Hidden Gems of Amazon Prime instant videos

Been binging Survivorman lately, love Les Stroud. Seasons 1, 4-7 and his new show with his son.

The percentage of comedians that aren’t problematic douche bags is somewhere south of 10%. And that goes for both men and women.

I didn’t know anything about Arminsen. But what BK posted just means he is mostly a douche. I’m not watching anymore Louis CK stuff. Seems like Johnny Depp is a no go. Kevin Spacey is irredeemable. Adam Baldwin helped start Gamergate, so I’ll never watch his stuff.

Personally, I’m not really a fan of Arminsen, although Portlandia is pretty great. Haven’t liked him in much else. But after BK first posted about him I checked out his history, and I could not see the big deal. And what BK posted after was pretty much what I read.

But we could all play this game. Post something from SNL? Well, that show has had douches for decades.

I don’t give two sh*ts about what people watch or don’t. But crapping on some show people are enjoying because the actor is a douche is lame. There is a difference between those other guys and just being a self-centered arrogant prick.

And really, his biggest problem is self-awareness and a willingness to call himself out about it in public. Do we really need to interrupt every discussion of a tv show or film with details of which actor cheated on their spouses and had ugly divorces? Which ones were jerks to the help? We can crap on every show folks like in this forum if we put in the effort.

Jayhawker wrote:

We can crap on every show folks like in this forum if we put in the effort.

Yup. We agree on that point.

Jayhawker wrote:

But crapping on some show people are enjoying because the actor is a douche is lame.

This is where we diverge.

You yourself say you can't watch Louis CK anymore. Why not? Because you can't divest yourself of your sense of revulsion at him and just enjoy his well-crafted jokes, right? Which is exactly what's going on with Badken and Armisen.

And just to be clear as day - no-one is equating Louis CK's and Fred Armisen's sins.

But that's the point - it's not about what they did, it's about what you, the viewer, feel when you consume their work. Does it make you feel bad? Would not watching it be an improvement?

Jonman's got it right. I'm not trying to crap on any of Armisens shows, really. I was just trying to share my feelings on the matter. Maybe other people don't care, and that's fine. Maybe some people are curious and would want to look into it further for themselves. I wasn't trying to tell anyone what to do.

I do, however, strongly disagree with the assertion that 90% of comedy performers are jerks. The jerks tend to get in the spotlight because of the popularity of sites like TMZ and (formerly) Gawker. And those sites are, ironically, huge jerks toward celebrities.

This is the "boys will be boys" argument, and I utterly reject that argument. It is not normal for someone to treat other humans poorly.

I definitely agree with the core of Jay's point. Maybe it isn't people's intent but when people are on a lovetrain about a movie/game/book and a poster comes along to say how vile one of the showrunners is - they are kind of casting judgement on the people who can enjoy the show despite the involvement of the bad actor. It is what it is, at least acknowledge it.

Can we please have a difference of opinion without one of us being a bad person with bad intentions?

BadKen wrote:

Can we please have a difference of opinion without one of us being a bad person with bad intentions?

No you bad person you, badken. bad bad bad ken. No good ken for you with your bad intentions. You'll always be badken to me because of your opinions.

Speaking of bad people with bad intentions, I have such a hard time liking Man in the High Castle. I should like it because I'm very down with alternate future different dimension bullsh*t. But man, I can't remember what the hell is going on from season to season. Yes, I watched the recap. 30% of it, I had no recollection of whatsoever. The rest seemed vaguely familiar. Then they go into the episode and I have no real clue what happened.

This is mostly my problem and my terrible memory. It just sucks that my options seem to be wait until the series ends and then watch everything, re-watch the previous seasons before the new ones, or just be perpetually lost. This is a show that I want to like, but makes me feel really dumb.

SallyNasty wrote:

I definitely agree with the core of Jay's point. Maybe it isn't people's intent but when people are on a lovetrain about a movie/game/book and a poster comes along to say how vile one of the showrunners is - they are kind of casting judgement on the people who can enjoy the show despite the involvement of the bad actor. It is what it is, at least acknowledge it.

What it is is someone telling everyone else their personal experience of a piece of media, and the reasons why.

You're drawing the inference that they're judging you for not sharing that opinion.

Which to be fair, sometimes might be the case, but I didn't get a whiff of that from what Ken wrote.

