9 ms·

This is great. I didn't know that Mutiny[0] from Halt And Catch Fire was based on a real service. [0] https://www.ryannelson.me/projects/hcf/ https://www.ryann

This is great. I didn't know that Mutiny[0] from Halt And Catch Fire was based on a real service. [0] https://www.ryannelson.me/projects/hcf/ https://www.ryannelson.me/projects/hcf/

CSMastermind 3y ago
I love the subject matter of Halt and Catch fire but felt let down by the story telling.
- tsunamifury 3y ago
  You felt let down by what is generally considered one of the best written shows of the 2010s? I say that because maybe you need to give it a second chance. Season 4 character payoff is some of the best tv ever period.
  - bananaboy 3y ago
    Personally I bounced off it pretty hard halfway through the first season. I really wanted to like it because of the subject matter but I found all the characters very unlikeable and unsympathetic. I didn’t find myself caring whether any of them succeeded.
    - phist_mcgee 3y ago
      That's exactly where I stopped. I really didn't understand why any of the characters were doing anything, and why I should care. The pacing was quite slow, I also didn't enjoy westworld for the exact same reason, so maybe i'm just not the right kind of person.
  - fxd123 3y ago
    I enjoyed it but "best written shows of the 2010s" is an exaggeration
    - tsunamifury 3y ago
      Not at all.
      - fxd123 3y ago
        You are welcome to share your own opinion, but don't say things like "generally considered" when it's just not true...
        tsunamifury 3y ago
        Its metacritic score is "Universal Acclaim". You're welcome to your opinion, but don't share it when it's 'just not true' -- evidently?
        fxd123 3y ago
        "Universal Acclaim" being a phrase metacritic associates with a 8.5 score- from a whopping 509 reviews. Not very universal
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
  - crazygringo 3y ago
    The writing through the first season was pretty good, but also pretty mixed. The general technology/corporate story arcs were pretty great, but a lot of the scenes they wrote for Joe MacMillan (Lee Pace) were atrocious. The writers basically kept changing his fundamental character traits every episode. Lee's a great actor and did the best anyone realistically could with the material, but it was a complete mess in terms of the writers introducing constant character whiplash. And then the way Cameron (Mackenzie Davis) was written as a romantic arc with him, I'm not sure anybody could have cared less if they wound up together or not, or never talked again the rest of their lives. I've heard the fourth season is spectacular, and I'd like to get back to it someday, but the first season really wasn't strong enough to keep a lot of viewers, including myself.
  - hnlmorg 3y ago
    > You felt let down by what is generally considered one of the best written shows of the 2010s? By “generally” I’m guessing you just mean yourself? I thought the writing was pretty weak. They kept falling back on silly tropes to force some drama into the show rather than letting the subject matter itself be the drama. It very much felt like they “jumped the shark” right from the very first episode. Very few of those characters were believable, let alone likeable. I do agree season 4 is better, but and the reason why is because the dialled it back on the writing and focused a lot more on the characters. Which is what they should have done from the start. The writing for me felt a lot more like they didn’t have confidence that the subject matter is interesting enough on its own. Which is a sign of bad writing, not good writing. That all said, there were some good moments. But on the whole it just wasn’t great. However there isn’t many shows based around this subject so I guess some geeks try to convince themselves that the show was better than it actually was. But each to their own I guess
    - tsunamifury 3y ago
      HN seems to strongly disagree. So many your dog whistle insults are wrongly pointed.
