Because I cannot finish anything, I decided to start watching yet another show... (currently in progress: Kim's Convenience, The Good Place, Interrogation, among others.) It is a Netflix show that centers on an experimental dating concept. I'm not even through the first episode yet, but I already have thoughts...
The premise is that two dozen (?) heterosexual (or perhaps bi?) people live in a "facility" and they go on literally blind dates with each other. The men live in one area and the women live in another and they don't get to see their prospective partners at all. The dates (or rather, conversations, take place in pods -- each person is in their own pod, where they can talk to someone else in another pod. They don't get to look at each other, as per the title.
I'd be interested in seeing this done with gay or lesbian people, though some of the logistics would have to be changed around, potentially...
Anyways, this unique concept intrigued me so I decided to start watching this show. My primary thought was that I would absolutely not subject myself to being part of a dating experiment like this. I just couldn't take it.
I want to know more about the logistics of the show -- do they get a certain amount of time with each person, or can they spend as little or as much time with whoever? Maybe it's more structured initially to give each person a chance to see what all the other people are like, to get a feel for their options, but after they've spoken with each person once, they can then choose who they want to continue talking to. It hasn't been exactly specified.
I noticed that they have little notebooks in which they can take notes about the people they talk to, which I thought was kind of interesting, though I guess it makes sense if you're going to be speed-blind-dating all those different people, especially without seeing them.
Some of the first questions that some of the people asked were as follows: where the person is from and about their family. If it were me going on an entirely blind date like such, these would most definitely not be my first questions. I'd first ask the person's name (obviously), then probably about what their job or field of study is. After that, I'd probably go into asking for an unusual/interesting fact about them and/or what the most interesting thing they've done recently is and see how/where the conversation goes from there.
I think that my questions reveal far more insight into a person's personality and interests. Who cares about what their family is like upon initially meeting someone... additionally, where someone is from also doesn't necessarily tell you that much. Not that it's entirely unimportant, but it wouldn't be the first thing I'd ask.
I'm really not a fan of the aesthetic of this show, but the concept is intriguing enough that I'm giving the first episode a chance. The women look so plastic and generic in their hair/clothes/makeup. The men dress more normally but they also have a bit of a plastic-ness to them as well.
Sunday, February 23, 2020
Saturday, February 8, 2020
Interrogation review continued
Now for a review after I've actually watched a bit of this show. I only watched the first episode so far; that's the only one that you're supposed to watch in a given order, aside from the finale at the very end. The intermediate other eight episodes can be mixed and matched in any way... me being as indecisive as I am, that's gonna be a chore, especially knowing that there's the possibility of certain twists/plot points falling better or worse if the episodes are watched in a particular order. So my experience of watching the show hinges (to some extent) on which particular sequence I decide on.
Potential light spoilers for the first episode: The premise of this show, as shown in the trailer and first episode, is a murder case. A 17-year-old is suspected of murdering his mother in order to rob her of $150 dollars. He is the primary suspect, though it's possible there are other suspects that actually committed the murder.
Peter Sarsgaard plays a detective; I think this is the first time he's ever had a role like that. He has played the other side of the equation (meaning murderers) before. His character is cold and calculating, which is interesting with his milky voice... wow do I love the way he talks. The character definitely has an authoritative air, as you might expect for a detective. It's kind of hot, actually.
Peter Sarsgaard is usually pretty good in any role, and he doesn't disappoint here. From what I've read, his character is supposed to be an antihero of sorts (later, there's an internal affairs investigation into his work) so naturally the tone here regarding his character will be a bit different compared to how the detectives were portrayed in Law and Order.
The main interrogation itself in this episode was done well, I thought. It was tense and riveting; the suspect conveyed a frantic feeling as you might expect of someone being interrogated about a murder. Peter Sarsgaard shouts a bit during these scenes and it made me think of him as Charles Lane in Shattered Glass, confronting Stephen Glass about his fabrication...
The writing of the interrogation scene regarding the detective's lines was straight out of "Criminal Interrogation and Confessions," a book I bought used off Amazon a few years ago because I was curious about this kind of stuff...
