What is the last Television series you watched?

[A24 5,155]

Childish.

[Brónach 1,330]

You don't need life experience or research to do fantasy. That's my point. Is that so difficult to understand?

Uuuh. Because fantasy doesn't have characters and people in it. Because fantasy can't have lots of stuff that can, or need to, be researched.

[A24 5,155]

Exactly.

[Brónach 1,330]

What?

[JoeinAR 1,957]

Childish.

yes we get it you're so totally empty you reject it.

[Quintus 6,494]

You don't need life experience or research to do fantasy.

You'll need you elaborate on that because for the time being it has Alexcremers sweeping generalisation all over it.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 12,385]

Ales doesnt want to talk about what Uncle George did to him Joe. The memory is still too painfull.

Show us Alex....show us on the puppet were George touched you!

[Brónach 1,330]

You don't need life experience or research to do fantasy.

You'll need you elaborate on that because for the time being it has Alexcremers sweeping generalisation all over it.

I have attempted writing fantasy and science fiction, and that statemet goes straight against my experiences with it. In fact, other people who I know that have even published stuff told me exactly this in the past.

[A24 5,155]

You don't need life experience or research to do fantasy.

You'll need you elaborate on that because for the time being it has Alexcremers sweeping generalisation all over it.

With fantasy, you can run your imagination run wild. It's why it's called fantasy. It's free, everything goes, there are no rules. It only needs to conform to an internal logic.

[Wojo 2,458]

That is the broadest possible description of fantasy, but it does not apply to a show like Mad Men, which belongs to a specific niche called "historical fiction" that must at least make an effort to fit somewhere into history so the people who lived it don't cry "bullshit" each step of the way.

Were Mad Men a pure fantasy, Don Draper could have voted for a genetically resurrected Franklin Roosevelt in the latest election while flying a pink dragon to work wearing a gold-studded tunic and smoking a legal joint, and later have lunch with the well-endowed broad from Firefly who became CEO of the company he works at. THAT would be fantasy.

[Quintus 6,494]

So, by Alex's definition, the fact that professor Tolkien drew deeply from his dark times spent in the trenches of the Somme when conceiving of Middle-Earth, it's characters, their motivations, their pathos and their loss is worthless tittle-tattle. That the author's terrible experiences in those trenches arguably translated into the very real emotions felt by those who read his books apparently speaks nothing of either the reader's nor the writer's "maturity" and "life experience", but is instead nothing more than the sprightly musings of an old guy pining after his childhood and in fact didn't require any skill or worldly insight at all.

[Brónach 1,330]

Also all the linguistic stuff including names, development of a language family, and assimilation and simulation of the tendencies of ancient literature.

[Quintus 6,494]

Well, that's more technical than anything else and could apply to any genre.

[Brónach 1,330]

Yeah, but it supports your point. Another guy couldn't have written The Lord of the Rings, because LOTR is formed by Tolkien's particular blend of his own experiences and knowledge.

[Koray Savas 2,260]

sorry quint but mad men is not refined or intelligent,

?

Personally, I can't think of anything that is written more intelligently, refined or mature. Anyone can write for Lost or Lost clones like The Walking Dead . You don't have to have any life experience. It's mainly fantasy and bogus. Every child has that.

There goes Alex being his usual ignorant self!

You are right, most kids have fantasy, but not Koray. Is that why you find yourself in the editing department?

Alex has a point

Of course, I have a point. With fantasy, you can run your imagination run wild. It's why it's called fantasy. It's free, everything goes, there are no rules. It only needs to conform to an internal logic. If you're going to write for a show like for Mad Men, your fantasy will not get you anywhere. Not only does one need the life experience to write about big and complex themes and emotions, you need a true understanding of them. A lot more research is needed too. Most young writers and that have a bit of imagination can write fantasy and bogus (even George Lucas), but they can't write for Mad Men.

The above-mentioned mostly applies to the viewer as well. Kids enjoy fantasy because it doesn't require the life experience one needs to relate to the themes and subtilities of human behavior in Man Men. I can imagine that, if I were 17 and I would watch Mad Men, I would only see people having boring conversations while smoking cigarettes and drinking alcohol.

