Damon Lindelof's Watchmen

I think Westworld is the first high-concept show I've started watching since getting burned on Lost (aside from Orphan Black, I guess, but that always felt like sorta trashy and meandering fluff which existed mostly as a performance showcase). I've enjoyed it thus far but I've been hurt too badly in the past to give it the whole of my heart.

I don't think Westworld is really built for emotional investment in the same way anyway

Or if it is, it's a complete failure

xps yeah, but still, most of the trip was good

"* The Alison Janney episode - like, the most full-on terrible nonsense since the Jack tattoo story"

I don't even remember this at all!

LOST is actually way more fun to rewatch than it was to watch initially when I thought things would be explained

I'm mostly just worried that the children of today will stumble upon historical records of our positive feelings toward Lost without fully understanding the gravity of the ultimate lesson we learned. It keeps me up nights, sweating profusely and weeping.

Alison Janney ep was I think the penultimate episode which flashed way the fuck back and revealed that many of the island's mysteries revolved around characters we didn't meet until the penultimate episode. Like all good fiction, really.

Alison Janney ep comes right after the one where Sayid, Sun & Jin all die - all the remaining Not White People in one convenient batch! - delaying the followup to that for another week, which was super annoying.

While we're on this train, the parallels between the beginnings of S2E1 of LOST and the most recent Westworld were definitely on purpose, right?

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.

by the end of season 1 i had realized that JJ's big trick was in hyping things up. every single episode had the most important event happen at the very end, at the very last shot, so that anticipation built for the next one. maybe it's like that trick of not showing the monster until the last frame or whatever. the anticipation will always be better than the reality cos it is the point where the viewer's imagination goes off.

as for the story, i didn't mind it, in fact i loved the pulp time skipping and all that. it was quite clear that they never had a grand plan or overall story, but the way it was made it made you THINK they did. he pulled off the same trick with TFA (the follow up of which was similarly unsatisfactory).

JJ's involvement with Lost ceased halfway through the first season

Forget it, he's rolling.

He definitely helped set the storytelling template for the rest of the series, but yeah for specific character and plot decisions the blame lies with Lindelof, Cuse, and to some extent ABC

well yeah not just JJ but he likes that style of storytelling and he did set the tone for the series. ofc they continued w teasing interesting ideas past his involvement.

like somebody gets shot in the very last scene and it doesn't even show you who it is. they do this all the time. it's exciting but the answer is not gratifying (hence the need for the next episode to end on another enticing cliffhanger). i often feel like they wrote episodes by first writing the cliffhangers and working backwards from there.

That would suggest a degree of planning and forethought went into the endeavor.

Not to reopen old wounds, but what was that thing with Locke being shown the box? Did that ever get resolved?

It was locked.

Spurgeon notes:

* the "Who's Alan Moore?" part of this open letter is hilarious in a punch yourself into unconsciousness at the way art is treated kind of way. Which I guess is its intention, after a second read. Hm. If they had just waited another ten years people would have split with the material more fully and an adaptation wouldn't have seemed such a gold mine -- let alone multiple adaptations. I'm just going to be shitty and weird about this particular thing for the rest of my life, so apologies in advance. We've reached the point where I'm pretty sure people think they're improving on what for all its faults is a wholly realized expression of personal belief about art and politics. The idea of fixing art is always worthy of contempt. A potential Stoppardian take, even projected as good, doesn't seem to change the original, unnecessary treatment of the writer.

There's nothing inherently wrong with remakes or reinterpretations imo. What is inherently wrong imo is the naked cynicism of remaking a thing solely for the sake of capitalizing upon whatever marketable appeal the original work still possesses while not actually bringing anything worthwhile to the table or even trying to improve on what came before. It could be argued (and I have argued) that remakes should maybe be reserved for works with promise but whose execution was dicey.

agree w all that

it's also inherently wrong not to compensate the original creators, but we've been over that

What is inherently wrong imo is the naked cynicism of remaking a thing solely for the sake of capitalizing upon whatever marketable appeal the original work still possesses while not actually bringing anything worthwhile to the table or even trying to improve on what came before.

That would be wrong and craven, yes. Let's see if that's the case in 1.5 years or so.

Sometimes it's surprising what remakes end up bringing something new or worthwhile to the table - sometimes even remakes of already-good-or-even-great things. The Crazies, Let Me In, Fargo (again, for people who aren't me), arguably Snyder's Dawn of the Dead (I didn't like it much but it has plenty of defenders), probably lots of others I'm forgetting.

those all suck

cool argument tho

I prefer The Crazies' remake to the original tbh, though it was never even close to my fave Romero

and like 'em or not Let Me In and (ugh) Fargo are broadly well-perceived

Ah, is there any more solid argument technique than simple gainsaying?

well we're down to taste (since Simon rejects any ethical arguments about what's being done here) and Simon's taste is terrible, how else should I argue it?

Simon's argument is essentially "sometimes remakes are good, and I like Lindelof's latest project. Ergo, this most recent project of his (which exists solely for the crassest and most cynical of economic reasons) has a reasonable chance of success at being something I might enjoy, therefore it should be made"

The only thing to argue with there is his estimation of the likelihood that he will enjoy it. And he probably will enjoy it! I probably won't. And I object to it being made at all on the grounds that sic has laid out.

I would likewise argue that the ratio of good:bad remakes is slanted much more towards the latter than he would admit (all I can think of is the Fly and the Thing at the moment), but again this is a matter of taste.

Lots of remakes are bad! IIRC most "new" movies are also completely terrible (and nearly as derivative).

xpost Body Snatchers

But yes, that trinity of horror remakes, basically. If you can't do what they did, maybe don't bother.

ooh yeah Body Snatchers is def good. idk if it's better than the original (which is also great) but it's close.

The wild success of Disney's live-action carbon copies of its animated library is like the most dispiriting thing. Shit's just gonna get grosser now that they've figured out just how little effort they need to exert.

I can safely say even if this is terrible it will not be a carbon copy.

But anyway ultimately this whole stupid argument rests on the fact that you either think Lindelof can pull off something interesting with this or you don't. I'd be curious to know if anyone watched Leftovers but still thinks this is a hopeless prospect.

I did not but I do.

:)

I'm sorry he hurt you.

It's been a difficult recovery but the sun is on the horizon.

If nothing else I'm always happy to find someone else who thinks Fargo the series stinks.

U should check out the second season because I also thought the first kinda stunk but was pleasantly surprised by the reprise.

I thought the second season was worse lol

But I would consider watching the third purely because Carrie Coon was so incredible on....yes...The Leftovers

uhhhhhhhh http://www.slashfilm.com/watchmen-set-photos-new/

Wow, first I was shocked, though I shouldn't have been, that anyone didn't like Mr. Show. Now I am shocked to learn that people didn't like any of those three seasons of Fargo, which were all I thought very different and all equally exemplary.

Though, yeah, season two and three were my favorite.