![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shadowkat1. So, it turns out that the actor, director, show-runner, producer etc of one of your favorite television series is a pervert, sex offender, or fill in the blank. Do you boycott his films and/or television series?
Depends.
Unless you happen to have a Nielsen ratings box and/or are subscribing to the specific television series? No one is going to care if you are boycotting it, except you. So it is sort of pointless to boycott tv shows unless you are counted for the ratings. (Most of us aren't.)
Buying television series is slightly different of course. But, unless the artist involved is directly receiving money from your purchase of the series, it doesn't matter. It's not the same thing as going to see them in concert or in the theater. (ie. Buying Wise-Guy Series, isn't going to affect Kevin Spacey, who had a guest-starring role in it, one way or the other. Nor is buying the box set of House of Cards or it's unlikely to. Just as buying or watching Arrow, Supergirl or The Flash is going to affect the producer of it all that much.)
Also, unless the movie is currently in movie theaters...no one will care if you decide never to watch it for free on cable, netflix, etc. Or even if you decide never to rent it on netflix. And it's unlikely Woody Allen or Roman Polanski will notice if you decide never to watch their films again.
(Boycotting Louis CK's recent film will make a difference, because he wrote, directed, acted in it and produced it. Just as not seeing Woody Allen's films in theaters will make a difference. But boycotting Manchester by the Sea, which is on netflix, is hardly going to matter all that much.)
I'm not saying you should or shouldn't watch these things. Just that if you want to make an impact, you probably be better able to do it by donating money to Planned Parenthood or a Survivors of Sexual Abuse Foundation. Or by writing your representatives for stronger laws regarding it.
Boycotts work to a degree. Right now the threat of a boycott is causing the directors of a film being released in December to edit out Kevin Spacey and reshoot it with Christopher Plummer. And House of Cards completely shut down production. So, it can work, but it depends on what it is, who is involved, etc.
But I honestly don't think boycotting Arrow, Supergirl, and The Flash is going to matter all that much. (Not that I'm watching them, but that has more to do with the fact that I don't enjoy them. Not my cup of tea.)
Also, there's something to be said for being able to separate the artist from the work. Although, I'll admit I'm not sure I can watch Mel Gibson, Kevin Spacey, or any of the others who have been accused without getting squeamish. I'm struggling with Jeremy Piven and Woody Allen. And admittedly deleted Wisdom of the Crowd from the DVR, but again that has more to do with losing interest.
In regards to books? I did decide not to read Orson Scott Card or buy any of his books, after I learned that he was using proceeds to fund an anti-LGBT political faction. So, it depends. In most cases, it really doesn't matter.
2. Lucifer
Say what you will about Lucifer, they write the best stand-a-lone episodes. Or at the very least provide a lot of character development during them. I was highly impressed by the amount of character development and insight in this episode. Also two excellent guest stars. John Billingsly and Patrick Fabian (two journeymen actors who have played a lot of character roles between them).
I can sort of see why this episode aired this year as opposed to last year. It would have been a bit more jarring last year, and sort of disruptive of the story thread. On the other hand...it's a bit jarring here too. For a while I was trying to figure out where we were in the time-line, until I realized it was depicting events we weren't privy to, a year ago. (I think the writers should have introduced the character earlier in previous episodes for this to have worked. It seemed odd that they hadn't and a bit jarring.) That said, I was able to hand-wave it for the most part, because I loved the character development.
Also I feel validated for being spot-on in regards to my analysis/interpretation of this season's take on Hell. The show went out of its way to spell it out for us. Thank you writers. Since the show has brought it up various times and went out of it's way to make it a major theme in this episode -- I'm guessing I'm also right in thinking it's important. It's nice to feel validated. Don't often get that from television serials.
Although...it is a tad confusing -- the hell depicted in S1 seems really different than the hell depicted in S2-3. S1 seems more traditional, along with the devil, while 2-3 seems more revisionist. I may be wrong about that -- I admittedly have only watched S1 once, and memory isn't the most trustworthy thing in the universe.
