(no subject)
Jun. 9th, 2013 09:34 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shadowkat1. oh dear, the Tony's are boring. And I really don't know why Matilda the Musical and Bring it On were nominated, except there isn't much in new musicals on Broadway at the moment. The only one I have any interest in is the Pippin revival.
That said, I rather like the acts from Motown the Musical - which is saying something because I usually despise jukebox musicals. Although they can be a lot of fun at times.
2. Finished watching the season finale of Revolution today and...this series is really bad. After watching the far superior Falling Skies - I can see what they are doing wrong. Falling Skies builds the characters organically, and when a character does something crazy - you know why, they've built it up and set-it up, while on Revolution when a characters does something crazy, we get a flashback that drops in out of nowhere, with no transition to explain it. And it doesn't always. The plot is all over the place, the plot-twists jarring, and it is difficult to care about anyone.
This is a shame. This series is tailor made to hit my story kinks and hard.
1) It allegedly has a kick-ass heroine in Charlie, who wears cropped shirts, jeans, and fires a sling shot or the easy to fire version of a bow and arrow (can't recall what it is called). Except Charlie is portrayed by an actress who has all the screen chemistry of a cardboard cut-out. Imagine Sansa Stark in the role of Katniss Everdeen. 2) Star-crossed lovers. Two of them. An YA version and an Adult Version. The young version is Charlie and Miles (whose father murdered hers), and the adult version is Rachel (played by Elizabeth Mitchell - who admittedly is amongst the reasons I watched this) and Miles (Charlie King), who is the brother of her late hubby Ben, and clearly had a romantic past with Rachel that Ben didn't know about. The adults have chemistry, the kids do not. But even though the adults have chemistry - we don't know why. They haven't shown us. We are told. And get an occasional flashback with Miles torturing Rachel - which doesn't exactly explain it either - actually the opposite. 3) the brother relationship between Miles and Sebastian Monroe, which the guy who used to play Gus on Breaking Bad and is now playing a delicious villain role here, aptly states is a borderline erotic fixation. And the actors are good and do have chemistry. But their back story is all over the place, told in a jarring fashion, and we never get enough of them together in present day to understand it. You can do flashbacks and make them work which Falling Skies and Arrow demonstrate - but you need to do it chronologically and have a reason for it. Not willy-nilly whenever you want to explain why a character is making googly eyes at another one. This results in emotional distance. 4) A non-linear narrative structure - we start in the middle of the story, and over time the past is explained and not always in order. I love creative narrative structures but this one is hard to follow. OUAT does this right - they focus on specific characters and have a complete story in the flashbacks, which are used as the B storyline. Revolution jumps around too much. Falling Skies also did it right - with an episode in which Tom remembers in flashes and nightmares being on the spaceship and how he escaped. The flashbacks are told chronolically and reinforce the present story. They serve a greater purpose than explaining a romance. There's more to them. 5) It's a world where civilization has broken down, no electricity, and people have to find a way to survive. Except again in Revolution this isn't consistent nor is the science. They have running water, plumbing, and everyone is clean. Apparently the power is only off for half the population, because little gadgets can turn it on. And the power was turned off by microscopic nanonites that were introduced into the air as a weapon - they keep people with cancer and diseases alive, but make electricity impossible. (okkkay). Everyone fights with swords, because apparently guns are in short supply? Or you can't fire them without electricity? Since when? Unlike Falling Skies which discusses American History and deals with the day to day struggle of finding supplies and survival, Revolution conveniently finds things available when it needs to.
I'd summarize or explain the plot...but it didn't make sense. The goal was to go to the tower to turn back on the power. But assorted parties were attempting to prevent it - one group because they feared the end of the world or worse people using nasty weapons again, the other because they liked the status quo - where they had the power and no one else did. The group, our heroes, who are trying to turn it on - are to ensure the bad guy isn't the only one with the power. To turn it on they've killed all the people trying to keep it off to save the world, while the bad boy militia who they are fighting has staged a coup and change in leadership. They do succeed in turning it on. But Randal - portrayed by an actor who always plays these types of villains - decides to fire missiles on Georgia and Philadelphia, so the US President who is hiding out in Guantamo Bay, Cuba can return. I feel like I read a very cheesy and confusing comic book.
Eh..don't wast your time. Trust me, this baby is skippable. Watch BSG, Caprica, Falling Skies or Defiance instead. Or just rent the Hungar Games.
Overall rating? D-
UGh...working on a contract this weekend has apparently ruined me for this sort of thing. Chockful of typos. And no interest in fixing at the moment.
That said, I rather like the acts from Motown the Musical - which is saying something because I usually despise jukebox musicals. Although they can be a lot of fun at times.
2. Finished watching the season finale of Revolution today and...this series is really bad. After watching the far superior Falling Skies - I can see what they are doing wrong. Falling Skies builds the characters organically, and when a character does something crazy - you know why, they've built it up and set-it up, while on Revolution when a characters does something crazy, we get a flashback that drops in out of nowhere, with no transition to explain it. And it doesn't always. The plot is all over the place, the plot-twists jarring, and it is difficult to care about anyone.
