Marvel's Jessica Jones - Official Trailer #2 - Shot on RED

[Maik Müller]

Been watching the show the last few days, seems like it would look amazing if the bitrate was 100x higher. I hate streaming passionately and I kind of also hate everyone who can't tell the difference because if they'd wake up and complain to their ISPs maybe our internet wouldn't be a fraction the speed of the rest of the developed world.

Streaming is a good thing. Lots of advantages. ...and some disadvantages, especially if you have a slow internet-connection.
I wish Netflix would add a cache-feature, like AmazonPrime has it and every other download-service too.

But, when it works, it can be great. We have reached a point where streaming already beats physical media in usability and economy, can even do the same in terms of quality.

And without streaming and all the new services there wouldn't be "Jessica Jones" at all, or "House of Cards". And you wouldn't have a chance to see it in 4k right now.

 

[Ben Scott]

No idea what it's like in other countries but the bitrates of terrestrial digital television are low low and crappy that Netflix and Amazon look stunning by comparison, even if it's obvious they are fairly crappy too.

 

[Christoffer Glans]

No idea what it's like in other countries but the bitrates of terrestrial digital television are low low and crappy that Netflix and Amazon look stunning by comparison, even if it's obvious they are fairly crappy too.

I have a reasonably high internet connection at 120 mb/s down and 50mbit/s up and I reach a level of quality that is on par with bluray through Netflix. I haven't seen any other, including traditional broadcast, that have ever reached that level of quality, not even youtube or vimeo manage it. There's some special sause in there, I only hoped HBO would fix their streaming to be on the same standard. HBO nordic even has the wrong framerate sometimes, which means that shows "stutter" in every camera movement.

 

[Josh K]

Streaming in UHD by Netflix Spain is amazing. I have a Samsung sUHD screen and a 100Mb cable connection and you can see the detail and even the grain perfectly, with no macroblocking or anything.

Yeah, that's what should happen, but connections in the US are spectacularly lucky to reach 2-5Mb sustained speeds.

Streaming is a good thing. Lots of advantages. ...and some disadvantages, especially if you have a slow internet-connection.
I wish Netflix would add a cache-feature, like AmazonPrime has it and every other download-service too.

But, when it works, it can be great. We have reached a point where streaming already beats physical media in usability and economy, can even do the same in terms of quality.

And without streaming and all the new services there wouldn't be "Jessica Jones" at all, or "House of Cards". And you wouldn't have a chance to see it in 4k right now.

I agree that streaming would be a good thing IF there was a way to get decent quality. Now, there isn't. Even if you had a good connection or a cache feature, the content is encoded at such a low bitrate for those with bad connections who don't want to cache that it wouldn't make much difference. Or to put it another way, you already don't have a chance to see those shows in 4K, not really. And I also disagree that they wouldn't exist without streaming. It's digital distribution they wouldn't exist without, that doesn't have to mean streaming. I see no reason that they couldn't be offered as DRMed or time-limited downloads sort of like iTunes rentals (do they do that anymore?).

 

[Nick Morrison]

I've always assumed American internet providers have had a vested interest in throttling download/streaming speeds as a means of protecting their terrestrial cable boxes. Don't forget, most of us in the US pay the same company for both CABLE TV and INTERNET. If one was vastly superior to the other (ie streaming at 100mbs per sec), I have to imagine it could threaten the integrity and financial viability of the other (stagnating 1080i cable boxes)?

It's a shame, but appears to be a financial reality here.

 

[Daniel Reed]

I am not a fan.

Jessica Jones on Netflix was a huge disappointment and not worthy of binge watching. While it did have a cool title sequence, the show was not good. Compared to Daredevil it downright sucks. Considering the source material, its a damn shame. If you watch the first season of House of Cards, also a Netflix original, then you know the PG treatment of this show was not required. For example, in the show they replaced her trademark "Fuck" catchphrase w/ "Shit" or "Crap". The sex scenes were so watered down, w/ the exception of the desk tease by the secretary, that I frequently got tossed out of the moment wondering why they bothered to show them(sheets wrapped over obvious no fly zones has no place in modern film craft). The writing and narrative structure was awful; it was as if the creative team desperately wanted to tell their own story but didn't know what to write - no thematic premise! The acting all around was bad - I blame the directoring naturally. Frankly, I found myself completely uninterested in watching episodes back to back. I had to force myself to finish the series. The ending was one of the worst of recent memory. As is, it would have been better if cut down into a 2 hour movie. I hope someone who has guts makes a more authentic Jessica Jones movie one day.

