![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shadowkatOf the television shows watched this week...my favorites were:
1. BattleStar Galatica (which I think may be the best new television series of 2005 and possibly the best of 2004, although I enjoyed The 4400. Nip/Tuck wasn't new.) Each episode is better than the last one, explores the characters and their relationships and human relationships on a deeper level and offers something new. The acting is flawless as is the direction, cinematography and writing. I can't find anything wrong here. (although I'm sure someone can, it's not "geek" friendly - which may be one of the reasons why I like it so much.) Last night's episode dealt with guilt and how one handles it, and the mistakes made. It also dealt with grief. Very raw performances from the leads.
2. The West Wing - which is making a comeback. Last week's episode was a tad too preachy and issue laden for me, this week's is an acting tour de force with stellar performances from Alan Alda, Jimmy Smits, Bradley Whitford, the actress who portrays Donna Moss, the actress from Home Improvement and a bevy of other character actors - showing a day in the life of three different political campaigns for President. Also exploring in an interesting way the sacrifice of ideals for a vote.
3. Veronica Mars - which was a repeat that I'd missed the first round. This little show is definitely growing on me. This week's episode dealt with the flawed parent/child relationship in a new way. Veronica's mom mysteriously has left her and her dad before the series began. In this episode, she is hunting down a boy's father, who the boy believed was dead and had hired her to hunt down in order to get close to her - only to discover, nope, alive, not only that but he's been driving 90 miles each day to see him. He didn't recognize him because his Dad had a sex change operation. I know it sounds hokey, but the writing is so spot on, the acting so flawless, and the direction so subtle that it works. They never lose the noir undertone.
4. Gilmore Girls - the by-play between Emily and Richard Gilmore continues to draw me in, even though the two leads, Lorelie and Rory occassionally grate.
Also enjoying the relationship between Luke and Lorelie and how Loreli's old relationships and past threatens to get between it. This is a series that deftly builds on its past episodes, without requiring that you've seen them.
(Lost was a re-run this week - and while I enjoy the series, I don't feel compelled to rewatch it. Very few shows do I watch more than once.)
Other series of notable interest, but not as good as the above:
1. Medium - lackluster, somewhat preachy/smulchy episode. Not as deft and subtle as prior two. Although I enjoy the actresses playing the kids and the family interaction. Also fond the scene where Jack Webber is attempting to find his daughter play dates, real and moving. Could have done without the religious overtones though - a little bit too much Touched by An Angel at the end.
2. 24 - yes, I'm still watching, there's nothing else on on Mondays to distract me. Also I adore Keither Sutherland as an actor and he continues to deliver flawless performances regardless of the material. This episode was better than the first three or four. 24 often gets better as the season moves forward and we learn the initial problem is just a mislead. This season is no exception. Here - stellar performances are delivered from William Devane, the actress playing the Terrorist's wife, her son, Sutherland, his girlfriend,
and Alberta Watson who provides depth to a bitchy role. Nice and twisty with a focus on father's betraying their sons.
3. Desperate Housewives - this is getting a little more interesting. Bree's story is finally beginning to take off and the interaction between Ryan O'Neal and Lynette's family worked. The stereotypes still grate at me, but more watchable this week than previous weeks.
4. Joan of Arcadia - some interesting tid-bits, the exploration of sexual harrassment from a female boss (not sure it works, but is interesting and we have good actors doing it), and the idea of hero-worship and how it doesn't work. The need to find your value in others and figure out what you want through them. There's also a few good lines: "Where'd you get your heads? From Mattel?" And one about how seeking value in someone else never works. Being human -They'll always let you down. You have to find it in yourself.
5. ER - yes, I'm still watching, no it hasn't gotten much better. But I like three characters: Carter, Neela, and Abby and I watch for them. Sooner or later I'll give up, but for now...sticking with it.
Show's I've just about given up on:
Alias
Point Pleasant
The Apprentice
For pretty much the same reason - they aren't holding my interest. I'm bored.
I keep flipping channels to something else.
In Alias' case - I may have continued watching it - if West Wing hadn't made such a comeback and got so good all of a sudden. Also, it may just be me, but Alias' plots, set design, and current set-up feels like a family-friendly remake of La Femme Nikita, the little I saw of Wed night's episode was so similar to a prior episode of Nikita, I experienced deja vue. The set-design of headquarters was almost the same as Nikita's set or my memory of it, the assignment or task was the same, and the relationship between the leads - the same. This works - if you never saw Nikita or weren't a fan of the series. If you were? Like me. Alias feels like someone Disneyfied Nikita for a broader audience, changed its name and hired more accessible/recognizable actors for the lead roles. I can't watch it without squirming and sniping at the tv set.