The scene of the initial interrogation room shown has a sort of turquoise tint to it, which was interesting to me because in Law and Order (always assume I mean CI unless otherwise specified), the interrogation room was a blueish-gray slate color, if I remember correctly. And the furniture was Emeco Navy chairs.
I have not yet decided which episode I'll watch next; though when I do decide and get a chance to watch it and the rest of the series, I'll most likely make some additional posts.
Potential light spoilers for the first episode: The premise of this show, as shown in the trailer and first episode, is a murder case. A 17-year-old is suspected of murdering his mother in order to rob her of $150 dollars. He is the primary suspect, though it's possible there are other suspects that actually committed the murder.
Peter Sarsgaard plays a detective; I think this is the first time he's ever had a role like that. He has played the other side of the equation (meaning murderers) before. His character is cold and calculating, which is interesting with his milky voice... wow do I love the way he talks. The character definitely has an authoritative air, as you might expect for a detective. It's kind of hot, actually.
Peter Sarsgaard is usually pretty good in any role, and he doesn't disappoint here. From what I've read, his character is supposed to be an antihero of sorts (later, there's an internal affairs investigation into his work) so naturally the tone here regarding his character will be a bit different compared to how the detectives were portrayed in Law and Order.
The main interrogation itself in this episode was done well, I thought. It was tense and riveting; the suspect conveyed a frantic feeling as you might expect of someone being interrogated about a murder. Peter Sarsgaard shouts a bit during these scenes and it made me think of him as Charles Lane in Shattered Glass, confronting Stephen Glass about his fabrication...
The writing of the interrogation scene regarding the detective's lines was straight out of "Criminal Interrogation and Confessions," a book I bought used off Amazon a few years ago because I was curious about this kind of stuff...
The scene of the initial interrogation room shown has a sort of turquoise tint to it, which was interesting to me because in Law and Order (always assume I mean CI unless otherwise specified), the interrogation room was a blueish-gray slate color, if I remember correctly. And the furniture was Emeco Navy chairs.
I have not yet decided which episode I'll watch next; though when I do decide and get a chance to watch it and the rest of the series, I'll most likely make some additional posts.
Friday, February 7, 2020
Recipes by AI
It's been awhile since I last played around with any sort of text generator/neural network AI and posted about it here on my blog. Anyways, that's back!
I read about the weirdness that is AI-generated recipes so I decided to try and generate my own AI recipes...
Cat recipe
Ingredients:
- 3 eggs (greased)
- 1 tbsp water
- 1/2 tbsp sugar
- 1 cup sweet corn kernels, cooked and drained
- 1/2 tsp (use 1/4 tsp instead if it doesn't hold up) pepper
- 1 tbsp dried parsley, chopped
Directions:
1. Pour in the 3 eggs, water, sugar and corn kernels.
2. Whisk until well blended.
3. Pour this mixture into your frying pan, sprinkle with salt, pepper, parsley and toss.
4. Once your fruit is done cooking, (1 - 2 minutes), remove it from heat and add syrup and cook for about 5 minutes.
5. Remove your fruit from heat and mix
So there you have it... some kind of weird omelet thing would result, I think. I guess the fourth and fifth steps should probably indicate some kind of fruit side dish rather than being added to the egg concoction.
I read about the weirdness that is AI-generated recipes so I decided to try and generate my own AI recipes...
Cat recipe
Ingredients:
- 3 eggs (greased)
- 1 tbsp water
- 1/2 tbsp sugar
- 1 cup sweet corn kernels, cooked and drained
- 1/2 tsp (use 1/4 tsp instead if it doesn't hold up) pepper
- 1 tbsp dried parsley, chopped
Directions:
1. Pour in the 3 eggs, water, sugar and corn kernels.
2. Whisk until well blended.
3. Pour this mixture into your frying pan, sprinkle with salt, pepper, parsley and toss.
4. Once your fruit is done cooking, (1 - 2 minutes), remove it from heat and add syrup and cook for about 5 minutes.
5. Remove your fruit from heat and mix
So there you have it... some kind of weird omelet thing would result, I think. I guess the fourth and fifth steps should probably indicate some kind of fruit side dish rather than being added to the egg concoction.
