SILO- A Show About Loss of Faith and Trust

[HappyJackWagon]

Curious if anyone has watched SILO on Apple TV.

Quote

Synopsis: In a bleak dystopian future, humanity clings to survival deep underground within the confines of a colossal silo. Juliette, an engineer tasked with unraveling the mystery behind the death of a colleague, uncovers startling secrets that threaten the very fabric of their enclosed world. Based on the novel "Wool" by Hugh Howey.

Without giving any spoilers: this show attempts to illustrate the pain, confusion, and intrigue of a relatively small group of people whose very survival depends upon their acceptance of truth claims about why they live the way they live and what will happen to them if they leave the security of the Silo. Their lives also depend upon an unwavering trust of their current leaders as well as the narratives that originated with their predecessors. Strange things are afoot. Some choose to question. Others won't even consider that their beliefs could be incorrect.

In short, this show could be viewed as an allegory for faith crisis and/or the process of questioning ones essential beliefs. 

Anyone have any thoughts about this show and the limitations of the allegory?

[CA Steve]

Sounds a lot like The Village

[CV75]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Curious if anyone has watched SILO on Apple TV.

Without giving any spoilers: this show attempts to illustrate the pain, confusion, and intrigue of a relatively small group of people whose very survival depends upon their acceptance of truth claims about why they live the way they live and what will happen to them if they leave the security of the Silo. Their lives also depend upon an unwavering trust of their current leaders as well as the narratives that originated with their predecessors. Strange things are afoot. Some choose to question. Others won't even consider that their beliefs could be incorrect.

In short, this show could be viewed as an allegory for faith crisis and/or the process of questioning ones essential beliefs. 

Anyone have any thoughts about this show and the limitations of the allegory?

I don't know, but the name "Hugh Howey" rocks!

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Curious if anyone has watched SILO on Apple TV.

Without giving any spoilers: this show attempts to illustrate the pain, confusion, and intrigue of a relatively small group of people whose very survival depends upon their acceptance of truth claims about why they live the way they live and what will happen to them if they leave the security of the Silo. Their lives also depend upon an unwavering trust of their current leaders as well as the narratives that originated with their predecessors. Strange things are afoot. Some choose to question. Others won't even consider that their beliefs could be incorrect.

In short, this show could be viewed as an allegory for faith crisis and/or the process of questioning ones essential beliefs. 

Anyone have any thoughts about this show and the limitations of the allegory?

I’ve never heard of it. Sounds interesting. 

[ttribe]

The books upon which this show is based are excellent. I read them years ago and when I saw a show based on the books was coming out, it motivated me to sign up for Apple TV.

[Malc]

4 hours ago, ttribe said:

The books upon which this show is based are excellent. I read them years ago and when I saw a show based on the books was coming out, it motivated me to sign up for Apple TV.

I just checked with my library: if I put a hold on the first volume, Wool, of which they have one copy, I'd be #46 in line. The situation is even worse for volumes 2 & 3 😰

[bluebell]

The last dystopian conspiracy theory "you can't trust the leaders; things aren't what they seem!" series I watched was the HBO Snowpiercer series.  I struggled to get into and then got rid of the subscription so never did see how it all ended up.  I am getting a little tired of the trope.  It's everywhere in film and tv right now.

But I think I'm still going to give Silo a try.

[Nofear]

I watched the show and enjoyed it. Sure it had anti-authoritarian tropes and such but I do not look to media in anyway to inform my understanding of the Gospel or use them as “parables“ or “allegories“ for the Church. Doing so is silly. It would be like looking to Moanna to be taught truths about Heavenly Mother.

[HappyJackWagon]

22 hours ago, Nofear said:

I watched the show and enjoyed it. Sure it had anti-authoritarian tropes and such but I do not look to media in anyway to inform my understanding of the Gospel or use them as “parables“ or “allegories“ for the Church. Doing so is silly. It would be like looking to Moanna to be taught truths about Heavenly Mother.

You don't try to gain understanding about the human experience through media and art: the things you watch, read, listen to? That is rather closed-minded of you.

