I wanted to write something cheerful for a friend of mine, she is embroiled in a debate over a very controversial issue, and while she is unshaken in her conviction, I think her spirit needs some lightening, just for a moment.
And that is what I'm here for people: distraction!
Well, that, and totally logical arguments supporting my undeniably correct opinions.
So, if I were a character (that did not already exist) on a TV show (that does exist), which show would it be and what would me character be like?
It wouldn't be Chuck; since I cannot be Sarah, as a female character I would end up either evil, heartbroken, or both. And seriously, what would be the point of being a character on Chuck if I couldn't make out with Chuck?
It would be pretty fun to hang out in Neptune, CA with Veronica Mars, her being of the quick wit and mystery-solving disposition. But Veronica had a plucky female friend (Mac was the cutest!) and I don't know that I could be an adversary knowing that there was no way I could beat her.
There is a lure in the possibility of being a gun-toting badass on Sons of Anarchy. If only there wasn't a high likelihood that I would be kidnapped at some point...
I think that I would have to go with... Fringe.
There are obvious reasons for wanting to be a character on Fringe: getting stoned and listening to music with Walter, your job would always be interesting and never really tied to a desk, plenty of travel, maybe getting replaced in someone else's life, pregnancy only takes 9 hours not 9 months, zeppelins. The drawbacks include impending doom and constant peril, but what is life without a little risk?
But what would my character be like? What would I do? Does it not seem odd to anyone else that Walternate has no adversary Over-There? Yes, Over-Here as an entire universe is his adversary, but is it possible that his control of Over-There is so ironclad? I think I'll just write myself in as one: scientist, former protegee of the Mad Secretary, after discovering his true nature becomes opposed to his version of events and starts rouge counter-agency to foil his plans. Kind of like a mirror of the relationship of the ZFT to Over-Here Fringe Division was in S1. My character would be a bit on the angry side, but resourceful and determined. Definitely a redhead, Fringe could use that.
This is officially as close to fan-fiction as I will ever come. Shame.
The TV Girl
Making the world a better place, one show at a time.
- The TV Girl
- Washington, DC, United States
- I guess you would like to know a little bit about the person making all these proclamations upon good taste and horrid characters. I'm Andrea and when I was 15 I fell in love. An hour after meeting "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" I was forever altered in the way only love can, and I never questioned for one minute afterwards that television offered me an amazing chance to experience lives and moments that I could never imagine. So now, when I'm not getting distracted by my real life, I write about TV. I also read, am finishing a Master's degree in English Literature, travel, am attempting to learn vegan cooking, am the 5th of 6 children, and drive my roommate nuts by constantly cleaning our already clean apartment. Now that we're old friends, time for you to take my opinions as the be all and end all.
Showing posts with label My Internal Debates. Show all posts
Showing posts with label My Internal Debates. Show all posts
Tuesday, April 12, 2011
Wednesday, March 30, 2011
My Internal Debates: Art Versus Artist?
Okay, so I haven't been writing because I haven't really been watching anything. Don't worry, I get back to Lazyville (my couch) soon enough. But for now...
I'm sure we have all heard all about the big drama drama going on over Season 5 of Mad Men. You haven't? Well:
EOnline!-Mad Men Delay
EOnline! - Twitter Outrage (?)
In all fairness, I should say that I don't watch Mad Men. I watched S1, started S2 and always meant to get back around to it, ya know since everyone and their grandmother thinks it's just brilliant, but I never really wanted to. The pace made me want to gouge my eyes out, every time I saw Vincent Kartheiser I thought "Connor!" which for all you Angel fan out there you know is not a good thing, and for all that Jon Hamm is an extremely handsome man I found Don Draper to be an unbelievably ugly character. I have no personal stake in the result of these negotiations; if Matthew Weiner get 30 million or 30 cents it make no difference to me, and I will continue on without much though to it if Mad Men runs another 2 seasons or another 10.
That said, sounds like a lot of money to me, maybe somewhat disproportional to the audience of his show. It doesn't make me think well of him, and that got me thinking more about something I think about on and off: does it matter if we think that a show's creator/executive producer/show runner is a good person?
