|
Post by Jeremy on Mar 13, 2020 13:04:04 GMT -8
Same here. The first two episodes are fun, but the show doesn't have much grip on interesting storylines. The novelty of watching characters cover Universal-owned songs wears off pretty quickly, and the gimmick by itself isn't strong enough to stand in for actual character development. (If anything, it detracts from said development, since it's tough to take characters seriously during those musical moments.)
I expect I'll keep watching a little longer, but unless something changes soon, this is not a show that's going to hook me long-term. (Though given the mediocre ratings, that may be a moot point.)
|
|
Quiara
Grade School
Posts: 775
|
Post by Quiara on Mar 14, 2020 20:31:03 GMT -8
Not having Netflix, I can't confirm this, but it seems to me that the past year of buzzy Netflix shows have been reality programs - Marie Kondo, Cheer, Love is Blind, etc. Is this an accurate take? And is this a hint that Netflix might be cutting costs by producing relatively inexpensive reality programs rather than scripted stuff?
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Mar 15, 2020 14:05:40 GMT -8
There have been a number of scripted Netflix shows in recent months that have generated a lot of buzz - Unbelievable, The Witcher, and Gentefied being three obvious examples. Netflix's problem is that they've so thoroughly deluged the market with new shows that it's very difficult for individual series to stand out on their own.
It's likely true that Netflix is cutting costs here and there (as evidenced by their more cavalier attitude towards cancelling shows), but probably not to the extent that they need to shift their main focus to reality TV.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Mar 17, 2020 18:56:28 GMT -8
Well, it looks like we'll have a lot of time to catch up on TV over the next few weeks.
Anyone have specific shows they're trying to soldier through? In addition to following shows like Better Call Saul (still need to start the new season) and One Day at a Time, I'm planning to dig into current Netflix shows like Cheer, The Crown Season 3, and You Season 2, plus a handful of animated Disney Plus shows, because why not.
(I'm also going to try writing/blogging a bit more, but as I'm still spending a good chunk of the day working from home, we'll see how that goes.)
Stay healthy, wash your hands, and share your thoughts.
|
|
|
Post by Jay on Mar 19, 2020 10:36:32 GMT -8
I decided to pick up Netflix's Kingdom, a South Korean historical zombie series, in the wake of quarantine. I've had success before in the Korean take on the zombie genre (Train to Busan!) and this one has enough of a twist in being set in the late 16th century. The set designs are incredible and everyone is wearing fancy hats at all times. The source of the outbreak is novel and refreshing for that, seeming to extend beyond mere period drama mash-up. The one thing that I notice and fear may strike western audiences poorly is that there are moments when, just as with Kurosawa, certain scenes might seem over-acted to a Western viewer. I don't mind, but can see where it might land on uncertain footing. Based on one episode I am already willing to declare it superior to The Walking Dead.
I also caught up with S3 of Castlevania. Quite dour, quite bleak, not as successful as S2 but no worse for introducing multiple new characters into the mix.
|
|
|
Post by guttersnipe on Mar 20, 2020 13:48:47 GMT -8
The fashy read on Dracula is really quite interesting! I hadn't considered that, I read him more as an autocrat or ruthless upper-class sort. I guess where I'd point to as particular areas of disagreement there is that I often view fascism as something happening closer to what's in the U.S. right now where state and corporation are merging and so there are a number of conflicting interests that arise where the people making the rules and arbitrating the cases are those that most stand to benefit from them and thus regulation starts going out the window (our swamp grows ever swampier). Drac has a posh apartment and is living it up, but has no business interests as such, not even the ones from the Burns-as-Dracula "Treehouse of Horror" parody on The Simpsons where he had bought out a blood bank. Neither is he involved in politics or giving lip-service to it even. I think that the closest we got to political commentary was when he broke into the house in episode three and was discussing how there were more marvels there made mundane than would have ever been dreamed of in a noble court centuries ago. The other push I'd make against the fascist reading is that there's usually some drive for purity within that, of class or bloodline. Drac talks a huge game there, particular with his self-selecting of the passengers on The Demeter, but in practice I think that he's less discerning than he likes to pretend he is and has no problem noshing on a crew member or a lower-class person for fun in between the more planned and rehearsed feeding. I think that syncs with the autocrat / upper-class reading because he's got his and yet generally wants more, good and bad (and if you want to do across the pond readings, our local autocrat can afford to eat quite well but instead subsists on fast-food and cooks his steaks well-done and consumes them with ketchup).