This show isn't intended to be a critique of "the church" but rather how some people manipulate their power to control the behaviors of others. It critiques how people get so locked into what they believe to be true that they are often afraid to even consider information that may better inform them. I think you are illustrating that tendency with your comment whilst attempting to signal your righteousness. Calling others "silly" because they look to learn from the world around them is a bit rude and arrogant. Also, it could be considered "silly" to think that conditions that affect other institutions and individuals don't in any way impact "the church".

[bluebell]

4 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

You don't try to gain understanding about the human experience through media and art: the things you watch, read, listen to? That is rather closed-minded of you.

This show isn't intended to be a critique of "the church" but rather how some people manipulate their power to control the behaviors of others. It critiques how people get so locked into what they believe to be true that they are often afraid to even consider information that may better inform them. I think you are illustrating that tendency with your comment whilst attempting to signal your righteousness. Calling others "silly" because they look to learn from the world around them is a bit rude and arrogant. Also, it could be considered "silly" to think that conditions that affect other institutions and individuals don't in any way impact "the church".

Maybe I'm reading him wrong, but I didn't get Nofear saying that it was silly to use entertainment and media to gain understanding of the human experience.  I thought he said it was silly to use them to gain information about the gospel?

 

[Amulek]

On 8/11/2023 at 2:50 PM, HappyJackWagon said:

Curious if anyone has watched SILO on Apple TV.

Sure. I liked it well enough. Not as good as For All Mankind (or even Foundation), but I found it enjoyable despite some occasional pacing issues.

 

Quote

Without giving any spoilers: this show attempts to illustrate the pain, confusion, and intrigue of a relatively small group of people whose very survival depends upon their acceptance of truth claims about why they live the way they live and what will happen to them if they leave the security of the Silo. Their lives also depend upon an unwavering trust of their current leaders as well as the narratives that originated with their predecessors. Strange things are afoot. Some choose to question. Others won't even consider that their beliefs could be incorrect.

In short, this show could be viewed as an allegory for faith crisis and/or the process of questioning ones essential beliefs. 

Anyone have any thoughts about this show and the limitations of the allegory?

Personally, I think Plato's allegory of the cave would be a better fit, but I can see how one could interpret the show in terms of a faith crisis.

I honestly think it's meant to be more of a commentary on authoritarianism in general than religion, per se. That being said, there are plenty of fundamentalist religions where authoritarianism tends to thrive, and these are places were certain beliefs are indeed siloed off from inspection (e.g., age of the earth, evolution, etc.). So, to the extent that the show focuses on questioning authority, I suppose that could work within the lens of faith - though I don't personally think the religious angle is really the main point of the show.

 

Edited August 14, 2023 by Amulek

[bluebell]

52 minutes ago, Amulek said:

Sure. I liked it well enough. Not as good as For All Mankind (or even Foundation), but I found it enjoyable despite some occasional pacing issues.

 

Personally, I think Plato's allegory of the cave would be a better fit, but I can see how one could interpret the show in terms of a faith crisis.

I honestly think it's meant to be more of a commentary on authoritarianism in general than religion, per se. That being said, there are plenty of fundamentalist religions where authoritarianism tends to thrive, and these are places were certain beliefs are indeed siloed off from inspection (e.g., age of the earth, evolution, etc.). So, to the extent that the show focuses on questioning authority, I suppose that could work within the lens of faith - though I don't personally think the religious angle is really the main point of the show.

 

I've been contemplating giving Foundation a try as well, but I've heard it's pretty slow.  Thoughts?

[HappyJackWagon]

27 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I've been contemplating giving Foundation a try as well, but I've heard it's pretty slow.  Thoughts?

It's on our list as well.

[Amulek]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

I've been contemplating giving Foundation a try as well, but I've heard it's pretty slow.  Thoughts?

I would agree that it starts out a little slow. I'm not sure there's a good way to get around that though. I mean, you are dealing with multi-century story arcs after all - those are going to require a fair amount of exposition in order to set the stage, and that does tend to slow things down a bit cinematically. I think it works out okay by the end of the season though.

Also, and this is more of a heads up than a spoiler (though one you possibly already know / assume): but they do make changes to the books, so don't expect it to be a shot-by-shot retelling of the novels - which, to be honest, I'm not sure would be possible and still enjoyable. If you go into it thinking of it being more like a closely related fan-fic than a retelling of the original story, I think you'll be able to enjoy it more.

