logo Sign In

Last web series/tv show seen — Page 91

Author
Time

suspiciouscoffee said:

I’ve always wondered why trans folk are then lumped into LGBT since it’s such a different thing. Not that I have a problem with it, I’m just curious.

Well it does make sense if you think about it. It’s all about sex/gender. The “norm” is cis male/female relationships. Whether you’re homosexual or transgender, you’re breaking gender “norms.”

Author
Time

You know what, I’m kind of won over to that point in the case of trans people. I don’t think orientation is a problem at all in the film industry these days and I don’t think it needs to be considered for a role. But I think trans could potentially be similar to race. The exception would be in the case of a low budget movie where perhaps the director can’t find a trans actor, but in Hollywood and big-budget things I think I get it now.

The Person in Question

Author
Time

DominicCobb said:

suspiciouscoffee said:

I’ve always wondered why trans folk are then lumped into LGBT since it’s such a different thing. Not that I have a problem with it, I’m just curious.

Well it does make sense if you think about it. It’s all about sex/gender. The “norm” is cis male/female relationships. Whether you’re homosexual or transgender, you’re breaking gender “norms.”

I think they’re too very different issues. Other than life in the closet, the experiences seem completely different to me.

The Person in Question

Author
Time

moviefreakedmind said:

DominicCobb said:

suspiciouscoffee said:

I’ve always wondered why trans folk are then lumped into LGBT since it’s such a different thing. Not that I have a problem with it, I’m just curious.

Well it does make sense if you think about it. It’s all about sex/gender. The “norm” is cis male/female relationships. Whether you’re homosexual or transgender, you’re breaking gender “norms.”

I think they’re too very different issues. Other than life in the closet, the experiences seem completely different to me.

They are, but I don’t think lumping them in one acronym implies they aren’t.

Author
Time

I think it does. It takes three identities that face very similar situations and one much that faces a much different situation and puts them together. A lot of people, particularly in the media lump it all together. That’s why I don’t like the acronym at all.

The Person in Question

Author
Time

moviefreakedmind said:

You know what, I’m kind of won over to that point in the case of trans people. I don’t think orientation is a problem at all in the film industry these days and I don’t think it needs to be considered for a role. But I think trans could potentially be similar to race. The exception would be in the case of a low budget movie where perhaps the director can’t find a trans actor, but in Hollywood and big-budget things I think I get it now.

The same thing with trans actors goes for disabled people too.

The sexual orientation thing isn’t really as pressing a concern (as you do see gay actors play straight roles fairly often) but I do think it’s fair in general that people are somewhat miffed when non-hetero characters are played by hetero actors, only because gay characters are still somewhat rare.

Author
Time

moviefreakedmind said:

I think it does. It takes three identities that face very similar situations and one much that faces a much different situation and puts them together. A lot of people, particularly in the media lump it all together. That’s why I don’t like the acronym at all.

It’s basically like grouping “people of color” together. They all have different experiences but the general goal is the same (tolerance, acceptance, etc).

Author
Time

DominicCobb said:

moviefreakedmind said:

You know what, I’m kind of won over to that point in the case of trans people. I don’t think orientation is a problem at all in the film industry these days and I don’t think it needs to be considered for a role. But I think trans could potentially be similar to race. The exception would be in the case of a low budget movie where perhaps the director can’t find a trans actor, but in Hollywood and big-budget things I think I get it now.

The same thing with trans actors goes for disabled people too.

I definitely agree on that, unless it’s a story about an able-bodied person that at some point becomes disabled. That’s why I loved that they cast an actor with cerebral palsy to play Walt Jr. in Breaking Bad.

The sexual orientation thing isn’t really as pressing a concern (as you do see gay actors play straight roles fairly often) but I do think it’s fair in general that people are somewhat miffed when non-hetero characters are played by hetero actors, only because gay characters are still somewhat rare.

