Remix.run Logo
Remix clone Hacker News
new | show | ask | jobsGithub
▲ hnlmorg 4 days ago

I’m not suggesting the show should be factually accurate. I’m saying it doesn’t need pyrotechnics to be engaging.

Mr Robot was a different beast because that was literally about criminal and hacker culture. So you’d expect a little action in that regard.

To put it another way: you have shows that have strong enough writers where they don’t need gimmicks to keep your attention. And you have shows that are intentionally about the gimmicks. Then you have shows that aren’t about the gimmicks but the writers don’t have enough confidence in their work to avoid putting them in anyway.

Shows like The West Wing, House of Cards etc aren’t about gimmicks and don’t need them.

Shows like Stargate are about the gimmicks. And that’s ok too because you know it’s meant to be silly drama.

But shows like HCF feel like they should be executed like HoCs, yet they’re written like Mr Robot, Stargate, etc. So it’s very jarring to watch every time another gimmick gets thrown in. Maybe I expected too much from that show? But it just felt like they didn’t have any confidence in people’s attention spans.

▲tptacek 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

What pyrotechnics are you referring to? In HCF? My complaint about this show is sort of the opposite --- that it's basically Six Feet Under, but replace the funeral home with a series of tech startups.

(I think it's a solid B-tier prestige series; I don't hate it).

▲Mountain_Skies 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

Joe setting the truck full of computers on fire is the only thing that comes to mind. That was somewhat over the top and they did settle the character down somewhat in later seasons (though not completely).

▲hnlmorg 4 days ago | parent [-]

I mean “pyrotechnics” in the metaphorical sense. A big flash of drama from nowhere and then nothing afterwards. But that was a poor choice of words on my part. (It was late and I was tired, sorry).

I’ve discussed my thinking in the other responses so won’t go in-depth here. But to summarise:

The general story had real potential but was marred (in my opinion at least) with cliffhangers that felt jarring and unnecessary to the underlying story.

▲jjmarr 3 days ago | parent [-]

Didn't Kevin Spacey directly kill multiple people over the course of House of Cards to suddenly end a plot thread?

▲aspenmayer 3 days ago | parent [-]

Yeah, there was at least the one lady he pushed onto the tracks right as the subway came in that I remember distinctly. Ice cold.

I think their point was that in HCF, the off the wall dramatic swings felt more like jumping the shark. In HoC, it felt totally in character for Spacey to do that. It was just better written and acted, despite the intensity of the violence being much higher, because it made sense in the context of the story, and it didn’t in HCF, at least not to me.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jumping_the_shark

▲aspenmayer 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

That's what I'm asking! It's like, did we even watch the same show?

▲chipt4 4 days ago | parent [-]

Not to mention, HoC had a major gimmick driving it (spacey breaking the 4th wall).

▲hnlmorg 4 days ago | parent [-]

That’s one gimmick and it was weaved throughout the show. It was also used to further the story telling.

HCF created drama in places it wasn’t earned. And did so just so that episodes could have cliffhangers.

Think of it like a shower scene in a movie. More often than not, it has literally no relevance to the movie. It doesn’t further the plot. It’s not even part of the story. It’s just there so that it can be used as a clip in the movie trailer.

Well HCF was full of stuff that, admittedly wasn’t there for trailers (or at least I don’t think they were), but they also added nothing to the story. They were just there to artificially add some drama. But that drama wasn’t earned.

For example, the suicide was very poorly handled. It was used as vehicle for discussing open source vs proprietary code. But you could have easily done that without the death. Instead you ended up with interesting plot themes being overshadowed by this one lazy plot device.

The show was absolutely full of stuff like that. Things that were completely out of the blue and if it made it to the cutting room flow then the show would have flowed just the same without it.

▲tptacek 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

I think you have the show backwards. It's trying to tell stories about people using the technology industry as a framing device; it isn't trying to tell stories about technology.

▲hnlmorg 3 days ago | parent [-]

You’ve got my point backwards. I’m not talking about the technology. I’m talking about how those stories keep getting overshadowed by nonsensical episodic cliffhangers.

It’s dramatic. But it doesn’t mean it’s a particularly good drama.