This is a shame. This series is tailor made to hit my story kinks and hard.
1) It allegedly has a kick-ass heroine in Charlie, who wears cropped shirts, jeans, and fires a sling shot or the easy to fire version of a bow and arrow (can't recall what it is called). Except Charlie is portrayed by an actress who has all the screen chemistry of a cardboard cut-out. Imagine Sansa Stark in the role of Katniss Everdeen. 2) Star-crossed lovers. Two of them. An YA version and an Adult Version. The young version is Charlie and Miles (whose father murdered hers), and the adult version is Rachel (played by Elizabeth Mitchell - who admittedly is amongst the reasons I watched this) and Miles (Charlie King), who is the brother of her late hubby Ben, and clearly had a romantic past with Rachel that Ben didn't know about. The adults have chemistry, the kids do not. But even though the adults have chemistry - we don't know why. They haven't shown us. We are told. And get an occasional flashback with Miles torturing Rachel - which doesn't exactly explain it either - actually the opposite. 3) the brother relationship between Miles and Sebastian Monroe, which the guy who used to play Gus on Breaking Bad and is now playing a delicious villain role here, aptly states is a borderline erotic fixation. And the actors are good and do have chemistry. But their back story is all over the place, told in a jarring fashion, and we never get enough of them together in present day to understand it. You can do flashbacks and make them work which Falling Skies and Arrow demonstrate - but you need to do it chronologically and have a reason for it. Not willy-nilly whenever you want to explain why a character is making googly eyes at another one. This results in emotional distance. 4) A non-linear narrative structure - we start in the middle of the story, and over time the past is explained and not always in order. I love creative narrative structures but this one is hard to follow. OUAT does this right - they focus on specific characters and have a complete story in the flashbacks, which are used as the B storyline. Revolution jumps around too much. Falling Skies also did it right - with an episode in which Tom remembers in flashes and nightmares being on the spaceship and how he escaped. The flashbacks are told chronolically and reinforce the present story. They serve a greater purpose than explaining a romance. There's more to them. 5) It's a world where civilization has broken down, no electricity, and people have to find a way to survive. Except again in Revolution this isn't consistent nor is the science. They have running water, plumbing, and everyone is clean. Apparently the power is only off for half the population, because little gadgets can turn it on. And the power was turned off by microscopic nanonites that were introduced into the air as a weapon - they keep people with cancer and diseases alive, but make electricity impossible. (okkkay). Everyone fights with swords, because apparently guns are in short supply? Or you can't fire them without electricity? Since when? Unlike Falling Skies which discusses American History and deals with the day to day struggle of finding supplies and survival, Revolution conveniently finds things available when it needs to.
I'd summarize or explain the plot...but it didn't make sense. The goal was to go to the tower to turn back on the power. But assorted parties were attempting to prevent it - one group because they feared the end of the world or worse people using nasty weapons again, the other because they liked the status quo - where they had the power and no one else did. The group, our heroes, who are trying to turn it on - are to ensure the bad guy isn't the only one with the power. To turn it on they've killed all the people trying to keep it off to save the world, while the bad boy militia who they are fighting has staged a coup and change in leadership. They do succeed in turning it on. But Randal - portrayed by an actor who always plays these types of villains - decides to fire missiles on Georgia and Philadelphia, so the US President who is hiding out in Guantamo Bay, Cuba can return. I feel like I read a very cheesy and confusing comic book.
Eh..don't wast your time. Trust me, this baby is skippable. Watch BSG, Caprica, Falling Skies or Defiance instead. Or just rent the Hungar Games.
Overall rating? D-
UGh...working on a contract this weekend has apparently ruined me for this sort of thing. Chockful of typos. And no interest in fixing at the moment.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2013-06-10 05:01 am (UTC)I do agree that a lot hinges on whether you can accept the non-linear nature of the reveals without getting confused, and that's a highly individualistic thing. Your comment some posts back about the show being "a comic book on crack" were about right, and if anything I found the show more enjoyable after reading that, because it shifted my viewing perspective to another position.
I also tend to read a lot of political angles into many of the shows I watch, and I think this series is full of them. I'd venture the overarcing metaphor of the show is that the lack of power in the world at large in this fictional universe is analagous to the state of affairs in our real-world Washington D.C where everyone seems to be squaring off into their own fiercely defended territories and guards whatever power they have at any cost.
A few minor points I can clarify-- people use swords and knives because guns are scarce, and bullets far scarcer. A gun can be maintained with a few basic tools, but the precision bullets they fire generally need electricity to be manufactured.
No one in the word has power, except for the few who have the amulets. The amulets are like a low-powered version of the Tower, able to locally reprogram the nanomachines. The limited transmission range they have is why they needed the amplifiers to get the helicopters and planes and such working.
