Follows the most miserable person on Earth and the one who must save the world from happiness.
The series situates itself in our world while bending the rules of reality. Unraveling the complexities of the human condition in startling, unforeseen ways.
I never understand why not every show/movie does one of these :)
by jimslim posted 6 months ago
This is a really odd show. In many ways, I like it. But in many other ways, I don't!
Even though it's completely different, it kinda reminds me of Colony (which I loved and was sorely dissapointed at its cancellation).
The underlying premise is great, I love it, however the distinct lack of content is a problem for me, although thats obviously by design as noted by other posters.
I'll watch the next season, as it's done just enough to intrigue me.
by g371 posted 7 months ago
some_one wrote:
That... sure is a take. You know how, if you really go looking for a pattern, you often start seeing it everywhere, even when it's not even there, because you are simply ignoring everything that doesn't fit?
It's called a confirmation bias. But the take is understandable, if you watch, for example, also this Apple show: https://next-episode.net/down-cemetery-road - that's how a polarization works.
by g371 posted 7 months ago
some_one wrote:
"Sweet, but moves very slowly".
It will get darker, give it some time :D
But overall imo it's pointless to compare those shows. Silo is a classic recipe for success, Pluribus and alike is how the guy above said a closest thing to a book, half of the processing is client side - meaning, entertain yourself by using your imagination and knowledge to understand references etc.
by some_one posted 7 months ago
WilliamDrakeMcGregor wrote:
Calling Silo "syruppy"...uff, we have some strong difference in opinion there - but that's entertainment for ya :)
"Sweet, but moves very slowly". Or maybe it's just something you shouldn't watch while already exhausted.
WilliamDrakeMcGregor wrote:
Best example is the very first few scenes of the show. Why didn't we get more of those?
One thing I don't particularly enjoy, and they do it at least thrice in two episodes of Silo, is the part at the start of such stories where the protagonists are still reluctant to even question the status quo, while we, as the viewer, can already clearly see it's fucked. That extended sequence at the start of Pluribus serves to skip right past that by utterly shattering the old status quo, before even showing us what kind of story it's going to be. I kinda liked that scene as well. But it's not that kinda show. Where other such stories tend to give us at least some kind of birds-eye view in order to fully ponder all the implications, here they take a different approach: They are trying to get us to ask ourselves "what would I, a regular person, do in this situation?". While the other way to do it is more exciting, it is also the path most walked. It's nice to have something different for a change.
WilliamDrakeMcGregor wrote:
Aesthetics is what most Sci-Fi shows - that don't play in our current world / society - need. Especially so with post-apocalyptic worlds. Otherwise you couldn't really immerse yourself in the fictional world.
Exactly, and that's another thing making Pluribus somewhat unique: it isn't a post-apocalypse to immerse ourselves in. It's barely an apocalypse at all; more of an in-progress one. The closest comparable one I can think of would probably be The Last Man on Earth, a comedy.
by WilliamDrakeMcGregor posted 7 months ago
some_one wrote:
Fine if y'all insist... just watched the first two episodes, so far. Syruppy show, that one. It's very conceptual as well, but character-driven much more so than Pluribus. Also puts a lot of emphasis on aesthetics, like Fallout, but keeps it in the background. The main difference between the three is that, in Silo, nobody actually remembers our world (I think), in Fallout some do, while in Pluribus it's the very point of it all. That simple aspect makes a huge difference on how much breathing room the story has. Pluribus deals, and wants to deal, with that above all else. The question "should we go back or find a new way forward?". I think that's what you mean?
Again, I just used the most recent examples with somewhat similar features. I did not mean that these shows are so similar that it won't make a difference which one you are gonna watch.
They are just examples of shows that managed to give me a lot more overall content out of one Season than this show did.
Calling Silo "syruppy"...uff, we have some strong difference in opinion there - but that's entertainment for ya :)
Aesthetics is what most Sci-Fi shows - that don't play in our current world / society - need. Especially so with post-apocalyptic worlds. Otherwise you couldn't really immerse yourself in the fictional world.
