General Open Thread – TV Shows (2)
This topic contains 1,048 replies, has 73 voices, and was last updated by 
Craig 6 years, 5 months ago.
-
AuthorPosts
-
1 June 2015 at 06:41 #40449
@purofilion Goodness no, I like Whedon’s work very much! It was unexpected because I usually find modern-dress Shakespeare a bit clunky and stiff (because, I suppose, they’re trying to offset the lack of fancy costumes etc.?) or else they all twitter like birds trying to bring the poor old boy “up to date” or something. This was *much* better than any of that! ichi is no fool.
Most of the time. Or some.
The ep you’re looking for is “The Forest of the Night”, which was an odd title since the story took place in full daylight. Somebody was asleep at the wheel on that. And yes, I liked it anyway; just sat back and thought, right, Burnham Wood has definitely come to Dunsinane and I’m all for it, away we go, fairy lights and all. Why not?
KtM’s failures, whatever they are, whizzed right by me, I think. I was watching faces, gestures, timing, and listening to how the voices worked, and these all pleased me. I’m not fussy, I guess. Well, all right, I may be fussy, but only about the things I care about, which are more likely to be qualities found in live theater than on TV. That’s because the performance level in S8 is good enough to put me there, *almost* in the space with the actors. Much more interested in wild-eyed imagination (giant *spider-things* NOOOOO!) than in science (I take the latter from Tyson and Cox, where it’s got reasonable authority behind it and presenters concentrating on just that, not story telling).
SF reading? I’ve got some ideas. Classics like “Childhood’s End” by Arthur C. Clarke; “More than Human”, Ted Sturgeon; “I am Legend”, Mattheson; “Earth Abides”, Stewart, gorgeous post-Apocolytic novel. Anything by Peter Dickinson. Anything by Alfred Bester. “Judgment Night” by C.L. Moore. I read a ton of the hard stuff back then, but it’s all evaporated out of my head except Jules Verne, so others will have to give you those. Philip K. Dick “The Galactic Pot Healer” — you can read the paranoid psychosis type things of his later. Bradbury, maybe “The Martian Chronicles”. Didn’t he also write “Fahrenheit 451”? Ursula LeGuin, “The Left Hand of Darkness” (a beautiful, radical book that inspired many of my cohort to jump into the deep end of the SF pool). Kim Stanley Robinson, his Mars trilogy for interesting political and environmental themes. “The Sparrow” by Mary Doria Russell — I found it absurd and annoying, but it was and remains popular. Get some reading under your belt, and then go online and check out the Hugo and Nebula Award winners, all lengths plus prize-winning anthologies. Then go to the James Tiptree Jr. Literary Award site for suggestions of best gender-bending and feminist SF (the judges there provide comments on their picks, very helpful). There’s a new novel out that’s supposed to be not just brilliant and affecting but funny (dark humor): “The Martian”, by Andy Weir. It’s on my reading stack now.
Um, yes, I write professionally, first published in 1974, a dozen novels since, maybe as many short stories/novellas, most still in print one way or another. My of-noteness is probably fading fast, since I haven’t published anything new in several years. I’ve reached the “Who’s that?” stage, and that’s at a feminist SF convention, so . . .
Thanks for the love, and appreciation of my verbal meanderings; there’s nothing like a chat with smart people.
1 June 2015 at 07:45 #40450@ichabod “KtM’s failures, whatever they are, whizzed right by me, I think. I was watching faces, gestures, timing, and listening to how the voices worked, and these all pleased me. I’m not fussy, I guess. Well, all right, I may be fussy, but only about the things I care about, which are more likely to be qualities found in live theater than on TV.”
Yeah, I get that. For the people who like it, it seems to be about the subtleties of the relationship, the interractions, faces, gestures, timing. I’m a big fan of live theater, I practically live at the fringe festival. But even in theatre, there’s the rule of Chekov’s gun. I’m pretty ecumenical in my tastes, I love Jodorowsky and Spalding Gray, Richard Linklater and Ed Wood, I groove on Bunuel and Shwarzenegger. Hell, I enjoyed the dada movement.
So this isn’t about me being a science nerd. I don’t really care all that much about moon spiders, I can take em or leave em, and it’s been that way since cat women on the moon. There’s an incredibly diverse set of approaches to storytelling, and all kinds of stories that can be told in all kinds of ways. A story doesn’t have to be about plot, doesn’t even need a plot. It can be a mood, an instant, a memory, it can be about a relationship or a moral. But for me whatever form it takes, there’s always an internal logic and a story needs to work within its internal logic. For me KtM fails on every level, it’s a sludgy morass of contradictory metaphors, inconsistent performance, and convoluted pretension. It’s a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
But you know what? It’s a big world, and there’s certainly room for all the people who like KtM. But that also means there’s plenty of room for me. It’s a good thing.
Hmmm. You didn’t write ‘A Billion Days of Earth’ by any chance.
1 June 2015 at 07:51 #40451Anonymous @
No, I was trying to be funny. I’m dismal at humour!
Indeed re: KtM and on the other thread, responding to a new member I recalled The Forest of The Dead -being the one about The Weeping Angels. See, some eps I do remember.:) That particular two-parter (as well as Silence in the Library) had an enormous impact, critically and on ol’ little me (so I remember those titles). I’ll probably call it That Forest One, though.
I really hope any new members come August won’t start with “oh Jeepers, Moffat has done another duffer. Why don’t they sack him. Let’s sack ’em all and let them eat cake and …” Well, you get my drift.
Thks for the great list. I really appreciate the time you put into that. Awesome. A library visit is on the cards. Actually, at the hospital they’ve a pretty impressive library of donated books.
1 June 2015 at 08:00 #40452Everything you write, sweetie, turns out long!!
@ichabod (being thoroughly exhausted) what do you think of the excellent points by Den above? I mean, the moon gives birth to something as big as itself… That shouldn’t happen. And, if the moon dies…which it does…why don’t bits of moon crater fall to earth?
