Not the parent - but I think it's because it can be seen as too subjective and too open for debate. Like: Oh, so one person opines that x, y, and z are not for them, let's debate it (or outright dismiss it).
And the resultant debate might well be polarising or destructive by itself.
Without knowing what the parent experienced to cause their take on this type of politeness I'm just guessing, though.
It is interesting because I think I see a cultural thing here too: in some cultures "I feel" and "I see" and "currently" are as firm as "unacceptable until it changes" - just worded in a way that conveys respect for the author. But in other cultures it is read as vacillating. Dunno. Guesswork, as I said.
As I said, some people will interpret directness as rudeness. Those are the ones that expect for the language to be couched. But, in my opinion, it's better to be seen as occasionally rude than allow for those other negative behaviors to occur.
I too struggle very often with the pause and the recognition of emotion before acting on it.
Something that has been somewhat helpful to me is a meditation method called mental noting. Please note no method will work for everyone but in case it's useful to you, here goes.
Basically, my version, please do search for more qualified people's version of mental noting on the internet:
1) Rest attention on my breathing
2) Notice (I don't always notice, I don't often notice, but sometimes I do) that I'm distracted
3) Note and label the distraction (mentally say "I'm thinking" or "I'm itching" or "I'm worrying" or "I'm replaying conversation" etc)
4) Thank the distraction for allowing me to flex the mental "noticing muscle"
4.5) Remind myself not to beat myself up about how long I was distracted, haha
5) GOTO 1
This practice has helped me in slowly building up a mental observer that can pause from time to time. But, as I said, I still struggle with the pause.
Protecting underage members of society from potentially harmful substances that they are unlikely to consume in moderation is hardly dystopian; it is in fact a key responsibility of a well-functioning state. Alcohol is also banned at schools, for instance.
Ha! Likewise. I borrowed money from my grandmother to buy a soundblaster II if I remember correctly. I also remember that I got home, it didn't work, turns out I had insufficient RAM, had to upgrade to 1MB, and fiddle with EMM386 in some .sys file to get the voice to work in Dune II. But oh man, that first "The planet Arrakis" spoken by a human gave me the shivers
My 386DX with 1MB and a SoundBlaster Pro (I think) could barely manage this game’s audio for some reason. The intro video’s audio would cut out at times. My brother and I still recite back the humorous portions to this day.
Hehe, I remember tinkering with 2 files in the root (config.sys and autoexec.bat?) for hours and hours trying to free enough memory for the Soundblaster drivers to run!
I would argue quite the opposite, based on anecdata, so take it with a good measure of salt, but: I know quite a few non-tech types who used The Expanse as an example of "why I don't watch space crap".
The quality (from a narrative and acting viewpoint primarily) is so low that I think it drives people away from the topic. I desperately love space-y sci-fi but the space exploration really needs higher quality productions than this.
It is of course, super subjective, and I do understand that people like the show. I'm one of the (probable) minority of techies who dislike this specific show.
So your opinion is the acting and narrative are bad. What sci-fi shows do you consider are examples of great narrative and acting? Give me 3 sci-fi TV series as examples please.
Beyond that how about non-sci-fi TV series? I'd like to know what you think are shining examples of television. Maybe 3 to 5 examples of non-sci-fi.
I know this sounds aggressive, but really, without knowing what kind of TV shows you think are "good", your opinion that The Expanse being bad, is without context. Maybe we like the same shows in general, but this one show is the exception. Who knows.
Also, maybe you watched the first 4 episodes and dismissed it as junk. That would make some sense to me, as the first few episodes were a bit rough. Or maybe you watched the entire thing, season 1 and 2, and it just wasn't for you.
I think the re-imagined Battlestar Galactica was great.
Non sci-fi:
I think Babylon Berlin is good.
I only watched the first series of The Expanse.
It's very subjective - if you enjoyed it then I'm glad. I'm certainly not in the majority among my friends in disliking The Expanse, but also not alone.
Yea, I agree that the 2003 Battlestar Galactica (re-imagined) was pretty good.
See, we have that in common. I may have to check out Babylon Berlin. Per your mention, I checked out the wikipedia entry for it. I do like a good period drama, as well as detective shows. Inspector Morse comes to mind. Anyway, I appreciate the exchange.