I ask myself the same kind of question when I look at Picasso, or read Tolstoy, or watch Katherine Hepburn, and as yet I really don't have a good answer. I'll give you 3 cases in my TV life: Joss Whedon, Ryan Murphy, and Kurt Sutter. (I do not know any of these men personally, I am not attempting to present anything but my own opinion, I am simply giving my thoughts on the public impression they make.)
In my head, Joss Whedon is Santa Clause: a really nice man who just wants to make people happy and therefore continually gives them presents. Is this a projection onto him of my love for his shows? Yes. Have I ever read anything to the contrary? No. I hope that he really is as nice in real life as he is in my head, but barring his turning out to be a murderer or something along those lines, my love to too longstanding to be shaken. I would still watch Buffy and Angel even if he should give an interview that makes him sound like a jerk. I would still cry a bit when Wash dies even if rumors were to surface that Mr. Whedon was a demanding boss or difficult to work with. For me, Joss Whedon has created a body of work that is humorous, thoughtful, and honest. His contribution can stand on it's own should be some sad turn of events I were to find out that he is less than the ideal of kindness that he is in my head.
On the other hand, it made me even less inclined to like Glee when Ryan Murphy started lashing out at musicians who didn't want to license their songs for his show. My low opinion of Glee (such a shame, such wasted potential) dropped even lower as Mr. Murphy's comments displayed an (apparently) inflated ego and uncharitable disposition. More than that, his attitude seemed to me so self-defeating, it made me think he wasn't very bright. (It's possibly a bad tactic to encourage people to work with you by the implicit threat of "I will drag you through the mud if you don't.") When Mr. Murphy had his little hissy-fit at the Kings of Leon, all I could think was "of course someone who makes a show that is that self-indulgent and inconstant would say things like that." The public persona of the creator affirmed, what I see as, the underlying arrogance of the creation: the exaggerated bafflement that different people hold different opinions could have been a speech given by one of his cartoonish characters.
And then somewhere in the middle lies Kurt Sutter, and for those who don't know that name, he is the man behind Sons of Anarchy. I follow Mr. Sutter on Twitter and I read his blog. This (admittedly slim) public record does not give me the impression of a super friendly happy-go-lucky guy, but rather someone who is direct, opinionated, acerbic, and maybe somewhat proud of himself for coming off like a jerk, but also someone who holds himself to the same standards he holds everyone else to. As a friend can attest, I initially found Mr. Sutter's straightforward-ness on Twitter somewhat distressing and from what I can glean, if he and I were to sit down and have a long chat about politics and religion we would most likely have significantly differing opinions (or more likely I would be to frightened to say anything at all). The more I thought about it, the more I began to wonder what I was looking for in a show: was niceness or truth more important to me? Do we really do anyone any favors if we smile while he correct their error or do we only compromise the sincerity of our beliefs in the name of politeness? The beauty and brutality of Sons of Anarchy wouldn't be enhanced if Kurt Sutter (appeared to be) a swell guy to have a beer with. The subject matter doesn't necessitate tact, it necessitates integrity; so while Mr. Sutter (seems) to lack the former, he has not betrayed by his public declarations that he lacks the latter, therefore as yet my view of the show is essentially unaffected by the figure from whose mind it sprung.
But now I have to ask myself if I'm the hypocrite? Am I easy to forgive if I like the show and quick to scorn if I don't? Or is this whole problem a result of the information overload of our age and would I have no dilemma if I just stayed off the damn internets?
Too many questions.
The TV Girl
I'm sure we have all heard all about the big drama drama going on over Season 5 of Mad Men. You haven't? Well:
EOnline!-Mad Men Delay
EOnline! - Twitter Outrage (?)
In all fairness, I should say that I don't watch Mad Men. I watched S1, started S2 and always meant to get back around to it, ya know since everyone and their grandmother thinks it's just brilliant, but I never really wanted to. The pace made me want to gouge my eyes out, every time I saw Vincent Kartheiser I thought "Connor!" which for all you Angel fan out there you know is not a good thing, and for all that Jon Hamm is an extremely handsome man I found Don Draper to be an unbelievably ugly character. I have no personal stake in the result of these negotiations; if Matthew Weiner get 30 million or 30 cents it make no difference to me, and I will continue on without much though to it if Mad Men runs another 2 seasons or another 10.