Should the Doctor have left Clara at that time to teach her? As DV suggests: “So either Clara is the stupidest cow alive or the Doctor is the biggest prick who ever lived, because this seems to be colossal sadism? The Doctor probably really knew all along it was safe. Still, it just seems horrible bad behaviour by the Doctor. So the teachable moment was ‘ignore all evidence, reason and logic in favour of completely unfounded sentimental moral whims because things will magically turn out all right in the end.’ “
@pedant and @jimthefish I’d be very interested in your views on this though I now realise we are definitely on the wrong thread!
Thank you @denvaldron. I might have to re-think all my core beliefs. I really have very little education.
Kindest,
puro
1 June 2015 at 09:06 #40453I’ll keep this short as we’re on the wrong thread now (and that’s my fault)
KtM was a parable, a fantasy. Normally I would add IMO -pls read that ‘as read’. /:+)
@pedant mentioned this (or it could have been @jimthefish): sometimes it’s best to avoid interfering. In Buffy, S6, Willow brings her back and a demon piggy backs: thaumogenesis. A parting gift? A gift with purchase. The Greeks loved these but I’m not the one with d’education.
Had the Doctor interfered, what would the result have been? Not physically speaking, not practically, not phenomenally but following a sublime approach:
“The Master of Illusions could enable his votaries to see the world as the world’s not.”
I don’t think the Doctor was compelled to assert a spurious kind of decency in returning when he did -or leaving when he did. What some took as a docile, simple decision was a depth charge, one exploding without warning beneath the surface and the repercussions of those decisions, the Doctor leaving the moon; Clara abandoning their companionship (or attempting to), were never fully realised until the last two episodes.
In viewpoint, the Doctor’s decision was detached, eccentric and devoid of emotional detail. Does time endow the memory with a menace the original showing didn’t possess? For it seems that the emotion we feel over the Doctor’s decision becomes more manic and incomprehensible as time passes. And it is about time. I think that’s the point.
As for Plato, and the Greek writers to which you may have referred, I would say: “What is unthinkable is undoable”. And so the Doctor left.
To the moon: it’s a discouraging exegesis to confound our memories and current knowledge with the idea that the crumbling moon must kill us. That wasn’t the sum of the parts of this episode. It is improbable and ridiculous -but again, I don’t think it was the point because we evidently recognise that attempts at analysis are largely useless. That being the case, our attention is shifted outside the paradigm.
One isn’t dissipated or bankrupt if we avoid the science: the premise may not be the one obviously created. For if the evident premise isn’t ‘followed’ then that ‘premise’ was never correct or realised.
It follows that another set of objectives or parabolic statements defines the episode. And I think fairy tales follow that route. If you can call it a route; even that sounds like a street directory when the most likely position was circular and confused: like space.
And that’s where it was set.
1 June 2015 at 09:17 #40454“For me KtM fails on every level, it’s a sludgy morass of contradictory metaphors, inconsistent performance, and convoluted pretension. It’s a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing”
@denvaldron might I add this? If you truly believe this, then it must stand that to some small extent those who adore it are, if not idiots, then idiotic (at times); unable to appreciate or distinguish a performance (inconsistent or otherwise) and are possibly, pretentious! And to state “it signifies nothing” is surely a starkly irrational definition. No? I could also ask how is it full of “convoluted pretension”? Time and its handmaidens are convoluted; they implode and re-grow. In so doing, their outer shell is reinterred, re-used or rematerializes completely.
1 June 2015 at 11:35 #40455@purofilion & @denvaldron–
I’m can’t really reply to Den’s thoughts on KtM because I didn’t really read them, only gave them a quick scan for compliance. But I wouldn’t get too exercised by the ‘sound and fury’ business as I’m sure you know it’s a quote from Macbeth being pressed roughly into service by Den.
On which note, however, can we make sure we stay on topic? While occasional asides are great if they progress the topic in question, extended ruminations on SF should go either in the Books thread or The Cloven Hoof. Lengthy discussions on KtM should go in the Kill the Moon thread, oddly enough. I’ll keep everything where it is this time as everything is kind of mashed in together but let’s try and keep it orderly.
You can always link to stuff posted elsewhere should it be necessary.
1 June 2015 at 12:08 #40456@jimthefish @denvaldron @ichabod
– thanks for the timely reminder. Apologies.
1 June 2015 at 14:56 #40457@purofilion might I add this? If you truly believe this, then it must stand that to some small extent those who adore it are, if not idiots, then idiotic (at times); unable to appreciate or distinguish a performance (inconsistent or otherwise) and are possibly, pretentious!
I don’t know that I want to take that step, or that that step ought to be taken. It’s one thing to judge a work. It’s questionable to apply that judgement upon people who like or dislike that work. It seems to me that the latter ends up taking us to bad places. People are inherently idiosyncratic, art is inherently subjective. In the end, logic is a retrograde tool – it doesn’t decide what we like or dislike, it just explains it for us. But the impression is subjective.
So my point is, its perfectly possible for me to loathe KtM, without loathing someone who likes it. And generally, that’s a good idea. The trouble with strong opinions is that if they’re strong enough, then you have the urge to start chopping off the heads of unbelievers, which is a bad thing. The alternative, I suppose is to have no strong opinions at all, and therefore have no need to chop off heads… but then that makes you vulnerable to the head choppers if history is anything to go by. Me, I think there’s a third way, where we are entitled to strong opinions, but wise enough not to make them universal barometers.
Of course, there’s always exceptions. If you meet someone who is a big fan of the Turner Diaries… be cautious. But still, making a distinction between a person and their opinions is probably a good thing.
