If you get a chance, go back and check out the C64 power LEDs. They're all off. I suppose they intended to CGI the red glow in later but went overbudget?
In fairness, I didn't notice this until my 2nd time watching the series.
I recently watched all of Halt and Catch Fire, and i have to say it is a really special show. The first season is fun, but it really comes into its own in the following seasons, exploring long relationships, friendship, growth, and love in ways that really surprised me. Highly recommend.
I recently finished it too! I was pretty over it by the final season, but then the last few episodes brought me back around.
Cameron "it's all in the eyes" Howe annoyed the shit out of me at pretty much all points, which I understand is how they wrote the character but it walked a line of almost making me quit the show. As with the show as a whole, though, she brought me around a bit in the last few eps.
I was largely disappointed. The subject matter was special but the execution was over the top. Every time I was starting to get drawn in, there would be another affair, car crash, exploding lorry or something else just as forced. I can’t even remember the number of times it felt like they’d “jumped the shark” in even just the first season alone.
There really wasn’t any need for half the dumb shit they did in that show. It didn’t add to the drama, it just made the whole thing feel completely fake. Which is impressive considering they’re writing largely about real world computing history.
And don’t get me started on the characters themselves. I think I liked maybe half the cast. The others made me cringe every time they were on screen.
It’s such a pity because they could have just as successful show if they refined it a little.
I'm glad to see I'm not alone here! Was really excited about it, and tried pretty hard to make it through the first season but couldn't make it.
It just had too much of that early 2000's cable TV style drama. Which I understand is required since it was on network tv. I honestly think if it was made again today as a netflix/prime series it would be a lot better.
It looked a bit like Compaq then it pivoted to, I expected, to look more like Apple with the Comdex angle. But it didn't. I did like the show. But it skirted the reality of the era with a lot of other stuff.
Just to +1 this and then add some more color, the show doesn’t try to be a Pirates of Silicon Valley where they cover a single specific company/set of events but instead they compress the entirety of the 80s and 90s key events into their couple of seasons. It’s fun so long as you don’t mind.
This complaint largely lands on the same points as the ones against Mr. Robot, and it has some merit, but the shows are made for cable TV audiences, so they're a bit more niche than broadcast shows, but they're mass market vehicles. They're nearly pushing a rope to make this content entertaining at all. If people cared, they'd already know the history and the social implications of the technology, as well as the personalities involved. These kinds of shows are meant to bring more folks into the industry and help folks see the humanity in each other and in themselves if they're in it. Most folks don't watch tv for anything but storylines and personalities, so historical or current relevance in entertainment is something I'll take where and when I can get it.
What are some tech shows that you like, or dramas, for context?
I’m not suggesting the show should be factually accurate. I’m saying it doesn’t need pyrotechnics to be engaging.
Mr Robot was a different beast because that was literally about criminal and hacker culture. So you’d expect a little action in that regard.
To put it another way: you have shows that have strong enough writers where they don’t need gimmicks to keep your attention. And you have shows that are intentionally about the gimmicks. Then you have shows that aren’t about the gimmicks but the writers don’t have enough confidence in their work to avoid putting them in anyway.
Shows like The West Wing, House of Cards etc aren’t about gimmicks and don’t need them.
Shows like Stargate are about the gimmicks. And that’s ok too because you know it’s meant to be silly drama.
But shows like HCF feel like they should be executed like HoCs, yet they’re written like Mr Robot, Stargate, etc. So it’s very jarring to watch every time another gimmick gets thrown in. Maybe I expected too much from that show? But it just felt like they didn’t have any confidence in people’s attention spans.
What pyrotechnics are you referring to? In HCF? My complaint about this show is sort of the opposite --- that it's basically Six Feet Under, but replace the funeral home with a series of tech startups.
(I think it's a solid B-tier prestige series; I don't hate it).
