Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
'See' Director Used Blind Consultants, an Evolutionary Biologist, and Survivalist When Filming
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I love “See” over all the Apple series shows so far. Concept is cool and it’s out there.
me too! Good show.
I can agree somewhat. Get more hardware out. Get more opportunities.
However iTunes sales were falling in music Apple had to get into streaming to remain relevant in music.
I don’t know if iTunes sales are falling in movies and tvs. But Apple TV is basically in last place in box streaming and falling. Apple needed a tv app and atv+ can make that more compelling. Plus if you can make up to 30% selling competitors channels then you really need a compelling app.
Whatever the case these few shows sure generate a lot of interest that Apple didn’t have before in streaming. And helps make Apple stay relevant in the living room and streaming. Apple TV devices alone aren’t doing it.
The real negative is apples push to sell 3rd party content or their own impacts customer experience and usability. Tv app is a mess as you scroll past ads and struggle to find your paid content.
Indeed, the offense was that the scene was even meant to be taken seriously at all. LOL
I couldn’t help but think of a similar scene from Ace Ventura “Pet Detective 2” where Jim Carey is caught “pleasing himself” while on retreat at an ashram. When confronted he immediately insists “I was just MEDITATING!” LOL
While that scene was funny, the prior in See was just gratuitously tedious.
[automerge]1573130636[/automerge]
You mean “Blind Dates”?! LOL
Sorry but that was too easy hahaha
Last edited:
I wonder how many generations it will take until Apple "See"s any profit from all of this.
Big words with zero content. What actually IS "your case"? What is the insult to "scientific or evolutionary logic"?
Or do you just mean "me no like it"?
They didn’t. The mother was able to infer this by realising that her children couldn’t perform certain tasks while their eyes were covered (this wouldn’t matter to a blind person). The children were also able to read and do stuff like archery which would be impossible for a blind person.
If it’s plot holes you want to look for, there are probably of ton of which you can identify in any TV show out there.
Which I guess brings me to my next point - the incredible double standards Apple constantly faces. Looking at the criticism levelled at TV+, compared to the current high scores its shows are enjoying on sites like Rottentomatoes, I can’t help but wonder if the reviewers are actually reviewing Apple, not the shows. They saw what they wanted to see, but in many cases they weren’t reviewing the actual content.
And the content is high quality and good. Whether we all agree with that is immaterial for taste varies. I think what Apple is trying to do here is start with enough varied types of content to attract at least one member of a household into thinking ‘that was worth $5.
Because assuming an annual budget of 2 million dollars, Apple really needs just 34 million subscribers to break even. Given Apple a couple of years; this is certainly more than doable.
So give less things a chance and make people feel bad about themselves? ok you're fun
There are enough blind people doing pretty advanced stuff nowadays (programming but even engineering) that would not make me believe that society would ever decay to such a ridiculous extent.
But how much would they get done if they couldn't rely the seeing masses for most basic things?
The background story is that (centuries) ago about 99% of the population died with the rest turning blind, how long do you thing power-plants would have remained running? Any transportation beyond horse&carriage would have been a non option and while the few survivors who had been blind before may have been the kings in this new society it would still not have been anywhere enough to carry on civilization over the generations.
Yes, blind people can do amazing things. But they're blind and have had education to be able to function in this world in that state. People with sight to help them along the way.
If people with none of that suddenly became blind it would be a different story. They'd have to learn from scratch how to function with no one to show them. In a civilization that suddenly collapsed. No wonder things fell apart so rapidly.
Last edited:
Love the show too. The conditions they live in, the way they live and the fight for the light make total sense to me.
Also love morning show. Great cast and acting.
If a show is good, you don't notice/think about those plot holes, once it's bad/boring/stupid, all you can "see" are those dumb elements of the story.
I remembered that same article when watching See and also noticing shows like The Morning Show are rated MA. Nothing really to say about it. It would be nice if I could watch a show like "See" with my kids, since it is sci-fi and all. But whatever. I like it, love the scenery (best part), nothing to write home about. Then there's a show like Dickinson, watched half an episode. I don't even get what they're trying to do there. It's not even bad it's just silly, the whole thing.I just watched the first episode of See.
It seems that this article was wildly inaccurate:
Report Claims Apple's Original Programming Efforts Will Avoid Mature Content
Apple is unlikely to produce original content that contains gratuitous sex, violence, profanity, or risqué storylines, according to a report...www.macrumors.com
I honestly think dickenson is the best thing on appletv+
1. We have no natural defenses in the wilderness. All it would take is a pack of wolves, coyotes and/or a mountain lion or maybe a alligator to make mince meat of a crowd of people.
