Good TV

Coin

I want to like Titans. An R-rated version of Gotham is such a good fit and several of the cast members are good fits for the team. The first season was actually a lot of fun, it established the dynamics and had a pretty decent Deathstroke as its main villain.

I think you mean first and second season. Deathstroke was the villain of the second season.

This second season though really isn't doing it for me.

Third. XD

I think the main issue is the dialogue. There is something... off. I can't quite tell what it is but it's driving me crazy - there are pauses after everyone speaks as if they are all taking turns conversing in a completely unnatural way.

There are other issues. Jason Todd's actor is... not great. The plot is okay - it doesn't always make too much sense which kind of devalues the 'detective' part of the heroes' work but that's kind of expected in the genre. What I don't like is that it takes some huge risks early on (like what Batman does in episode 1) then just lets itself fall flat and stagnate for half a season.

There is also a real issue with the characters' power levels. Superboy and Starfire are a bit much if they are going to spend significant time fighting generic Gotham goons. Poor Beast Boy also doesn't get to freakin' do stuff since the special effects budget would need to blow up for that, so he resorts to generic kung-fu with glowy eyes.

But yeah. Titans Season 3 is floppy as hell.

Ganymede

@arkandel said in Good TV:

I want to like Titans. An R-rated version of Gotham is such a good fit and several of the cast members are good fits for the team.

There was nothing about Titans from its trailer that made me want to watch it.

As the United States drifts into dystopia, it's no surprise to me that lighter takes are far more popular. I'd rather watch Harley Quinn or Doom Patrol than an R-rated version of Gotham.

Rinel

I’ve been watching The Owl House which is extremely cute and surprisingly funny.

GreenFlashlight

@rinel I am so greedy for the hiatus to end and the show to resume.

chibichibi

Just finished Squid Game on Netflix. Holy crap. It was amazing. WATCH it. You can finish it in a weekend. It's only 9 episodes.

Kestrel

I finally got around to watching the Witcher series on Netflix, which I rather enjoyed.

Then I downloaded an ebook (for free) so that I could get a better idea of whether it'd be worth splurging on a boxed set of the entire saga.

Free advice: don't read the books. Anyone who plays MU*s has access to this kind of cliche-riddled fantasy erotica on a regular basis already, and, IMO, at a much higher calibre. Don't sully the show's magic with lines about Geralt's piercing gaze and thirsty Yennefer's oohing lips.

Ganymede

@kestrel

I don't read Sapkowski for his descriptions; I read for his speeches, which are brilliant.

Arkandel

Frankly the original works that inspired great games are rarely that amazing themselves. At least I can't think of any.

The Witcher worked because the setting itself is brilliant. But yeah, I was curious in the past about the books so I read some reviews and they indicated more or less what @Kestrel says; they are apparently... okay.

However there's something to be said about setting a really good atmosphere, intriguing character dynamics, interesting magic system, etc. After all someone was initially inspired by this stuff and based a video game series on it - there was a good reason to do so.

Arkandel

(Double post)

Also the trailer for Night Teeth looks like fun!

Kestrel

I haven't played the video games, but I can imagine they probably work for the same reason the show works. You have a Gary-Stu protagonist who, aside from delivering on male fantasy aspects (strong, muscly, doesn't afraid, all women melt for him) has no real personality or motivations aside from sitting on the fence a lot. He travels from place to place killing monsters, which allows for a flexible narrative introducing all kinds of funner characters and scenarios along the way. I don't think he's interesting and I don't think he's meant to be. The pilot snagged me precisely because it presented a compelling choice through his neutrality without needing to alienate anyone who would feel strongly about either possibility.

It's worth pointing out that the author was a businessman, economist and salesman before he started writing, and that he's stated his books were written with "what sells" in mind.

For me, the most interesting character on the show was Yennefer, so I downloaded The Last Wish and skipped straight to that particular chapter. All I can say is I'm (selfishly) glad the show had a female writing team, and I can understand why so many male reviewers of the show complained that it had been ruined by SJWs and feminist propaganda. I definitely think it's catering to a different, maybe broader audience, or I probably wouldn't have found it as accessible.