All-in-all, I liked the first season. Season two debuted last month, but I haven't started watching it yet. I plan on waiting for it to be fully out so I can binge it all at once (well, probably over a few days, but you get the idea).

Oh, and I know I may have mentioned it before, but I would place both Foundation and Silo behind For All Mankind. It's admittedly much lighter on the sci-fi front (at least so far), but I think it's one of the better shows out right now, and I'm constantly surprised it doesn't get talked about more.

 

Edited August 14, 2023 by Amulek

[bluebell]

2 minutes ago, Amulek said:

I would agree that it starts out a little slow. I'm not sure there's a good way to get around that though. I mean, you are dealing with multi-century story arcs after all - those are going to require a fair amount of exposition in order to set the stage, and that does tend to slow things down a bit cinematically.

Also, and this is more of a heads up than a spoiler (though one you possibly already known or assume): but they do make changes to the books, so don't expect it to be a shot-by-shot retelling of the novels - which, to be honest, I'm not sure would be possible and still enjoyable. If you go into it thinking of it being more like a closely related fan-fic than a retelling of the original story, I think you'll be able to enjoy it more.

All-in-all, I liked the first season. Season two debuted last month, but I haven't started watching it yet. I plan on waiting for it to be fully out so I can binge it all at once (well, probably over a few days, but you get the idea).

Oh, and I know I may have mentioned it before, but I would place both Foundation and Silo behind For All Mankind. It's admittedly much lighter on the sci-fi front (at least so far), but I think it's one of the better shows out right now, and I'm constantly surprised it doesn't get talked about more.

 

I've never heard of For All Mankind.  What streaming service is it on and what's it about?

Also, I've seen some previews for Foundations and that main character guy looks awfully naked in a lot of them.  Is that something that we have to endure a lot of or are the previews messing with me?

[ttribe]

3 hours ago, bluebell said:

I've been contemplating giving Foundation a try as well, but I've heard it's pretty slow.  Thoughts?

If you are doing so based on the Asimov books, you are likely to be disappointed. I read the books first, and the show follows the books only loosely. I would say, especially in Season 2, that it is becoming more like Game of Thrones in space.

[bluebell]

8 minutes ago, ttribe said:

If you are doing so based on the Asimov books, you are likely to be disappointed. I read the books first, and the show follows the books only loosely. I would say, especially in Season 2, that it is becoming more like Game of Thrones in space.

I've heard of the books but never read them so that wouldn't be a problem.  But I have never seen game of thrones so not sure what that means exactly.  Lots of intrigue and sex?

Edited August 14, 2023 by bluebell

[ttribe]

12 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I've heard of the books but never read them so that wouldn't be a problem.  But I have never seen game of thrones so not sure what that means exactly.  Lots of intrigue and sex?

Yes. More so in S2 than S1.

[bluebell]

6 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Yes. More so in S2 than S1.

Figures.  

[Amulek]

3 hours ago, bluebell said:

I've never heard of For All Mankind.  What streaming service is it on and what's it about?

It's on Apple TV+.

The basic premise of the show revolves around the US space program in an alternate version of history where the space race never ended and where the Soviet Union landed on the moon first. The title of the show is inspired by the lunar plaque left on the Moon by the crew of Apollo 11, which reads, in part, "We Came in Peace for All Mankind."

I would characterize the series as a science fiction drama - one that leans more on the drama side of things than the sci-fi side (at least up to this point). The show starts in the 70's and then jumps forward in time roughly a decade for each subsequent season. There have been three seasons thus far, and they have all been really solid.

Language is fairly moderate - there's swearing in each episode, but I don't recall there being tons of it (language doesn't usually bother me though, so my memory could be off here), and I would say it's pretty mild on the sex/nudity front as well. I don't recall there being any graphic nudity in the series whatsoever, and the love scenes (which there aren't tons of) are all less spicy than what you would see in your typical network cable show (e.g., Gray's Anatomy).

 

Quote

Also, I've seen some previews for Foundations and that main character guy looks awfully naked in a lot of them.  Is that something that we have to endure a lot of or are the previews messing with me?