If they’d replaced the backdrop with any other normal drama setting and almost nobody on here would watch it because they’d think the show was stupid.

Stuff like setting fire to a truck, and then never talking about it again afterwards, has absolutely nothing to do with tech nor stories about people. It’s just a dumb gimmick thrown in because the network doesn’t believe their audience has enough of an attention span to watch the show otherwise.

▲tptacek 3 days ago | parent [-]

Like I said downthread, I think this is a B-tier show (better than Suits or The Good Fight, worse than Better Call Saul) --- but I don't think that has anything to do with whether "open source" is overshadowed by suicide. The show isn't "for" you.

The only reason technology is featured in it is that it's a way to show a period of rapid change happening underneath the characters. More than anything else it's a period show.

▲hnlmorg 3 days ago | parent [-]

> don't think that has anything to do with whether "open source" is overshadowed by suicide. The show isn't "for" you.

You’re misunderstanding my point about the suicide. I said that the suicide was unearned and didn’t tackle the real discussion about mental health. And thus it was a distraction from the plot thread.

I’d have actually preferred it if the plot focused more on mental health if they were going to have a supporting character kill themselves. Then the death would have been earned.

> The only reason technology is featured in it is that it's a way to show a period of rapid change happening underneath the characters. More than anything else it's a period show.

You keep lecturing me on this point despite everything I’ve posted clearly being about how the drama (ie not technology) was written.

Are you sure you’re not the one hung up on the tech aspect given you assume that’s what everyone else is? Because everyone in this thread already gets it isn’t a documentary ;)

▲tptacek 3 days ago | parent [-]

I'm just keying off this thing you wrote:

For example, the suicide was very poorly handled. It was used as vehicle for discussing open source vs proprietary code. But you could have easily done that without the death [...]

It's totally fine if we're not making any productive progress in this part of the thread. It's art, it's all subjective, we can just disagree. I think the interpersonal dramas in HACF are as earned as they are in any series; certainly, I'd put every season of HACF several notches above Six Feet Under Season 4 and its Scooby-Doo finale.

At the same time, I don't think there's any kind of important broader theme or message or ideas in HACF; the A-tier of prestige dramas have that --- The Wire, Mad Men, Better Call Saul. Mad Men and The Americans are I think the best comparands; both period shows with high-concept settings, both bigger idea/theme shows than HACF.

▲hnlmorg 3 days ago | parent [-]

> I'm just keying off this thing you wrote

Because that was literally the plot!

I’m saying that the death was poorly handled. I’m not commenting on whether there should have been more or less emphasis on tech. I’m saying the death was a lazy plot device that added nothing to the story.

Edit:

> At the same time, I don't think there's any kind of important broader theme or message or ideas in HACF; the A-tier of prestige dramas have that --- The Wire, Mad Men, Better Call Saul. Mad Men and The Americans are I think the best comparands; both period shows with high-concept settings, both bigger idea/theme shows than HACF.

I think you’re on to something there.

HCF felt shallow and that was likely for the reason you’ve described.

▲aspenmayer 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

> Think of it like a shower scene in a movie. More often than not, it has literally no relevance to the movie. It doesn’t further the plot. It’s not even part of the story. It’s just there so that it can be used as a clip in the movie trailer.

Depends on the movie. Once I studied films and film theory (just in undergrad, not trying to claim any special authority on the subject), I appreciated more how these interstitial scenes are meaningful. It's all part of mise-en-scène. It lets the scenes feel alive and lived in, and not just a 2D image flying by at 24ish FPS.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mise-en-sc%C3%A8ne

> Mise-en-scène has been called film criticism's "grand undefined term". Ed Sikov has attempted to define it as "the totality of expressive content within the image". It has been criticized for its focus on the dramatic design aspects rather than the plot itself, as those who utilize mise-en-scène tend to look at what is "put before the camera" rather than the story. The use of mise-en-scène is significant as it allows the director to convey messages to the viewer through what is placed in the scene, not just the scripted lines spoken and acted in the scene. Mise-en-scène allows the director to not only convey their message but also implement their aesthetic; as such, each director has their own unique mise-en-scène. Mise-en-scène refers to everything in front of the camera, including the set design, lighting, and actors, and the ultimate way that this influences how the scene comes together for the audience.

