S06.E01: Joan Is Awful

[TheOtherOne]

An average woman is stunned to discover a global streaming platform has launched a prestige TV drama adaptation of her life - in which she is portrayed by Hollywood A-lister Salma Hayek.

[Arynm]

So, so good! This one really got into my head and I did not see the twist coming at all. Annie Murphy did such a good job as a woman on the edge and Salma was also fantastic.

I guess the moral of this story is read the T & C before you press accept.

ETA: I forgot that I saw a few Easter eggs especially in the new feed that the ex was reading on the toilet. I saw a Tuck reference from Hated in the Nation and I heard the song from 15 Million credits. I think it really helped that I did a bit of a rewatch before starting the season, so I noticed more because it was fresh.

Edited June 15, 2023 by Arynm
more info

[iMonrey]

Solid episode, did not see the twist, although revealing that Joan was really just an Annie Murphy likeness at the first level seemed a bit meta. Then again I wondered how many levels there were, ultimately. I mean, Joan is watching Annie play her, Annie is watching Selma play her, Selma is watching Cate Blanchett play her . . . how far up does it go? It's like a row of mirrors. Fitting I guess, for this show.

One nitpick - I know Joan signed off when she agreed to Streamberry's terms, but I still think if she could get the case in front of a jury they'd all side with her. It also seems like if Streamberry was getting all this info from her phone, she'd ditch the phone immediately. We weren't shown that she was overly reliant on it.

[Frisson]

3 hours ago, iMonrey said:

Solid episode, did not see the twist, although revealing that Joan was really just an Annie Murphy likeness at the first level seemed a bit meta. Then again I wondered how many levels there were, ultimately. I mean, Joan is watching Annie play her, Annie is watching Selma play her, Selma is watching Cate Blanchett play her . . . how far up does it go? It's like a row of mirrors. Fitting I guess, for this show.

One nitpick - I know Joan signed off when she agreed to Streamberry's terms, but I still think if she could get the case in front of a jury they'd all side with her. It also seems like if Streamberry was getting all this info from her phone, she'd ditch the phone immediately. We weren't shown that she was overly reliant on it.

Yeah, about the phone thing. When she went to the church, I thought she was trying to do something so gross people wouldn’t want to watch anymore and get arrested so that she wouldn’t have her phone to monitor her, two strategies to end the show. 

[Arynm]

She also could have gone with the route of being so boring that her show was cancelled, but I think the gross out factor worked out for her.

[Lady Calypso]

I found the episode mostly just fine, but I didn't love it as much as I hoped. I think it started off almost strong enough, though I felt like they didn't need to have Joan lose everything in the first day, but then the episode spiraled into pure comedy. I'm fine with comedy, for the most part, but I guess I like my Black Mirror episodes more dark and twisted. And I know the whole premise is still creepy and twisted, but I think they masked it too much with the comedy in the middle. 

Now, the ending and the twist was solid enough to keep this episode still watchable, but still not my favourite episode thus far. However, once I finish season 6, maybe it'll come out on top as a favourite for this season. There was still enough where I found it ok.

 

[oompa]

I thought it was a pretty good episode. Got some Thirteenth Floor vibes.

[Avaleigh]

Great opening episode. I liked the twist and thought Murphy and Hayek were great. Nice unexpected cameo from Michael Cera. 

I thought it was an interesting bit of commentary for the show regarding the Hollywood pecking order that implies Annie Murphy is basically C list in comparison to A list Cate Blanchett while Selma is somewhere in the middle as a B lister. As far as I'm concerned all three are top tier and at least as far as television goes I would definitely consider Murphy to be A list. 

[Racj82]

10 minutes ago, Avaleigh said:

Great opening episode. I liked the twist and thought Murphy and Hayek were great. Nice unexpected cameo from Michael Cera. 

I thought it was an interesting bit of commentary for the show regarding the Hollywood pecking order that implies Annie Murphy is basically C list in comparison to A list Cate Blanchett while Selma is somewhere in the middle as a B lister. As far as I'm concerned all three are top tier and at least as far as television goes I would definitely consider Murphy to be A list. 

Nah, they aren't all top tier and Murphy is not a household name at all. Speaking in general terms.

[Avaleigh]

41 minutes ago, Racj82 said:

Nah, they aren't all top tier and Murphy is not a household name at all. Speaking in general terms.

Just to be clear, I was just saying that they're all top tier from my point of view. I get that in terms of the industry standard the actresses are on different tiers. 

