Welcome back to Weekly Cinemeh. This week we didn't watch any movies, instead we wanted to talk about a style of show that it is sad that we don't get to see in the US. Panel Shows are a British format that I have been watching somewhat obsessively. A panel show is essentially a game show where comedians sit on a panel and make jokes about the shows subject. The game part of it is mostly just an excuse to see funny people be funny. Some of them are great, so here is a list of a few of our favorites.To the list!~
1: QI
QI, which stands for Quite Interesting, is a show that combines charm, humor, and intelligence in one package. QI takes a bunch of comedians and challenges them to answer questions about history, science, and anything that is interesting. Stephen Fry hosts the show (at least until next season when he is being
replaced by Sandy Toksvig, a frequent favorite on the show), and if you don't
know who that is, I feel sorry for you. He is all of the things I said
about the show, and really helped make it something I enjoy. It takes pride in taking things that are "common knowledge" and showing how and why those things are wrong. It is very smart, and amuses while educating. If you want to give it a shot, almost all of it is on Youtube, so check it out.
2: 8 out of 10 Cats
8 out of 10 Cats is an odd show that has two formats, both of which are fun and hosted by British funnyman Jimmy Carr. The original run of the show is a panel of comedians riffing about polls, which is a lot better than it sounds. The second run of the show is the cast doing their version of another game show, Countdown, which a is a show where the contestants compete to complete math problems and word puzzles. The original version of Countdown didn't have any comedians at all in it, and it was boring as fuck, but giving it to a bunch of comedians was a great idea, and it instantly got better. Both versions of 8 out of 10 cats are worth checking out, and can be found on youtube.
3: Mock The Week
Mock The Week is one of the best news shows I have seen. Much like the name suggests, it takes a weeks worth of news and quizzes a bunch of comedians about it. The show is hosted by Dara O' Briain, who is one of my favorite comedians. The panels compete to see who can answer questions about the news, as well as compete in improv sets about the weeks issues. Its a fun show that introduced me to a bunch of comedians that are great. Check it out, almost all of it is on youtube as well.
4: Would I Lie to You
Would I Lie to You revolves around hosts Angus Deayton, and later Rob Brydon, team captains David Mitchell and Lee Mac, as well as a series of guests, who are made to tell personal stories that the opposing team has to guess at the truth of. It's better than it sounds, like so many of these shows, largely due to the ever-present comedians. David Mitchell is especially witty and Rob Brydon has a weird charisma. Youtube will, once again, provide.
Showing posts with label Television. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Television. Show all posts
Friday, April 8, 2016
Tuesday, August 18, 2015
Dramedy
So over the past couple of weeks we have watched all of The Newsroom and I have to say I am very impressed with the show. I tend to dislike drama shows because most of them lack any sense of humor and focus so much and adding more and more drama that they feel joyless in general. The Newsroom bucks that by being one of the funniest shows I have seen while also offering good drama and catharsis. It is one of the few shows that I've watched where I want to watch more after it is done.
The show takes the subject of the news and runs with the idea that "we can do better". It gets a little preachy, but at the same time its a subject that deserves to be discussed like this. For most people in the US, their view of the world outside of the United States is from the news and pop culture. Pop culture is fictionalized anyway so you can't get to mad at them for not fact checking, but the news is supposed to let people know what is going on in the world. Its an important tool that has been hijacked by people who want to sell ad space.
This is the main premise of the show. What if a news program didn't have to worry about ratings? Its a good thought, and The Newsroom tackles it well. The show opens with an amazing speech that is supposed to make you think and inspire you, and this sets the tone of the rest of the show. It focuses on doing this type of work well, because its meant to be done that way.
The cast is excellent, and they all have good chemistry together. I am a fan of Olivia Munn's work from The Daily Show (which also focuses a lot on the news being done poorly) and I am glad to see that she can handle herself well in a pretty major role. Jeff Daniels did a great job as well, and it was fun to see him do a serious role in a funny way. Sam Waterston played the President of the news network and was my favorite character on the show. He was so funny, and I loved how he could go from calm and affable to balls out angry in seconds.