This episode continues the thematic arc of the previous ones which is -- the worst hell or punishment is the one we give ourselves. Or we create our own hell, primarily with our guilt.
The pov throughout the episode is Reese, an investigative journalist who also turns out to be Dr. Linda's ex-husband, who she's referred to obliquely in previous episodes. This helps develop Dr. Linda and also explains why she was attracted to Lucifer. Reese discovers Lucifer shagging his wife and tries to destroy him, which of course proves impossible and instead destroys himself.
Through Reese, we see to a degree what Lucifer keeps telling people, that he doesn't cause their misery, they do.
Lucifer: I'm going to tell you something I've never told another human soul -- I don't send humans to hell. I have nothing to do with it.
Reese: Then how do we get there?
Lucifer: You send yourselves. Your guilt drives you to hell. And you torture yourselves by reliving your worst crimes over and over and over again in a room. But the door is never locked. And you can leave at any time. I have nothing to do with it. I neither send you there or keep you there, nor do I devise the punishment. You do it yourselves.
At the end, we discover Lucifer is right, when Reese goes to hell and repeats over and over again the events that lead him there. Like an endless loop. Except with no memory of what occurred and no way of changing it. His guilt is eating him alive and torturing him.
(I can't help but wonder if the Lucifer writers have watched The Good Place or Groundhog Day one too many times.)
It's an innovative take on the devil/hell mythology. The exact opposite of Supernatural and The Exorcist, which are rather traditionalist views. In other words, it's a breath of fresh air. In the world Lucifer, the devil doesn't collect souls, nor is he the manifestation of evil, but rather a caretaker of sorts of a dimension where people send themselves out of guilt. And he's grown weary of it, so left. Bloody souls can torture themselves without his help.
This does appear to be a bit of a retcon from the first season's interpretation of hell, where Lucifer and then Amen were rulers of hell, and kept the souls inside it. Devising their tortures.
Over the past two seasons, for whatever reason, the writers have decided to move away from that interpretation to this one.
I'm wondering if I'm missing something? OR if it is a mislead? And hell is both what was previously depicted and this, depending on the situation. Or, yes, the human souls send themselves there. And trap themselves there out of guilt. But for those souls who appear to be incapable of guilt, they are imprisoned there? I don't know, I'm trying to figure out how the first season fits within this take on hell. It's possible that I've forgotten something from the first season or misremembered it...after all, I've only watched each episode once. So...to anyone reading this, who has watched the episodes repeatedly? Does S1's intepretation of hell fit with S3's interpretation? I'm pretty sure 2 and 3's version fit. But 1 seems slightly off somehow -- hell seemed darker in one, more dangerous somehow, more traditionalist. While S2-3, seem more revisionist?
Anyhow, I rather enjoyed the episode. My two favorite shows are definitely Lucifer and The Good Place. Part of me wants to see a cross-over episode between them. Michael and Lucifer chatting about hell....
Depends.
Unless you happen to have a Nielsen ratings box and/or are subscribing to the specific television series? No one is going to care if you are boycotting it, except you. So it is sort of pointless to boycott tv shows unless you are counted for the ratings. (Most of us aren't.)
Buying television series is slightly different of course. But, unless the artist involved is directly receiving money from your purchase of the series, it doesn't matter. It's not the same thing as going to see them in concert or in the theater. (ie. Buying Wise-Guy Series, isn't going to affect Kevin Spacey, who had a guest-starring role in it, one way or the other. Nor is buying the box set of House of Cards or it's unlikely to. Just as buying or watching Arrow, Supergirl or The Flash is going to affect the producer of it all that much.)
Also, unless the movie is currently in movie theaters...no one will care if you decide never to watch it for free on cable, netflix, etc. Or even if you decide never to rent it on netflix. And it's unlikely Woody Allen or Roman Polanski will notice if you decide never to watch their films again.