Joe setting the truck full of computers on fire is the only thing that comes to mind. That was somewhat over the top and they did settle the character down somewhat in later seasons (though not completely).
> To put it another way: you have shows that have strong enough writers where they don’t need gimmicks to keep your attention. And you have shows that are intentionally about the gimmicks. Then you have shows that aren’t about the gimmicks but the writers don’t have enough confidence in their work to avoid putting them in anyway.
Can you elaborate a bit about the gimmick(s) in Halt and Catch Fire? I think it's a drama, so there are human concerns and interactions, but that's like, what tv shows are? I don't know what you mean specifically.
> Shows like The West Wing, House of Cards etc aren’t about gimmicks and don’t need them.
The West Wing is statist propaganda for liberals. House of Cards is statist propaganda for neocons.
> Shows like Mr Robot are about the gimmicks. And that’s ok too because you know it’s meant to be silly drama.
I actually really appreciate that every hack shown on Mr. Robot had a real world POC and used actually existing tools and techniques. The storyline is hokum and gives hackers a bad name, but black hats are kinda supposed to have a bad name. Elliot is kinda gray hat, but he definitely violated CFAA multiple times and would probably be dead or in jail irl.
Silicon Cowboys[1] came out roughly the same time, and it always struck me how similar the first season of HCF was to the actual documentary of Compaq's rise
> “Computers aren’t the thing; they’re the thing that gets us to the thing.”
I used to be overly pedantic about the kinds of things programmers often obsess over—like micro-benchmarks, the whole “I use Arch, by the way” attitude, and other obnoxious quirks. But this quote stuck with me and helped me move past that shallow, one-upmanship view of computers. Great show to ones who haven't watched yet.
> The Bechdel test (/ˈbɛkdəl/ ⓘ BEK-dəl),[1] also known as the Bechdel-Wallace test, is a measure of the representation of women in film and other fiction. The test asks whether a work features at least two women who have a conversation about something other than a man. Some versions of the test also require that those two women have names.[2]
Very nice! Love the CRT TV style. In terms of approach I’m a bit confused by the call for a ‘book club style watch party’ and the content which follows an education course format. With the first I expect a CTA button to join a session, maybe a scheduled Discord session or Sign-Up list for interest of same. So maybe the format of the program is an online meetup, with a short talk, and then discussion. The point here is community.
With the second I expect a CTA for a course, with the end result being some type of qualification, perhaps conformance to the startup mentality of the key characters, to help people form groups. The point there is to advance projects and also set yourself up as an authority.
At the moment it feels like a not-so-strong mix of the two.
Loved the show but the biggest problem was that the same core group of characters kept being the top innovators in wave after wave of advancements. I do wonder if the writers and producers planned on handling that differently but backed out when the main characters turned out to be more popular than expected.
In season one, Joe and Gordon are the main characters, with Cameron a small step behind them. Donna and Bos were firmly secondary. In season two, Cam and Donna became the focus, Bos became more prominent, and we got a bunch of new characters. Joe and Gordon were still important but clearly had less focus on them. I have to wonder if the plan was for each season to introduce new characters who would be set up to be the season after that's main focus. The Mutiny crew could have been pioneers of gaming in the third season, with some Donna and Cam still there, and special appearances by Gordon and Joe. The new characters from that season could be the main of the internet/virus season. For consistency, Bos could have been the common thread in all of the companies as the business manager going along for the ride as the main characters innovated.
Maybe that wasn't the plan and I'm just spit balling but it would have been a nice way of handling the advancing technology without making the same characters the titans of industry constantly. Not sure how well the fans would have reacted to their favorite characters, even Cameron, being relegated and eventually ghosted.