As for other across the pond stuff, you're highlighting some of the stuff I fear I gave the short shrift to. I felt the first two-thirds of the first episode were meandering (sometimes intentionally!), but the bit at the convent was quite good and produced a lot of tension and gross-outs (I was thinking as I was watching that it wouldn't land with an American audience in the same way, but the level of sex and violence from a BBC program would be astonishing in the UK). I also really liked the castle as a visual set piece and the confrontation between Dracula and Harker atop it. The best visuals might be in the first episode, but again that's relative for me because I'm not sure that I have enough of a frame to work with modern London and Dracula being there in the party scene. The Demeter was fun too in its way as a bottle episode, and was probably the one I enjoyed the most even as I yelled at a few characters for doing this or that. The main point of it I think was to get him interacting with a larger cast than he had been afforded before, I just bristled at the false positives and feints littered throughout that didn't amount to much, even as I appreciated the more relaxed approach to developing non-canonical characters.
The take on Renfield was interesting too. I was remarking to a friend afterward about missing the Waits Renfield, or even the Peter MacNicol one in the Mel Brooks / Leslie Nielsen vehicle (I'll watch anything with Peter MacNicol in it). But I think that this version wasn't so much on the overt crazy-making as keeping everything in-bounds legally even knowing that it was wrong, maintaining the veneer of sanity in a fundamentally insane situation, and that's a great spin on it. I kind of wish that there were more of him in that capacity, but their commitments were directed elsewhere and not I think to the greater good of the plot. I don't know about your side, but I think the American consensus as I understood it was "the ending is trite and we hate it."
I'll be honest, you've probably given more thought to the fascist notion that I'd really entertained, as the principle I've always ridden out is kinda predicated on Dracula's disinclination towards siring (in comparison to a lot of (appropriately enough) subsequent vampire takes, especially those riffing on family or biker gang tropes. He's always been more interested in the idea of a society of one, in which he enjoys the best of both worlds, holding humans in masked contempt whilst wearing their skin and assimilating into their society. This for when is where that Lecter-like appeal comes in; that you know that this character wouldn't tolerate you for a moment if he couldn't use you in some despicable way, but as the old quote about Rear Window goes: you know you love to watch. I'm reminded a fascinating line from Godard's latest film, which I also watched very recently: "Why dream of being king, when you could dream of being Faust?" As for the ending, put simply: people around me said it nearly broke their overall enjoyment of the series for them, whereas I was fine with it.
|
|
|
Post by guttersnipe on Mar 20, 2020 13:57:21 GMT -8
I thought Discovery's pilot was relatively promising, but the show that follows is a complete and utter mess, and a textbook example of how not to write a serialized sci-fi show. DS9 still understood the importance of the Trek ethos even as it challenged it--that's why it produced episodes like Past Tense and Far Beyond the Stars as well as In the Pale Moonlight and Inter Arma Enim Silent Leges. And even then, it doesn't even come close to being sophisticated. It just feels like it's trying desperately hard to achieve relevance--its creators have ensured that it will never do that. There's no reason to watch it when The Expanse is sitting there on Amazon Prime, and it's better written, better plotted, contains more interesting characters, and has actual narrative direction. In contrast to The Expanse, I doubt there'd be a #SaveStarTrekDiscovery campaign if it was cancelled. I think that the Star Trek franchise represents a pretty rocky ride, quality-wise, but one pretty consistent ingredient is that you can usually expect it to be fun, and that's simply not the case with Discovery - I've only seen a couple of episodes of Voyager, but weak as it was, I could at least identify an amiable vibe. Every scant attempt at humour here feels incongruous, and the general tone is maudlin if not outrightly grim - even a Harry Mudd episode is aggressive in nature! I also don't know what possesses a screenwriting team to thrust an alternate reality arc into a first season when the world-building is still pretty nascent, but even at a typical half-length of a usual Trek season, it genuinely feels longer.