As for KtM, Ichabod liked it because she saw authentic emotional honesty in the characters and their interractions – it seemed genuine. Did the artifice bother her? Well, all art is artifice, it’s all lies designed to seek out a core of truth. So she got something out of it. I respect that, and to a degree I understand it.
For me, I can see where she’s coming from, but I can’t adopt it. The emotional honest she finds, is to me wrapped in a core of fraud. In order for me to get there, to the point of appreciating that emotional honesty, I have to get past the fact that the story violates its own premises, that it establishes its internal logic and then violates it, I have to get past the fact that the characters actions are entirely inconsistent with who they are and that they simply act without motivation because the plot requires them too, I have to get past the contradictory metaphors. I just can’t do it. Is this a human failing in myself? Or does it mean I’m a superior critic? I dunno. Neither I would say. It just is.
But this all comes around back to the principal of suspension of belief in storytelling and how you keep your audience. It’s a tricky thing. All art is artifice, all stories are lies. And the trick is to get the audience to go along with those lies. You do it by reaching for, by trying to develop some feeling of authenticity. There’s all sorts of ways to do it, I’ve talked about two of them – provenance and accumulation of familiar detail, you can do it with an accumulation of unfamiliar detail forcefully dragging a reader into your world, you can do it by embracing a first person narrative, or by establishing rules or premises for your audience that you follow, or by maintaining fidelity of characterization.
Suspension of belief is something we’re very used to, and it changes as we grow up, it changes depending on what we’re looking at. Look at Horror movies, the cliché of the heroine, against all logic and common sense going down alone into a basement where the monster is. That’s an oft-cited example of bad writing and bad characterization (it really is). It was mocked in Scream. Yet it worked for a lot of people, we all invested in it, we maintained our suspension of disbelief, we followed her down to the basement. It was stupid, but it worked. Go figure. But in a different movie, a different context, that sort of defiant character illogic would not have worked at all, and people would have booed and thrown popcorn at the screen.
And it stopped working. For some people, after they’d watched enough horror movies, or after they reached a certain point in their lives, it didn’t work, it was just stupid. For horror movies, it eventually degenerated from an effective tactic to a stupid cliché. For whatever reason, we stopped following that heroine down into the basement. The bar moves. It moves for us individually, based on who we are and where we are, how young we are, how drunk we are, what’s going on with us. It moves for us collectively.
And to state “it signifies nothing” is surely a starkly irrational definition. No? I could also ask how is it full of “convoluted pretension”? Time and its handmaidens are convoluted; they implode and re-grow. In so doing, their outer shell is reinterred, re-used or rematerializes completely.
Yeah, you got me there. I got caught up quoting MacBeth. It was one of my favourite soliloquys, MacBeth learning that his wife was dead and becoming completely unstrung from the world, losing all faith in existence, seeing nothing but a string of empty barren days. I used to be able to recite the whole thing from memory, back in the bad old days when my knuckles dragged the ground as I walked.
1 June 2015 at 16:48 #40458@purofilion One final comment on suspension of disbelief. What works for us and what we choose to overlook can be pretty arbitrary. Take a monster movie. You’re watching a monster movie – the big bad thingy is looming over the hero and heroine, claws are out, fangs dripping, screaming is going on. Suddenly you notice a flash of metal. It’s a zipper. The monster has a zipper. It’s a suit. Bang, suspension of disbelief is dead. Or is it? If you’re sufficiently in the moment, you might just ignore it and keep going. For some people the zipper stops them, for others, it doesn’t.
No illusion is perfect. It’s a spell woven on the audience, we are asked to forget we are in a movie theatre, or sitting in our living rooms, we’re asked to embrace the story. Some things get us in there, some things take us out. It can be a boom mike being caught in frame, or the fact that the camera accidentally shoots over the top of the set, or the sound mix is garbled. It can be a wobbly set, or amateurishly bad acting, or a story that.
It’s a funny thing. I didn’t mind a wobbly set, I was prepared to overlook it, so long as the story was engaging and the actors were giving it their best. On the other hand, I loathed Jurassic Park II, the lost world – why? Because the characters acted stupidly and inconsistently, because they made decisions that inadvertently and in some cases deliberately got dozens of people killed, and because their moral posture made no sense – they were horrible stupid people doing horrible stupid things, but the movie insisted on presenting them as virtuous, heroic and sensible. Incredibly expensive and polished movie, and yet it fed my suspension of disbelief through a meat grinder.
What we forgive, and what snaps the thread for us, often quite arbitrary, and it’s often tied to what we like and what works for us, and how compelling that is. If we’re sufficiently fascinated, we don’t just forgive, we don’t even notice, when a boom mike enters the shot.
1 June 2015 at 19:21 #40459But you know what? It’s a big world, and there’s certainly room for all the people who like KtM. But that also means there’s plenty of room for me. It’s a good thing.
An excellent thing, indeed.
Hmmm. You didn’t write ‘A Billion Days of Earth’ by any chance.
Naw. Didn’t have time . . . : )
I’ll go answer a couple of other things on the KtM thread, now that I’ve just realized how to lift text from somebody’s message and italicize it in my own post so I can take some stuff over there to reply to.
@purofilion
I really hope any new members come August won’t start with “oh Jeepers, Moffat has done another duffer. Why don’t they sack him. Let’s sack ‘em all and let them eat cake and …” Well, you get my drift.
I do indeed get it! I don’t think I can stand another round of Moffat 101. Bound to happen, though. I just hope most of it happens somewhere else.
As for my list of books, maybe other folks could add their favorites over on the “Books” list? Someone mentioned Hal Clement’s “Mission of Gravity” — thanks. I was trying to recall that one’s title as a piece of hard SF that I found not just accessible but exciting, even though I was a definitely humanities oriented person. My list was based on a scan of my shelf of oldies and omits whole universes of newer (and older) books than those. There’s so much wonderful stuff! I envy your first encounters with some of the stories that kept me going way back when — me and, happily, millions of other people. Good luck in the hospital library!