Somewhere in season 2 I realized that a huge portion of Cameron was just "say something needlessly hostile or combative, then emphasize it by making your eyes really wide"
She was alright in season 1. She was young and inexperienced and she got too much shit from other people. In season 2/3 she has money and her own company and anytime anyone with more experience than her gives her even the smallest amount of advice she responds like someone is trying to break into her house. Worse, when someone has a good idea that isnt hers, she shuts it down
The point, to me, was that it’s a show about flawed people. Cameron’s flaws were frustrating sometimes, but so were Joe’s, Gordon’s, Donna’s flaws. She was chasing something… (the thing that computers get us to? Connection?) and was constantly worried someone was going to wreck it by taking it in the wrong direction. Like what happened in s01 with the interactive chat based OS she was building.
I dont remember donna having any flaws, shes just surrounded by morons and babies
When donna pointed out how popular chat was, cameron wanted to kill it because it wasnt her idea, even if it was perfectly in line with her vision for what computers could be. To me she's just an arrogant narcissist
Personally, I felt HCF was a much better reflection of the tech industry compared to Silicon Valley.
While I love both shows to death, I feel HCF really nailed a lot of the emotional and interpersonal aspects that come with entrepreneurship, venture capital, and engineering leadership.
It was also great watching HCF with my dad who started his career during the tail end of the show, and could call out a number of the technical aspects (eg. PBXes, the COBOL vs OOP wars, the search engine wars, etc).
Some of it drove me a little nuts, like s4's insistence on using Sun workstations everywhere but showing MS Windows or NeXT software running on them. Yes I know x86 boards were available but people weren't buying $30k computers just to run software designed for $3k computers.
If you get a chance, go back and check out the C64 power LEDs. They're all off. I suppose they intended to CGI the red glow in later but went overbudget?
In fairness, I didn't notice this until my 2nd time watching the series.
I recently watched all of Halt and Catch Fire, and i have to say it is a really special show. The first season is fun, but it really comes into its own in the following seasons, exploring long relationships, friendship, growth, and love in ways that really surprised me. Highly recommend.
I recently finished it too! I was pretty over it by the final season, but then the last few episodes brought me back around.
Cameron "it's all in the eyes" Howe annoyed the shit out of me at pretty much all points, which I understand is how they wrote the character but it walked a line of almost making me quit the show. As with the show as a whole, though, she brought me around a bit in the last few eps.
I was largely disappointed. The subject matter was special but the execution was over the top. Every time I was starting to get drawn in, there would be another affair, car crash, exploding lorry or something else just as forced. I can’t even remember the number of times it felt like they’d “jumped the shark” in even just the first season alone.
There really wasn’t any need for half the dumb shit they did in that show. It didn’t add to the drama, it just made the whole thing feel completely fake. Which is impressive considering they’re writing largely about real world computing history.
And don’t get me started on the characters themselves. I think I liked maybe half the cast. The others made me cringe every time they were on screen.
It’s such a pity because they could have just as successful show if they refined it a little.
I'm glad to see I'm not alone here! Was really excited about it, and tried pretty hard to make it through the first season but couldn't make it.
It just had too much of that early 2000's cable TV style drama. Which I understand is required since it was on network tv. I honestly think if it was made again today as a netflix/prime series it would be a lot better.
I 100% agree. I couldn’t finish it and bailed during the first season. It was all just so over the top!
I thought Micro Men was way better executed as a comparison point https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micro_Men
Completely different show after season 1, I almost bailed at the end of s01 too. But also, different strokes for different folks :)
Really! Interesting. How was it different?
Shifts from looking like compaq, to early internet stuff, from memory.
It looked a bit like Compaq then it pivoted to, I expected, to look more like Apple with the Comdex angle. But it didn't. I did like the show. But it skirted the reality of the era with a lot of other stuff.
Just to +1 this and then add some more color, the show doesn’t try to be a Pirates of Silicon Valley where they cover a single specific company/set of events but instead they compress the entirety of the 80s and 90s key events into their couple of seasons. It’s fun so long as you don’t mind.
