As a voting demographic I wouldn't consider my conservative christian but it's clear that I identify myself as conservative and I usually describe myself as lean christian although that's not particularly accurate. I'm just rarely overtly religious but I would say I more than "lean" christian.

Having said that my choice of words was again intentionally inflammatory. Still, preachy gay agenda crap is in all sorts of shows. I quit watching all of the CW DC shows because a couple of them were so bad with it. On the other hand, my wife and I have seen every episode of Grey's Anatomy which is a huge gay agenda show, among other leftist causes, but it usually is much lighter in "preachy-ness" and often surprisingly balanced.



A review online mentioned some sheet covered shenanigans and I'm sure that's the scene I referenced although they failed to mention one that included a couple of black studs. My son isn't that young, he's 13. TV-MA can be a pretty vague description today. I wouldn't let him watch a show like Sons of Anarchy but have stopped kicking him out of the room if we're watching a show like The Walking Dead. My chief complaint really is with unnecessarily making Designated Survivor a mature rated show. But, then again, for whatever reason (presumably ratings or expense) the show was cancelled on network television.

Me?? Never!

You can definitely read a lot into the fact that Wookie said gay black sex and not black gay sex

You don't have to read anything into it. Gay sex isn't particularly provocative enough now but homosexual black men pushes more boundaries if it's actually true that that is more taboo and will offend more people.

I can hardly get off-*cough* get offended by gay black sex anymore, when are they going to let us see, er, force in *sweating profusely* some light kink?

Actually, I think Stranger Things is pretty good with nostalgia. It doesn't seem to rely on it, just shows things that trigger it (exception below). The lighting did seem off at times but it most likely wasn't. It's more like the reason for the colored lighting probably wasn't overt enough to make me think it was appropriate I'm guessing. My biggest problem with this season was the trying to shoehorn in slapstick comedy segments and excessive nostalgic treatments (I don't remember that in the previous seasons). I always kind of felt like Stranger Things was supposed to feel like it could have actually happened in the 80s. Now, at times, it feels like a caricature. And all of the implied Terminator-esque treatment around a particular minor character was too much. However, I do kind of feel like they generally stuck the landing but it's going to be a huge cop out if a tragic loss turns out not to be. I think so anyway, opinions will vary.

This is what I'm referring to with color grading. The lighting is fine. What's off is the lighting appears white-blue, but everyones skin in the underground glows bright pink. I have no idea why it's there but it looks hideous.

It doesn't bother me but I don't know if you have some specific education or experience in that regard that makes it stand out more to you. I certainly understand that because I did end up completing the graphic design course I mentioned here a couple years back and I am far more critical of certain things than I was before that.

https://old.reddit.com/r/StrangerThings/comments/cbwmft/why_isnt_anyone_talking_about_this_scene/

IDK, maybe what normies see are facial expressions and emotion. All I can see are those PURPLE LIPS. WHY ARE THEY SO PURPLE? Reality ain't like this! Lips are not that purple!! It looks weird when lips are so purple! And their skin is so pink! Why? Why!

This is the same scene with the blue toned way the f down. Not a flawless correction but I think it's an improvement.

Yeah, I get what you're saying there and I agree. That's sort of what I meant when I said there seems to be some colored light for some reason. You have to assume there was a reason. I know you're saying color grading but my impression is that it's there for a reason but I sure as hell don't know why.

The short version is that the "reason" is usually because they're filming with a digital camera that has some unpleasant color reconstruction properties, like REDs, which basically require color grading in order to get a picture that looks good. Old school film cameras and Arri cameras make a decent choice for you, but most other digital cameras don't. Even dumpy youtube videos filmed on RED cameras have to be color graded. That means the pipeline has turned something that's usually done for strong artistic reasons into something that always has to be done for routine reasons, which means you'll get silly **** like that ^ done for bad artistic reasons (we have to color grade anyway, so we might as well make everything blue).

I'm just barely scratching the surface of video editing so I'm not familiar with color grading. I certainly noticed the issue but am ignorant of the technical reasons you suggest are the culprit. That's pretty interesting stuff. Relatively recently I had heard that most films in the theater are running at 4K, I don't know how accurate that is, but I was pretty amazed that was the case because it seems terribly low for such big screens. Then in some of the recent Corridor videos I learned how relatively low res most CG shots are so it totally makes sense. I have been noticing in more films just how bad they look now. Of course since they're so full of CG that's rendered at probably 2K at best.

Naturally, I mean Drive uses color grading to achieve this:



But in Drive it seems to serve a purpose. Blue for vehicle interior lighting, orange for incandescent street lights. Looks pretty cool for a few scenes. Wouldn't want a whole show with this kind of color grading, but it works for a one-off film.

But blanket cranking up the blues seems like an odd choice. If would make more sense if the locations were meant to be cold (Canada, Russia in American TV are always color graded blue to make it feel 'cold' while Mexico is color graded orange to feel hot). Jon's probably right, it seems more or less like an arbitrary choice to be 'artistic' without any real reason for it. I guess there's some technical blah-de-blah with RED cameras, but I don't know about that.

Also Drive doesn't make skin tones look like blueberry vomit.



Leaked screen cap from Stranger Things season 3

Apparently she's dead. Oops. No offense to her memory as a blueberry.

Thanks for the explanation. I saw Steve in the first episode and thought he was wearing lipstick, then I noticed it on Billy as well. It looks really odd.

Interested? A little bit of fan service (finally) going on here?

I’m sure someone out there is happy that they’re finally making that Star Trek Nemesis TV series they’ve been asking for.

Personally, I think we’ve had about 6 hours too much already.

What's the other, like, four hours? I actually kind of liked Nemesis. In a way I think all of the Star Trek (pre-Abrahams) has grown on me since the Star Wars sequels started.