Thursday, February 6, 2020
TV review: CBS Interrogation
What a concept!! This is a new show that I just saw a commercial for last night and I thought I recognized someone shown briefly in the commercial. Turns out that someone was Vincent D'Onofrio. And, guess what, Peter Sarsgaard also is in this show! What a concept indeed.
Though I haven't yet watched this show, it seems quite interesting to me and I'm eager to see it. Two of my favorite actors plus one of my favorite subject matters. The premise is that it's about a true crime murder case, which is being investigated. The detectives interrogate various people in an attempt to solve the case. This show apparently is intended to be watched in any order, which is sort of unique.
I read some reviews that say the watch in any order aspect is sort of a weakness and hinders the show, which may end up being trrue, but I would like to see it for myself before coming to a conclusion there. The reviews suggest that there's perhaps a more ideal specific order to watch the episodes in, though they don't say what order that might be, which makes me a little apprehensive -- what if I don't choose a good order when I watch it? I wonder if any more reviews will come out that specify which order would be best to watch it in. If not, if/when I watch it, I'll try to make note of what might be the most ideal order to watch the episodes in.
Even if the show turns out to be somewhat bad/not good, I think I should enjoy it just for the fact that it has Peter Sarsgaard in it as well as Vincent. Peter Sarsgaard once played a prisoner on another show, The Killing, and that was a pretty magnificent performance. Alas, that show isn't on Netflix anymore plus it was rather heavy and I'm not entirely sure I'd want to rewatch it. Peter Sarsgaard was good in it (obviously) though I think there were some other aspects of it that I thought weren't as well-executed.
Vincent, of course, was in Law and Order, where he played a detective. I assume his character in this show will also be interesting, though perhaps it'll be a markedly different detective character than he portrayed in Law and Order, and perhaps this detective will be a bore. I hope not, though who knows.
I guess this show is perhaps mildly similar to Mindhunter, which I watched the first season of but then got sick of waiting for a second season, so when it did finally get released, I didn't feel like watching it.
Although I haven't gotten the chance to actually watch this show yet (only the trailer), I did find an additional preview spotlighting Vincent's character. Lovely left-handed Vincent*, good as ever.** He plays an internal affairs officer and has some scenes with Peter Sarsgaard!
*Vincent is shown writing and gesturing in the preview. I appreciate alliteration when I get the chance, plus this is also a reference to A Clockwork Orange (lovely lovely Ludwig Van!).
**dramatically speaking; I have to admit that he did look better like 15 years ago. Beauty is fleeting. But he should still be enjoyable to watch in this show, I hope.
Though I haven't yet watched this show, it seems quite interesting to me and I'm eager to see it. Two of my favorite actors plus one of my favorite subject matters. The premise is that it's about a true crime murder case, which is being investigated. The detectives interrogate various people in an attempt to solve the case. This show apparently is intended to be watched in any order, which is sort of unique.
I read some reviews that say the watch in any order aspect is sort of a weakness and hinders the show, which may end up being trrue, but I would like to see it for myself before coming to a conclusion there. The reviews suggest that there's perhaps a more ideal specific order to watch the episodes in, though they don't say what order that might be, which makes me a little apprehensive -- what if I don't choose a good order when I watch it? I wonder if any more reviews will come out that specify which order would be best to watch it in. If not, if/when I watch it, I'll try to make note of what might be the most ideal order to watch the episodes in.
Even if the show turns out to be somewhat bad/not good, I think I should enjoy it just for the fact that it has Peter Sarsgaard in it as well as Vincent. Peter Sarsgaard once played a prisoner on another show, The Killing, and that was a pretty magnificent performance. Alas, that show isn't on Netflix anymore plus it was rather heavy and I'm not entirely sure I'd want to rewatch it. Peter Sarsgaard was good in it (obviously) though I think there were some other aspects of it that I thought weren't as well-executed.
Vincent, of course, was in Law and Order, where he played a detective. I assume his character in this show will also be interesting, though perhaps it'll be a markedly different detective character than he portrayed in Law and Order, and perhaps this detective will be a bore. I hope not, though who knows.
