|
Post by Flammable D on Nov 10, 2010 14:47:49 GMT -5
So I tune into South Park for the first time this season last night to catch the rerun. Um, what the fuck is going on!?!? You're like an episode or two behind. They brought back the Coon and are doing some insane shit. It's good, but I can see how you'd be totally lost.
|
|
|
Post by Atomsk on Nov 10, 2010 15:36:48 GMT -5
Since BB and Walking Dead are the only two AMC shows I watch, I have to ask: Do they have the same guy opening each show with the "Previously on..." segment? I never really payed attention to it, but now that you mention it I believe they do. Also, I thought the first episode of The Walking Dead was pretty spectacular. The second episode, not so great. I wanted to see more of the black father and son, but they were left out of the episode completely, and I was disappointed. The show followed the comic pretty well when it comes to the father and son. Rick only knew them for a bit until they departed and crossed paths after stocking up at the police station. When it comes to the second episode...I don't remember that at all in the comic. I remember Rick and Glen getting to the encampment, but either: A) They're taking a different turn in the show. B) My memory is shit. But nonetheless, I see Eric's point, but at the same time, if the first episode was great, it means they have the potential to make quality work. It might've just been a bad week for them, so it wouldn't hurt watching it weekly. I'm sure every show had a couple of bad/bleh episodes. The Walking Dead's might just be early on. Fact is, it started slow in the comic, so it'll probably start slow in the show. As long as they throw that insane fucking dictator in later on, then it'll be my favorite show of all time. EDIT: I'm also surprised that "Nigger" wasn't censored.
|
|
|
Post by Her 69 Eyes on Nov 15, 2010 7:00:13 GMT -5
I greatly enjoyed the third episode of The Walking Dead. Almost as much as I hated the second episode.
It was refreshing to see the episode take a breath and largely keep the zombie action in the peripheral. In every good zombie film that's ever been made, the zombies are largely a MacGuffin - the suspense is established through the interactions between the survivors. That was the case with this episode.
What I find especially interesting about the show is the traditionalist vs. progressive dynamic of the post-human world. A few characters are desperately attempting to reestablish the familiarity of white male dominance. I wish it wasn't so heavy-handed, but i'm happy it's there. After the scene of the women at the lake in this episode, i'd be curious to watch the opening scene from the pilot once more - both scenes dealing with men "conquering" women.
I think that Shane is the most interesting character on the show. Rick and Lori are, to my recollection, the only couple we've met thus far (at the very least, they're the only couple with a child). Going back to the idea of the "new"/"liberal" society attempting to reestablish the "old"/"conservative" society, it's curious that Shane has now become the antagonist of the traditional nuclear family. In classic narrative storytelling, that would mean he's the villain - all villains disrupt the order of things and only after they're destroyed can normality resume. He is still portrayed as sympathetic, however, as we saw when he longingly looked at the tent or when he attempted to continue his paternal relationship with Carl. And one could make the argument that he's more level-headed than Rick, who abandons his family shortly after they reunite. Additionally, he stands up for the "liberal" side of the camp, however he does so with violent excess. Of all of the characters we've met, he is the one with the most contradictions and, in my eyes, the one whose development is absolutely key to the strength of the coming episodes.
|
|
|
Post by VyperJMc on Nov 15, 2010 19:28:11 GMT -5
I couldn't put it as eloquently as Eric has, but I agree that episode 3 was much better than #2.
|
|
|
Post by Her 69 Eyes on Nov 15, 2010 21:38:06 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Her 69 Eyes on Dec 6, 2010 5:13:06 GMT -5
So, thoughts on The Walking Dead and Boardwalk Empire?
I thought tonight's Walking Dead was a noble misfire on it's own, but as a conclusion of a season it was ill-advised from the get-go. Although the show has been melodramatic since the pilot - the man, the son, and the zombie mother - I didn't think that it earned that finale. An episode about mortality is interesting. It's less interesting when there's awful music cues (an invasive swelling orchestra on the soundtrack) and a handful of lazy clichés. Clichés aren't necessarily evil, but I feel like they use them to get across the drama in a sort of lazy, bite-sized way. The doctor character's backstory was so typical of not only every other survivor on the show, but of every tormented character in a series that we've ever seen. It was also upsetting to see Shane, the most interesting character on the show, with a bottle of alcohol in the shower. I felt his plight was more dramatic in his quiet looks with Lori at the camp. A moody drunkard pouting in the shower isn't exactly a riveting characterization for one of the main characters of the show.
It irritates me that Merle wasn't mentioned all episode. It's unquestionable that he's coming back in season two, but an easy arc for this season would have ended with his return. Finding Merle has been the narrative force of the series up until this point, and before departing for a year we get no mention of him. What gives?
Also, I think it was made very evident in this episode that the cast is too big (not that it wasn't known before). When T-Dog (I still can't get over that name) was revealed to have had some sort of an emotional connection with Jacqui (whose name I had to look up), I was shocked. "He knows her?". More importantly - "Who is she?". She's had all of two minutes of screen time in six hours of programming, and suddenly we're meant to care.