Regarding the episode, I liked seeing all of the Black Mirror inspired titles in the streaming service. I noticed the main character from Bandersnatch on one and Miley Cyrus in another. I love those little details.

Another thing I liked was the episode touching on was why they went with Joan Is Awful instead of Joan Is Awesome. The rationale to go negative makes sense even though it is depressingly cynical. 

[Corgi-ears]

SalmaHayeksAnus is still available as a username, everyone.

The show made several critiques, but there was one I found especially intriguing. It occurred in the scene -- which was in itself kind of a clunky, "the Big Bad Explains It All for You" scene, but never mind -- when the Streamberry CEO revealed that the streaming service will roll out individualized versions of the show for each and everyone: Fatima is Awful, Brian is Awful, etc. Why? Because viewers will "find it relatable." 

Many cultural theorists have pointed out how, in recent few years, "relatable" has become the dominant yardstick by which we measure the value of art; a Taylor Swift song is supposedly good if it is "relatable." But this means that we now treat art as a mere (black) mirror of ourselves -- instead of say, seeing art as capable of showing us people, worlds, and lives different from ours. It was nice to see the episode take this tendency to task, though I wished it was a much more sustained critique.

Edited June 16, 2023 by Corgi-ears

[PWHCHCH]

John Cera's voice was giving me Rick n Morty vibes. 

[markx]

They could have at least turned the phones off when having sex! More generally, revoke Streamberry's permissions or uninstall it from the phone (and if they're still getting the data from the phone after that somehow, that's malware and illegal).

 

I did like this episode in that it at first it seems complete fantasy, but actually could be plausible in a matter of years (at least AI or CGI being able to generate TV shows of people's lives; the twist at the end when the quantum computer running simulations of millions of lives seems more far fetched). I'd hope that such a breach of privacy would cause a public outrage.

 

I note that this Black Mirror episode reduces the chance of this particular situation happening - it'd be unoriginal now that this storyline has already been done.

 

What if someone watching tried to fast forward?

Edited June 16, 2023 by markx

[Paloma]

1 hour ago, markx said:

What if someone watching tried to fast forward?

It seemed like the fictional show was only a few minutes (or less) behind the actual events of Joan's life, so I assume that if a viewer tried to fast forward during the current day's "episode" the screen would go dark after reaching the most recent thing that happened. But it would only stay dark for a few seconds or minutes, until the quamputer caught up with what Joan was doing.

1 hour ago, markx said:

They could have at least turned the phones off when having sex!

What didn't make sense to me is how the fictional show could so exactly replicate Joan's behavior and reactions when she was alone, if they were getting the data for the script from her phone. Did they also have surveillance cameras in her apartment and car? (They probably did have a camera in her office, to surveil her and other employees.) And how did they know what was said between her and Krish outside when he was leaving and she was begging him to stay? He asked to see her phone (to see if there were texts to/from Mac) and she said her phone was inside the house--if true, her phone couldn't have been recording this interaction. But I guess his phone could have recorded it and fed the data into the computer for Joan's episode.

1 hour ago, markx said:

revoke Streamberry's permissions or uninstall it from the phone

I doubt that the permissions could be revoked, and I don't think uninstalling it from the phone would be enough if you still watch streaming shows on TV or your computer. 

 

2 hours ago, markx said:

I'd hope that such a breach of privacy would cause a public outrage.

But look how many big breaches of privacy have already happened, and people have accepted it because they want the benefits of online shopping, social media, etc. 

2 hours ago, markx said:

I note that this Black Mirror episode reduces the chance of this particular situation happening - it'd be unoriginal now that this storyline has already been done.

Netflix as well as other streamers (and regular TV producers) seem to have no problem with making shows that are unoriginal. This BM episode has probably inspired them!

@markx Sorry for quoting pieces of your comment out of order, but I was responding to what you said as things occurred to me (plus I'm not fully awake yet).

[Lady Calypso]

So, I woke up, having more issues than I initially thought I would. Which is a shame because I think the premise is interesting enough but it didn't work for me. 

First off, the lawyers basically throwing up their hands and giving up. Joan's lawyer was only hired a day prior and she was already tossing in the towel, saying "there's nothing that can be done". So, she went through the entire terms and conditions in about a day and decided there was no loophole and no way out? And her response was to ignore it, despite the fact that the show cost Joan her job?

I wish Joan had told her that, because realistically, there's no way someone would hire her if the show was still airing. It already destroyed her job once, she has proof of it. 

