Black Mirror- Netflix [** Spoilers **]

Colm!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EqTyZoupc1w

kinect + x factor + the island = ???

Fysh

jill_valentine wrote: »

The timeframe did seem like a bit of a stretch, but the fact that people kept watching didn't. There's a powerful fascination to that kind of communal horror, complicit or not. We know that people like Anders Breivik only do the things they do because they want to be validated by our attention, but we still give it to them.

I can't pretend I don't think I'd watch.

Oh, I know the source of that fascination all too well. However, I've seen enough vile things courtesy of various websites to know that I've had my fill. There's certainly a time in the past when I probably wouldn't have thought twice about watching, though.

(Oddly, this has reminded me that when I was growing up in Spain on more than one occasion I noticed video rental shops that had eye-wateringly pornographic films for rental, including several that appeared to depict bestiality. I never had any particular desire to see any of them, though it continues to strike me as fascinating that there's enough of a market for such material that people can presumably make some sort of a living from producing it).

That being said, I have no doubt that plenty of folks would tune in, but even at that I still think that even while Brooker is being vicious about what people would watch on television, he's still underestimating people's apathy with the whole "it's been going for over an hour now" - I think that even something as fundamentally revolting as a man feeling that his own country has driven him to commit bestiality on a live broadcast would not be excluded from the human ability to process it for about 5 minutes and then say "bored now. What's next?".

Seren_

I don't think people felt awful about the event though? It really wasn't portrayed that way anyway. All the cheering that there was when the broadcast started and stuff... it kind of makes me think that the public didn't actually care about what was happening, but were just caught up in the moment, which would explain why he was more popular a year later too.

I loved it. I liked how I pretty much knew that the act had to happen, but I still wasn't 100% sure if it would. It's quite refreshing to se the bad guys "win" on national TV.

Colm!

Even though they kind of lost. I personally feel that the

"one year later" ending

was a bad idea

Doge

Colm! wrote: »

Even though they kind of lost. I personally feel that the

"one year later" ending

was a bad idea

It may not really matter if they have one big nationwide threat for each of the 3 episodes.

The impression I'm getting is that the next episode will be to do with something completely different, but within the realm of current media and communication technology.

We probably won't need to remember anything from the first episode,
except the lesson learnt.

I could be totally wrong though.

crushproof

waveform wrote: »

It may not really matter if they have one big nationwide threat for each of the 3 episodes.

The impression I'm getting is that the next episode will be to do with something completely different, but within the realm of current media and communication technology.

We probably won't need to remember anything from the first episode,
except the lesson learnt.

I could be totally wrong though.

Yeah pretty sure it's going to be a totally different story line. Looks good anyway, and quite mysterious, can't wait!

Colm!

waveform wrote: »

The impression I'm getting is that the next episode will be to do with something completely different,

Yes.

but within the realm of current media and communication technology.

I don't know. That trailer looks massively different. Media and communication technology yes, but looks very future-ish.

jill_valentine

Fysh wrote: »

That being said, I have no doubt that plenty of folks would tune in, but even at that I still think that even while Brooker is being vicious about what people would watch on television, he's still underestimating people's apathy with the whole "it's been going for over an hour now" - I think that even something as fundamentally revolting as a man feeling that his own country has driven him to commit bestiality on a live broadcast would not be excluded from the human ability to process it for about 5 minutes and then say "bored now. What's next?".

But they're not watching it just for entertainment - they're watching it because everybody else is watching it, too. It's a huge communal "cultural" touchstone with no precedent in their lifetimes. It may be appalling and disgusting, but it is a unique, shared event. Nobody will be talking about anything else for days, nobody will know for sure if something else is going to happen. Just as people watched the news for hours and hours and hours the day the Twin Towers fell, or the Tube was bombed or the attacks in Norway happened, even when there wasn't any new useful information.

I do think some people might start to turn away; but I also think most people would watch until the end, just because most other people were also watching.

