6 ms·

This complaint largely lands on the same points as the ones against Mr. Robot, and it has some merit, but the shows are made for cable TV audiences, so they're

This complaint largely lands on the same points as the ones against Mr. Robot, and it has some merit, but the shows are made for cable TV audiences, so they're a bit more niche than broadcast shows, but they're mass market vehicles. They're nearly pushing a rope to make this content entertaining at all. If people cared, they'd already know the history and the social implications of the technology, as well as the personalities involved. These kinds of shows are meant to bring more folks into the industry and help folks see the humanity in each other and in themselves if they're in it. Most folks don't watch tv for anything but storylines and personalities, so historical or current relevance in entertainment is something I'll take where and when I can get it. What are some tech shows that you like, or dramas, for context?

hnlmorg 1y ago
I’m not suggesting the show should be factually accurate. I’m saying it doesn’t need pyrotechnics to be engaging. Mr Robot was a different beast because that was literally about criminal and hacker culture. So you’d expect a little action in that regard. To put it another way: you have shows that have strong enough writers where they don’t need gimmicks to keep your attention. And you have shows that are intentionally about the gimmicks. Then you have shows that aren’t about the gimmicks but the writers don’t have enough confidence in their work to avoid putting them in anyway. Shows like The West Wing, House of Cards etc aren’t about gimmicks and don’t need them. Shows like Stargate are about the gimmicks. And that’s ok too because you know it’s meant to be silly drama. But shows like HCF feel like they should be executed like HoCs, yet they’re written like Mr Robot, Stargate, etc. So it’s very jarring to watch every time another gimmick gets thrown in. Maybe I expected too much from that show? But it just felt like they didn’t have any confidence in people’s attention spans.
- aspenmayer 1y ago
  > To put it another way: you have shows that have strong enough writers where they don’t need gimmicks to keep your attention. And you have shows that are intentionally about the gimmicks. Then you have shows that aren’t about the gimmicks but the writers don’t have enough confidence in their work to avoid putting them in anyway. Can you elaborate a bit about the gimmick(s) in Halt and Catch Fire? I think it's a drama, so there are human concerns and interactions, but that's like, what tv shows are? I don't know what you mean specifically. > Shows like The West Wing, House of Cards etc aren’t about gimmicks and don’t need them. The West Wing is statist propaganda for liberals. House of Cards is statist propaganda for neocons. > Shows like Mr Robot are about the gimmicks. And that’s ok too because you know it’s meant to be silly drama. I actually really appreciate that every hack shown on Mr. Robot had a real world POC and used actually existing tools and techniques. The storyline is hokum and gives hackers a bad name, but black hats are kinda supposed to have a bad name. Elliot is kinda gray hat, but he definitely violated CFAA multiple times and would probably be dead or in jail irl.
  - hnlmorg 1y ago
    By “gimmicks” (poor choice of word on my part but it was late and I was tired) I mean unnecessary drama that isn’t there to further the plot. It’s just there to offer episodic cliffhangers. So much of the “drama” in that show was completely redundant and over the top too. Things like setting the truck alight for no reason other than “I’m so emo”. Affairs that are talked about for one episode then forgotten about. Suicides that didn’t touch on mental illness and instead focused on an open source (you could have done that without the death) and thus that death felt completely redundant, mishandled, and there just for another cliffhanger. I get the need to make things exciting. But the drama didn’t feel earned. It felt shoehorned because some executive was worried people might get bored about a show which uses the computer industry as a backdrop.