If you forget the source material and treat the show as-is, its a less then so-so experience that feels dead in the water from the get go.

 

[Ben Scott]

I thought it was excellent. A show of that type with a female lead that wasn't afraid to show someone as vulnerable as well as tough but not as a caricature. A victim of abuse but not a victim.

Couldn't care less about the course material. The only negative is it appears every single person who starred in it, presumably at this rate including all the extras too, is getting their own Marvel series at some point.

 

[Steven Hammer]

I really enjoyed it. I had no problem getting sucked into it. I know nothing of the source material, and, sure, the sheets covering up nudity in the sex scenes was a little distracting, but it's Marvel. I just don't see them ever having nudity in any of their movies/shows.

 

[Daniel Reed]

look at the sex scenes in the season 1 reboot of house of cards on netflix

I really enjoyed it. I had no problem getting sucked into it. I know nothing of the source material, and, sure, the sheets covering up nudity in the sex scenes was a little distracting, but it's Marvel. I just don't see them ever having nudity in any of their movies/shows.

frankly, watered down attempts at sexual tension have no place in modern works.

As I wrote before, the only sexual tension scene they got right in JJ was the desk tease scene.
If memory serves correctly, it was in episode 10

 

[Lee Saxon]

sure, the sheets covering up nudity in the sex scenes was a little distracting, but it's Marvel. I just don't see them ever having nudity in any of their movies/shows.

I agree, but I say in that case the thing to do is leave them out entirely, not do them halfway. But then I don't think I've ever seen a sex scene I didn't think would've been better left out, so I'm biased.

 

[Ben Scott]

I can't believe I am saying this, but I am finding the unnecessary shoehorning of nudity and sex scenes in a lot of tv boring and borderline embarrassing these days.

The scenes in JJ weren't weren't gratuitous or supposed to be particularly prurient. It was two broken but unbreakable people finding solace in each other. It completely served the story.

 

[Zeb B]

Scarlett Johansson lite ;-)

 

[Lee Saxon]

I can't believe I am saying this, but I am finding the unnecessary shoehorning of nudity and sex scenes in a lot of tv boring and borderline embarrassing these days.

The scenes in JJ weren't weren't gratuitous or supposed to be particularly prurient. It was two broken but unbreakable people finding solace in each other. It completely served the story.

I don't think anyone's saying that their having sex didn't serve the story, just that awkwardly and obnoxiously filming that sex didn't serve the story.

In other words you're absolutely right that shoehorning in nudity just to be gratuitous is borderline embarrassing (and that's a nice way of putting it), but so is shoehorning in a sheet over a woman's butt (or magically appearing underwear) during sex just to avoid nudity. I think some people are saying just go all the way and show everything, but I lean the other direction and say just make it clear what's about to happen and then cut away to something that actually advances the story (which awkward fake moaning does not).

 

[Steven Hammer]

I can't believe I am saying this, but I am finding the unnecessary shoehorning of nudity and sex scenes in a lot of tv boring and borderline embarrassing these days.

The scenes in JJ weren't weren't gratuitous or supposed to be particularly prurient. It was two broken but unbreakable people finding solace in each other. It completely served the story.

EXACTLY! The sex scenes in Jessica Jones could not have been left out. They were important character development, and, really, also kind of cool to think about what sex between two superheroes would be like. Pretty damn intense. Borderline violent. But, not really violent, because they can take it. They couldn't show that dynamic without showing the sex.

While it was a little distracting that they had sheets covering them, really, who cares. Maybe Marvel doesn't want to show nudity. Maybe the actors don't want to show nudity. Maybe the sheets allowed them to show a view that, without the sheets would be X-rated. It's really just a complete non-issue to me (meaning IMO).

 

[Ben Scott]

I don't think anyone's saying that their having sex didn't serve the story, just that awkwardly and obnoxiously filming that sex didn't serve the story.

