![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shadowkat1. I'm so behind on tv shows...partly because too busy, and partly because my tastes are a wee bit too diverse for my own good. Although I'm thisclose to deleting Blacklist, Arrow, and Better Call Saul, not to mention Sleepy Hollow and Gotham from my DVR. Already cancelled The Flash and Revenge - which were either aggravating or boring me. Not sure about the new one American Crime --- it's compelling in places, but the story or trope has been done to death by film and television shows. It's basically everyone is involved in the drug trade and all the death and mayhem from various avenues and races involved. If you have seen Hustle & Flow, Empire, Breaking Bad, Traffic, Justified,The Wire (amongst the better ones)...you've seen this before and far better done. I'm tired of drug trade crime films. Not a trope I'm fond of. I made time for Breaking Bad, Justified and The Wire because they had brilliant not to mention memorable dialogue. It's rare to find tv shows with excellent dialogue and delivered quite that well. I can only think of a handful. Heck they are better than most of the movies out there. But I had to get past the trope.
At any rate, not sure American Crime has staying power - too many characters, and too easy. They lost me when they made the murder victim a drug dealer. Would been more interesting if the murder had been more random. It's too easy and too cliche, making the murder victim a drug dealer - too many tv series have played that plot line out already, including The Wire. Oh well, at least they aren't portraying the cops as idiots in American Crime.
My test is - have I wandered off to play Candy Crush, do the dishes, or surf the net during the tv series? If so, clearly not holding my attention. Crime held it until the last 15-20 minutes.
2. The Good Wife on the other hand was brilliant tonight.
It took us inside Alicia's head - and I identified, because that's how I think. I have imaginary debates with people - arguing both sides of every issue. It can be exhausting at times. Life would be so much easier if I didn't see everyone's point of view. Be easier to make decisions for one thing. Which is what Alicia is struggling with - making a decision.
By the end of the episode through two real time discussions - first with her daughter, then with Jonathan Elfman, who I keep wanting to call Danny Elfman (the musician), she figures it out. I love episodes focusing on the psychological makeup of a character - which are sort of stream of consciousness.
A lot of people hate these types of episodes, because on the surface nothing much happens, and they are harder to follow. Also they tend to be more focused on character and theme than necessarily plot. But I adore them - because it delves into why the character does what they do, their motivations, and what makes us as humans tick. How we think - explains what we do, and pretty much propels our plot arc.
Also, it's amongst the few times that I've seen an Atheist realistically portrayed on television. As a Unitarian, I'm pretty much surrounded by atheists, and roughly half of the people reading my lj are atheists. They are very vocal about it and feel disenfranchised. It reminds me of fandom. Everyone complains of being disenfranchised. People, you can't all be disenfranchised, okay, maybe you can? The jury is still out on that one. (For the record? I am NOT an atheist. And no, I'm not interested in discussing it. Been there done that - for over 40 years. Suffice it to say, we think differently. I'm not a linear or literal thinker.)
At any rate, Alicia even has a debate in her head with Richard Dawkins and her husband's minister, who happens to be black. I guess some may have seen this as racist? But since I dislike Dawkins, it did not bother me. While I rather like her husband's black minister, even if I tend to view things differently than he does on the religion front.
Alicia also has a discussion with her daughter - informing her that she doesn't want to change her perspective. She's glad she found something to believe in, that makes her happy. Even if Alicia can't believe in it. Now that's a realistic portrayal of an atheist.
3. OUAT
Enjoyed this quite a bit.
Although, I'm not sure the writer's arc regarding Emma turning to the dark side, because everyone is lying to her and not telling her the truth - is going to work. Emma is not 20. She's 30. And she's been through too much and lied quite a bit herself, not to mention done some things she's not horribly proud of. If she hasn't become a villain yet, not quite sure how it can happen now?
Willow in BTVS - worked. Because, a) she was in her teens and post adolescence. b) She had a thing about control or changing things to fit her needs. c) She was too bright for her own good, and knew it. Similar in some respects to Regina, who was also younger, and manipulated by her mother, and into controlling things. Both were control freaks.
Emma is not a control freak. She's a skeptic. And she likes to take off. When someone pisses her off - she leaves. So if Hook, Snow and Charming pissed her off - she wouldn't become a villain, she'd take off and never come back.
So, no, this story arc if it goes where it appears to be headed, isn't going to work for me. I can't see Emma going all Dark Phoenix or Dark Willow. This is woman who was raised without magic, and has serious issues with using it. Also, tends to deal with bad things by retreating. Unless they retcon the character...which I guess they could do?
Am enjoying Regina's arc - which does appear to be headed towards redemption, while Gold is going in the opposite direction. I honestly think Rumple may be irredeemable at this point - he's done too many horrendous things for far too long...and he can't let go of the power. His flaw goes a lot deeper than Regina. Regina's is control or the need to be in control. Rumple's is cowardice. He wants power so he can be the bully. It's sort of the difference between Willow and Warren Miers. One wanted it to control things, another to well bully people and make themselves look great.
