[hnlmorg]

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]

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]

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]

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]

> 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]

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]

> 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]

> 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]

Person opens the shower curtain after much tension building

It's just the cat

But they don't have a cat...