or do that one Roald Dahl story and become a psychic who can see through the cards at the casino and then make loads of money by breaking the system in a different disguise each time.
Didn't he get cancer at the end, as a natural side-effect of abusing his powers?
No. He learned how to be a psychic from a book written by another psychic (and that psychic, the one who wrote the book, died as a side-effect of abusing his powers). The main character built orphanages and did good stuff with his money.
i don't agree with the sentiment but a lot of it really sucks
I won't dispute that but a lot of a lot of things really suck. We're insulated from the shit of the past by the fact that people pretty much stop talking about it.
Walt's a super-intelligent professor and Jesse's a rich kid who got into drugs. Thus, their methmaking is cool enough to warrant a compelling story, which then warrants praise from the media.
I would like to point out that what little I saw of the show early on painted Jesse as an unsympathetic nitwit who Walt turns to for aid out of desperation. I should also point out that Walt is not a professor, but a high school teacher, basically middle class, perhaps living beyond his means. They are both essentially losers, albeit of different varieties: Walt a sympathetic one that turns into a monster, Jesse an unsympathetic one that... well, I have no idea, seeing as I have not actually seen the later seasons.
You know, it's strange: In theory, I support what you are saying and do not really disagree on an ideological level, but your approach is really bothering me. I feel like you are being reductive and making faulty assumptions about material that you are unfamiliar with based on intuitions and second-hand sources. I don't want to be the guy that says, "You haven't seen it so you can't judge it," but you sound like you're getting angry based on what you think this show will be like rather than any real notion of what the show is. You are a very perceptive person who is clearly against prejudice on principle, so I find that kind of behaviour disappointing.
from what i've read as things go on it becomes obvious that Walt was basically a powderkeg of anger and resentment at the world before anything even started
Yeah, you get that vibe really early on. On the one hand, you can understand his reasoning and sympathise with his anger, but you just know that he's digging his own grave in many senses of the word. It's unsettling.
Walt's a super-intelligent professor and Jesse's a rich kid who got into drugs. Thus, their methmaking is cool enough to warrant a compelling story, which then warrants praise from the media.
I would like to point out that what little I saw of the show early on painted Jesse as an unsympathetic nitwit who Walt turns to for aid out of desperation. I should also point out that Walt is not a professor, but a high school teacher, basically middle class, perhaps living beyond his means. They are both essentially losers, albeit of different varieties: Walt a sympathetic one that turns into a monster, Jesse an unsympathetic one that... well, I have no idea, seeing as I have not actually seen the later seasons.
You know, it's strange: In theory, I support what you are saying and do not really disagree on an ideological level, but your approach is really bothering me. I feel like you are being reductive and making faulty assumptions about material that you are unfamiliar with based on intuitions and second-hand sources. I don't want to be the guy that says, "You haven't seen it so you can't judge it," but you sound like you're getting angry based on what you think this show will be like rather than any real notion of what the show is. You are a very perceptive person who is clearly against prejudice on principle, so I find that kind of behaviour disappointing.
I wouldn't say that I'm really angry about it, but yeah, I understand what you're talking about
Like I said earlier, my beef's more with the premise, i.e. 'this show wasn't casted the way a show on meth should be casted, imo', which is just a smaller version of 'there aren't enough non-white people in leading roles in modern media'. I don't have anything against the show itself (and again, I think it's a compelling narrative) but since I've foolishly built my entire argument up from that one show, I have to keep using it as an example, which leads to me putting square pegs in holes that are actually round. Apologies.
And after all the times you've out-argued me about Homestuck, a thing that I've actually read, I'm surprised that you'd call me perceptive. :p
You are the end result of a “would you push the button” prompt where the prompt was “you have unlimited godlike powers but you appear to all and sundry to be an impetuous child” – Zero, 2022
I wouldn't say that I'm really angry about it, but yeah, I understand what you're talking about
Like I said earlier, my beef's more with the premise, i.e. 'this show wasn't casted the way a show on meth should be casted, imo', which is just a smaller version of 'there aren't enough non-white people in leading roles in modern media'. I don't have anything against the show itself (and again, I think it's a compelling narrative) but since I've foolishly built my entire argument up from that one show, I have to keep using it as an example, which leads to me putting square pegs in holes that are actually round. Apologies.