BadKen wrote:

Can we please have a difference of opinion without one of us being a bad person with bad intentions?

The problem I find, and it's probably a product of me being male and being able to previously watch whatever I liked without thought or criticism, is that moral objections to a TV show or the actors in them I feel like the person raising the objection isn't only saying 'X' is a crappy person who treats people badly but that, I if I continue to watch said show, I am someone who doesn't care about those who X has abused and am, effectively, a bad person. It feels to me like a judgement on me even if it isn't intended as one (as has been said above.)

The problem, as I see it, is that, being new to dealing with morality based criticism of the media I consume, I have little or no defences. If people deride a show I like for a bad script or bad gameplay I can just shrug it off. If I like it I like it. Tastes differ. Having a film or game or TV show I like being called out as lacking morally in some way generally makes me feel really crappy. It doesn't really help that said criticism is likely an important thing to do and the only way we'll get change.

I'm coming to the conclusion that what I need to do is think about these things for myself and devise my own moral code about shows or games that involve morally reprehensible people. That way I can offer someone elses objections up to my own moral code and see if it is enough to put me off a show. If I do that I'll hopefully feel a lot more comfortable when these things come up.

I say all this to clarify things for myself a little and because I found the start of Forever to be enchanting and I'm undoubtedly going to watch it.

Here's the bottom line. A piece of media can be both well-made and problematic at the same time. An author's domestic violence history doesn't obviate their ability to write gripping narrative.

We all have our own personal weightings that we assign to how good a piece of media is and how problematic it is, and whichever one wins out is a function of those weightings.

It's not just the case that those weightings vary from person to person, they vary (sometimes radically) for the same person over time, particularly as the problematic part of the equation can largely hinge on whether you were aware of a given piece of information (see Armisen).

So when someone says "I couldn't deal with that show because X", they're not saying "...and you're a bad person if you can", they're saying "...because my personal assessment of how problematic it is outweighed how good it felt to me."

One final point - we're all on our own personal journeys through life. Even if we assume that there was an agreed definition of what constitutes problematic (spoiler - there isn't), we don't all arrive at that conclusion at the the same time. What I find problematic today isn't even close to what I found problematic 20 years ago, and it's bonkers to expect everyone else to be in lockstep with me when I can't even be in lockstep with myself.

Can I be "that guy" and say we've gotten a little off topic with this thread?

Certainly. I've started watching Early Man and it seems to be peak Nick Park.

No one is arguing with that point, Jonman. We are in agreement.

Where we differ is the criticism of those who lack the social grace to not sh*tpost in the middle of a lovetrain. Go back and read the thread. Multiple posters are talking about how good a show is and someone comes in and tells them, unsolicited, what a dick the main actor is. It came across as a criticism of both the show and the audience who enjoys it. If that wasn't the intent I don't understand what it was. That is like a vegan coming to a bacon thread then acting offended by what he reads there.

Sally I think you are reading more into it than is there. The post could be to inform people since they might be unaware. It doesn’t have to jump straigt to malicious intent to look down on people that like the show or book or whatever.

Malice isn't the right word, it is more just unnecessary dickery.

Oh well, let me get off my soap box and stop distracting thread.

Started Man in the High Castle s3 this morning. I am consistently surprised by the quality of the production.

To be fair, telling people who express their valid concerns about a production to shut up in the appropriate thread for mentioning it can also be seen as unnecessary dickery

Im working my way through the 2nd season of Man in the High Castle. Its definitely interesting. It really takes its time, which could be seen as a criticism but Im enjoying it. When stories with big casts start to separate characters into different parts of the world I almost always tend to prefer one set of stories over another and that's hitting me right now. When they focus on San Francisco for an episode I mentally go 'aw dang' (Even though two former Cylons are in the cast ) but its picking back up.

polypusher wrote:

When they focus on San Francisco for an episode I mentally go 'aw dang' (Even though two former Cylons are in the cast ) but its picking back up.

I am the same though I have been enjoying the Trade Minister story line.

LeapingGnome wrote:

Sally I think you are reading more into it than is there. The post could be to inform people since they might be unaware. It doesn’t have to jump straigt to malicious intent to look down on people that like the show or book or whatever.

I originally recommended Forever and, yeah, I kinda took BadKen's post as a "why would you recommend a show involving such a bad person?" comment. He's since said that wasn't his intent and I have no reason not to believe him.