Anybody watching “Penny Dreadful”? It’s one black bouillabaisse of a show, and some discussion has arisen about it being centered on a female character, Vanessa, and her Very Weird Problems.
1 June 2015 at 22:50 #40463thoroughly tired of being lectured. There were no comments at all about what I actually said. @jimthefish made it clear we needed to restrict these discussions. And yes, I know Macbeth inside out!! What I don’t understand is why you applied it to your insincere criticisms.
I’m out of here: I’ll leave you to your devices.
1 June 2015 at 22:59 #40464@purofilion I apologize for offending you. You have been civil, it pains me to think I was rude to you.
2 June 2015 at 00:13 #40468accepted! We should move threads out of respect for all the mods please. KtM thread is active at the mo.
2 June 2015 at 01:11 #40471@purofilion Ah — I did say I would put any further comments on the KtM forum, didn’t I? Post #40459, above, for reference. Sorry if I seemed to be lecturing — old teachers’ habits die hard, I’m afraid.
ichi
4 June 2015 at 23:59 #40510e Bishop as a comedy loon at all but as a tragic figure who’d had his brains scrambled by Evil Forces,
Which might work but for the illegal, unethical and cruel experiments on children that started way before evil forces head-fuckery.
5 June 2015 at 09:28 #40513I am new to the forums and this website i was wondering if anyone
knew what episode during the foruth doctor years tom baker period there was a stroyline of a computer or entity that the doctor was working against that had many voices when queried with a question but was in the end one entity and at the very end of the last episode for this storyline said “What about me?” or a very similar quote to the dr and then went directly to the who music?
5 June 2015 at 17:39 #40519Sounds like The Face of Evil to me. Xoanon was a computer who achieved sentience and its new personality was fragmented by an encounter with the Doctor, leading him to suffer a multiple personality disorder. The confrontation you remember sees the Doctor meet him, realising what he’s done. The Doctor proclaims himself to be the Doctor. The tortured response is “Then Who am I?”
It’s also the story that introduced Leela. You can watch the clip of the confrontation on the BBC YouTube Channel here to see if it rings any bells:
5 June 2015 at 17:53 #40520Anybody watching “Penny Dreadful”? It’s one black bouillabaisse of a show, and some discussion has arisen about it being centered on a female character, Vanessa, and her Very Weird Problems.
I watched the first series and wrote a bit about it on the last thread here (mainly talking about some similarities with the League of Extraordinary gentlemen comic book (and not the film)). I’ve got recordings of the first four of the second series and will try to indulge soon. Eva Green is brilliant as Vanessa.
I noticed your mention of EC comics and the Comics Code. Interesting that the League books were written by Alan Moore, and that his run on DC’s supernatural Saga of the Swamp Thing was the first major run that saw one of the publishers say “to hell with this”. It’s rightly well regarded and recommended.
6 June 2015 at 00:33 #40526I noticed your mention of EC comics and the Comics Code. Interesting that the League books were written by Alan Moore, and that his run on DC’s supernatural Saga of the Swamp Thing was the first major run that saw one of the publishers say “to hell with this”. It’s rightly well regarded and recommended.
I only know the “League” from that absolutely idiotic nitwit of a movie — want to talk about being violently yanked out of a story by blatant craziness? It was when the submarine sank into a Venetian canal (which are about, what, 8-10 feet deep?), apparently “sailed” beneath the continent of Europe, and surfaced in the Arctic that I gave up entirely.
That’s if I’m remembering it correctly; it was probably much worse than that, but my mind refuses to retain it. And (happily!) I saw it a long time ago.
I didn’t know when the comics guys revolted against the “code”, but thank god they did! What B.S. that was — Dr. Frederick Wertham, Comic Book Denier!
6 June 2015 at 13:53 #40530@phaseshift — not had the chance to look at Penny Dreadful yet, although Mrs Fish is piling the pressure on to do so.It’s getting a bit tricky these days, what with all the decent stuff that Netflix keeps piling on.
@ichabod — Don’t judge the LoEG based on the film, the original graphic novels are pretty damn excellent, much smarter and playfully metatextual to boot….
6 June 2015 at 15:23 #40531Some interesting responses to my “glowing arse” (thanks @jimthefish !) post. I just wanted to say that with respect to:
@purofilion
Then there’s Farscape as Phaseshift’s suggestion so I’ll eventually watch that too.
And @jimthefish
Maybe Mr @Phaseshift could be prevailed upon for a blog to get us all going.
I’d be happy to lead the choir of people who wanted to explore that Universe with series blogs much like Jim did with Buffy/Angel (I’m getting off easy here – I’d have to do five blogs, he had to do twelve).
If anyone hasn’t seen Farscape (and can I point out that many repeats on UK stations butcher the episodes as @fatmaninabox pointed out a while ago) I’d urge them to give it a go, preferably by buying the thing on DVD or accessing it from uncut sources. The fact that in 2015, a satellite station is cutting more from the episodes shown after 9pm than the BBC did back in the 90s in the 6pm slot is actually pretty disturbing. I’m not sure if @bluesqueakpip or @janetteb have ever seen it or not as their responses didn’t mention it, so here is my sales pitch.
It’s often said that Buffy is a big influence on the modern era of Doctor Who. I’d agree, with a slight note of caution that a lot of the things that the modern show is doing were developed about the same time in spin-off media like books and comics as Buffy was emerging. I’d suggest that Farscape is a smaller bit of the DNA of the RTD series but its similarities to the SM run could perhaps be more significant.
– The season concept of the “Big Bad” doesn’t really exist in Farscape. Characters who want our heroes captured or dead emerge, but everyone if convinced they are doing the right thing.