In other words you're absolutely right that shoehorning in nudity just to be gratuitous is borderline embarrassing (and that's a nice way of putting it), but so is shoehorning in a sheet over a woman's butt (or magically appearing underwear) during sex just to avoid nudity. I think some people are saying just go all the way and show everything, but I lean the other direction and say just make it clear what's about to happen and then cut away to something that actually advances the story (which awkward fake moaning does not).

I don't think it is any more diverting than Breaking Bad having ultra violence but no nudity and a limit on swear words per season.

or walking dead for that matter.


I felt with JJ the sex scenes were important, and the 'type' of sex just as important to the story. Couldn't care less about the nudity.

 

[Christoffer Glans]

EXACTLY! The sex scenes in Jessica Jones could not have been left out. They were important character development, and, really, also kind of cool to think about what sex between two superheroes would be like. Pretty damn intense. Borderline violent. But, not really violent, because they can take it. They couldn't show that dynamic without showing the sex.

While it was a little distracting that they had sheets covering them, really, who cares. Maybe Marvel doesn't want to show nudity. Maybe the actors don't want to show nudity. Maybe the sheets allowed them to show a view that, without the sheets would be X-rated. It's really just a complete non-issue to me (meaning IMO).

Coming from one of the most progressive countries I really don't understand why woman always covers their breasts with beed sheets in movies. I understand if the actors don't want to show their naked bodies, but based purely on censorship it's weird when it's a series aimed for adults. Nudity in films should in my opinion only be held back by either what the actor is comfortable of doing and what is correct for the character/story and how it is in the real world. Otherwise it feels fake as hell. I don't know what Krysten Ritter was comfortable of doing, but for the character it seems odd that this punk-like devil-may-care Jessica would be so prudish that she would cover herself up after sex. It's wrong for the character, even if it's a minor thing. But every time that happen I'm pulled out of the story and realize, yeah... censorship.

Other than that, I really liked this series. I felt though that there were some illogical threads in the story, some choices that were a bit strange arc-wise etc. but it's hell of a lot better than most series right now. I just felt that they should have really gone dark and big with Kilgrave. The personal story is there, but it could have been enhanced by choices for Jessica to be or not to be the hero-type she dislikes of being. I mean, in the comics, she attacks the avengers while under Kilgraves influence, making Jessica a threat to them on false grounds. It would have been a greater tie in with the rest of the Marvel universe.

 

[Ben Scott]

Why is it a series aimed at adults? It's a Marvel superhero show with no nudity or swearing and it is certainly not as dark or violent as Daredevil.

 

[Matt Hall]

I am finding the unnecessary shoehorning of nudity and sex scenes in a lot of tv boring and borderline embarrassing these days.

This is pretty much exactly the conversation that I had with my wife while watching the first episode of JJ.

I think it's another evidence of storytelling dying. More people should study Robert Mckee's book, Story.

 

[Christoffer Glans]

Why is it a series aimed at adults? It's a Marvel superhero show with no nudity or swearing and it is certainly not as dark or violent as Daredevil.

Because of the subjects the story tells. It's not the old hero of a thousand faces old greek style god-story of big powers that clash. This is about more down to earth complex and darker themes that while shouldn't be left out as subjects for younger people, they are told here in a more mature way and aimed for older audiences. Tell me, don't you see a difference between a series like S.H.I.E.L.D, Avengers and a serie like Jessica Jones? When talking about the themes and how the story is told?

This is pretty much exactly the conversation that I had with my wife while watching the first episode of JJ.

I think it's another evidence of storytelling dying. More people should study Robert Mckee's book, Story.

Or not, just read screenplays, both bad and good and watch a lot of movies, both bad and good. Most screenwriters say the same thing, don't jump into these "guru"-books. While Mckee's book might be a good starting point for people who are completely new to storytelling, I would not suggest studying it. If you do, it would probably be giving you more writers block than without. Also, it doesn't take basic understanding of story for someone to realize what's illogical and dissonant about certain characters and choices. Just study what makes them tick and it's easy to spot what's wrong.

People shouldn't study storytelling guru-books, they should study people and behavioral science... that's more helpful in building realistic characters with real goals and problems.

 

[Ben Scott]

An adult show these days is one that deals with people trying to pay their mortgage or talking about complex emotions.. This deals with superheroes and supervillains with special powers. We've come a long way in what is acceptable on tv these days but that doesn't mean the target demographic still isn't 16-35 year olds.