TV Series - old & new

[kenberg]

I don't remember, perhaps never saw, "The Eye of the Beholder" but I think you are right on with "The Sixth Sense". The revealed truth was both unexpected and totally logical. Maybe not consistent with reality as I believe it to be, but no problem, it was very logical. And yes, that is what I was getting at with my comments. Suspension of dis-belief is fine, even necessary, but it is not a license to get lazy about plot developments.

 

With many tv shows I don't expect much. Watch it or don't watch it, but don't complain if it's a bit shoddy, it's tv. But I had come to expect more from Homeland.

[kenberg]

I mentioned earlier that we watched the pilot of Masters of Sex and liked it. I still like it, as does Becky, but there are some frustrations. All of the interesting characters are womeen, with the possible exception of Bill Masters. He is interesting but a real jerk. OK, I realize there may be some reality to women being more interesting, but still, it is relentless. Anyway, the frustration is not really that I get my nose out of joint but rather that I find Virginia Johnson to be an extremely interesting person, especially given her time, but really at any time. However, I am not sure that I trust the writers enough to believe I am getting the straight story. Libby Masters is also of great interest. I read something about the show and the writers were discussing how they "improved" her role over what appeared in the Masters/Johnson biography (by Thomas Maier) that the show is based on. Well, people are who they are, and these were real people. It's ok, i guess, for it to be entertainment based loosely on the lives of real people, Shakespeare got away with it, but I am convinced enough that these real people were really interesting and I would be happy to hear how it all really went.

 

Also:

It is an interesting surprise to see how often a story with such a heavy emphasis on sex can so often be very sad.

[blackshoe]

E.g. you have to ignore the fact that FTL travel is impossible

I'm not so sure about that. General Relativity theory precludes FTL travel in our normal 4 dimensional continuum. It does not, as I understand it, preclude the possibility of "end runs" (for want of a better term) around that limitation.

 

and that aliens (if they exist at all) would not likely be remotely humanoid

Not all of them, not. But then, some of the aliens in Star Trek, at least, were in no way humanoid. Remember the Horta?

[GreenMan]

Not all of them, not. But then, some of the aliens in Star Trek, at least, were in no way humanoid. Remember the Horta?

 

Disproportionately few; even Species 8472 were tetrapods. (And they all had languages that the translator technology could render seamlessly into Earth-speak.)

[billw55]

Suspension of disbelief is a function of how well done the rest of the material is. It's much easier to ignore unrealisms when the characters and presentation are compelling, engaging, enjoyable. For example, I recently watched "Iron Man' for the first time. The physics violations were frankly hilarious, but it was ok because everything else was good enough. Same for "Avengers" - how exactly does the hulk land on a giant flying dragon, grab it, then spin it around and throw it, while still standing on it? Honestly I didn't care.

 

Star Trek actually went to the trouble, eventually, of explaining all the humanoid-ness. There was an episode of TNG where they found a pattern of DNA across worlds, leading to a "mother race" from which many species are descended. I thought that was cool, and offset some of the unnecessary fake jargon that was always creeping in the scripts. Whedon did it best in Firefly, focus on characters and story, and don't worry too much about technology details. Let the audience fill in the gaps in their own minds.

[barmar]

Suspension of disbelief is a function of how well done the rest of the material is. It's much easier to ignore unrealisms when the characters and presentation are compelling, engaging, enjoyable.

Agreed. Unless you're an obsessive nitpicker, when you're enjoying the show you're not likely to focus on details like these.

 

I think the change in direction of Homeland may be why people are less caught up in the plotline and noticing the implausibilities and inconsistencies.

[GreenMan]

Slate's TV critic said Homeland started downhill midway through season 2 when Brody went from misunderstood bad guy to misunderstood good guy. Once the basic narrative lost its edge, the rest of the seams started to show.

 

It does get funny sometimes. I remember a gun enthusiast who had no problem with the idea of wormhole travel in Stargate SG-1 but complained that it was unrealistic to think the characters would switch from MP5K submachine guns to P90s.

[blackshoe]

It does get funny sometimes. I remember a gun enthusiast who had no problem with the idea of wormhole travel in Stargate SG-1 but complained that it was unrealistic to think the characters would switch from MP5K submachine guns to P90s.