Yes, Pluribus wants to deal with that point "above all else" as you mentioned. That's part of the problem for me since they didn't use that "breathing room" to show us more of the world: what is, what may be and what was lost.
Almost every bit of information we get from Carol or her conversations with Pirate Lady. Nothing is given to us without her knowing about it, if you know what I mean. The focus on "character-driven" was just a bit too much.
Best example is the very first few scenes of the show. Why didn't we get more of those?
by some_one posted 7 months ago
WilliamDrakeMcGregor wrote:
The comparison was meant to show the amount of content other than character-development that can be packed into a first Season.
I choose these two shows because of the similar theme with the humanity-ending event where it is to explore what actually happened and who did what.
But yes, all three shows are unique in their own ways :)
Also, as g371 said, if you like Pluribus and Fallout you should definitely give Silo a try. Season 1 was mind-blowing, Season 2... can be (and was) argued about :)
Fine if y'all insist... just watched the first two episodes, so far. Syruppy show, that one. It's very conceptual as well, but character-driven much more so than Pluribus. Also puts a lot of emphasis on aesthetics, like Fallout, but keeps it in the background. The main difference between the three is that, in Silo, nobody actually remembers our world (I think), in Fallout some do, while in Pluribus it's the very point of it all. That simple aspect makes a huge difference on how much breathing room the story has. Pluribus deals, and wants to deal, with that above all else. The question "should we go back or find a new way forward?". I think that's what you mean?
proteinnerd wrote:
I'm surprised Apple actually green-lit such a clearly mysoginistic themed series.
Carol is the absolute epitome of feminism (according to its detractors) over emotionally and completely lacks the ability to take accountability for her actions.
She is completely irrational and driven entirely by emotions, incapable of her own agency even when she believes the world is ending. She hates "the others" but cannot live without their assistance, she relies entirely on them for EVERYTHING, food, power, protection, entertainment and even companionship and sexual gratification knowing full well they are actively trying to forcibly take her independence and convert her.
Her repeated actions directly result in the others leaving her as she is so dangerous to them. She cannot stand to live alone and after a short time, her narcissistic selfishness and inability to survive on her own, she begs them to come back. Then spends the next weeks relying on them to provide obscene levels of decadence and pampering. When she finally realises she has been outsmarted, again her unchecked emotions drive her to obtain "the crate and whats inside." no doubt another unregulated and illogical emotional knee jerk reaction.
Manunos on the other hand is the very embodiment of masculine independence. He takes ZERO assistance from the others in a torturous trek across the americas, pays for everything he uses, refuses travel assistance and almost gets killed. He determines he needs to learn English to communicate so learns it, thinks he needs to understand sonics and sound engineering so starts to teach himself. He refuses any luxuries or pampering, determined to do everything by himself.
That... sure is a take. You know how, if you really go looking for a pattern, you often start seeing it everywhere, even when it's not even there, because you are simply ignoring everything that doesn't fit? Could that be part of what's happening here?
She's very emotional at first because the literally only person in the world she actually ever cared about at all just died, and the people/entity responsible won't leave her alone, or even grieve. But she's ultimately realistic: humans can not survive for long completely on their own, so if she's reliant on them anyway, might as well do it in a way that doesn't force her to change what's left of her familiar life and expend energy that way. After they decide to leave, she eventually asks them to come back, but only after deciding that it's either that or suicide at that point (the rocket aimed at her face), because nothing she still has actually matters to her, and she can't change anything without getting close to them anyhow (that's the very point of them leaving). She's also realistic enough to realize that just yanking out their plug, so to speak, would still kill billions more in the best case, and it would be on her that time.