There's a time for everything. When I was very young, I loved tales about knights, princesses, far and distant worlds, Star Wars, good and evil, Planet Of The Apes and TV policiers. I've been there, I've done that. I'm no longer part of that audience. I moved on. I don't relate to those kind of stories anymore. Today I'm looking for different things and it's exactly what Mad Men is giving me.

Alex

You again completely disregard LOST as a show of bogus fantasy when it deals with a lot more complicated themes than Mad Men does.

Bogus.

You don't need life experience or research to do fantasy. That's my point. Is that so difficult to understand?

And what do you know, Koray? I remember that when you watched Mad Men you were already lost because Don Draper isn't a sympathetic character. You didn't know what to think of the show because of this.

And you keep conveniently ignoring my point. LOST is a fantasy, but it's all wrapped around very real struggles of people. Losing a father, raising a child alone, drug addiction, overcoming a handicap, dealing with the murder-suicide of your parents or the horrible things you did in a war. These all take real life experiences, Alex. It also is heavily rooted in literature, philosophy, and religion. You obviously haven't watched the whole series but I've been assuming that you saw Season 1. Probably not even that much, so you obviously have no idea what the fuck you're talking about.

I love Mad Men, and your mind pretentiously filled in nonexistent things that I've said about it. I was never lost watching it, I just didn't like any of the characters. Draper in particular is one I hate, but I keep returning to it. I deduced sometime back that it was because of its unique formula and writing quality, the former which took me time to peg. It's a very well written and acted show.

[Wojo 2,458]

But since The Lord of the Rings is fantasy, Professor Tolkien didn't have to be a professor to write it. He didn't have to know Norse and Germanic and Celtic mythologies, or absorb nearly every major epic and romantic archetype into his story. He could have been one of an infinite number of illiterate monkeys banging away on the typewriter until the story was complete.

[Quintus 6,494]

Yeah!

[A24 5,155]

And you keep conveniently ignoring my point. LOST is a fantasy, but it's all wrapped around very real struggles of people. Losing a father, raising a child alone, drug addiction, overcoming a handicap, dealing with the murder-suicide of your parents or the horrible things you did in a war. These all take real life experiences, Alex. It also is heavily rooted in literature, philosophy, and religion. You obviously haven't watched the whole series but I've been assuming that you saw Season 1. Probably not even that much, so you obviously have no idea what the fuck you're talking about.

No, I've seen several seasons of Lost, Koray. All the things you are mention here are plotlines written to create either more mystery, chills and thrills, or big drama, exaggerated for effect, or to create clearly defined characters so the audience can identify each personality. At no point did I feel Lost treated life in a serious, mature, subtle, socially clever, insighful, existential way. Nor is it the focus of the show. In fact, it's the part of Lost that I was most bored with.

[JoeinAR 1,957]

And you keep conveniently ignoring my point. LOST is a fantasy, but it's all wrapped around very real struggles of people. Losing a father, raising a child alone, drug addiction, overcoming a handicap, dealing with the murder-suicide of your parents or the horrible things you did in a war. These all take real life experiences, Alex. It also is heavily rooted in literature, philosophy, and religion. You obviously haven't watched the whole series but I've been assuming that you saw Season 1. Probably not even that much, so you obviously have no idea what the fuck you're talking about.

No, I've seen several seasons of Lost, Koray. All the things you are mention here are plotlines written to create either more mystery, chills and thrills, or big drama, exaggerated for effect, or to create clearly defined characters so the audience can identify each personality. At no point did I feel Lost treated life in a serious, mature, subtle, socially clever, insighful, existential way. Nor is it the focus of the show. In fact, it's the part of Lost that I was most bored with.

really you must never have seen it then. Life and Death is a serious, mature, matter, true the show may not have been subtle but it was clever, insightful, and boy the only way to describe the last season was as an existential experiment, which failed in the finale.

[Brónach 1,330]

Something I would love right know is Alexcremers to pick a scene from a show he loves and explain in detail why and how it treats life in a serious, mature, subtle, socially clever, insightful and existential way. Because I'm not sure how terribly subjective all that is, and I'm not sure if just says this because he simply likes something, and would deny it to anything that he doesn't like.

[A24 5,155]

Well, just watch Mad Men! Then again, you said that you only like fantasy and science fiction, so what's the point? I don't think I was that different when I had your age.