And after all the times you've out-argued me about Homestuck, a thing that I've actually read, I'm surprised that you'd call me perceptive. :p
There is a very serious problem with how television is cast in the US, particularly with respect to minorities, but I think that the reason that the show was written the way that it was initially was aiming for something very different from what I think that you got out of it: That is, to be more uncomfortable to that predominantly white, middle-aged, middle-class demographic by asking them, "If you had the option to do this, could you? Would you? Why? Would you still be the same person afterward? Would you feel justified? At what point will you have gone too far? Would you know it?" It was, I think, an attempt to subvert the audience's assumptions about themselves rather than simply subvert a standing stereotype. Whether or not it succeeded and whether or not it inadvertently reinforced bad assumptions are entirely different questions. Totally valid, but different.
As for the Homestuck thing: Dude, I think too much about everything that I read and I absolutely obsess over things that I love. The fact that you didn't catch every little thing does not speak against your observational powers, only to that I have way too much time on my hands.
Speaking of minorities not being cast enough; why is it that in basically every show, movie, or otherwise screen production about Rome; only white people are shown as living in Rome?
I mean, seriously, did ethiopians not exist?
Rome was a very diverse city; with people from all over the place. How are you going to be the center of trade for three continents if you only have one ethnic group in you?
And it's not like all the non-white people were lower class or slaves; neither. Septimus Severus was arguably at least of mixed race.
Heck, how come none of the productions of The Odyssey have Eurybates (Odysseus' herald and buddy; who Homer specifically says has dark skin and curly hair)?
I am going to say that part of it stems from how the Romans tended to depict themselves, but even then, the features of the statues of many roman leaders show them as having features that we would associate less with the "European ideal" and more with the kind of mixed Mediterranean look that we see in a lot of southern Italians and people from the Middle East, with a few being distinctly North African. In the end, it's really just playing to people's expectations in the dumbest way possible.
That's stupid, English is germanic, Latin is Latinate. At least a french, italian, spanish, or portugese accent would have some tenuous shred of maybe-credibility.
^^ Because it is a very well-written, well-acted scene. I would also add that a character does not cease to be human or to have sympathetic qualities when they lose any pretence of heroism.
Being the protagonist, even if you are sympathetic, does not mean that you are a good person. That scene is a perfect distillation of the notion. Walt is pretty much saying that he is the villain of the story at this point. The sad part is knowing how he became that way and seeing that he recognises and regrets this, yet cannot (or does not think that he can) turn back.
People do not react to fictional characters the same way they react to real people.
On some level, that knowledge that the story is make-believe gives us distance, or maybe an invisible wall from the story; and that distance/wall is comforting. As scared as you are of Iago in Shakespeare's Othello, there is a distance between you, the audience, and the character, the set. Maybe it's just a few feet from your chair to the stage; but still, you are on the outside looking in; and there is an unspoken boundary between the two worlds.
Or at the zoo, where the ferocious lion stands a few feet away from you, separated from you by glass. You know you aren't in danger, you have that wall; both physically and emotionally. And so, it is easy to not be afraid of the beast.
It is easy to admire its claws, its teeth, its might; and forget that just a few feet away from you is a thing that can kill you.
If we can do that with a real life beast, it's no wonder we can do that with a make-believe beast.
I wouldn't say that Iago's scary. Disturbing on many levels, yes, but he's too single-minded to seem threatening to me as an audience member. All the dark stuff that he does is done in order to screw with Othello. You only get hurt if you get in his way. He's like a bullet train; as long as you stay out of the tracks, you're fine.
Li'l Rozzy saw Othello at eight years old. I had seen many plays before, and I knew that the players never looked at audience members.
I don't remember who played Iago, but whoever did him did a preformance of a lifetime. And what is more, he looked at me. And I forgot that it was all make-believe. Too scared to scream, or say anything, I just sat still in my seat, frozen in shock
Yeah, having Iago look at you is like seeing the lion at the zoo and then suddenly seeing the glass is gone.
Well, a few minutes later, one actor had to repeat his line because the other actor had forgotten his response to said line.
And at that point, I was once again aware that it was make-believe. The wall was there again.
Not truly understanding the difference between perception and reality, my mind concluded that reality itself had changed during the play, and them had changed back.
I enjoyed the play, but I didn't know the words to ask the Actor of Iago how he did that. The best I could do was something like "it was all real when you looked at me, and then later, it was make-believe, but for a minute it was real. How do you make pretend into real?"
I guess with Television, the flickering of the screen always reminds you it's an image on a screen. I guess with television, the wall never disappears. Maybe that's why television baddies are easier to like than theatre?