|
|
|
Post by Jay on Mar 22, 2020 12:06:16 GMT -8
I'll be honest, you've probably given more thought to the fascist notion that I'd really entertained, as the principle I've always ridden out is kinda predicated on Dracula's disinclination towards siring (in comparison to a lot of (appropriately enough) subsequent vampire takes, especially those riffing on family or biker gang tropes. He's always been more interested in the idea of a society of one, in which he enjoys the best of both worlds, holding humans in masked contempt whilst wearing their skin and assimilating into their society. This for when is where that Lecter-like appeal comes in; that you know that this character wouldn't tolerate you for a moment if he couldn't use you in some despicable way, but as the old quote about Rear Window goes: you know you love to watch. I'm reminded a fascinating line from Godard's latest film, which I also watched very recently: "Why dream of being king, when you could dream of being Faust?" As for the ending, put simply: people around me said it nearly broke their overall enjoyment of the series for them, whereas I was fine with it. Don't mind me, I'm just rambunctious when it comes to ideas and tossing them around. I mean no ill by it, I'm only having fun.
Wearing their skin certainly has it's specific resonances within the series ("JOHNNY BLUE-EYES!") but I'd never really given much thuoght to the whole idea of him being less inclined to sire because you have his Brides and you have (traditionally) Lucy in the British take on the legend. I guess while it's true he's less on a scale of modern incarnations where they only want all in their own image (even something like 'Salem's Lot partakes), I thought it was an interesting stroke within it to make it so that Dracula himself tried to sire and replicate as best he could, but the results were always mixed and not quite up to his own image. In that, it reminded me of one of the cleverer strokes in the Shiki anime, which was that vampires were especially inclined to prey on family members and friends with absolutely no guarantee of them becoming vampires themselves. Anyway, to return to the BBC series, that was one element that I liked, the lack of control he had, which I think also manifested in the climax where they talked of his assorted family members going out like warriors while he didn't, but it's one of those interesting elements that I don't think they capitalized on for story effect, but rather plot effect, much like the gaining of powers / abilities / memories from those he drank from. Fascinating idea, underutilized beyond a single incident or two.
Interesting that you'd bring up Faust too since I just got done (shortly before the quarantine) teaching my undergrads about the Marlowe play. It's another one that I love to see adapted for what people do with it although I fear I hold the semi-heretical opinion of NOT preferring the Goethe and finding it clunky.
|
|
|
Post by guttersnipe on Mar 22, 2020 17:35:23 GMT -8
the gaining of powers / abilities / memories from those he drank from. I forgot to say, I really liked this adap's theory that Dracula is only repellled by the cross thanks to inheriting his quarry's fear of turning away from God. That's a nicely human and psychological angle on the usual predator-prey dynamic.
|
|
|
Post by Jay on Mar 22, 2020 18:42:12 GMT -8
Agreed, that was an excellent, small touch
|
|
Quiara
Grade School
Posts: 775
|
Post by Quiara on Apr 19, 2020 8:11:00 GMT -8
Pleasant surprise of the season so far for me: I actually found myself really enjoying Broke, and not just in the way I expected to "enjoy" it (e.g., "oh, it's a subpar network sitcom but Jaime Camil is sublime"). Which is odd, because it's definitely a network sitcom with the problem where you can figure out the punchlines two lines in advance, but I think it makes up for that by having a good cast, being visually adventurous (for multicam), and packing some really outlandish sight gags. (E.g., the show opens up with the lead making oatmeal with a blowtorch.)
I doubt it's going to make a splash either with CBS audiences (for whom a show with an accented Mexican lead might be too spicy) or with critics (who prefer their multicam sitcoms to be capital-W Woke so they can have something to write about) but I liked it.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Apr 22, 2020 20:09:31 GMT -8
I'm four episodes into Succession, one of the buzziest new shows of the last couple years. I'm trying to get into it, but it too often feels like Hollywood trying to do Mad Men in the modern era. (Guessing HBO is still sore about losing out on that show.)
The characters are pretty obnoxious, and the fact that they're intentionally so still doesn't make me like them ironically. It probably doesn't help that the backdrop of an infighting, backstabbing family sets the stage for a lot of soapy melodrama, which the show leans in too a bit too often for a supposed prestige drama. (The political commentary is also pretty clunky - gosh, I wonder who the thrice-married New York billionaire mogul with the immigrant wife and bratty adult children riding his coattails is supposed to be referencing.)
