The Man in the High Castle - Amazon

[Sci]

Excellent series. Streaming is the future for scifi

This is what I've been telling people over on the New Trek Series forum.

That's not as it should be--it destroys a sense of community.

It's certainly a different experience than traditional television, but you need only look at the way fandoms have grown up around web television shows like House of Cards, Orange is the New Black, Daredevil, or Jessica Jones to see that that is patently false.

I wonder if I might have turned into just another mindless jock had the Apollo Moon Landing not been on all three channels.

I'm sorry if you had a bad experience in school, but that's really no excuse for demeaning and dehumanizing other people whose interests differed from yours.

If your self-identity and self-esteem are built around feelings of superiority derived from being the fan of a TV show, that's not a healthy source of self-esteem.

Blind market forces make the History channel show NAZIs and UFOs, The Discovery channel sucks, folks want to kill PBS-ugh!

And all those are problems.

On the other hand, market forces have also allowed high-quality programs to be developed for niche audiences that would never have survived on broadcast television. You would never have seen a highbrow show like Breaking Bad or Mad Men on ABC.

I shouldn't have to be a slave to a thousand different companies who each want a bite out of my paycheck to show me one thing on their inflated streaming service, or a cable company that wants to charge me more for the Smithsonian channel.

You don't. You can chose not to watch a television program. These TV shows are luxury items, not something to which you are entitled.

Further, you of course do not have to subscribe to anything. You can easily choose to wait until the television program is released on DVD, and then borrow it from your local library for free.

 

[arch101]

^^^^ What he said!

 

[JD]

This is what I've been telling people over on the New Trek Series forum.

That's not as it should be--it destroys a sense of community.

It's certainly a different experience than traditional television, but you need only look at the way fandoms have grown up around web television shows like House of Cards, Orange is the New Black, Daredevil, or Jessica Jones to see that that is patently false.

Just look at the threads for DD and JJ on here, they're just as active as the ones for the network and cable. I don't really see where this would effect the community of people watching the shows. People are still discussing them the same as they do network or cable shows. It might mean people are a little more careful since some of us are at different points, but those conversations are still happening.

 

[publiusr]

If your self-identity and self-esteem are built around feelings of superiority derived from being the fan of a TV show, that's not a healthy source of self-esteem.

I don't know that talking down to folks out of Ayn Rand Objectivist snobbery--which is the vibe I'm getting here (in some attempt to justify the digital divide)--helps anyone's self esteem.

Blind market forces make the History channel show NAZIs and UFOs, The Discovery channel sucks, folks want to kill PBS-ugh!

And all those are problems.

On the other hand, market forces have also allowed high-quality programs to be developed for niche audiences that would never have survived on broadcast television.

And yet, NOVA has problems with doing certain programs out of fear of losing Koch funding:
https://pando.com/2014/03/03/more-p...-eject-david-koch-from-board-of-nova-station/

This is why we need public television.

You can easily choose to wait until the television program is released on DVD, and then borrow it from your local library for free.

While we still have libraries, you mean:
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2014/01/12/thats_no_way_to_treat_a_library_scientists_say.html
http://www.voiceofsandiego.org/topics/opinion/letter-libraries-vs-libertarianism/

Or are libraries next on the chopping block?

Some of you may have better access to this program being discussed. Somehow--I think I might be just a little more tuned in to its overall message.

 

[The Squire of Gothos]

I shouldn't have to be a slave to a thousand different companies who each want a bite out of my paycheck to show me one thing on their inflated streaming service, or a cable company that wants to charge me more for the Smithsonian channel.

Gadzooks

When a friend recommended Man in the High Castle from Amazon, I had heard good things about Netflix series like Sense8 and then the Star Trek and Lost in Space series were to come along on other dedicated platforms, I thought to myself, I'll pay the tv license and just torrent every other damned thing.

 

[bigdaddy]

You can get Amazon Prime for $70 during the Emmy's or whatever because Transparent was nominated, they did the same thing last year.

But Netflix is $10 a month, Amazon is $8ish, Hulu can go to hell for making me pay and having commercials.

$20 is still cheaper than cable.

 

[Sci]

I wonder if I might have turned into just another mindless jock had the Apollo Moon Landing not been on all three channels.

I'm sorry if you had a bad experience in school, but that's really no excuse for demeaning and dehumanizing other people whose interests differed from yours.

If your self-identity and self-esteem are built around feelings of superiority derived from being the fan of a TV show, that's not a healthy source of self-esteem.

I don't know that talking down to folks out of Ayn Rand Objectivist snobbery--which is the vibe I'm getting here (in some attempt to justify the digital divide)--helps anyone's self esteem.

There was nothing Ayn Randian about anything I said. Given as how both my avatar and my signature celebrate democratic socialism, a political and economic system Rand would have been repulsed by, I'm kind of amused by your claim here.

But at the end of the day, deriving your self-esteem from feelings of superiority over a TV show is not healthy. You are not smarter than other people, or better than other people, because you like Star Trek or one of its spinoffs. Demeaning other people for liking sports is not reasonable or fair.

Blind market forces make the History channel show NAZIs and UFOs, The Discovery channel sucks, folks want to kill PBS-ugh!

And all those are problems.

On the other hand, market forces have also allowed high-quality programs to be developed for niche audiences that would never have survived on broadcast television.

And yet, NOVA has problems with doing certain programs out of fear of losing Koch funding:
https://pando.com/2014/03/03/more-p...-eject-david-koch-from-board-of-nova-station/

This is why we need public television.

Absolutely! And Congress needs to step up to the plate and increase public funding for PBS. Hell, it's gotten to the point now where Sesame Street--a show explicitly designed for the urban poor--is now airing on HBO first before it airs on PBS.

I'm not defending market fundamentalism. What I am saying is that sometimes market forces can produce high-quality works of art aimed at niche audiences. That doesn't mean the market is the be-all, end-all of society, and it doesn't mean there isn't a vital for public broadcasting.

And it certainly doesn't mean that the means of productions should be monopolized by a small elite. But I digress.

You can easily choose to wait until the television program is released on DVD, and then borrow it from your local library for free.

While we still have libraries, you mean:
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2014/01/12/thats_no_way_to_treat_a_library_scientists_say.html
http://www.voiceofsandiego.org/topics/opinion/letter-libraries-vs-libertarianism/

Or are libraries next on the chopping block?

Hope not! But that's an entirely separate issue. You are not being victimized because somebody decided to put the new Star Trek series on the Internet equivalent of a premium cable channel. There are still public libraries from which you can acquire DVD copies of this new show, and if something happens to them, it is not the fault of CBS's online streaming network, but of long-term changes in American political culture.

Also, there is online pirating if the library fails you.

Some of you may have better access to this program being discussed. Somehow--I think I might be just a little more tuned in to its overall message.

Shockingly, I do not think that whining about having to pay money if you want to see a TV show on the day it is released rather than waiting a few months for your public library to get a copy of the DVDs, constitutes being better attuned to its progressive political content.

 

[publiusr]

There was nothing Ayn Randian about anything I said. Given as how both my avatar and my signature celebrate democratic socialism, a political and economic system Rand would have been repulsed by, I'm kind of amused by your claim here.And Congress needs to step up to the plate and increase public funding for PBS

Thanks for clarifying that.

But at the end of the day, deriving your self-esteem from feelings of superiority over a TV show is not healthy.

I never did that. What I'm lamenting is the lack of shared experience we had with Apollo. I think television was a bit more noble then. Now, only sports games have anything like a big market share--and I just find that so disappointing.

The digital divide does concern me. People have rabbit ear TV--folks go digital, and many get left out of the loop.

They get VHS--they go to DVD, then blue ray. They save up for cable--and then its streaming. A lot of folks can't keep up.

Everything has its own niche--and maybe that's the only way to keep the wrestling out of sci-fi--for everyone to make their own.

Still--that Apollo feeling, the days when quality was brought to the masses--I feel we are losing something culturally.

 

[JD]

But we're not losing any of that. Just because people aren't watching something at the exact same time doesn't mean they aren't still experiencing it together. Just look at how active the threads for this, Jessica Jones and Daredevil are. People still discuss the shows, the way the just are doing it differently than they used to. Hell, I only watch a small fraction of my shows live, but I still discuss them here. It might take me a bit to catch up with some of them, but I still do it.

Edit: TMitHC has been renewed for a second season.

 

[Shawnster]

Just FYI, Quebec is a province, and Quebec City is overall fairly minor, did you mean Montreal?

D'oh! Yes, yes. Montreal.

In the book, I seem to recall Canada is neutral and unconquered for unexplained reasons. Perhaps the Nazis gave it to a restored Edward VIII to rule over. In "Fatherland" by Robert Harris set in an alternate 1964, Elizabeth Windsor is in exile in Canada and her uncle Edward has been restored by the Nazis to the UK throne.

Now, that makes sense. A Pro-Nazi Commonwealth. The question is, would the countries of the Commonwealth go along with the notion?

Excellent series. Streaming is the future for scifi

This is what I've been telling people over on the New Trek Series forum.

That's not as it should be--it destroys a sense of community.

Nope, disagree here. I do understand what you mean, though. There was a sense of unity or community seeing a broadcast at the same time. All your workmates or classmates are going to watch "X" when it's on. Just look at the sense of community we've seen displayed with the new Star Wars premiere.

On the other hand, we can also use the same example of Star Wars TFA to illustrate the opposite. We see such a sense of community from that movie's premiere, but not everyone saw the movie opening night. A lot went Thursday. I went Friday. I'm sure others went for the first time Saturday or Sunday. We all saw it about the same time, but not exactly the same time.

It's not streaming that is destroying the "sense of community" as you put it. It's the releasing of the entire season at one time and everyone feeling they must binge watch the episodes that is the problem. The simplest solution is to release the new episodes 1 at a time. You still have all week to stream and watch the show at your convenience, but the "binge" mentality is removed. Everyone looks forward to the new episodes each week but everyone is still basically on the same page.

Since i'm not binge watching and I don't want to be spoiled, I have to be careful about reading discussion board topics like this one.

But streaming is definitely the way of the future.

 

[Push The Button]

I just finished watching the series. The standout performances for me were by Rufus Sewell (John Smith), Cary-Hiroyuki Tagawa (Tagomi) and Joel de la Fuente (Inspector Kido). I loved the last scene with Tagomi, as he "phases over" into our reality.

 

[The Nth Doctor]

I finished the series the other day and I have to say I have mixed feelings about the whole thing.

On the positive side, I love aesthetics of the whole series. The production team did an extraordinary job in creating a believable world in an alternative 1960's, largely in San Francisco and New York City (although Berlin's CGI-heavy cityscape was perhaps a bit overdone, but for good reasons). Further, the acting was mostly good, particularly Joel de la Fuente, Rufus Sewell, Rupert Evans, and Alexa Davalos, although it's slightly disheartening that two of them play characters who weren't even in the novel. Even Burn Gorman's one-note sinister Marshall was fun to watch.

Which leads to some of my issues with the adaptation. I fully understand for an ongoing series, a lot of liberties and expansions on the novel have to take place. On the one hand, I understand and like changing The Grasshopper Lies Heavy from a book to a series of film reels, which works better in the visual medium, and I especially like how different film reels depict different alternate realities which directly involve our characters.

While it was a bit jarring to see Juliana's story fast-forward and then veer off in a completely different direction in the course of first few episodes, I did appreciate the expansion of the character landscape, particularly the inclusion of Obergruppenführer John Smith (seriously, John Smith?) and Chief Inspector Kido which allows us to see more of the Japanese and Nazi operatives beyond the surface level that we see in the novel. However, I was disappointed to see my favorite character from the novel, Robert Childan reduced to a recurring character whose purpose was mainly to fuel Frank's storyline along with a half-hearted take on his major storyline from the novel

And this leads to my biggest complaint against the series. There are many fine intricacies that define the novel, particularly how the characters who reside in San Francisco have adapted much of the Japanese culture. In the novel, multiple non-Japanese characters (at least Juliana and Robert) regularly use the I Ching to guide their lives throughout the novel, whereas in the series, we only ever see Tagomi. Additionally, the importance of gifting is almost entirely abandoned. In the novel, Robert Childan's role is directly connected to multiple characters through this important ritual. Both of these aspects are important themes in the novel, furthering heightening out the world is changed, and I find it very disappointing that they're not a part of the series.

Another problem I have with the series is how some characters act with the purpose of simply driving the plot forward. Many of Juliana's actions make absolutely no sense other than to keep the plot moving, and particularly after leaving Canon City, as a means to keep the uninteresting Joe Blake (no longer the psychotic Italian Cinnadella) in involved in the series. I often find myself spacing out anytime Joe is onscreen and I'm not sure if that's because of Luke Kleintank or the writing, although I often felt the same way with Juliana in the latter half of the series even though I was engaged with the character earlier on.

I hope for better things in the second season because the showrunners have created an unique universe, and although it's not really the same as the one in the novel, I am interested in seeing more, but I hope the writing improves.

 

[Gaith]

Just finished the first season. The middle half was a bit of a slog, not gonna lie, and Joe Blake never really became that interesting or entirely plausible as a character. We're meant to assume he fell in love with Julia, I guess, but then it was revealed he had a woman and a surrogate kid back home, and a fairly attractive woman, too? Not that looks are everything, of course, but seeing as they only gave that character a handful of lines and a mere minute or two of screen time, it would have made sense, as a matter of cinematic shorthand, to cast a less striking woman than Jessie Fraser. Otherwise, the risks he took for Julia just don't seem to make much sense. (Here's hoping he's gone to Mexico for good, but he almost certainly isn't.)

That said, while the plot definitely meandered, those last two episodes were pretty damn gripping, even if a certain white-haired elder German looks uncomfortably like John Cleese. Here's hoping the second season will have a faster pace and more Resistance intrigue, now that they've taken all the S1 time to thoroughly establish the setting.

 

[Asbo Zaprudder]

That said, while the plot definitely meandered, those last two episodes were pretty damn gripping, even if a certain white-haired elder German looks uncomfortably like John Cleese.

Yes he does...

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Gaith]

^ So glad I'm not the only one to have noticed!