![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shadowkatFinished watching Project Runway during lunch. Agree with who was in the bottom and the top, but not with who won and who lost. Granted I know zip about sewing or construction and certainly am seeing this all on camera. The problem with this show is it rewards the speedy gonzalez not the person who must take time to think out and plan their piece of work - it is also obviously slanted towards whomever is the most entertaining to keep around (or Michael Costello would be gone by now.)
People are supposed to dislike Gretchen, but I actually sort of like her. She's honest. When asked if she thought the three in the bottom deserved to be - she said, yes, I think they did. You know where you stand with Gretchen. Also her style reminds me a great deal of Ellen Tracy. Loose, flowing clothes, and comfortable. Michael Constello on the other hand grates on my nerves and I agree with the other designers - his taste is along the lines of Prom Dresses and Brides-maids gowns. He's obsequious and fake. Not to mention manipulative. I can't stand him. At least in prior seasons, the designers I could not abide actually had some talent. This guy, not so much. He should have been kicked to the curb weeks ago. It's killing the credibility of the show that he's still around. While Ivy's dresses were a bit little mermaid, they weren't as horrific as the Gone with the Wind gown with the train that went on forever and a day. Ew. Plus the color? All you needed to do was look at Andy South's take on metallic - to see how to do this right. Speaking of ...Andy South should have won not Mondo. Mondo's was more conventional and not as interesting - and obviously won for the sleek ready-to-wear number that most women would love to be able to wear. Andy's was daring and risky, as well as popped out at you. I'd pause on a ad featuring that outfit. But I adore little Mondo...so am happy for him. Valerie's didn't do much for me...I think she's going to be kicked to the curb fairly soon - her outfits fail to wow and tend to be fairly boilerplate in construction. They aren't prom dresses like Michael's, but they aren't great either.
If I were to predict - I'd say Gretchen, Andy, and Mondo should be the final three...they are the only three designers that have consistently presented either an interesting or well-done end product. I think they each have been in the bottom maybe two times if that, and Gretchen was merely for making the mistake of trying to lead a bunch of people who didn't want to take responsibility for anything. (My tolerance for people who do not take responsibility for things has never been high, and there's a lot of whiners in this group of designers...oh it's their fault or so and so's fault. Give me a break.)
But apparently I'm hanging in there - because I remain curious to see who wins. Also I like looking at the gowns/outfits as they wander down the runway.
Lone Star
This show disappointed me. A lot of hype and not much there. It's no Friday Night Lights - not even close. The gimmick is basically a nice guy who has been roped into becoming a con artist by his grifter father - so he's managed to pull two intricate cons on two different women at the same time. Unfortunately, for him and dear old Dad, he fell in love with both women and now is scrambling to find a way of having his proverbial cake and eat it too. Wolk - the newcomer who plays the lead doesn't do that much for me. He's amaibable enough, I guess, sort of reminds me of Kyle Chandler (Coach Taylor on Friday Night Light)'s younger brother. But he doesn't pull me in.
Also the series doesn't have any strong female characters - both wives are barely developed and barely on screen for more than ten minutes, because the central relationship here isn't with the wives - it's with the two top lead actors playing the Daddy figures in his life - David Keith and Jon Voigt. One is his father, and one his father-in-law. One's a con man, the other an oilman.
There are no other female characters outside of the two wives and a nameless pretty woman who comes on to him in a hotel lounge. Also the women when they are on-screen look alike, talk alike,
and are seen mainly having sex with or kissing him. The show tells us that he is head over heels in love with these two women, but I don't see it, outside of his unwillingness to leave either or
go completely through with the con, that's it. Nor do I see why they love him outside of the fact that he is reasonably attractive and appears to be a nice guy. There is far too much telling in this show, and exposition, and not enough showing. I got bored and my attention began to wander.
The other, supporting actors, look like they came from the male model clone club just as the wives did. All these people look alike. Hard to tell them apart. I'm told there's friction between the two sons of Voigt's character, but I don't feel it. And the friction is somewhat cliche.