That said, sounds like a lot of money to me, maybe somewhat disproportional to the audience of his show. It doesn't make me think well of him, and that got me thinking more about something I think about on and off: does it matter if we think that a show's creator/executive producer/show runner is a good person?
I ask myself the same kind of question when I look at Picasso, or read Tolstoy, or watch Katherine Hepburn, and as yet I really don't have a good answer. I'll give you 3 cases in my TV life: Joss Whedon, Ryan Murphy, and Kurt Sutter. (I do not know any of these men personally, I am not attempting to present anything but my own opinion, I am simply giving my thoughts on the public impression they make.)
In my head, Joss Whedon is Santa Clause: a really nice man who just wants to make people happy and therefore continually gives them presents. Is this a projection onto him of my love for his shows? Yes. Have I ever read anything to the contrary? No. I hope that he really is as nice in real life as he is in my head, but barring his turning out to be a murderer or something along those lines, my love to too longstanding to be shaken. I would still watch Buffy and Angel even if he should give an interview that makes him sound like a jerk. I would still cry a bit when Wash dies even if rumors were to surface that Mr. Whedon was a demanding boss or difficult to work with. For me, Joss Whedon has created a body of work that is humorous, thoughtful, and honest. His contribution can stand on it's own should be some sad turn of events I were to find out that he is less than the ideal of kindness that he is in my head.
On the other hand, it made me even less inclined to like Glee when Ryan Murphy started lashing out at musicians who didn't want to license their songs for his show. My low opinion of Glee (such a shame, such wasted potential) dropped even lower as Mr. Murphy's comments displayed an (apparently) inflated ego and uncharitable disposition. More than that, his attitude seemed to me so self-defeating, it made me think he wasn't very bright. (It's possibly a bad tactic to encourage people to work with you by the implicit threat of "I will drag you through the mud if you don't.") When Mr. Murphy had his little hissy-fit at the Kings of Leon, all I could think was "of course someone who makes a show that is that self-indulgent and inconstant would say things like that." The public persona of the creator affirmed, what I see as, the underlying arrogance of the creation: the exaggerated bafflement that different people hold different opinions could have been a speech given by one of his cartoonish characters.
And then somewhere in the middle lies Kurt Sutter, and for those who don't know that name, he is the man behind Sons of Anarchy. I follow Mr. Sutter on Twitter and I read his blog. This (admittedly slim) public record does not give me the impression of a super friendly happy-go-lucky guy, but rather someone who is direct, opinionated, acerbic, and maybe somewhat proud of himself for coming off like a jerk, but also someone who holds himself to the same standards he holds everyone else to. As a friend can attest, I initially found Mr. Sutter's straightforward-ness on Twitter somewhat distressing and from what I can glean, if he and I were to sit down and have a long chat about politics and religion we would most likely have significantly differing opinions (or more likely I would be to frightened to say anything at all). The more I thought about it, the more I began to wonder what I was looking for in a show: was niceness or truth more important to me? Do we really do anyone any favors if we smile while he correct their error or do we only compromise the sincerity of our beliefs in the name of politeness? The beauty and brutality of Sons of Anarchy wouldn't be enhanced if Kurt Sutter (appeared to be) a swell guy to have a beer with. The subject matter doesn't necessitate tact, it necessitates integrity; so while Mr. Sutter (seems) to lack the former, he has not betrayed by his public declarations that he lacks the latter, therefore as yet my view of the show is essentially unaffected by the figure from whose mind it sprung.
But now I have to ask myself if I'm the hypocrite? Am I easy to forgive if I like the show and quick to scorn if I don't? Or is this whole problem a result of the information overload of our age and would I have no dilemma if I just stayed off the damn internets?
Too many questions.
The TV Girl
Monday, March 7, 2011
My Internal Debates: When Do You Give Up?
