Why didn't anyone tell me about this?

it's about japanese

Show was ruined by lame cgi bear.

Should've never shown the monster at all.

>cool historical show
>suddenly a weird polar bear monster shows up
I don't know why they decided to lost-ify this one

you were informed

People will defend it because it's in the book, but, they should have just done a series on the attempted crossing rather than follow the shitty book and add in the unnecessary cgi bear element. There was plenty to kill them out there.

>Season 2

>different story
>different director
>different producer
different show

>HBO
wew

I've not seen the show, but I've read the book, and honestly, I'd have just made it a normal polar bear. Sur emake it larger maybe, but have the mystical stuff about it as a "Is that really it, or is it just a wild animal" and leave it at that.

I mean, a fucking polar bear would be scary enough on it's own.

what was his fucking problem?

Attached: the-terror-amc-cornelius-hickey.jpg (780x520, 77K)

he had sex

This. Polar bears can grow up to 11 feet and three of them at the most could have done the show better than cgi troll we got

Still a great show

Attached: images (44).jpg (415x624, 22K)

Bookmarked for later. I'll watch when it's finished and the final ep has a good rating. Not getting fooled again.

Attached: be a dragon.gif (768x432, 3.61M)

Gay and Irish.

It is finished, next season is a different part of an anthology.

As the other guy said, it's done, and it was received well, this is specially censored for you (big guy)

Attached: Episodes-Censored.jpg (638x1714, 290K)

>HBO needs to reboot Rome
"NO!"
Think exactly what Rome nailed and why it was good, and you will find out immediately why it should remain like that instead of getting back on the radar

I'm currently watching this too, finished the second episode.
The thing with the rations being spoiled was some pretty dark forshadowing.
..though i'm not very impressed by this bear thing that.. I guess has a human face or some shit?
It would've been more terrifying if it was just a regular fucking huge polar bear, or a small group of them or something. The supernatural thing just feels a little out of place and forced.
Its enough that they're getting trapped by the ice, running out of rations, have a crippled ship, and morale is slowly being chipped away.

Good stuff though, looking forward to the rest of it.
((also, the dead body that the diver guy saw was probably the most horrifying part of the whole show so far. it didn't even do anything, just floated there ominously while the guy lost his shit, it was fucking great))

Attached: 1372980776904.png (1016x467, 856K)

I enjoyed the supernatural aspects; added a whole gothic horror element to what would've been a mere survival genre. That's me though, I like that whole Victorian-era romanticism with the monster underbelly.

The only thing wrong with the Tuunbaq is that the design is a bit generic and the CGI isn't that good. The fact that he's supernatural adds a nice horror element that just made the show better. A story that's first and foremost about well developed characters in a situation that feels real with just a little genre element thrown in is the perfect mix.

Attached: 31.jpg (3000x2000, 1.81M)

how do we know it's not just a runaway pitbull that mistook the crew for innocent babies

you can tell this was probably the producer/studio's choice rather than the director's. it's just got that vibe that the director wanted to keep the face as hidden as possible but some suit demanded that it be made more tangible to the audience.

but I'm with you on this, I enjoyed the supernatural elements added onto the survival genre. It probably would have stood on its own as purely a survival story but this separates it from from any other run of the mill historical portrayals. I'm sure they're gonna be tons of reconstructions of the events of the Franklin Expedition, but this makes it unique while still maintaining it's sense of gritty realism and historical authenticity.
Makes it better than a pure fantasy or a pure non-fictional work.

I've read the book. Started off good but the ending was stupid.

Attached: two-soft-things-two-hard-things.png (650x350, 322K)

>WHITE PEOPLE BAD!
>NOBLE SAVAGES GOOD!
whoa epic

it doesnt get more degenerate than that

the savages weren't portrayed as good.
they were the ones who lost control of the bear and caused all the carnage.
at best, they were indifferent neutrals

Attached: .png (1920x1080, 2.66M)

> it's just got that vibe that the director wanted to keep the face as hidden as possible but some suit demanded that it be made more tangible to the audience.

In the book, the monster's head was shaped like a pyramid and was extremely small in proportion to its body.

it was boring

>tried to help all the time
>that family toward the end that helps the guys and gets killed for it
>all the others at the end
they were good

We're still raising funds to send an expedition to notify you.

The monster was a metaphor for death. The natives control the monster by knowing how to survive off the land.

