|
Post by Zarnium on Mar 4, 2019 9:04:50 GMT -8
Oh, ok, that does make sense. It's true, LGBT folk tend to not pair their activism with historical narratives as much as racial minorities do. Or at least, they don't now. My impression is that the Stonewall Riots were fairly well-known at the time, but have faded into obscurity since then. (It's kind of hard to guage after the fact how "famous" a historical incident was at the time it happened, so I'm not 100% certain about that.)
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Mar 6, 2019 18:59:22 GMT -8
Oops, haven't posted a question for March yet.
Okay, here's one: Have the Big Four networks just... given up?
I watched the Whiskey Cavalier pilot last week, and it was as dumb and predictable as you can imagine. Some promise as a globe-trotting spy show in the Alias vein, but it's clearly leaning toward safe procedural territory. Edit out the modern technology, and this could easily be mistaken for an ABC series from ten years ago. Except ten years ago, ABC had some prestige TV in Lost, whereas now, they mostly rely on Shondaland. (And even that won't last forever, now that she's moved to Netflix.)
Also watched the Season Two premiere of Good Girls. The show still wants to be a feminist Breaking Bad, but network restrictions hold it back every time. The way the season premiere so tidily resolves the fallout from the S1 finale is frustrating, to say the least, and the Shocking Cliffhangers are losing their luster. I'm mostly just watching for the cast by this point.
Some of the major networks (particularly NBC) do well on the sitcom front. But it increasingly seems like they've given up on producing great drama.
|
|
Quiara
Grade School
Posts: 775
|
Post by Quiara on Mar 6, 2019 20:01:31 GMT -8
I watched the Whiskey Cavalier pilot last week, and it was as dumb and predictable as you can imagine. Some promise as a globe-trotting spy show in the Alias vein, but it's clearly leaning toward safe procedural territory. Edit out the modern technology, and this could easily be mistaken for an ABC series from ten years ago. Except ten years ago, ABC had some prestige TV in Lost, whereas now, they mostly rely on Shondaland. (And even that won't last forever, now that she's moved to Netflix.) Are you telling me the show isn't about a Prohibition-era bootlegger?
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Mar 7, 2019 8:33:32 GMT -8
Sadly, no. Which is too bad, because that sounds like it would be a better show (particularly if it featured Rex Banner asking people where they pinched the hooch).
The main problem, as some reviews have outlined, is that it's trying too hard to be a sexy spy dramedy, and just comes off as forced. Probably an easier tone to maintain in a two-hour movie (like Duplicity) than a weekly series.
|
|
|
Post by Incandescence 112 on Mar 12, 2019 7:39:22 GMT -8
I watched the first three episodes of Mr. Robot. I was interested in the subject matter, the show has received a lot of acclaim, and I thought Rami Malek stole every scene he was in in The Pacific. I have to say though, I don't think I'll be continuing with it. Rami Malek is great as expected, but his character is not very well written. We're told that he's a political radical and a bit of a misanthrope, but it doesn't come across that way. His politics seem fake and forced somehow. It also seems like one of those shows that's going to drag everything out until the end of the season, and apparently that gets worse in Season 2. Overall, I think there are better options in this genre.
|
|
|
Post by otherscott on Mar 12, 2019 8:59:37 GMT -8
Oops, haven't posted a question for March yet. Okay, here's one: Have the Big Four networks just... given up? I watched the Whiskey Cavalier pilot last week, and it was as dumb and predictable as you can imagine. Some promise as a globe-trotting spy show in the Alias vein, but it's clearly leaning toward safe procedural territory. Edit out the modern technology, and this could easily be mistaken for an ABC series from ten years ago. Except ten years ago, ABC had some prestige TV in Lost, whereas now, they mostly rely on Shondaland. (And even that won't last forever, now that she's moved to Netflix.) Also watched the Season Two premiere of Good Girls. The show still wants to be a feminist Breaking Bad, but network restrictions hold it back every time. The way the season premiere so tidily resolves the fallout from the S1 finale is frustrating, to say the least, and the Shocking Cliffhangers are losing their luster. I'm mostly just watching for the cast by this point. Some of the major networks (particularly NBC) do well on the sitcom front. But it increasingly seems like they've given up on producing great drama. The problem the networks have is I don't think they can provide the type of working conditions that really good writers want. They have very strict episode time limits, they have to heavily censor even at the 10 PM hour where they aren't regulatory restricted, and the networks will absolutely provide notes for less serialization to help boost ratings from people who can't watch every week and thus get behind. That's not to say a great show can't be made with these restrictions- I think some of those restrictions actually help save the creators from themselves. But why would you sign up to do an NBC show when you can work with FX or HBO or Hulu or Netflix instead? So they've kind of resorted to comfort food shows, which there is absolutely a market for and give them ratings just as good as what they'd get from the "high quality" shows anyways. I don't really blame them, and I don't particularly care that networks aren't the place I can find really good TV. Speaking of shows that could have been on a network but isn't, One Day At A Time finds its way after a shaky start to put a pretty good string of episodes together. It's not AS good of a show as it was in Season 2, but it's also not noticeably different, which is something I feared in the early going.
