I liked it, I just didn't get Kovac's motivations, it's like once he's had sex with someone he become the most loyal person in the world for that person. He's probably the most whipped person in any TV show or movie I've ever seen. I also didn't why Det. Ortega kept on insisting to find out who a certain person was near the end, there was no real reason for it other than she's just relentless that way. But overall, the show was pretty cool, was fun to watch, and kept my attention. As for the low sound, I always watch shows with subtitles on, as too many actors mumble their dialogue.

I liked it, but I never bought that the two Takeshis were the same person. They seem to have completely different personalities and ways of speaking. I think more could have been done to make it seem like they were the same person.

Yeah, they didn't even try to make the 2 Taks speak the same way. It doesn't help that Kinnamon's got a very distinct way of speaking too, so the differences from Lee stand out. Meanwhile Matt Beidel, who played the grandmother sleeved into a gang member, was incredible at changing his speech patterns and movements to match his characters.

I found it too long, with too many characters and too complex with the virtual reality aspects of it. To be honest I didn't understand a lot of it - how people can be hurt physically in a virtual reality situation for example. As usual there has to be a gay element shoe horned into it. I wouldn't have minded but the acting was so bad it was painful. The who killed him ending was a disappointment as well. I felt the story would have been better without the virtual reality stuff and spread over five episodes.

@strangebedfellows said:

I found it too long, with too many characters and too complex with the virtual reality aspects of it. To be honest I didn't understand a lot of it - how people can be hurt physically in a virtual reality situation for example. As usual there has to be a gay element shoe horned into it. I wouldn't have minded but the acting was so bad it was painful. The who killed him ending was a disappointment as well. I felt the story would have been better without the virtual reality stuff and spread over five episodes.

Yeah, that is why I hate the mumbling, afterthought, way they revealed basic elements of the plot in casual conversation the way they did. They wound up repeating some of the plot explanations throughout the series so I eventually picked up the parts I missed early on. But it is really frustrating the way they did it. Some shows introduce characters who are clueless about the complicated plot elements. They have some scientist explain it all to them in baby steps. That way the audience can catch up to speed. Something like that would have been nice in the beginning episode. I am still not sure I followed all of it. The VR stuff, I can't recall how that played into it all now.

As for the gay stuff, yeah, it seems like just about every show has to have gay characters in it now, or at least have some homo-erotic interest between a couple of ladies at some point. I wonder if you can make a show in Hollywood these days without including gay characters. And they just about always are sympathetic characters, often who are discriminated against, or victimized by bigots, etc. I have come to expect it in shows now.

That way of explaining by not really explaining is standard for the cyberpunk genre. William Gibson does it in all his novels - the audience is dropped into the story and has to figure out stuff by context. Blade Runner did it (and the studio hated it so much that they forced the theatrical cut to include a bunch of voiceovers explaining everything). Its annoying if you've never experienced it before, but it is deliberate because these stories are all about dystopian futures and the effect is to give the audience a sort of visceral appreciation for the unpleasant and confusing world that the characters are living through.

As for the gay stuff you guys are complaining about, I am struggling to even recall it - are you referring to the hacker wife who was gender-swapped? Whatever it is, seems more like a problem of being ultrasensitive than it is a problem with the writing.

@write2topcat said:

As for the gay stuff, yeah, it seems like just about every show has to have gay characters in it now, or at least have some homo-erotic interest between a couple of ladies at some point. I wonder if you can make a show in Hollywood these days without including gay characters. And they just about always are sympathetic characters, often who are discriminated against, or victimized by bigots, etc. I have come to expect it in shows now.

You said it !! I am sick and tired of PC attitudes is film and television. Everything must include either some form of homosexuality or disability, mental or physical. It comes across as patronizing and condescending in my view. If such things were a necessary part of the plot I wouldn't mind at all, I am not anti any of the aforementioned, but it seems to be inserted just for either PC or titillation.

Dali Parton - The gay son and his lover were such bad actors - that is what drew my attention !!!

"Everything must include either some form of homosexuality or disability, mental or physical. It comes across as patronizing and condescending in my view. If such things were a necessary part of the plot I wouldn't mind at all, I am not anti any of the aforementioned, but it seems to be inserted just for either PC or titillation."

