Silicon Valley

Discuss TV shows old and new.
Post Reply
Message
Author
User avatar
domino harvey
Dot Com Dom
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm

Silicon Valley

#1 Post by domino harvey » Thu May 16, 2013 4:13 pm


User avatar
mfunk9786
Under Chris' Protection
Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 4:43 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA

Re: TV of 2013

#2 Post by mfunk9786 » Thu May 16, 2013 5:26 pm

Not sure if there's a man in showbusiness that I like more than Judge. Super-excited. Even the critically shrugged-at Extract gets better every time I see it

User avatar
swo17
Bloodthirsty Butcher
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 10:25 am
Location: SLC, UT

Re: Silicon Valley

#3 Post by swo17 » Tue May 06, 2014 11:27 am

Has anyone else been watching this? While I thought there was a bit of a drop in quality (especially in Episode 4) after the very strong first two Judge-directed episodes, I'm still hopeful overall. T.J. Miller--who had small but memorable roles in Seeking a Friend for the End of the World and Our Idiot Brother--gets to really spread out here and strut his stuff, Zach Woods feels surprisingly fresh playing his character from The Office, and Martin Starr is reliable as always. (I particularly liked his line about inferior products that come to market first.) But the real highlight of the show for me so far has been Christopher Evan Welch. It's absolutely heartbreaking that this guy who I wouldn't have been able to pick out of a lineup last year finally gets a breakout role like this just as he is losing his battle with cancer. Like, imagine if Nick Offerman had left us after shooting just five episodes of Parks and Recreation. I'm not sure how they're going to handle the departure of Welch's character, but I understand that it would have been logistically possible to simply recast the part and reshoot all of his scenes before the show went to air. I applaud Judge and company for not going that route.

In other news, the show was recently renewed for a second season.

User avatar
Andre Jurieu
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 3:38 pm
Location: Back in Milan (Ind.)

Re: Silicon Valley

#4 Post by Andre Jurieu » Tue May 06, 2014 12:03 pm

I actually thought that last episode was one of the best of the season so far in terms of just having some flat-out hilarious moments. The rest of the season has been enjoyable overall and incredibly effective at conveying the reality of an entire industry that's saturated with brilliant (but petty) people who would really have trouble functioning in normal everyday life if others didn't automatically revere them for their success. As always Judge is great at examining corporate culture with a subtle style without everything descending into total bitterness or extreme satire. However, this last episode felt like they just wanted to have an episode that placed the comedy as the priority, and I thought it succeeded incredibly well, because they were able to bring the reality of the situation back to the forefront at the conclusion, which basically increased its overall impact.

User avatar
Roger Ryan
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 12:04 pm
Location: A Midland town spread and darkened into a city

Re: Silicon Valley

#5 Post by Roger Ryan » Tue May 06, 2014 12:25 pm

I felt the quality of the show has remained consistent throughout its run so far. It has a great collection of well-defined characters with Welch's performance as "Peter Gregory" just getting funnier with every episode (it's going to be tough to see his appearances end). I thought his small, but pivotal, roles opposite Phillip Seymour Hoffman in SYNECDOCHE, NY and THE MASTER were his career highlights, but the Steve Jobs-type he plays in SILICON VALLEY is a great one to go out on. Perhaps the character will succumb to cancer as did Jobs and Welch himself.