    - aspenmayer 1y ago
      I think I would agree with you that it’s a dramatic show, and since these are characters, they tried to smash too much together into a supergroup of larger than life achievers with egos to match. I think you’re right that they did try to juice the drama a bit more than was believable in a few cases, but it was meant to show the full gamut of the tech industry and associated scenes, and it kind of felt strained or forced at times. I wouldn’t really call it a gimmick either, but perhaps that is the best word for their reach exceeding their grasp. It’s a kind of myth making, I suppose. Folks want to feel like their own lives are meaningful and exciting, and so they seek out content that is familiar and validates their life choices. Lots of folks in the tech industry are passionate. Others want to want things, but their get up and go got up and went. Halt and Catch Fire is a kind of wish fulfillment for tech folks, but there aren’t unqualified happy endings in the show, so the successes of the characters do feel largely earned by them, even if the dramatic hurdles do seem somewhat overblown or unrealistic. I’ve known enough folks in the industry to see all kinds, from very stable geniuses to shameless sycophants. Most are just regular people, but they rarely make for good television, so regular folks are the side characters or spouses. The viewers are here for drama, not realism.
    - udev4096 1y ago
      I believe ryan, especially his death, was about Aaron Swartz and the value of open information and less to do with "open source"
- tptacek 1y ago
  What pyrotechnics are you referring to? In HCF? My complaint about this show is sort of the opposite --- that it's basically Six Feet Under, but replace the funeral home with a series of tech startups. (I think it's a solid B-tier prestige series; I don't hate it).
  - aspenmayer 1y ago
    That's what I'm asking! It's like, did we even watch the same show?
    - chipt4 1y ago
      Not to mention, HoC had a major gimmick driving it (spacey breaking the 4th wall).
      - hnlmorg 1y ago
        That’s one gimmick and it was weaved throughout the show. It was also used to further the story telling. HCF created drama in places it wasn’t earned. And did so just so that episodes could have cliffhangers. Think of it like a shower scene in a movie. More often than not, it has literally no relevance to the movie. It doesn’t further the plot. It’s not even part of the story. It’s just there so that it can be used as a clip in the movie trailer. Well HCF was full of stuff that, admittedly wasn’t there for trailers (or at least I don’t think they were), but they also added nothing to the story. They were just there to artificially add some drama. But that drama wasn’t earned. For example, the suicide was very poorly handled. It was used as vehicle for discussing open source vs proprietary code. But you could have easily done that without the death. Instead you ended up with interesting plot themes being overshadowed by this one lazy plot device. The show was absolutely full of stuff like that. Things that were completely out of the blue and if it made it to the cutting room flow then the show would have flowed just the same without it.
        aspenmayer 1y ago
        > Think of it like a shower scene in a movie. More often than not, it has literally no relevance to the movie. It doesn’t further the plot. It’s not even part of the story. It’s just there so that it can be used as a clip in the movie trailer. Depends on the movie. Once I studied films and film theory (just in undergrad, not trying to claim any special authority on the subject), I appreciated more how these interstitial scenes are meaningful. It's all part of mise-en-scène. It lets the scenes feel alive and lived in, and not just a 2D image flying by at 24ish FPS. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mise-en-sc%C3%A8ne https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mise-en-sc%C3%A8ne > Mise-en-scène has been called film criticism's "grand undefined term". Ed Sikov has attempted to define it as "the totality of expressive content within the image". It has been criticized for its focus on the dramatic design aspects rather than the plot itself, as those who utilize mise-en-scène tend to look at what is "put before the camera" rather than the story. The use of mise-en-scène is significant as it allows the director to convey messages to the viewer through what is placed in the scene, not just the scripted lines spoken and acted in the scene. Mise-en-scène allows the director to not only convey their message but also implement their aesthetic; as such, each director has their own unique mise-en-scène. Mise-en-scène refers to everything in front of the camera, including the set design, lighting, and actors, and the ultimate way that this influences how the scene comes together for the audience. If you've seen many horror movies, you know to expect a jump scare, but because the actual original scare in a shower scene[0] is so played-out by now, audiences expect it, so it has to be subverted. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psycho_(1960_film) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psycho_(1960_film) Edit: Just was going over the thread again to see if there were any new posts, and I glanced over your comment again and wanted to reply to this point, because I agree with you and I think I didn't acknowledge this, and it really brings your point upthread home and validates it. > For example, the suicide was very poorly handled. I completely forgot about that part. Good call-out. Mental health issues and self-harm, especially imagery of it, are not plot devices to be used carelessly. Representation matters, and yet it's so hard to do well because those being represented need understanding also, not just seeing triggering stuff on TV and movies. That definitely didn't feel earned, and it didn't land well. I don't know how else it was supposed to feel though, considering the seriousness of the issue. It's a hard topic to put to film. Thanks for mentioning it.