Babylon Berlin is also one of those things that are particularly relevant at the moment as there are lots of parallels between the collapse of the Weimar Republic and the current state of the west.
I did indeed enjoy Inspector Lewis. Endeavor is also worth a watch. I thought I would dislike Endeavor because it's a prequel, but it's really well done.
I look forward to Babylon Berlin, for exactly the reasons you mention.
> The quality (from a narrative and acting viewpoint primarily) is so low that I think it drives people away from the topic.
ive seen a couple people express this opinion in the thread, and i am wondering where it comes from. imo the plot and acting in the expanse is on par with all but the best currently airing shows. shows like the chi and fargo are certainly more sophisticated and have much more emotional depth, but the expanse easily equals the big action-oriented series (GoT, walking dead, homeland, all the super hero series), and only maybe GoT or westworld comes close to the world-building aspect. maybe it's just my hard sci-fi fanboyism showing.
Sure, I'll try. I can obviously only speak from my own perspective, though one or two things were echoed in discussions with friends.
Disclaimer: I only watched the first series, and I know most people actually like the show. Subjective dislike abounds here: you can prefix "In my eyes only" to every sentence below. I speak about the show, not the books here.
So first thing that struck me is that I'm not emotionally invested in any character. I'm not rooting for anyone. I don't care about them, and they don't have any drives or characteristics that immerses me. They are wooden, shallow, unrealistic caricatures of banal archetypes.
Amos is probably the most obvious example: he is a grab bag of overly obvious machismo and pulp tough-guy slapped together in such a way that he is concurrently completely unremarkable, unrelatable, and unbelievable. Every time he got on screen I would lose immersion and start wondering how the writers could settle for such cheap tactics and obvious low effort characterization - they basically bludgeon us with a few standard examples of machismo and violence. I end up completely uncaring about the character and I don't identify with any of his supposed drives. It just screams artifice.
Another example: the same obviousness and wooden characterization goes for Avasarala, but it's compounded by properly bad acting. I don't know what happened here - Aghdashloo was heart-achingly convincing in _House of Sand and Fog_, and her voice is so beautiful that one would think she'd be able to carry any role. But no - Avasarala is a character so badly scripted that I go from watching the story to irritation in 2 seconds flat.
In a variety of ways this goes for all characters. One cannot get a grip on their internal worlds and start caring about them - what should've been the complexity and contradiction inherent in human behaviour comes across as accidentally acting in a way counter to their shopworn character traits. Why does Miller care about Julie? Instead of adding meat (his exception to his internal rule) to Miller's character it just feels inconsistent with the rest of his actions. They flap about in thinly disguised cliché suits - thereby often acting unexpectedly in completely uncharacteristic ways (think Naomi for example), so they just come across as unbelievable.
The world building is also so-so. For instance, I found the Belter patois to be more irritating than supportive, mainly because it comes and goes in various amounts without enough consistency. The whole backstory is also a bit... bland? Made up of cheap tropes? Two untrustworthy governments with tension between them, a possible but oh so avoidable war, oh wow that one is a double agent all along, a group of disadvantaged blue-collar outsiders being manipulated by everyone, meh. The politics is so cartoonish and predictable as to break immersion, again. Oh, and how many hackneyed sci-fi inanities do they want to repeat? Hypoxia much?
The acting: least said, soonest mended.
The random violence. I don't care about the characters, and I don't worry if they live or die, and the violence is still so unexpected and over the top that I still roll my eyes. Also, Amos again. How do characters go from trying actively to kill each other to backing each other up in a fight in 5 minutes?
If the show doesn't make you emotionally invested in characters, then no surprise you didn't like it.
I can sorta see where you're coming from. I picked up books only after watching whole S1, and then I re-watched S1. I definitely remember that the first time around, I felt that main characters are sort of... meh. Not bad, but also not very good. Just interesting enough to keep watching. The second time around I loved it, so I guess the show simply doesn't do a good enough job of letting the characters stand on their own, without the book background.
You mention Amos and I'd say you're right about him - he seems... arbitrary, without the book background. The source material does much better job at fleshing the character out. I could say the same thing about all the other examples you gave, except for Avasarala. I don't know why, but for some reason, I was in love at first sight.
RE tropes, can you give an example of a show you liked, that didn't have irritating world-building? RE that and acting, for some reason I seem to have much higher tolerance for that than a lot of my friend. I just don't notice, as long as it's not total tragedy.
