Damon Lindelof's Watchmen

episode six of this show will be presented in supermarionation

*is finally persuaded to watch*

I’ve never made it all the way through Watchmen because I find it so upsetting that the guy in the hat and coat has a picture of my parents having sex on his face

— Benito Cereno (@benito_cereno) November 22, 2019

I’m not sure if this show is really stupid or really clever. I honestly bounce back and forth by the minute.

A great sage once remarked on the thin line between the two

I think this episode deserves a "holy shit"

otm

managed to make it through the whole episode without realizing that young william is the same actor who played regina king's son in the leftovers

surely Moore could give a nod to this one. Just outstanding in terms of conception & realization.

i haven’t seen this episode yet but i can say with some confidence that moore will never have anything positive to say about it, and tbh he’s right

didn't realize this still i started re-reading the original GN, but the copy of watchmen I have (probably purchased in 2009 or so) has a pull quote on the back from lindelof

that would be around the time he made a brief foray into comics by writing a series for Marvel

well, attempted to, as he only scripted half the series and then came back to finish it a couple years later. was too busy writing pull quotes, apparently

I know Moore would have nothing to say about it but the level of craft and the weaving into the original GN was really well done.

when your work has been stolen from you, and you have been lied to and about for 32 years, and then hundreds of other people gather around it at once and piss all over it while their leader shouts in exactly as many words “Fuck you, I’m doing it anyway!” over and over and over, you are unlikely to “give a nod” to the graceful arc of four of the individual pissjets

Ok ok

yes we know how you feel about that, you can leave the thread now.

this episode was excellent.

but then I'd miss your explanation of why Moore would give a nod to the excellent episode

lmao

It's evident from the episode itself. Go watch it.

I've liked the show all along, but this really was the first episode where I can say emphatically that yes, this should exist, absolutely. Not like this, but what a brilliant idea, it enriches the original gn so much.

Only part I hated was Jean Smart's expodump on the history of Nostalgia at the beginning. That was painful.

agreed, that could have been parsed out in previous episodes

as if Alan Moore even owns a television

who needs a tv when you’re bopping around the qabalistic tree of life, hanging out with ancient gods, shooting the shit in enochian, &c &c

is this show successful? this is the only place I see anything about it

iirc the ratings are very good

is this show successful? this is the only place I see anything about it

― Οὖτις, Monday, November 25, 2019 12:40 PM (fifteen minutes ago) bookmarkflaglink

there's a jamelle bouie piece about it on the homepage of the nyt right now

getting around 700k, against eg 2.3 million for Bob's Burgers or 6.3 million for NCIS in the same timeslot. In cable only, it's ahead of Watch What Happens Live, Fox & Friends and (last week) the Soul Train Awards Red Carpet presentation, and a little ahead of Silicon Valley, which follows it. On par with Last Week Tonight, and behind Shameless, Momma Named Me Sheriff, Mr Pickles, Keeping Up With The Kardashians, 90 Day Fiance, Real Housewives Of Atlanta, Married To Medicine, The Talking Dead, and (last week) the Soul Train Awards ceremony.

that's all fairly meaningless when most people are streaming it tho?

especially comparing it with basic cable shows

i think I'm going to start watching the show. the jamelle bouie article has swayed me (also i love the leftovers)

#lindelofgang

that's all fairly meaningless when most people are streaming it tho?

not if those people are streaming it to their televisions.

(yes if they're all watching it on their phones, and if none of the other programmes are watched by streaming.)

I don't think ratings counts streams no matter what? Otherwise Netflix shows would be on there as well.

It is weird that nobody is doing ratings for streaming, but I guess nobody wants to pay for it.

Netflix doesn't report any numbers iirc

No, but neither do HBO. It's Nielsen afaik, and it's payed for by... somebody? Probably advertisers and cable companies, who need the information. Nobody really needs the information from Netflix, but it would just be nice to have.

that's all fairly meaningless when most people are streaming it tho?

not if those people are streaming it to their televisions.

(yes if they're all watching it on their phones, and if none of the other programmes are watched by streaming.)

― insecurity bear (sic), Monday, November 25, 2019 1:34 PM (ten minutes ago) bookmarkflaglink

most people stream from their laptops in my personal experience though i traditionally do stream from my phone (to chrome cast)

and viewing figures don't count people watching on demand content afaict

700K is on par with The Leftovers

I don't think ratings counts streams no matter what? Otherwise Netflix shows would be on there as well.

methodology varies from territory to territory, but in Australian and AFAIK in the US Nielsen counts what's coming out of your TV, not how it gets into it. streams and timeshifts obviously count, or +3 and +7 and +28 wouldn't be recorded at all.

Netflix don't count towards VOSDAL because they don't collaborate with Nielsen, therefore premiere-day views can't be captured. Nielsen do internal measurement of some Netflix programming, not all, but it can't be compared with VOSDAL after the fact.

(Nielsen also do measure viewing on non-TV devices, but it's a much smaller subset of their TV panels, and demographically harder to recruit.)

most people stream from their laptops in my personal experience though i traditionally do stream from my phone (to chrome cast)

if the viewer is chromecasting from their laptop to their TV, that's exactly the same as chromecasting from their phone to their TV.

i know

people also just plug their laptops into their tvs i find

again, Nielsen count what comes out of the TV, not how it gets there, in the 2010s

and viewing figures don't count people watching on demand content afaict

if you mean pay-per-view boxing matches, that's a situation where the provider knows exactly how many demanders they're servicing already, so no need to pay Nielsen to tell them. if you mean catch-up, BARB have been counting timeshifting since VHS, let alone DVR.

(if you mean digital movie rentals, then ppl could accidentally count towards a cable telecast of the same movie, if one happened to take place during the same week they rent the movie, but it's a pretty small statistical anomaly, and a tiny portion of cable companies' business anyway)

i mean if you watch tv on demand on your tv

(from a cable box)

which is not "timeshifting"

solid derail sic, doing god's work itt

sicbot

are the "TV on demand" programmes different programmes from the ones that the cable companies have available for streaming and scheduled telecast?

This sic derail is good not bad imo. Much better than last sic derail which was less good more bad imo.

are the "TV on demand" programmes different programmes from the ones that the cable companies have available for streaming and scheduled telecast?

― insecurity bear (sic), Monday, November 25, 2019 2:44 PM (six minutes ago) bookmarkflaglink

my point is you are talking about viewing figures which are exclusively live viewing figures of tv shows as they are broadcast

which is not how the majority of people watch tv