If you've seen many horror movies, you know to expect a jump scare, but because the actual original scare in a shower scene[0] is so played-out by now, audiences expect it, so it has to be subverted.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psycho_(1960_film)

Edit:

Just was going over the thread again to see if there were any new posts, and I glanced over your comment again and wanted to reply to this point, because I agree with you and I think I didn't acknowledge this, and it really brings your point upthread home and validates it.

> For example, the suicide was very poorly handled.

I completely forgot about that part. Good call-out. Mental health issues and self-harm, especially imagery of it, are not plot devices to be used carelessly. Representation matters, and yet it's so hard to do well because those being represented need understanding also, not just seeing triggering stuff on TV and movies. That definitely didn't feel earned, and it didn't land well. I don't know how else it was supposed to feel though, considering the seriousness of the issue. It's a hard topic to put to film. Thanks for mentioning it.

▲Kye 3 days ago | parent [-]

Person opens the shower curtain after much tension building

It's just the cat

But they don't have a cat...

▲aspenmayer 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

> To put it another way: you have shows that have strong enough writers where they don’t need gimmicks to keep your attention. And you have shows that are intentionally about the gimmicks. Then you have shows that aren’t about the gimmicks but the writers don’t have enough confidence in their work to avoid putting them in anyway.

Can you elaborate a bit about the gimmick(s) in Halt and Catch Fire? I think it's a drama, so there are human concerns and interactions, but that's like, what tv shows are? I don't know what you mean specifically.

> Shows like The West Wing, House of Cards etc aren’t about gimmicks and don’t need them.

The West Wing is statist propaganda for liberals. House of Cards is statist propaganda for neocons.

> Shows like Mr Robot are about the gimmicks. And that’s ok too because you know it’s meant to be silly drama.

I actually really appreciate that every hack shown on Mr. Robot had a real world POC and used actually existing tools and techniques. The storyline is hokum and gives hackers a bad name, but black hats are kinda supposed to have a bad name. Elliot is kinda gray hat, but he definitely violated CFAA multiple times and would probably be dead or in jail irl.

▲hnlmorg 4 days ago | parent [-]

By “gimmicks” (poor choice of word on my part but it was late and I was tired) I mean unnecessary drama that isn’t there to further the plot. It’s just there to offer episodic cliffhangers.

So much of the “drama” in that show was completely redundant and over the top too.

Things like setting the truck alight for no reason other than “I’m so emo”. Affairs that are talked about for one episode then forgotten about. Suicides that didn’t touch on mental illness and instead focused on an open source (you could have done that without the death) and thus that death felt completely redundant, mishandled, and there just for another cliffhanger.

I get the need to make things exciting. But the drama didn’t feel earned. It felt shoehorned because some executive was worried people might get bored about a show which uses the computer industry as a backdrop.

▲aspenmayer 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

I think I would agree with you that it’s a dramatic show, and since these are characters, they tried to smash too much together into a supergroup of larger than life achievers with egos to match. I think you’re right that they did try to juice the drama a bit more than was believable in a few cases, but it was meant to show the full gamut of the tech industry and associated scenes, and it kind of felt strained or forced at times. I wouldn’t really call it a gimmick either, but perhaps that is the best word for their reach exceeding their grasp.

It’s a kind of myth making, I suppose. Folks want to feel like their own lives are meaningful and exciting, and so they seek out content that is familiar and validates their life choices. Lots of folks in the tech industry are passionate. Others want to want things, but their get up and go got up and went. Halt and Catch Fire is a kind of wish fulfillment for tech folks, but there aren’t unqualified happy endings in the show, so the successes of the characters do feel largely earned by them, even if the dramatic hurdles do seem somewhat overblown or unrealistic. I’ve known enough folks in the industry to see all kinds, from very stable geniuses to shameless sycophants. Most are just regular people, but they rarely make for good television, so regular folks are the side characters or spouses. The viewers are here for drama, not realism.

▲udev4096 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

I believe ryan, especially his death, was about Aaron Swartz and the value of open information and less to do with "open source"