Glee and Ringer - Take II
Sep. 27th, 2011 11:17 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shadowkat* Glee - dear Glee, surely you realize the only reason I watch you is for the musical performances, not the cheesy, somewhat cliche high school plot threads that feel pulled from old 1980s Afternoon Specials, right? Also, it's a bit hard to take these high school plot-lines seriously, when the actors playing the students look like they are in their late 20s, with the possible exception of Kurt. That said? Please can we have Blaine do Tony for West Side Story, maybe even have him do it on Broadway or in a film? He's so much better than Beemer was in the original film version that it isn't even funny. Blaine, seriously, is the best male performer next to Matthew Morrison on that series. And the best addition to the cast. Plus he and Rachel actually have chemistry. Kurt, hon, you aren't Tony, Riff however...I can totally see. Mercedes, hon, you aren't Maria, but Anita might work - better role anyway. In the film version - Bernado was the better role - because Beemer couldn't dance or sing. They went with maitainee idols for the film version - Natalie Wood and Richard Beemer (who later starred in Twin Peaks along with the original Riff, Russ Tamblyn). They overlooked Larry Kerr who had the role on Broadway, can't remember who played Maria on Broadway. Chita Rivera did Anita, as did the gal who got the role in the film and won the Oscar. The guy who played Bernando in the film - I had a crush on and followed around - that man could dance. At any rate? Best perfomance - Blaine's - doing "Something's Coming", Tony's solo from West Side Story - which made me think - oh, so that's how it's supposed to be done? The other best performance was Rachel and Shelby (the great Idina Mendzel)'s duet of Somewhere. [Yes, I'm a musical theater, film and television geek, this we know.]
*Ringer - I continue to find Ringer entertaining, and quite funny in places. Of course it helps if you get the inside jokes. Tonight's jokes were charmingly directed at daytime soap operas.
First, we get a cameo by Jaime Bruening, otherwise known as Jamie Martin on the recently canceled All My Children. In case we can't figure out that this is an inside joke and not just coincidence,
up pops Phyllis from Y&R, as a chatty acquaintance of Siobhan's - who is basically playing Phyllis from Young & the Restless. Siobhan even says to her - say hi for me to Jack and the kids. (Jack
is or was her hubby on Y&R, not sure if they are still married or not. But their storyline was actually fairly reminiscent of Siobhan's.)
Ringer needs to trust its audience's memory a bit better - we saw the guy with the cellphone last week, you pointed him out in the previously bit, we don't need a reminder flashback to aid us.
It's repetitive.
But it is getting better, the switch in production crew is a definite bonus. (Apparently Gellar fired the old crew after the pilot, and hired a new crew - people she'd worked with on Buffy, in the interview she states the most important thing was the food. She liked the caterers on Buffy better. I think she's being disingenuous, the gal cares what she looks like - and the Buffy makeup crew/costumers made her look pretty or prettier than anyone else has to date. If I were her? I'd have hired them too. James Marsters, if he ever gets that type of clout, should follow suit. I've come to the conclusion that Buffy had a kick-ass makeup and production crew. None of the actors from those shows have looked quite as good since. Forget Whedon and the writers, hire the production crew - they've been grossly under-rated. (I'm joking a little here folks, obviously I know that the collaborative writing and direction on Buffy was 90% of its success.).)
The plot is still a bit all over the place. And it is really hard to like Bridget/Siobhan or care that much about either of them. Also what the heck happened to the teen daughter addicted to drugs?
Inquiring minds want to know? She just up and disappeared. I thought she was living there and bonding with Bridget/Siobhan? Anyone else feel like we skipped an episode in there somewhere? This happens a lot in these types of serials - they will either spend far too much time on weird subplots, or skip over bits. How hard would it have been to say - oh, teen daughter addicted to drugs has gone back to school or was out? One line? Hello?
