What TV SHOWS are you watching ARCHIVE

When I finally got around to watching Cowboy Bebop last year, I was very disappointed. The characters sucked, and the stories sucked. The animation was fine and the soundtrack was pretty good, but otherwise Cowboy Bebop was ridiculously overrated.

Samurai Champloo was significantly better.

Sagrilarus wrote: I'm sure some would, but the streets sure as hell wouldn't be empty. Even half empty. Oh my gosh! I just figured out that pig sex is distasteful! Who knew? C'mon.

Lazy writing, unsupported premise. Let's go with shock value to sell ad time because it's easy.

I agree with you in the sense of it being the first episode and specifically intending to shock and be provocative. Downton Abbey did the same kind of thing by having two guys kiss in the first episode, but then almost never having that subject come up again, to the point where it was like, well why did they feature it so prominently right off the bat if not to be considered "Provocative" with a capital P? And that does kind of cheapen the idea of doing that.

I disagree that it was poorly written, though. The streets being cleared like that is a big exaggeration, no doubt, but as a commentary on modern media and our general proclivity for TMZ type take-downs of celebrities and politicians, and some of the feelings and conflicted nature associated with a situation like that, it had some interesting things to say. But it's also a satire of society, so we shouldn't expect realism. The exaggeration needs to be there to better illustrate the conflict. The show has an influence of Vonnegut/Orwell/Hitchcock, and is meant to be stark and sometimes even cartoonish in the way things are contrasted for effect.

JonJacob wrote: Also, that format lends itself to being able to be shit one episode and brilliant the next... if it does indeed use whole new people every episode.

Different premise, different cast, different style and feel, and yes, some are clearly better than others and will be subjective to who watches them. The one connection throughout is a similar world in the near-future where our technology has some kind of twisted impact on things.

One thing about the first episode (with the pig sex) and another from season 2 (where a cartoon bear runs for political office) that doesn't work as well for me in the canon of the series is that they are both fully possible with our current technology. They show a surreal extension of how we might misuse our technology, but there's nothing beyond our current tech in those two episodes. And I think the overall style of the show comes through better in the other episodes where there's some minor twist to our current technology (which could very well be likely in the near future), that ends up having some horrific or disturbing applications. For example, a woman's husband dies and they are able to recreate him as a phone companion based on the accumulated history of his phone calls and online posts; or a person is able to "block" someone from their life to the point where they can't interact at all, only seeing a hazy image of them when they are near; or all of our lives are recorded through a chip in our necks so we can replay things at will, like fights, job interviews, conversations, sexual encounters, etc. Those things are very interesting ideas, and I think the show does a great job of creating a Twilight Zone or Hitchcock type of story around them.

Grudunza wrote:

Sagrilarus wrote: I'm sure some would, but the streets sure as hell wouldn't be empty. Even half empty. Oh my gosh! I just figured out that pig sex is distasteful! Who knew? C'mon.

Lazy writing, unsupported premise. Let's go with shock value to sell ad time because it's easy.

I agree with you in the sense of it being the first episode and specifically intending to shock and be provocative. Downton Abbey did the same kind of thing by having two guys kiss in the first episode, but then almost never having that subject come up again, to the point where it was like, well why did they feature it so prominently right off the bat if not to be considered "Provocative" with a capital P? And that does kind of cheapen the idea of doing that.

Downton Abbey definitely followed up on Barrow being gay and continues to do so even in the latest season.

Banshee has new webisodes out. I can't fucking wait for the 3rd season. If you don't watch it, the main character is an ex-con who's pretending to be the new sheriff of a small town called Banshee, PA. It being Cinemax there is an obligatory sex scene in every episode where some hot chick gets naked and throws herself at the guy. There is also at least one fight scene and that's where this show excels. They use stuff like "They Live" as the inspiration for the fights and do some really great ones. The characters, especially the main villains, are interesting and well-acted.