Aaron Sorkin wanted to make a series about competent people doing a good job, and he did well. The series is written phenomenally and was a joy to watch. I tend to binge a little when watching TV shows, but this is one of the only times I felt compelled too. Its a good show that was on the air for 3 seasons on HBO. Amazon has the first two seasons up for free if you have a prime account, give it a try, you will not be disappointed.
The show takes the subject of the news and runs with the idea that "we can do better". It gets a little preachy, but at the same time its a subject that deserves to be discussed like this. For most people in the US, their view of the world outside of the United States is from the news and pop culture. Pop culture is fictionalized anyway so you can't get to mad at them for not fact checking, but the news is supposed to let people know what is going on in the world. Its an important tool that has been hijacked by people who want to sell ad space.
This is the main premise of the show. What if a news program didn't have to worry about ratings? Its a good thought, and The Newsroom tackles it well. The show opens with an amazing speech that is supposed to make you think and inspire you, and this sets the tone of the rest of the show. It focuses on doing this type of work well, because its meant to be done that way.
The cast is excellent, and they all have good chemistry together. I am a fan of Olivia Munn's work from The Daily Show (which also focuses a lot on the news being done poorly) and I am glad to see that she can handle herself well in a pretty major role. Jeff Daniels did a great job as well, and it was fun to see him do a serious role in a funny way. Sam Waterston played the President of the news network and was my favorite character on the show. He was so funny, and I loved how he could go from calm and affable to balls out angry in seconds.
Aaron Sorkin wanted to make a series about competent people doing a good job, and he did well. The series is written phenomenally and was a joy to watch. I tend to binge a little when watching TV shows, but this is one of the only times I felt compelled too. Its a good show that was on the air for 3 seasons on HBO. Amazon has the first two seasons up for free if you have a prime account, give it a try, you will not be disappointed.
Monday, April 27, 2015
His Superpower is Punching!
So a friend recently convinced me to watch the new Daredevil series. It should be stated that I've largely avoided the comic/TV bullshit. I dig the new Constantine but I didn't really go for Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D or Arrow or any of that kind of thing. I just don't have any faith in the people who make TV happen and I fucking love comic books, so I tend to ignore TV adaptations. Daredevil is the reason I lack that faith. Not because its bad, but because its made by Netflix.
They don't have to worry about the same standards and practices fuckery that TV producers do. People on Daredevil speak like real people because believe it or not profanity plays an enormous role in human communication. I love this. We've discussed profanity here before, and it holds a dear place in both mine and Brian's lexicon. So a show about people in fucked up situations that allows them to discuss them in those terms is always more enjoyable than you'd expect.
The other big thing about Daredevil for me is the violence. It ought to come as no surprise that I appreciate me some physical aggression, and the clarity and relative honesty of the violence in this show is beautiful. Sure we've still got a guy in a kinda silly outfit throwing down with Russian mobsters and not getting shot repeatedly and dropped in a hole, but that doesn't actually reduce the brutality of the combat.
Now this might sound like an ad spot for this one show, but its not. I like some things about Daredevil. Some of it is ridiculous, of course it is, its a comic book adaptation. But the things I like about it stem from a lack of censorship. They don't have to sugar coat things to placate shitty people. I'm a geek; I love stories, the exploration of ideas, and the building of narrative worlds. When Constantine leaves out the details of what happened in Newcastle we lose a big part of that story and the motivations of the characters. I really don't have an issue with adapting comics or books to the screen but when we have to hobble them to make them suitable to irresponsible parents and ego-maniacal busybodies we've failed to respect what makes a story great.
They don't have to worry about the same standards and practices fuckery that TV producers do. People on Daredevil speak like real people because believe it or not profanity plays an enormous role in human communication. I love this. We've discussed profanity here before, and it holds a dear place in both mine and Brian's lexicon. So a show about people in fucked up situations that allows them to discuss them in those terms is always more enjoyable than you'd expect.