I guess this show is perhaps mildly similar to Mindhunter, which I watched the first season of but then got sick of waiting for a second season, so when it did finally get released, I didn't feel like watching it.
Although I haven't gotten the chance to actually watch this show yet (only the trailer), I did find an additional preview spotlighting Vincent's character. Lovely left-handed Vincent*, good as ever.** He plays an internal affairs officer and has some scenes with Peter Sarsgaard!
*Vincent is shown writing and gesturing in the preview. I appreciate alliteration when I get the chance, plus this is also a reference to A Clockwork Orange (lovely lovely Ludwig Van!).
**dramatically speaking; I have to admit that he did look better like 15 years ago. Beauty is fleeting. But he should still be enjoyable to watch in this show, I hope.
Monday, February 3, 2020
TV review: The Good Place
Show review time! I discovered a new-to-me show on Netflix which I've been watching over the past few weeks. It's pretty good and is vaguely similar to Arrested Development.
I just started season 3; season 4 (the final season) isn't on Netflix yet. This show seems to be relatively popular so I guess I'm a bit late to the party.
I think I like this show more than Portlandia -- certainly as far as rewatchability goes. There are only a couple episodes of Portlandia I'd bother to rewatch, whereas pretty much every single AD episode is a fun rewatch (though of course I do have my favorites -- Meat the Veals: "That was before he saw you pounding that sweet piece of Veal!"). Portlandia suffers, I think, from the really good bits/parts getting bogged down in all the other mediocre portions. The snails sketch (in Open Relationship S8E5) is my favorite -- morbidly and gleefully surreal. That's what I like.
Anyways, back to The Good Place -- I could see myself rewatching various episodes a la carte after I've finished the entire show. Overall, it's got an interesting premise and is well-executed. It also has been making me want to read a bit about moral philosophy/ethics.
More on the vague similarity to Arrested Development:
"Stylistically and content-wise they are quite variant, but I found The Good Place possessed very similar surreal, absurdist humor and a densely interwoven plot with many self-references, meta aspects and foreshadowing out the wazoo- definitely some high-caliber writing.
It's directed by Michael Schur who did Parks and Rec and it has a very similar feel but with a completely different story minus the mockumentary style." [source]
Personally I didn't really think it felt that similar to Parks and Rec, though I suppose now that I've thought about it, I can sort of see it. Parks and Rec is an... alright show in and of itself (but also massively overrated/over-popular, I think), though I got bored of it after five (?) seasons or so and never really felt any desire to go back and rewatch any of the episodes I'd already seen.
I just started season 3; season 4 (the final season) isn't on Netflix yet. This show seems to be relatively popular so I guess I'm a bit late to the party.
I think I like this show more than Portlandia -- certainly as far as rewatchability goes. There are only a couple episodes of Portlandia I'd bother to rewatch, whereas pretty much every single AD episode is a fun rewatch (though of course I do have my favorites -- Meat the Veals: "That was before he saw you pounding that sweet piece of Veal!"). Portlandia suffers, I think, from the really good bits/parts getting bogged down in all the other mediocre portions. The snails sketch (in Open Relationship S8E5) is my favorite -- morbidly and gleefully surreal. That's what I like.
Anyways, back to The Good Place -- I could see myself rewatching various episodes a la carte after I've finished the entire show. Overall, it's got an interesting premise and is well-executed. It also has been making me want to read a bit about moral philosophy/ethics.
More on the vague similarity to Arrested Development:
"Stylistically and content-wise they are quite variant, but I found The Good Place possessed very similar surreal, absurdist humor and a densely interwoven plot with many self-references, meta aspects and foreshadowing out the wazoo- definitely some high-caliber writing.
It's directed by Michael Schur who did Parks and Rec and it has a very similar feel but with a completely different story minus the mockumentary style." [source]
Personally I didn't really think it felt that similar to Parks and Rec, though I suppose now that I've thought about it, I can sort of see it. Parks and Rec is an... alright show in and of itself (but also massively overrated/over-popular, I think), though I got bored of it after five (?) seasons or so and never really felt any desire to go back and rewatch any of the episodes I'd already seen.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)