The issue at the center of the tale is Daddy issues. And the only question that we haven't been told the answer to, is how this guy is going to get away with his con without hurting anyone including himself. But in an age in which cons appear to be a dime a dozen and anti-hero show populate the airwaves and are done far better elsewhere...I find it difficult to care about this one. Not when I can watch Don Draper pull off a similar deal with far more finesse and complexity.
Lone Star wants to be the next Dallas but it lacks the wit and laid-back charm of Dallas.
Dallas didn't itself quite so seriously - which was the fun of it. Lone Star does. Wolk doesn't appear to be having any fun in his role - paging Adrian Psdar who would. Too much the nice guy trying to right, knowing he's doing wrong - Coach Taylor as a con artist? Could be interesting, I guess. But only if they cast someone like Connie Britten or Melinda Dillion as the wife. This drama lacks teeth.
Compare and contrast to The Event - which surprised me. I did not expect to like this one. It looked like another run-of-the-mill conspiracy thriller a la Flashforward and Fringe - neither of which held my interest for very long. But, it's not. For one thing it has a compelling lead in Jason Ritter (son of the late John Ritter - who has inherited his father's likability and dramatic everyman spirit) - a versatile actor, Jason has to date played everything from a cripple to a teacher. He's not as pretty as Wolk and that is part of the appeal. He emotes pain and fear well and does it through the eyes. I was riveted whenever he was on screen. But The EVENT is an ensemble piece and has to introduce numerous characters and plot fairly quickly - unlike Lone Star it does more showing in the regard than telling. The only things it tells us are names, dates, and locations. Since we jump back and forth in time and between three points of view this is necessary or we'd be confused. I wasn't. Had no problems following it and unlike a lot of similar shows, did not find it predictable.
It also poses a lot of why questions, each time one is answered, another pops up in its place. Plus we are given an appealing everyman hero, who to my knowledge is not motivated by Daddy issues, but rather by his love and affection for his girlfriend who disappeared just before he meant to propose to her on a cruise ship. How she disappears and what happens to him on the cruise ship is both realistic and unnerving. Or it is rather a fear I've had, so it worked for me.
I thought the EVent would frustrate me - these types of shows often do, but the way it is constructed - makes that not a problem. Borrowing from Lost (all these shows do), it tells us where the character is now, then shows us how they got there and why.
The Event opens with Scean Walker (Jason Ritter) pulling a gun on an airplane. We are lead to believe that he's hijacking the plane. But nothing is what it seems on this show. It's like a chinese puzzle box, you solve one bit, only to be lead to the next. Through a series of intermittent flashbacks we are able to determine that what is happening on the plane is directly related to Walker's girlfriend (Lela) being taken and she's not taken to manipulate Walker nor does it have anything to do with Walker - it has to do with her father and what her father does for a living. The audience is allowed to piece the story together along with the characters - I'd figured it out before the first reveal and was happy about it, but the final reveal took me by surprise. Nice sleight of hand.
Unlike Flashforward - which did more teasing than answering and had a weak lead, this one grabs you by the throat in the first five minutes and doesn't let go. It's a thriller from start to finish.
It also has a great supporting cast and a diverse one, far more so than Lone Star. In that respect it borrows from Lost and Flashforward. Blair Underwood plays the Obamaesque President, with a Cuban wife and children. Ivan Zeitko of Damages fame, plays his shady Security advisor. Laura Innes of ER plays the egnimatic scientist who has been held prisoner along with 97 other scientists in a facility in Alaska, Sarah Rohmer plays Ritter's girlfriend Lela, Scott Patterson (Gilmore Girls)plays her father, and the list goes on.
There's a great deal of potential here and I've decided to record the series on the DVR, because I definitely can't wait to see what happens next. Lone Star on the other hand, I'll probably pass on. If there were less tv shows on, if it were on another night, maybe. But as it stands? Just don't have the time to waste on it.