Temporal is right, Amos is really hard to appreciate without the background in the books. He is actually my favorite character by far,and I think the actor is doing a fantastic job at portraying him, but that's only beacsuse I "know" what's going on in his head.
It's a shame, and a bit of a failure on the part of the show runners, that you'd have to be a fan of the books to be a fan of the show.
honestly i love him in the show (possibly my favorite character) and i haven't read the books yet. i see a rich (not random) portrayal of someone who just doesn't have an intuitive sense of right and wrong but is struggling to do the right thing anyway. i found the dialog between him and the psychopathic scientist very telling.
It's completely opposite to my perspective, but that's what actually makes me curious. I wonder what is it exactly that makes your friends consider it "space crap".
Could you go into more specifics? Also noting whether any particular applies to the show, the books, or both, and whether it's from a perspective of someone who only knows the show vs. someone who also read the books? I'm not asking in order to argue, I'm just curious about the difference in perspective.
i love the show, but i will say i found the tension between naomi and the crew this season to be a bit disappointing. the conflict felt a bit manufactured.
i know some people criticize holden's somewhat bland character, which is not entirely unfair. if perhaps unintentional, i think this still serves a purpose. the world of the expanse is very unfamiliar and, basically being a normal dude from earth, he gives the viewer a character to anchor themselves with, or even substitute themselves for. it's kinda like how gordon freeman never talks.
As much as I liked the Expanse, I really do agree with your point though. Acting was beyond ridiculous and cheesy. E.g. James Holden, Roberta Draper and Chrisjen Avasarala, though that might be due to the nature of their contrived characters.
It's not just that, though. In this context, "Space" and "sci-fi" are nothing more than plot devices that allow them to do the same thing all serials are doing these days: escalation. There is almost never a happy ending, never closure on anything, always something new and "bigger" lurking behind the scenes. Almost as if actual "creativity" is being substituted with "size" in some non-physical sense. "Heroes" is a clear example of it.
If you are into headphones, you could start hanging out on the subreddit. It's a big community, and you'll see many of the current technologies. It could get really expensive, I mean the new Sennheiser closed-back HD820 has a ~$2k price tag (ouch!), but certainly you could call yourself done with a $400 dollar setup, including DAC and Amplifier.
EDIT: You could also try IEMs, Etymotic makes some of the most clear, coherent, natural and neutral sounding. Their TOTL (Top-Of-The-Line) is the ER4 line which has a MSRP of $350, but you could get the same value with the ER3 line at $179.
The first thing to do if you want the best quality sound is to sort out the acoustics in the room you're in. Do that before buying or building any high end gear, otherwise you're just throwing money away. Shit speakers in a well treated room will sound better than the most expensive ones in a poorly treated one.
Get yourself a reference/measurement microphone so you can measure the room, then use REM [1] to analyse the results (it's free). The Behringer ECM8000 is fine ($50), you don't need to spend a lot of money on that. You put the reference mic at your ideal listening position (you're not going to make an entire room acoustically perfect without needing a second mortgage, even high end studios aren't).
What you want to get to is a flat response across the frequency range. You won't get it, and you will need bass traps, mid traps, etc. to fix the problems. If you're doing it for your TV then you can get attractive looking traps that don't look ugly. But if you're doing it for music, and you want lots of bass, then you may end up with big bass traps in the corner of the room. Although the PSI Audio AVAAs [2] are another (more expensive) option for trapping bass without taking up any more space than a regular speaker. I trialled a couple of these and they were exceptional.
Depending on how bad the room is you can use room correction systems to fix it. I use a Trinnov ST2 Pro [3] (on top of a treated room) in my studio and the difference is astonishing.
This is my frequency response before and after the Trinnov [4]
Once you have got your room acoustics to a pretty good place, then the world's your oyster in terms of audio gear and speakers. I would advise against getting trapped in the super expensive audiophile world, you won't get much difference once you're above the $10k speakers range, and actually you can get results which will blow your mind with $1k speakers. Building your own is tough, because the dimensions are so critical, but if you're up for the challenge, it could be worth it!
I've spent a large amount of time in this world because I've built a high-end music studio in my house. And going much beyond this advice isn't worth it. You need to go and listen for yourself and work out what you like. But acoustics will always win over gear, always.