|
|
|
Post by Incandescence 112 on Mar 12, 2019 9:16:52 GMT -8
Oops, haven't posted a question for March yet. Okay, here's one: Have the Big Four networks just... given up? I watched the Whiskey Cavalier pilot last week, and it was as dumb and predictable as you can imagine. Some promise as a globe-trotting spy show in the Alias vein, but it's clearly leaning toward safe procedural territory. Edit out the modern technology, and this could easily be mistaken for an ABC series from ten years ago. Except ten years ago, ABC had some prestige TV in Lost, whereas now, they mostly rely on Shondaland. (And even that won't last forever, now that she's moved to Netflix.) Also watched the Season Two premiere of Good Girls. The show still wants to be a feminist Breaking Bad, but network restrictions hold it back every time. The way the season premiere so tidily resolves the fallout from the S1 finale is frustrating, to say the least, and the Shocking Cliffhangers are losing their luster. I'm mostly just watching for the cast by this point. Some of the major networks (particularly NBC) do well on the sitcom front. But it increasingly seems like they've given up on producing great drama. The problem the networks have is I don't think they can provide the type of working conditions that really good writers want. They have very strict episode time limits, they have to heavily censor even at the 10 PM hour where they aren't regulatory restricted, and the networks will absolutely provide notes for less serialization to help boost ratings from people who can't watch every week and thus get behind. That's not to say a great show can't be made with these restrictions- I think some of those restrictions actually help save the creators from themselves. But why would you sign up to do an NBC show when you can work with FX or HBO or Hulu or Netflix instead? So they've kind of resorted to comfort food shows, which there is absolutely a market for and give them ratings just as good as what they'd get from the "high quality" shows anyways. I don't really blame them, and I don't particularly care that networks aren't the place I can find really good TV. Speaking of shows that could have been on a network but isn't, One Day At A Time finds its way after a shaky start to put a pretty good string of episodes together. It's not AS good of a show as it was in Season 2, but it's also not noticeably different, which is something I feared in the early going. I agree. It takes a really special creative team to create greatness with all the limitations of network television. But it can work. Jonathan Nolan is an example. He worked far better in a network setting. Westworld is extremely frustrating, and I get the feeling it might be better if the episode run-time were cut down, and he couldn't take a renewal for granted.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Mar 12, 2019 14:20:12 GMT -8
Scott's points are true, and as cable and (especially) streaming outlets continue to expand and multiply, there will be fewer and fewer reasons for ambitious writers to stick with the major networks. (Even longtime established writers like David E. Kelley have announced that they're done with broadcast TV, having experienced the freedom of other outlets.)
For this reason, I don't expect Jonathan Nolan to return to CBS for his future projects - good as Person of Interest was, its status as a quasi-procedural held back some of its potential, and probably led to multiple critics dismissing it early on. Much as people like to criticize Westworld, it's gotten a much wider pool of acclaim and recognition than PoI ever did.
Obviously, the broadcast networks are still profiting from being safe and sterile, but I wonder how long that lasts. Most of their shows aren't very bingeable, so they're not very appealing to streaming services. And while I doubt streaming services will ever force the networks out of business, they will grow more competitive as time goes on.
Oh, and FOX is probably going to be a dried-up husk of itself after the Disney deal begins. So there's that.
