4 ms·

Isn't the Peripheral on Amazon Prime based on a Gibson story too? https://www.primevideo.com/detail/0PE2SANXUROCEZ5W2FD7WGMM9R https://www.primevideo.com/detai

Isn't the Peripheral on Amazon Prime based on a Gibson story too? https://www.primevideo.com/detail/0PE2SANXUROCEZ5W2FD7WGMM9R https://www.primevideo.com/detail/0PE2SANXUROCEZ5W2FD7WGMM9R

aaronbrethorst 4y ago
yes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Peripheral https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Peripheral
glenstein 4y ago
Yeah, and I came here to mention this, as I tried to watch it and got 4-5 episodes in before giving up. Some of it was really frickin cool, and you can even feel some of William Gibson voice shine through into the world. I probably want this to work more than anybody, but even for me the show was just unwatchable. So often the characters get nothing to do, nothing to say, it's nobody's job to create narrative momentum. It's just brutal. That said, I'm still not deterred from wanting to watch necromancer just because I want that type of show to work. A show where technology isn't just window dressing, and there's real curiosity about how it impacts the world, and there's real imagination about how to extract original and interesting visual aesthetics from it.
- trevor-e 4y ago
  I'll offer an opposing viewpoint that the show was totally watchable and not "brutal" for me. Some of the acting/story was a bit over the top, but overall still a pretty good show and interesting idea. I've read Neuromancer but wouldn't say I'm a William Gibson expert/fan, so maybe the show is more appealing to the average viewer like me.
- _zoltan_ 4y ago
  Peripheral (the TV series) is awesome. Easily the best TV show I've seen this year.
  - foobarbecue 4y ago
    I loved it too! I'd say second only to Andor.
  - glenstein 4y ago
    The "go ahead, take some of this money" scene is bone-crushingly stupid, just for one and it's one of a raft of examples of the dialog is so lacking in any world building detail or signal of character motivations. The greatest credit I can give it is that it fails in an interesting way, and doesn't fail from lack of interest in source material. And I'd rather live in a world full of shows that fail in interesting ways than ones that successfully execute familiar and shallow "is technology bad?" themes over and over.
- Jare 4y ago
  I was enjoying the show a lot, and liked to watch it all the way to the end, but for the second half I felt like I was just watching a series of scenes that I liked, not a coherent story. I couldn't make heads or tails of why what was happening, was indeed happening. I chalked it up to being tired at night, and made a note to rewatch sometime soon, but now I have doubts...
  - dpkirchner 4y ago
    I sorta felt the same way. However I'll say this: I am very much looking forward to the next season.
  - jwagenet 4y ago
    I mean, this is more or less how I felt reading the first quarter to half of The Peripheral. Each chapter (scene) seemed disconnected and out of context, even once I understood the two time periods.
- paparush 4y ago
  They went so far afield from Gibson's story that I ended up very disappointed.
- poloniculmov 4y ago
  >So often the characters get nothing to do, nothing to say, it's nobody's job to create narrative momentum. It's just brutal. That's exactly how the books are. Cool concept, but there's barely any plot, nobody has any real motivation, things just happen to them.
  - AnimalMuppet 4y ago
    Isn't that kind of appropriate, though? You create a world where there are enormous technological and sociological forces that are outside of your characters' control, and those forces change who the characters are. That's a big part of the point.
    - glenstein 4y ago
      It's about characters, technology trends and plot details that are a thousand times more specific. The execution of it is bad, and it's only through extremely lazy equivocation that those two things can be said to be the same.
  - glenstein 4y ago
    >That's exactly how the books are. And it's a legitimate criticism of the books. Fidelity to substance of the original is one thing, execution is another. I think the weaknesses of the books as transposed to film, combined with poor execution of craft are what make one different from the other.
MrJohz 4y ago
Yeah, and it's pretty good, although if you like the idea, I'd recommend just reading the book. It's very different from Neuromancer, it feels like a very different Gibson has written it (more considered, but perhaps less agile - there's nothing quite as vivid as "the sky above the port"), but the central conceit is really interesting. There's already a sequel (Agency), and supposedly a third book on the way.
mehlmao 4y ago
I loved the book and struggled watching the show. You could tell which scenes were written by William Gibson, and which ones were written by the Westworld people. Around episode 3 or 4 the plot completely diverges from the book, and almost all of it is generic 'prestige TV' type writing. I would have dropped the show around episode 4 or 5 if it I didn't love the book. Can't really recommend it to anyone.
- mehlmao 4y ago
  To clarify: so much of the show's runtime feels like filler. Every episode has 1-2 scenes of characters arguing which are completely inconsequential to the plot. Every once in a while a character will suggest an interesting idea for how the time travel technology could be used in a novel way. But every time characters have a conversation with any depth, the show runners feel the need to cut away to an inconsequential fight scene so a hypothetical viewer won't be bored.
- b800h 4y ago
  Same, managed the first few episodes which were full of good ideas from Gibson, and then it meandered off into drivel. The adaptation of Neuromancer will be garbage, I plan on actively avoiding it.
- glenstein 4y ago
  Looks like I stopped right about where you did, even though I was quite impressed with the potential in the first 2 episodes, while my hope really started to wane by episode 3.