Any how of the two, I'd rather have them redeem Regina, the actress is too campy as a villain, while Robert Carlyle is a very interesting villain, far more interesting than he is as a good guy. He's great at ambiguous and clever villain - mainly because he's the only cast member who doesn't decide to go campy. May be experience?
At any rate, not sure American Crime has staying power - too many characters, and too easy. They lost me when they made the murder victim a drug dealer. Would been more interesting if the murder had been more random. It's too easy and too cliche, making the murder victim a drug dealer - too many tv series have played that plot line out already, including The Wire. Oh well, at least they aren't portraying the cops as idiots in American Crime.
My test is - have I wandered off to play Candy Crush, do the dishes, or surf the net during the tv series? If so, clearly not holding my attention. Crime held it until the last 15-20 minutes.
2. The Good Wife on the other hand was brilliant tonight.
It took us inside Alicia's head - and I identified, because that's how I think. I have imaginary debates with people - arguing both sides of every issue. It can be exhausting at times. Life would be so much easier if I didn't see everyone's point of view. Be easier to make decisions for one thing. Which is what Alicia is struggling with - making a decision.
By the end of the episode through two real time discussions - first with her daughter, then with Jonathan Elfman, who I keep wanting to call Danny Elfman (the musician), she figures it out. I love episodes focusing on the psychological makeup of a character - which are sort of stream of consciousness.
A lot of people hate these types of episodes, because on the surface nothing much happens, and they are harder to follow. Also they tend to be more focused on character and theme than necessarily plot. But I adore them - because it delves into why the character does what they do, their motivations, and what makes us as humans tick. How we think - explains what we do, and pretty much propels our plot arc.
Also, it's amongst the few times that I've seen an Atheist realistically portrayed on television. As a Unitarian, I'm pretty much surrounded by atheists, and roughly half of the people reading my lj are atheists. They are very vocal about it and feel disenfranchised. It reminds me of fandom. Everyone complains of being disenfranchised. People, you can't all be disenfranchised, okay, maybe you can? The jury is still out on that one. (For the record? I am NOT an atheist. And no, I'm not interested in discussing it. Been there done that - for over 40 years. Suffice it to say, we think differently. I'm not a linear or literal thinker.)
At any rate, Alicia even has a debate in her head with Richard Dawkins and her husband's minister, who happens to be black. I guess some may have seen this as racist? But since I dislike Dawkins, it did not bother me. While I rather like her husband's black minister, even if I tend to view things differently than he does on the religion front.
Alicia also has a discussion with her daughter - informing her that she doesn't want to change her perspective. She's glad she found something to believe in, that makes her happy. Even if Alicia can't believe in it. Now that's a realistic portrayal of an atheist.
3. OUAT
Enjoyed this quite a bit.
Although, I'm not sure the writer's arc regarding Emma turning to the dark side, because everyone is lying to her and not telling her the truth - is going to work. Emma is not 20. She's 30. And she's been through too much and lied quite a bit herself, not to mention done some things she's not horribly proud of. If she hasn't become a villain yet, not quite sure how it can happen now?
Willow in BTVS - worked. Because, a) she was in her teens and post adolescence. b) She had a thing about control or changing things to fit her needs. c) She was too bright for her own good, and knew it. Similar in some respects to Regina, who was also younger, and manipulated by her mother, and into controlling things. Both were control freaks.
Emma is not a control freak. She's a skeptic. And she likes to take off. When someone pisses her off - she leaves. So if Hook, Snow and Charming pissed her off - she wouldn't become a villain, she'd take off and never come back.
So, no, this story arc if it goes where it appears to be headed, isn't going to work for me. I can't see Emma going all Dark Phoenix or Dark Willow. This is woman who was raised without magic, and has serious issues with using it. Also, tends to deal with bad things by retreating. Unless they retcon the character...which I guess they could do?
Am enjoying Regina's arc - which does appear to be headed towards redemption, while Gold is going in the opposite direction. I honestly think Rumple may be irredeemable at this point - he's done too many horrendous things for far too long...and he can't let go of the power. His flaw goes a lot deeper than Regina. Regina's is control or the need to be in control. Rumple's is cowardice. He wants power so he can be the bully. It's sort of the difference between Willow and Warren Miers. One wanted it to control things, another to well bully people and make themselves look great.
Any how of the two, I'd rather have them redeem Regina, the actress is too campy as a villain, while Robert Carlyle is a very interesting villain, far more interesting than he is as a good guy. He's great at ambiguous and clever villain - mainly because he's the only cast member who doesn't decide to go campy. May be experience?
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2015-03-09 02:23 pm (UTC)