More TV stuff...
Dec. 9th, 2012 09:58 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shadowkatWatched a third episode of Elementary and I think I may be hooked. The mysteries aren't as predictable as they are on well...all the other procedural series I've seen to date. Either I'm off my game..or it's just slightly better? Don't know.
I also like Joan Watson - who is realistically not a detective, she's a surgeon. One of my issues with the other procedurals is I find it difficult to believe that someone who isn't a trained detective just jumps in and becomes one. What I liked about the original Conan Doyle series was Watson wasn't a detective right off the bat. And Joan is fairly clever about Sherlock, but she's also distracted. I find the character relatable and less cliche. She reminds me a little of House's Cuddy, except not in the boss role. It may help that I liked House, and this version reminds me in some respects of House, except Sherlock is more likable and not a sociopath.
Plus, it definitely helps that I adore the cast Aiden Quinn ( a long-time favorite - I rented Legends of the Fall for Aiden Quinn NOT Brad Pitt...), Lucy Liu (nice to have a minority female on a TV show), and Johnny Lee Miller (who I've always found to be interesting). I do like the BBC Sherlock, but the two series couldn't be any more different.
So, will continue with Elementary. At least for now.
Also completed my watch of Walking Dead's last two episodes this season or their 3rd Season Mid-Season Finale. Will state this if you gave up on the Walking Dead in S2? You might want to try S3...it is REALLY good. Best season to date. Also truly frightening in places. And quite violent and creepy.
Tight plotting. Good character development. And great metaphors - they've expanded on the whole walking dead/zombie as disease metaphor or the idea of death stalking you and wanting to devour you whole and your entire family. It also once again emphasized that humans can be monsters depending on the circumstances. I watched the mid-season finale of Revolution and Walking Dead back to back, and Dead blew me away. Revolution is very weak in comparison and somewhat cliche. Dead has better writing, better production value, and better direction. Also much better acting.
Not to mention a far more interesting cast.
Highlights? The creepy Governor (who is incredibly complex and a sort of dark version of Herschel) and Michonne (who reminds me a far smarter and interesting version of the First Slayer).
In other news? Watched Nashville's Season Finale. Not the best show on the planet. Quite soapy, and not in a fun Vamp Diaries sort of way. Granted no oppressive love triangles from hell at least not yet, give it time. And no one true love (again not yet - although there appears to be two in the works...so we shall see). But we do have the cliche subplots that are beginning to annoy me.
What works? Juliette Barnes and Rayana's chemistry. And I really like Juliette and am rooting for her. Also Hayden Pantierre is a great singer. Connie Britton less so. The best singers on this show are Jonathan Jackson, Hayden Pantierre, and the guy who plays Deacon. There's a good soundtrack, now if the writing would just get there.
What doesn't? Scarlette. An example of why good, nice, sweet, innocent, morally upstanding characters don't work on soaps. They have a tendency to be incredibly whiny. OR in the case of Gunner - insanely holier than thou/self-righteous. I want to kick both of them. This only happens in soaps, not other serial dramas. Parenthood, Walking Dead, and The Hour don't really have this problem. The nice characters on those shows are not whiny and not too self-righteous. They are also more realistic and 3 dimensional. On soaps, good characters tend to feel flat and dull. Again a soap problem.
It's another way you can tell the difference between quality serial and pulp wonky soap.
It's a long-running complaint that I have with soap operas (the fun pulpy kind). Yes, I adore them, as you know, obviously. [Some people adore procedurals, others adore soap operas. There's no rhyme and reason to it. And some love both.] But they tend to write immoral characters or amoral characters better for some reason. The murderer or vampire is often more interesting than the human who hasn't killed a soul. OR the snarky reluctant hero who kills people occasionally and tells everyone they are nuts is more bearable than the long-suffering classic hero, who has a holier-than-thou god complex (ie he's been spending too much time channeling Hercules). The problem is nasty characters tend to be more pro-active, less passive aggressive, and not as whiny. This is true on Nashville too. Rayna is terribly whiny at times, while the in your face Juliette isn't or not as much.
And yes, I guess you could say that I'm whining myself...so this post is incredibly ironic, isn't it? Don't answer that. ;-)
I also like Joan Watson - who is realistically not a detective, she's a surgeon. One of my issues with the other procedurals is I find it difficult to believe that someone who isn't a trained detective just jumps in and becomes one. What I liked about the original Conan Doyle series was Watson wasn't a detective right off the bat. And Joan is fairly clever about Sherlock, but she's also distracted. I find the character relatable and less cliche. She reminds me a little of House's Cuddy, except not in the boss role. It may help that I liked House, and this version reminds me in some respects of House, except Sherlock is more likable and not a sociopath.
Plus, it definitely helps that I adore the cast Aiden Quinn ( a long-time favorite - I rented Legends of the Fall for Aiden Quinn NOT Brad Pitt...), Lucy Liu (nice to have a minority female on a TV show), and Johnny Lee Miller (who I've always found to be interesting). I do like the BBC Sherlock, but the two series couldn't be any more different.
So, will continue with Elementary. At least for now.