Colm! wrote: »

Even though they kind of lost. I personally feel that the

"one year later" ending

was a bad idea

Strongly agree, yes, and it's my sole notable criticism. It weakened the impact of what we'd just seen.

jill_valentine

Your Text Here wrote: »

I don't think people felt awful about the event though? It really wasn't portrayed that way anyway. All the cheering that there was when the broadcast started and stuff... it kind of makes me think that the public didn't actually care about what was happening, but were just caught up in the moment, which would explain why he was more popular a year later too.

Initially, they cheered and jeered, yeah, but the reaction definitely shifts as they reality of what they're witnessing sets in.

That sequence knocked my socks off, too, I thought the gradual shift in tone to shame and disgust was kind of moving. It lent the mob some note of humane dignity, weirdly, albeit belatedly.

Fysh

jill_valentine wrote: »

But they're not watching it just for entertainment - they're watching it because everybody else is watching it, too. It's a huge communal "cultural" touchstone with no precedent in their lifetimes. It may be appalling and disgusting, but it is a unique, shared event. Nobody will be talking about anything else for days, nobody will know for sure if something else is going to happen. Just as people watched the news for hours and hours and hours the day the Twin Towers fell, or the Tube was bombed or the attacks in Norway happened, even when there wasn't any new useful information.

I do think some people might start to turn away; but I also think most people would watch until the end, just because most other people were also watching.

"They were all watching" in the same way "everyone watches the X-factor" - except that it's just not true, and pretending otherwise (even for satirical purposes) is infantile and doesn't really do any favours for the piece as a whole.

Dead Set avoided this problem by being concerned pretty much only with the Big Brother audience as its focus, but National Anthem is trying very hard to speak to and about an entire population. In that context, it's overly simplistic.

If it worked for you, fair enough. I'm just surprised to see so much praise heaped on an eminently flawed piece of work from a guy who's made much better programmes before and which has several flaws which he himself would rip into if they were present in another program.

Fysh

jill_valentine wrote: »

Initially, they cheered and jeered, yeah, but the reaction definitely shifts as they reality of what they're witnessing sets in.

That sequence knocked my socks off, too, I thought the gradual shift in tone to shame and disgust was kind of moving. It lent the mob some note of humane dignity, weirdly, albeit belatedly.

I didn't see it that way at all, because while they quietened down they were still watching. Still grimly focused on the screen, even as the PM looked like he was about to break down.

It would've been much more interesting to see some of the aftermath in the days afterwards - would people admit to watching the entire broadcast, or would there be an inverse Sex Pistols First Gig effect where loads of them tried to pretend they hadn't watched it?

Mr.Nice Guy

I enjoyed this, as I thought I might, being a Brooker fan.

mike65

The three episodes are all different but focused on modern comms, its a short anthology series.

Superbus

2. Fifteen Million Merits

In 1984, Apple ran a famous advert that implied the Mac might save mankind from a nightmarish Orwellian future. But what would a nightmarish Orwellian future that ran on Apple software actually look like? Probably a bit like this.

Fifteen Million Merits, co-written with my wife Konnie Huq and starring Daniel Kaluuya (The Fades) and Jessica Brown-Findlay (Downton Abbey), takes place in a world in which the population is apparently doomed to a life of meaningless toil enlivened only by continual entertainment and distraction courtesy of ominipresent gizmos and screens. So not really sci-fi at all, then. Your sole chance of escape or salvation from this world appears to be a talent contest called Hot Shot, where the judges are played by Julia Davis, the grime MC Bashy, and Rupert Everett.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/dec/01/charlie-brooker-dark-side-gadget-addiction-black-mirror

Akrasia

Basq wrote: »

even hearing he was now more popular than ever despite going through with the act.

Yeah, but only by 3 percentage points.. stupid ungrateful public

Hobbes

A1 from Brooker IMHO.

One thing got me, why didn't he just resign as the PM when he heard the demand? The next in line would have gotten the porking.

phasers

I really wasn't impressed by this. The entire idea was just stupid! Why didn't the government just trot out the old "We don't negotiate with terrorists" line? Also, the significance of the "princess" wasn't established. What does she do and why should I care if she's killed?