(Boycotting Louis CK's recent film will make a difference, because he wrote, directed, acted in it and produced it. Just as not seeing Woody Allen's films in theaters will make a difference. But boycotting Manchester by the Sea, which is on netflix, is hardly going to matter all that much.)
I'm not saying you should or shouldn't watch these things. Just that if you want to make an impact, you probably be better able to do it by donating money to Planned Parenthood or a Survivors of Sexual Abuse Foundation. Or by writing your representatives for stronger laws regarding it.
Boycotts work to a degree. Right now the threat of a boycott is causing the directors of a film being released in December to edit out Kevin Spacey and reshoot it with Christopher Plummer. And House of Cards completely shut down production. So, it can work, but it depends on what it is, who is involved, etc.
But I honestly don't think boycotting Arrow, Supergirl, and The Flash is going to matter all that much. (Not that I'm watching them, but that has more to do with the fact that I don't enjoy them. Not my cup of tea.)
Also, there's something to be said for being able to separate the artist from the work. Although, I'll admit I'm not sure I can watch Mel Gibson, Kevin Spacey, or any of the others who have been accused without getting squeamish. I'm struggling with Jeremy Piven and Woody Allen. And admittedly deleted Wisdom of the Crowd from the DVR, but again that has more to do with losing interest.
In regards to books? I did decide not to read Orson Scott Card or buy any of his books, after I learned that he was using proceeds to fund an anti-LGBT political faction. So, it depends. In most cases, it really doesn't matter.
2. Lucifer
Say what you will about Lucifer, they write the best stand-a-lone episodes. Or at the very least provide a lot of character development during them. I was highly impressed by the amount of character development and insight in this episode. Also two excellent guest stars. John Billingsly and Patrick Fabian (two journeymen actors who have played a lot of character roles between them).
I can sort of see why this episode aired this year as opposed to last year. It would have been a bit more jarring last year, and sort of disruptive of the story thread. On the other hand...it's a bit jarring here too. For a while I was trying to figure out where we were in the time-line, until I realized it was depicting events we weren't privy to, a year ago. (I think the writers should have introduced the character earlier in previous episodes for this to have worked. It seemed odd that they hadn't and a bit jarring.) That said, I was able to hand-wave it for the most part, because I loved the character development.
Also I feel validated for being spot-on in regards to my analysis/interpretation of this season's take on Hell. The show went out of its way to spell it out for us. Thank you writers. Since the show has brought it up various times and went out of it's way to make it a major theme in this episode -- I'm guessing I'm also right in thinking it's important. It's nice to feel validated. Don't often get that from television serials.
Although...it is a tad confusing -- the hell depicted in S1 seems really different than the hell depicted in S2-3. S1 seems more traditional, along with the devil, while 2-3 seems more revisionist. I may be wrong about that -- I admittedly have only watched S1 once, and memory isn't the most trustworthy thing in the universe.
This episode continues the thematic arc of the previous ones which is -- the worst hell or punishment is the one we give ourselves. Or we create our own hell, primarily with our guilt.
The pov throughout the episode is Reese, an investigative journalist who also turns out to be Dr. Linda's ex-husband, who she's referred to obliquely in previous episodes. This helps develop Dr. Linda and also explains why she was attracted to Lucifer. Reese discovers Lucifer shagging his wife and tries to destroy him, which of course proves impossible and instead destroys himself.
Through Reese, we see to a degree what Lucifer keeps telling people, that he doesn't cause their misery, they do.
Lucifer: I'm going to tell you something I've never told another human soul -- I don't send humans to hell. I have nothing to do with it.
Reese: Then how do we get there?
Lucifer: You send yourselves. Your guilt drives you to hell. And you torture yourselves by reliving your worst crimes over and over and over again in a room. But the door is never locked. And you can leave at any time. I have nothing to do with it. I neither send you there or keep you there, nor do I devise the punishment. You do it yourselves.