The natives were feeding it mouth-to-mouth.

Yea Forums talked about this shit constantly when it was actually relevant. it's not our fault you're a slowshit who watches shows months after they've aired.

my biggest criticism with this show is that the production quality for the exteriors was poor
the sets inside the ships looked good
but the exteriors on the ice around the ship looked like cheap stuff on soundstages a lot of the time
they were terribly lit for horror as well
there was never any black, never any real darkness in the frame

So it wasn't scary

The monster is really a superficial problem. I don't think they handled that well either, but it's hardly fundamental.

Yea Forums*

i liked the dessert parts, those looked spooky and real

Are we brothers francis

What episode should I drop this at? I heard 3 or 4?

The natives explain that the presence of the white people there is scaring away their game and causing them to starve.
They kidnap a woman, and they murder a bunch of them.
Plus many of the sailors, including the leader, consider themselves superior to the 'savages'.
Their leaders in England are shown to be incompetent and focused on lofty pompous ideals rather than reality.
And Crozier who is the most sympathetic English character ends up abandoning his culture for the sage one of the natives.

The show is an obvious criticism of colonialism and colonial attitudes. It is not about the glory of exploration or the vast competency of the British empire. It is about the follies, failure, and naivete surrounding those things.

Yeah, those were definitely better. But still in a relatively workmanlike way. It wasn't 'art'. That's not a criticism though.

The thing I didn't like about the stuff on the rocks is they recorded the sound badly so the footsteps sound awful, and there are footsteps all over dialogue so they had to use them. Listen to the footsteps. Just awful. They sound like a badly compressed artificial squeeking plastic noise.

I mean the expedition it was based on was a tremendous failure and everyone in it died horribly.
You can't have a narrative about anything but that, even if you try to dress it up about the courage they showed in the face of death (which they certainly did).

negro, its about people searching for the northwest passage because they believe it has to be there because God. Then getting stranded and dying of lead poisoning.

No.They will cast Pompey and Brutus with niggers

what was with the fags? jarring

I didn't get that at all.
I'm left with a more a greater profound respect for explorers and colonials, given the alien world and dangers that were portrayed in the show.
Outside of Hickey, the crew was portrayed as human, organized, and rather noble in spite of their extraordinary predicament.
The natives seemed rather indifferent.

Sir John & his Sidekick were both absolute shitcunts it was only by a turn of fortune that a competent humanist came to be in charge and the entire of the crew besides goodsir would have had it in them to rise to the challenge of being one in a band of shitcunts.

>& his Sidekick
You mean Commander Fitzjames (Edmure from GoT)?
His character manned up bigtime throughout the series. He had a great character arc.

yeah that doesn't contradict what i said

Nah, fuck off. As someone who enjoyed the book this was a great adaptation. If you guys didn't want a monster, watch something else.

Something I wish they kept was Tuunbaq really fucking with the crew with his mere presence. Like how he would be aaaaalmost just out of sight in the storm on his hind legs, watching them. Really would have played into the sense of hopelessness and paranoia that the show built up so well.

the problem was they didn't have any actual blacks or darkness in the exteriors so he couldn't be in the frame but not visible

I watched Chernobyl because they were hyping it at /got/ and my god, HBO redeemed itself. Because of all the pozz they’re shoving down our throats I thought I will never see a decent television series again. No where near as good as got at least. That said, I will follow the hype of this one. How do you watch the terror if you don’t have cable?

Yeah its an element that really worked better on the page. Same with the description for how bitterly cold it was, you got it a few times throughout the show but the book is relenetless about how its a constant miserable companion.

Still, the show was wonderfully shot. Things like the corpse floating in the water in the first episode were wonderfully eerie.

I'm confused at what you're getting at here and your cynical takeaway of the narrative.
All the leadership had flaws, so under your definition, non-perfection = shitcuntery. The whole exercise of this doomed mission was to show the lengths of humanity and dignity despite one's fate being sealed, it's about how you go out.
This was in contrast to the real "shitcunt" of the show, Hickey; who was played brilliantly.

Sir John was self-assured to the point of obvious hubris. James (the sidekick) was a man with a hidden inferiority complex that constantly felt the need to prove himself as a means of true identity, until he overcame his vanity. Fancis was a beleaguered man who hid his nihilism/fatalism behind alcohol.
So I'm kinda confused at this petulant "shitcunt" analysis your proposing. What are you really trying to say here.