User avatar
mfunk9786
Under Chris' Protection
Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 4:43 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA

Re: Silicon Valley

#6 Post by mfunk9786 » Tue May 06, 2014 12:27 pm

Mike Judge's work has never had seamless balance to it - there's always been a combination of down to earth characters and settings and over-the-top situations - Silicon Valley is no different in that respect. I don't know if the show will ever settle into something that feels like a comfortable balance - this last episode, for example, featured both that absurd mural and a realistic approach to creating an organized and effective business culture within a small new company. It reminds me most of King of the Hill in this respect - Hank and the rest of the Hills were perhaps the most realistic (animated or not) family on prime-time television since All in the Family, but they were surrounded by exaggerated plot gags and broad supporting characters. The combination was unusual, but it tends to be a mark of what makes Judge's work so singular. I've been enjoying Silicon Valley so far because of this unique alchemy, but it really does feel like a show that could benefit from seasons that are longer than 8 episodes - it's lighter fare by design, and by being limited to such short seasons, it may run the risk of being too easily forgotten: this isn't something that carries the same narrative weight at Enlightened or risk of exhaustion of the throw-everything-at-the-wall Eastbound and Down.

Here's an outstanding and lengthy obit of Christopher Evan Welch recently published by, of all places, Business Insider Australia. Don't let that put you off - it is absolutely worth a read, despite being a devastatingly sad story. Such tragic timing for both his personal life and career, which were both blossoming in a big way.
Last edited by mfunk9786 on Tue May 06, 2014 12:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Mr Sausage
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Canada

Re: Silicon Valley

#7 Post by Mr Sausage » Tue May 06, 2014 12:32 pm

Here's an interesting, but very negative review by a software engineer who worked in Silicon Valley.

User avatar
mfunk9786
Under Chris' Protection
Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 4:43 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA

Re: Silicon Valley

#8 Post by mfunk9786 » Tue May 06, 2014 12:40 pm

It reads like that writer has a vendetta with his former employers and wants the show to be something it's not. Judge never promised anyone a heavy-handed takedown of all things tech industry, and I don't see how not getting something from a show that you were never offered equates to a bad show. Mentioning that the toga party in the show was somehow not as funny as actual parties he'd attended seems asinine too - I'm sure that people have had funnier experiences at work than those in any given episode of The Office, for example, but that doesn't cast a shadow on the quality of the show.

Also, "Ow, My Balls!" from Idiocracy was a "joke stolen from The Simpsons"? Give me a million breaks.

User avatar
Roger Ryan
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 12:04 pm
Location: A Midland town spread and darkened into a city

Re: Silicon Valley

#9 Post by Roger Ryan » Tue May 06, 2014 12:49 pm

Wow, thanks for sharing that link - that was indeed outstanding and heartbreaking, not least of which for making me realize that this past Sunday's episode appears to be Welch's last. His final scene attempting to make small talk with Matt Ross' character was a gem. Also, I see that Jobs wasn't really Gregory's model. I'm curious how Judge and company reworked the final three episodes in Welch's absence.

User avatar
Mr Sausage
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Canada

Re: Silicon Valley

#10 Post by Mr Sausage » Tue May 06, 2014 12:58 pm

mfunk9786 wrote:It reads like that writer has a vendetta with his former employers and wants the show to be something it's not. Judge never promised anyone a heavy-handed takedown of all things tech industry, and I don't see how not getting something from a show that you were never offered equates to a bad show. Mentioning that the toga party in the show was somehow not as funny as actual parties he'd attended seems asinine too - I'm sure that people have had funnier experiences at work than those in any given episode of The Office, for example, but that doesn't cast a shadow on the quality of the show.
He mentioned the toga party to emphasize his general point: the show falls back on old tropes and situations and takes no advantage of the huge opportunities for even gentle satire that the real subject offers:
Office Space resonated with people because it nailed many of the tiny details of office life, and you could tell Judge knew them well. Reusing that same job experience for Silicon Valley, rather than actually investigating tech culture, smacks of laziness. Judge didn’t do his research when parodying lefties in his awful bomb The Goode Family, and he didn’t do it here.
On the evidence, I can't say that he's wrong.

User avatar
mfunk9786
Under Chris' Protection
Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 4:43 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA

Re: Silicon Valley

#11 Post by mfunk9786 » Tue May 06, 2014 1:11 pm

So we're supposed to take David Auerbach at his word that Mike Judge or the other producers and writers "didn't do [their] research" into the subject matter?