People are supposed to dislike Gretchen, but I actually sort of like her. She's honest. When asked if she thought the three in the bottom deserved to be - she said, yes, I think they did. You know where you stand with Gretchen. Also her style reminds me a great deal of Ellen Tracy. Loose, flowing clothes, and comfortable. Michael Constello on the other hand grates on my nerves and I agree with the other designers - his taste is along the lines of Prom Dresses and Brides-maids gowns. He's obsequious and fake. Not to mention manipulative. I can't stand him. At least in prior seasons, the designers I could not abide actually had some talent. This guy, not so much. He should have been kicked to the curb weeks ago. It's killing the credibility of the show that he's still around. While Ivy's dresses were a bit little mermaid, they weren't as horrific as the Gone with the Wind gown with the train that went on forever and a day. Ew. Plus the color? All you needed to do was look at Andy South's take on metallic - to see how to do this right. Speaking of ...Andy South should have won not Mondo. Mondo's was more conventional and not as interesting - and obviously won for the sleek ready-to-wear number that most women would love to be able to wear. Andy's was daring and risky, as well as popped out at you. I'd pause on a ad featuring that outfit. But I adore little Mondo...so am happy for him. Valerie's didn't do much for me...I think she's going to be kicked to the curb fairly soon - her outfits fail to wow and tend to be fairly boilerplate in construction. They aren't prom dresses like Michael's, but they aren't great either.
If I were to predict - I'd say Gretchen, Andy, and Mondo should be the final three...they are the only three designers that have consistently presented either an interesting or well-done end product. I think they each have been in the bottom maybe two times if that, and Gretchen was merely for making the mistake of trying to lead a bunch of people who didn't want to take responsibility for anything. (My tolerance for people who do not take responsibility for things has never been high, and there's a lot of whiners in this group of designers...oh it's their fault or so and so's fault. Give me a break.)
But apparently I'm hanging in there - because I remain curious to see who wins. Also I like looking at the gowns/outfits as they wander down the runway.
Lone Star
This show disappointed me. A lot of hype and not much there. It's no Friday Night Lights - not even close. The gimmick is basically a nice guy who has been roped into becoming a con artist by his grifter father - so he's managed to pull two intricate cons on two different women at the same time. Unfortunately, for him and dear old Dad, he fell in love with both women and now is scrambling to find a way of having his proverbial cake and eat it too. Wolk - the newcomer who plays the lead doesn't do that much for me. He's amaibable enough, I guess, sort of reminds me of Kyle Chandler (Coach Taylor on Friday Night Light)'s younger brother. But he doesn't pull me in.
Also the series doesn't have any strong female characters - both wives are barely developed and barely on screen for more than ten minutes, because the central relationship here isn't with the wives - it's with the two top lead actors playing the Daddy figures in his life - David Keith and Jon Voigt. One is his father, and one his father-in-law. One's a con man, the other an oilman.
There are no other female characters outside of the two wives and a nameless pretty woman who comes on to him in a hotel lounge. Also the women when they are on-screen look alike, talk alike,
and are seen mainly having sex with or kissing him. The show tells us that he is head over heels in love with these two women, but I don't see it, outside of his unwillingness to leave either or
go completely through with the con, that's it. Nor do I see why they love him outside of the fact that he is reasonably attractive and appears to be a nice guy. There is far too much telling in this show, and exposition, and not enough showing. I got bored and my attention began to wander.
The other, supporting actors, look like they came from the male model clone club just as the wives did. All these people look alike. Hard to tell them apart. I'm told there's friction between the two sons of Voigt's character, but I don't feel it. And the friction is somewhat cliche.
The issue at the center of the tale is Daddy issues. And the only question that we haven't been told the answer to, is how this guy is going to get away with his con without hurting anyone including himself. But in an age in which cons appear to be a dime a dozen and anti-hero show populate the airwaves and are done far better elsewhere...I find it difficult to care about this one. Not when I can watch Don Draper pull off a similar deal with far more finesse and complexity.
Lone Star wants to be the next Dallas but it lacks the wit and laid-back charm of Dallas.