– The streak of “Fairytale” is strong in this one. When you have an episode title like “Kansas” where the lead character returns to Earth ,the area this series is playing on becomes more apparent (the rest being “we’re not in Kansas anymore, Toto”.
– The lead characters are really well realised. The core cast shifts and moves but their mutual dependency is very engaging. You can see echoes of other shows tropes in them, like D’Argo who is a bit like a Klingon (all noble honour, fighting and stuff) but who is a rebel against his own culture and who can develop a weird argumentative bromance with a bloke from “erf”. Great roles for all the women on the show as well.
– The Jim Henson Workshop creature designs are extraordinary in their diversity. Couple them with effective voice work and creations like Rygel (the emperor slug), and Pilot (a symbiotic link to their sentient ship) come to life.
– It really does have a distinctive voice. Which is something that should be celebrated.
Looking back at my mentions of Farscape I saw @ichabod had mentioned she turned away from the series because she thought it may have been focusing too much on “torture”. I didn’t respond then (apologies), but there is a point to driving the crew (and John in particular) to madness. The series doesn’t shy away from the accumulative damage this does. Only someone who is truly MAD can attempt resolution in the way that Farscape plays out.
It is the first example of fan power in an internet age. The day after the show was cancelled a media savvy campaign to get an extension (and closure) launched, with effective tackling of print and digital media. We got Peacekeeper Wars, which is actually far less of a compromise than Firefly’s Serenity.
So, if any of you are in the mood, let me know. Here is one of the clips that bombarded the internet in the Save Farscape campaign. Because aesthetics are informative, especially when they are this bonkers and because any show that can make the 1812 Overture “a thing” deserves to be watched.
“Look upward and share the wonders I’ve seen.”
– John Crichton, Series 4 intro.
6 June 2015 at 15:40 #40532@phaseshift — I think a series of Farscape blogs is an excellent idea and I’d be up for communal watch type thing. And just to add, as far as I’m aware the whole series is still available on Netflix UK
6 June 2015 at 16:05 #40533I wrote the original post not having seen the resolution of Penny Dreadful, but I came away from the resolution a bit happier. I’ve watched the first ep of the second series, and it is interesting and hopefully some of the issues which I thought were a bit ropy may have been addressed. It’s well worth a look.
Just to echo @jimthefish, the main reason I wrote the post was that the film was no advertisement for the League comic book, which is marvelous. There are a couple of aspects in the film that I thought caught the tone of the original (the torment of Jekyll/Hyde for example) but it really couldn’t do the source material justice. One of those projects that you think Alan Moore is quite right to be distrustful of adaptations. But then you get something like V for Vendetta which I think does it pretty well, retelling a story for current times but keeping the philosophy intact.
6 June 2015 at 20:29 #40537@phaseshift @JimTheFish I’ve heard from others on “League”, and as an old comic book fan I’m not at all dismissive of the idea that the comic was much better. Where would I find it if I wanted a look now? I haven’t kept up with the comics world, so I’ve no idea of availability status.
Saw “Dreadful” last night, new series — it looks good, better than a kind of all-over-the-place vibe that turned me off the first season. Of course, all over the place is kind of the set-up and remains so. Maybe they’ve settled in enough now that I’ll like the ride better. It’s certainly got style! And very good performances.
9 June 2015 at 11:16 #40578@jimthefish and all? Has anyone seen Susie Liggat’s production of Mapp and Lucia?
Mark The G has a great, slightly creepy ‘what ho!’ quality. And I like Anna Chancellor too. In episode 3 (which included Frances Barber) we have her ‘performing’ Beethoven with the over-bearing doom of a bloated prince climbing Rapunzel’s tower: all eyes, heavy breathing and a full bladder suggesting the by-product of sexual ecstasy. Marrvellous daaarling.
Mind you the whole thing is very very odd.
I’m not quite sure what to make of it -I think chopping 20 mins from each ep would improve it. But not the Beethoven; keep that.
9 June 2015 at 13:14 #40579@purofilion
Has anyone seen Susie Liggat’s production of Mapp and Lucia?
Yes, I saw it when it was shown on BBC last year, although the fact that it was produced by Susie Liggat hadn’t registered with me.
Have you read the books by E F Benson on which it is based? I enjoy them as delightful social satire, skewering a certain kind of middle-class social circle in 1920s and 30s England, albeit with a certain measure of affection for the skewered.
The BBC adaptation captured much of the essence of the novels, I think, although in heavily abridging them and conflating certain characters it perhaps loses some of the subtlety and lightness of touch of the original. On the whole I prefer the more expansive 10 episode version produced by Granada Television in 1985 and 1986, with Geraldine McEwan as Lucia, Prunella Scales as Mapp and Nigel Hawthorn as Benjie. I agree, though, that Anna Chancellor is good in the role of Lucia.
9 June 2015 at 14:45 #40580I have not seen Mapp and Lucia yet. Will probably watch it when I no longer have to share the TV with a teenager in the mornings. (When I mostly watch TV.) Thank you for the reminder @Purofilion. It is another one of those series that I have but have forgotten about. I have not come across the books.
As for JS&MN. It just gets better and better. Only three more episodes to go and evil plots are afoot. (I think the order of events is somewhat changed from the book but has been many years since I read it.)
Cheers
Janette
10 June 2015 at 01:25 #4058110 June 2015 at 11:19 #40585@purofilion — Haven’t seen the new Mapp and Lucia, although was vaguely aware that it was out there. I also have vague recollections of the version from the 80s, which I’m sure I must have watched at the time but has left no bigger impression on me than a foggy memory of Maggie Smith and Prunella Scales in cloche hats. Never read the books but wouldn’t mind dipping into one. It’s a period of British life that I’ve become quite interested in these days.