User avatar
Mr Sausage
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Canada

Re: Silicon Valley

#12 Post by Mr Sausage » Tue May 06, 2014 1:23 pm

If you're supposed to do anything, I guess it'd be the same thing you ought to do with any article on a subject written by someone who knows more about it than you: weigh and consider it. Beyond that, mfunk, I don't know what to tell you.

User avatar
mfunk9786
Under Chris' Protection
Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 4:43 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA

Re: Silicon Valley

#13 Post by mfunk9786 » Tue May 06, 2014 1:27 pm

What does he know about the production of this show and the amount of research done into its subject matter, though? I'm taking issue with the piece and some broadly accusatory statements within it, not with you. No need to get defensive about agreeing with it (which I take it you are, as you took that particular quote on face value).

User avatar
Mr Sausage
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Canada

Re: Silicon Valley

#14 Post by Mr Sausage » Tue May 06, 2014 1:42 pm

mfunk9786 wrote:What does he know about the production of this show and the amount of research done into its subject matter, though? I'm taking issue with the piece and some broadly accusatory statements within it, not with you. No need to get defensive about agreeing with it (which I take it you are, as you took that particular quote on face value).
Saying that something which often gets things wrong, and otherwise evinces little detail specific to its setting and context, has not been sufficiently researched is simple inductive logic. Taking issue with that logic is silly, especially since if the opposite were true (it did a ton of research but still didn't manage to capture is setting accurately) is implying something much worse about the show.

I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with the writer's points so much as trying to counter your response to its arguments, which was first to misrepreset them and impugn the writer's motives, then to dismiss its criticisms as ones that the writer has no business making. The only place to start with the article like the one above is first to take what it says seriously, and then look at whether the evidence supports it or not.

User avatar
knives
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 6:49 pm

Re: Silicon Valley

#15 Post by knives » Tue May 06, 2014 1:52 pm

Just as a side note, from the computer programmers I do know they find the show has done its research well, but that the research is often misapplied (though I can't tell if they mean exclusively with the jargon or also with the life).

ianungstad
Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2005 9:20 pm

Re: Silicon Valley

#16 Post by ianungstad » Tue May 06, 2014 2:14 pm

I was not impressed with the blatant product placement for Burger King in last week's episode. Overall; Silicon Valley is decent. Not exactly essential viewing.

User avatar
mfunk9786
Under Chris' Protection
Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 4:43 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA

Re: Silicon Valley

#17 Post by mfunk9786 » Tue May 06, 2014 2:52 pm

I'm always conflicted about things like that - would you prefer that it were some fictional brand? Wouldn't that take you out of what you were watching? All the products were unwrapped and weren't unrealistic commercial representations of what they actually are, either... it's not like there were logos all over the place. I prefer that to Gregory being perplexed by "SuperBurger" products or something.

User avatar
Andre Jurieu
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 3:38 pm
Location: Back in Milan (Ind.)

Re: Silicon Valley

#18 Post by Andre Jurieu » Tue May 06, 2014 3:03 pm

I was initially annoyed by the inclusion of Burger King into the plot, but the writers actually used it to reveal a little bit more about their characters, so I thought it wasn't as heinous as some other instances of product placement. Also, the reality of those visuals for the actual product could not have been any more unappealing.

As for Auerbach's review, he seems to be frustrated by the fact that the show isn't as ambitious or as caustic as he had originally envisioned it would be, rather than judging the project on what the creators intend to accomplish. He also seems to be carrying over some of his preconceived notions and assumptions about Judge and allowing these perceptions to influence his evaluation of this project. He has some vague criticism included that don't really add much to his argument - it's great that he's attended some Silicon Valley parties that were more humorous than the one included in the show, but it would also really help if he let us know how he perceived those events to be funnier, or why he thinks including material similar to those specific events from his own personal experience would have served the fictional show better. While I was watching the show, it seemed clear to me that Judge only wanted to glace at the synthetic nature of these corporate events rather than dwell on them too long. Auerbach also praises the show for including material that demonstrates the "very real divide between two different strains of engineers", but believes they should have spent far more time on this topic and returned to this dynamic more often, but he kind of fails to understand that the show might suffer greatly if it gets too focused on these types of details and begins to miss the bigger picture.