Dallas didn't itself quite so seriously - which was the fun of it. Lone Star does. Wolk doesn't appear to be having any fun in his role - paging Adrian Psdar who would. Too much the nice guy trying to right, knowing he's doing wrong - Coach Taylor as a con artist? Could be interesting, I guess. But only if they cast someone like Connie Britten or Melinda Dillion as the wife. This drama lacks teeth.
Compare and contrast to The Event - which surprised me. I did not expect to like this one. It looked like another run-of-the-mill conspiracy thriller a la Flashforward and Fringe - neither of which held my interest for very long. But, it's not. For one thing it has a compelling lead in Jason Ritter (son of the late John Ritter - who has inherited his father's likability and dramatic everyman spirit) - a versatile actor, Jason has to date played everything from a cripple to a teacher. He's not as pretty as Wolk and that is part of the appeal. He emotes pain and fear well and does it through the eyes. I was riveted whenever he was on screen. But The EVENT is an ensemble piece and has to introduce numerous characters and plot fairly quickly - unlike Lone Star it does more showing in the regard than telling. The only things it tells us are names, dates, and locations. Since we jump back and forth in time and between three points of view this is necessary or we'd be confused. I wasn't. Had no problems following it and unlike a lot of similar shows, did not find it predictable.
It also poses a lot of why questions, each time one is answered, another pops up in its place. Plus we are given an appealing everyman hero, who to my knowledge is not motivated by Daddy issues, but rather by his love and affection for his girlfriend who disappeared just before he meant to propose to her on a cruise ship. How she disappears and what happens to him on the cruise ship is both realistic and unnerving. Or it is rather a fear I've had, so it worked for me.
I thought the EVent would frustrate me - these types of shows often do, but the way it is constructed - makes that not a problem. Borrowing from Lost (all these shows do), it tells us where the character is now, then shows us how they got there and why.
The Event opens with Scean Walker (Jason Ritter) pulling a gun on an airplane. We are lead to believe that he's hijacking the plane. But nothing is what it seems on this show. It's like a chinese puzzle box, you solve one bit, only to be lead to the next. Through a series of intermittent flashbacks we are able to determine that what is happening on the plane is directly related to Walker's girlfriend (Lela) being taken and she's not taken to manipulate Walker nor does it have anything to do with Walker - it has to do with her father and what her father does for a living. The audience is allowed to piece the story together along with the characters - I'd figured it out before the first reveal and was happy about it, but the final reveal took me by surprise. Nice sleight of hand.
Unlike Flashforward - which did more teasing than answering and had a weak lead, this one grabs you by the throat in the first five minutes and doesn't let go. It's a thriller from start to finish.
It also has a great supporting cast and a diverse one, far more so than Lone Star. In that respect it borrows from Lost and Flashforward. Blair Underwood plays the Obamaesque President, with a Cuban wife and children. Ivan Zeitko of Damages fame, plays his shady Security advisor. Laura Innes of ER plays the egnimatic scientist who has been held prisoner along with 97 other scientists in a facility in Alaska, Sarah Rohmer plays Ritter's girlfriend Lela, Scott Patterson (Gilmore Girls)plays her father, and the list goes on.
There's a great deal of potential here and I've decided to record the series on the DVR, because I definitely can't wait to see what happens next. Lone Star on the other hand, I'll probably pass on. If there were less tv shows on, if it were on another night, maybe. But as it stands? Just don't have the time to waste on it.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2010-09-26 08:01 pm (UTC)Normally, I tend to root for the female designers to get in the finale, but in this case I was practically cheering when Ivy got booted off. Especially after the way she was whining as if people now expected her to stop designing, just because she didn't win.
no subject
Date: 2010-09-26 09:32 pm (UTC)Also I like Ellen Tracy (which is what Gretchen is doing) - it's loose flowing, bohemia style, as opposed to close cut, tight fitting - nice change. But two different styles.
Agreed. Ivy is bitchy and boring as a designer. Should have been booted two episodes ago.
no subject
Date: 2010-09-26 08:47 pm (UTC)And yeah, I was disappointed by Lone Star, too.
no subject
Date: 2010-09-26 09:34 pm (UTC)It surprised me. I'd initially skipped it and picked Lone Star.