      - pests 3y ago
        What? It's been 45 minutes... 30 minutes before you replied. Give things a chance to settle.
      - serf 3y ago
        I don't know what 'dog-whistle insults' even means in this case; but ignoring that, I thought the show sucked, too. In my case I think it's an aversion to specialized marketing. I hated Silicon Valley, too; I think it's a lack of distance from the topic which makes me overthink the thing rather than just having fun with the story. But with HACF I didn't just dislike the topic, I thought the acting was corny and stiff and I thought that the characters were unmotivated throughout the thing, with motivation being replaced with pseudo-historical anecdote. I thought the actors were poorly cast, and I feel like they did a bad job 'convincing' me of anything. "Of course they're doing the thing, that's who Z is!" isn't compelling enough for me to enjoy it and suspend my real personality from interjecting criticism during the watch. But who cares what I think : i've been out of lock-step with the crowd for a few years w.r.t. media consumption. Amazon/Netflix/Disney/whoever, AMC in this case shouldn't be considering what I think when toting their bags of money to the bank.
- boulos 3y ago
  I felt the first season primarily mimicked The Soul of a New Machine. Taken from that angle, I found it quite good. Amusingly, when I read that book, I mistook it for fiction. Kidder's narrative non-fiction style was so detailed I assumed it couldn't have been from notes or interviews.
andrehacker 3y ago
O, this show, basically the Forrest Gump story of computing in the 80's/90's: the main cast somehow is a significant part or straight out inventors of every piece of technology of that timeframe: on-line gaming, social networking, online marketplace, dot com. The acting is.. interesting: Lee Pace trying to channel Don Draper, Scoot McNairy being Scoot, Kerry Bishé just doing a bit of over-acting and Mackenzie Davis, well, she's cool. Loved to hate that show in the first run. Then streamed it 4 more times (playing in the background, but still): the accuracy of depiction of technology, startup issues regarding funding, liaisons and other ups and downs, personalities in tech: thumbs up.
- nsxwolf 3y ago
  In the first season I thought "Oh, this company is supposed to be Compaq?" but then realized Compaq was one of many companies that all got the exact same idea at the exact same time. After that realization I saw the characters and their projects as tragic also-rans with a series of near-successes.
- pkd 3y ago
  The first season was the weakest. Seasons 2-4 are some of the best television ever IMHO. Once they stopped trying to make it Mad Men with tech, they freed themselves up to succeed.
  - jhbadger 3y ago
    I liked the first season because the relationship between Joe and Gordon was realistic -- it was basically the relationship between Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak, Joe, like Jobs, was a slick charismatic character with little technical skill who piggybacks on the work of Gordon, as Jobs did Wozniak. The later seasons about Mutiny seemed to happen in a fantasy world that didn't really reflect the reality of the 1980s tech world despite the superficial resemblance of Mutiny to Habitat.
    - andrehacker 3y ago
      Sure, but, the relationship was symbiotic as it didn't seem that Gordon would have been able to build "the Giant" (PC) or other substantial project without the vision, push and the acquired funding (at ANY cost) from Joe. This too (and I know I'll get flack for this one) seemed to be the case with Jobs and Wozniak, Wozniak is an undisputed genius on both hard and software level but Silicon Valley had and has very smart engineers, it was the two of them that were needed to make the magic happen.
magic_hamster 3y ago
My thoughts exactly as I was reading the publication. Also, had an instant flashback to the girls buying dubious XT machines off of the back of some shady truck!