They aren’t rare on TV anymore, but they are in movies still.

The Person in Question

Author
Time

moviefreakedmind said:

You know what, I’m kind of won over to that point in the case of trans people. I don’t think orientation is a problem at all in the film industry these days and I don’t think it needs to be considered for a role. But I think trans could potentially be similar to race. The exception would be in the case of a low budget movie where perhaps the director can’t find a trans actor, but in Hollywood and big-budget things I think I get it now.

Exactly! Always happy to see people open to changing their views when presented with new information or a different perspective.

Author
Time

DominicCobb said:

moviefreakedmind said:

I think it does. It takes three identities that face very similar situations and one much that faces a much different situation and puts them together. A lot of people, particularly in the media lump it all together. That’s why I don’t like the acronym at all.

It’s basically like grouping “people of color” together. They all have different experiences but the general goal is the same (tolerance, acceptance, etc).

Yeah, but trans people have much different goals beyond tolerance. There’s issues with their own birth certificates, passing, medication, health insurance discrimination, and stuff like that that doesn’t affect gay people. Personally I don’t care for the acronym. I don’t like that it’s all one movement. I’d prefer each identity or group voice themselves personally and individually the way black, hispanic, American Indian, and Jewish minorities have done over the years. You get what I’m saying? For example, there is no “people of color” movement.

The Person in Question

Author
Time
 (Edited)

ChainsawAsh said:

moviefreakedmind said:

You know what, I’m kind of won over to that point in the case of trans people. I don’t think orientation is a problem at all in the film industry these days and I don’t think it needs to be considered for a role. But I think trans could potentially be similar to race. The exception would be in the case of a low budget movie where perhaps the director can’t find a trans actor, but in Hollywood and big-budget things I think I get it now.

Exactly! Always happy to see people open to changing their views when presented with new information or a different perspective.

Like I said, I take everything personally so when I heard that, I immediately thought of Boys Don’t Cry and that is a very, very important movie to me for a multitude of reasons. The lead, a transgender guy, is played by Hilary Swank, a woman. And I just imagined people disregarding that role and movie as “transface” and it pissed me off.

The Person in Question

Author
Time

moviefreakedmind said:

ChainsawAsh said:

moviefreakedmind said:

You know what, I’m kind of won over to that point in the case of trans people. I don’t think orientation is a problem at all in the film industry these days and I don’t think it needs to be considered for a role. But I think trans could potentially be similar to race. The exception would be in the case of a low budget movie where perhaps the director can’t find a trans actor, but in Hollywood and big-budget things I think I get it now.

Exactly! Always happy to see people open to changing their views when presented with new information or a different perspective.

Like I said, I take everything personally so when I heard that, I immediately thought of Boys Don’t Cry and that is a very, very important movie to me for a multitude of reasons. The lead, a transgender guy, is played by Hilary Swank, a woman. And I just imagined people disregarding that role and movie as “transface” and it pissed me off.

It’s a different time. If that movie were made today and cast the same way, it might be problematic. But at the time it was very progressive, and remains an important film regardless of how it may be cast today.

Author
Time

Trollhunters Parts 1&2 (2016-2017)

Wonderful series from Guillermo del Toro. A solid adventure with fun characters and excellent performances. It’s always nice to find a series that knows where it’s going and steadily marches toward its goal. Anton Yelchin is great as the main protagonist Jim Lake. It’s a shame he’s not here to see the success of the series or to see it to the end. It’ll be strange hearing Emile Hirsch in the role for the final season. The supporting cast is packed with excellent performers: Kelsey Grammer, Mark Hamill, Ron Perlman, Clancy Brown, Anjelica Huston, etc. Great series, definitely recommend it.

Mobile Suit Gundam (1979-1980)

While it’s apparent they started off not knowing where to take things, over the course of the journey they find their way and finish with a solid series worthy of its acclaim.

