Just to comment on some of the head-tilting statements in this thread:
1. Netflix has some terrific original shows. Not every one of their original shows is fantastic, but just because something isn't to your taste doesn't mean it's garbage. Dismissing stuff like House of Cards, Orange is the New Black, Stranger Things, The Crown, A Series of Unfortunate Events, The OA, Altered Carbon, Chilling Adventures of Sabrina, The Umbrella Academy, Grace and Frankie, Dear White People and MST3K and believe me I could go on for a while like that ... just makes you look a fool. It's perfectly okay and fine if you don't feel you're getting your money's worth and want to go elsewhere -- lots of very fine TV shows on other services. But most of the ones I just mentioned have won awards and are major draws to the service, so uh ... the universe doesn't revolve around your taste, or lack thereof.
2. "They're really milking the moon landing" ... um, you only get one 50th anniversary, so ... yeah. They (and everyone else) are. As one would expect.
3. Aaploutsider: did you forget a /s tag? You're not seriously suggesting that you can't make shows that are high-quality without making a tonne of stuff, are you? That's ... that's not how that works, in case you weren't aware.
4. For All Mankind looks quite interesting, but all we have is the trailer to go by so far. The moon landing was an accomplishment of the USA, yes, but it became a world event. I think Ronald D. Moore and his team (best known for various Star Trek series and the reboot of Battlestar Galactica) may have an inkling on how to create a series that is provocative and interesting without being unduly inflammatory. Both ST and BG tackled issues of government, politics, war & peace, and race/racial harmony without causing huge backlash, I see no reason they couldn't do that again.
Altered Carbon Is garbage though. The production is good. That’s all you can say about it. Stranger things is in completely different league and that we can call “quality”.
Quality in shows is and always has been about production value. It is not about wether you like the story or not. Quality productions spend more time developing their scripts so the dialogue is more realistic. Quality productions spend more time developing their interior sets to be more realistic and fuse into that more location shoots to lend credibility to the interior sets and the overall story. Quality productions take more care in how something is shot rather then just trying to get it in the can. If you compare things like Game of Thrones vs. Merlin or House of Cards vs. Madame Secretary you can see what I mean. I am sure you guys could work out lots more comparisons but it always comes back to one thing, Just because the quality of a production is high doesn’t mean it will be liked, that is a whole different issue.
This is so far from the truth it’s not even funny. By this logic, low budget films (like Romero’s Night of the Living Dead or Tarantino’s Reservoir Dogs for instance) would never be “quality” which is ridiculous. More ridiculously however is by this logic all of Michael Bay’s would be quality films by default.
The last sentence clearly show your confusion. There are many things that makes “the films” .. story, script, directing, acting, editing, etc. all of these doesn’t require production value (if you know what the words mean). So yeah films with high “production” value may not please the audiences because it may simply .. um.. lack “quality” in any or all of those area that’s more essential to film making, hence it’s not a “quality” film despite having a high production value.
So no, the quality of films or of shows is not, will not, and always will never be, about production value. Having high production value is nice but doesn’t determine quality of the show, unless you’re a shallow person who watching shows for eye candy.
As for Altered Carbon, this review nailed it
The trailer got me hooked, a futuristic setting where consciousness is transferable. Joel Kinnaman plays the main character which at first glance looked both interesting and deeply developed. However, as the show progresses the characters starts to feel dull. There is no depth in the main character, even though they try really hard to make it seem that way.
Apparently the book holds a first person perspective, and the tv show closely follows it. I believe this is the big mistake for the show as the main character simply has no depth. Unsure if it's a lackluster performance by Kinnaman or they just written the character poorly.
The story feels really dull, which is crazy considering where and how it takes place. I have no idea how they managed to make an intriguing story like the one in the show to come out so flat.
The good parts about the show is the scenery and the interesting concept. Other than that, the show doesn't offer anything new or interesting.
This one knows what “production value” means.
"Altered Carbon", at first, seems like a really good show. The production values are there, it's not afraid to be violent or vulgar and it's heavily influenced by pretty much every beloved sci-fi story/movie there is. Even a sci-fi casual can spot the Blade Runner shots and many, many story bits that could be straight from the pages of some Philip K. Dick story. It seems like science fiction for adults. This impression will soon change, at least if you're familiar with the genre and old enough to have seen/read a lot of it.
At its core, it seems to be a detective story. Plenty of noir, plenty of good touches. They also set up the world, the theme of "what is humanity, what is death?" with the idea of having your personality stored inside a chip that can be implanted to any one body. No-one can really know who they're talking to, a young boy could really be an old woman. It's an exciting premise. Appearances can be deceiving, which is also the case with this show.
With all of this going on, the show needed a heart. It needed something honest. "Altered Carbon" does not have a heart. After some time, it becomes apparent. The characters are weak, empty and pandering. They pander to an audience that's only willing to touch the surface, and it seems like the term "world-building" has lost its meaning too. You have props, effects, names for things, wasted possibilities and throwaway lines. That's not really building a world if you can't go further, that's only superficial fakery, exactly like a glorified fanfic.
Just to comment on some of the head-tilting statements in this thread:
1. Netflix has some terrific original shows. Not every one of their original shows is fantastic, but just because something isn't to your taste doesn't mean it's garbage. Dismissing stuff like House of Cards, Orange is the New Black, Stranger Things, The Crown, A Series of Unfortunate Events, The OA, Altered Carbon, Chilling Adventures of Sabrina, The Umbrella Academy, Grace and Frankie, Dear White People and MST3K and believe me I could go on for a while like that ... just makes you look a fool. It's perfectly okay and fine if you don't feel you're getting your money's worth and want to go elsewhere -- lots of very fine TV shows on other services. But most of the ones I just mentioned have won awards and are major draws to the service, so uh ... the universe doesn't revolve around your taste, or lack thereof.
