(no subject)
Oct. 25th, 2015 10:00 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shadowkatSo, hmmm...I actually agree with Alan Sepinwall's review of Crazy Ex-Girlfriend.
It's the plot of "Felicity," only more extreme, and even though Rebecca keeps insisting that she didn't blow up her life to chase after this guy — and even though Bloom and co-creator Aline Brosh McKenna keep insisting the title is ironic(*), and let Rebecca complain about it ("The situation's a lot more nuanced than that!") in the theme song — the amount of time devoted to her feelings about Josh, not just in the pilot, but in the next two episodes the CW sent to critics, makes it hard for the audience, or Rebecca's new friends in West Covina, to see it any other way.
(*) Ask the folks from "Trophy Wife" about the American TV-viewing public's love of ironic titles sometime. I'm sure their opinion is different now from before the show debuted.
[Actually on the TV-viewing public's love of ironic titles? Try the general public's reception of Buffy the Vampire Slayer. This sort of thing flies over a lot of folks heads. Too many people think literally not metaphorically. And to pick up on the nuance of an ironic title, you really have to be able to think metaphorically.]
He's right when he states later in his review that there's actually a good show hidden in there somewhere. Because there's some great moments in the midst of it. But way too much Josh. I agree with Sepinwall, the show has got to jump away from the Josh concept, and soon.
Television critics tend to be hit and miss with me. I rarely for example agree with USA Today's Robert Bianca, who adores Ryan Murphy's shows. But Sepinwall and Emily Nussbaum, usually work for me, well except for How to Get Away with Murder (bored me), The Affair (ditto, couldn't make it through the first three episodes - shame considering I love Dominic West), and Leftovers (couldn't make through the first episode, too preachy on the religious end and dull). Gillian Flynn, when she was reviewing for Entertainment Weekly, pissed me off with her snarky, smarter than thou reviews and I began to wonder about her - to such an extent that I've avoided her books like the plague. While Ken Tucker sometimes hit the mark and sometimes didn't. Overall, I do tend to agree with Robert Berg.
2. Fargo is really good this season. Saw two episodes of it today, back to back via On Demand.
The opening sequence in the first episode is work of genius. It's hilarious in places. [Fargo's violence weirdly doesn't bother me in the way that Gotham and The Black List did. I'm not sure why this is. It may be that the writers give the violence the same weight that Justified did. Making it comical, but at the same time, deadly serious. It feels less exploitative or glamorized for some reason. Less, I want to say, Gratutitous. I had problems with Game of Thrones for the same reasons.
It felt like the writers were doing graphic detailed gory violence just to do it -- to the extent that it felt like well torture porn. While on Fargo, it's more understated, and lends weight to the story. Not sure that makes sense. I don't mind comic book violence, such as say Marvel Agents of Shield or Doctor Who or Buffy the Vampire Slayer, but gory, torture porn like Gotham bugs me.]
This season takes place in 1979, in Fargo, Minnesota, and focuses on the father of the previous season's protagonist. They've also waited a while to premiere it - so by this point the audience forgot the previous season. You don't have to have seen the previous season to watch this season. The two exist as separate works. Fargo is sort of similar to American Horror Story in its design, in that each season is a separate entity but relates to or comments on the previous season.
In this season, we have a murder that starts things off. A seemingly innocent, somewhat naive young couple who get caught up in it - portrayed by Jesse Plemmons (Breaking Bad, Friday Night Lights) and Kirsten Duntz (lots of movies). The sheriff's are Patrick Wilson (Keith Carradine played the character in present day Fargo in the previous season), and Ted Danson (as his father in law), with Jean Smart as one of the villains.
The dialogue...whoa. This is how you do dialogue. There's a scene at the breakfast table where Danson tells a story to his granddaughter at the breakfast table and his daughter finishes it. The story is about an oyster, which he had caught and his daughter convinces him to throw back - because how would he like it if someone yanked off his house and ate him. (It's comical, but also an apt metaphor for some of the nasty activities happening.)
Dialogue serves one of two purposes to reveal character and push plot. Best when it does both. Exposition can be in dialogue, but you should reveal character with it. To see how to do it well, watch Fargo.
3. Once Upon a Time.
Continues to surprise me. I honestly have no idea where they are going with this. Which is rare for me. I can usually figure it out pretty quickly.
There's an interesting statement made by Merlin in the episode - "that once darkness is rooted in a person, it is hard to get it out again. And he can't free it from them, until their heart is truly ready to let it go."
And Emma and Arthur are both struggling with their own demons. Both on some level feel inadequate and require some external measure of success. Although, I'm not sure about Emma's characterization here.
It doesn't make a lot of sense to me that she'd hurt Henry to achieve her own ends. Particularly at this point in her arc. Felt a little contrived and not really supported. Although, in a way it juxtaposes neatly with what Regina was doing. The characters have flipped roles. Regina is now responsible for finding a way to pull Emma back, but may not be able to do it.
I'm thinking Emma erased people's memories maybe so they wouldn't remember what she did? To protect herself? Much the same way the previous villains did? Seems a bit obvious but...
It's the plot of "Felicity," only more extreme, and even though Rebecca keeps insisting that she didn't blow up her life to chase after this guy — and even though Bloom and co-creator Aline Brosh McKenna keep insisting the title is ironic(*), and let Rebecca complain about it ("The situation's a lot more nuanced than that!") in the theme song — the amount of time devoted to her feelings about Josh, not just in the pilot, but in the next two episodes the CW sent to critics, makes it hard for the audience, or Rebecca's new friends in West Covina, to see it any other way.
(*) Ask the folks from "Trophy Wife" about the American TV-viewing public's love of ironic titles sometime. I'm sure their opinion is different now from before the show debuted.