This is great. I didn't know that Mutiny[0] from Halt And Catch Fire was based on a real service. [0] https://www.ryannelson.me/projects/hcf/ https://www.ryannelson.me/projects/hcf/

CSMastermind 3y ago

I love the subject matter of Halt and Catch fire but felt let down by the story telling.

tsunamifury 3y ago
You felt let down by what is generally considered one of the best written shows of the 2010s? I say that because maybe you need to give it a second chance. Season 4 character payoff is some of the best tv ever period.
- bananaboy 3y ago
  Personally I bounced off it pretty hard halfway through the first season. I really wanted to like it because of the subject matter but I found all the characters very unlikeable and unsympathetic. I didn’t find myself caring whether any of them succeeded.
  - phist_mcgee 3y ago
    That's exactly where I stopped. I really didn't understand why any of the characters were doing anything, and why I should care. The pacing was quite slow, I also didn't enjoy westworld for the exact same reason, so maybe i'm just not the right kind of person.
- fxd123 3y ago
  I enjoyed it but "best written shows of the 2010s" is an exaggeration
  - tsunamifury 3y ago
    Not at all.
    - fxd123 3y ago
      You are welcome to share your own opinion, but don't say things like "generally considered" when it's just not true...
      - tsunamifury 3y ago
        Its metacritic score is "Universal Acclaim". You're welcome to your opinion, but don't share it when it's 'just not true' -- evidently?
        fxd123 3y ago
        "Universal Acclaim" being a phrase metacritic associates with a 8.5 score- from a whopping 509 reviews. Not very universal
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- crazygringo 3y ago
  The writing through the first season was pretty good, but also pretty mixed. The general technology/corporate story arcs were pretty great, but a lot of the scenes they wrote for Joe MacMillan (Lee Pace) were atrocious. The writers basically kept changing his fundamental character traits every episode. Lee's a great actor and did the best anyone realistically could with the material, but it was a complete mess in terms of the writers introducing constant character whiplash. And then the way Cameron (Mackenzie Davis) was written as a romantic arc with him, I'm not sure anybody could have cared less if they wound up together or not, or never talked again the rest of their lives. I've heard the fourth season is spectacular, and I'd like to get back to it someday, but the first season really wasn't strong enough to keep a lot of viewers, including myself.
- hnlmorg 3y ago
  > You felt let down by what is generally considered one of the best written shows of the 2010s? By “generally” I’m guessing you just mean yourself? I thought the writing was pretty weak. They kept falling back on silly tropes to force some drama into the show rather than letting the subject matter itself be the drama. It very much felt like they “jumped the shark” right from the very first episode. Very few of those characters were believable, let alone likeable. I do agree season 4 is better, but and the reason why is because the dialled it back on the writing and focused a lot more on the characters. Which is what they should have done from the start. The writing for me felt a lot more like they didn’t have confidence that the subject matter is interesting enough on its own. Which is a sign of bad writing, not good writing. That all said, there were some good moments. But on the whole it just wasn’t great. However there isn’t many shows based around this subject so I guess some geeks try to convince themselves that the show was better than it actually was. But each to their own I guess
  - tsunamifury 3y ago
    HN seems to strongly disagree. So many your dog whistle insults are wrongly pointed.
    - pests 3y ago
      What? It's been 45 minutes... 30 minutes before you replied. Give things a chance to settle.
    - serf 3y ago
      I don't know what 'dog-whistle insults' even means in this case; but ignoring that, I thought the show sucked, too. In my case I think it's an aversion to specialized marketing. I hated Silicon Valley, too; I think it's a lack of distance from the topic which makes me overthink the thing rather than just having fun with the story. But with HACF I didn't just dislike the topic, I thought the acting was corny and stiff and I thought that the characters were unmotivated throughout the thing, with motivation being replaced with pseudo-historical anecdote. I thought the actors were poorly cast, and I feel like they did a bad job 'convincing' me of anything. "Of course they're doing the thing, that's who Z is!" isn't compelling enough for me to enjoy it and suspend my real personality from interjecting criticism during the watch. But who cares what I think : i've been out of lock-step with the crowd for a few years w.r.t. media consumption. Amazon/Netflix/Disney/whoever, AMC in this case shouldn't be considering what I think when toting their bags of money to the bank.
boulos 3y ago
I felt the first season primarily mimicked The Soul of a New Machine. Taken from that angle, I found it quite good. Amusingly, when I read that book, I mistook it for fiction. Kidder's narrative non-fiction style was so detailed I assumed it couldn't have been from notes or interviews.

andrehacker 3y ago

O, this show, basically the Forrest Gump story of computing in the 80's/90's: the main cast somehow is a significant part or straight out inventors of every piece of technology of that timeframe: on-line gaming, social networking, online marketplace, dot com. The acting is.. interesting: Lee Pace trying to channel Don Draper, Scoot McNairy being Scoot, Kerry Bishé just doing a bit of over-acting and Mackenzie Davis, well, she's cool. Loved to hate that show in the first run. Then streamed it 4 more times (playing in the background, but still): the accuracy of depiction of technology, startup issues regarding funding, liaisons and other ups and downs, personalities in tech: thumbs up.

nsxwolf 3y ago
In the first season I thought "Oh, this company is supposed to be Compaq?" but then realized Compaq was one of many companies that all got the exact same idea at the exact same time. After that realization I saw the characters and their projects as tragic also-rans with a series of near-successes.
pkd 3y ago
The first season was the weakest. Seasons 2-4 are some of the best television ever IMHO. Once they stopped trying to make it Mad Men with tech, they freed themselves up to succeed.
- jhbadger 3y ago
  I liked the first season because the relationship between Joe and Gordon was realistic -- it was basically the relationship between Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak, Joe, like Jobs, was a slick charismatic character with little technical skill who piggybacks on the work of Gordon, as Jobs did Wozniak. The later seasons about Mutiny seemed to happen in a fantasy world that didn't really reflect the reality of the 1980s tech world despite the superficial resemblance of Mutiny to Habitat.
  - andrehacker 3y ago
    Sure, but, the relationship was symbiotic as it didn't seem that Gordon would have been able to build "the Giant" (PC) or other substantial project without the vision, push and the acquired funding (at ANY cost) from Joe. This too (and I know I'll get flack for this one) seemed to be the case with Jobs and Wozniak, Wozniak is an undisputed genius on both hard and software level but Silicon Valley had and has very smart engineers, it was the two of them that were needed to make the magic happen.

magic_hamster 3y ago

My thoughts exactly as I was reading the publication. Also, had an instant flashback to the girls buying dubious XT machines off of the back of some shady truck!