I don't know this Nathan Fielder nor do I intend to do any research to try and guess then tell myself stories about what his real point is.
Bad narration. No disclaimer to know what is scripted and what is not. But Nathan tells us, everything is repeated over and over, you can't say you weren't told.
The point of it all is so blurry that anyone can fit an explanation to their bill. So it's one of 2 things: incompetence or gaslighting.
There is though an idea that is really clear during the whole show : you can spy, trespass, stalk, lie and disrespect ; nobody will have anything to say to you as long as you look awkward and pretend to be helping.
By the way, that is the secret to a free pass with decent people so you can mock them at will right under their nose and manipulate them. Now we all know. Thank you Nathan.
New rule - as would say the also-proteiform elder, also on HBO - : Respect of Privacy is not a thing anymore!
It's so well known and integrated in that show, that none of the characters comments or gets angry with it being broken, not even the supposed over-the-top-erratic friend. "Wow" is the expected response, and "Wow" is the answer. Moving on. That's your reality now.
As an educated spectator you'd sure would want a clue to estimate whether it denounces or it enforces? You'll get none. Worse you get Nathan's excuse of a confession where he's the first one questioning (very timidly) the ethic of it and a freaking weird reaction from the other guy who manages to over dramatize in an undertone. Oh yes please! More blur and some more insult with the injury. That's what gaslight is.
If there are critics, the creators can argue any side or the other, though in reality they wont have to, because their fans will do it with rage and passion in their stead. Brilliant some would say agitating their 10s. But no it's not. Manipulative is the word.
Back on topic. Isn't respect of privacy a thing anymore or is it just what the show is trying to dilute at low noise to normalize the lack of?
Where are all the red pilled angry boys complaining about TV shows agendas on core societal issues? I dont see them in these comments. How come? Isn't it a real concerning issue or do they believe they'll be the ones doing all the stalking in their wet dream of a perfect world?
Are the characters real (or based on real) suffering people or are they supposed to be a caricature of oversensitive people? Why the over the top setting for such a mondaine issue : is that the hint that it is supposed to be funny? Some comments call that enthusiastically "the next level of humor"... which, in any of these hypothesis, would be situated somewhere along a line going from "desperately pathetic" to "downright condescending". I like the old levels of humor much better. I'm not being conservative, I'm just running faster to the next cycle as this one is giving me the puke.
The tone reminded me of that failure of a show with the long title and sadly, Kristen Bell. The authors think themselves so smart that they can point out and mock the flaws of others productions with no narration skill.
They had no clue how to hint when to suspend (or not) disbelief for a comical effect and the only thing they achieved was doing way worse than the original in a condescending fashion. But at least there, it was clear that it was 100% fiction.
And no, condescending is not funny. It's boring, fringing on abhorrent. This Nathan guy should really put in the work to clarify what the heck he is doing especially if he's not doing any of what I ended up seeing.
Bad narration. No disclaimer to know what is scripted and what is not. But Nathan tells us, everything is repeated over and over, you can't say you weren't told.
The point of it all is so blurry that anyone can fit an explanation to their bill. So it's one of 2 things: incompetence or gaslighting.
There is though an idea that is really clear during the whole show : you can spy, trespass, stalk, lie and disrespect ; nobody will have anything to say to you as long as you look awkward and pretend to be helping.
By the way, that is the secret to a free pass with decent people so you can mock them at will right under their nose and manipulate them. Now we all know. Thank you Nathan.
New rule - as would say the also-proteiform elder, also on HBO - : Respect of Privacy is not a thing anymore!
It's so well known and integrated in that show, that none of the characters comments or gets angry with it being broken, not even the supposed over-the-top-erratic friend. "Wow" is the expected response, and "Wow" is the answer. Moving on. That's your reality now.
As an educated spectator you'd sure would want a clue to estimate whether it denounces or it enforces? You'll get none. Worse you get Nathan's excuse of a confession where he's the first one questioning (very timidly) the ethic of it and a freaking weird reaction from the other guy who manages to over dramatize in an undertone. Oh yes please! More blur and some more insult with the injury. That's what gaslight is.
If there are critics, the creators can argue any side or the other, though in reality they wont have to, because their fans will do it with rage and passion in their stead. Brilliant some would say agitating their 10s. But no it's not. Manipulative is the word.
Back on topic. Isn't respect of privacy a thing anymore or is it just what the show is trying to dilute at low noise to normalize the lack of?
Where are all the red pilled angry boys complaining about TV shows agendas on core societal issues? I dont see them in these comments. How come? Isn't it a real concerning issue or do they believe they'll be the ones doing all the stalking in their wet dream of a perfect world?
Are the characters real (or based on real) suffering people or are they supposed to be a caricature of oversensitive people? Why the over the top setting for such a mondaine issue : is that the hint that it is supposed to be funny? Some comments call that enthusiastically "the next level of humor"... which, in any of these hypothesis, would be situated somewhere along a line going from "desperately pathetic" to "downright condescending". I like the old levels of humor much better. I'm not being conservative, I'm just running faster to the next cycle as this one is giving me the puke.
The tone reminded me of that failure of a show with the long title and sadly, Kristen Bell. The authors think themselves so smart that they can point out and mock the flaws of others productions with no narration skill.
They had no clue how to hint when to suspend (or not) disbelief for a comical effect and the only thing they achieved was doing way worse than the original in a condescending fashion. But at least there, it was clear that it was 100% fiction.
And no, condescending is not funny. It's boring, fringing on abhorrent. This Nathan guy should really put in the work to clarify what the heck he is doing especially if he's not doing any of what I ended up seeing.