Not that I recall. I haven't watched the second season yet, but I don't recall season one being especially scandalous. There were some scenes with partial / implied nudity, and you do see a guy's bum a couple of times, but I don't recall there being any explicit nudity. I distinctly remember there being a few scenes which take place in something akin to a brothel and thought to myself - ah, so this is where they are going to go all Game of Thrones on us - and then ended up being pleasantly surprised that they didn't. Not saying it's Gilmore Girls wholesome or anything, but it didn't start out as porn trying to masquerade as art like you see in so many other 'prestige' offerings these days.

 

Edited August 14, 2023 by Amulek

[Amulek]

1 hour ago, ttribe said:

I would say, especially in Season 2, that it is becoming more like Game of Thrones in space.

That's disheartening. 😐

 

[Nofear]

18 hours ago, bluebell said:

I've been contemplating giving Foundation a try as well, but I've heard it's pretty slow.  Thoughts?

I very much liked Asimov's Foundation Trilogy and prequel. He later retconed his irobot stuff into the same universe/timeline (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundation_universe). A few years back I went through and read the whole list.

As for the show, Season 1 stayed reasonably close to the books. The Dawn, Day, Dusk thing is not part of the books but clever. That his attendant is a robot is not part of the books but part of the larger universe and a sensible extrapolation (especially with Prelude to Foundation). It doesn't quite attempt to straight linearly follow the books. That's a bit of a rough ask for the media choice.

Season 2, so far I am still enjoying it. More changes and departures from the books. The technology stuff makes sense (though, the writers, as rather typical for screen writers, come across as not having gotten good grades in their college math and science classes). I can understand the changes and it continues to remain true-ish to the spirit of the books in my opinion.

 

[Nofear]

22 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

You don't try to gain understanding about the human experience through media and art: the things you watch, read, listen to? That is rather closed-minded of you.

Art is a good way of expressing understanding of the human experience and artists even have a particular perspective that many of us lack and hence useful. But I also don't give them any moral authority or expect them to have any particular insight into fundamental truths of the universe or Gospel. Sometimes there are truths that are expressed (heck, even a blind squirrel finds an acorn once in a while). But that is post-facto recognition on my part and very rarely generative experiences. But yes, I am very close-minded in that I do not give screen writers one whit of moral authority or any belief that they have some special insight into fundamental truth. A different perspective, sometimes, yes. And sometimes different is useful (perhaps the primary reasons I still read this board).
 

[HappyJackWagon]

27 minutes ago, Nofear said:

Art is a good way of expressing understanding of the human experience and artists even have a particular perspective that many of us lack and hence useful. But I also don't give them any moral authority or expect them to have any particular insight into fundamental truths of the universe or Gospel. Sometimes there are truths that are expressed (heck, even a blind squirrel finds an acorn once in a while). But that is post-facto recognition on my part and very rarely generative experiences. But yes, I am very close-minded in that I do not give screen writers one whit of moral authority or any belief that they have some special insight into fundamental truth. A different perspective, sometimes, yes. And sometimes different is useful (perhaps the primary reasons I still read this board).
 

This seems to be a ret-con of your original comment in an attempt to justify your closed-mindedness...which to your credit, you admitted.

I don't recall anyone (especially my OP) granting screen writers moral authority or insight into the gospel so it seems you may be arguing against a straw man there. However, if you are unable to accept the possibility that another person (even if that person be a screenwriter) has any insight into fundamental truths it would appear you consider that an impossibility. That position strikes me as arrogant. There are characters in the show who embody that position very well.

[Nofear]

9 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

This seems to be a ret-con of your original comment in an attempt to justify your closed-mindedness...which to your credit, you admitted.

I don't recall anyone (especially my OP) granting screen writers moral authority or insight into the gospel so it seems you may be arguing against a straw man there. However, if you are unable to accept the possibility that another person (even if that person be a screenwriter) has any insight into fundamental truths it would appear you consider that an impossibility. That position strikes me as arrogant. There are characters in the show who embody that position very well.

I shan't deny any arrogance. I enjoyed Silo, it was a fun show. Does the story have any relevance to the Church as a narrative, story, metaphor, analogy, or parable. Nope. I suppose one could try to shoehorn in some "meaning" but to me it's like fitting a square peg in a round hole. I arrogantly see not merely no purpose but negative purpose in endeavoring to do so.