Boardwalk Empire had a much more satisfying conclusion. They gave us a clear direction for season two and also wrapped up a few season-long storylines. More importantly, every character completed the drastic progression from who they were in the pilot. Last week's episode seemed more like a finale - with a long-awaited heated discussion between Nucky and Margaret - but I thought that this episode had a number of really great, quiet sequences. Buscemi has been the weak link in the show for me, however his monologue in this episode worked because of it's inevitable since the pilot. I feel that the show, unlike The Walking Dead, earns it's melodrama - Darmody as the haunted war vet, Nucky and his family's history - because of it's patience in it's reveal, and the honesty in the performances. No swelling orchestra here. The directors are confident that the actors can carry the burden of the scene without such a crutch.
I thought that Boardwalk Empire, as a whole, was a bit over-plotted. I didn't miss an episode and at times I was still struggling to keep up. Nonetheless, they do a good job of keeping it accessible because the heart of the show is in the character's relationships with one another, not the politics and rivalries of the era.
|
|
|
Post by Harry on Dec 6, 2010 10:44:11 GMT -5
Not having HBO, I wasn't able to watch Boardwalk Empire this season, but the show has interested me from the start. Hopefully the Season One bluray comes out soon.
|
|
|
Post by AD on Dec 6, 2010 18:03:32 GMT -5
I think some of the flaws in the season finale (and first season as a whole) of The Walking Dead can be forgiven because of the fact that they only had a measly six episodes. What the fuck is up with that? You mentioned the patience that Boardwalk Empire exhibits, and I'd like to think the The Walking Dead might have done the same if they had the standard 12 episode run to tell their story. I'm not making excuses for them, because I agree with everything you said, but I think it's something worth taking into account.
I haven't seen the season finale of Boardwalk yet, so I'll withhold judgment, but I do want to mention that if Michael Shannon doesn't win Best Supporting Actor at the next Emmy Awards I will never take that institution seriously again.
|
|
|
Post by VyperJMc on Dec 6, 2010 22:22:38 GMT -5
To be fair, it's not like Shane was the only one getting drunk... everyone was drinking & woke up hung over. I can also let it slide considering he's probably struggling with many issues... he's no longer the alpha male of the survivors, lost his "woman," feeling guilt for leaving his friend who he thought was dead. Speaking of which, I really liked the way they opened the episode showing that he truely did believe Rick was dead & didn't just lie about it to get with Lori.
I loved this whole first season of Boardwalk Empire. I enjoyed every episode & can't wait for next season. I don't understand how you could think Steve Buscemi was the weak link though, Eric. I thought he did a fantastic job of walking the thin line between being an ego-maniacal prick & genuinely likeable as the main character.
|
|
|
Post by RyanGoslingFan99 on Dec 7, 2010 2:47:13 GMT -5
I think some of the flaws in the season finale (and first season as a whole) of The Walking Dead can be forgiven because of the fact that they only had a measly six episodes. What the fuck is up with that? You mentioned the patience that Boardwalk Empire exhibits, and I'd like to think the The Walking Dead might have done the same if they had the standard 12 episode run to tell their story. I'm not making excuses for them, because I agree with everything you said, but I think it's something worth taking into account. I haven't seen the season finale of Boardwalk yet, so I'll withhold judgment, but I do want to mention that if Michael Shannon doesn't win Best Supporting Actor at the next Emmy Awards I will never take that institution seriously again. agreed. Me and Random said the same thing. At least a 12 episode season. Or maybe budget doesn't allow them for a long season. I know that Darabont got rid of the freelance writers who wrote at least 2 episodes (with heavy revisions from Darabont btw) so maybe it wont matter but i think there may be some continuity errors in season 2. I do think a year off is way too long though, you run the risk of people forgetting about the characters and situations, as it is right now i have a hard time remembering everyone's name. I really do enjoy the show and am still looking forward to the season premiere....one year away
|
|
|
Post by Harry on Jan 28, 2011 22:19:42 GMT -5
Archer season 2 just started, and it's still great.
IFC Fridays are awesome now, too. ONN at 10:00 and Portlandia at 10:30.
|
|
|
Post by VyperJMc on Jan 28, 2011 23:22:39 GMT -5
Archer season 2 just started, and it's still great. IFC Fridays are awesome now, too. ONN at 10:00 and Portlandia at 10:30. Quoted for triple correctness! The dream of the 90's is alive in Portland!
|
|
|
Post by Harry on Jan 28, 2011 23:32:37 GMT -5
The Onion has always done the best political satire, so it's natural that ONN is so good. It's a hundred times better than Daily Show or Colbert Report.
Speaking of Comedy Central (with it's new snazzy logo), Onion Sports Dome is another great new show. Live coverage of the Crystal Meth Hallucination Leage was amazing.
|
|
|
Post by VyperJMc on Jan 28, 2011 23:53:42 GMT -5
The Onion has always done the best political satire, so it's natural that ONN is so good. It's a hundred times better than Daily Show or Colbert Report. ...aaaaaaaand just like that you blew it. Congrats.
|
|
|
Post by Harry on Jan 29, 2011 0:10:10 GMT -5
Haha, it was bound to happen
|
|