Right. The powers that be in Hollywood have apparently decided and decreed that shows must include these elements. I think it is part of a social engineering effort. By repeatedly putting these depictions into the 'programming' they seek to develop attitudes, beliefs, etc. in the younger generations which are aligned with their ideas for the society they seek to create.
These media are powerful teaching tools, working on conscious and subconscious levels.

And I hate the very idea of someone presuming to tell me that my opinion about such things as which political candidate I support is "incorrect". It is outrageous. You can tell me you disagree with my choice, my opinion, and so on. There is nothing wrong with that. But the PC people dare to not only brand those who disagree with them as "incorrect", they are now organizing 'crowd stalking' and other forms of persecution of those who fail to agree with them. The tactic of calling opinions or beliefs "politically correct or politically incorrect" was started by the Franklin School, a Marxist think tank. In America it seems to have been launched first in certain universities by leftist professors. Think of how un-American that is, and how insidious it is to have your professor label your personal opinions and attitudes about religion, politics, etc. as "incorrect", as though you got a sum wrong in arithmetic.
"We will tell you what to believe, and punish you for seeing things differently to us" is the message.

"the audience is dropped into the story and has to figure out stuff by context. Blade Runner did it (and the studio hated it so much that they forced the theatrical cut to include a bunch of voiceovers explaining everything). Its annoying if you've never experienced it before, but it is deliberate because these stories are all about dystopian futures and the effect is to give the audience a sort of visceral appreciation for the unpleasant and confusing world that the characters are living through."

Sounds like you are pretty familiar with literary and film media. Actually I don't mind that kind of writing, I don't mind have the unanswered questions which I have to figure out from context as the story progresses when I am reading a book. I don't mind it so much in movies, provided I can understand what the characters are actually saying. What aggravates me so much about the way this series handles it is the rapid, mumbling, poorly enunciated dialogue. Perhaps my hearing isn't all it used to be, maybe over the years I've heard too many loud noises and some bits get lost. My last hearing test was alright. But I think it has more to do with the way certain characters speak, and the way the producers manage the audio portion. When I realize something important been said and I missed it I am frustrated. If I am reading a book that cannot happen. But in film media I can't always get the information.

I have seen films where there is conversation between two characters which occurs in a nightclub with loud music. And the producer chooses to make it 'realistic' by having the music so loud that it drowns out the conversation. Some would say 'well that's how it is in a nightclub with loud music' and they are right about that. But if you are really there you can get closer to the speaker, ask them to repeat the part you missed, etc. Not so in the movie. If this conversation is something they want the audience to hear and understand they should make it audible above the music. We will still understand that they're in a night club with blaring music. They can show the characters straining to hear one another, perhaps having to repeat themselves, and we will understand that the music is loud.
But having the music as loud or louder than the conversation so that the viewer is unable to understand what was said is just stupid. Unless they didn't intend for the viewer to hear or understand what was said. But in the case I am relating, that wasn't the idea. It was just poor production. THAT is the kind of thing I dislike. I don't mind being dropped into the story and having to piece together what is going on. But when the sound is garbled and I cannot make it out I mind it a great deal. Joel Kinnaman played a Det. Holder in a series called The Killing. His manner of speech, his enunciation in that show was very difficult for me to understand. Part of it was the lazy way of speaking his character had. But I think I just can't make out his speech very well. He is easier to understand in this show, but still difficult. I don't think I am alone in having trouble understanding him.

If such things were a necessary part of the plot I wouldn't mind at all,

Maybe instead of seeing them as unnecessary, you should consider asking, "why not?" Must everybody be normative unless their sexuality or disability is a plot point? Why can't they just be in the same way the straight, fully-abled characters are? After all, that is the way real life is - people just are who they are.

Dali Parton - The gay son and his lover were such bad actors - that is what drew my attention !!!

Ah, no wonder I couldn't tell who you were talking about - their gayness was of no particular consequence so it didn't leave much of an impression.

write2topcat - With regard to the background noise and music and people talking etc - I fully agree with you. It may be realistic but it is totally annoying to people viewing and trying to make out what people are saying - sometimes the dialogue is essential to following the plot. I am hard of hearing and I have to rely on subtitles - it has come to the pass that I now watch most things on mute because the background racket is more than I can tolerate. Sadly even subtitling is not reliable and they tend to disappear at the most critical moments!!