Isn't the Peripheral on Amazon Prime based on a Gibson story too? https://www.primevideo.com/detail/0PE2SANXUROCEZ5W2FD7WGMM9R https://www.primevideo.com/detail/0PE2SANXUROCEZ5W2FD7WGMM9R

aaronbrethorst 4y ago

yes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Peripheral https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Peripheral

glenstein 4y ago

Yeah, and I came here to mention this, as I tried to watch it and got 4-5 episodes in before giving up. Some of it was really frickin cool, and you can even feel some of William Gibson voice shine through into the world. I probably want this to work more than anybody, but even for me the show was just unwatchable. So often the characters get nothing to do, nothing to say, it's nobody's job to create narrative momentum. It's just brutal. That said, I'm still not deterred from wanting to watch necromancer just because I want that type of show to work. A show where technology isn't just window dressing, and there's real curiosity about how it impacts the world, and there's real imagination about how to extract original and interesting visual aesthetics from it.

trevor-e 4y ago
I'll offer an opposing viewpoint that the show was totally watchable and not "brutal" for me. Some of the acting/story was a bit over the top, but overall still a pretty good show and interesting idea. I've read Neuromancer but wouldn't say I'm a William Gibson expert/fan, so maybe the show is more appealing to the average viewer like me.
_zoltan_ 4y ago
Peripheral (the TV series) is awesome. Easily the best TV show I've seen this year.
- foobarbecue 4y ago
  I loved it too! I'd say second only to Andor.
- glenstein 4y ago
  The "go ahead, take some of this money" scene is bone-crushingly stupid, just for one and it's one of a raft of examples of the dialog is so lacking in any world building detail or signal of character motivations. The greatest credit I can give it is that it fails in an interesting way, and doesn't fail from lack of interest in source material. And I'd rather live in a world full of shows that fail in interesting ways than ones that successfully execute familiar and shallow "is technology bad?" themes over and over.
Jare 4y ago
I was enjoying the show a lot, and liked to watch it all the way to the end, but for the second half I felt like I was just watching a series of scenes that I liked, not a coherent story. I couldn't make heads or tails of why what was happening, was indeed happening. I chalked it up to being tired at night, and made a note to rewatch sometime soon, but now I have doubts...
- dpkirchner 4y ago
  I sorta felt the same way. However I'll say this: I am very much looking forward to the next season.
- jwagenet 4y ago
  I mean, this is more or less how I felt reading the first quarter to half of The Peripheral. Each chapter (scene) seemed disconnected and out of context, even once I understood the two time periods.
paparush 4y ago
They went so far afield from Gibson's story that I ended up very disappointed.
poloniculmov 4y ago
>So often the characters get nothing to do, nothing to say, it's nobody's job to create narrative momentum. It's just brutal. That's exactly how the books are. Cool concept, but there's barely any plot, nobody has any real motivation, things just happen to them.
- AnimalMuppet 4y ago
  Isn't that kind of appropriate, though? You create a world where there are enormous technological and sociological forces that are outside of your characters' control, and those forces change who the characters are. That's a big part of the point.
  - glenstein 4y ago
    It's about characters, technology trends and plot details that are a thousand times more specific. The execution of it is bad, and it's only through extremely lazy equivocation that those two things can be said to be the same.
- glenstein 4y ago
  >That's exactly how the books are. And it's a legitimate criticism of the books. Fidelity to substance of the original is one thing, execution is another. I think the weaknesses of the books as transposed to film, combined with poor execution of craft are what make one different from the other.

MrJohz 4y ago

Yeah, and it's pretty good, although if you like the idea, I'd recommend just reading the book. It's very different from Neuromancer, it feels like a very different Gibson has written it (more considered, but perhaps less agile - there's nothing quite as vivid as "the sky above the port"), but the central conceit is really interesting. There's already a sequel (Agency), and supposedly a third book on the way.

mehlmao 4y ago

I loved the book and struggled watching the show. You could tell which scenes were written by William Gibson, and which ones were written by the Westworld people. Around episode 3 or 4 the plot completely diverges from the book, and almost all of it is generic 'prestige TV' type writing. I would have dropped the show around episode 4 or 5 if it I didn't love the book. Can't really recommend it to anyone.

mehlmao 4y ago
To clarify: so much of the show's runtime feels like filler. Every episode has 1-2 scenes of characters arguing which are completely inconsequential to the plot. Every once in a while a character will suggest an interesting idea for how the time travel technology could be used in a novel way. But every time characters have a conversation with any depth, the show runners feel the need to cut away to an inconsequential fight scene so a hypothetical viewer won't be bored.
b800h 4y ago
Same, managed the first few episodes which were full of good ideas from Gibson, and then it meandered off into drivel. The adaptation of Neuromancer will be garbage, I plan on actively avoiding it.
glenstein 4y ago
Looks like I stopped right about where you did, even though I was quite impressed with the potential in the first 2 episodes, while my hope really started to wane by episode 3.