Also, everything happening in such a short time span didn't work for me. Almost everyone turns on Joan day 1? No questions on the show being real vs fake, just everyone around Joan buys it and turns on her? I get that the media can manipulate things and audiences can buy into things easily, but I think having two or three "episodes" airing before everyone jumps on turning on Joan would have worked better than everything happening all at once.

Also, there are moments where I questioned how Streamberry got some of those moments for their episodes. I mean, I know they explained how they could get it through Joan's phone and other ways, but man, the fact that they got shots like her fiance driving off (I'm pretty sure when she said her phone was in the house, she was telling the truth) and her walking into the restaurant didn't quite work for me. It took me out of the episode. 

Neat idea, but I don't think it worked for me. Too much suspension of disbelief, I think. But a rewatch might help after I finish season 6. 

[marny]

22 minutes ago, Lady Calypso said:

 

Also, there are moments where I questioned how Streamberry got some of those moments for their episodes. I mean, I know they explained how they could get it through Joan's phone and other ways, but man, the fact that they got shots like her fiance driving off (I'm pretty sure when she said her phone was in the house, she was telling the truth) and her walking into the restaurant didn't quite work for me. It took me out of the episode.

Streamberry would have access to any subscriber’s phones to get info since they’ve all signed the same terms and conditions. So even when Joan’s phone isn’t present, as long as another subscriber with a phone is there, Streamberry gets the info. And we saw how ubiquitous Streamberry is in that everyone had seen the show.  I mean, our phones already communicate with each other in our present world by sharing data when in  proximity. It’s why you start getting promoted ads for products your friends tell you about. They share data with the assumption that people in the same circles have the same interests. So for Joan, it’s a reasonable assumption that Streamberry was using info about her from anyone she was texting, calling, or spending time with (so long as they were Streamberry subscribers). 

Edited June 16, 2023 by marny

[cmfran]

4 hours ago, PWHCHCH said:

John Cera's voice was giving me Rick n Morty vibes. 

The entire plot had Rick and Morty vibes, but it was actually easier to follow than most recent episodes of that show.

I really liked this one. Lots of interesting social commentary as usual, and Annie Murphy was an excellent casting choice.

[Chicago Redshirt]

1 hour ago, Lady Calypso said:

So, I woke up, having more issues than I initially thought I would. Which is a shame because I think the premise is interesting enough but it didn't work for me. 

First off, the lawyers basically throwing up their hands and giving up. Joan's lawyer was only hired a day prior and she was already tossing in the towel, saying "there's nothing that can be done". So, she went through the entire terms and conditions in about a day and decided there was no loophole and no way out? And her response was to ignore it, despite the fact that the show cost Joan her job?

I wish Joan had told her that, because realistically, there's no way someone would hire her if the show was still airing. It already destroyed her job once, she has proof of it. 

Also, everything happening in such a short time span didn't work for me. Almost everyone turns on Joan day 1? No questions on the show being real vs fake, just everyone around Joan buys it and turns on her? I get that the media can manipulate things and audiences can buy into things easily, but I think having two or three "episodes" airing before everyone jumps on turning on Joan would have worked better than everything happening all at once.

Also, there are moments where I questioned how Streamberry got some of those moments for their episodes. I mean, I know they explained how they could get it through Joan's phone and other ways, but man, the fact that they got shots like her fiance driving off (I'm pretty sure when she said her phone was in the house, she was telling the truth) and her walking into the restaurant didn't quite work for me. It took me out of the episode. 

Neat idea, but I don't think it worked for me. Too much suspension of disbelief, I think. But a rewatch might help after I finish season 6. 

I don't do contract law, but there are certainly a few theories that could probably be applied in this case. This seems to be a contract of adhesion, where Streamberry set out all the terms and Joan and other consumers had no power to actually bargain over them. Moreover, Streamberry is making a profit from the show and Joan is getting paid nothing. 

I would say that eventually some lawyer would/should say "I don't care that it seems a for-sure loser legally. Nothing is a for-sure loser legally until a judge says it is. We'll try to put public pressure on Streamberry so they have no choice but to drop it."

Indeed,  that Streamberry could make about literally any subscriber into a "___________ is awful" show to broadcast universally without their knowledge or consent and that would be a largely accurate portrayal of their daily lives would probably cause Streamberry to lose its entire subscriber base overnight, other than a few super-narcissists who would enjoy the existence of a quasi-reality show about them more than they would fear the possibility that it would affect their real life. 

It's not clear to me if  the show streams what happened 24/7 on some level of delay or if it condenses a day's adventures into an hour-long program. If it's the former, it seems like there would be a lot of downtime, or relatively unwatchable stuff. 