Star Trek Insurrection and Star Trek First Contact.

...not to say that Generations was tolerable, but at least it didn’t have Action Hero Captain Picard entering berserk mode.

They did one late season Die Hard episode with Picard and the fans “liked” it so much that they made 3 movies and apparently an entire TV spinoff about it.

Hey kids, I guess we’re having ice cream for dinner again!

Oh, yeah, I get what you're saying now. Speaking of Die Hard, I recently learned that that's basically Commando 2. Crazy.

I laughed *and* cried while watching the Picard teaser! What a joy. The Youtube comments are full of people who, as Jon`C said, apparently really want ice cream for dinner. Like, ice cream with sprinkles and whipped cream.

well despite all of your negativity saberopus, I can't wait to see how Picard hulks out and rescues the new Borg Queen from the cube that Section 31's building.

Which generation of Star Trek is best?

TOS is best because it made TNG possible, which is better (the TNG movies are weak and sorta pointless, though).

Edit: Lordy, that trailer for Picard is oh so saddening... looks to me like TNG is getting the CBS equivalent of the 'Disney' treatment of Star Wars.

Not sure what you mean by generation. Cast/series, or what the fans consider generations.

It depends on what you want. TOS is horror with a classic 1900s sci fi vibe. TNG was a soft reboot, drops the horror aspects and introduces more mature legal and philosophical concerns. DS9 is Trekkie fan service. STV tried to reboot TNG without the crew non-conflict edict but immediately wussed out, and it became More TNG but with worse writing. ENT tried to be More STV but nobody watched it, so they tried to make it More DS9 but couldn't recover in time. It looks like dog**** so I haven't watched it, but STD is apparently just the Battlestar Galactica remake with some Trekkie fan service and no creative ambition. The Abramsverse was cowritten by Jony Ive, a barista who once overheard a phone conversation about Star Trek, and a sentient copy of Save the Cat 2.

The best "generation" by fan reckoning is probably TNG era, because it has the most to offer (TNG and DS9).

The best era by calendar reckoning is 1982-1993, thereabouts.

Alright, I have nothing to do in the next few weeks. Watching TNG it is.

Seasons 1&2 are rough in places, including some old TOS scripts that were recycled but are humorously bad and are far too campy to mesh with the TNG vibe of being a show that takes it self somewhat more seriously.

Also, don't take that nasty Dr. Pulaski too seriously. She appears to be an homage to Bones, but it doesn't really play well with the chemistry of the cast. Season 3 and onward are where things really shine, and by season 4 the show is bloody amazing.

How does this look to all of you? It doesn't look super appealing but I might give it a go.

Good to know, I'll reserve judgment for when I get to S3 and later.

From the trailer: "Nothing ever ends."

Are they talking about franchises?

Literally -

Season 1 wasn't working, so they tried to mix things up by recasting Crusher with Pulaski. The idea was to recreate the ribbing between Spock and McCoy with Data and Pulaski, but because Data is so innocent it came off like kicking a puppy. They dropped the actress (aided by the fact that she didn't want to do sci fi anymore after one episode) and re-hired Crusher. The entire exercise is now considered pointless, because in retrospect the death of Tasha Yar in season 1 helped the cast gel. Season 2 is also considered rough because there was a writers strike during production, so most of the scripts were rushed or even written by non-writers.

But don't skip either season 1 or 2. Some of the most memorable episodes are in those seasons. 8 of the 22 episodes in Season 2 are considered required viewing, either because they build toward future episodes or because they're fan favorites.

Oh but don't get me wrong, there are some major stinkers in there, too.

I'm definitely going to watch it but I already know I'm going to be disappointed. I don't expect it to have any of the qualities that made Watchmen good.

I really don't think Star Trek TV shows lend themselves to binge watching. Some of the later seasons of TNG and DS9 because they carry stories and plot points over multiple episodes and Voyager and Enterprise generally do the same thing throughout their run. I don't watch the new show so I have no opinion.

There were a lot of things in the 80s I didn't know were things at the time because I was living in relatively rural Rhode Island with limited television. I never saw (nor heard of to my recollection) an NES until 88 or 89. I never knew anything about TNG until I happened to be at a friends house and I saw a terrible looking episode, which in retrospect, I believe was a first season Q episode with "pig guards". Later, in the early 90s when I was all grown up and married, I would end up hooked on TNG. The really put out some good episodes.

I don't think it's necessary to watch the show in order. I think it's perfectly fine to pick out some of the best regarded episodes, maybe watch those from earliest to latest, and then watch others as time permits.

Anyone remember the horror-esque TNG episode with some mind controlling worm like things that was set up to play some role in the future but they never revisted the premise? That was too bad. Not that I remember it being a great episode, just interesting.

Yeah.. and the issue is like, Watchmen is a story that was told. There's nothing to expand on. Where can you even go?

Best I can tell is there's going to be some kind of terrorist-y organization based on Rorschach's ideology.

Reminds me, I need to cancel my HBO Now soon.

Yeah, the comic doesn’t really set up the story for a sequel. I don’t think it’s impossible for an interesting story to be told, but everything about that trailer hints at a really forced effort to find some way to move forward with the story.

I’ve for a while thought it’s unfortunate that more movies aren’t being made now, because many stories just make more sense being told in two hours. If you have 10 hours to tell a story, often you go into all these extraneous detours that don’t really add anything. It was really appropriate to tell the Chernobyl story in a 5 episode miniseries format. I hope we’ll see more stuff like that. I can’t imagine a bunch of Watchmen episodes, and then what if there are multiple seasons, how they’ll stretch it out to fill the time, how it’ll all make sense, and still feel like it’s parts of the same world as the comic book. It’d probably be better if it were a little more finite.

Or maybe it’ll be good?