and say that e.g. a movie that strays from the 'original' book is 'inspired by' rather than 'based on', and maybe even change the title; but anyway.

I mean, I get that fans of books are disappointed when a movie/series doesn't represent their favorite bits the way they would have liked, and I feel the same way myself sometimes. And as much as that's even entirely justified, I don't think the screenwriter/director actually have an obligation to stay within those boundaries. It's their art, their decision (and their risk in commercial terms - unfortunately).

My point in the other thread was really more about art that represents actual historical events and explicitly says that it does. In that case, I think there might be more of an obligation to reliably represent key events, character traits, and that sort of thing, since e.g. movies can have a huge impact on the public consciousness, and a misrepresentation can become the public 'truth'. (As you pointed out.) I'm really not sure where that starts/ends though - I can just tell when I've watched a movie, read about the historical events afterwards, and then feel let down.
Click to expand...
All true, and good points. I think shows hit the rocks when they take the source material - real life, books, pre-existing film - and change it to meet some modern agenda or sensibility. Case in point: In the first Mission: Impossible movie, they turn the entire concept of the Impossible Missions team on its head by
having the hero of the TV series secretly be a villain. It would be like if a new James Bond movie comes out and Bond has secretly been in Bloveld's pocked the whole time.
.

In general I can live without remakes, I agree that drama is better than 'just the facts, ma'am', but in terms of historical films (Spotlight, Zero Dark Thirty, In the Name of the Father, et al.) that could have a deleterious effect on viewers who will never bother finding the source material, they do need to stick to the facts. Feeling let down is only the half of it, I'm more worried when movies parrot pure propaganda (like the lies about CIA torture programs). I mean, they have to create all the dialogue in those movies, but a viewer should be able to know that the main plot points of the film line up with reality.
 
Wing Attack Plan R said:
All true, and good points. I think shows hit the rocks when they take the source material - real life, books, pre-existing film - and change it to meet some modern agenda or sensibility. Case in point: In the first Mission: Impossible movie, they turn the entire concept of the Impossible Missions team on its head by
having the hero of the TV series secretly be a villain. It would be like if a new James Bond movie comes out and Bond has secretly been in Bloveld's pocked the whole time.
.

In general I can live without remakes, I agree that drama is better than 'just the facts, ma'am', but in terms of historical films (Spotlight, Zero Dark Thirty, In the Name of the Father, et al.) that could have a deleterious effect on viewers who will never bother finding the source material, they do need to stick to the facts. Feeling let down is only the half of it, I'm more worried when movies parrot pure propaganda (like the lies about CIA torture programs). I mean, they have to create all the dialogue in those movies, but a viewer should be able to know that the main plot points of the film line up with reality.
Click to expand...
Yeah totally agree!

And that is for sharing access to that NYT article btw, it's very good!
 
calodo2003 said:
It's pretty damn solid. Half hour episodes make for easy binging. It's the product of an Aussie actor / director camed Scott Ryan, he is the lead anti-hero & gives a well done performance.
Click to expand...

Sounds like my sort of thing :)
 
calodo2003 said:
It's pretty damn solid. Half hour episodes make for easy binging. It's the product of an Aussie actor / director camed Scott Ryan, he is the lead anti-hero & gives a well done performance.
Click to expand...
Holy crap just watched the trailer. That looks great
 
njred said:
Holy crap just watched the trailer. That looks great
Click to expand...

It is very good indeed. And it builds throughout the 3 series and turns out to have far more depth than S1 suggests. And you should hate Ray but you don't. The S3 finale is seriously good TV.

A bonus for me is it is largely filmed in the Inner West of Sydney so I recognise many of the locations.
 
Last edited:
If anyone is into Vikings then Vinland Saga is great manga. Still on season 1 and loving it.
 
Bobcat said:
I enjoyed it. Its not fantastic, but i love Woddy Harrelson
Click to expand...
Yeah, it was good enough to warrant continuing, but there's just something about it that seems off. Maybe the comedic slant it adopts at times?

I might be comparing it too harshly wagsinst Gaslit which I loved.
 
Only seen the first episode of Blue Light's, and yeah I agree it's a good'en. Not exactly light viewing is it? And The Diplomat is dross.
 
Salt Bailly said:
I was surprised to discover the actor who played his brother did not have a disability himself. Phenomenal performance.
Click to expand...
In the same vein, Eddie Marsan depicting a Parkinson's struck ex-boxer was spectacular as well.

Some viewers of both shows were convinced both brothers were actually suffering from their depicted maladies. I bet that both disease charities were pleased with the respectful performances & probably received a bump in donations as well.
 
calodo2003 said:
In the same vein, Eddie Marsan depicting a Parkinson's struck ex-boxer was spectacular as well.

Some viewers of both shows were convinced both brothers were actually suffering from their depicted maladies. I bet that both disease charities were pleased with the respectful performances & probably received a bump in donations as well.
Click to expand...
Ray Donovan? Still on my list. He's always been a stellar character actor.
 
Salt Bailly said:
Ray Donovan? Still on my list. He's always been a stellar character actor.
Click to expand...
Completely forgot to reference Ray Donovan in the spoiler. You’ll immediately see the connection.

Watch all the seasons of RD, avoid the movie like the plague.
 
calodo2003 said:
Jesus, the end of season two of Mr. Inbetween really tore me up.
Click to expand...

Not at all what you imagine when you start S1.

The end of S3 is also brilliant in different ways. Not many shows that plant the landing so well.
 
Last edited:
All this Mr Inbetween talk makes me want to go watch it again.
It's so damn close to being my favorite, just sad they couldn't make more, but I completely understand why, the amount itself is also what contributes to making it so good.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.