Mad Dog wrote:

Grudunza wrote:

Sagrilarus wrote: I'm sure some would, but the streets sure as hell wouldn't be empty. Even half empty. Oh my gosh! I just figured out that pig sex is distasteful! Who knew? C'mon.

Lazy writing, unsupported premise. Let's go with shock value to sell ad time because it's easy.

I agree with you in the sense of it being the first episode and specifically intending to shock and be provocative. Downton Abbey did the same kind of thing by having two guys kiss in the first episode, but then almost never having that subject come up again, to the point where it was like, well why did they feature it so prominently right off the bat if not to be considered "Provocative" with a capital P? And that does kind of cheapen the idea of doing that.

Downton Abbey definitely followed up on Barrow being gay and continues to do so even in the latest season.

Barely, though, and it didn't come back to that for a very long time after the first episode. The point is, it made that first episide feel kind of like a "stunt" in retrospect.

Grudunza wrote:

Sagrilarus wrote: I'm sure some would, but the streets sure as hell wouldn't be empty. Even half empty. Oh my gosh! I just figured out that pig sex is distasteful! Who knew? C'mon.

Lazy writing, unsupported premise. Let's go with shock value to sell ad time because it's easy.

But it's also a satire of society, so we shouldn't expect realism. The exaggeration needs to be there to better illustrate the conflict.

So that's permission to rewrite human nature? They didn't exaggerate, they changed reality.

It's almost as if the writer didn't ask anyone else if they would do the same thing he would given the situation. Hell, I'd wager half of Britain would refuse to watch it just to say Fuck You to the kidnapper. We just had thousands of people in the U.S. drive miles and miles to see The Interview.

Grudunza wrote: The show has an influence of Vonnegut/Orwell/Hitchcock, and is meant to be stark and sometimes even cartoonish in the way things are contrasted for effect.

It had subtle tones of nutmeg and capers too. There's a lot of material in this space that does a much better job by not using a sledge hammer to deliver its message. I just couldn't believe one damn bit of it. Granted it was a pilot episode, so it's bound to be ham-fisted.

Sagrilarus wrote: It's almost as if the writer didn't ask anyone else if they would do the same thing he would given the situation. Hell, I'd wager half of Britain would refuse to watch it just to say Fuck You to the kidnapper. We just had thousands of people in the U.S. drive miles and miles to see The Interview.

I think you might lose that wager, knowing the British as I do.

A big mistake is to assume British and US folk are basically the same character, especially as we speak the same language (apart from your 'baby spelling' bullshit).

Wow, HOUSE OF CARDS, season one, went through it in three nights. It's the US version with Kevin Spacey. I thought it was fantastic, I get the Game of Thrones comparison. Some of the relationship stuff is pretty heavy and hits uncomfortably close to home, but I really love the show.

I was a West Wing fan but this feels far more realistic. Sorkin does the Liberal in dreamland thing too much, whereas this feels believable. I like the writing as well.

Anyway, I'm a fan. I hope to see more of it

yeah, it was great, but then they put the UK version on Netflix after and I wish I'd seen that one first, but I will get round to it later.

So after years of everyone and their brother crowing about Doctor Who, my girls and I were looking for something to watch the other night and gave the first episode a look. It was kind of amusing, but whoa is it ever cheesy as hell, with bad effects and some hokey dialogue. Even for 2005 standards, it was pretty bad. I know many have said, though, that it kind of comes into its own at a certain point, so we'll stick with it. It was amusing enough, and it did a decent job of setting up the premise. I'm sure that the look and feel of it will get better, and knowing the creators and writers are the same as from Sherlock is encouraging. But really, were it not for the incredible hype and love for the show, if I just went into it as a blank slate, I don't think I'd want to keep watching it after that. Granted, many pilots are crappy or are a shadow of what the show becomes, but still, it wouldn't have been strong enough to keep me watching.

For those of you who watch it faithfully, at what point do you think it starts to really achieve what everyone feels it's so great for, if that makes sense? 'Cause it just cannot possibly be that first episode. Or is it supposed to be appreciated in more of a campy way? If so, I don't think it worked too well in that sense, either, like say the Batman series.