hnlmorg 1y ago

I’m not suggesting the show should be factually accurate. I’m saying it doesn’t need pyrotechnics to be engaging. Mr Robot was a different beast because that was literally about criminal and hacker culture. So you’d expect a little action in that regard. To put it another way: you have shows that have strong enough writers where they don’t need gimmicks to keep your attention. And you have shows that are intentionally about the gimmicks. Then you have shows that aren’t about the gimmicks but the writers don’t have enough confidence in their work to avoid putting them in anyway. Shows like The West Wing, House of Cards etc aren’t about gimmicks and don’t need them. Shows like Stargate are about the gimmicks. And that’s ok too because you know it’s meant to be silly drama. But shows like HCF feel like they should be executed like HoCs, yet they’re written like Mr Robot, Stargate, etc. So it’s very jarring to watch every time another gimmick gets thrown in. Maybe I expected too much from that show? But it just felt like they didn’t have any confidence in people’s attention spans.

aspenmayer 1y ago
> To put it another way: you have shows that have strong enough writers where they don’t need gimmicks to keep your attention. And you have shows that are intentionally about the gimmicks. Then you have shows that aren’t about the gimmicks but the writers don’t have enough confidence in their work to avoid putting them in anyway. Can you elaborate a bit about the gimmick(s) in Halt and Catch Fire? I think it's a drama, so there are human concerns and interactions, but that's like, what tv shows are? I don't know what you mean specifically. > Shows like The West Wing, House of Cards etc aren’t about gimmicks and don’t need them. The West Wing is statist propaganda for liberals. House of Cards is statist propaganda for neocons. > Shows like Mr Robot are about the gimmicks. And that’s ok too because you know it’s meant to be silly drama. I actually really appreciate that every hack shown on Mr. Robot had a real world POC and used actually existing tools and techniques. The storyline is hokum and gives hackers a bad name, but black hats are kinda supposed to have a bad name. Elliot is kinda gray hat, but he definitely violated CFAA multiple times and would probably be dead or in jail irl.
- hnlmorg 1y ago
  By “gimmicks” (poor choice of word on my part but it was late and I was tired) I mean unnecessary drama that isn’t there to further the plot. It’s just there to offer episodic cliffhangers. So much of the “drama” in that show was completely redundant and over the top too. Things like setting the truck alight for no reason other than “I’m so emo”. Affairs that are talked about for one episode then forgotten about. Suicides that didn’t touch on mental illness and instead focused on an open source (you could have done that without the death) and thus that death felt completely redundant, mishandled, and there just for another cliffhanger. I get the need to make things exciting. But the drama didn’t feel earned. It felt shoehorned because some executive was worried people might get bored about a show which uses the computer industry as a backdrop.
  - aspenmayer 1y ago
    I think I would agree with you that it’s a dramatic show, and since these are characters, they tried to smash too much together into a supergroup of larger than life achievers with egos to match. I think you’re right that they did try to juice the drama a bit more than was believable in a few cases, but it was meant to show the full gamut of the tech industry and associated scenes, and it kind of felt strained or forced at times. I wouldn’t really call it a gimmick either, but perhaps that is the best word for their reach exceeding their grasp. It’s a kind of myth making, I suppose. Folks want to feel like their own lives are meaningful and exciting, and so they seek out content that is familiar and validates their life choices. Lots of folks in the tech industry are passionate. Others want to want things, but their get up and go got up and went. Halt and Catch Fire is a kind of wish fulfillment for tech folks, but there aren’t unqualified happy endings in the show, so the successes of the characters do feel largely earned by them, even if the dramatic hurdles do seem somewhat overblown or unrealistic. I’ve known enough folks in the industry to see all kinds, from very stable geniuses to shameless sycophants. Most are just regular people, but they rarely make for good television, so regular folks are the side characters or spouses. The viewers are here for drama, not realism.