2. It’s total and utter b.s. to be able to tame horses as a blind person. Having dealt with these animals myself. Even accidentally walking behind one at the wrong time will result in you being kicked and killed or seriously maimed.
3. On the same prior note, blindfold yourself and try to mount a wild horse. Let’s see how you do.
4. Try giving birth with a blind midwife. Oh wait, there aren’t any blind midwives. Or how about a blind doctor performing surgery. Oh hey, let’s also have a massive ground battle with blind infantry.
If you need explanations for this stuff then really I just cannot help you.
Oh and. Find me an apex predator... just one apex predator that is totally blind. Guess what, they don’t exist.
Bats have sonar, fish have camouflage ... study a bit of science and learn these things. The fact they hired consultants is ludicrous.
Oh and as a consultant, researcher of multiple scientific disciplines and also a published author and content creator.... I kinda sorta know what I’m talking about.
PS: lots of consultant get it wrong and my firm and I are often the ones called in to fix that.
Who's to say many people haven't died due to these things? I would assume they have as the population is low and continues to be low centuries later. That doesn't really change anything. I would expect a great many people have died as the result of accidents, illness, predators and so on. Just because they don't show that doesn't mean it hasn't happened, that entire groups have been wiped out. It's a safe assumption that it has and continues to happen.
Last edited:
I haven't watched "See," and I'm not sure I will (there's far more good TV available than I can possibly watch), but the discussion on whether the premise is believable is interesting. I'm willing to suspend disbelief if some combination of storytelling, writing, acting, directing, and cinematography is compelling enough. For example, I've watched all of "The Walking Dead." At its best, it's been one of the best TV series ever. At its worst (e.g., much of seasons 7 and 8)... well, I hung on in the hope that it would get back on track, which it did in season 9.
But the entire zombie premise is unbelievable. How can bodies continue to function when they're half rotted away or haven't eaten anything in years? Why don't they eat each other? Why does injuring the brain kill a zombie? Don't their brains rot like the rest of their bodies? If not, then why not? If so, then why doesn't a certain level of decay have the same effect as a bullet through the head?
I've met many people who couldn't watch "The Walking Dead" because of the level of gore and violence, but I haven't met anyone didn't watch because the premise of zombies is illogical. (The same could be said about pretty much any superhero movie.) So it will be interesting to see if "See" is good enough in other areas to overcome the likelihood that humanity probably wouldn't survive if everyone on earth went blind -- or if the writers come up with plausible explanations for how humanity has survived.
But the entire zombie premise is unbelievable. How can bodies continue to function when they're half rotted away or haven't eaten anything in years? Why don't they eat each other? Why does injuring the brain kill a zombie? Don't their brains rot like the rest of their bodies? If not, then why not? If so, then why doesn't a certain level of decay have the same effect as a bullet through the head?
I've met many people who couldn't watch "The Walking Dead" because of the level of gore and violence, but I haven't met anyone didn't watch because the premise of zombies is illogical. (The same could be said about pretty much any superhero movie.) So it will be interesting to see if "See" is good enough in other areas to overcome the likelihood that humanity probably wouldn't survive if everyone on earth went blind -- or if the writers come up with plausible explanations for how humanity has survived.
For all the holes in this story, and it has more than a colander, I personally find it watchable.
Sure, it's easy to fault, my biggy is why isnt everyone dead from tetanus?
But really, it's a story, it's make believe, fiction.
Get over it and enjoy it, save the criticism for something more worthy.
[automerge]1573163622[/automerge]
Greenland shark.
Sure, it's easy to fault, my biggy is why isnt everyone dead from tetanus?
But really, it's a story, it's make believe, fiction.
Get over it and enjoy it, save the criticism for something more worthy.
[automerge]1573163622[/automerge]
Greenland shark.
Last edited:
It’s the show’s responsibility to engage the audience, if they are bored by ten minutes of it, why should they suffer more?
Also advise if there are rat droppings in your salad, you leave the restaurant before proceeding to the main course.
Make people feel bad? How about be honest with people if things aren’t clicking instead of waiting their time too.
I wasn't "engaged" the first episode of game of thrones or even half the first season. But it turned out to be one of my favorite shows. Just very slow to get into. If you give up within 20 minutes of a show that's not really giving anything a chance.
How Apple will stay relevant in streaming when is way late to the game, is spending billions in content that just a few shows that no one will care to watch?
Very few people will pay a service that only has very limited content.