New TV season... anything good on?

[Boges]

They're not *bad*, but they're just TV... spiced up a bit with swearing, violence and sex - the fat, salt, and sugar of the cable TV diet.

So you'd be fine with this series if it was just detectives talking? Interestingly the first 3 episodes had little to no violence. Obviously that changed with the famous 6-minute tracking shot at the end of an episode.

Swearing = reality. People often swear and with the popularity of Premium cable shows from HBO, Showtime and AMC, you'll see more of that and it's created, what many would call, the new Golden Age of TV. Where shows are more interesting because they can show things network shows can't.

As for the sex, HBO seems to include that as a matter of course. BD and I were discussing it earlier and many had commented on the sexuality being a draw back. I'm ambivalent, but the sexualization is, again, adding more reality to the show. No need to sanitize anything. They did, thankfully leave the (SPOILER!!!!!!!!)

Snuff film that was being shown left up to one's imagination.

The only real instances of sexuality in this show were scenes where Marty was committing adultery. One could argue that exhibited his betrayal of his wife much better than some sanitized PG sexual scene.

It's a procedural by definition, ie. crime, investigation, arrest... etc.

There was a thread by Argus discussing this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Procedural_(genre)

In television, "procedural" specifically refers to a genre of programs in which a problem is introduced, investigated and solved all within the same episode. These shows tend to be hour-long dramas, and are often (though not always) police or crime related.

The general formula for a police procedural involves the commission or discovery of a crime at the beginning of the episode, the ensuing investigation, and the arrest or conviction of a perpetrator at the end of the episode.

The best known examples of this genre are the Law & Order, CSI & NCIS franchises. House is an example of a non-crime-related procedural.

• Procedural dramas are generally very popular in broadcast syndication because the lack of long-term storylines makes it easier for viewers to tune in for just one episode without feeling lost.
• Procedurals are sometimes criticized for their lack of character development, with little attention being paid to the lives of the recurring characters outside of their jobs.

The only real comparison is that it's a show about crime. But true "procedurals" are shows that wrap up the case at the end of the show. You don't need to be familiar with other episodes of the show to understand what's going on.

If anything True Detective is a serialized drama because all 8 episodes are connected. If you only watched the last episode, you wouldn't have the slightest clue what was going on.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serialized_drama

Serials are series of television programs and radio programs that rely on a continuing plot that unfolds in a sequential episode-by-episode fashion. Serials typically follow main story arcsthat span entire television seasons or even the full run of the series, which distinguishes them from traditional episodic television that relies on more stand-alone episodes. Worldwide, the soap opera is the most prominent form of serial dramatic programming.

The difference is that TD is a series on it's own. A second season will not include these characters or these series of crimes. I'm assuming the only similarity will be the style and choice of top-shelf actors.

I would compare it to a mini-series like Band of Brothers more than anything. Which was also an HBO property that had violence, swearing and even some sex.

Edited March 11, 2014 by Boges

[bush_cheney2004]

I agree on the Bruno animation but think this series is intended to be an updated version of Sagan's for those who didn't see or weren't even alive when the original came out. The original blew me away in 1980 and is a tough act to follow.

Yes, that is the challenge. Hopefully the new Cosmos is updated with many discoveries and techniques since Sagan's first effort. Back to Bruno...turns out he was burned at the stake more for pantheist views than anything to do with the night sky. The first show may have taken liberties with that.

[Michael Hardner]

So you'd be fine with this series if it was just detectives talking?

I really AM "fine" with the series, and let's be clear that I have no authorization to approve/disapprove HBO series, LOL.

Adding sex, violence and reality is ok, but evolutionary not revolutionary. Hill St. Blues did more with the form in the 1980s in the latter realm IMO.

The thing that I probably look for, to distinguish between TV form and movie form, is depth. True Detective isn't a very deep show.

But true "procedurals" are shows that wrap up the case at the end of the show.

Ok, I am now informed, thanks.

[Boges]

The thing that I probably look for, to distinguish between TV form and movie form, is depth. True Detective isn't a very deep show.

I'd argue it's very deep, philosophical and such. Lots of symbolism etc. The review have been largely great and Matthew McConahey is a lock for an Emmy to follow his Oscar.

But everyone's opinion is their own.

[Michael Hardner]

I'd argue it's very deep, philosophical and such.

Rust spouts philosophy in a sort of burned-out stoner fashion, but that alone doesn't make it deep. Furthermore, I feel like I have seen that type of character too often in the past.

Lots of symbolism etc. The review have been largely great and Matthew McConahey is a lock for an Emmy to follow his Oscar.

But everyone's opinion is their own.

Yes, the acting, art direction are fine... even the story is ok... The trick in great writing, though, is that a lot of people don't realize it's happening.

[Wilber]

Yes, that is the challenge. Hopefully the new Cosmos is updated with many discoveries and techniques since Sagan's first effort. Back to Bruno...turns out he was burned at the stake more for pantheist views than anything to do with the night sky. The first show may have taken liberties with that.

He was bucking church doctrine in several ways. If I remember correctly, Sagan was somewhat of a pantheist himself.