It's not terrible, but I looked at a list of Goodreads' top 25 books published this year, many of which are fantasy novels, and realised there's enough choice out there if I need to venture beyond my current reading list. Or MU*s if I want some more targeted textual titillation.

tittylation

Ganymede

@kestrel said in Good TV:

He travels from place to place killing monsters, which allows for a flexible narrative introducing all kinds of funner characters and scenarios along the way. I don't think he's interesting and I don't think he's meant to be.

He's basically Wolverine, except in a fantasy setting.

But, yes, Sapkowski knows what sells. What sells, like with the Twilight series, is a wholly boring protagonist surrounded by interesting people and circumstances. It allows for reader-immersion and fantasy-fulfillment.

The games are good because they are beautiful and the soundtrack is fantastic.

Too Old For This

@ganymede said in Good TV:

What sells, like with the Twilight series, is a wholly boring protagonist surrounded by interesting people and circumstances. It allows for reader-immersion and fantasy-fulfillment.

I mean, lets not kid ourselves. That has been the basic formula since... Star Wars. Bland, boring, maybe even slightly annoying main character surrounded by kick ass people and situations.

Luke is NOT the quoted character from Star Wars. We quote Han, Leia, Vader, Palpatine. Hell, Chewbacca gets quoted more than Luke. So does C3P0, who is arguably one of the most whiny bitches in A Galaxy Far, Far Away. Luke is... a mask. A skin we can step into and feel like we're The One (yes, Matrix was the same way) for a few hours.

Kestrel

@too-old-for-this

This post made me appreciate how quotable Buffy the Vampire Slayer is. (The title character specifically.)

I will be shopping for "stylish yet affordable boots" 'til my dying day.

Too Old For This

@kestrel So... all his issues aside as a person, Joss Whedon is REALLY good at writing a compelling, interesting cast of characters. Including the main character.

And its not to say there aren't movies with interesting, quotable main characters. Its just.. they aren't the huge blockbuster movies anymore (with a few notable exceptions that are mostly animated/Disney films).

Ganymede

@too-old-for-this

That's not the only way to do it, but, yes, it is a way to do it.

I mean, The Last of Us is game storytelling at its finest. Many superhero stories don't have blank, uninteresting characters. And animated series, I think, have to have compelling main characters to survive.

I'm just not sure I can agree with you that blockbusters don't have quotable main characters.

Too Old For This

@ganymede I'm not saying that NONE of them having compelling main characters... but look at the top grossing franchises for the last 40-50 years.

Star Wars
Matrix
Harry Potter
Twilight
Lord of the Rings
Hunger Games
Transformers

Top grossing movie of all time Avatar.

These are movies that were successful NOT because of the main characters, but because of the cast around them.

There are also notable exceptions!

Alien (the franchise as a whole)
Marvel/DC anything
Disney/Pixar
Beverly Hills Cop
Crocodile Dundee
Rocky
Forrest Gump

And of course there are ensemble cast movies/franchises that have either a revolving main character or no true main character.

Anything by Mel Brooks
Jaws
Grease
Gremlins
Independence Day

But realistically, many of the most successful franchises have a boring, bland 'neutral mask' of a main character that makes it easier for the viewer to immerse themselves into that role, while the 'good' or 'interesting' lines go to the co-stars and surrounding cast.

Kestrel

@too-old-for-this said in Good TV:

look at the top grossing franchises for the last 40-50 years.
Star Wars
Matrix
Harry Potter
Twilight
Lord of the Rings
Hunger Games
Transformers
Top grossing movie of all time Avatar.
These are movies that were successful NOT because of the main characters, but because of the cast around them.

Excuse you.

One of these things is not like the others.

Don't come for Frodo like that.

Ganymede

@kestrel

If Frodo can be said to be the main character.

Grayson

The main character of the Lord of the Rings is, let's face it, the languages.

The rest of it is just a handy showcase.

Too Old For This

@kestrel I'm sorry, but Frodo is largely a walking husk throughout the movie. He's very much not dynamic or quoted. I won't say he's uninteresting, I don't know that there's an uninteresting character in Tolkien. Even his bit characters tended to have rich backstories. But he's the neutral mask you slip on so that you can be The One.

If you ever sit around with friends and ask each other who wants to be which character, let me know how many will say 'Frodo'. He's the character we know the least about in the entire trilogy. He's meant to be that way.