Mance Rayder???? based

He has maybe the most kino scene in the show

in before faggots whine about embelished bear

It's actually not wonderfully shot though
it's badly lit for one

some of the photography is good, but none is great and many aspects are poor

they just had some cool subjects to film which any cinematographer could have made look cool.

That crew, could never have made true art kino with a drama film for example. It's really on the whole very workmanlike, although that isn't such a bad thing for television anyway.

>It's actually not wonderfully shot though
Agree to disagree.

Too late.
Gothic horror fans btfo.

I gave a long analysis here;

Which no one appears to understand any of.

My point that Sir John and pre-redemption James are shitcunts is simply to say that the reply that the crew mostly behaves well and are noble is, so much as it's true, only by chance and that under the intended leadership they would have been very different and not operating under rational judgement or any humane ideals, but under a delusional pompous man from a delusional pompous institution. The crew are all of course people and people all have propensity for good and for bad. My original point was about the culture they're within, not them as individuals. And Crozier's leadership and morals are anathemous to that culture. So much so that he entirely rejects it by the end of the story.

Look at this
That's The Thing on the right
The gold standard for scary kino on the ice.
When they're outside at night, there's darkness, actual black, around them.
In The Terror, it's always this washed out lit blue. There's never any darkness or black in the frame.

That is a HUGE cinematography failure for a horror.

Attached: The Thing vs The Terror.jpg (1915x452, 47K)

Imagine if it was made today.
Every character that is supposed to be good or relatable would have to bend over backwards condemning slavery instead of treating them like property. Timon would become a black Israelite,

user, I'm fairly certain that was a deliberate design choice to have the surrounding landscape always encroaching in on the ship. But fair enough, if you want to go through and cherrypick shots to prove your point, I won't stop you. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but you're not going to convince me that The Terror was a failure of cinematography.

I guess in it's totality, the system ultimately fails as his crew ends up all dead. However, given the narrative and what the audience was shown, I don't believe the takeaway was that these men were failures. They were given an impossible task that was fated to fail.
I'm sure everything can be traced back to Sir John's hubris of believing King Williams Island wasn't an island but a peninsula so they had to take the long way. But after that point, their fate was sealed when their ships froze and they were living dead at that point.

If we were to rebuke the morality of naval tradition and the spirit of exploration, then we may as well rebuke Western Civilization and the human condition. Everyone on that ship volunteered for the mission to discover the NW Passage. They knew it was a dangerous mission, one that no one that ever had existed had accomplished at that point. Of course it was dangerous and they knew the consequences. Same could be applied to the deaths of other exploration endeavors like the Space Race where our military traditions trained volunteer pilot astronauts successfully to explore the unknown. These volunteers require some great sense of ambition and will to explore the things that have been undiscovered. It requires certain men to push the limits of humanity and the narrative of this show demonstrates the consequences of that drive.

>shitting on blue light
Go see the criticisms of pitch black Long Night GoT episode.

Attached: Heavy Action Scene.jpg (480x360, 3K)

I'm not cherrypicking shots. It's ubiquitous. Having actual blacks and darkness in a frame is not cheap or easy and the terror's external shots never has it. Doing that takes skill and far more time. I highly doubt it was a creative choice.

And if it was, it was a very poor one. Because The Terror is not nearly as scary as it should be, and this is one of the main reasons. Horror with no darkness or blacks at night just sucks.

I'm sorry if giving an actual critique of the production is not allowed in The Terror threads
>It's absolute kino!!!! best show !!
or
>the cgi monster sucked
or
>i want to suck hickeys dick!
pick which comment you'd prefer instead for your circlejerk over an good-average show with real flaws.

Moral and cultural anachronism is such a fucken joke.

I think my The Thing reference supercedes your Game of Thrones reference for how to do external shots on the ice at night for horror.

Because a long battle sequence in an action story is different from horror.

I never claimed having actual blacks and darkness in frame was cheap or easy. Please do not put words in my mouth, thank you.

What an absolute disaster.

Attached: 1556912132331.webm (1280x720, 2.96M)

I deeply respect the spirit of adventure and exploration.

Consider the relationship and attitudes between colonial era british and 'savages'. It's a different issue.

They aren't mutually exclusive.

I never claimed you claimed that
I'm simply suggesting that the most basic reason a show wouldn't do something expensive and difficult is not that they didn't want to.