Apparently this storyline much like Revenge has something to do with investment banking, but the writers don't appear to understand investment banking very well...they keep having people pulling money out willy-nilly. That sort of makes bankers, particularly in this day and age, rather nervous. (Particularly when 22 year olds are busy camping out on Wall Street for weeks on end protesting with lap-tops and ipads in hand (yes, they are broke, but not that broke)- sorry not part of the plot, that's actually real. Life can be stranger than fiction.) Andrew's partner's reaction to Henry (Siobhan's lover and Gemma's hubby) trying to pull out their savings...made sense. Andrew's reaction - not so much.
Was a bit confused regarding Andrew. So is he a wife abuser or misunderstood? Bridget thinks he's trying to kill Siobhan.
Bridget to Sponser: Someone is trying to kill Siobhan, I need to find out who.
Me: Considering it is Siobhan who is trying to kill Siobhan, good luck with that.
Bridget: It may be Andrew, but I don't understand why...
Me: No, it's Siobhan, but why she's doing it, I've no clue.
I feel sorry for the Sponser, Mikal? Michael? That poor guy. And the bad mob guy decides to shoot him up with drugs - which for me was a deja vue experience, because I just saw the same thing happen in more or less the same way, albeit for different reasons, on General Hospital several weeks back. Except General Hospital was more grueling to watch and did a better job of it. (You know you have a problem when a daytime soap opera's writing is better than yours and more logical.)
I kept thinking all the way through Michael's ordeal, now Bridget if you had just done the courageous thing and testified, all would be okay. But no...you thought only of yourself and went to the Hamptons to live the high life. Is Bridget one selfish little bitch, or what?
Not sure about Siobhan. She clearly did not know she was pregnant. So that answers one question.
And how embarrassing is it to want to throw up while in the middle of making out with hot guy that you met in bar? (Former Jamie Martin (Tad's son) and Former Kendal Kane (Erica's daughter) just weren't meant to be.) OTOH - she clearly cared about being pregnant, when she discovers it, and called her lover - Henry - so obviously she knows Henry is the father. That answers two questions.
And she appears to care about Henry, which means Henry isn't the person she wants to hurt.
(My guess is she is after Andrew and possibly Bridget and Gemma, but I could be wrong - and it clearly has something to do with investment banking and a boy named Scean, who I'm guessing Bridget was partially responsible for? She clearly hates her sister, and after this episode? Who can blame her?)
I'm admittedly more interested in Siobhan at this point. I also think Gellar plays the role of Siobhan better. She doesn't seem to know how to play Bridget - the troubled former screw-up trying to fix her life isn't a character Gellar appears to understand. She had similar problems with S6 Buffy. Having never quite gone through this bit herself, and having survived a parent that did do it and she hasn't quite forgiven for it, may explain this? I don't know - just speculation. But
she truly feels out of her depth in regards to Bridget. The best performance she's given in the role was the final scene with Siobhan staring at her pregnancy test while trying to figure out what to say to her ex-lover on the phone.
Ion Gruffauld is doing fine as the confused husband, who I can't quite figure out. But he doesn't have much to work off of. So far, Gemma has done the best job. The gal who played Lilah on Dexter, has the same problem here, a bit too sharp, too in your face, we need a bit more subtlety, I think.
It's an odd show, uneven. In places quite entertaining, but I'm not entirely sure if the laughs are on purpose or unintentional? I want more of the FBI guy. And I rather like the sponsor, although I think he's too good for Bridget. The villain, mob guy, is suitably creepy but also a bit cliche. But that is admittedly part of the fun.
So, getting better, bit by bit, depending of course on your tastes and how much you like tongue firmly in cheek serials. I actually find them more amusing than situation comedies. Can't think why? (I'm not being sarcastic, I truly have no idea why.)
*Ringer - I continue to find Ringer entertaining, and quite funny in places. Of course it helps if you get the inside jokes. Tonight's jokes were charmingly directed at daytime soap operas.
First, we get a cameo by Jaime Bruening, otherwise known as Jamie Martin on the recently canceled All My Children. In case we can't figure out that this is an inside joke and not just coincidence,
up pops Phyllis from Y&R, as a chatty acquaintance of Siobhan's - who is basically playing Phyllis from Young & the Restless. Siobhan even says to her - say hi for me to Jack and the kids. (Jack
is or was her hubby on Y&R, not sure if they are still married or not. But their storyline was actually fairly reminiscent of Siobhan's.)