Also completed my watch of Walking Dead's last two episodes this season or their 3rd Season Mid-Season Finale. Will state this if you gave up on the Walking Dead in S2? You might want to try S3...it is REALLY good. Best season to date. Also truly frightening in places. And quite violent and creepy.
Tight plotting. Good character development. And great metaphors - they've expanded on the whole walking dead/zombie as disease metaphor or the idea of death stalking you and wanting to devour you whole and your entire family. It also once again emphasized that humans can be monsters depending on the circumstances. I watched the mid-season finale of Revolution and Walking Dead back to back, and Dead blew me away. Revolution is very weak in comparison and somewhat cliche. Dead has better writing, better production value, and better direction. Also much better acting.
Not to mention a far more interesting cast.
Highlights? The creepy Governor (who is incredibly complex and a sort of dark version of Herschel) and Michonne (who reminds me a far smarter and interesting version of the First Slayer).
In other news? Watched Nashville's Season Finale. Not the best show on the planet. Quite soapy, and not in a fun Vamp Diaries sort of way. Granted no oppressive love triangles from hell at least not yet, give it time. And no one true love (again not yet - although there appears to be two in the works...so we shall see). But we do have the cliche subplots that are beginning to annoy me.
What works? Juliette Barnes and Rayana's chemistry. And I really like Juliette and am rooting for her. Also Hayden Pantierre is a great singer. Connie Britton less so. The best singers on this show are Jonathan Jackson, Hayden Pantierre, and the guy who plays Deacon. There's a good soundtrack, now if the writing would just get there.
What doesn't? Scarlette. An example of why good, nice, sweet, innocent, morally upstanding characters don't work on soaps. They have a tendency to be incredibly whiny. OR in the case of Gunner - insanely holier than thou/self-righteous. I want to kick both of them. This only happens in soaps, not other serial dramas. Parenthood, Walking Dead, and The Hour don't really have this problem. The nice characters on those shows are not whiny and not too self-righteous. They are also more realistic and 3 dimensional. On soaps, good characters tend to feel flat and dull. Again a soap problem.
It's another way you can tell the difference between quality serial and pulp wonky soap.
It's a long-running complaint that I have with soap operas (the fun pulpy kind). Yes, I adore them, as you know, obviously. [Some people adore procedurals, others adore soap operas. There's no rhyme and reason to it. And some love both.] But they tend to write immoral characters or amoral characters better for some reason. The murderer or vampire is often more interesting than the human who hasn't killed a soul. OR the snarky reluctant hero who kills people occasionally and tells everyone they are nuts is more bearable than the long-suffering classic hero, who has a holier-than-thou god complex (ie he's been spending too much time channeling Hercules). The problem is nasty characters tend to be more pro-active, less passive aggressive, and not as whiny. This is true on Nashville too. Rayna is terribly whiny at times, while the in your face Juliette isn't or not as much.
And yes, I guess you could say that I'm whining myself...so this post is incredibly ironic, isn't it? Don't answer that. ;-)
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2012-12-10 09:46 pm (UTC)I also really enjoy Elementary (I still love Sherlock, on BBC, but as you say: " the two series couldn't be any more different.").
The basic bones of Sherlock Holmes allows for a lot of different interpretations and I enjoy the dynamics of most of them.
no subject
Date: 2012-12-11 01:16 am (UTC)Glenn..is well developed, also liking the Darryl/shaved head gal relationship (I can't remember her name). And the Andrea/Michonne relationship is interesting. Although I admittedly spent a good portion of the finale worrying over the continued survival of Glenn, Michonne, and Darryl...this show has no problem killing people off. And they only come back as the Walking Dead.
The story is believably gritty and the season finale had a rather humorous preview of the YA zombie romance Warm Bodies. (Seriously Warm Bodies had me giggling for five minutes straight - I think it may be an unintentional parody of Twilight. Or "I WAS A TEENAGE ZOMBIE" meets "I FELL IN LOVE WITH TEENAGE ZOMBIE"...it's hilarious.)
Zombies are more frightening and oddly funnier than vampires. I think we've sort of gone beyond the saturation point on vampires. There's nothing new one can do.
I also really enjoy Elementary (I still love Sherlock, on BBC, but as you say: " the two series couldn't be any more different.").
The basic bones of Sherlock Holmes allows for a lot of different interpretations and I enjoy the dynamics of most of them.
Agreed. I admittedly have always had a bit of a crush on the character of Sherlock. He's highly analytical and sees puzzles and patterns everywhere.
Also a musician. Plus vulnerable and troubled. I adore him to pieces. Doesn't matter the interpretation. (Well except for the old PBS one played by a truly unattractive actor that came before Moffat's version.) I am picky about the actors portraying him. My fav's are Basil Rathbone, Frank Langella, Hugh Laurie (House), Benedict Cumberbatch, Robert Downey Jr and Johnny Lee Miller. Although I think Basil, Johnny Lee Miller (the original Spike in Trainspotting...even time I saw Spike, I was reminded of Johnny Lee in Trainspotting...he literally could be Spike in a movie version or who I'd cast), and Frank Lagenalla portrayed the nicest and most sympathetic. Laurie, Downey Jr and Cumberbatch all portray Sherlock as a bit of a sociopathic jerk.