10 June 2015 at 22:52 #40588@purofilion
erratum: Nigel Hawthorne played Georgie in the 1980s adaptation; Benjy was played by Dennis Lill,
I trust that you got the joke about the Beethoven. The first movement of the ‘Moonlight’ sonata was Lucia’s party piece at the musical evenings where she entertained her social circle, but you may note that she never played the second or third movement, which she pronounced ‘inferior’. In fact any piece of music which was beyond her technical ability, or any work of art she did not understand or like, tended to be judged ‘inferior’ (which reminds me of some critics of Doctor Who).
10 June 2015 at 23:39 #40589you trust right: I got the joke.
Most licentiate level pianists can play all movements. Her ‘interpretation’ of the first was pretty awful hence my comment about bloated princes etc
In fact two of my current students are desperately attempting to do what’s called ‘make the break’. In other words, get it in under time. One of them has an ingenious interpretation whereby using older documents of Beethoven’s, claims the first movement, often played virtually molto adagio these days, should be presented at slightly faster ‘clip-clop’ andante. We’ll see. But this way she can slow down the presto sections in the first motif later on. She’s a clever bunny who can play but can also search the documents. One thing she discovered was a newspaper article. This commented on how late the audience left the auditorium in the pouring rain due to a faster, brisk interpretation of not one but two sonatas. She could easily have missed that.
12 June 2015 at 01:48 #40598This is mostly for @phaseshift, but also anyone who’s watched the Netflix version of Daredevil — and if you haven’t then I heartily recommend that you do. I can safely say is one of the best opening seasons I’ve seen since possibly BSG.
But some random and non-spoilery thoughts.
First of all as much as I’ve enjoyed The Avengers/Days of Future Past/Iron Man 3 et al of late, superhero fatigue was definitely setting in which is why I suppose it too me so long to get around to watching this and it’s refreshing to see all the hi-tech glitz of the big-screen MCU almost utterly stripped out. This is gritty as hell. The obvious reference points are The Dark Knight, I suppose, as a start but it’s also I think clearly influenced by The Wire. The slow burn of chasing the paper trail behind Fisk clearly came from that show, with Herc even showing up as Fisk’s dad and the show’s version of Ben Ulrich clearly channelling Lester Freamon. But at the end of the day while I liked that the show took this tack, it really didn’t have the cynicism or the journalistic smarts of the likes of David Simon to be able to pull this off. But I like that it gave the show another layer of sinew that a straight superhero story might not.
Something also learned from The Wire, I think, is the giving the ‘villains’ and the ‘heroes’ almost equal screen time. We’ve seen a lot of origin stories over the past few years — more than once in the case of Spider-Man — and it’s to the show’s credit that it essentially extend one over 13 episodes and keep it enthralling. (It is, of course, two intertwined origin stories, that of Daredevil and of Kingpin.) But perhaps that is its strength. Your average superhero movie has to race through the origin story, rendering it facile and more than a little ridiculous. The slow burn of Daredevil has the luxury of teasing out the story, of exploring the psychology of the characters in greater detail (Matt’s almost Greene-ian wrestling with his Catholic guilt is just something a movie wouldn’t have been able to convey) and perhaps in the end rendering his decision to don a red leather gimp suit almost logical.
But given that the show counts such a lot of Whedon alumni at the executive level, it shouldn’t be surprising that there’s some residue of those shows in there. More of Angel than of Buffy, I would say but the camaraderie between Matt, Foggy and Karen did have something of the old Whedon touch to it sometimes. This version of Foggy particularly does have something of the Xander/Lorne/Wash comedic voice of conscience to him.
The action scenes though are clearly influenced by Hong Kong action flicks though, particularly the often viscerally bone-crunching fight scenes. We’re not quite in Game of Thrones levels of gore here but Mrs Fish especially was watching from behind her fingers a lot of the time, with added winces and squeals on occasion.
From a comic book perspective, it’s interesting that the show is happy to pick up aspects of the existing mythology and seemingly totally change it for its own ends (not unlike Game of Thrones and GRR Martin’s source novels). For instance, the Ben Ulrich thread has clearly deviated quite dramatically from what we saw in the comics. It looks very like the show’s Vanessa is going to be different from the comics version and I find it hard to believe that we’re going to see the heroin-addict porn-star version of Karen, although I could be completely wrong about that. Lots of nice hints though about where the show could be going in future. The Frank Miller iteration is clearly the big influence, although I’m not sure we’ll be seeing Elektra anytime soon.
Quick word on the casting, which is uniformly excellent. Charlie Cox does great work as Matt and behind the mask. I’m constantly amazed at how intimidating he can be despite his relatively slight frame, and with a black mask covering most of his face. Scott Glenn was clearly channelling David Carradine for his portrayal of Stick and Rosario Dawson (of whom I’m a big fan) was great as Claire (Cut Man is the episode where the show really steps up a gear.) Elmer Henson and Deborah Ann Woll also do fine work (although there was something about Karen that kept reminding me of Philomena Cunk for some reason.)
But it’s Vincent D’Onfrio as Fisk who really stands out. It’s a literally immense performance that’s clearly channelling a lot of Orson Welles — particularly as Harry Lime and maybe even Hank Quinlan — but also a bit of Brando as Don Corleone in there too. Fisk/Kingpin is one of the comic book villains that it’s really easy to get wrong. The likes of the Joker or Magneto have lots of props, lots of tics for an actor to play with. Fisk is just a big, bald guy. It’s easy for him to just become generic Evil Businessman. But again, the show took him in a different direction to the comics and D’Onfrio did some amazing work here. It’s not a career best (seek out his episode of Homicide Life on the Streets on YouTube for that). But his Fisk is genuinely — and believeably terrifying. He’s a monster but I also found I had a lot of sympathy for him, even by the finale (although I have to say Mrs Fish did not).