I criticised the show in the first few episodes because of the poor science, but to be fair while it's still extremely wobbly and sometimes completely bogus, the nanotech phlebotinum the writers devised is not a bad attempt. It could explain, for example, why people's brains and nervous systems could keep operating-- the nanos could be programmed to not damp electrical fields when they are present in living things.
Anyway, as you know all too well, you like what you like and vice versa. I'm hoping they'll address some of the valid issues you mentioned and the show may improve in Season 2. We'll see!
no subject
Date: 2013-06-10 09:32 pm (UTC)The other bit...
I also tend to read a lot of political angles into many of the shows I watch, and I think this series is full of them. I'd venture the overarcing metaphor of the show is that the lack of power in the world at large in this fictional universe is analagous to the state of affairs in our real-world Washington D.C where everyone seems to be squaring off into their own fiercely defended territories and guards whatever power they have at any cost.
But they are so poorly done and don't reflect reality - or rather they reflect Hollywood's interpretation of it.
I am a bit picky about this - because I work for a large government agency and know a lot about infrastructure planning, where tax dollars go, and how the laws work. Background in administrative, legislative, contracts, criminal and property law. So, much like legal procedurals? I'm really picky about political references and how a series reflects them.
This is not helped by the fact that I've seen really good series that deal with politics and political angles:
*Game of Thrones
*The Wire
* BSG
* The West Wing
* The Walking Dead
* Breaking Bad
* The Good Wife
And on my DVR? Orphan Black, and on DVD - House of Cards.
Also read excellent comic books dealing with political allegory - Alan Moore's Watchmen, V-for-Vendetta, Dark Knight Rises (Frank Miller)
The tv series whose political references don't work for me, either due to cliches or ludicrous Stephen King plots and feel off are:
* Firefly
* Dollhouse
* Revolution
* Alias
* Political Animals (enjoyed as well, but silly)
*X-Files
* 24 (seriously??)
* Fringe
* Rosewell
All of the above had sort of political commentary that felt dated and didn't quite work for me. Really not quite sure why - just know they didn't. Which is why I gave up on them. Well except for Dollhouse and Firefly - which I watched all of, but they only had 13-20 episodes...so not a big deal.
Buffy Comics, Marvel Comics, and most of the DC comics (except for the one's listed above) fit here as well.
TV series that do political allegories well enough that I don't find them silly, and explore interesting concepts regarding social psychological organizational dynamics, political theory, and philosophy...are:
* Falling Skies
* Children of the Earth - Torchwood
* Farscape
* Babylon 5
* LOST
* Caprica
See, I'm relatively picky. Some political series work for me, some really really don't and when it doesn't work, I give up on it after a bit.
no subject
Date: 2013-06-11 05:32 am (UTC)Speaking of, if I do find a bit of spare coin to spend over the next half-year, which of the following would you recommend buying, in what order?
The Wire
Caprica
Farscape (I have the first year or two, but none of the later stuff)
Thanks!
no subject
Date: 2013-06-11 10:22 pm (UTC)Caprica is the cheapest - only 13 - 20 episodes. Also the most recent.
It's the one that was show-run by Jane Espenson. The series was like Dollhouse - had about two seasons, got yanked for low ratings, and the remaining episodes were burned off in a marathon.
Caprica is a science fiction drama television series. It is a spin-off prequel of the re-imagined Battlestar Galactica, taking place about 58 years prior to the events of Battlestar Galactica. Caprica shows how humanity first created the robotic Cylons who would later plot to destroy humans in retaliation for their enslavement. Among Caprica's main characters are the father and uncle of William Adama from the re-imagined Battlestar Galactica.
Here's a link to the trailer:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d2D32c_Zi5Y
The Wire - The Wire is an American television drama series set and produced in and around Baltimore, Maryland. Created and primarily written by author and former police reporter David Simon, the series was broadcast by the premium cable network HBO in the United States. The Wire premiered on June 2, 2002, and ended on March 9, 2008, comprising 60 episodes over five seasons.
Each season of The Wire focuses on a different facet of the city of Baltimore. In chronological order they are: the illegal drug trade, the seaport system, the city government and bureaucracy, the school system, and the print news media. The large cast consists mainly of character actors who are little known for their other roles. Simon has said that despite its presentation as a crime drama, the show is "really about the American city, and about how we live together. It's about how institutions have an effect on individuals. Whether one is a cop, a longshoreman, a drug dealer, a politician, a judge or a lawyer, all are ultimately compromised and must contend with whatever institution they are committed to.
It is without a doubt the most tightly written series that I've seen to date. And amongst the best acted, with a diverse cast.
Here's a link to a vid of a classic scene from the WIRE :http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7bR3T1eThJU
Farscape tends to be hard to get a hold of now - it was on and left the air around the same time as Buffy. The second-fourth seasons are the best, with the two hour movie - The Peacekeeper's War - which serves as the conclusion or final chapter. The second, third and fourth seasons have the most political allegory.
TV is admittedly one of my few luxuries - most of it is on cable channels, I don't watch that much broadcast television - so am, admittedly spoiled. ;-)