Ringer needs to trust its audience's memory a bit better - we saw the guy with the cellphone last week, you pointed him out in the previously bit, we don't need a reminder flashback to aid us.
It's repetitive.
But it is getting better, the switch in production crew is a definite bonus. (Apparently Gellar fired the old crew after the pilot, and hired a new crew - people she'd worked with on Buffy, in the interview she states the most important thing was the food. She liked the caterers on Buffy better. I think she's being disingenuous, the gal cares what she looks like - and the Buffy makeup crew/costumers made her look pretty or prettier than anyone else has to date. If I were her? I'd have hired them too. James Marsters, if he ever gets that type of clout, should follow suit. I've come to the conclusion that Buffy had a kick-ass makeup and production crew. None of the actors from those shows have looked quite as good since. Forget Whedon and the writers, hire the production crew - they've been grossly under-rated. (I'm joking a little here folks, obviously I know that the collaborative writing and direction on Buffy was 90% of its success.).)
The plot is still a bit all over the place. And it is really hard to like Bridget/Siobhan or care that much about either of them. Also what the heck happened to the teen daughter addicted to drugs?
Inquiring minds want to know? She just up and disappeared. I thought she was living there and bonding with Bridget/Siobhan? Anyone else feel like we skipped an episode in there somewhere? This happens a lot in these types of serials - they will either spend far too much time on weird subplots, or skip over bits. How hard would it have been to say - oh, teen daughter addicted to drugs has gone back to school or was out? One line? Hello?
Apparently this storyline much like Revenge has something to do with investment banking, but the writers don't appear to understand investment banking very well...they keep having people pulling money out willy-nilly. That sort of makes bankers, particularly in this day and age, rather nervous. (Particularly when 22 year olds are busy camping out on Wall Street for weeks on end protesting with lap-tops and ipads in hand (yes, they are broke, but not that broke)- sorry not part of the plot, that's actually real. Life can be stranger than fiction.) Andrew's partner's reaction to Henry (Siobhan's lover and Gemma's hubby) trying to pull out their savings...made sense. Andrew's reaction - not so much.
Was a bit confused regarding Andrew. So is he a wife abuser or misunderstood? Bridget thinks he's trying to kill Siobhan.
Bridget to Sponser: Someone is trying to kill Siobhan, I need to find out who.
Me: Considering it is Siobhan who is trying to kill Siobhan, good luck with that.
Bridget: It may be Andrew, but I don't understand why...
Me: No, it's Siobhan, but why she's doing it, I've no clue.
I feel sorry for the Sponser, Mikal? Michael? That poor guy. And the bad mob guy decides to shoot him up with drugs - which for me was a deja vue experience, because I just saw the same thing happen in more or less the same way, albeit for different reasons, on General Hospital several weeks back. Except General Hospital was more grueling to watch and did a better job of it. (You know you have a problem when a daytime soap opera's writing is better than yours and more logical.)
I kept thinking all the way through Michael's ordeal, now Bridget if you had just done the courageous thing and testified, all would be okay. But no...you thought only of yourself and went to the Hamptons to live the high life. Is Bridget one selfish little bitch, or what?
Not sure about Siobhan. She clearly did not know she was pregnant. So that answers one question.
And how embarrassing is it to want to throw up while in the middle of making out with hot guy that you met in bar? (Former Jamie Martin (Tad's son) and Former Kendal Kane (Erica's daughter) just weren't meant to be.) OTOH - she clearly cared about being pregnant, when she discovers it, and called her lover - Henry - so obviously she knows Henry is the father. That answers two questions.
And she appears to care about Henry, which means Henry isn't the person she wants to hurt.
(My guess is she is after Andrew and possibly Bridget and Gemma, but I could be wrong - and it clearly has something to do with investment banking and a boy named Scean, who I'm guessing Bridget was partially responsible for? She clearly hates her sister, and after this episode? Who can blame her?)