Comments
No. He learned how to be a psychic from a book written by another psychic (and that psychic, the one who wrote the book, died as a side-effect of abusing his powers). The main character built orphanages and did good stuff with his money.
it'd be more accurate to say that it tends not to produce anything particularly fabulous
at the very least there's rarely anything i want to watch on commercial television
Twilight Zone
Star Trek
☭
B̤̺͍̰͕̺̠̕u҉̖͙̝̮͕̲ͅm̟̼̦̠̹̙p͡s̹͖ ̻T́h̗̫͈̙̩r̮e̴̩̺̖̠̭̜ͅa̛̪̟͍̣͎͖̺d͉̦͠s͕̞͚̲͍ ̲̬̹̤Y̻̤̱o̭͠u̥͉̥̜͡ ̴̥̪D̳̲̳̤o̴͙̘͓̤̟̗͇n̰̗̞̼̳͙͖͢'҉͖t̳͓̣͍̗̰ ͉W̝̳͓̼͜a̗͉̳͖̘̮n͕ͅt͚̟͚ ̸̺T̜̖̖̺͎̱ͅo̭̪̰̼̥̜ ̼͍̟̝R̝̹̮̭ͅͅe̡̗͇a͍̘̤͉͘d̼̜ 
⚢
"A retelling of the world within Fire & Ice, where kingdoms cook meth to come out as the superior."
Breaking Thrones
"Fat people become the kings of heart attacks; nobody is happy"
Assassin poems, Poems that shoot
guns. Poems that wrestle cops into alleys
and take their weapons leaving them dead
Assassin poems, Poems that shoot
guns. Poems that wrestle cops into alleys
and take their weapons leaving them dead
I mean, seriously, did ethiopians not exist?
Rome was a very diverse city; with people from all over the place. How are you going to be the center of trade for three continents if you only have one ethnic group in you?
And it's not like all the non-white people were lower class or slaves; neither. Septimus Severus was arguably at least of mixed race.
Heck, how come none of the productions of The Odyssey have Eurybates (Odysseus' herald and buddy; who Homer specifically says has dark skin and curly hair)?
Assassin poems, Poems that shoot
guns. Poems that wrestle cops into alleys
and take their weapons leaving them dead
Assassin poems, Poems that shoot
guns. Poems that wrestle cops into alleys
and take their weapons leaving them dead
Assassin poems, Poems that shoot
guns. Poems that wrestle cops into alleys
and take their weapons leaving them dead
"I will tell all my friends to watch Breaking Bad, and also The Wire"
even after it was undersold to me.
On some level, that knowledge that the story is make-believe gives us distance, or maybe an invisible wall from the story; and that distance/wall is comforting. As scared as you are of Iago in Shakespeare's Othello, there is a distance between you, the audience, and the character, the set. Maybe it's just a few feet from your chair to the stage; but still, you are on the outside looking in; and there is an unspoken boundary between the two worlds.
Or at the zoo, where the ferocious lion stands a few feet away from you, separated from you by glass. You know you aren't in danger, you have that wall; both physically and emotionally. And so, it is easy to not be afraid of the beast.
It is easy to admire its claws, its teeth, its might; and forget that just a few feet away from you is a thing that can kill you.
If we can do that with a real life beast, it's no wonder we can do that with a make-believe beast.
Assassin poems, Poems that shoot
guns. Poems that wrestle cops into alleys
and take their weapons leaving them dead
I don't remember who played Iago, but whoever did him did a preformance of a lifetime. And what is more, he looked at me. And I forgot that it was all make-believe. Too scared to scream, or say anything, I just sat still in my seat, frozen in shock
Assassin poems, Poems that shoot
guns. Poems that wrestle cops into alleys
and take their weapons leaving them dead
Well, a few minutes later, one actor had to repeat his line because the other actor had forgotten his response to said line.
And at that point, I was once again aware that it was make-believe. The wall was there again.
Not truly understanding the difference between perception and reality, my mind concluded that reality itself had changed during the play, and them had changed back.
I enjoyed the play, but I didn't know the words to ask the Actor of Iago how he did that. The best I could do was something like "it was all real when you looked at me, and then later, it was make-believe, but for a minute it was real. How do you make pretend into real?"
I guess with Television, the flickering of the screen always reminds you it's an image on a screen. I guess with television, the wall never disappears. Maybe that's why television baddies are easier to like than theatre?