The other big thing about Daredevil for me is the violence. It ought to come as no surprise that I appreciate me some physical aggression, and the clarity and relative honesty of the violence in this show is beautiful. Sure we've still got a guy in a kinda silly outfit throwing down with Russian mobsters and not getting shot repeatedly and dropped in a hole, but that doesn't actually reduce the brutality of the combat.
Now this might sound like an ad spot for this one show, but its not. I like some things about Daredevil. Some of it is ridiculous, of course it is, its a comic book adaptation. But the things I like about it stem from a lack of censorship. They don't have to sugar coat things to placate shitty people. I'm a geek; I love stories, the exploration of ideas, and the building of narrative worlds. When Constantine leaves out the details of what happened in Newcastle we lose a big part of that story and the motivations of the characters. I really don't have an issue with adapting comics or books to the screen but when we have to hobble them to make them suitable to irresponsible parents and ego-maniacal busybodies we've failed to respect what makes a story great.
Tuesday, April 7, 2015
Game of Thrones: Another Example of "No One Can Be Happy"
So I want to start this off by saying that I am a fan of Game of Thrones. I enjoy the world that they are building, and look forward to watching the new season. That being said it is not a perfect series and I believe that fans should address the problems it has so it can become better.
Game of Thrones is one of many series that "ups the stakes" by killing characters. You never know who is safe from the sword of Damocles. This ads tension, sure, but after establishing that anyone can die at any time(*Spoilers/*like when you straight up behead Sean Bean or crossbow-bolt fuck an entire wedding party*/Spoilers*) you should be able to calm down and try to just tell a story. Instead you introduce characters, characterize them for an episode or maybe two if they are lucky, and kill them as a way of reinforcing the "immanent danger" aura the show portrays. I would think a world in which Ice Liches are raising the dead and marching them towards civilization on one end of the world while on the other side of the world a princess is waging war using dragons and freed slaves would be exciting enough without having to worry about constant betrayal.
Joss Whedon does this a lot as well. In Serenity they kill Wash so as to increase the peril of the climax. In The Avengers movie they kill Coulson to motivate the main characters (This also happens in his agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. series). This eventually stops making me care.
Game of Thrones is a good show. I am glad that they are trying to differentiate themselves from Martin, but at the same time its constant danger has diminishing returns because it makes me stop caring about characters. And when I stop caring about characters I stop watching a show (See Lost). This show is kind of like fried chicken. I loves it but at the same time understand that it is probably pretty bad for me, but at the same time it is so, so good.
Game of Thrones is one of many series that "ups the stakes" by killing characters. You never know who is safe from the sword of Damocles. This ads tension, sure, but after establishing that anyone can die at any time(*Spoilers/*like when you straight up behead Sean Bean or crossbow-bolt fuck an entire wedding party*/Spoilers*) you should be able to calm down and try to just tell a story. Instead you introduce characters, characterize them for an episode or maybe two if they are lucky, and kill them as a way of reinforcing the "immanent danger" aura the show portrays. I would think a world in which Ice Liches are raising the dead and marching them towards civilization on one end of the world while on the other side of the world a princess is waging war using dragons and freed slaves would be exciting enough without having to worry about constant betrayal.
Joss Whedon does this a lot as well. In Serenity they kill Wash so as to increase the peril of the climax. In The Avengers movie they kill Coulson to motivate the main characters (This also happens in his agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. series). This eventually stops making me care.
Game of Thrones is a good show. I am glad that they are trying to differentiate themselves from Martin, but at the same time its constant danger has diminishing returns because it makes me stop caring about characters. And when I stop caring about characters I stop watching a show (See Lost). This show is kind of like fried chicken. I loves it but at the same time understand that it is probably pretty bad for me, but at the same time it is so, so good.
Tuesday, March 24, 2015
We Need To Learn From The Lessons That Herbert West Showed Us.