Now have decided to nix Lone Star and keep the Event.
no subject
Date: 2010-09-26 11:19 pm (UTC)I also have to admit that when Fringe came out, I watched the first two episodes or so but was not at all interested. However, this summer out of boredom I did the Hulu/DVR thing, and once they really dove into the parallel universe aspect of it, I suddenly, really enjoyed it. The fact that the original Peter died as a child and that Walter stole the Alternate Universe Peter at the cost of his own sanity was compelling to me and now that Olivia is trapped in the alt_Universe being convinced that she's had a psychotic break and that she's made all of this up (and the fact that the show has announced that this isn't for an episode but the format of the show this season) also intrigued me. It's a show I changed my initial opinion of.
no subject
Date: 2010-09-27 01:13 am (UTC)But I've heard that the Alt!Universe is a rather intriguing and innovative twist, albeit not surprising Abrhams seems to be obsessed with the concept - it keeps popping up in his stories for some reason. I admittedly am not entirely fond of the whole alt!universe concept, because too often it's done poorly...or
only lasts a few episodes. But Eureka has actually pulled it off fairly well.
no subject
Date: 2010-09-27 02:36 pm (UTC)Admittedly, though, they do the gross thing. I'm really squeamish about violence (cannot watch Dexter for my life. I'm sure it's good, but I cannot seem to deal with that sort violence.) On the other hand, weird goo, I'm fine with it. Go figure. But having been a huge X-Files fan my main beef against early Fringe wasn't the ookie factor but the "It's too much like the X-Files" factor. Having developed their own, entirely different, mythology I'm okay with it.
I'm intrigued by the two Walters. On this side, he's a kind, broken man who carries great guilt and remorse for having gone over to the other side and stolen Peter because he just couldn't deal with the death of this child. He's a genius, but his crimes broke him. On the other side, Walter is still a genius but a ruthless and thus far seemingly remorseless man. I'm intrigued by the two Olivias. And I'm intrigued by Peter who both hates and loves this world's Walter for having stolen him from his real parents while also feeling that Walter is his real parent... and after meeting the other Walter feeling as though he probably had the better (though crazier) Walter after all.
They've managed to insert some good character drama in their ookie sci-fi.
no subject
Date: 2010-09-27 04:26 pm (UTC)In comparison to True Blood, it was fairly tame in comparison.
So perhaps it's the type of violence that makes you squeamish as opposed to the presence? I know that's the case for me.
For example - Dexter doesn't bother me, but I can't watch Criminal Minds (in that show we get to watch the serial killer torturing their victims for weeks before they kill them or find the victim.). For me - torture is a huge turn-off. Dexter - you just see the dead body or they get killed. While in 24 and Criminal Minds - they are tortured, which I can't handle.
Same deal with sci-fi shows - I have no problems with the horror and gore in Vampire Diaries, Supernatural, Buffy, Angel,
True Blood, Being Human, Lost, or Nikita - but it bothers me in the X-Files and Fringe - two shows I find close to unwatchable.
X-Files could keep me up at night, the others not. Same deal with Fringe - it dealt with horror things that bugged me. (For example the weapon that turned people into monsters or metamphorized them? Major squick factor, could not watch it. Or for the X-Files - the episode that took place in the past with spider parasites. Could not watch.)
Violence in of itself doesn't bug me, I guessing it's the same with you or you wouldn't have been able to watch Lost, Buffy, Fringe, etc. So it's the type of violence or how it is portrayed on screen that does..
Same deal with ookeyness - it's not the ookeyness of Fringe in of itself that bugs me (if that was the case I wouldn't be able to watch True Blood or Supernatural - which also go there),
but rather it is how it is depicted that does. Have similar problems with Bones. But Nip/Tuck in contrast never bugged me.
So if it was how and why they portrayed it, not the fact it is there.