|
|
|
Post by Incandescence 112 on Mar 12, 2019 17:55:55 GMT -8
Scott's points are true, and as cable and (especially) streaming outlets continue to expand and multiply, there will be fewer and fewer reasons for ambitious writers to stick with the major networks. (Even longtime established writers like David E. Kelley have announced that they're done with broadcast TV, having experienced the freedom of other outlets.) For this reason, I don't expect Jonathan Nolan to return to CBS for his future projects - good as Person of Interest was, its status as a quasi-procedural held back some of its potential, and probably led to multiple critics dismissing it early on. Much as people like to criticize Westworld, it's gotten a much wider pool of acclaim and recognition than PoI ever did. Obviously, the broadcast networks are still profiting from being safe and sterile, but I wonder how long that lasts. Most of their shows aren't very bingeable, so they're not very appealing to streaming services. And while I doubt streaming services will ever force the networks out of business, they will grow more competitive as time goes on. Oh, and FOX is probably going to be a dried-up husk of itself after the Disney deal begins. So there's that. Recognition and acclaim don't necessarily mean quality though. As much as people like to say POI would have been better on cable, I'm a little skeptical. For one thing, Westworld exists, and is much, much worse (my opinion, of course). The procedural aspect forced there to be a plot each week, even if said plot was sometimes clunky, cheesy, or uninspired. On Westworld, it just constantly sabotages itself and never gets down to the business of telling a great story. For another, its highs were so high I can't really say it never lived up to its potential. On cable, with a shorter season, we may not have gotten "Reasonable Doubt", but we probably wouldn't have gotten "RAM" or "If-Then-Else" either. I'm fine with the way the show turned out-wouldn't trade those 5 seasons for anything. But you're nonetheless absolutely correct that Westworld has been a much bigger success and Jonathan Nolan isn't returning to network tv-especially after the way they treated his show from Season 3 onward. I just wish Westworld was better, I guess. We've seen Mr. Nolan make true sci-fi brilliance on tv, so why he's struggling to do it with fewer restrictions and a higher budget is puzzling to me.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Mar 12, 2019 18:37:56 GMT -8
Well, I haven't seen Westworld, so I can't comment on that show in particular, but my experience with a lot of HBO/Netflix dramas has been that "fewer restrictions" isn't always a good thing. Not needing to adhere to a weekly structure can sometimes lead to brilliant and groundbreaking television, but it could also lead to bloated, formless stories that last way too long and eventually lose their way. (Looking at you, Marvel shows.)
|
|
|
Post by Incandescence 112 on Mar 12, 2019 18:50:21 GMT -8
Well, I haven't seen Westworld, so I can't comment on that show in particular, but my experience with a lot of HBO/Netflix dramas has been that "fewer restrictions" isn't always a good thing. Not needing to adhere to a weekly structure can sometimes lead to brilliant and groundbreaking television, but it could also lead to bloated, formless stories that last way too long and eventually lose their way. (Looking at you, Marvel shows.) Oh boy, Marvel Netflix. Bad memories. Turns out you were right to be skeptical of them back in 2015 (you were also right about The Flash-maybe I should take your tv advice even more often). At least Marvel Netflix is over, and Young Justice is back (fantastic third season so far as well).
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Mar 12, 2019 20:13:28 GMT -8
I need to get DC Universe at some point, so I can watch Young Justice and Doom Patrol. So... many... streaming services...
Also, how about that new Hulu/Marvel deal? It sounds like they're trying to mock the Netflix MCU, by developing four new animated shows (MODOK, Hit-Monkey, Tigra & Dazzler, and Howard the Duck), and then have them all cross over with The Offenders. Let's hope this experiment works out better than the Netflix one did.
|
|
|
Post by Jay on Mar 13, 2019 4:05:44 GMT -8
I'm writing within 24 hours and still feeling like I'm chiming in late, but FlamePillar, Mr. Robot doesn't get any better, at least in season 1. It does however get a lot worse, including one episode that I'd claim is just offensively bad in all respects.
I'm surprised to learn that they're on a third season now and still going. A lot of film / media professionals I know from college on FB were very much into it S1 ("CHANGING THE GAME", etc), but I haven't heard a peep since.
|
|
|
Post by ThirdMan on Mar 13, 2019 4:27:30 GMT -8
I enjoyed S1 of Mr. Robot well enough, but didn't feel the concept would be able to sustain itself over multiple seasons. Word I heard on S2 was that the episodes were given to major bloat, but that the series bounced back creatively in Season 3. Re: buzz, regardiless of the quality of most any show, the media's always moving onto the next big thing. I mean, though it still gets strong reviews, even a show like Bojack doesn't have nearly as much buzz around it as it did a few years ago.
|
|
|
Post by Incandescence 112 on Mar 13, 2019 5:48:28 GMT -8
I'm writing within 24 hours and still feeling like I'm chiming in late, but FlamePillar, Mr. Robot doesn't get any better, at least in season 1. It does however get a lot worse, including one episode that I'd claim is just offensively bad in all respects.
I'm surprised to learn that they're on a third season now and still going. A lot of film / media professionals I know from college on FB were very much into it S1 ("CHANGING THE GAME", etc), but I haven't heard a peep since.
Ah, you're not late. I thought the show was somewhat intriguing at times, but not enough to really keep watching. I have heard that it bounces back in Season 3, but I'd also heard that Season 1 was great, so I'm not sure how much I can trust that.
|
|