Why am I still watching Supernatural?
Two weeks ago Jennie, Emily and me gathered to do some catching up on the episodes we'd missed. The move to Friday nights this season hasn't worked out so well for our watching as a group. We soldiered through "Like a Virgin" and "Unforgiven" before packing it in and saving "Mannequin 3: The Reckoning" for another night. Somewhere in the midst of dragons, Purgatorial mommy issues, spider-people and slutty-Sam, I began to wonder (and tweet) if enough was enough? As much as I enjoyed 'The French Mistake" neither it nor "And Then There Were None" has made me think I'm being totally insane.
When do you stop watching a show that you once loved?
I give up on shows all the time. I give a show a couple episodes and if it doesn't hold my interest I move on without a second thought (Sons of Tucson). I watch a whole season, take a step back, realize I don't think it's very good, sometimes advise people against it (Californication), and then find a better show. Scheduling conflicts cause me to push a show off until it comes out on DVD and sometimes by that time I don't bother (The Office S6). But in the majority of these types of cases, though not all, I'm not attached to the show. It wasn't something that I loved, that I've invested YEARS of my life in.
Supernatural is a show that I loved, a show that friends and I watched, debated, and bonded over. I want so badly to have again the amazing show that I had a few years ago, and in light of the weekly disappointment of either a really terrible episode or a somewhat descent episode that doesn't seem to matter all that much, I wonder if I am so attached to the routine of watching Supernatural that even though I know the quality has declined, I can't imagine not watching. There is a routine established that now has in some way little to do with the particulars of the episode.
The worst part is that the show doesn't have to be so bad; there are elements that could be put together in a humorous and meaningful way, but for some reason just aren't. So Gramps Campbell is a total bastard who was willing to sell-out his grandsons in exchange for his daughter being brought back to life, therefore he should be set up as the antagonist for the season and Eve (the Mother of All) should be a backdrop against which the familial conflict plays out. Instead we meet Grandpa Ass-Hat, he betrays Dean and Sam, we don't see him for a while, then he's dead. Waste of storyline potential. On an episode-level even more waste. Bile rises in my throat as I write this, but "Mannequin 3: The Reckoning" could have been less terrible if a) instead of talking about themselves the entire episode Sam and Dean has actually discussed if people have a right to be saved or if there is some justice in the act of a vengeful spirit (like they would have seasons ago) and b) there had been even a pause between "the sister has a kidney from the murdering spirit" and "so now the sister is dead too." Maybe knowing that improvement is possible (if not probably) is kindling false hope in me, preventing me from severing my ties.
There are only six episodes left this season, so having come this far it's a fair bet that I'll finish it out. I don't often hope for shows to get canceled (okay, that's not true, but I never thought I would hope for this show to get canceled) but that would absolve me of the responsibility of making this decision.
I stopped watching Bones when the self-righteousness and the complete awfulness of Dr. Brennen's personality pissed me off so much that I was in danger of forgetting that I ever liked the show in the first place, and I think that is when I'll know it's time to walk away from Supernatural: when I cease to be disappointed, it will mean I've forgotten that the show was once excellent, and then it will be time.
Two weeks ago Jennie, Emily and me gathered to do some catching up on the episodes we'd missed. The move to Friday nights this season hasn't worked out so well for our watching as a group. We soldiered through "Like a Virgin" and "Unforgiven" before packing it in and saving "Mannequin 3: The Reckoning" for another night. Somewhere in the midst of dragons, Purgatorial mommy issues, spider-people and slutty-Sam, I began to wonder (and tweet) if enough was enough? As much as I enjoyed 'The French Mistake" neither it nor "And Then There Were None" has made me think I'm being totally insane.
When do you stop watching a show that you once loved?
I give up on shows all the time. I give a show a couple episodes and if it doesn't hold my interest I move on without a second thought (Sons of Tucson). I watch a whole season, take a step back, realize I don't think it's very good, sometimes advise people against it (Californication), and then find a better show. Scheduling conflicts cause me to push a show off until it comes out on DVD and sometimes by that time I don't bother (The Office S6). But in the majority of these types of cases, though not all, I'm not attached to the show. It wasn't something that I loved, that I've invested YEARS of my life in.