[Actually on the TV-viewing public's love of ironic titles? Try the general public's reception of Buffy the Vampire Slayer. This sort of thing flies over a lot of folks heads. Too many people think literally not metaphorically. And to pick up on the nuance of an ironic title, you really have to be able to think metaphorically.]
He's right when he states later in his review that there's actually a good show hidden in there somewhere. Because there's some great moments in the midst of it. But way too much Josh. I agree with Sepinwall, the show has got to jump away from the Josh concept, and soon.
Television critics tend to be hit and miss with me. I rarely for example agree with USA Today's Robert Bianca, who adores Ryan Murphy's shows. But Sepinwall and Emily Nussbaum, usually work for me, well except for How to Get Away with Murder (bored me), The Affair (ditto, couldn't make it through the first three episodes - shame considering I love Dominic West), and Leftovers (couldn't make through the first episode, too preachy on the religious end and dull). Gillian Flynn, when she was reviewing for Entertainment Weekly, pissed me off with her snarky, smarter than thou reviews and I began to wonder about her - to such an extent that I've avoided her books like the plague. While Ken Tucker sometimes hit the mark and sometimes didn't. Overall, I do tend to agree with Robert Berg.
2. Fargo is really good this season. Saw two episodes of it today, back to back via On Demand.
The opening sequence in the first episode is work of genius. It's hilarious in places. [Fargo's violence weirdly doesn't bother me in the way that Gotham and The Black List did. I'm not sure why this is. It may be that the writers give the violence the same weight that Justified did. Making it comical, but at the same time, deadly serious. It feels less exploitative or glamorized for some reason. Less, I want to say, Gratutitous. I had problems with Game of Thrones for the same reasons.
It felt like the writers were doing graphic detailed gory violence just to do it -- to the extent that it felt like well torture porn. While on Fargo, it's more understated, and lends weight to the story. Not sure that makes sense. I don't mind comic book violence, such as say Marvel Agents of Shield or Doctor Who or Buffy the Vampire Slayer, but gory, torture porn like Gotham bugs me.]
This season takes place in 1979, in Fargo, Minnesota, and focuses on the father of the previous season's protagonist. They've also waited a while to premiere it - so by this point the audience forgot the previous season. You don't have to have seen the previous season to watch this season. The two exist as separate works. Fargo is sort of similar to American Horror Story in its design, in that each season is a separate entity but relates to or comments on the previous season.
In this season, we have a murder that starts things off. A seemingly innocent, somewhat naive young couple who get caught up in it - portrayed by Jesse Plemmons (Breaking Bad, Friday Night Lights) and Kirsten Duntz (lots of movies). The sheriff's are Patrick Wilson (Keith Carradine played the character in present day Fargo in the previous season), and Ted Danson (as his father in law), with Jean Smart as one of the villains.
The dialogue...whoa. This is how you do dialogue. There's a scene at the breakfast table where Danson tells a story to his granddaughter at the breakfast table and his daughter finishes it. The story is about an oyster, which he had caught and his daughter convinces him to throw back - because how would he like it if someone yanked off his house and ate him. (It's comical, but also an apt metaphor for some of the nasty activities happening.)
Dialogue serves one of two purposes to reveal character and push plot. Best when it does both. Exposition can be in dialogue, but you should reveal character with it. To see how to do it well, watch Fargo.
3. Once Upon a Time.
Continues to surprise me. I honestly have no idea where they are going with this. Which is rare for me. I can usually figure it out pretty quickly.
There's an interesting statement made by Merlin in the episode - "that once darkness is rooted in a person, it is hard to get it out again. And he can't free it from them, until their heart is truly ready to let it go."
And Emma and Arthur are both struggling with their own demons. Both on some level feel inadequate and require some external measure of success. Although, I'm not sure about Emma's characterization here.
It doesn't make a lot of sense to me that she'd hurt Henry to achieve her own ends. Particularly at this point in her arc. Felt a little contrived and not really supported. Although, in a way it juxtaposes neatly with what Regina was doing. The characters have flipped roles. Regina is now responsible for finding a way to pull Emma back, but may not be able to do it.
I'm thinking Emma erased people's memories maybe so they wouldn't remember what she did? To protect herself? Much the same way the previous villains did? Seems a bit obvious but...
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2015-10-26 02:07 pm (UTC)Bianco is an idiot.
no subject
Date: 2015-10-27 01:19 am (UTC)Also noticed that he's doing a really poor job of predicting which ones will do well.
no subject
Date: 2015-10-27 09:18 am (UTC)Love the songs, and the actress playing Rebecca is superb. At the moment, those two things alone are enough to kepp me interested.
Re: OUaT:
It doesn't make a lot of sense to me that she'd hurt Henry to achieve her own ends. Although, in a way it juxtaposes neatly with what Regina was doing. The characters have flipped roles. Regina is now responsible for finding a way to pull Emma back, but may not be able to do it.
Of course we don't know yet what that reason was. I'm thinking they could draw a parallel with Snow and Charming having to make the Sophie's Choice of sending their baby to another world so she could have a chance of survival versus keeping her with them and hoping the curse wouldn't kill them all. Emma's shown difficulty on a core level with them making the choice they did. Suppose Emma had to make a similar choice while in Camelot as to hurting Henry to save either him, or possibly even everyone?
I'm thinking Emma erased people's memories maybe so they wouldn't remember what she did? To protect herself? Much the same way the previous villains did? Seems a bit obvious but...
Agree, kind of obvious. See my above comment.
BTW, did you follow original Star Trek? Remember the episode where Kirk gets split into good Kirk and bad Kirk? Anyone else out there thinking of that episode in terms of good Emma / bad Emma? I'm getting a very homage-y feeling here...