I don't have any examples ready. I didn't write it all down. I'm not even sure if it works that way. But I know the feeling I get when I watch the show or how I react to the writing (how I'm impressed with the dialog, the cleverness, the detail). If you are really interested to find out or to prove that I'm alone with this, I'm sure there are plenty analytic articles/papers on the net that will tell you otherwise.

[Brónach 1,330]

Well, just watch Mad Men! Then again, you said that you only like fantasy and science fiction, so what's the point?

I said that?

Because I like many things, not only that.

[A24 5,155]

Yes, you said that a few weeks ago. But I think you said it because you like to take an opposite stance. At least, so it seems.

[Brónach 1,330]

I probably simplified what I had in mind and you simplified my message later, rendering this oversimplification that doesn't correspond to reality. Because that is just untrue.

I like plenty of things that aren't science-fiction or fantasy. That doesn't stop science-fiction from being my favourite genre for a variety of reasons, which naturally I would like to see well represented on TV.

[Koray Savas 2,260]

And you keep conveniently ignoring my point. LOST is a fantasy, but it's all wrapped around very real struggles of people. Losing a father, raising a child alone, drug addiction, overcoming a handicap, dealing with the murder-suicide of your parents or the horrible things you did in a war. These all take real life experiences, Alex. It also is heavily rooted in literature, philosophy, and religion. You obviously haven't watched the whole series but I've been assuming that you saw Season 1. Probably not even that much, so you obviously have no idea what the fuck you're talking about.

No, I've seen several seasons of Lost, Koray. All the things you are mention here are plotlines written to create either more mystery, chills and thrills, or big drama, exaggerated for effect, or to create clearly defined characters so the audience can identify each personality. At no point did I feel Lost treated life in a serious, mature, subtle, socially clever, insighful, existential way. Nor is it the focus of the show. In fact, it's the part of Lost that I was most bored with.

really you must never have seen it then. Life and Death is a serious, mature, matter, true the show may not have been subtle but it was clever, insightful, and boy the only way to describe the last season was as an existential experiment, which failed in the finale.

Joey is right.

So Alex, all the characters in LOST were created merely to serve the mythology of the island? There's nothing worthwhile in the show? All bogus hocus pocus smoke monster (who's actually a pretty great character)?

So no opinion on all the points I brought up? Just brush it all under the rug of fantasy again? Alright buddy, I'll let you keep living in your oblivious and boring world.

[A24 5,155]

The thing that was entertaining about Lost was the mystery, until I got tired of that too. I think I already explained how I feel about your points. Do I have to repeat it? Strange, to think you quoted it.

Ah, Joey is right, then I must be wrong. Maybe I should watch The Mentalist instead of Breaking Bad too?

[Koray Savas 2,260]

The thing that was entertaining about Lost was the mystery, until I got tired of that too. I think I already explained how I feel about your points. Do I have to repeat it? Strange, to think you quoted it.

Quote what? Your sweeping generalization that everything was all meant to serve the mystery of the show? Yep, alluding Henry James, Charles Dickens, William Golding, Jack Kerouac, John Locke, Jeremy Bentham, Egyptian culture; the conflicts that arise between people, and religions and science and thus survival, love, life, death, the afterlife... all of that was never serious or insightful, all just fantasy that a child could have come up with?

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 12,385]

Crash Koray...... Crash!

[Brónach 1,330]

Naaaah. I thought that some of these allusions were kinda cheap. Sort of "hey, they're mentioning some philosopher, this must be really deep!". Some people are like that.

I enjoyed the characters in Lost, but my interest on the characters was very much sustained by the stories and the suspense. But then they started to throw away potential great ideas, and started to get internally incoherent, and it seemed to me that they introduced new hooks all the time to make me think it all was part of some sort of master plot that was going to be solved little by little... but it wasn't.

And the spiritual turns of events annoyed the hell out of me. I preferred the show better when it seemed like a sort of hidden science fiction concept under the survival adventure. That would have been a show I would have enjoyed a lot.

[A24 5,155]

More important are the other things I've said.