Supernatural is a show that I loved, a show that friends and I watched, debated, and bonded over. I want so badly to have again the amazing show that I had a few years ago, and in light of the weekly disappointment of either a really terrible episode or a somewhat descent episode that doesn't seem to matter all that much, I wonder if I am so attached to the routine of watching Supernatural that even though I know the quality has declined, I can't imagine not watching. There is a routine established that now has in some way little to do with the particulars of the episode.
The worst part is that the show doesn't have to be so bad; there are elements that could be put together in a humorous and meaningful way, but for some reason just aren't. So Gramps Campbell is a total bastard who was willing to sell-out his grandsons in exchange for his daughter being brought back to life, therefore he should be set up as the antagonist for the season and Eve (the Mother of All) should be a backdrop against which the familial conflict plays out. Instead we meet Grandpa Ass-Hat, he betrays Dean and Sam, we don't see him for a while, then he's dead. Waste of storyline potential. On an episode-level even more waste. Bile rises in my throat as I write this, but "Mannequin 3: The Reckoning" could have been less terrible if a) instead of talking about themselves the entire episode Sam and Dean has actually discussed if people have a right to be saved or if there is some justice in the act of a vengeful spirit (like they would have seasons ago) and b) there had been even a pause between "the sister has a kidney from the murdering spirit" and "so now the sister is dead too." Maybe knowing that improvement is possible (if not probably) is kindling false hope in me, preventing me from severing my ties.
There are only six episodes left this season, so having come this far it's a fair bet that I'll finish it out. I don't often hope for shows to get canceled (okay, that's not true, but I never thought I would hope for this show to get canceled) but that would absolve me of the responsibility of making this decision.
I stopped watching Bones when the self-righteousness and the complete awfulness of Dr. Brennen's personality pissed me off so much that I was in danger of forgetting that I ever liked the show in the first place, and I think that is when I'll know it's time to walk away from Supernatural: when I cease to be disappointed, it will mean I've forgotten that the show was once excellent, and then it will be time.
Monday, January 17, 2011
My Internal Debates: US Remakes of UK Shows
I think about TV much more than I write about it. Lately I've been thinking about US remakes of UK shows, and for good reason. There are a rash of remakes: Being Human is premiering tonight on SyFy; Shameless debuted last weekend on Showtime; Skins is coming soon on MTV. So, do we accept this re-colonization of America?
In general I'm going to say: no. The US needs to get its shit together, make better shows and not just wait around to strip shows from across the pond of the funny accents and socialized medicine.
I'm not trying to be a snob. This isn't a Brit-just-do-it-better thing. There are some British TV shows that are just as awful as some American TV shows (please see Hex if you think I'm wrong, that show is terrible). And The Office stands as a remake more than equal to the original (even if it is a bit long in the tooth). That's always kind of the sticking point: there is a show that transfered continents well, so doesn't that mean it's a good thing to keep trying?
No, because for some reason whoever is in charge of these projects keeps forgetting that Britain is a different country. Britain is a distinct and particular culture with its own political system, class distinctions, social order, ethics and values. In the case of Shameless, America does not (as of yet) have an accepted social class of professionally unemployed people living on the government assistance that mainstream viewers are willing to accept as glorified/normalized in a show. The entire premise of the show literally doesn't translate: we have no frame of reference to understand such a show when it is set in America. As far as Skins is concerned, I can't help but think that a network that produces such gems as 16 & Pregnant and Jersey Shore won't actually understand that Skins wasn't about the fact that Tony & Co did drugs and had sex but that it was about how people construct family in the face of shocking neglect and the difficulties of loving another person when you have no example of sacrifice. MTV is a lowest common denominator network, pandering to voyeurism and narcissism, so the likelihood of a Skins remake as funny, affecting, honest, and textured as the original is slim to none. Need anyone be reminded of the unmitigated disaster that was the American version of Coupling? And what exactly is the point of American Top Gear?