I imagine a quantum computer can extrapolate and do the equivalent of poetic license to duplicate/embellish on what had happened, and that people's phones aren't the only places from which it can derive data.

[Lady Calypso]

1 hour ago, Chicago Redshirt said:

It's not clear to me if  the show streams what happened 24/7 on some level of delay or if it condenses a day's adventures into an hour-long program. If it's the former, it seems like there would be a lot of downtime, or relatively unwatchable stuff. 

It condenses an entire day into an hour, I'm fairly certain. Because, on day 1, Joan and her fiancé are watching the first episode, they see the snippets of Joan's day that we saw, as Joan is coming back into the house after her fiancé left to see the scene of her fiancé driving away.

2 hours ago, marny said:

Streamberry would have access to any subscriber’s phones to get info since they’ve all signed the same terms and conditions. So even when Joan’s phone isn’t present, as long as another subscriber with a phone is there, Streamberry gets the info. And we saw how ubiquitous Streamberry is in that everyone had seen the show.  I mean, our phones already communicate with each other in our present world by sharing data when in  proximity. It’s why you start getting promoted ads for products your friends tell you about. They share data with the assumption that people in the same circles have the same interests. So for Joan, it’s a reasonable assumption that Streamberry was using info about her from anyone she was texting, calling, or spending time with (so long as they were Streamberry subscribers). 

If this is the case, in hindsight, couldn't Joan just lock herself in a room with no technology for a few days to get them to stop? I mean, there's no fun when she can't be watched or tracked and should theoretically cancel the show. It may be a boring option, but I wonder if that would have helped. They can't film her if they can't find her. 

I feel like there would be solutions that could unravel Streamberry's whole plan, although I guess they would just move on to their next consumer to target. Hence why destroying the machine was the only option, at that point. It's why THAT aspect worked for me. I actually did like the ending, for the most part, and the episode had some great ideas. I think that I mostly just couldn't handwave a couple of things in the episode. 

I will say, I did like the CEO's explanation as to why they choose a more negative approach, as it tested better. That was a great moment.

[iMonrey]

12 hours ago, Lady Calypso said:

I'm fine with comedy, for the most part, but I guess I like my Black Mirror episodes more dark and twisted.

Nothing compares to the first two seasons that were strictly UK productions, for sheer creepiness and darkness.

Quote

revoke Streamberry's permissions or uninstall it from the phone (and if they're still getting the data from the phone after that somehow, that's malware and illegal).

I wondered about that, but it's possible one of the terms of conditions was that they could not revoke their permission even if they cancelled their subscription.

Quote

Joan's lawyer was only hired a day prior and she was already tossing in the towel, saying "there's nothing that can be done". So, she went through the entire terms and conditions in about a day and decided there was no loophole and no way out? And her response was to ignore it, despite the fact that the show cost Joan her job?

This is the part I had the hardest time with. Clearly the streamer had buried something nefarious deep within 54 pages of small print. I'd almost think any lawyer would jump at the chance to contest it in a court of law. Any jury member would see Joan as a victim of trickery. I get that the onus is on the consumer to read the fine print but there isn't a realistic expectation that someone is going to go through that much of it just to subscribe to a streamer, or expect an outcome like this one.

Quote

Indeed,  that Streamberry could make about literally any subscriber into a "___________ is awful" show to broadcast universally without their knowledge or consent and that would be a largely accurate portrayal of their daily lives would probably cause Streamberry to lose its entire subscriber base overnight, other than a few super-narcissists who would enjoy the existence of a quasi-reality show about them more than they would fear the possibility that it would affect their real life.

Yeah - that too. It doesn't sound like a successful business model.

[marny]

2 hours ago, Chicago Redshirt said:

Indeed,  that Streamberry could make about literally any subscriber into a "___________ is awful" show to broadcast universally without their knowledge or consent and that would be a largely accurate portrayal of their daily lives would probably cause Streamberry to lose its entire subscriber base overnight, other than a few super-narcissists who would enjoy the existence of a quasi-reality show about them more than they would fear the possibility that it would affect their real life. 

LOL, certainly no one would ever willingly agree to be part of a reality-type show that engaged in creative editing to dramatize things or make you seem worse than you are.  That's why reality TV has been such a failure :)

[Chicago Redshirt]

14 minutes ago, iMonrey said:

This is the part I had the hardest time with. Clearly the streamer had buried something nefarious deep within 54 pages of small print. I'd almost think any lawyer would jump at the chance to contest it in a court of law. Any jury member would see Joan as a victim of trickery. I get that the onus is on the consumer to read the fine print but there isn't a realistic expectation that someone is going to go through that much of it just to subscribe to a streamer, or expect an outcome like this one.