At the end, we discover Lucifer is right, when Reese goes to hell and repeats over and over again the events that lead him there. Like an endless loop. Except with no memory of what occurred and no way of changing it. His guilt is eating him alive and torturing him.
(I can't help but wonder if the Lucifer writers have watched The Good Place or Groundhog Day one too many times.)
It's an innovative take on the devil/hell mythology. The exact opposite of Supernatural and The Exorcist, which are rather traditionalist views. In other words, it's a breath of fresh air. In the world Lucifer, the devil doesn't collect souls, nor is he the manifestation of evil, but rather a caretaker of sorts of a dimension where people send themselves out of guilt. And he's grown weary of it, so left. Bloody souls can torture themselves without his help.
This does appear to be a bit of a retcon from the first season's interpretation of hell, where Lucifer and then Amen were rulers of hell, and kept the souls inside it. Devising their tortures.
Over the past two seasons, for whatever reason, the writers have decided to move away from that interpretation to this one.
I'm wondering if I'm missing something? OR if it is a mislead? And hell is both what was previously depicted and this, depending on the situation. Or, yes, the human souls send themselves there. And trap themselves there out of guilt. But for those souls who appear to be incapable of guilt, they are imprisoned there? I don't know, I'm trying to figure out how the first season fits within this take on hell. It's possible that I've forgotten something from the first season or misremembered it...after all, I've only watched each episode once. So...to anyone reading this, who has watched the episodes repeatedly? Does S1's intepretation of hell fit with S3's interpretation? I'm pretty sure 2 and 3's version fit. But 1 seems slightly off somehow -- hell seemed darker in one, more dangerous somehow, more traditionalist. While S2-3, seem more revisionist?
Anyhow, I rather enjoyed the episode. My two favorite shows are definitely Lucifer and The Good Place. Part of me wants to see a cross-over episode between them. Michael and Lucifer chatting about hell....
no subject
Date: 2017-11-14 09:58 am (UTC)I think some things will probably remain fuzzy, as it's doubtful that the show (as opposed to the comics) will ever set entire story arcs in Hell, or feature the rulers of hell (well, the demons who ruled under Lucifer) in much detail.
Though it's just possible the Sinnerman will turn out to be one of them.
I didn't find the episode jarring, btw. I thought it fit in great.
no subject
Date: 2017-11-14 01:37 pm (UTC)Well, you do have the advantage of rewatching every episode two or three times...;-)
no subject
Date: 2017-11-14 02:55 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2017-11-14 02:05 pm (UTC)Eh, sorry for that last response. Hardly helpful. Apparently I'm a touch irritable this morning at work.
Though it's just possible the Sinnerman will turn out to be one of them.
Wondering much the same thing. Someone has to be ruling down there in Lucy's absence.
I didn't find the episode jarring, btw. I thought it fit in great.
Did Reese come up prior to this episode? Or was her ex ever mentioned? I can't remember.
It jarred me a little that he sort of dropped in out of the blue. Also the serial killer arc seemed to come in out of the blue, while never being mentioned previously.
I think they may have edited it to fit in with this season...because we have last year, with the trading of the bag...then the one year later that felt added on?
I think season 1's depiction of Hell was so fuzzy that it hardly matters if they match. As for people incapable of feeling guilt, Dr Linda did ask Lucifer if there was a tyrant's wing in hell for people like Hitler, but Lucifer didn't actually answer her.
I was referring to the guy who was punished in hell with starvation or insane hunger, not guilt. The one who tried to kill Chloe and Lucy, and kidnapped Trixi, and was blackmailing Det Dan? The one that Amen let loose from hell?
no subject
Date: 2017-11-14 03:00 pm (UTC)I think they may have edited it to fit in with this season...because we have last year, with the trading of the bag...then the one year later that felt added on?
I don't think anything was edited. To me, there was nothing that felt forced to fit in with season 3. Nor did anything feel added on.