Point Pleasant.
This show reminds me of American Gothic - a series about a small town and a boy trying to fight his heritage. His father is the town sheriff and may in fact be the devil, although this is wisely only hinted at, not stated point blank like they do with Christina in Point Pleasant. The series stared Gary Cole as the twisty Sheriff, Sarah Poulson, Jack Webber, and
the kid was played by the same actor who co-starred with Billy Bob Thornton in the film he won his oscar for. Flawless acting, creepy mood, subtle, dark, harsh, and twisty. Completely unpredictable. That was American Gothic. And that is what Point Pleasant appears to be aspiring towards. Note, American Gothic was cancelled only after one season and did horribly in the ratings and most people online don't remember it. It was similar in tone to Twin Peaks, which was vaguer than Gothic and more subtle. Picket Fences also went this route, but took the lighter more sunny end and lasted much longer. Point Pleasant seems to be attempting to go the Picket Fences/Twin Peaks route, but unfortunately suffers from the same problems as The Mountain. And comes closest to being like the Mountain - that is if the Mountain got gothic.
(*Turns out that it is actually going for the same set-up as American Gothic did, just found out that Boyd's name is Lucas. That was Gary Cole's evil sheriff's name. Also we had a devilish red-haired diva that Cole's character manipulated and abused - just like Dina Meyer. The only difference? Cole already owned the town and was the boy's father. But Cole did exactly the same thing's Grant Show does, except Cole had more fun, was sexier, creepier, and more interesting. Honestly, I think my main problem with Point Pleasant, may be I've seen this done before but much much better by Shaun Cassidy with American Gothic and David Lynch with Twin Peaks. )
Gothic is tough to pull off without coming across as incredibly silly. Horror is also tough to pull off - as you may have guessed looking at the current group of failed horror films. You have two choices - be scarey or be humorous and the best? Do both. Tough to do. Gothic horror? Really tough. Whedon pulled it off the with a charming tongue in cheek sense of humor. And it wasn't something he accomplished right off the bat - his first attempt was the failed film version. The next attempt took a few episodes to get right. He knew that in this genre - the biggest mistake you can make is to take yourself too seriously or to be too overt. It's a difficult balancing act. Sometimes he succeeded sometimes he failed miserably.
It's amazing to me how many people out there believe that if they loved one book or one series by a particular writer - they'll love them all. Oh - Whedon wrote the brilliant Buffy the Vampire Series, so of course every other thing he writes will be equally amazing. Please - he's not God, he's a writer.
Human. Fallible. And for every great episode, a la The Body, there's at least three crappy ones. Same with every writer out there - Joyce, Fitzgerald, Hemingway, Crichton, King, Woolf, Bujold - all have written good and bad books.
The more prolific - the more likely they've written crap. To be honest, while I do try things by known quantity's, I don't count on liking them. Just because Marsters is performing in XYZ drama, does not mean I'll like it or think it's good. I might like his performance, I might not. Nor does his inability to deliver a good performance in XYZ, mean that I don't like his acting - I enjoyed him as Spike. Same thing with writers - just because I think Point Pleasant is the worst new show I've seen so far - does not mean that I think Marti Noxon and Ben Edlund are bad writers nor that I'll not try another show they work on. Nor will I continue to watch Point Pleasant just because they happen to write and produce it. It doesn't appeal to me. I don't continue to read, watch, listen to or buy things just because XYZ happens to be in them or work on them or create them. (I may try it because they worked on it, but whether I stay with it - depends on if there's something else there.) I do it because I like the story or the creation. Nor do I lose faith in their ability to create something I like, just because they happened to create something I didn't. Life is a crap-shoot after all - sometimes you hit, sometimes you miss. Point Pleasant? After three episodes - feels like a miss to me. It doesn't hold my interest. I can't connect to any of the characters or to the story.
The Apprentice? Sigh. The sniping got to me finally.
1. BattleStar Galatica (which I think may be the best new television series of 2005 and possibly the best of 2004, although I enjoyed The 4400. Nip/Tuck wasn't new.) Each episode is better than the last one, explores the characters and their relationships and human relationships on a deeper level and offers something new. The acting is flawless as is the direction, cinematography and writing. I can't find anything wrong here. (although I'm sure someone can, it's not "geek" friendly - which may be one of the reasons why I like it so much.) Last night's episode dealt with guilt and how one handles it, and the mistakes made. It also dealt with grief. Very raw performances from the leads.