Most people are in love with the introduction of Tennant and his run as the Dr, which starts in the second season.

I find Dr. Who insufferable, I got into the 2nd or 3rd season and couldn't take it anymore. Not for me, and I generally love (even bad) sci-fi TV.

The first episode? You mean 1962? I'm guessing you mean Ecclestone's run.

Heyday of Dr Who, for me, was 1970s with Jon Pertwee. It carries a massive history behind it, even the reboot. For many, it was a continuation of a cultural tradition in the UK. Never meant for the US market, it never pandered to the SFX needed to break the US market. An unapologetically peculiarly British phenomena.

None of which answers your question. I'd go for David Tennant's run and take it from there.

Pertwee was my favorite too. I haven't been able to get into anything else Who-wise.

Grudunza wrote: So after years of everyone and their brother crowing about Doctor Who, my girls and I were looking for something to watch the other night and gave the first episode a look. It was kind of amusing, but whoa is it ever cheesy as hell, with bad effects and some hokey dialogue. Even for 2005 standards, it was pretty bad. I know many have said, though, that it kind of comes into its own at a certain point, so we'll stick with it. It was amusing enough, and it did a decent job of setting up the premise. I'm sure that the look and feel of it will get better, and knowing the creators and writers are the same as from Sherlock is encouraging. But really, were it not for the incredible hype and love for the show, if I just went into it as a blank slate, I don't think I'd want to keep watching it after that. Granted, many pilots are crappy or are a shadow of what the show becomes, but still, it wouldn't have been strong enough to keep me watching.

For those of you who watch it faithfully, at what point do you think it starts to really achieve what everyone feels it's so great for, if that makes sense? 'Cause it just cannot possibly be that first episode. Or is it supposed to be appreciated in more of a campy way? If so, I don't think it worked too well in that sense, either, like say the Batman series.

In all honesty I think you should skip to the 6th episode of the first season "Dalek" which is the first really good episode or the 4th episode of the second season "The Girl in the Fireplace" which is the first truly great episode. The series is like Star Trek TNG in that it is mostly one-off stories that you can watch on their own with the occasional 2-3 episode arc that changes everything so with a bit of advice you can jump around a lot. If neither of those two work for you, just watch the 10th episode of the 3rd season "Blink" and be done with it, because Blink is as good as it gets, and is probably the only one-off episode you need to see if you want to dabble in Doctor Who (everything else is only great or interesting in its relationship to the larger mythology).

Season 2 is better as Tennant is much better as The Doctor than Eccleston, but it is still very uneven in the second season. Like many series, the first 2 seasons are the writers finding their feet and you don't get much consistency until the 3rd season. With that being said, I don't think much of the first season, with only 3 episodes worth watching (Dalek and the two parter "The Empty Child"/"The Doctor Dances"), so for now seriously only watch episodes 1, 6, 9, 10 and then the two parter 12 and 13, not because they are that good, more because of continuity reasons (12 is a very ordinary spoof of reality TV and almost unwatchable, but it sets up episode 13 which is relevant for continuity). There are a few other episodes in there worth viewing if you get hooked ("The End of the World" and "Fathers Day"), but most can be skipped and you are better off doing so.

Ancient_of_MuMu wrote: In all honesty I think you should skip to the 6th episode of the first season "Dalek" which is the first really good episode or the 4th episode of the second season "The Girl in the Fireplace" which is the first truly great episode. The series is like Star Trek TNG in that it is mostly one-off stories that you can watch on their own with the occasional 2-3 episode arc that changes everything so with a bit of advice you can jump around a lot. If neither of those two work for you, just watch the 10th episode of the 3rd season "Blink" and be done with it, because Blink is as good as it gets, and is probably the only one-off episode you need to see if you want to dabble in Doctor Who (everything else is only great or interesting in its relationship to the larger mythology).

I completely agree with this.