Pyrian on 8/6/2020 at 21:55
...Wow. You have WAAAY more inclination to watch something you clearly don't like than I've ever mustered.
Gryzemuis on 8/6/2020 at 22:31
My take: if you want to see a good movie, you have to watch a lot of them. Maybe 6 out of 10 movies suck, 3 are ok, and if you're lucky, one out of 10 movies you watch is really good. Same thing applies to tv series, books, games, etc. If you approach new stuff with that attitude, you will be disappointed less.
I had already watched 5 (now 6) episodes. I think Devs is below average. But it's not that bad that I can't watch another 3 50min episodes. The fallacy of sunken cost, etc. Maybe my impression of Devs is low, because I just watched Better Call Saul and Westworld. I was positively surprised by both those shows.
Sulphur on 9/6/2020 at 12:24
Yes yes, 90% of everything is crap. Devs is ultimately more plot-driven than character-driven, and half of its problem is that it makes its characters act in weird ways because of that. I wasn't really sold on it, but I don't think it quite sinks to the level of shit either. If nothing else, it'd serve as a half-decent gateway into determinism vs. free will for people who are philosophy-shy.
demagogue on 9/6/2020 at 12:44
People look for different things in tv shows, or any media ... even the same person looks for different things at different stages of life. I mean some shows cut across all that and can completely define an entire era, like the Simpsons in those first 4 seasons. A show like Devs, it's conceptual, up there with something like The Prisoner, maybe Max Headroom, Otherworld, maybe Twin Peaks, (X-Files & Westworld maybe shouldn't count since they hit a pop mainstream vibe) ... important as much for being a data-point in playing the concept out as all the quality of life stuff that make a good show.
I was into it. But I wouldn't deny any of the criticisms or the bad vibe you're getting from it. They just didn't distract me from what I liked about the show. Actually they even gelled for me by the end, the natural arrogance of Swanson, the way overstylized aesthetic, even the astounding lack of charisma and character by faceless girl warmed to me. I don't know. It's like different flavors in cooking. Sometimes having a few bitter and sour bits in there gives a dish, and a show, its own flavor that you can appreciate for being what it's meant to be and not trying to be something that it's not. This show was made the way it was meant to be made, ridiculous and floppish bits and all.
froghawk on 9/6/2020 at 13:44
Quote Posted by SubJeff
Ok,
when both mothers are together in the lounge, the "real" one who turns out to be the clone handcuffed to the table, she never once says to the other - hey, what's the deal with the underground life? I never got it as a kid but yeah for sure I remember taking your place so what's up with that? And the real real one never says "hey you messed my life up by switching with me and that's why I'm here and you know it so stfu!" As if that isn't the first thing that would happen.
And even then, the
real one never said anything in front of Gabe and the kids. Why keep it mysterious until the end? But I stopped watching it because I got bored. It was just at the bit were Gabe and Abraham are on the boat. Dunno, it just didn't grab me. I though it was shot really well though and was hella creepy up until
the mothers were talking. Just got dull after that.
Right, because the whole thing is an allegory and it isn't meant to operate using expected logic. There is a very strong message reason for that conversation not going as expected, but if you're gonna make such strong judgements on an allegorical film before you even see that play out, of course it's going to seem illogical.
SubJeff on 9/6/2020 at 20:18
What nonsense.
You don't go into a film with a big sign above the door saying "PSA: THIS IS ALLEGORICAL".
It has to have internal logic or it becomes unwatchable.
Sulphur on 10/6/2020 at 04:34
Chigurh.
demagogue on 10/6/2020 at 04:44
The movie was based on the book, and it played those parts faithfully to the book.
There are places where the movie departed from the book where you could talk about directing choices, like closing the truck door to keep out the wolves was the one I remember.
Then you could debate Cormac McCarthy's decisions on the things you mentioned and other things, but I think they were important parts of what the book was doing, which is playing it very honestly in presenting the harsh reality that makes it no country for old men. Also worth mentioning, in the book it's maybe more clear that the sheriff is really the main character the story revolves around.
rachel on 10/6/2020 at 06:50
Chigurh: there are subtle clues he did.
froghawk on 11/6/2020 at 20:06
Quote Posted by SubJeff
What nonsense.
You don't go into a film with a big sign above the door saying "PSA: THIS IS ALLEGORICAL".
It has to have internal logic or it becomes unwatchable.
Well, that's exactly what I'm trying to say. It DOES have internal logic. You're attempting to impose external logic upon it rather than attempt to discern its rules. If you had allowed it to unfold, its internal logic likely would have become clear to you.