Love, life, death ... You can find these things in every show. I certainly wasn't impressed with the childish, exaggerated way Lost treats its so-called "substance". In Mad Men it's so much more subtle and you need a certain maturaty to appreciate that or pick it up. Kids love Lost, but kids are lost should they watch Mad Men. That should tell you a few things. Kids love Heroes too and it deals with love, live and death too. It's always about the how, never the what. Is the beach scene in Saving Private Ryan great because many soldiers die? No, it's the vision behind it, it's how you present it to the viewer. Therein lies the substance.

Koray, I understand that you respect Lost very much and that's the most important thing. If it works for you then that's fine. I mainly enjoyed it (for different reasons maybe) but like 24, I stopped caring for it somewhere in the middle. Different strokes and all that.

I stopped watching Hell On Wheels and Brotherhood after one season.

Alex - signing off to watch Breaking Bad S3

[Brónach 1,330]

I must say that when Jack is dying, in a possibly great final scene, and at the same time we know that they live after death, I felt that the show was shooting itself in the foot.

[JoeinAR 1,957]

The thing that was entertaining about Lost was the mystery, until I got tired of that too. I think I already explained how I feel about your points. Do I have to repeat it? Strange, to think you quoted it.

Ah, Joey is right, then I must be wrong. Maybe I should watch The Mentalist instead of Breaking Bad too?

why not watch both. Simon Baker is a very entertaining actor and his character is a better person than walter in breaking bad who deserves to die and unredeamable death in a painful horrific way

tonight is the night for the biggest shows on TV and I don't watch any of them. I guess I will netflix it tonight.

[Koray Savas 2,260]

More important are the other things I've said.

Love, life, death ... You can find these things in every show. I certainly wasn't impressed with the childish, exaggerated way Lost treats its so-called "substance". In Mad Men it's so much more subtle and you need a certain maturaty to appreciate that or pick it up. Kids love Lost, but kids are lost should they watch Mad Men. That should tell you a few things. Kids love Heroes too and it deals with love, live and death too. It's always about the how, never the what. Is the beach scene in Saving Private Ryan great because many soldiers die? No, it's the vision behind it, it's how you present it to the viewer. Therein lies the substance.

Koray, I understand that you respect Lost very much and that's the most important thing. If it works for you then that's fine. I mainly enjoyed it (for different reasons maybe) but like 24, I stopped caring for it somewhere in the middle. Different strokes and all that.

I stopped watching Hell On Wheels and Brotherhood after one season.

Alex - signing off to watch Breaking Bad S3

What's this, Alex understanding that he's not right and it's in the eye of the viewer?

LOST is very important to me, I'm glad you can appreciate that, and I am well aware there are films and shows that are very important to you. Although you do continually mention intended audience when it comes to them. You most likely consider me a kid, but then how do you explain how I love both LOST and Mad Men? Something like Ratatouille and 2001: A Space Odyssey? You always seem to insinuate that certain films and shows can only be fully appreciated by the audience its intended for.

I must say that when Jack is dying, in a possibly great final scene, and at the same time we know that they live after death, I felt that the show was shooting itself in the foot.

They don't live after death, that phrase in and of itself doesn't make sense. They all die, and find each other in the afterlife.

As for your earlier point about how the show's literary and philosophical references were cheap, if you understand more about what they're alluding to it opens up a lot about the themes and ideas prevalent in the show. Henry James' The Turn Of The Screw is a good example. Locke picks it up for a split second in the hatch, but this small allusion probably goes over the heads of 95% of the viewers.

[Brónach 1,330]

I must say that when Jack is dying, in a possibly great final scene, and at the same time we know that they live after death, I felt that the show was shooting itself in the foot.

They don't live after death, that phrase in and of itself doesn't make sense. They all die, and find each other in the afterlife.

Same thing, just put more precisely.

[Koray Savas 2,260]

I must say that when Jack is dying, in a possibly great final scene, and at the same time we know that they live after death, I felt that the show was shooting itself in the foot.

They don't live after death, that phrase in and of itself doesn't make sense. They all die, and find each other in the afterlife.

Same thing, just put more precisely.

But how does that equate to the writers shooting themselves in the foot?

Are you saying that since we know they all eventually find each other, their deaths don't mean anything? I mean, we are learning this as he dies, it's not like we find it out in Season 2 or something. Either way, it makes their deaths more sad then they already were. For me, the show ends at its peak, quite literally. Jack dying compared to Jack opening his eye in the Pilot are two completely different people.