@strangebedfellows said:

write2topcat - With regard to the background noise and music and people talking etc - I fully agree with you. It may be realistic but it is totally annoying to people viewing and trying to make out what people are saying - sometimes the dialogue is essential to following the plot. I am hard of hearing and I have to rely on subtitles - it has come to the pass that I now watch most things on mute because the background racket is more than I can tolerate. Sadly even subtitling is not reliable and they tend to disappear at the most critical moments!!

BINGO! lol Sometimes I wonder if I am just getting old and grouchy. Supposedly my hearing is acceptable, i.e. I pass hearing tests. So I think it is a real issue. But I may be getting old and grouchy, just the same. lol

@Dali Parton said:

As for the gay stuff you guys are complaining about, I am struggling to even recall it - are you referring to the hacker wife who was gender-swapped? Whatever it is, seems more like a problem of being ultrasensitive than it is a problem with the writing.

Yeah, I'm trying to remember what gay stuff there was that people are complaining about. I don't remember any. If they're talking about the Hacker Wife, that's not gay. That's just to convey the question does a change in someone's appearance change what you feel about a loved one (it wasn't just a gender-swap but a race swap as well)? This is a pertinent topic that should be discussed in a movie about body swapping. The body swap of the grandmother was just hilarious, "Hey, guys! I'm peeing standing up!"

Innovator - I have given some thought to this and the answer is probably brutal - firstly I am straight so that is the perspective I am talking from - I cannot change that any more than I can change the colour of my eyes or the length of my arms. So, if it was my child who was gender swapped then it would make no difference - my love for my child is unconditional. If it happened to friends or relatives - it may take some adapting to, but yes, I could do it. But if it was my sexual partner then no - I could remain friends with them, still love them platonically, but a sexual relationship would be out of the question. I am now donning my body armour !!!!

@strangebedfellows said:

Innovator - I have given some thought to this and the answer is probably brutal - firstly I am straight so that is the perspective I am talking from - I cannot change that any more than I can change the colour of my eyes or the length of my arms. So, if it was my child who was gender swapped then it would make no difference - my love for my child is unconditional. If it happened to friends or relatives - it may take some adapting to, but yes, I could do it. But if it was my sexual partner then no - I could remain friends with them, still love them platonically, but a sexual relationship would be out of the question. I am now donning my body armour !!!!

I can understand. I'm not gay either...I'm a heterosexual male and just not attracted to men. However, in this case there wasn't a sexual relationship. Both the husband and wife were estranged before the death of their daughter and before the death of the wife. So they weren't together per say, but worked together to help their daughter and the person that saved her. In fact, he was uncomfortable at first at showing any affection for his wife, and that remained pretty much throughout the movie though he was able to accept that his wife has become a man and can have some affection towards her, and the ending just showed them having dinner. At no point in the movie did they have sex, nor was it implied. So I don't understand where the complaint is coming from. In spite of what body the wife had she was still female so her affection for her husband wasn't gay either. If you were swapped into the body of the opposite sex, would you start being attracted to the gender your new body dictates? Would it be gay if you didn't? I don't think so. Those are the questions, the movie asked appropriately for the premise of the world they lived in, and I thought what they handled those questions very well, and would have been strange if they didn't tackle those questions in this series. That's why I don't understand the complaints.

My complaints about this movie are with Kovac's and Ortega's motivations not making sense. Why kill his sister when he had no intention at all in staying with Ortega. He could have easily saved his sister and went along with her at the end while making a deal with her to leave Ortega alone as there was not point for her to keep attacking her at that point, and they could have easily faked her death or prison sentence. Why did Kovac insist on sending her to prison or killing her? Ortega's actions beforehand were she insisted on trying to find the identity of his sister didn't make sense either as she didn't do anything (at least at the point this occurred) that would make her suspect other that being someone that saved Kovac. At first she was doing so to make sure Kovac was safe, but when he showed that he was why did she continue to insist on finding her? Those actions seemed illogical to me.