Hypothetically, the case would never get to a jury. Juries are used to determine facts and to apply those facts to law. In this case, there is no dispute about the facts. Everyone will agree that Joan signed up for Streamberry and clicked OK on the terms and conditions to indicate she accepted them without reading the details, and that the terms and conditions of Streamberry expressly allow them to create "Joan Is Awful" without any further consent and without paying Joan anything additional for that.

A judge can then analyze the law to see if Joan has any recourse.

Putting aside that it's portrayed in the world of this show as a sure loser, there are at least a couple other reasons I could see why a lawyer might not want to participate in this lawsuit:

1. Going up against the (presumably) well-funded army of Streamberry lawyers might make one think twice

2. Joining the lawsuit means that you are subject to at a minimum being a guest-star in "Joan Is Awful" and probably inspiring Streamberry to create a "__________ is awful" about you if you are a subscriber.

[Chicago Redshirt]

9 minutes ago, marny said:

LOL, certainly no one would ever willingly agree to be part of a reality-type show that engaged in creative editing to dramatize things or make you seem worse than you are.  That's why reality TV has been such a failure :)

Well, I would say most of the people who are on reality TV fall into the category of super-narcissists. :)

But there are a couple key differences between our reality TV and what "Joan Is Awful" that would probably give many of them pause for actually going along with the latter: 

Reality TV stars are getting paid, they generally have at least some say in how they are portrayed, and the people who are doing the editing have some standards that they go by that you can reasonably trust.

With the Streamberry "________ Is Awful" type of series, you aren't getting anything for being in them, you can't at all control your image or what is edited, and you can't necessarily trust them to filter in or out things to preserve some level of privacy.

As we saw with the show, talking to your therapist is no longer confidential. Having sex could directly be on the show. If you use an ATM or enter a password, there's a chance that could be captured.

[tennisgurl]

That was a really good first episode, they really hit the ground running with the meta narrative. I didn't see the twist coming with Joan being Annie Murphy playing Joan, for a crazy second I thought that Joan might be one of the cookie people copies we've seen in the show a few times, but this twist worked better for what the show was going for. So many levels. 

A lot to unpack in this one, AI created art, tech companies hiding privacy violations in the fine print of contracts, how people tend to view themselves, but I think one of the most interesting aspects was how we view the "jerk gets what's coming to them" trope you see in a lot of media, especially in anthology shows like this. Black Mirror has always been interested in deconstructing our desire to watch bad things happening to bad people, usually by asking what that says about us and if what we are watching is really proportionate to what this person is dealing with. Joan isn't all that bad really, but she does a lot of not very likable stuff so at first you feel like she's getting some quick karma, but as the episode goes you start feeling more for her and in the end, everyone has those moments that make you look awful as well as moments where you look great, just we focus on the awful parts so much more.

Annie Murphy was great and Salma Hayek was an absolute blast, they had great chemistry. "Please don't kill me Salma Hayek!" 

Even if Joan and Salma did sign contracts, you would think their lawyers would at least try to make some moves, even if it ends up mostly being the court of public opinion. When everyone realizes what not Netflix is up to with their "...is Awful" series, I bet most people would side with Joan, especially if they find out that they have their own show coming to show the world how awful they are.

Edited June 16, 2023 by tennisgurl

[Chicago Redshirt]

1 hour ago, tennisgurl said:

When everyone realizes what not Netflix is up to with their "...is Awful" series, I bet most people would side with Joan.

Would we, though? 

Maybe I'm a tad cynical, but I tend to think if "Joan is awful" was trashy fun enough, a lot of viewers would ignore the harm it was doing and could do in the future to Source Joan, the fact that she essentially got tricked into signing away her rights, and that she's not getting paid.

I tend to think that the main thing that would stop it was the notion of "Hey, they could make '________ is awful' about me next and are apparently planning to do that."

[tennisgurl]

Just now, Chicago Redshirt said:

I tend to think that the main thing that would stop it was the notion of "Hey, they could make '________ is awful' about me next and are apparently planning to do that."

That's what I meant, I think I phrased it poorly. People might be fine with watching how some other random person sucks, but when its their life on screen I think they wont be so into it. 

When Joan was in the church and about to take a dump, my internet stalled and started doing the little loading circle, and I just sat there watching it for an embarrassingly long time because I thought that it was just a part of the show. 