[Michael Hardner]

The trick in great writing, though, is that a lot of people don't realize it's happening.

http://www.hitfix.com/whats-alan-watching/dont-stop-believin-the-sopranos-tops-wga-list-of-101-best-written-tv-shows-ever

Here's the WGA list, so ... maybe not ... although King of the Hill and Get A Life don't make the list and I think one day they will.

[Guest]

No Red Dwarf?

[bleeding heart]

Michael,

In a way I can sympathize with you on True detective...not about the show itself (I totally disagree with you) but on the feeling that a lot of beloved programs have been woefully overrated (just incidentally, I feel that way about Hill Street Blues! )

But Michael, while we can certainly quibble about how "deep" Rust's philosophical musings are, they're still--especially by television standards--at least meaningful, and rather beautiful in a poetic sense...and as someone who has known more than a few stoners, I would say I haven't often heard them speak this way.

At any rate, I'm sure we're to understand that the nihilism is at least partly the result of the death of his daughter and subsequent dissolution of his marriage, and doubtless the horrors he's witnessed as a Detective and as an undercover cop.

I think human consciousness is a tragic misstep in evolution. We became too self-aware, nature created an aspect of nature separate from itself, we are creatures that should not exist by natural law. We are things that labor under the illusion of having a self; an accretion of sensory experience and feeling, programmed with total assurance that we are each somebody, when in fact everybody is nobody. Maybe the honorable thing for our species to do is deny our programming, stop reproducing, walk hand in hand into extinction, one last midnight--brothers and sisters opting out of a raw deal.

Sure, we can decide that Tolstoy and Faulkner had more profound things to say about human existence (and sometimes similarly bleak). But this is still good...and, I would argue with you, it actually is good writing, as were the police interrogations, the marital strife between Marty and his wife, and so on. It's somewhat subjective, no doubt...but if anything, the writerly qualities of this particular show are top-notch, and is largely what sets the show apart...even if some of the other critiques I've heard may have some substance.

(Just incidentally....where, exactly, have you "seen that type of character too often in the past"...as opposed to, say, a character from Hill Street Blues?)

Edited March 16, 2014 by bleeding heart

[Michael Hardner]

they're still--especially by television standards--at least meaningful, and rather beautiful in a poetic sense...and as someone who has known more than a few stoners, I would say I haven't often heard them speak this way.

Perhaps it depends on what one means by 'television standards'. It's certainly better than network television, I'll give you that.

qualities of this particular show are top-notch, and is largely what sets the show apart...even if some of the other critiques I've heard may have some substance.

Sure... my points are really just quibbles.

(Just incidentally....where, exactly, have you "seen that type of character too often in the past"...as opposed to, say, a character from Hill Street Blues?)

The weather beaten burned out guy ? I dunno... Reverend Jim from Taxi was the first one I remembered - maybe it was the first '60s burnout' guy, which was sometimes bundled in with PTSD victims from the wars of that era.

[Black Dog]

I started watching "The Returned" this weekend on U.S. Netflix. French series about a small village in which a number of people have come back from the dead, not as zombies, but simply reappeared as they were when they died. Very compelling and creepy.

[Boges]

Isn't there a Network show called Resurrection with a similar idea?

BTW Banshee finished it's second season this week. It's full of eye-candy and cartoonish violence but ultimately it's very satisfying show.

https://www.cinemax.com/banshee/

Oh and as a side note SPOILER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Walking Dead is killing off little girls now. Things are very dark in the Zombiepocolypse.

http://www.usmagazine.com/entertainment/news/walking-dead-recap-2014173

Edited March 17, 2014 by Boges

[Black Dog]

Isn't there a Network show called Resurrection with a similar idea?

Apparently. It's a bit confusing as the U.S. series is based on a book called The Returned and has an identical premise, but aren't connected.

BTW Banshee finished it's second season this week. It's full of eye-candy and cartoonish violence but ultimately it's very satisfying show.

I watched the first episode of Banshee. Unmitigated dreck. Not sure if that or Ray Donovan was the worst show I have watched in the last 12 months. Woof.

[Michael Hardner]

Is anyone else watching Girls ?

Also - Louie is back in May !

The comedies are the ones that keep me going.

[Boges]

BD and I discussed Girls earlier in the thread. It was cute for a while, but just about every character on that show is a regrettable wreck of a person.

The only characters that aren't completely horrible people is the ex boyfriend of Marnie that kept getting reeled in by her and the dimwitted Shoshanna.

When they decided to give the lead OCD, as if that explains her ridiculously selfish behaviour, I checked out the show.

[Michael Hardner]

BD and I discussed Girls earlier in the thread. It was cute for a while, but just about every character on that show is a regrettable wreck of a person.

In other words, they're interesting ?

There are more than a few characters who are not train wrecks, though.

The only characters that aren't completely horrible people is the ex boyfriend of Marnie that kept getting reeled in by her and the dimwitted Shoshanna.

Also Ray... and Adam... fine men.

When they decided to give the lead OCD, as if that explains her ridiculously selfish behaviour, I checked out the show.