Of course, that could be because it's now two weeks since we've seen an episode written and shot in season 3. I'd have to re-watch the whole of season 3 so far to see how well it fits together. IMO, the only episode so far that's felt out of place in season 3 was the Maze one (though it was so enjoyable I don't care), but I might change my mind on re-watching.
Which I will be doing when the show goes on hiatus, which it probably will soon.
no subject
Date: 2017-11-14 03:30 pm (UTC)You mean Malcolm? Yes, though again his punishment was very specific to him. That part is consistent. Yes, I think it was Malcolm (the bad cop). And True. Except, it's not about reliving guilt, just a specific feeling or desire being removed. He's starving in hell. Always.
The how is inconsistent, but the what is consistent. Which stands out to me. Hmmm to explain another way....It's sort of like saying yes, that's the color orange, and yes, they are all colors. Everyone is wearing a color. Except all the other colors are within the spectrum of say blue. While this color is within the spectrum of yellow and red.
Here, yes, the punishments are specific to the people receiving them, but no one else has been punished in that manner, but Malcolm. Everyone else has the whole repeat your worst crime forever. (Who also was the original Sinnerman -- Lucy sings the song "Sinnerman" with Malcolm's actions in the background.) Even the serial killer, who tried to kill Chloe with the poison in S2, was punished with the repeating your worst act routine.
IMO, the only episode so far that's felt out of place in season 3 was the Maze one (though it was so enjoyable I don't care), but I might change my mind on re-watching. Odd, the only one of the three that didn't feel out of place to me was the Maze episode, mainly because it explained where Maze was. But I think they should have shown it after the Vegas episode, since she's not in the Vegas episode at all, which felt odd.
Part of the difficulty I had with this episode was I missed the bit where they told us where we were in the timeline. So it wasn't until they said -- "one year later" that I realized, wait, this is taking place now, we're just doing flashbacks. And, it was a bit jarring that her husband dropped in out of nowhere.
That said? I loved it anyway and found it very enjoyable. Lucifer does the best stand-a-lone episodes. ( I tend to be critical of tv shows that I love. ;-))
no subject
Date: 2017-11-14 04:42 pm (UTC)Now I think of it, this is not actually true. Or rather both scenarios - the guilt devising its own punishment one, and the Lucifer actually doing the punishing one - have cropped up in season 3. There's the scene at the end of episode 4 (What Would Lucifer Do?), where he's angry with Amenadiel and tells him that he reminds him of a soul he used to torture in hell, and who begged him not to forget him again when he didn't (for some unspecified reason) torture him one day.
It's possible - probable, even - that the inconsistencies are just down to different writers having different interpretations.
no subject
Date: 2017-11-14 06:01 pm (UTC)Or just two of the writers aren't with the program?
Because Lucifer, Charlotte, Serial Killer, Reese, are all in the redoing your crime over and over, with guilt dragging you down to hell.
Malcolm and undisclosed guy are direct torture via whoever is in charge of hell.
There's the scene at the end of episode 4 (What Would Lucifer Do?), where he's angry with Amenadiel and tells him that he reminds him of a soul he used to torture in hell, and who begged him not to forget him again when he didn't (for some unspecified reason) torture him one day.
Hmmm...the thing I took away from that story though was "the point of my story, is I realized that he wanted to be tortured. His guilt was driving it. When I didn't torture him he was worse." His guilt demanded it.
So, the common thread isn't how they are being tortured, but why, or rather what drags them to hell. It's not God or the Devil, it's their own free will. Their guilt takes them there, and their guilt devises the torture.
Malcolm devises his own torture -- his desire for more, results in his destruction. Those who replay their past misdeeds -- desire to fix things for themselves by blaming others Man who wanted to be flogged -- is flogging himself for his own misdeeds, he needs the attention
Lucifer isn't responsible for them being in hell or really on how they are being punished, they are?
no subject
Date: 2017-11-14 07:31 pm (UTC)