To conclude, I really thought that the superhero genre had pretty much exhausted all its current possibilities. I’m happy to be proven wrong. I’m not convinced that they’ll be able to keep up the momentum, now that all the interesting origin story stuff has been done. But you never know — I would never have thought that a show about a high school teenage vampire hunter would have kept my attention or that that a 50-year-old teatime SF serial would still be appointment TV for me. But even if it doesn’t manage to keep up the pace, it’s still produced a really rather fine opening season.
13 June 2015 at 09:00 #40613@whisht has already posted a musical tribute to Ron Moody on the General Music thread, and mentioned that one of his regrets was that he turned down the role of the Third Doctor.
A decade later than that decision, Ron Moody went on to appear in a TV Show called Into the Labyrinth which @wolfweed mentioned way back at the start of the first part of this forum. It’s well worth a quick look at if anybody wonders how he may have played the Doctor.
The show was created by Bob Baker, who co-wrote a lot of Pertwee and T.Baker serials of what I’d call the “B” League*. It was for ITV, and another series in their long line of “Our answer to Doctor Who” series. It’s more children targeted and dealt with three kids working through a labyrinth of linked times and spaces to search for a magical macguffin called the Nydas.
They’re doing it on behalf of the Wizard Rothgo (Moody) and trying to avoid his opponent played by Pamela Salem. Baker managed to get a few Who writers involved including Robert Holmes, John Lucarotti and Anthony Read.
I’ll post a link to the first 9 minutes of episode 1, which sees the three kids meet Rothgo, who is quite dismissive and short tempered. Over the course of the series though you do see a lot more shades of characteristics that a classically “Doctor”, including a Machiavellian streak.
I actually think he would have been an interesting choice in front of the camera, but can’t help thinking that he may have been a little like Tom Baker behind it. Apparently even on stage he liked to bamboozle writers and fellow cast by going off-piste into his own stuff. So let’s jump back to the late 70s/early 80s, be chilled by the opening sequence, laugh at the fashions, etc:
Oh, the girl is played by Lisa Turner who apparently grew up to appear in an ITV show called Bad Girls. I’ve never seen it, so I don’t know if that’s good career progression or bad. The Third series of Into the Labyrinth (which replaces Rothgo, and much that’s notable about the show) also sees the first screen appearance by Gina Bellman.
* Although Bob Bakers episodes of Doctor Who were a bit middling, he is the same Bob Baker who co-wrote the Wallace and Gromit films with Nick Park and is seen as responsible for some of the memorable pastiches of other genre films. So I think we need the one-off Doctor Lite episode where Peter Capaldi enters an alternative Universe of Nick Park Claymation. Part of The Mind Robber 2, perhaps.
13 June 2015 at 13:07 #40616In tribute to Christopher Lee, I think everyone has concentrated on his film work, which is fair enough really. I thought it was delightful that he maintained an active interest in some TV projects for the sheer hell of it though. It’s interesting that he characterised the work of Hammer as being more “gothic dark fairytale” than horror (he was pretty damning on the current state of horror films) and you can see that attraction for “dark fairytale” in much of the work he did since. So anyway, here are a couple you can try if you fancy sampling his TV works (I’m thinking of having a binge watch).
1967 The Avengers – Never, Never Say Die
A great appearance in a great run of the show with Steed and Mrs Peel investigating reports of a man who can seemingly survive being run over. Lee obviously having a bit of fun with his established images from Hammer. It’s interesting that Lee and McNee went to the same prep school as Children and appeared for the first time on stage together.1995 Discworld – Soul Music
When Cosgrove Hall tried to bring the Discworld to life in animated form, they needed someone who could talk in block capital gothic script. Lee is the obvious choice, and as a fan of the books jumped in with both feet. I don’t thing Cosgrove got the tranlations quite right for screen, but Soul Music is very enjoyable as Death goes AWOL for personal reasons. Lots of good musical pastiches as well. To lose both pTerry and the authentic voice of Death in one year is a double blow for the Discworld. Have a clip as Death joins the Klatchian Foreign Legion in an attempt to forget.
2000 Gormenghast
Lee was one of the driving forces behind this adaptation when he was cast as Flay. I think it’s great and yes – the Dark Fairytale of the books is captured on screen. @jimthefish reminded me a while ago that Neve Macintosh is another bonus in this as Fuchsia, in an astonishing lineup of on screen talent. It’s four parts to savour. Have another clip:
What’s sad is that there were rumours that Lee might make a guest appearance in Who, which we’ll sadly never know now. I mean, while I enjoyed REG as the Great Intelligence in Series 7, I do think Lee would have been an astonishing fit for that role.
13 June 2015 at 13:16 #40617Some interesting thoughts on Daredevil. I think, ultimately, that if it all falls over in series 2, then Series 1 would be enough for me to want to own as a standalone project. It’s interesting that I think it was written that way, in case it didn’t prove to be popular. The birthstory of two characters told in a new way but drawing on the mythology.
As such, there are a few interesting strands about the mythical battle that are ripe for exploitation now.
13 June 2015 at 13:57 #40620@phaseshift — Yes, I think even if it goes south, s1 of Daredevil can always stand as a damn fine piece of TV and a good example of what the Netflix streaming model can possibly achieve.
Dead right on Gormenghast. A great adaptation too. I remember being quite bemused at the time at all the bad press it got. I thought it was nigh-on perfect with the only mis-step being the casting of Jonathan Rhys Meyers as Steerpike. Everyone else was perfect. Especially Lee as Flay. And McIntosh’s kooky, unbalanced Fuschia was great too in my opinion.
RE. Avengers. Let’s not forget that Ron Moody too put in a memorable turn in the show as the proprietor of Quite, Quite Fantastic. (In Honey for the Prince, I think?) Couldn’t find a clip but it’s a good episode and, again, perhaps gives some insight into what kind of Doctor he would have been.