The difference with Manousos is stubbornness. He liked the way things were and wants to change them back, and doesn't let practicality get in the way of anything. Ultimately, he doesn't accomplish or prove anything to anyone by doing things his way. In fact, he proves the opposite: he would be dead in the middle of the jungle if he hadn't been helped against his will, which was always the most likely outcome. Hell, he's already literally starving before he even decides to leave his house. It also catches him completely off guard that Carol sees some things differently than he does. Almost everything he does in that season is a cautionary tale.
proteinnerd wrote:
The contrast between the two could not be more apparent, I just applaud Apple for refusing the current "girlboss" archetype and portraying masculinity and femininity unbiased by the current politically correct agenda. :lol:
Ah come on. We have a thread about that now. Please take it there.
by g371 posted 7 months ago
proteinnerd wrote:
current politically correct agenda. :lol:
Imo they are taking jabs at the whole spectrum and that makes it funny, because it is true. Like here was pointed out more than one Manunos backwardness as well.
I think Apple by now is the new HBO. It still has some PC sprinkled here and there, but nowhere near the rest.
by WilliamDrakeMcGregor posted 7 months ago
some_one wrote:
Haven't watched Silo, but I wouldn't compare this to Fallout. Fallout is mostly driven by aesthetics, characters and story, while here we have a show that is almost entirely conceptual, only using characters as an access point.
The comparison was meant to show the amount of content other than character-development that can be packed into a first Season.
I choose these two shows because of the similar theme with the humanity-ending event where it is to explore what actually happened and who did what.
But yes, all three shows are unique in their own ways :)
Also, as g371 said, if you like Pluribus and Fallout you should definitely give Silo a try. Season 1 was mind-blowing, Season 2... can be (and was) argued about :)
by proteinnerd posted 7 months ago
I'm surprised Apple actually green-lit such a clearly mysoginistic themed series.
Carol is the absolute epitome of feminism (according to its detractors) over emotionally and completely lacks the ability to take accountability for her actions.
She is completely irrational and driven entirely by emotions, incapable of her own agency even when she believes the world is ending. She hates "the others" but cannot live without their assistance, she relies entirely on them for EVERYTHING, food, power, protection, entertainment and even companionship and sexual gratification knowing full well they are actively trying to forcibly take her independence and convert her.
Her repeated actions directly result in the others leaving her as she is so dangerous to them. She cannot stand to live alone and after a short time, her narcissistic selfishness and inability to survive on her own, she begs them to come back. Then spends the next weeks relying on them to provide obscene levels of decadence and pampering. When she finally realises she has been outsmarted, again her unchecked emotions drive her to obtain "the crate and whats inside." no doubt another unregulated and illogical emotional knee jerk reaction.
Manunos on the other hand is the very embodiment of masculine independence. He takes ZERO assistance from the others in a torturous trek across the americas, pays for everything he uses, refuses travel assistance and almost gets killed. He determines he needs to learn English to communicate so learns it, thinks he needs to understand sonics and sound engineering so starts to teach himself. He refuses any luxuries or pampering, determined to do everything by himself.
The contrast between the two could not be more apparent, I just applaud Apple for refusing the current "girlboss" archetype and portraying masculinity and femininity unbiased by the current politically correct agenda. :lol:
Follow
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kfcppzds68Q
I never understand why not every show/movie does one of these :)
Even though it's completely different, it kinda reminds me of Colony (which I loved and was sorely dissapointed at its cancellation).
The underlying premise is great, I love it, however the distinct lack of content is a problem for me, although thats obviously by design as noted by other posters.
I'll watch the next season, as it's done just enough to intrigue me.
That... sure is a take. You know how, if you really go looking for a pattern, you often start seeing it everywhere, even when it's not even there, because you are simply ignoring everything that doesn't fit?
It's called a confirmation bias. But the take is understandable, if you watch, for example, also this Apple show: https://next-episode.net/down-cemetery-road - that's how a polarization works.
"Sweet, but moves very slowly".
It will get darker, give it some time :D
But overall imo it's pointless to compare those shows. Silo is a classic recipe for success, Pluribus and alike is how the guy above said a closest thing to a book, half of the processing is client side - meaning, entertain yourself by using your imagination and knowledge to understand references etc.