One of the creators he believes would be more successful at examining this industry is Victor Fresco, but the brilliance of Better Off Ted was that it applied its satire of corporate culture very broadly to a gigantic multinational corporation that was so big that it didn't really have any sense of itself and could therefore stand-in for any corporation within American society. Fresco might be successful in applying the same wit towards Silicon Valley, but based on past efforts, I would think Auerbach might also criticize him into running into the same problems as Judge because his strokes would be too broad rather than precise and explicitly targeted. Honestly, the review makes it feel as though Auerbach wants details that only reflect his own experiences and perceptions included in the show, which is rather demanding and almost impossible. It feels a bit like an evaluator who might be a little too close to the subject matter to accurately determine the projects strengths and weaknesses. That's not to say that his criticism isn't accurate sometimes (I think he's probably correct about the show's gender-bias, though I think he's not giving them enough credit about the humor involving racism), but I'm just not sure he's enough of an objective commentator.
Last edited by Andre Jurieu on Tue May 06, 2014 3:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
mfunk9786
Under Chris' Protection
Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 4:43 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA

Re: Silicon Valley

#19 Post by mfunk9786 » Tue May 06, 2014 3:08 pm

It reminds me of that criticism posted in the All Is Lost thread from an avid sailor, or Neil DeGrasse Tyson's rant about Gravity's inaccuracies. Being too close to the material can often result in unfair nitpicking that matters little to the wide majority of viewers. Silicon Valley isn't meant to be a term paper on the topic, it's a half-hour comedy.

User avatar
Mr Sausage
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Canada

Re: Silicon Valley

#20 Post by Mr Sausage » Tue May 06, 2014 5:54 pm

mfunk9786 wrote:It reminds me of that criticism posted in the All Is Lost thread from an avid sailor, or Neil DeGrasse Tyson's rant about Gravity's inaccuracies. Being too close to the material can often result in unfair nitpicking that matters little to the wide majority of viewers. Silicon Valley isn't meant to be a term paper on the topic, it's a half-hour comedy.
It shouldn't, as it's something the other two are not: it's aesthetic. Neither person in the other two threads were arguing that the respective films would be better thrillers if they were more accurate. It was merely the fact that the movies were inaccurate that was the issue. The writer above says, rightly, that good satire must be accurate about its target. He does not argue that the show should be accurate for the sake of it.
Andre Jurieu wrote:As for Auerbach's review, he seems to be frustrated by the fact that the show isn't as ambitious or as caustic as he had originally envisioned it would be, rather than judging the project on what the creators intend to accomplish.
Well, his title says it all: he's frustrated because it's a wasted opportunity. That's a fair point. His main problem is that instead of actually going after the specific absurdities of the time and context the show has made a lot of noise about inhabiting, it wastes its shots on stuff we've all seen before and ultimately makes scant use of its setting. That's why he mentions it's not too much better than The Big Bang Theory: it's just the same, broad caricatures of geeks and techies that we've all seen. What the creators intended to accomplish is irrelevant if what they did accomplish falls well short of their potential.
Andrew Jurieu wrote:He also seems to be carrying over some of his preconceived notions and assumptions about Judge and allowing these perceptions to influence his evaluation of this project.
Well, preconceived in the sense that he has seen other Judge works and formulated opinions about those, then evaluated the current show next to them and decided it shows the same faults as some recent ones and none of the strengths of an older one. Isn't this par for the course?
Andre Jurieu wrote: Auerbach also praises the show for including material that demonstrates the "very real divide between two different strains of engineers", but believes they should have spent far more time on this topic and returned to this dynamic more often, but he kind of fails to understand that the show might suffer greatly if it gets too focused on these types of details and begins to miss the bigger picture.
Claiming that a show does too little of something does not indicate that you don't understand a show can also do too much of something. I like his point here, because what he's asking is for the show to derive its characterizations more from life and less from the types set out in other shows. He spends a paragraph in his article detailing how the show just reuses character types and situations we've all seen before. Again, his criticisms are essentially that the show is trading down, giving up an interesting reality for a familiar and by now tired banality. This is the point that resonated with me and the reason I linked to it: that the show is watered down, one more tepid sit-com when what we really need are shows that are sharper and cut deeper, especially considering the nonsense that evidently goes on in the tech world.
Andre Jurieu wrote:That's not to say that his criticism isn't accurate sometimes (I think he's probably correct about the show's gender-bias, though I think he's not giving them enough credit about the humor involving racism), but I'm just not sure he's enough of an objective commentator.
No one here is an objective commentator. You like the show, think it's funny, and may or may not know anything about its subject. He dislikes the show, thinks it's unfunny, and knows quite a lot about its subject. Those are two places of equal subjectivity. In between is an exchange of ideas and viewpoints.