2. The West Wing - which is making a comeback. Last week's episode was a tad too preachy and issue laden for me, this week's is an acting tour de force with stellar performances from Alan Alda, Jimmy Smits, Bradley Whitford, the actress who portrays Donna Moss, the actress from Home Improvement and a bevy of other character actors - showing a day in the life of three different political campaigns for President. Also exploring in an interesting way the sacrifice of ideals for a vote.
3. Veronica Mars - which was a repeat that I'd missed the first round. This little show is definitely growing on me. This week's episode dealt with the flawed parent/child relationship in a new way. Veronica's mom mysteriously has left her and her dad before the series began. In this episode, she is hunting down a boy's father, who the boy believed was dead and had hired her to hunt down in order to get close to her - only to discover, nope, alive, not only that but he's been driving 90 miles each day to see him. He didn't recognize him because his Dad had a sex change operation. I know it sounds hokey, but the writing is so spot on, the acting so flawless, and the direction so subtle that it works. They never lose the noir undertone.
4. Gilmore Girls - the by-play between Emily and Richard Gilmore continues to draw me in, even though the two leads, Lorelie and Rory occassionally grate.
Also enjoying the relationship between Luke and Lorelie and how Loreli's old relationships and past threatens to get between it. This is a series that deftly builds on its past episodes, without requiring that you've seen them.
(Lost was a re-run this week - and while I enjoy the series, I don't feel compelled to rewatch it. Very few shows do I watch more than once.)
Other series of notable interest, but not as good as the above:
1. Medium - lackluster, somewhat preachy/smulchy episode. Not as deft and subtle as prior two. Although I enjoy the actresses playing the kids and the family interaction. Also fond the scene where Jack Webber is attempting to find his daughter play dates, real and moving. Could have done without the religious overtones though - a little bit too much Touched by An Angel at the end.
2. 24 - yes, I'm still watching, there's nothing else on on Mondays to distract me. Also I adore Keither Sutherland as an actor and he continues to deliver flawless performances regardless of the material. This episode was better than the first three or four. 24 often gets better as the season moves forward and we learn the initial problem is just a mislead. This season is no exception. Here - stellar performances are delivered from William Devane, the actress playing the Terrorist's wife, her son, Sutherland, his girlfriend,
and Alberta Watson who provides depth to a bitchy role. Nice and twisty with a focus on father's betraying their sons.
3. Desperate Housewives - this is getting a little more interesting. Bree's story is finally beginning to take off and the interaction between Ryan O'Neal and Lynette's family worked. The stereotypes still grate at me, but more watchable this week than previous weeks.
4. Joan of Arcadia - some interesting tid-bits, the exploration of sexual harrassment from a female boss (not sure it works, but is interesting and we have good actors doing it), and the idea of hero-worship and how it doesn't work. The need to find your value in others and figure out what you want through them. There's also a few good lines: "Where'd you get your heads? From Mattel?" And one about how seeking value in someone else never works. Being human -They'll always let you down. You have to find it in yourself.
5. ER - yes, I'm still watching, no it hasn't gotten much better. But I like three characters: Carter, Neela, and Abby and I watch for them. Sooner or later I'll give up, but for now...sticking with it.
Show's I've just about given up on:
Alias
Point Pleasant
The Apprentice
For pretty much the same reason - they aren't holding my interest. I'm bored.
I keep flipping channels to something else.
In Alias' case - I may have continued watching it - if West Wing hadn't made such a comeback and got so good all of a sudden. Also, it may just be me, but Alias' plots, set design, and current set-up feels like a family-friendly remake of La Femme Nikita, the little I saw of Wed night's episode was so similar to a prior episode of Nikita, I experienced deja vue. The set-design of headquarters was almost the same as Nikita's set or my memory of it, the assignment or task was the same, and the relationship between the leads - the same. This works - if you never saw Nikita or weren't a fan of the series. If you were? Like me. Alias feels like someone Disneyfied Nikita for a broader audience, changed its name and hired more accessible/recognizable actors for the lead roles. I can't watch it without squirming and sniping at the tv set.
Point Pleasant.