"Sweet, but moves very slowly". Or maybe it's just something you shouldn't watch while already exhausted.
One thing I don't particularly enjoy, and they do it at least thrice in two episodes of Silo, is the part at the start of such stories where the protagonists are still reluctant to even question the status quo, while we, as the viewer, can already clearly see it's fucked. That extended sequence at the start of Pluribus serves to skip right past that by utterly shattering the old status quo, before even showing us what kind of story it's going to be. I kinda liked that scene as well. But it's not that kinda show. Where other such stories tend to give us at least some kind of birds-eye view in order to fully ponder all the implications, here they take a different approach: They are trying to get us to ask ourselves "what would I, a regular person, do in this situation?". While the other way to do it is more exciting, it is also the path most walked. It's nice to have something different for a change.
Aesthetics is what most Sci-Fi shows - that don't play in our current world / society - need. Especially so with post-apocalyptic worlds. Otherwise you couldn't really immerse yourself in the fictional world.
Exactly, and that's another thing making Pluribus somewhat unique: it isn't a post-apocalypse to immerse ourselves in. It's barely an apocalypse at all; more of an in-progress one. The closest comparable one I can think of would probably be The Last Man on Earth, a comedy.
Again, I just used the most recent examples with somewhat similar features. I did not mean that these shows are so similar that it won't make a difference which one you are gonna watch.
They are just examples of shows that managed to give me a lot more overall content out of one Season than this show did.
Calling Silo "syruppy"...uff, we have some strong difference in opinion there - but that's entertainment for ya :)
Aesthetics is what most Sci-Fi shows - that don't play in our current world / society - need. Especially so with post-apocalyptic worlds. Otherwise you couldn't really immerse yourself in the fictional world.
Yes, Pluribus wants to deal with that point "above all else" as you mentioned. That's part of the problem for me since they didn't use that "breathing room" to show us more of the world: what is, what may be and what was lost.
Almost every bit of information we get from Carol or her conversations with Pirate Lady. Nothing is given to us without her knowing about it, if you know what I mean. The focus on "character-driven" was just a bit too much.
Best example is the very first few scenes of the show. Why didn't we get more of those?
The comparison was meant to show the amount of content other than character-development that can be packed into a first Season.
I choose these two shows because of the similar theme with the humanity-ending event where it is to explore what actually happened and who did what.
But yes, all three shows are unique in their own ways :)
Also, as g371 said, if you like Pluribus and Fallout you should definitely give Silo a try. Season 1 was mind-blowing, Season 2... can be (and was) argued about :)
Fine if y'all insist... just watched the first two episodes, so far. Syruppy show, that one. It's very conceptual as well, but character-driven much more so than Pluribus. Also puts a lot of emphasis on aesthetics, like Fallout, but keeps it in the background. The main difference between the three is that, in Silo, nobody actually remembers our world (I think), in Fallout some do, while in Pluribus it's the very point of it all. That simple aspect makes a huge difference on how much breathing room the story has. Pluribus deals, and wants to deal, with that above all else. The question "should we go back or find a new way forward?". I think that's what you mean?
Carol is the absolute epitome of feminism (according to its detractors) over emotionally and completely lacks the ability to take accountability for her actions.
She is completely irrational and driven entirely by emotions, incapable of her own agency even when she believes the world is ending. She hates "the others" but cannot live without their assistance, she relies entirely on them for EVERYTHING, food, power, protection, entertainment and even companionship and sexual gratification knowing full well they are actively trying to forcibly take her independence and convert her.
Her repeated actions directly result in the others leaving her as she is so dangerous to them. She cannot stand to live alone and after a short time, her narcissistic selfishness and inability to survive on her own, she begs them to come back. Then spends the next weeks relying on them to provide obscene levels of decadence and pampering. When she finally realises she has been outsmarted, again her unchecked emotions drive her to obtain "the crate and whats inside." no doubt another unregulated and illogical emotional knee jerk reaction.
