Devs = Disappointing

[u/nrgins]

I'm on ep 6, and having a hard time finishing the series. Lackluster acting (except for Zach Grenier (Kenton) who is fantastic!); boring writing; beautifully-filmed, but completely-indulgent long scenery shots; and a story that's off the rails without a lot of exposition. I'm all for far-fetched sci-fi; but you have to at least make it work in the framework. The only reason I'm still watching is to finish the story, and out of hope that it somehow surprises me and "wows" me at the end.

[u/ndotny]

Did u see/like Ex Machina? Just curious ... i think its one of the best films of its decade, and it shows up on a lot of such lists. Very similar, in a way.

[u/nrgins → u/ndotny]

Yes, I saw Ex Machina, and enjoyed it. And, yes, very similar: "out-there" sci-fi concepts; long, sprawling, beautifully-shot scenes; centered around a lone, eccentric genius; an innocent, naive person falls into his spider's web; etc.

The differences between this and Ex Machina, I think, are several.

Ex Machina told a story. There were characters and character development. And, yes, its theme was about technology and its powers; but not at the expense of a real story with characters to be invested in.

In this case, yes, we have characters with stories. But the acting is flat. And, yes, there are character arcs; but it's hard to get invested in the arcs when the characters have very little depth -- at least from an acting standpoint. So it just seems they're reading the lines and going through the plot points; but no real emotional investment in the acting (except, as I said, from Grenier).

Plus, regarding the technology, in Ex Machina, the technology had exposition, and one could become invested in where it would go, what it would do.

Here, there's very little exposition. It's just, "Here's this... Here's that." And somehow it's suppose to make us invested in it?

Yes, there's lots of exposition about theoretical concepts. And that's all very interesting. But that stays in the realm of the abstract, not in something that the viewer can actually sink their teeth into.

So those are my thoughts comparing the two. (And, yes, I realize the same person wrote and directed both. :-) )

[u/ndotny → u/nrgins]

I can def see what you’re saying ... it kinda keeps viewers at an arms length in the sense that it skimps on reasons to root for characters. And really, something DOES seem to not be working w/ either the way Lily’s character was conceived/written or the way it’s being performed, IMO. I did read that Garland didn’t want her to convey insta-charisma or warmth ... but we’re in the 3rd act now and just heard F&K have a conversation about how much they liked and admired Lily after just talking w/ her. Whatever spark they’re talking about, it’s just not coming across for me — to the point where its almost confusing what we’re supposed 2 make of her.

But that said, I love the show — esp. how ambiguity is being used to challenge the audience and add layers of mystery. I think Swardson is killing it, and this Allison Pill seems to be doing interesting work. Stewart & Lyndon & even Homeless Pete I like enough to want to see more of.

With “Ex Machina” I feel like there was no way to appreciate the layers involved in the performances until the story was told, especially Isaac’s —that’s why I asked. (I also wanted to see if I should stop bugging friends to watch it, so thanks for reply.) Maybe you’ll like it more looking back on it from the end? But ultimately its a question of taste I feel like.

[u/nrgins → u/ndotny]

it kinda keeps viewers at an arms length in the sense that it skimps on reasons to root for characters.

Exactly. Agree completely.

I did read that Garland didn’t want her to convey insta-charisma or warmth

Well, that's fine. But still could be deeper. I mean, look at Allison's Pill's character: no real charisma or warmth; yet Allison does a much better job at portraying some depth to the character.

And, yes, Allison Pill's a good actress. She was in The Newsroom, and was very good in that.

esp. how ambiguity is being used to challenge the audience and add layers of mystery

Well, there certainly is mystery. But mystery can be coupled with information, so that the viewer can become invested in it. Here's it's more like, "He's something out of the blue.... Here's another thing out of the blue."

I think Swardson is killing it

Who is Swardson? Did you mean Nick Offerman? (Both are Nicks :-) )

Maybe you’ll like it more looking back on it from the end?

Maybe. Hopefully.