And that brief glimpse of Into the Labyrinth takes me back. Didn’t watch it religiously but I do vaguely remember it.
13 June 2015 at 14:34 #40623I finished season three of ” Arrow ” and have started watching ” The Flash ” . I hope ” Legends of Tomorrow ” is just as good .
13 June 2015 at 14:45 #40624@gamergirlavatar — Haven’t seen The Flash yet but I hear good things about it. Of course, I have an inbuilt bias towards Marvel over DC, so I have that prejudice to get over first.
13 June 2015 at 15:21 #40625@jimthefish I’m sure you would like The Flash . If you seen Arrow it will be great to watch The Flash . It’s more fun watching both the shows and you also understand everthing .
13 June 2015 at 16:22 #40627@whisht has already posted a musical tribute to Ron Moody on the General Music thread, and mentioned that one of his regrets was that he turned down the role of the Third Doctor.
Well, to be honest I wasn’t born at the time the role was being offered, but I’m flattered you think I could have played it.
;¬)
14 June 2015 at 07:20 #40643Sherlock. As every episode is 90 minutes, they can be called a ‘film?’
15 June 2015 at 09:24 #40664So: Serenity, S1 -4 of Farscape and Peacekeeping wars (no clue if that’s one DVD or 5) cost: (drum roll)
one-hundred and sixty frickin’ bucks!
Sheesh, it better be worth it. (*L*)
So, Netflix. So, I get to see what I want when I want or not? is it on-line? Is it like Cable telly in the States? I know nothing. I have more DVDs than books now -as I have 3000 books, imagine the bloody DVDs I actually own -well Mr Ilion too, but his are mainly Westerns so that aint counting. Unless it’s Dirty Harry. Then it counts double! Or doobley as the French apparently say.
Whoa. Reeling. Bake beans for the next 3 weeks now!
15 June 2015 at 10:20 #40665@purofilion — that’s a lot of cash. I’d say Netflix is definitely your way to go. It costs £6.99 a month in the UK, so I imagine it’s roughly the same in Oz dollars and for that you get an ‘all you can eat’ kind of deal, so yes, you can watch what you want when you want. Most of AG Who is on there, as is BSG, Firefly, Farscape, Orphan Black and, ahem, Daredevil. Plus oodles of other cool shows and lots of great movies. I just watched the old Hammer version of Hound of the Baskervilles in tribute to Chris Lee, for example. The obvious way to watch is via an app on your tablet or laptop but for £30 you can get a Chromecast, which plugs into the HDMI socket on your TV and allows you to stream direct to your TV from your tablet/laptop. (It also works for iPlayer too btw.) And it works pretty well.
The downside is of course no commentaries and suchlike.
15 June 2015 at 10:47 #40666stuff the commentaries, I wanna be able to eat somethink other than bake beans whilst watching farscape!!
No, seriously, the commentaries are terrific and I see that the Farscape DVDs come with a few bits ‘n’ pieces and of course the Serenity film is loaded with everything.
Yep, for my birthday I shall try Netflix. I’d much prefer to watch it on my telly so the HDMI connections from the lappy sound fantastic. Thank you for the info,
Just finished watching the last ep of Top of the Lake. I knew something was up with Al, Wenham’s character. I don’t think I can ever watch Sea Change again. He’s such a great Ozzie bloke. And now, a real baddie. A horrid baddie. Gawd what a sickening outcome.
hrrr…to Farscape….yep, nope, hang on, Serenity, the movie: rubbing hands with glee. The front cover amused the check-out chicks apparently, as River is in this tight dress holding two wicked knives and doing a ‘pose’. Not the River I know and love, that’s for sure -she looks like a Buffy-type person. Bizarre. Somebody wanted ‘sexy’ to sell this. Shame really as it looks dated and…frankly a wee bit silly.
15 June 2015 at 10:50 #40667each season of F’scape was $40 as it was re-marketed last year. I believe Mr Ilion said: “eeerm, we buy a lot here. Can you do a deal?” Wink oink.
Nope. No deal. Bastaads.
Oh: I haven’t missed one ounce of your conversations about Dare -devil either (sic)! That’s on the list too -but maybe no DVDs anymore. This is getting ridiculous. But fun. Great fun.
15 June 2015 at 11:10 #40669@purofilion–
Yes, the marketing did foreground the River As Badass babe thing. Probably because they seemed to want to capitalise on Joss’s Buffy credentials. But it’s maybe interesting to bring up, bearing in mind the shitstorm that Joss has found himself at the middle of in the past month.
And just for yuks, here’s the Serenity trailer of the time, in case you haven’t seen it already. And while I remember a massive squee factor the first time I saw it at a cinema, it does have a slight cringe factor now it has to be said:
16 June 2015 at 08:43 #40674Ah sheesh, a la Farscape: what in the name of all hell did you get me into?
I’m being meek here but is this some revenge for not liking that thing I did? Whenever it was?
What the hell is this place John whatshisname is in? (forty frickin bucks for a season and they can’t throw in subtitles?)
Why is the purple woman all sexy-like and why did she literally ‘neck’ John? And who is the turtle? Why is he farting helium?
Oh Gorram, where am I.
I want Mal. I’ll take Early even. .
16 June 2015 at 08:46 #40675“bearing in mind the shit storm that Joss has found himself at the middle of in the past month.”
say what??
16 June 2015 at 10:24 #40676@purofilion– here’s how it was:
http://www.theguardian.com/film/2015/apr/13/joss-whedon-criticises-jurassic-world-sexism
Basically the Twitterstorm around this has developed into a general ‘why Joss Whedon is a sexist jerk’ tirade on a number of sites. But it seems to me that these ‘criticisms’ only stand up if you don’t actually watch any of the shows in question.
-
AuthorPosts
The topic ‘General Open Thread – TV Shows (2)’ is closed to new replies.