I'm admittedly more interested in Siobhan at this point. I also think Gellar plays the role of Siobhan better. She doesn't seem to know how to play Bridget - the troubled former screw-up trying to fix her life isn't a character Gellar appears to understand. She had similar problems with S6 Buffy. Having never quite gone through this bit herself, and having survived a parent that did do it and she hasn't quite forgiven for it, may explain this? I don't know - just speculation. But
she truly feels out of her depth in regards to Bridget. The best performance she's given in the role was the final scene with Siobhan staring at her pregnancy test while trying to figure out what to say to her ex-lover on the phone.
Ion Gruffauld is doing fine as the confused husband, who I can't quite figure out. But he doesn't have much to work off of. So far, Gemma has done the best job. The gal who played Lilah on Dexter, has the same problem here, a bit too sharp, too in your face, we need a bit more subtlety, I think.
It's an odd show, uneven. In places quite entertaining, but I'm not entirely sure if the laughs are on purpose or unintentional? I want more of the FBI guy. And I rather like the sponsor, although I think he's too good for Bridget. The villain, mob guy, is suitably creepy but also a bit cliche. But that is admittedly part of the fun.
So, getting better, bit by bit, depending of course on your tastes and how much you like tongue firmly in cheek serials. I actually find them more amusing than situation comedies. Can't think why? (I'm not being sarcastic, I truly have no idea why.)
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2011-09-28 04:22 pm (UTC)Not just watching Bridget try to juggle all of Siobahn's relationships and responsibilities, but finding out what those mean to both her and to S. There are some plates spinning, but not a lot of heart yet. We now know why S cares about Henry, though the audience does not yet know why it should care about Henry. (Or Gemma, who tho this point, exists to cheer for S and be upset by Henry.)
At this point, it's not boring me, and it doesn't conflict with anything else I want to watch (College Basketball is months away...) so I can watch. But it's a show that has some work to do.
no subject
Date: 2011-09-28 05:16 pm (UTC)At this point, I'm not sure why I'm supposed to love Henry or for that matter necessarily why Siobhan does, just that she clearly cares about him on some level - but not enough to include him in her charade or plot.
The only character that seems to be clear at this point is Bridget's sponsor and the FBI agent, who I do care about and can understand a bit. Unfortunately caring about them - makes it difficult to care about Bridget.
Not sure why they chose to kick the teen sis to the curb, possibly too many characters?
They need to build these relationships a bit more, and spend less time on plot-twists.
At this point, it's not boring me, and it doesn't conflict with anything else I want to watch
Ditto. Feel much the same way. Plus I'm finding it hilarious in places - unintentionally so, I'm certain, but doesn't really matter. If it amuses me, I'll keep watching. Unlike PAM AM which bored me within the first fifteen minutes, I honestly am beginning to wonder about the critics (they loved PAM AM to pieces.)
no subject
Date: 2011-09-28 05:35 pm (UTC)True, in a 40s noir film, you really don't know much about characters, but you don't have to because you've only got 90 minutes of screen time. But for a 15 hour TV season, it's different. Instead, you want immersion, and the sense of seeing the story how any one of several characters would see it, so you could better piece the mystery together.
The scenes with Bridget and Andrew, where she is questioning herself "who is this guy?" are helpful. It showed us something about the characters and it could also be read multiple ways. Ringer needs more of that in the coming weeks. For all we know, it might have it...
no subject
Date: 2011-09-28 07:54 pm (UTC)Ringer...feels less tight and looser, which is odd, you'd expect the opposite. For noir thrillers to work they have to be tightly plotted. But you are right - the whole bit with her researching Andrew and trying to figure out who he is was a good start. What wasn't explained was the "abuse" the divorce attorney brings up. But I give the sponsor kudos for telling her not to take the divorce attorney's word for it - and to look into the bit about the deed. To gather proof, not jump to conclusions based on innuendo - you don't know everyone's agenda. But...they did just let the physical abuse bit lie there unexplained. Unless I heard that part wrong?