The ending really annoyed me as well. His apporval rating went up? Why is he even still in power? There's no way somebody who had been so degraded and humiliated could lead a country, the confidence just wouldn't be there. I bet his "advisors" would have him gone quickly and quietly. He and his family were also clearly suffering, so no matter how you look at it he wouldn't be there anymore.

I understand where Brooker was trying to go, but in my opinion he didn't go far enough and the whole thing came off flat.

In closing: I don't know about all of you, but if I were asked to bugger a pig I'd be resigning fairly sharpish.

Basq

I think people are underestimating what people in power will do to retain that power..

mike65

phasers wrote: »

I really wasn't impressed by this. The entire idea was just stupid! Why didn't the government just trot out the old "We don't negotiate with terrorists" line? Also, the significance of the "princess" wasn't established. What does she do and why should I care if she's killed?

She a princess! Its Diana/Kate! You might not care but if you were the Prime Minister of the UK you sure would!

jill_valentine

As would The Queen who, we're told, has made her feelings known.

Your Text Here wrote: »

I don't think people felt awful about the event though? It really wasn't portrayed that way anyway. All the cheering that there was when the broadcast started and stuff... it kind of makes me think that the public didn't actually care about what was happening, but were just caught up in the moment, which would explain why he was more popular a year later too.

Actually, I think it might be worth giving this sequence another look, as unappealing as that probably sounds. It's about 37 minutes in on the 4OD stream. The jeering Irish yahoo aside, I think the mood definitely changes. Once the novelty wears off, there's a definite sense of horror and I think it's very well done.

crushproof

phasers wrote: »

I really wasn't impressed by this. The entire idea was just stupid! Why didn't the government just trot out the old "We don't negotiate with terrorists" line? Also, the significance of the "princess" wasn't established. What does she do and why should I care if she's killed?

The ending really annoyed me as well. His apporval rating went up? Why is he even still in power?

Well if he di resign and she was killed he was advised that he and his family would be under threat, he'd be slaughtered by the press and would most likely never be able to show his face in public. I'm guessing the Princess was someone along the lines of Kate Middleton...or a female version of Prince Harry, so very significant. People power...and media power left him with no choice really.

And I can imagine that the whole "one year later" thing was perhaps identifying with the current lowering of the attention lifespan of people stemming from viral social media / Youtube videos. So it's not necessarily quickly forgotten but that everyone would have had their laugh and joke about and then moved onto the next viral video. Just my theory.

phasers

Well if he di resign and she was killed he was advised that he and his family would be under threat, he'd be slaughtered by the press and would most likely never be able to show his face in public.

I just don't buy this. Maybe I'm just too cynical of politicians or something, but I feel like in reality someone just wouldn't care enough to put himself and his family through such an ordeal.

Hobbes

phasers wrote: »

The ending really annoyed me as well. His apporval rating went up? Why is he even still in power?

He was still in power as the powers that be made sure he stayed there (the same people who forced him to do the act).

As for approval rating, it is Brookers line on reality TV. That the public will watch any old tosh, get outraged and then forget all about it later on. Hugh Grant for example.

phasers

phasers wrote: »

I just don't buy this. Maybe I'm just too cynical of politicians or something, but I feel like in reality someone just wouldn't care enough to put himself and his family through such an ordeal.

I think David Kelly might have been Brookers influence for the threat against the PM's life if he didn't go ahead with the act.

bnt

I like me a bit of the ol' Black Comedy, I do. I thought this was a very interesting "thought experiment", without a single take-home message rammed down our throats. One thing I took away from it was the sheer fickleness of the public, how they can flip between positive and negative in a matter of seconds. The public's approval is not a solid foundation for political decision-making, is it?

Skid

Interesting Twitter Q&A from Charlie Brooker here:

http://charliebrooker.posterous.com/black-mirror-twitter-qa

Also, Part two of the Black Mirror Anthology, 15 Million Merits, is on Channel 4 tonight (Sunday) at 9.30pm

mike65

bump!

Basq

The LNB Feed Arm snapped on my satellite so no Black Mirror for me tonight!

Enjoy it kids!

johnny_ultimate

Brooker hate Kinect, yo.