2. "They're really milking the moon landing" ... um, you only get one 50th anniversary, so ... yeah. They (and everyone else) are. As one would expect.
3. Aaploutsider: did you forget a /s tag? You're not seriously suggesting that you can't make shows that are high-quality without making a tonne of stuff, are you? That's ... that's not how that works, in case you weren't aware.
4. For All Mankind looks quite interesting, but all we have is the trailer to go by so far. The moon landing was an accomplishment of the USA, yes, but it became a world event. I think Ronald D. Moore and his team (best known for various Star Trek series and the reboot of Battlestar Galactica) may have an inkling on how to create a series that is provocative and interesting without being unduly inflammatory. Both ST and BG tackled issues of government, politics, war & peace, and race/racial harmony without causing huge backlash, I see no reason they couldn't do that again.
Altered Carbon Is garbage though. The production is good. That’s all you can say about it. Stranger things is in completely different league and that we can call “quality”.
Quality in shows is and always has been about production value. It is not about wether you like the story or not. Quality productions spend more time developing their scripts so the dialogue is more realistic. Quality productions spend more time developing their interior sets to be more realistic and fuse into that more location shoots to lend credibility to the interior sets and the overall story. Quality productions take more care in how something is shot rather then just trying to get it in the can. If you compare things like Game of Thrones vs. Merlin or House of Cards vs. Madame Secretary you can see what I mean. I am sure you guys could work out lots more comparisons but it always comes back to one thing, Just because the quality of a production is high doesn’t mean it will be liked, that is a whole different issue.
This is so far from the truth it’s not even funny. By this logic, low budget films (like Romero’s Night of the Living Dead or Tarantino’s Reservoir Dogs for instance) would never be “quality” which is ridiculous. More ridiculously however is by this logic all of Michael Bay’s would be quality films by default.
The last sentence clearly show your confusion. There are many things that makes “the films” .. story, script, directing, acting, editing, etc. all of these doesn’t require production value (if you know what the words mean). So yeah films with high “production” value may not please the audiences because it may simply .. um.. lack “quality” in any or all of those area that’s more essential to film making, hence it’s not a “quality” film despite having a high production value.
So no, the quality of films or of shows is not, will not, and always will never be, about production value. Having high production value is nice but doesn’t determine quality of the show, unless you’re a shallow person who watching shows for eye candy.
As for Altered Carbon, this review nailed it
The trailer got me hooked, a futuristic setting where consciousness is transferable. Joel Kinnaman plays the main character which at first glance looked both interesting and deeply developed. However, as the show progresses the characters starts to feel dull. There is no depth in the main character, even though they try really hard to make it seem that way.
Apparently the book holds a first person perspective, and the tv show closely follows it. I believe this is the big mistake for the show as the main character simply has no depth. Unsure if it's a lackluster performance by Kinnaman or they just written the character poorly.
The story feels really dull, which is crazy considering where and how it takes place. I have no idea how they managed to make an intriguing story like the one in the show to come out so flat.
The good parts about the show is the scenery and the interesting concept. Other than that, the show doesn't offer anything new or interesting.
This one knows what “production value” means.
"Altered Carbon", at first, seems like a really good show. The production values are there, it's not afraid to be violent or vulgar and it's heavily influenced by pretty much every beloved sci-fi story/movie there is. Even a sci-fi casual can spot the Blade Runner shots and many, many story bits that could be straight from the pages of some Philip K. Dick story. It seems like science fiction for adults. This impression will soon change, at least if you're familiar with the genre and old enough to have seen/read a lot of it.
At its core, it seems to be a detective story. Plenty of noir, plenty of good touches. They also set up the world, the theme of "what is humanity, what is death?" with the idea of having your personality stored inside a chip that can be implanted to any one body. No-one can really know who they're talking to, a young boy could really be an old woman. It's an exciting premise. Appearances can be deceiving, which is also the case with this show.
With all of this going on, the show needed a heart. It needed something honest. "Altered Carbon" does not have a heart. After some time, it becomes apparent. The characters are weak, empty and pandering. They pander to an audience that's only willing to touch the surface, and it seems like the term "world-building" has lost its meaning too. You have props, effects, names for things, wasted possibilities and throwaway lines. That's not really building a world if you can't go further, that's only superficial fakery, exactly like a glorified fanfic.
I was going to disagree,as I enjoyed watching Altered Carbon. But after reading that review I realised you are right.
I really don't get the premise of For All Mankind. Makes no sense to create an alternative history drama about a major event such as the moon landing.
There are literally hundreds, if not thousands, of examples in literature of "alternate history" base on a "major event". From no dinosaur killing asteroid (or whatever) to The Soviet Union winning the Cold War, and everything in between.
What is so special about the moon landing that makes it worthy of exclusion from consideration?
Comments
The last sentence clearly show your confusion. There are many things that makes “the films” .. story, script, directing, acting, editing, etc. all of these doesn’t require production value (if you know what the words mean). So yeah films with high “production” value may not please the audiences because it may simply .. um.. lack “quality” in any or all of those area that’s more essential to film making, hence it’s not a “quality” film despite having a high production value.
So no, the quality of films or of shows is not, will not, and always will never be, about production value. Having high production value is nice but doesn’t determine quality of the show, unless you’re a shallow person who watching shows for eye candy.
As for Altered Carbon, this review nailed it
This one knows what “production value” means.
What is so special about the moon landing that makes it worthy of exclusion from consideration?