I don't want to support sh*tty artists or content creators, but this is still the Hidden Gems thread. It exists because there's a boatload of content for all different tastes and it's easy for good shows to fall through the cracks. But there's a difference between saying you watched something someone recommended and didn't like it because you have different tastes and poo pooing a show sight unseen because of you don't like a person involved in the production.

And now for something completely different!

This is available to watch on Netflix, but if you don't have Netflix it is TOTALLY worth a $3 rental on Amazon:

Raiders! : The Story of the Greatest Fan Film Ever Made

After seeing 'Raiders of the Lost Ark' almost 35 years ago, three 11-year-old boys from Mississippi spent 7 years on a faithful, shot-for-shot adaptation of the classic action adventure film. They finished every scene, except one; the film's explosive airplane set piece. Over two decades later, the trio reunited with the original cast members from their childhood to complete their masterpiece.

I just serendipitously ran across this and started watching, because what the heck, the premise made me curious. I was immediately hooked and couldn't stop watching. It is a very well constructed documentary, that even manages to build dramatic tension of its own as it recounts the lives of these boys from 11 years old until now, all the things they went through making the adaptation, and how through pure chance, producer/director/writer/actor Eli Roth helped it explode into film geek fandom.

Edit: Apologies for this post gang, it has been a long day and it was inappropriate. I am sorry if anyone was offended, have removed the ugly parts. I'll try to do better in the future.

And now I have to finish season 2 of Man in the High Castle because I loved season 1 and don’t know how I fell off of the show.

I finished season 3 of Man in the High Castle and enjoyed it a lot.

About Man In the High Castle, I wasn't exactly sure where they were going with one or two characters sexuality. I haven't finished the new season so I'm not completely sure. If I'm not mistaken I believe being gay or having sex with the same gender is a crime in all the nations in wrong world. So if they are found out they can be put to death or prison. I have no idea if they will or not. They might not make a big deal of it.

On a different note there was a scene with a monk that was taken from history that was powerful. The only problem with it is that a character just stood around while the S was hitting fan and they should have known better than anyone not to get mixed up in anything.

I was really confused on one character until he made a call to someone. Unless I missed something I think he might have been meant to be confusing at first. I think they made a mistake not making his job clear upfront. People will think they are missing something.

Anyway so far so good. I watched through ep 4.

I created the D&D topic Can't we just talk about {media} without bringing {issue} into it? to hopefully re-rail the discussion here.

Been binging because I got this feeling I can't let go. Three seasons in, one more to go.

We've been watching Jack Ryan over the last few nights. I was originally hesitant, because I assumed it would be a typical big action police cops kind of thing where terrorists are bad and also brown, and the super hero government agent has to go stop them by shooting and blowing things up. My wife likes that sort of thing, but I really don't.

Turns out it's actually way more nuanced than that. First of all, they're not afraid of using subtitles. Non-English speakers talking among themselves speak in the appropriate language. That's really unusual in American media, and I love that entire scenes are done in not-English. It really clarifies that Americans aren't the center of the world.

It also spends a lot of time humanizing both sides. Yes, there are terrorists, but halfway through, they've gone in depth on how the bad guys became convinced that they need to do what they do. They also go to great lengths to show the price of these conflicts on the civilians caught up in it. Finally, Jack Ryan himself is definitely painted as both a reluctant hero, and also flawed. Yes, he's got combat experience, and can handle himself, but he's not trained as a field agent, isn't always very good at it, and frankly doesn't want to do it. It's a refreshingly nuanced take on the genre, and I'm really pleasantly surprised.

Jayhawker wrote:

Been binging because I got this feeling I can't let go. Three seasons in, one more to go.

Of what?

I watched Season 3 of Mr Robot over the past week. It's still good and interesting but there started to be some 'Wait why would they do that?' creeping in.

spoilers for both Mr. Robot and Man in the High Castle below

Spoiler:

Also, is it just me or is White Rose's special project definitely also the Nazi's special project in Man in the High Castle?

polypusher wrote:
Jayhawker wrote:

Been binging because I got this feeling I can't let go. Three seasons in, one more to go.

Of what?

Thought some that had watched Bosch would get that joke, as the opening theme repeats that, “Got a feeling that I can’t let go” over and over, and it annoys my wife. But the show is fantastic.

Bosch is super good and I highly recommend it.