"O Ugly Bird!"by Manly Wade Wellman, 1963 or earlier. It’s a good story, but I doubt Wellman invented the concept
No, don’t like subtitles on for english language, never had a problem with any other show.
The makers may well have thought that was all that was needed, that everything made sense after that but for us at least it certainly didn’t. As I say, it felt rushed, far too easy to lose detail in the mass of things being thrown at the viewer in an incoherent way and it was easy to miss one bit whilst trying to understand the significance (or not) of another.
Another example would be the “all powerful magisterium” who were mentioned at the beginning and seemed to be the people in charge of the university, later on it seemed like that wasn’t the case.
Again, I come back to this from a POV of non-readers. If you have already read the book it is a bit pointless to tell me that the episode should make sense to us in and of itself.
Well this may not be the show for you then. If you are missing or mishearing certain bits of dialog subtitles would help. I often use them for dialog heavy shows, especially when the sound mix makes some things hard to hear. For instance, I had to use them for the BBC Sherlock shows with Benedict Cumberbatch because I couldn’t for the life of me understand everything they were saying even though it was in English.
I think if you are forcing viewers to use subtitles just to catch what is being said in their own language you are pretty much admitting that you are not taking as much care as you should. If you are that sloppy with something as fundamental as audio no wonder you are making mistakes elsewhere.
As I say, I’ve never experienced any problems with hearing dialogue before.
I have problems understanding the audio on a lot of BBC shows (and only BBC shows.) And it isn’t the accents causing it.
And I also have a problem with subs in English. They are no problem for me with other languages, but for some reason English subs over English dialogue really damages my suspension of disbelief that these are people playing make-believe and reading lines. It is almost like seeing them obviously read cue cards.
I have subtitles on pretty much 100 percent of the time when I’m watching something at home on my TV, or on my computer or phone. I don’t like to miss dialogue. But that’s me, I guess.
Me too. It also helps me keep track of characters’ names.
More or less they are, of a sort your soul is kept in. Pullmans extreme anti-religion bias is showing here, since he calls them deamons- pronounced “demons”- and of course they are wonderfully cuddly little things everyone would wants so that’s yet another thumb in the eye of Christians who think- with good reason (assuming they exist) - that demons are bad.
Or he could just be using the word “daemon” in its original sense–a minor deity that acts as a guardian for a person or group or as the patron for some particular activity or geographic/municipal entity.
Or he could just be using it as a spelling variation for “demon” in its original sense, whose Wiktionary definition is "familiar spirit, guardian spirit,” in which case it is an exact synonym for “familiar.”
A major difference between familiars and Pullman’s daemons is that a familiar is a separate entity. Whereas a daemon is basically part of your own brain talking to itself.
That aspect of daemons has an important bearing on the overall plot, so it might not make sense to hold on to the ‘daemons are familiars’ concept in this case.
It depends on what you mean when you say “daemons are familiars.”
I don’t think daemons are the same as familiars, FWIW. For me, the defining thing about familiars is that they are supernatural assistants to magic practitioners. If everyone has one, regardless of magic power, and they’re not considered extraordinary by the general population, then they’re not really familiars.
It is possible for them to become familiars, though - the witches’ daemons are like that, and there’s a process they go through for that to happen.
Update: watched the second episode and the good news is that it was much better. Not perfect but far better paced than the first episode and it concentrated far more on one specific situation and dealt with it in more detail.
It confirms my thoughts that the first one was just far, far too crammed. Episode one should have been spread over at least two episodes and taken its time. Notable for me that the nature of the daemons was better explored in a way that could’ve easily been introduced more clearly in an extended episode one.
If it continues more in the vein of ep2 then I think we’ll keep watching.
I don’t think anyone is saying that they are the same as familiars from any particular tradition. But they are clearly a riff on the idea of an animal familiar. As I noted in the definition above, he even uses the word “daemon,” which in one usage is a synonym for a familiar.
*bump*
Season 2 is slated for release this November. Filming was completed last fall so the bulk of the season wasn’t impacted by the pandemic. However, they were still planning on filming one standalone episode focused on what Lord Asriel was doing during the book’s timeframe, and they scrapped that. So the season will be seven episodes instead of eight.
Both HBO and BBC each released their own trailers last week.
For anyone watching season 3 and has access to the BBC iPlayer, they have just released the whole season at once.
How many episodes for season/series 3? I’m only seeing six on HBO.
Eight.