I get that the show isn't supposed to be taken too seriously, but it isn't particularly funny or interesting enough thus far for me to forgive its surface flaws. Just comes off like a USA drama with a bigger budget and a slower pace.
|
|
|
Post by Incandescence 112 on Apr 23, 2020 10:10:26 GMT -8
I'm four episodes into Succession, one of the buzziest new shows of the last couple years. I'm trying to get into it, but it too often feels like Hollywood trying to do Mad Men in the modern era. (Guessing HBO is still sore about losing out on that show.) The characters are pretty obnoxious, and the fact that they're intentionally so still doesn't make me like them ironically. It probably doesn't help that the backdrop of an infighting, backstabbing family sets the stage for a lot of soapy melodrama, which the show leans in too a bit too often for a supposed prestige drama. (The political commentary is also pretty clunky - gosh, I wonder who the thrice-married New York billionaire mogul with the immigrant wife and bratty adult children riding his coattails is supposed to be referencing.) I get that the show isn't supposed to be taken too seriously, but it isn't particularly funny or interesting enough thus far for me to forgive its surface flaws. Just comes off like a USA drama with a bigger budget and a slower pace. I don't really like the show either. Seems like it's the opposite of a good dramedy. Not that funny, not that dramatic. Kind of like an inverse BoJack Horseman. On the bright side of things, Better Call Saul wrapped up a pretty stellar fifth season. Seasons 1 and 2 still leave me cold, but the last three have really pulled it together. The Mike stuff will never not bore me a little, but it was better this season at least. Season 6 has pretty big shoes to fill if it's going to top Breaking Bad's final one--I look forward to seeing them try. After how great the last 5 episodes have been (definitely the best consecutive run in the show so far), I think they definitely can at least match it.
|
|
|
Post by Jay on Apr 23, 2020 11:26:30 GMT -8
I've been AWOL for a minute but I did want to come back in praise of Kingdom and it doing a lot of stuff that The Walking Dead repeatedly failed at, like "information should only be revealed at the same level that the characters know it," "redshirts will only buy you so much emotional appeal," and "don't overhype and fake-out important plot reveals." The gimmicks are good (zombies are nocturnal, so they're more like gravelings I guess? but fast!) and the reasons for the outbreak are pretty great actually (The King is Patient Zero because a manipulative court clan is trying to solidify their power). The exaggerated comedic acting also settles in / goes away after a few episodes. It also seems to have an overall political message, which is "hey this male primogeniture based version of governance without factoring for merit or skill seems to be a bad idea." So, literally and figuratively, it has some teeth. I wouldn't go so far as to claim it to be perfect, but the first half of the second season is really strong and the latter half still has a lot of excellent moments in it but gets dangerously close to "Hollywood" in some moments (was disappointed to see a slow "walk in as a squad 'cause it just got real." The ending of the season is also pretty curious as most of the emotional and plot beats had been resolved only to abruptly restart again with the introduction of a potentially bigger bad. This works all right in series that are self-contained thematically from one to the next, but seems a curious move for this particular storyline. In conclusion, HATS
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Apr 23, 2020 16:15:44 GMT -8
On the bright side of things, Better Call Saul wrapped up a pretty stellar fifth season. Seasons 1 and 2 still leave me cold, but the last three have really pulled it together. The Mike stuff will never not bore me a little, but it was better this season at least. Season 6 has pretty big shoes to fill if it's going to top Breaking Bad's final one--I look forward to seeing them try. After how great the last 5 episodes have been (definitely the best consecutive run in the show so far), I think they definitely can at least match it. As usual, I for some reason missed the new season of Better Call Saul as it aired. Gotta catch up on that and Better Things. In the meanwhile, I started the new season of Killing Eve. The show is still modestly entertaining, more on the Villanelle side than the Eve half, but it's clearly showing signs of age. What's particularly striking is the producers' insistence on recruiting a new showrunner every season (including the already-ordered fourth), which is apparently supposed to give the series a fresh perspective each year. Instead, it feels like that decision is keeping the show stuck in neutral, with each new writer going through the same motions as the previous one. (I think what's really driving that decision is BBC America's goal to put as many female writers in the spotlight as possible. Which is... nice, but installing a revolving door in the writers' room doesn't do the show any favors.)
|
|