Black doesn't have a monopoly on horror.
You can make a horror film in high noon daylight if you know what you're doing.

You could probably go color correct The Terror into deep blacks and it probably wouldn't add much to the horror aspect; though it will remove a shitton of cinematic detail from all the beautifully desolate shots of the ice.

If it at least looked better or was shown less it would have been fine.

Fuck this smug cunt

When that woman takes her shoes off and stands in the snow I get so hard. Literally perfect feet haha

No doubt, the british elitism was a real thing of that time. Worthy of modern self-reflection and criticsm, sure if applied to modern norms. But we can't hold the characters against the reality of the setting they exist in; that's the (primative) morality system they lived in. Holding them up to a higher standard is absurd and anachronistic. It makes it difficult to seriously suspend disbelief.

This user's example would stick out in particular I'd rather have a realistic portrayal of historical cultural attitudes such as toward the "savages", than a white washed one. At least with the former, we can get a better understand of where humanity came from and how to improve upon it; rather than fashion ourselves as some sort of benchmark of the modern perfection of morality.

retard, it's finished
there's been a million Terror threads since then

Oh yeah, i'm not criticising the show. I'm highlighting a criticism which the show makes of historical british colonial attitudes.

And you don't need to explicitly contrast those attitudes to contemporary ones, you have the attitudes of Goodsir & Crozier, both highly unorthodox for the time, to compare them to. Plus those of the native people.

>You can make a horror film in high noon daylight if you know what you're doing.
I was careful to always say ' black for exterior shots at night' to avoid this pedantry

>you could fix it in post
lol

He realized himself in an existential situation and the only solution was to embrace the supernatural as his way out.
Obviously his apotheosis didn't turn out as he planned as his new "god" rejected him.

>dude what about the surface level plot!
>it's what happens on screen
>there are no deeper themes

yeah why the fuck is there homosexuality in a story about the Royal Navy? Really took me out of the story.

Attached: combat-nap.jpg (600x800, 89K)

Goodsir & Crozier's attitudes to the natives were a narrative technique to make them likable protagonists to the audience.

What I would find more interesting from a writer or director, is to say make a racist character redeemable. Not by convincing the audience that the character's racism is good, but by showing that his other characteristics outweigh his flaws.

As of the current moral climate, you can't have a character be truly representative of their historic setting without massive backlash. It limits the stories that can be told since you'll never see a slave owner Roman or Southerner who also is the protagonist, unless these characters renounce their "evil" ways by the end of the story despite being the status quo of their time.

>implying ratins mean anything
got was shit from way before the ratings started to get low

I was expecting some eldritch unknown thing hunting them. All I got was an irradiated bear.

There's two stories; one overt between Hickey and the other shipmate.
The other was a subtle one between one of the ship's doctors and the guy he would give books too.
They were meant to contrast each other.

Homosexuality was a known taboo thing in the navy. You have a bunch of dudes in close quarters with eachother, on long trips away from women... dicks gonna go in someone's ass eventually. Same reason this shit happens in prison.

>Goodsir & Crozier's attitudes to the natives were a narrative technique to make them likable protagonists to the audience.
or
>Goodsir & Crozier's attitudes to the natives were only a narrative technique to make them likable protagonists to the audience, and what you said is wrong.

?

Are you disagreeing with me or just changing the subject?
As far as it being unacceptable to have bigoted protagonists as part of nuanced characterization or that reflecting historical attitudes, that's really only true of mainstream stuff. Three Billboards is a recent example.

And you know, just because you don't find a critique of colonial attitudes interesting, doesn't mean it isn't there.

I was being sarcastic. Navies are indeed gay as fuck.
>What is gay in the civilian world is normal in the army, and what is gay in the army is normal in the navy.
-old Finnish proverb

No, I'm just saying make them racists and see how that changes the narrative.

While the critiques of colonial attitudes are there, you can't ignore the implicit respect for it as well. The tradition, the organization, the technology, the discipline etc.
I don't think it was displayed just to be portrayed purely as negative.
Fundamentally, this system did accomplish a great deal in terms of exploration/discovery.

youtube.com/watch?v=nmGuy0jievs

Attached: Gay as Fuck.jpg (591x600, 189K)

ok yeah

Streaming my man, it’s seriously good, set your AC up high and enjoy.