Damon Lindelof's Watchmen

1) that's a p big exception there, 2) welcome to ethical behavior

not that big an exception, most people never do it

glad to see an admission that the point of ethical consumption is purely ego stroking and not actually changing anything

not that big an exception, most people never do it

this is totally untrue

we create change instead by arguing on the internet

as far as "purely ego stroking and not actually changing anything" idk what to tell you dude. Read Kant?

we create change instead by arguing on the internet

probably more effective than not buying an HBO subscription tbh

unless of course you give the money you saved to some socialists or something

SO ANYWAY

https://io9.gizmodo.com/the-cast-of-hbos-watchmen-has-been-revealed-and-the-fan-1826269382

Variety reports Regina King will play the lead character in the series, and she’ll be joined by Don Johnson, Tim Blake Nelson, Louis Gossett Jr., Adelaide Clemens, and Andrew Howard. Deadline adds that “King is believed to be playing Angela Abraham, while Gossett Jr. likely is Old Man. Howard is said to be playing Red Scare, Clemens could be Pirate Jenny,” but none of that is confirmed.

Don Johnson IS...Miami Rorschach

Maybe it's a bunch of superheroes playing the Watchmen for a costume party.

HELL YES to Regina King.

FTR, I don't deny that I give Marvel/Disney hella $$$ (and, while recognizing at least some of the ethical dilemmas of doing so, opt to draw my ideological red lines elsewhere) but then also I don't champion the downfall of capitalism.

"no ethical consumption under capitalism" is loony left speak for "i like to eat at mcdonalds"

hey at least he's not stroking his ego while not actually changing anything

"no ethical consumption under capitalism" is loony left speak for "i like to eat at mcdonalds"

and ethical consumption is useless lib speak for "my consumer choices matter" are we done now

(FPing myself for posting way too much itt)

too bad this list isn't legitimate https://www.imdb.com/list/ls027731450/ I would be excited by more carrie coon.

"no ethical consumption under capitalism" is loony left speak for "i like to eat at mcdonalds"

and ethical consumption is useless lib speak for "my consumer choices matter" are we done now

(FPing myself for posting way too much itt)

― Simon H., Wednesday, May 23, 2018 4:58 PM (twenty-five minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

As it generally comes from hyper privileged first world marxists and it is frequently allied with making clearly unethical and deliberate consumer choices it's the equivalent of a dude saying "ethical relationships between the genders is impossible under patriarchy" while leering at a woman

Also capitalism will exist for the rest of our lives

Ok.

Your incredulity is touching.

No I mean he's right, I just don't see how it changes anything.

anyway good talk everyone

I'm struggling to reconcile the apparent enthusiasm for 'the leftovers' on here with the following plot points gleaned from wikipedia:

Kevin is plunged into the realm of the undead; a hotel full of people stuck between life and death. In this world Kevin is an international assassin

he is told by a familiar face that he must sing karaoke to get back home

The vessel is hosting a "pride" of people that celebrate the linage of "Frasier, the Sensuous Lion", through mass copulation

Patti and President Kevin watch the nuclear apocalypse as Kevin returns to the world of the living, where the rain has stopped.

Hey uh maybe don't post shitloads of spoilers for no good reason

Super great and honest form of critique tho

If you want to know why people like the show maybe try watching it

life, short. sorry for spoilers tho.

Does give me an excuse to post this tho

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lion_Country_Safari#Frasier_the_Sensuous_Lion

All joking and teasing ITT aside, spoiling any TV show is unconscionable and you should be ashamed of youself, ledge.

I'll make my peace with those whose enjoyment I've spoiled in heaven.

Am willing to accept Leftovers is good without watching it, but Lindelof has been involved in a lot of things, and only one of them was good, so perhaps with that track record it's reasonable to expect Watchmen to be shit, especially given the screwing-over of the creators and the staleness of going back to this stroy AGAIN when it requires no expansion.

just cause Lost had a bad final season doesn't mean it wasn't an all-time great show

no, there are other reasons

I think it's reasonable to expect this will be good since Leftovers was the last thing he did, for the same company, probably with some of the same writers (and at least one shared principal actor). no idea why the creators getting screwed over makes it less likely to be good, and it seems like the story is going to be significantly different, if not unrecognizable

Watch Men will be like Mad Men except about watches instead of madness or whatever that show was about.

no, there are other reasons

― we used to get our kicks reading surfing MAGAzines (sic)

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

The integrity of Lost depended pretty much entirely upon the satisfactory resolution of its intricate latticework of mysteries. That it had a shitty final season was almost incidental to the fact that the entire thing turned out to be a shaggy dog con job. Like who gives a fuck about a Miss Marple if Christie decides on the last page that some incidental schmuck introduced on the page before was the killer all along and also everyone is in heaven for some reason.

The integrity of Lost depended pretty much entirely upon the satisfactory resolution of its intricate latticework of mysteries.

Lost was an ensemble drama and its "integrity" depended upon the characters, their relationships, and their struggle to survive. For five years, the show managed to ground the intrigue with emotional stakes, but as it approached the end, the intrigue overwhelmed the stakes and the character beats didn't land as hard.

I don't quite understand how that final season invalidates the thrill ride of the first five years. i guess it's a basic philosophical question of tv criticism. is the destination more important than the journey? i would say no.

anyway, the leftovers managed to avoid the issue by stating outright that none of the mysteries would ever be solved.

Kate and Jack were so damn boring tho

kate, yes. jack was horribly annoying at times, but i wouldn't say boring. his conflict with locke was very compelling and one of the thematic engines behind the series.

The destination isn't more important than the journey unless the narrative in question is all hints and allegations about the destination and oh man, this destination, just you wait, it'll blow your socks off, boy oh boy.

And everyone who ever said it was all about the characters was lying to themselves. There were some fun performances but as characters they weren't were cardboard pawns being moved around a Rube Goldberg chessboard. Events were more often motivated by someone's incoherent intrasigence wrt revealing a key truth than by like actual human emotions or desires. What were anyone's motivations beyond the two or three broad personality traits that defined them in toto?

weren't

The integrity of Lost depended pretty much entirely upon the satisfactory resolution of its intricate latticework of mysteries. That it had a shitty final season was almost incidental to the fact that the entire thing turned out to be a shaggy dog con job.

And everyone who ever said it was all about the characters was lying to themselves. There were some fun performances but as characters they weren't were cardboard pawns being moved around a Rube Goldberg chessboard.

yeah, this is just wrong.

guess i'll keep lying to myself about why I loved the show

I would never deprive you of that.

yeah there were lots of good characters (and performances), even if they weren't always well served by the plot or, y'know, were unceremoniously killed off cause the actors wanted out (RIP Mr Eko).

one under-appreciated reason for the stuff that didn't work is the old-school network model of super long seasons, which made for a lot of draggy, shaggy storytelling and made them feel the need to throw in all kinds of stupid shit they then ALSO felt the need to try and resolve later.

aka the chris claremont model of longform serialised storytelling

The flashbacks in particular, at least in the earlier seasons, were mostly useless filler they used to pad out 60 minutes.

'Aw, sweet, finally an hour devoted to Sawyer having an argument with his half-brother about whether they should sell their dead father's house! Crucial backstory, bruh.'

(Made-up example, obvs, but the point stands.)