User avatar
Andre Jurieu
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 3:38 pm
Location: Back in Milan (Ind.)

Re: Silicon Valley

#21 Post by Andre Jurieu » Tue May 06, 2014 7:24 pm

Mr Sausage wrote:No one here is an objective commentator. You like the show, think it's funny, and may or may not know anything about its subject. He dislikes the show, thinks it's unfunny, and knows quite a lot about its subject. Those are two places of equal subjectivity. In between is an exchange of ideas and viewpoints.
Just to be clear, I'm not asking Auerbach to be a completely objective commentator, nor am I claiming that I am complete objective. Certainly every observer's viewpoint is subjective, but every observer can attempt to be more objective in their evaluation (whether they choose to do so or not is another matter). There's some sort of spectrum between total objectivity and total subjectivity for any evaluation, and while I would think most people are far more subjective in their evaluation than objective, it doesn't mean that we can't notice how some viewpoints are subjective. In this case, Auerbach does know a great deal about the subject matter and he certainly has far more knowledge and experience within the industry than I do. However, in terms of his evaluation of the show, he seems somewhat beholden and transfixed by his personal experiences, often requiring the show to function in a very specific fashion and reflect his personal viewpoint, with specific targets and criticisms in mind (I believe he even links to his own article) for how it would become more successful in his eyes. Meanwhile, the show does not seem to be interested in being as targeted and harsh as Auerbach requires it to be. I will completely concede that Auerbach knows much more about this industry than I do, but the way he seems to envision a successful version of this topic does not sound as appealing and certainly doesn't sound like what the creators of this TV show envisioned.
Mr Sausage wrote:
Andre Jurieu wrote:As for Auerbach's review, he seems to be frustrated by the fact that the show isn't as ambitious or as caustic as he had originally envisioned it would be, rather than judging the project on what the creators intend to accomplish.
Well, no, his title says it all: he's frustrated because it's a wasted opportunity.
OK, but part of the wasted opportunity is that he believes that the show should be far more specific with its topics of satire and harsher with its criticism of the real-life personalities (and trends) involved within the industry. He dedicates an entire paragraph to this point.
That's a fair point. His main problem is that instead of actually going after the specific absurdities of the time and context the show has made a lot of noise about inhabiting, it wastes its shots on stuff we've all seen before and ultimately makes scant use of its setting.