[Brónach 1,330]

I must say that when Jack is dying, in a possibly great final scene, and at the same time we know that they live after death, I felt that the show was shooting itself in the foot.

They don't live after death, that phrase in and of itself doesn't make sense. They all die, and find each other in the afterlife.

Same thing, just put more precisely.

But how does that equate to the writers shooting themselves in the foot?

Are you saying that since we know they all eventually find each other, their deaths don't mean anything? I mean, we are learning this as he dies, it's not like we find it out in Season 2 or something. Either way, it makes their deaths more sad then they already were. For me, the show ends at its peak, quite literally. Jack dying compared to Jack opening his eye in the Pilot are two completely different people.

More sad? I said all this because I think them finding each other in the afterlife makes it less sad.

[Koray Savas 2,260]

I must say that when Jack is dying, in a possibly great final scene, and at the same time we know that they live after death, I felt that the show was shooting itself in the foot.

They don't live after death, that phrase in and of itself doesn't make sense. They all die, and find each other in the afterlife.

Same thing, just put more precisely.

But how does that equate to the writers shooting themselves in the foot?

Are you saying that since we know they all eventually find each other, their deaths don't mean anything? I mean, we are learning this as he dies, it's not like we find it out in Season 2 or something. Either way, it makes their deaths more sad then they already were. For me, the show ends at its peak, quite literally. Jack dying compared to Jack opening his eye in the Pilot are two completely different people.

More sad? I said all this because I think them finding each other in the afterlife makes it less sad.

Hehe that's what I assumed. I don't know... for me Jack's revelation and his letting go, compounded with his death was the perfect end for his character. I also like and adopted Jimmy Kimmel's theory that the turbulence on 815 in "LA X" is his death in "The End." Rose's "You can let go now" and his heavy breathing, it feels right. Then there's of course the cut that appears on his neck in the bathroom right after.

[crocodile 9,724]

Watching Lost pilot for the first time in about 5 years. It's pretty nostalgic and rather good fun.

Giacchino's early scores are quite different from the rest of the series, though. Cheaper.

Karol

[Brónach 1,330]

It's one of the coolest opening episodes ever.

[JoeinAR 1,957]

The Walking Dead, Oh my God, what did I just see.....

[Admiral Holdo 16]

I'm about 20 episodes into True Blood (courtesy of the gf).

Front half's better than the back half, which seems to lose focus and just rotate through subplots. But I'm still enjoying it; trashy fun.

[KK 3,313]

The Walking Dead, Oh my God, what did I just see.....

Good? Bad? From what I've seen so far, the new season seemed to be off to a better start than the last. Guess I spoke too soon?

[JoeinAR 1,957]

The Walking Dead, Oh my God, what did I just see.....

Good? Bad? From what I've seen so far, the new season seemed to be off to a better start than the last. Guess I spoke too soon?

it was awesome. It was terrible, horrible. It's Brutal tonight. The single most brutal episode of the series.

[Quintus 6,494]

Is that epi 4? That means I have two to watch then, which is how I like it!

[A24 5,155]

But I'm still enjoying it; trashy fun.

Exactly!

[JoeinAR 1,957]

Is that epi 4? That means I have two to watch then, which is how I like it!

yes, and supposedly episode 5 starts with a Bang.

I won't spoil you with details but Ep. 4 is a game changer.

[Wojo 2,458]

I'm three episodes back now. Looks I have to play ketchup tonight.

[Quintus 6,494]

Is that epi 4? That means I have two to watch then, which is how I like it!

yes, and supposedly episode 5 starts with a Bang.

I won't spoil you with details but Ep. 4 is a game changer.

See - that's enough of a spoiler right there! You do realise I'll guess it myself now - like I did with The Sixth Sense! Damn you...

[JoeinAR 1,957]

Is that epi 4? That means I have two to watch then, which is how I like it!

yes, and supposedly episode 5 starts with a Bang.

I won't spoil you with details but Ep. 4 is a game changer.

See - that's enough of a spoiler right there! You do realise I'll guess it myself now - like I did with The Sixth Sense! Damn you...

you won't guess it. certainly not the way it's played out.

[Wojo 2,458]

Was Hines Ward in last night's episode?