[Hanahope]

I was wondering if the making of the "show" got the final greenlight when Joan told her therapist she wanted to be the star of her own show.  like there needed to be a final confirmation/acceptance that Joan saw herself as a show 'character'.  

[Penman61]

Loved this episode. I literally LOLed a few times, and I'm fine with BM expanding its tonal range. (I'm less sanguine about its leaping completely out of its topic universe, as happens in later eps this season.) 

I've seen more than one critic (respectable, mainstream) begin their reviews with something like "Joan is Awful is about Joan...who is awful." But she's not! That's a key point in the satire, in that Joan is pretty average, and we catch her on a day when she does two ambivalent but easily vilified things: firing an employee at the behest of her bosses, and seeing her hot ex for dinner as she's finding her fiancé a bit humdrum. That's it. That is not "awful." I mean, the point the ep is making is, by now, standard reality show technique--villain edits, after all, are a thing--so I'm surprised to see professionals missing this obvious point: Joan isn't awful; Joan is Awful is awful.
 

Edited June 17, 2023 by Penman61

[krankydoodle]

This was fun, even though the reveal kind of made my head hurt.

I like Rob Delaney, but when Joan described her irresistible ex and he showed up I didn't really buy it, so I laughed when they had him played by Ben Barnes in the show because that's definitely more like what I imagined.

I'm glad we got a surprisingly sweet ending to kick the season off with.

ETA: I liked how in the after credits scene we see the real Joan in the church and unlike the Annie Murphy version, she's much more subdued and keeps apologizing so that version of Joan wasn't accurate either.

Edited June 17, 2023 by krankydoodle

[Kel Varnsen]

I liked this one. The twist was solid and I liked that it was basically just a deep fake, not they had somehow managed to download Salma Hayek's brain into the computer. I did like how Annie and real Joan became friends at the end.

On 6/15/2023 at 5:17 PM, iMonrey said:

One nitpick - I know Joan signed off when she agreed to Streamberry's terms, but I still think if she could get the case in front of a jury they'd all side with her. It also seems like if Streamberry was getting all this info from her phone, she'd ditch the phone immediately. We weren't shown that she was overly reliant on it.

The obvious solution would be to only hang out with people who didn't have streamberry accounts for awhile. Since they don't have accounts they didn't sign the terms of service. So if the show tries to feature them, they can sue.

The hilarious solution would be to go the 30 Rock route and everytime you say a sentence say it in the tune of a popular song, so they have to pay the rights if they want to use it. 

I think in reality what kind of made this work is it happened over a few days. Because longer than that and just getting the word out about what is in those terms of service would cause everyone to cancel their accounts.

[SourK]

I have the same gripes that have already been mentioned -- why not throw your phone away? Why not try being boring? -- Charlie Brooker always envisions a universe where no one can nope out of anything. I don't get why, but it's been like that since episode one.

Anyway, as much as I like the twist in principle, I don't think it was executed well. It doesn't make sense to me that Michael Cera was able to explain to fake!Joan that she was part of the simulation, if he was supposed to be parroting the explanation OG Joan got (in which she would have been told she was real, not part of the simulation.) Also, if the simulation is happening at a delay, why were they even able to get to the part where they destroyed the computer? Wouldn't they have all disappeared before that?

I get that that stuff's there to help the audience understand WTF's happening but I would have liked it so much more if we had been allowed to believe fake!Joan was the OG Joan up until the computer got destroyed, and then we cut to the epilogue with OG Joan and Annie Murphy and put the pieces together.

[Avaleigh]

2 hours ago, Penman61 said:

I've seen more than one critic (respectable, mainstream) begin their reviews with something like "Joan is Awful is about Joan...who is awful." But she's not! That's a key point in the satire, in that Joan is pretty average, and we catch her on a day when she does two ambivalent but easily vilified things: firing an employee at the behest of her bosses, and seeing her hot ex for dinner as she's finding her fiancé a bit humdrum. That's it. That is not "awful." I mean, the point the ep is making is, by now, standard reality show technique--villain edits, after all, are a thing--so I'm surprised to see professionals missing this obvious point: Joan isn't awful; Joan is Awful is awful.

I agree with you that she isn't as awful as Joan is Awful makes her out to be. That being said, I thought there were other indicators apart from the two things you mention to show she had a few issues. 

One thing was her being overly critical of the coffee that was brought to her on two different occasions. The first time it was the assistant who brought it to her and she basically made him feel like he was lacking by giving her subpar coffee. Yes, the coffee probably wasn't good but I felt like it indicated that maybe she wasn't easy to please. Later, when she gets coffee while she's with the therapist, she immediately insults it, so to me it gave the impression that she's not always easy to deal with. 