I guess I disagree with Auerbach about the fact that the show needs to take shots, because - as with a great deal of Judge's projects - the creators seem far more interested in delivering nudges and glancing blows to their non-specific targets, while hinting at other offenses. Aurenbach also seems to require the show to take on really big topics, when the creators seem to want to enter this world from the ground-level and then show the disparity between the top and bottom (which in a way is more about modern capitalism in general, rather than about this specific industry).
That's why he mentions it's not too much better than The Big Bang Theory: it's just the same, broad caricatures of geeks and techies that we've all seen. What the creators intended to accomplish is irrelevant if what they did accomplish falls well short of their potential.
Maybe it's not too much better than The Big Bang Theory, but I do find it to be better. I also don't find that show uses the same broad caricatures as other shows, as there are noticeable differences conveyed immediately, most notably that these characters are attempting to accomplish something greater at significant risk to their own personal lives, whereas The Big Bang Theory is defined by the overall comfort and stasis of its characters.

My problem with Auerbach's critique is that his measure of potential for the show is incredibly subjective, because he's requesting a product that satisfies his personal requirements of scope and topics. Basically he's deriding the show for not achieving travel through time and space, when they appear to be focusing on getting their Camry to Columbus, OH. He wants the show to function in a completely different fashion than it appears to intend.
Well, preconceived in the sense that he has seen other Judge works and formulated opinions about those, then evaluated the current show next to them and decided it shows the same faults as some recent ones and none of the strengths of an older one. Isn't this par for the course?
It could be, but it seems like he doesn't really even see the strengths of the older projects, as those qualities are seen as a crutch that directly leads to all the flaws that he perceives. As I said, every viewer has a subjective viewpoint, which is certainly formed through our past evaluations and experiences with the creators, but I find that Auerbach isn't really allowing the show to have enough room to function on its own terms. Every artist has a style and technique, and basically Auerbach just doesn't appear to believe the Judge's style and technique should even be applied to this topic.
Andre Jurieu wrote: Auerbach also praises the show for including material that demonstrates the "very real divide between two different strains of engineers", but believes they should have spent far more time on this topic and returned to this dynamic more often, but he kind of fails to understand that the show might suffer greatly if it gets too focused on these types of details and begins to miss the bigger picture.
Claiming that a show does too little of something does not indicate that you don't understand a show can also do too much of something.

True, but it's my opinion that Auerbach's request to have the show delve deeper into these types of character dynamics would weaken the show. He wants more detailed discussion of the disparity between two different strains of engineering, and I believe that doing so would cripple the forward momentum and comedic potential of the show. Either way, this is rather theoretical, because it's something that the show is not interested in exploring any further. Auerbach states quite clearly that he wants that specific topic to continue to be explored ("Too bad that divide is never subsequently addressed...") and he repeatedly complains that the show does not detail very specific characteristics of the industry. In my opinion, given the constraints of the show, it's apparent that Judge & Co have covered the material (they make it quite obvious to the audience that friction between these characters does exist, not only in terms of personality, but also professionally) and are interested only in providing us a snapshot of this realistic discord within a company. Judge is getting out of the scene (and many similar scenes) early so as not to belabour the point.
I like his point here, because what he's asking is for the show to derive its characterizations more from life and less from the types set out in other shows. He spends a paragraph in his article detailing how the show just reuses character types and situations we've all seen before. Again, his criticisms are essentially that the show is trading down, giving up an interesting reality for a familiar and by now tired banality.
I would have liked him to provide better examples of the similar situations than The Big Bang Theory - where the characters are never as ambitious - and Office Space - which focuses on an already established management structure and office culture within a mid-level corporation.

User avatar
Mr Sausage
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Canada