This sword cuts both ways. There would be some epic failures if British TV producers started to remake American shows willy-nilly. There is no way that you could take the premise of a show like Friday Night Lights, transfer it to Bristol and expect to have an equal show. How I Met Your Mother is just as much about living in New York City as it is about finding the love of your life, and when the setting is that intrinsic to the story you can't just pick it up, move it across an ocean and thing you will have the same entertainment result. There is a reason the foreign chapter of Sons of Anarchy is in Ireland not England; let's face it, historically the Brits were the conquerors, they aren't as virulent about their freedom as we (and the Irish) are and Jax's hunt for that is in some ways distinctly American. How awful would Sam and Dean traversing the lake district and the moors be?
So why not just watch the originals? Watching the originals gives you a chance to experience the perspective of a nation that is deceptively similar to America but essentially distinct. Thanks to the internet and Netflix it isn't like it is impossible to get foreign TV. When I watched Skins S1&2 over 2 years ago I pieced together each episode one YouTube video at a time (most of which had Spanish subtitles, so I learned some new words, yay!) and it was absolutely completely worth it.
Okay, I might watch Being Human anyway, just because. Maybe The Office lightening can strike again. Plus I haven't gotten to the second episode of The Cape.
The TV Girl
In general I'm going to say: no. The US needs to get its shit together, make better shows and not just wait around to strip shows from across the pond of the funny accents and socialized medicine.
I'm not trying to be a snob. This isn't a Brit-just-do-it-better thing. There are some British TV shows that are just as awful as some American TV shows (please see Hex if you think I'm wrong, that show is terrible). And The Office stands as a remake more than equal to the original (even if it is a bit long in the tooth). That's always kind of the sticking point: there is a show that transfered continents well, so doesn't that mean it's a good thing to keep trying?
No, because for some reason whoever is in charge of these projects keeps forgetting that Britain is a different country. Britain is a distinct and particular culture with its own political system, class distinctions, social order, ethics and values. In the case of Shameless, America does not (as of yet) have an accepted social class of professionally unemployed people living on the government assistance that mainstream viewers are willing to accept as glorified/normalized in a show. The entire premise of the show literally doesn't translate: we have no frame of reference to understand such a show when it is set in America. As far as Skins is concerned, I can't help but think that a network that produces such gems as 16 & Pregnant and Jersey Shore won't actually understand that Skins wasn't about the fact that Tony & Co did drugs and had sex but that it was about how people construct family in the face of shocking neglect and the difficulties of loving another person when you have no example of sacrifice. MTV is a lowest common denominator network, pandering to voyeurism and narcissism, so the likelihood of a Skins remake as funny, affecting, honest, and textured as the original is slim to none. Need anyone be reminded of the unmitigated disaster that was the American version of Coupling? And what exactly is the point of American Top Gear?
This sword cuts both ways. There would be some epic failures if British TV producers started to remake American shows willy-nilly. There is no way that you could take the premise of a show like Friday Night Lights, transfer it to Bristol and expect to have an equal show. How I Met Your Mother is just as much about living in New York City as it is about finding the love of your life, and when the setting is that intrinsic to the story you can't just pick it up, move it across an ocean and thing you will have the same entertainment result. There is a reason the foreign chapter of Sons of Anarchy is in Ireland not England; let's face it, historically the Brits were the conquerors, they aren't as virulent about their freedom as we (and the Irish) are and Jax's hunt for that is in some ways distinctly American. How awful would Sam and Dean traversing the lake district and the moors be?
So why not just watch the originals? Watching the originals gives you a chance to experience the perspective of a nation that is deceptively similar to America but essentially distinct. Thanks to the internet and Netflix it isn't like it is impossible to get foreign TV. When I watched Skins S1&2 over 2 years ago I pieced together each episode one YouTube video at a time (most of which had Spanish subtitles, so I learned some new words, yay!) and it was absolutely completely worth it.
Okay, I might watch Being Human anyway, just because. Maybe The Office lightening can strike again. Plus I haven't gotten to the second episode of The Cape.
The TV Girl
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)