Regarding firing the employee, I think it was her overall lack of empathy that made her seem pretty awful in that moment. Yes, she has to do this but unless I'm misremembering, she didn't indicate at any point that she wished this hadn't happened or maybe say something about how she spoke up for her to the big bosses but they weren't receptive; she also didn't say anything about being willing to give her a recommendation. I just felt like there were ways she might have tried to soften the blow.

With the boyfriend Krish, it wasn't just that she saw another guy behind his back, but she lied to his face when he asked to see her phone. I thought that was mean. She was treating him like he was stupid. That's on top of not being nice about his cooking. 

All this being said, I still agree that she wasn't that bad and didn't deserve to have her life trashed by Streamberry.

[Kel Varnsen]

So I was just thinking, if the show we were watching (with Annie Murphy as Joan) was the same show that real Joan was watching, did the computer making that show also have to figure out the scene where Salma Hayek went to see her lawyer, even though no one would see it. Since if real Joan is watching Joan is Awful, why would it show a scene with SH and her lawyer? But then does that mean that the computer is plotting out and running the lives of every person who comes in contact with Joan, even if it doesn't make it on the show?

[Dena0033]

Another Easter Egg - forget who was scrolling social media at one point (Krish maybe?) but there was a recipe post from Lacie Pound.

[Brn2bwild]

56 minutes ago, Kel Varnsen said:

So I was just thinking, if the show we were watching (with Annie Murphy as Joan) was the same show that real Joan was watching, did the computer making that show also have to figure out the scene where Salma Hayek went to see her lawyer, even though no one would see it. Since if real Joan is watching Joan is Awful, why would it show a scene with SH and her lawyer? But then does that mean that the computer is plotting out and running the lives of every person who comes in contact with Joan, even if it doesn't make it on the show?

Wouldn't she have been watching Annie Murphy go to her lawyer?

[ExMathMajor]

I laughed a lot more than I normally do at a Black Mirror episode, so that makes it a win for me. I enjoyed the meta.

I was also reminded of the early days of streaming/vlogging when someone would basically leave a camera on in their room and people could see everything that happened in that room, no matter how mundane it was. 20 years ago, maybe? There were some who foretold that if this were to become popular and it were monetized and corporatized somehow, privacy lawyers would have a field day. And...here we are! Welcome to the future! 😂

[Kel Varnsen]

3 hours ago, Brn2bwild said:

Wouldn't she have been watching Annie Murphy go to her lawyer?

Not sure what you mean. In the version we were watching Annie Murphy was playing Joan and Salma was playing herself. We saw Salma go to her lawyer, by herself. But that entire world was computer generated and was supposed to be the story of Joan. So what was the purpose of the computer generating the scene with Salma and her lawyer? Did anyone in real Joan's world see that scene?

Edited June 17, 2023 by Kel Varnsen

[QQQQ]

I still find myself stupidly mumbling, "How does it know?!" several times a week when the ads on Amazon, Facebook, Chrome, etc. all align with what I've been researching, listening to on podcasts, and/or shopping for. AI is going to roll me (if it hasn't already). 😅

[jacehan]

15 hours ago, Avaleigh said:

I agree with you that she isn't as awful as Joan is Awful makes her out to be. That being said, I thought there were other indicators apart from the two things you mention to show she had a few issues. 

One thing was her being overly critical of the coffee that was brought to her on two different occasions. The first time it was the assistant who brought it to her and she basically made him feel like he was lacking by giving her subpar coffee. Yes, the coffee probably wasn't good but I felt like it indicated that maybe she wasn't easy to please. Later, when she gets coffee while she's with the therapist, she immediately insults it, so to me it gave the impression that she's not always easy to deal with. 

Regarding firing the employee, I think it was her overall lack of empathy that made her seem pretty awful in that moment. Yes, she has to do this but unless I'm misremembering, she didn't indicate at any point that she wished this hadn't happened or maybe say something about how she spoke up for her to the big bosses but they weren't receptive; she also didn't say anything about being willing to give her a recommendation. I just felt like there were ways she might have tried to soften the blow.

With the boyfriend Krish, it wasn't just that she saw another guy behind his back, but she lied to his face when he asked to see her phone. I thought that was mean. She was treating him like he was stupid. That's on top of not being nice about his cooking. 

All this being said, I still agree that she wasn't that bad and didn't deserve to have her life trashed by Streamberry.