I don't think the OCD is supposed to explain her selfish behavior. I think she's just like that.

[Boges]

In other words, they're interesting?

Lena Dunham's character is a heel not some Walter White anti-hero. She's exhibiting all the bad stereotypes of the Millenial generation.

Also Ray... and Adam... fine men.

Is Ray the guy who manages the coffee shop. Interesting one of the best episodes of a show called "Girls" Is when he and Adam try to take a dog back to Staten Island.

I don't think the OCD is supposed to explain her selfish behavior. I think she's just like that.

Fair enough but that's the point I decided I'm not interested anymore. All my judgement on the show are opinions taken pre that point.

Edited March 17, 2014 by Boges

[Michael Hardner]

Lena Dunham's character is a heel not some Walter White anti-hero. She's exhibiting all the bad stereotypes of the Millenial generation.

Oscar Wilde said that the worst sin is being boring didn't he ?

Is Ray the guy who manages the coffee shop. Interesting one of the best episodes of a show called "Girls" Is when he and Adam try to take a dog back to Staten Island.

That was a good one. I also liked the party where the older guy Jessa was working for.

Fair enough but that's the point I decided I'm not interested anymore. All my judgement on the show are opinions taken pre that point.

When I don't like something, I try to express why I *think* I don't like it, then I have a debate with myself as to whether I'm right or not. I'm getting pretty good at defending myself against myself, but I wouldn't put it past me to come up with some good arguments that may convince me.

For example, "The Wolf of Wall Street" was laborious for me to sit through. When I tried to figure out why that was, I came up with the reason that the characters had no redeemable qualities AND they were dull. I didn't see anything interesting in how they ascended, what they did when they were at the top, and how they fell.

[Black Dog]

You know what was good TV? Friday Night lights. I've probably mentioned it before, but it's great. Currently am rewatching it from the start and it really holds up.

[Black Dog]

Broad City on Comedy Central might be the best thing on TV right now.

[Michael Hardner]

You know what was good TV? Friday Night lights. I've probably mentioned it before, but it's great. Currently am rewatching it from the start and it really holds up.

That show was given as an example of writing taking a wrong turn... can't find the list now... but they added a murder apparently then just sort of moved on...

[Black Dog]

That show was given as an example of writing taking a wrong turn... can't find the list now... but they added a murder apparently then just sort of moved on...

In season 2 they were under pressure from the network to jazz things up for viewers, so they made some questionable choices that went over poorly. The writer's strike happened and cut the season short, so they basically rebooted for S3 and moved on, leaving a number of S2 plot points and even characters in the dust. They were back in form after that.

Edited March 24, 2014 by Black Dog

[overthere]

Is anyone else watching Girls ?

Also - Louie is back in May !

The comedies are the ones that keep me going.

I watched the first season, we PVR the second.and my wife still keeps up weekly....I'm not so keen on it anymore and it took a while to figure out why.

The show is obviously a retooling of Seinfeld, another entertaining 'show about nothing'.

There's one big difference though...

In Seinfeld. the characters were selfish, banal and entertaining but ultimately they were endearing.

In Girls, they are similar but there is an underlying meanness about many of them, the shallowness of character is always there. Sometimes there are not many laughs in an episode.

Maybe it's just me.

[Michael Hardner]

The show is obviously a retooling of Seinfeld, another entertaining 'show about nothing'.

There's one big difference though...

In Seinfeld. the characters were selfish, banal and entertaining but ultimately they were endearing.

In Girls, they are similar but there is an underlying meanness about many of them, the shallowness of character is always there. Sometimes there are not many laughs in an episode.

Maybe it's just me.

Seinfeld's characters were also shallow and selfish, as revealed in the odd finale.

It's ... just not like Seinfeld ... to my mind. Not at all. Both shows are great, to my mind, but ... no. I can't see it. At all.

I am nonetheless interested in your assertion, and also in my reaction to it. So here are 10 reasons off the top of my head that Girls is NOT like Seinfeld.

1) One is a network show, the other a cable show with all the trappings ie. drugs, sex, nudity

2) One is a comedy, one is serio-comic.

3) One is fantastical, the other rooted in reality

4) One is 30-somethings on the brink of middle agedness, one is about 20-somethings a year or two out of college

5) One is about New Yorkers with normal jobs ... and a standup comic, and the other is about New Yorkers in the arts scene

6) One is set in the 90s, the other in the contemporary digital world

7) One is written with sitcom hooks such as catch phrases, recurring jokes, physical comedy, comedic entrances, and the other is written using palette of real emotions, believable contemporary relationships, realistic stories and a cinema verité style

8) One is a strictly commercial product aimed at a broad audience, the other has pretenses of higher social comment

9) One is a studio audience multi-camera sitcom shot in a studio in California the other is filmed in the streets, bars, lofts, art studios and boho apartments of New York

10) One is about mostly men, and the other is about mostly girls

[Mighty AC]

Is anyone else watching Girls ?

Also - Louie is back in May !

The comedies are the ones that keep me going.

I'm a big fan of Louie. Glad he got over his writer's block.