Silicon Valley

#22 Post by Mr Sausage » Tue May 06, 2014 8:32 pm

Andre Jurieu wrote:My problem with Auerbach's critique is that his measure of potential for the show is incredibly subjective, because he's requesting a product that satisfies his personal requirements of scope and topics. Basically he's deriding the show for not achieving travel through time and space, when they appear to be focusing on getting their Camry to Columbus, OH. He wants the show to function in a completely different fashion than it appears to intend.
You're leaning very heavily on this argument. There is a limit to taking a creative work on its own terms, past which evaluation becomes impossible except on a superficial level. Now you can't claim a show is a shitty thriller when it's trying to be a comedy, and you can't claim that a light-hearted romantic-comedy isn't a very good raunchy comedy. That's just a general principle before you even get started. But: if you have a noted satirist of corporate culture and stupidity choosing the perfect target for similar satire, but find that the actual show ignores all of the vast potential for Office-Space-style satire in favour of, as Auerbach says, "jokes about bad teleconferencing latency, apps named NipAlert, and that old standby, the hilarious drug vision trip," you are well within reason to criticize it. Because Auerbach's point is one that can, and should, always be made: that something is taking the easy way out and pitching its aims far too low. If you fall back too hard on the "it's not what they intented" line, you lose the ability to make that criticism, or even to judge when it's the case.

So you're right, Auerbach wants the show to be something it's not because he doesn't like what it is. If you, personally, like what it is, then this point is going to be moot. But it cannot be moot merely because the creators didn't intend to make a harsh satire, even less so if his point is that it's so little about Silicon Valley as a culture that the setting itself becomes a mere backdrop to general sit-com antics. Fine if you like those antics. If not, not.

On the terms with which he's criticising the show, he's not wrong. So it comes down to whether you share those terms, those being that a cutting satire of the actual Silicon Valley that aims at its target precisely would be a far more valuable project than turning out another benign sitcom about things we've seen before. But to say that those terms are invalid in some way, either because they're too subjective (odd when the aesthetic and factual terms quite clearly stated), or don't consider the creators' intentions (not relevant), is too much of a reach.
Andre Jurieu wrote:It could be, but it seems like he doesn't really even see the strengths of the older projects, as those qualities are seen as a crutch that directly leads to all the flaws that he perceives.
Not really, since he outright says Judge is not doing what he did in Office Space: "Office Space resonated with people because it nailed many of the tiny details of office life, and you could tell Judge knew them well."

He's right, and he's equally right to say Silicon Valley doesn't do this. And it's hard to argue that it'd be a lesser show if it, too, tried to nail the tiny details of techie life in the same way. Office Space would be a lesser movie, and probably far less loved, if it had ignored the details it captured so well in favour of even more broad comedy (I personally think the best part of that movie is the first half, which is mostly about the annoying details of office life). Auerbach isn't demanding anything more extreme than that Judge represent techie culture with similar acuity rather than reusing the same targets from Office Space which are not relevant in this context. I'd say he has a good idea of what Office Space's strengths are, and where Silicon Valley falls short of them.

Although, again, if you like what Silicon Valley is doing, this'll be a moot point. But there's nothing inherently wrong in claiming it. It seems fair enough.

User avatar
mfunk9786
Under Chris' Protection
Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 4:43 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA

Re: Silicon Valley

#23 Post by mfunk9786 » Wed May 07, 2014 10:14 am

Well, this thread has really become a hoot! Yet again we have people who've seen something arguing with someone who hasn't (you haven't provided your personal opinion of the show yet, Sausage, so I'm just hypothesizing), and a specious thinkpiece about why it's bad, which has completely derailed what was becoming a somewhat constructive, friendly conversation between people who'd seen the show and are actually posters here. Cool.

User avatar
Mr Sausage
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Canada

Re: Silicon Valley

#24 Post by Mr Sausage » Wed May 07, 2014 11:39 am

People aren't discussing the show in exactly the manner you want, so you come in here and whine about it? Contribute to a discussion or don't, but the only post here that isn't constructive is yours.

I thought the show was mildly amusing.

User avatar
mfunk9786
Under Chris' Protection
Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 4:43 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA

Re: Silicon Valley

#25 Post by mfunk9786 » Wed May 07, 2014 12:03 pm

I just find it odd that you're defending that article at near-absurd lengths rather than contributing your opinion of the show if you've seen it. Beyond that, Mr Sausage, I don't know what to tell you.

Post Reply