:lol: :lol:

[Scarabin]

Perhaps TV series rely too much on ending every episode with a cliffhanger and that's why the final episode flops? Farewelled Homeland 3 & The Killing 3 without too much heartburning. Prisoners of War 2 still has 2 episodes to go but the weaknesses are beginning to show. Oh well, I guess being mystified is more exciting than resolving improbable plots. What will be the next hit? :D

[blackshoe]

What will be the next hit? :D

"Intelligence" (ABC) looks like it has possibilities.

[Scarabin]

Is not "Intelligence" Sherlock Holmes in modern dress? If so I did watch one episode, but for me SH must have the Victorian milieu. Up against modern police procedure it seems silly. :D

[GreenMan]

Is not "Intelligence" Sherlock Holmes in modern dress? If so I did watch one episode, but for me SH must have the Victorian milieu. Up against modern police procedure it seems silly. :D

 

Intelligence (the U.S. series) has not aired yet, and it's a techno-spy thriller. You may be thinking of Elementary.

 

(There was a Canadian crime series also called Intelligence that went off the air in 2007.)

[kenberg]

Perhaps TV series rely too much on ending every episode with a cliffhanger and that's why the final episode flops? Farewelled Homeland 3 & The Killing 3 without too much heartburning. Prisoners of War 2 still has 2 episodes to go but the weaknesses are beginning to show. Oh well, I guess being mystified is more exciting than resolving improbable plots. What will be the next hit? :D

 

I have not yet watched the final Homeland, but I take your point.

 

And another, hardly original with me, observation is that a good story is not necessarily a story that can continue for several seasons at a high level. In fact, being a good story might be incompatible with a several season run. Most of us have some crap that we watch. We know it's not much good but we know what we will be getting and we open some wine or whatever, flip the switch, and zone out. That stuff can continue for ten seasons or more. No one expects much. But if you see something with an interesting inventive story, you come to expect that level from the series, and it just isn't possible for the writers to keep it up.Einstein published three major papers in 1905. I have no idea what he did in 1906.

[blackshoe]

Einstein published three major papers in 1905. I have no idea what he did in 1906.

He took a nap. :D

 

Edit: actually, according to wikipedia, he was pretty prolific. He published a couple of dozen papers in 1905, not just the three major ones. He only published five in 1906. His last publication appears to have been in 1955, the year in which he died.

[barmar]

I have not yet watched the final Homeland, but I take your point.

 

And another, hardly original with me, observation is that a good story is not necessarily a story that can continue for several seasons at a high level. In fact, being a good story might be incompatible with a several season run. Most of us have some crap that we watch. We know it's not much good but we know what we will be getting and we open some wine or whatever, flip the switch, and zone out. That stuff can continue for ten seasons or more. No one expects much. But if you see something with an interesting inventive story, you come to expect that level from the series, and it just isn't possible for the writers to keep it up.Einstein published three major papers in 1905. I have no idea what he did in 1906.

This is often cited as the reason why cable TV tends to have higher quality shows than broadcast TV. Most shows on the broadcast networks have seasons of 22-26 episodes each year, and they hope for them to be ongoing. It's hard for the writers to maintain a high quality when they have to produce that much quantity. And they can't follow the tried-and-true story-telling model of beginning-middle-end if they don't know when the end will be.

 

Cable TV also has the problem that series are usually intended to be ongoing, but they have shorter seasons so the writers are less likely to run out of ideas early on. The cable networks also tend to give shows time to find their audience, so the writers don't have to be so desperate to grab the audience at the beginning -- they can write more deliberately. If the show is reasonably successful, the producers will generally be able to work with the cable network to determine how long the show will run, and they can then plot it out with a known ending time. Breaking Bad is an excellent example of a show that worked towards their definite ending -- the entire series can be viewed as an epic story. Dexter, even though they knew when the story was ending, seemed to lose it in the climax.

[mike777]

Enjoy watching the old tv series Rockford Files on Netflix.

[Scarabin]

Intelligence (the U.S. series) has not aired yet, and it's a techno-spy thriller. You may be thinking of Elementary.

 

(There was a Canadian crime series also called Intelligence that went off the air in 2007.)

 

Thanks. I was thinking of Elementary. Will watch for Intelligence.

 

:D

[kenberg]

I mentioned above that we all have things we watch that we don't expect all that much of. Elementary falls into that category for me. Mt wife likes Lucy Liu and has seen her in other things (some version of Charlie's Angels maybe?) . Sherlock is a caricature of the old Sherlock, but I was never that fond of the old Sherlock anyway, either in the original or in the various dramatizations, so I don't much mind. White Collar is another show that I watch but don't really think is much of anything.