Forum Moderator
Author
Time

EPISODE RATINGS

  • “Simpsons Roasting on an Open Fire” – 7/10
  • “Bart the Genius” – 7/10
  • “Homer’s Odyssey” – 7/10
  • “There’s No Disgrace Like Home” – 8/10
  • “Bart the General” – 9/10
  • “Moaning Lisa” – 9/10
  • “The Call of the Simpsons” – 8/10
  • “The Telltale Head” – 7/10
  • “Life on the Fast Lane” – 8/10
  • “Homer’s Night Out” – 5/10
  • “The Crepes of Wrath” – 8/10
  • “Krusty Gets Busted” – 8/10
  • “Some Enchanted Evening” – 8/10

SEASON RATING

★★★★★★★★☆☆

Author
Time

I started watching the latest season of Black Mirror lately. Some of the episodes are great, others are not so great, but still fine.

Ceci n’est pas une signature.

Author
Time

I don’t really the point of Black Mirror. I bet it’d be really hard to see your reflection in it if it’s all black.

The Person in Question

Author
Time

Frank your Majesty said:

I started watching the latest season of Black Mirror lately. Some of the episodes are great, others are not so great, but still fine.

this is exactly true. one of the great things about black mirror was how it was all the same future universe, but this great thing was one of the weak things about the latest season (IMHO). not enough new ground was covered. That said, i loved the whole season (not the first episode that much though).

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Hmm I thought the first episode was one of the better episodes of the season. I’d rate it 3rd place right after the second and last episodes. The other ones were comparatively boring.

BTW, I just realized that I already finished the latest season.

Ceci n’est pas une signature.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Frank your Majesty said:

Hmm I thought the first episode was one of the better episodes of the season. I’d rate it 3rd place right after the second and last episodes. The other ones were comparatively boring.

BTW, I just realized that I already finished the latest season.

We can agree that metalhead was the best then? Black museum second best.

I watched USS Callister with my wife who isn’t a black mirror fan, so that probably affected my memory of it.

Author
Time

Sorry, I thought it was one of the more pointless episodes. But then, I started with season 4, so I have no idea about the world building. I like Arkangel the best, so far, then Black Musem, followed by USS Callister. Metalhead is maybe on 4th, closely followed by Crocodile and Hang the DJ definitely on last place.

I’ll start from the first season again, maybe my it’ll change my mind.

Ceci n’est pas une signature.

Author
Time

The new episode of The Expanse from this week, S03E07, “Delta-V.”

I adore the show, but still don’t like the current awkward structure of one book per 1.5 seasons. It made S02E05 and S03E06 feel like season finales because…well…they’re book endings. Putting them smack in the middle of the season is awkward structurally, because everything comes to a climax, then it all hits the brakes the next week.

In season 2 it wasn’t so bad, because they did some rewriting to compress the in-story time gap between books 1 and 2 so there is essentially no time gap between S02E05 and S02E06. But with season 3, they kind of did the opposite - they kept the time gap that exists between books, but on top of that they skipped over more things than the start of book 3 did. So characters who aren’t separated just yet at the start of book 3 are suddenly separated in S03E07, there’s a documentary crew roaming around one of the ships with little to no buildup or explanation, and the large shift in the political landscape of the system is only thinly sketched out in expositionary dialogue.

Now, that doesn’t mean it was a bad episode, but if you’re just watching the show without having read the books, it could feel rather jarring.

Having said that, this might actually be a good thing, because they’re just blazing through book 3 and that book is already more fast-paced and streamlined compared to the first two, so it seems likely that they’re actually going to end season 3 with the end of book 3, and not Midway through like they did with the first two books. Which means the structure of the show going forward might be “fixed” after the season ends.

TL;DR - the episode is an awkwardly-placed “season premiere” midway through a season which might throw people off, but it’s the start of the best book so far and it seems like episodes 7-13 are going to cover all of it, potentially fixing the pacing issue for season 4+.