This complaint largely lands on the same points as the ones against Mr. Robot, and it has some merit, but the shows are made for cable TV audiences, so they're a bit more niche than broadcast shows, but they're mass market vehicles. They're nearly pushing a rope to make this content entertaining at all. If people cared, they'd already know the history and the social implications of the technology, as well as the personalities involved. These kinds of shows are meant to bring more folks into the industry and help folks see the humanity in each other and in themselves if they're in it. Most folks don't watch tv for anything but storylines and personalities, so historical or current relevance in entertainment is something I'll take where and when I can get it.
What are some tech shows that you like, or dramas, for context?
I’m not suggesting the show should be factually accurate. I’m saying it doesn’t need pyrotechnics to be engaging.
Mr Robot was a different beast because that was literally about criminal and hacker culture. So you’d expect a little action in that regard.
To put it another way: you have shows that have strong enough writers where they don’t need gimmicks to keep your attention. And you have shows that are intentionally about the gimmicks. Then you have shows that aren’t about the gimmicks but the writers don’t have enough confidence in their work to avoid putting them in anyway.
Shows like The West Wing, House of Cards etc aren’t about gimmicks and don’t need them.
Shows like Stargate are about the gimmicks. And that’s ok too because you know it’s meant to be silly drama.
But shows like HCF feel like they should be executed like HoCs, yet they’re written like Mr Robot, Stargate, etc. So it’s very jarring to watch every time another gimmick gets thrown in. Maybe I expected too much from that show? But it just felt like they didn’t have any confidence in people’s attention spans.
What pyrotechnics are you referring to? In HCF? My complaint about this show is sort of the opposite --- that it's basically Six Feet Under, but replace the funeral home with a series of tech startups.
(I think it's a solid B-tier prestige series; I don't hate it).
Joe setting the truck full of computers on fire is the only thing that comes to mind. That was somewhat over the top and they did settle the character down somewhat in later seasons (though not completely).
That's what I'm asking! It's like, did we even watch the same show?
Not to mention, HoC had a major gimmick driving it (spacey breaking the 4th wall).
> To put it another way: you have shows that have strong enough writers where they don’t need gimmicks to keep your attention. And you have shows that are intentionally about the gimmicks. Then you have shows that aren’t about the gimmicks but the writers don’t have enough confidence in their work to avoid putting them in anyway.
Can you elaborate a bit about the gimmick(s) in Halt and Catch Fire? I think it's a drama, so there are human concerns and interactions, but that's like, what tv shows are? I don't know what you mean specifically.
> Shows like The West Wing, House of Cards etc aren’t about gimmicks and don’t need them.
The West Wing is statist propaganda for liberals. House of Cards is statist propaganda for neocons.
> Shows like Mr Robot are about the gimmicks. And that’s ok too because you know it’s meant to be silly drama.
I actually really appreciate that every hack shown on Mr. Robot had a real world POC and used actually existing tools and techniques. The storyline is hokum and gives hackers a bad name, but black hats are kinda supposed to have a bad name. Elliot is kinda gray hat, but he definitely violated CFAA multiple times and would probably be dead or in jail irl.
Silicon Cowboys[1] came out roughly the same time, and it always struck me how similar the first season of HCF was to the actual documentary of Compaq's rise
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt4938484/
> “Computers aren’t the thing; they’re the thing that gets us to the thing.”
I used to be overly pedantic about the kinds of things programmers often obsess over—like micro-benchmarks, the whole “I use Arch, by the way” attitude, and other obnoxious quirks. But this quote stuck with me and helped me move past that shallow, one-upmanship view of computers. Great show to ones who haven't watched yet.
It was observed at the time that it passed:
> The Bechdel test (/ˈbɛkdəl/ ⓘ BEK-dəl),[1] also known as the Bechdel-Wallace test, is a measure of the representation of women in film and other fiction. The test asks whether a work features at least two women who have a conversation about something other than a man. Some versions of the test also require that those two women have names.[2]
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bechdel_test
Discussed at the time (of the article):
Halt and Catch Fire Syllabus - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25912241 - Jan 2021 (173 comments)
One of the greatest shows ever created, absolutely amazing resource here.