 

With shows that I really like, Homeland for example, I largely remember the background storyline. With others, Elementary for example, I remember there is some woman in Sherlock's London past who is dead, or was thought to be dead and turned up alive, or maybe is evil, and is named or code-name Moriarty or something, but I don't much remember or care. It's like trying to remember whether some snack you had at a party did or did not have walnuts in it. Doesn't matter.

 

And even with Homeland, it has run its natural life span. Guests are supposed to leave the party before the hosts come out in their pajamas and start yawning.

[y66]

We've been watching Borgen season 1. Just watched episode 4. I'm hooked.

[Vampyr]

Is not "Intelligence" Sherlock Holmes in modern dress? If so I did watch one episode, but for me SH must have the Victorian milieu. Up against modern police procedure it seems silly. :D

 

I find the character in Sherlock to be much more "Sherlock Holmes-ish" than the one in Elementary. But I am a late comer to the former show, and will be disappointed if there turns out to be no problem with drug addiction. I am a fan of Holmes in general, and would not like to see a sanitised version of him. Already the Holmes in Elementary does not smoke and the one in Sherlock is trying to quit with patches.

[blackshoe]

I find the character in Sherlock to be much more "Sherlock Holmes-ish" than the one in Elementary. But I am a late comer to the former show, and will be disappointed if there turns out to be no problem with drug addiction. I am a fan of Holmes in general, and would not like to see a sanitised version of him. Already the Holmes in Elementary does not smoke and the one in Sherlock is trying to quit with patches.

"Elementary's" Holmes is a recovering addict. I haven't seen "Sherlock".

[Vampyr]

"Elementary's" Holmes is a recovering addict.

 

Yes, I had thought that that qualified as a "problem", though it is still slightly disappointing.

[billw55]

I enjoy Elementary and find the lead characters to be well developed, compared to most crime shows. Perhaps I have accepted this altered version of Holmes and Watson more easily because I am not burdened with expectations, having seen no previous screen presentations. Well, except for some American action-style movies which are really so far off that they don't even cross my mind.

[Vampyr]

I enjoy Elementary and find the lead characters to be well developed, compared to most crime shows. Perhaps I have accepted this altered version of Holmes and Watson more easily because I am not burdened with expectations, having seen no previous screen presentations. Well, except for some American action-style movies which are really so far off that they don't even cross my mind.

 

I have enjoyed "classic" renditions of Holmes and Watson; Jeremy Brett stands out IMO as particularly good. In any case, though, even if you have only read the books you will have expectations.

[GreenMan]

I'm still not sure what to make of Elementary, but I found this take on Roger Ebert's site intriguing:

 

Most radically, Doyle's stick figure of a detective is made a fully fleshed human, in stories free of the ultra-violent problem-solving and standard-brand cynicism that soils the likes of "The Blacklist." Not many shows—cable or network—have the courage and heart to end an episode as "Elementary" did, leaving quandaries unresolved as its characters notice, together, wordlessly, the healing beauty of the East River at sunset.

 

The show's triumph starts with the casting of Jonny Lee Miller as Holmes. Frail, tattooed and muscularly stringy from anxiety-control calisthenics, Miller's the most physical iteration of the detective, an ex-addict whose deduction obsessions are most valuable for keeping him focused on the straight and narrow. He shares an un-renovated Brooklyn brownstone with Dr. Watson, at first merely his 'sober companion', but quickly an intellectual peer whose insights he quickly comes to respect and utilize.

 

But the most radical rewrite in "Elementary" is the way the wrapper says "Sherlock Homes" while the actual item is a twofer. At its core, "Elementary," is the story of two people who met just after hitting bottom, and what happens after that.

 

... Looking at Doherty's resume, I couldn't help but notice his work as a writer on "Star Trek: Voyager," which for seven seasons used the same additive technique to tell the very slow but steady growth of the human-turned-Borg, Seven of Nine, from heartless semi-automaton to full-fledged human—without explicitly telling that story, but via the steady accumulation of incident and growth. It was a story told via the narrative of memory: Seven's and ours.

 

It's a mode that assumes viewer attention, a respectful mode. A perfect example of additive stand-alone storytelling is this show's means of showing [how] Holmes is coming to respect Watson, without any obvious signals or landmark moments.