This show reminds me of American Gothic - a series about a small town and a boy trying to fight his heritage. His father is the town sheriff and may in fact be the devil, although this is wisely only hinted at, not stated point blank like they do with Christina in Point Pleasant. The series stared Gary Cole as the twisty Sheriff, Sarah Poulson, Jack Webber, and
the kid was played by the same actor who co-starred with Billy Bob Thornton in the film he won his oscar for. Flawless acting, creepy mood, subtle, dark, harsh, and twisty. Completely unpredictable. That was American Gothic. And that is what Point Pleasant appears to be aspiring towards. Note, American Gothic was cancelled only after one season and did horribly in the ratings and most people online don't remember it. It was similar in tone to Twin Peaks, which was vaguer than Gothic and more subtle. Picket Fences also went this route, but took the lighter more sunny end and lasted much longer. Point Pleasant seems to be attempting to go the Picket Fences/Twin Peaks route, but unfortunately suffers from the same problems as The Mountain. And comes closest to being like the Mountain - that is if the Mountain got gothic.
(*Turns out that it is actually going for the same set-up as American Gothic did, just found out that Boyd's name is Lucas. That was Gary Cole's evil sheriff's name. Also we had a devilish red-haired diva that Cole's character manipulated and abused - just like Dina Meyer. The only difference? Cole already owned the town and was the boy's father. But Cole did exactly the same thing's Grant Show does, except Cole had more fun, was sexier, creepier, and more interesting. Honestly, I think my main problem with Point Pleasant, may be I've seen this done before but much much better by Shaun Cassidy with American Gothic and David Lynch with Twin Peaks. )
Gothic is tough to pull off without coming across as incredibly silly. Horror is also tough to pull off - as you may have guessed looking at the current group of failed horror films. You have two choices - be scarey or be humorous and the best? Do both. Tough to do. Gothic horror? Really tough. Whedon pulled it off the with a charming tongue in cheek sense of humor. And it wasn't something he accomplished right off the bat - his first attempt was the failed film version. The next attempt took a few episodes to get right. He knew that in this genre - the biggest mistake you can make is to take yourself too seriously or to be too overt. It's a difficult balancing act. Sometimes he succeeded sometimes he failed miserably.
It's amazing to me how many people out there believe that if they loved one book or one series by a particular writer - they'll love them all. Oh - Whedon wrote the brilliant Buffy the Vampire Series, so of course every other thing he writes will be equally amazing. Please - he's not God, he's a writer.
Human. Fallible. And for every great episode, a la The Body, there's at least three crappy ones. Same with every writer out there - Joyce, Fitzgerald, Hemingway, Crichton, King, Woolf, Bujold - all have written good and bad books.
The more prolific - the more likely they've written crap. To be honest, while I do try things by known quantity's, I don't count on liking them. Just because Marsters is performing in XYZ drama, does not mean I'll like it or think it's good. I might like his performance, I might not. Nor does his inability to deliver a good performance in XYZ, mean that I don't like his acting - I enjoyed him as Spike. Same thing with writers - just because I think Point Pleasant is the worst new show I've seen so far - does not mean that I think Marti Noxon and Ben Edlund are bad writers nor that I'll not try another show they work on. Nor will I continue to watch Point Pleasant just because they happen to write and produce it. It doesn't appeal to me. I don't continue to read, watch, listen to or buy things just because XYZ happens to be in them or work on them or create them. (I may try it because they worked on it, but whether I stay with it - depends on if there's something else there.) I do it because I like the story or the creation. Nor do I lose faith in their ability to create something I like, just because they happened to create something I didn't. Life is a crap-shoot after all - sometimes you hit, sometimes you miss. Point Pleasant? After three episodes - feels like a miss to me. It doesn't hold my interest. I can't connect to any of the characters or to the story.
The Apprentice? Sigh. The sniping got to me finally.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-01-29 09:27 am (UTC)I think maybe the conflict is that yes, he has dealt with her dreams all these years and her gift - but he is also a "rationalist"/"scientist" personality and probably came up with rational explanations. Up until the new job - she was suppressing her gift, fighting it, going the rationalist route - by becoming an attorney (which was the first episode). But struggling. Her husband decided to take down her dream and send it to different police stations around the country to possibly prove her wrong?
(When I saw the first episode, I got the opposite impression, that he was doing it possibly to prove her right, now looking back I think the writers intended the opposite - but failed to convey this to the actors and director, common problem on TV, same thing happened a couple of times on BTVS.) I think he was meant to be doing it to prove that they were just dreams, products of stress - but being a good sort, when he's proved wrong, he tells her the truth and tries to be supportive of her gift but is at war with himself over it. This is a rocket scientist remember, his wife's gift is the opposite of what he has been taught or believes, it's not "rational", it doesn't have an explanation. In each episode you see him struggle with that on some level - either consciously or subconsciously - it's not something I think you can just deal with.