Billion Dollar Code on Netlfix is a nice apertif to run the same experiment (watch club + research) on in a shorter commitment budget.
Very nice! Love the CRT TV style. In terms of approach I’m a bit confused by the call for a ‘book club style watch party’ and the content which follows an education course format. With the first I expect a CTA button to join a session, maybe a scheduled Discord session or Sign-Up list for interest of same. So maybe the format of the program is an online meetup, with a short talk, and then discussion. The point here is community.
With the second I expect a CTA for a course, with the end result being some type of qualification, perhaps conformance to the startup mentality of the key characters, to help people form groups. The point there is to advance projects and also set yourself up as an authority.
At the moment it feels like a not-so-strong mix of the two.
Loved the show but the biggest problem was that the same core group of characters kept being the top innovators in wave after wave of advancements. I do wonder if the writers and producers planned on handling that differently but backed out when the main characters turned out to be more popular than expected.
In season one, Joe and Gordon are the main characters, with Cameron a small step behind them. Donna and Bos were firmly secondary. In season two, Cam and Donna became the focus, Bos became more prominent, and we got a bunch of new characters. Joe and Gordon were still important but clearly had less focus on them. I have to wonder if the plan was for each season to introduce new characters who would be set up to be the season after that's main focus. The Mutiny crew could have been pioneers of gaming in the third season, with some Donna and Cam still there, and special appearances by Gordon and Joe. The new characters from that season could be the main of the internet/virus season. For consistency, Bos could have been the common thread in all of the companies as the business manager going along for the ride as the main characters innovated.
Maybe that wasn't the plan and I'm just spit balling but it would have been a nice way of handling the advancing technology without making the same characters the titans of industry constantly. Not sure how well the fans would have reacted to their favorite characters, even Cameron, being relegated and eventually ghosted.
I liked HCF as a show but I couldnt stand Cameron. It seems like you could always rely on her to do the wrong thing
Somewhere in season 2 I realized that a huge portion of Cameron was just "say something needlessly hostile or combative, then emphasize it by making your eyes really wide"
She was alright in season 1. She was young and inexperienced and she got too much shit from other people. In season 2/3 she has money and her own company and anytime anyone with more experience than her gives her even the smallest amount of advice she responds like someone is trying to break into her house. Worse, when someone has a good idea that isnt hers, she shuts it down
The point, to me, was that it’s a show about flawed people. Cameron’s flaws were frustrating sometimes, but so were Joe’s, Gordon’s, Donna’s flaws. She was chasing something… (the thing that computers get us to? Connection?) and was constantly worried someone was going to wreck it by taking it in the wrong direction. Like what happened in s01 with the interactive chat based OS she was building.
I dont remember donna having any flaws, shes just surrounded by morons and babies
When donna pointed out how popular chat was, cameron wanted to kill it because it wasnt her idea, even if it was perfectly in line with her vision for what computers could be. To me she's just an arrogant narcissist
Personally, I felt HCF was a much better reflection of the tech industry compared to Silicon Valley.
While I love both shows to death, I feel HCF really nailed a lot of the emotional and interpersonal aspects that come with entrepreneurship, venture capital, and engineering leadership.
It was also great watching HCF with my dad who started his career during the tail end of the show, and could call out a number of the technical aspects (eg. PBXes, the COBOL vs OOP wars, the search engine wars, etc).
Some of it drove me a little nuts, like s4's insistence on using Sun workstations everywhere but showing MS Windows or NeXT software running on them. Yes I know x86 boards were available but people weren't buying $30k computers just to run software designed for $3k computers.
This looks like one of the best weekend plans I've seen in a long time. Will see if anyone locally is up for it.
The length of the plan seems like a DnD campaign in terms of length though, it's roughly 3 months of consistent activities, but it may be worth it.