Manunos on the other hand is the very embodiment of masculine independence. He takes ZERO assistance from the others in a torturous trek across the americas, pays for everything he uses, refuses travel assistance and almost gets killed. He determines he needs to learn English to communicate so learns it, thinks he needs to understand sonics and sound engineering so starts to teach himself. He refuses any luxuries or pampering, determined to do everything by himself.
That... sure is a take. You know how, if you really go looking for a pattern, you often start seeing it everywhere, even when it's not even there, because you are simply ignoring everything that doesn't fit? Could that be part of what's happening here?
She's very emotional at first because the literally only person in the world she actually ever cared about at all just died, and the people/entity responsible won't leave her alone, or even grieve. But she's ultimately realistic: humans can not survive for long completely on their own, so if she's reliant on them anyway, might as well do it in a way that doesn't force her to change what's left of her familiar life and expend energy that way. After they decide to leave, she eventually asks them to come back, but only after deciding that it's either that or suicide at that point (the rocket aimed at her face), because nothing she still has actually matters to her, and she can't change anything without getting close to them anyhow (that's the very point of them leaving). She's also realistic enough to realize that just yanking out their plug, so to speak, would still kill billions more in the best case, and it would be on her that time.
The difference with Manousos is stubbornness. He liked the way things were and wants to change them back, and doesn't let practicality get in the way of anything. Ultimately, he doesn't accomplish or prove anything to anyone by doing things his way. In fact, he proves the opposite: he would be dead in the middle of the jungle if he hadn't been helped against his will, which was always the most likely outcome. Hell, he's already literally starving before he even decides to leave his house. It also catches him completely off guard that Carol sees some things differently than he does. Almost everything he does in that season is a cautionary tale.
Ah come on. We have a thread about that now. Please take it there.
Imo they are taking jabs at the whole spectrum and that makes it funny, because it is true. Like here was pointed out more than one Manunos backwardness as well.
I think Apple by now is the new HBO. It still has some PC sprinkled here and there, but nowhere near the rest.
Haven't watched Silo, but I wouldn't compare this to Fallout. Fallout is mostly driven by aesthetics, characters and story, while here we have a show that is almost entirely conceptual, only using characters as an access point.
The comparison was meant to show the amount of content other than character-development that can be packed into a first Season.
I choose these two shows because of the similar theme with the humanity-ending event where it is to explore what actually happened and who did what.
But yes, all three shows are unique in their own ways :)
Also, as g371 said, if you like Pluribus and Fallout you should definitely give Silo a try. Season 1 was mind-blowing, Season 2... can be (and was) argued about :)
Carol is the absolute epitome of feminism (according to its detractors) over emotionally and completely lacks the ability to take accountability for her actions.
She is completely irrational and driven entirely by emotions, incapable of her own agency even when she believes the world is ending. She hates "the others" but cannot live without their assistance, she relies entirely on them for EVERYTHING, food, power, protection, entertainment and even companionship and sexual gratification knowing full well they are actively trying to forcibly take her independence and convert her.
Her repeated actions directly result in the others leaving her as she is so dangerous to them. She cannot stand to live alone and after a short time, her narcissistic selfishness and inability to survive on her own, she begs them to come back. Then spends the next weeks relying on them to provide obscene levels of decadence and pampering. When she finally realises she has been outsmarted, again her unchecked emotions drive her to obtain "the crate and whats inside." no doubt another unregulated and illogical emotional knee jerk reaction.
Manunos on the other hand is the very embodiment of masculine independence. He takes ZERO assistance from the others in a torturous trek across the americas, pays for everything he uses, refuses travel assistance and almost gets killed. He determines he needs to learn English to communicate so learns it, thinks he needs to understand sonics and sound engineering so starts to teach himself. He refuses any luxuries or pampering, determined to do everything by himself.
The contrast between the two could not be more apparent, I just applaud Apple for refusing the current "girlboss" archetype and portraying masculinity and femininity unbiased by the current politically correct agenda. :lol: