Which television shows are you watching? Part III

[leif erikson]

Which TV shows are you currently watching?


Previous threads:

What TV shows are you watching?
What TV shows are you watching? β'

 

[Kyriakos]

It's not a high-brow show or anything, but it was well-made and is very popular.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Netflix lost ~100,000 subscribers in the US for the first time ever last quarter. They have taken on about $7B in debt to finance all of their new content with an annual profit of around $1B per year. Their user interface has gotten worse with each iteration as it 'hides' a lot of content on the service, their original programming is hit or miss (to be generous) and they are losing movies and TV shows left and right as other services yank their content.

The cable subscription model is poised to make a come back as all of these content houses are setting up their own streaming services and in the early stages of bundling them together. Does anyone think Netflix is in real trouble or can they turn it around? Anyone use their DVD-by-mail service?

 

[EgonSpengler]

 

[hobbsyoyo]

I'm 2/3 of the way through the book this season will be based on and it's by far my least favorite book so far. I wonder how the show is going to handle it. As I posted in the book thread, the show diverged pretty heavily from the third book in ways that weren't necessarily bad so I'm interested to see what they do with the show.

 

[Mouthwash]

 

[abradley]

Kings of grass castles

"Kings in Grass Castles is a 1959 book of history by Dame Mary Durack (1913–1994). The book is considered a classic of Australian literature.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kings_in_Grass_Castles
It is the story of Durack's pioneering family establishing its pastoral interests in the Australian outback during the 19th century and concerns the life and times of Durack's grandfather Patrick Durack, an Irish immigrant who became a leader of the overlanders who brought their cattle on hoof to the tropical north. The book was notable for its portrayal of the role of women and families in the pastoral industry and collaboration and respect between the pastoralists and local Aborigines.[1]

Durack published a sequel, Sons in the Saddle, in 1983.[1] Kings in Grass Castles was made into a 1998 TV mini-series.[2]"

Interesting, has James Fox as the nasty.

 

[Yeekim]

Why so negative?

 

[rah]

ROOK the first couple episodes were kind of interesting but it isn't staying interesting. Anybody else with an opinion on this one. I'm about 2 episodes away from giving up on it.

 

[Cutlass]

Up to S5 of Game of Thrones.

 

[Kyriakos]

Up to S5 of Game of Thrones.

Lol, genital merchant season & sand snakes. From now on it is all downhill.

 

[Mouthwash]

Why so negative?

Have you read the books or played the games?

 

[Kyriakos]

Hm, seems that if you have endless millions to spend, this is what you do: create a season3 of something which failed miserably in season2:

Naziworld.

 

[Laurana Kanan]

5 minutes, virtually no dialogue, but the music and visuals have me

5 months is a long wait...

 

[hobbsyoyo]

5 minutes, virtually no dialogue, but the music and visuals have me

5 months is a long wait...

That does look enticing af. I am annoyed that they are keeping the show visually dark. I bought a high dynamic range TV last year that can handle dark scenes about as well as technology allows and this show has always put it through its paces in a bad way. There have been lots of scenes in previous seasons where I could barely make out what was going on and I had hope with the show going planetside that this would change but I guess not.

Couple of things to note:
Naomi (the black woman in this trailer) is a Belter and has never been on a planet. The books explain that Belters do not do well on planets and tend to freak out when looking at the sky or horizon which this shows. One thing that was a bit of a dissappointment with the books is that prior to this one, the authors explained that Belters couldn't go to Earth as their physiology was not capable of handling 1G, even with drugs and conditioning. After a certain point in childhood, Belters were permanently locked out of the deeper gravity wells. This book (and TV season) more or less completely ignored that. In fact, this trailer at least showed Naomi working out to condition herself for the landing but that wasn't even featured in the book. Also, in the book, Naomi never really got off the ship and neither did Alex. They did land to unload stuff but then quickly went back into orbit.

Another random thing, in the books by this point the crew has made so much money freelancing that they finally bought all-new equipment branded with the name Rocinante and purged themselves of stuff labeled Tachi. Tachi was the original name of their ship before they commandeered it and there was a long period where they still had a bunch of gear labeled Tachi but by this point that had been purged. You can see in this preview they have all new clothes and stuff as they do in the book but they're still lugging around rucksacks labeled Tachi which is a bit of a miss in my opinion.

I also think that given they are showing everyone get off the Rocinante to go planetside that this season will differ from the books to the same extent as Season 3 where there were some major differences. Seasons 1 and 2 stuck pretty darn close to the books. Not that Season 3 was bad and not that I think they have to stick close to the books to tell a good story, it's just something I noticed as I've been reading through the books and watching the show together.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

The last season of Orange Is The New Black is about to drop and I don't think I will watch it. The last couple of seasons were absolute train wrecks. They were boring, had new characters that were really lame and the plot got so silly it was hard to sit through. I 'watched' the last season which meant it was on in the background while I did other stuff but I don't think I can even do that for this final season. I don't know, we'll see.

 

[Arakhor]

This is a serial thread, Kyriakos. Not only did you start the beta thread and thus shouldn't start the gamma thread, you waited a mere five hours before starting it, rather than letting Synsensa, myself or Egon start it. You then failed to post a link to the new thread for over three days, which is certainly not fair play. (To everyone else, please report things like this, so they don't get totally missed.)

Now, I can copy a post of @Synsensa's or @EgonSpengler's in this thread as the first post if either of you want to do that, or we can take Hobbs' post as the start.

 

[cardgame]

I'm rewatching Trailer Park Boys - currently on Season 10 so almost done.

 

[Kyriakos]

This is a serial thread, Kyriakos. Not only did you start the beta thread and thus shouldn't start the gamma thread, you waited a mere five hours before starting it, rather than letting Synsensa, myself or Egon start it. You then failed to post a link to the new thread for over three days, which is certainly not fair play. (To everyone else, please report things like this, so they don't get totally missed.)

Now, I can copy a post of @Synsensa's or @EgonSpengler's in this thread as the first post if either of you want to do that, or we can take Hobbs' post as the start.

Rules keep changing; is it a formal rule that one cannot start two serial threads back to back?
And how do you or Egon come into play at all? Isn't it either the 1000th or the 1001th post?
At any rate, Arakhor, pls don't be like some other people here - do as you wish with the thread, I am rather not in a mood for more petty behavior in this place, had my portion already.

 

[Arakhor]

As far as I know, it has always been the case that one cannot start the same serial thread twice in a row. The poster of #1000 has 24 hours to make the new thread, followed by #999 and #998 24 and 48 hours later. After 72 hours, anyone else can make it. That will remain the same until the administrators rule otherwise.