  - udev4096 1y ago
    I believe ryan, especially his death, was about Aaron Swartz and the value of open information and less to do with "open source"
tptacek 1y ago
What pyrotechnics are you referring to? In HCF? My complaint about this show is sort of the opposite --- that it's basically Six Feet Under, but replace the funeral home with a series of tech startups. (I think it's a solid B-tier prestige series; I don't hate it).
- aspenmayer 1y ago
  That's what I'm asking! It's like, did we even watch the same show?
  - chipt4 1y ago
    Not to mention, HoC had a major gimmick driving it (spacey breaking the 4th wall).
    - hnlmorg 1y ago
      That’s one gimmick and it was weaved throughout the show. It was also used to further the story telling. HCF created drama in places it wasn’t earned. And did so just so that episodes could have cliffhangers. Think of it like a shower scene in a movie. More often than not, it has literally no relevance to the movie. It doesn’t further the plot. It’s not even part of the story. It’s just there so that it can be used as a clip in the movie trailer. Well HCF was full of stuff that, admittedly wasn’t there for trailers (or at least I don’t think they were), but they also added nothing to the story. They were just there to artificially add some drama. But that drama wasn’t earned. For example, the suicide was very poorly handled. It was used as vehicle for discussing open source vs proprietary code. But you could have easily done that without the death. Instead you ended up with interesting plot themes being overshadowed by this one lazy plot device. The show was absolutely full of stuff like that. Things that were completely out of the blue and if it made it to the cutting room flow then the show would have flowed just the same without it.
      - aspenmayer 1y ago
        > Think of it like a shower scene in a movie. More often than not, it has literally no relevance to the movie. It doesn’t further the plot. It’s not even part of the story. It’s just there so that it can be used as a clip in the movie trailer. Depends on the movie. Once I studied films and film theory (just in undergrad, not trying to claim any special authority on the subject), I appreciated more how these interstitial scenes are meaningful. It's all part of mise-en-scène. It lets the scenes feel alive and lived in, and not just a 2D image flying by at 24ish FPS. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mise-en-sc%C3%A8ne https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mise-en-sc%C3%A8ne > Mise-en-scène has been called film criticism's "grand undefined term". Ed Sikov has attempted to define it as "the totality of expressive content within the image". It has been criticized for its focus on the dramatic design aspects rather than the plot itself, as those who utilize mise-en-scène tend to look at what is "put before the camera" rather than the story. The use of mise-en-scène is significant as it allows the director to convey messages to the viewer through what is placed in the scene, not just the scripted lines spoken and acted in the scene. Mise-en-scène allows the director to not only convey their message but also implement their aesthetic; as such, each director has their own unique mise-en-scène. Mise-en-scène refers to everything in front of the camera, including the set design, lighting, and actors, and the ultimate way that this influences how the scene comes together for the audience. If you've seen many horror movies, you know to expect a jump scare, but because the actual original scare in a shower scene[0] is so played-out by now, audiences expect it, so it has to be subverted. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psycho_(1960_film) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psycho_(1960_film) Edit: Just was going over the thread again to see if there were any new posts, and I glanced over your comment again and wanted to reply to this point, because I agree with you and I think I didn't acknowledge this, and it really brings your point upthread home and validates it. > For example, the suicide was very poorly handled. I completely forgot about that part. Good call-out. Mental health issues and self-harm, especially imagery of it, are not plot devices to be used carelessly. Representation matters, and yet it's so hard to do well because those being represented need understanding also, not just seeing triggering stuff on TV and movies. That definitely didn't feel earned, and it didn't land well. I don't know how else it was supposed to feel though, considering the seriousness of the issue. It's a hard topic to put to film. Thanks for mentioning it.