But did she actually do those things? We already saw that the Salma Hayek version of Joan was notably worse than the Annie Murphy version. We have to therefore assume that the Annie Murphy version is notably worse than Source Joan.

[Avaleigh]

15 minutes ago, jacehan said:

But did she actually do those things? We already saw that the Salma Hayek version of Joan was notably worse than the Annie Murphy version. We have to therefore assume that the Annie Murphy version is notably worse than Source Joan.

Good point. I guess real life Joan probably just said something about the coffee being average and that got blown up into the coffee being garbage. I wonder if the stuff with the ex boyfriend was equally innocuous?

[Joimiaroxeu]

Selma Hayak bouncing to Saweetie was not something I ever expected to see.

"Selma Hayak's anus" was not a phrase I ever expected to hear in my entire life.

Quam-puta. Wonder if the Cate Blanchett version of Joan said that? Seems unlikely since Spanish isn't her first language.

I didn't hate this season opener but thought it was too Inception-ish.

[benteen]

My favorite episode in what was a great season. The concept was a lot if fun (loved all those easter eggs woth the other streaming shows) and I didn't see that twist coming at tbe end. I've been a fan of Annie Murphy since Schitt's Creek. She wss excellent and Selma Hayeck was great fun.

I agree that the obvious solution is to get rid of her phone. I guess it's a commentary on how people are unable or unwilling to get rid of their phones even when it is actively ruining them.

[Brn2bwild]

18 minutes ago, benteen said:

My favorite episode in what was a great season.

This season is such a marked improvement over Season 5, maybe even Season 4.  Usually there are 1-2 episodes I never want to watch again (ex: Metalhead) but I'd be willing to watch any episode of this season again.

[DoctorAtomic]

On 6/15/2023 at 3:17 PM, iMonrey said:

It also seems like if Streamberry was getting all this info from her phone, she'd ditch the phone immediately.

I was asking what would happen if she just canceled her subscription to Streamberry. Wouldn't it make the terms void? Or just go hide like you all said.

I was entertained, but I think the show was trying to be a touch too clever. It seemed like the entire pitch was "let's get Salma Hayek to play a Kill Bill version of herself". She was even wearing the outfit.

I would have been more interested if in fact this was reality, but the plot was Joan being clever about getting one over on Streamberry with the help of Salma Hayek.

Taking that the lawyers immediately threw in the towel with a lot of grains of salt. I think it would have been better if they were both saying "I don't want to pursue this because I don't want to be on the show". 

[jacehan]

Another thought related to my last post and the lawyers. What if the real lawyers did say they could fight it, but obviously Streamberry didn't want to show that? So it's not part of the fictive levels we saw.

[DoctorAtomic]

Streamberry wasn't actually programming the quam-puta from what I gathered. It was making the show based on the day's events. Streamberry may have given it initial conditions, like 'make Joan awful', but I think that was it. 

I don't know if I'm reading in too deep, but it points out the fundamental flaws in AI for me. Streamberry was biasing the show in a certain direction and the quam-puta was basically directing the show to that end. 

In the real world, it may have been that the lawyers were more sympathetic, or maybe tried a little harder before running into the dead end. 

The other thing I slightly dispute was that Source Joan was so shunned from people watching Annie-as-Joan. That first level, which was what we were watching, wasn't *that* bad. No one was sympathetic at all? For a show so much based (justifiably) on the social ills of living on the phone, I'm surprised she didn't galvanize some social movement. *Everyone* being cynical seemed a bit much. I suppose the assistant was sympathetic. 

I would have liked to see Source Joan filming literally everything, and just bringing tons and tons of more characters into the show. Then people would be taking notice. 

Edited June 20, 2023 by DoctorAtomic

[Kel Varnsen]

13 hours ago, jacehan said:

Another thought related to my last post and the lawyers. What if the real lawyers did say they could fight it, but obviously Streamberry didn't want to show that? So it's not part of the fictive levels we saw.

I wonder if the computer could make that big of a change. Because Annie Murphy Joan said she had to smash the computer because that is what real Joan did. As for the lawyer though what shocked me is that they, especially Salman's lawyer who knows she is rich, would turn down the chance to rack up a ton of billable hours just because they can't win the case.

[DoctorAtomic]

Upthread the comment was made that maybe the lawyer didn't want to get roped into the show. 

[millennium]

Joan's Hair Is Awful.

More Salma Fucking Hayek, please.

[Spaceman Spiff]

The only episode I liked out of an extremely boring season.

Salma Hayek saying "Fuck Cate Blanchett" with suck vigor made me laugh.