Of course I'm attempting to look for a pattern here in what bugs and doesn't bug us, and there may very well be none. ;-)
no subject
Date: 2010-09-27 06:03 pm (UTC)On the other hand, I just can't take gore or serial killers or, as you mention, torture. I can take it to an extent on True Blood because it's just so incredibly fake looking, but even then I've realized that I've reacted differently in that I really, really hold the dismembering thing against Eric just because I found it to be so viscerally gross. I think that's partly why I'm odd woman out in fandom in not finding Eric all that sexy. I still have those images in my head. Doesn't matter as much to me if it's something off screen (and I know that's hypocritical) or that I know intellectually it's no different for Spike or Angel or Nick Knight. In Eric's and Bill's cases I saw it and it kills most of teh sexy dead. And really, torture gets me. There were parts of The Tudors(!) I couldn't watch because of torture.
Same with Dexter. It's the cutting and the chopping that I can't take. At all. (And I can't watch Criminal Minds either). That sort of thing just wigs me out. I can't watch it.
I can sit through "Alien" and think it's awesome, but you couldn't drag me kicking or screaming to see "Saw" ::shudder:: or even "Friday the Thirteenth." Heck, not even "Scream"... on regular television! Or Nightmare on Elm Street. I even had a really, really difficult time even watching "28 Days Later" on FX (even though I had no difficulty at all reading Stephen King's "Cell" which... wasn't all that different, actually). It's a visual thing, I guess. Intellectually I can handle it, but visually... not so much.
Black oil, cockroaches, and fluke men weren't a problem by comparison. Don't know why.
I don't know. I can't quantify why certain things completely squick me and others don't. It's not really a rational thing. Or maybe it's a cutting and slashing thing. Part of the reason I never considered going into medicine like my sister (and like my parents not-so-secretly wanted me to). I honestly didn't think I could handle it.
no subject
Date: 2010-09-27 09:52 pm (UTC)It is difficult to quantify isn't it? Much like it is hard to quantify which comedies will make me roar with laughter and which will make me cringe. It's not always rational.
Dismemberment doesn't really bother me - but I can't watch the Saw films and could not handle the dismemberment episodes on Angel for some reason (I Fall To Pieces was unwatchable but not because of dismemberment). Slashing and cutting doesn't bother me necessarily...but I can't watch Nightmare on Elm Street, Friday the 13th, or numerous horror films. Yet, have no problems with The Halloween films or the Scream films (go figure).
I think for me - it's not the slice and dice, but why the slice and dice is happening or something else involved. I can't watch the first "Alien" film or for that matter any of the Alien films that followed, except for Aliens - by James Cameron, that film didn't bother me. Alien did.
Serial killer films don't necessarily bother me (more bored of the trope than horrified to be honest). But, I can't deal with the Torture Porn - couldn't watch Hostile, Saw, or any of those films.
The X-Files and Fringe - feel more realistic to me or fall into the category of realistic horror, while True Blood, Supernatural,
Smallville, Being Human, Buffy and Angel fall into camp or unrealistic horror. But Nightmare on Elm Street kept me awake at night...a film I should never have watched. The whole idea of a killer coming at you in your dreams...
Like you - horror novels don't scare or bother me that much. Or make me squeamish. Not sure why. I'm guessing it's less real or maybe it's just how I process information? Because I've read a lot of Stephen King - and the film versions of his books bothered me more than the actual books ever did.
Hard to pin-point what makes me cringe and why...and it does appear to vary from show to show. In regards to Fringe? I think
it's the idea of not being in control of your body - of having someone change it. A perfect example is the Farscape episode, DNA Mad Scientist, which always makes me cringe - I find it difficult to watch and cringe throughout - and no, not because it's cheesy ;-). I also have never been able to watch the Star Trek Next Gen episode De-evolution (where a disease causes the crew to de-evolve...one guy becomes a spider). And I can't watch the William Hurt classic Altred States, or Jeff Goldblum's The Fly. Fringe has a lot of that type of horror. As did the X-files.
Also parasites and bugs - bother the heck out of me. (The bug guy in Buffy's What's My Line - was possibly the only villian that I couldn't handle.)
I know they aren't real, but part of me..thinks, what if I'm wrong. It's not rational, obviously. But my fear of spiders isn't either. ;-)