So I have written something along the lines of this topic a couple of times but it is still something that bugs me. Remakes. This time I was set off because of a very specific remake: The X-Files. I love the X-Files, it was an amazing show, funny at times, tense at others. It balanced the monster of the week and drama genres really well. That being said, the show turned into something unwatchable by the end, mostly due to people splitting from the show as it convoluted itself out of existence.
When I wrote about Fringe I said that shows should get canceled before they get to the point of being terrible, and The X-Files certainly fails that test. It lasted like 2 years longer than it should have, but Fox (the network not the character) calling for 6 more episodes to be produced is fucking absurd. Its basically taking a dead show it ruined over a decade ago and trying to wring more money out of it's corpse. Fuck all that spending money on new shows that might be terrible, lets just Frankenstein this bitch and see how she does on the corner. Because, you know, that always works out for the best. I grew up watching shows like Star Trek TNG and The X-Files, but those shows are done, and I am comfortable with that. I am not craving to know the unanswered questions, I am just sad at how these shows turned bad at the end. Let them stay dead.
This might sound like I am overreacting, and to be fair I am being a little hyperbolic, but this trend also stifles creativity in mainstream media. Broadcast television is getting fucked by stuff like Hulu, Amazon, and Netflix and instead of trying to compete with them by making better shows, they try to scratch the nostalgia itch that these services provide (I have rewatched the X-Files two times in the past few years because of Netflix).
Seriously, thanks to Fox we got shows like the Simpsons, Futurama, The X-Files, Arrested Development, and Firefly. They clearly have the ability to get people who can create great works, so try to create the next Family Guy or King of the Hill rather then trying to rehash your glory days when you had those shows. Then again, they did cancel a bunch of those shows before they hit their stride, so maybe Fox just doesn't know what the hell they are doing. Incidentally, Hulu, Amazon, and Netflix don't just hit the nostalgia spot, they have also been creating new stuff that is good (Deadbeat and Alpha House come to mind) so maybe this is just the death throes of a dying form of media that is trying desperately to remain relevant.
When I wrote about Fringe I said that shows should get canceled before they get to the point of being terrible, and The X-Files certainly fails that test. It lasted like 2 years longer than it should have, but Fox (the network not the character) calling for 6 more episodes to be produced is fucking absurd. Its basically taking a dead show it ruined over a decade ago and trying to wring more money out of it's corpse. Fuck all that spending money on new shows that might be terrible, lets just Frankenstein this bitch and see how she does on the corner. Because, you know, that always works out for the best. I grew up watching shows like Star Trek TNG and The X-Files, but those shows are done, and I am comfortable with that. I am not craving to know the unanswered questions, I am just sad at how these shows turned bad at the end. Let them stay dead.
This might sound like I am overreacting, and to be fair I am being a little hyperbolic, but this trend also stifles creativity in mainstream media. Broadcast television is getting fucked by stuff like Hulu, Amazon, and Netflix and instead of trying to compete with them by making better shows, they try to scratch the nostalgia itch that these services provide (I have rewatched the X-Files two times in the past few years because of Netflix).
Seriously, thanks to Fox we got shows like the Simpsons, Futurama, The X-Files, Arrested Development, and Firefly. They clearly have the ability to get people who can create great works, so try to create the next Family Guy or King of the Hill rather then trying to rehash your glory days when you had those shows. Then again, they did cancel a bunch of those shows before they hit their stride, so maybe Fox just doesn't know what the hell they are doing. Incidentally, Hulu, Amazon, and Netflix don't just hit the nostalgia spot, they have also been creating new stuff that is good (Deadbeat and Alpha House come to mind) so maybe this is just the death throes of a dying form of media that is trying desperately to remain relevant.
Tuesday, February 24, 2015
Bad Romance
So, every time I watch a movie or a TV show something inevitably happens when a male character and a female character meet, the show turns into a rendition of the beloved narrative game, Trying to Fuck. There is something odd about TV shows that make it so that every time eligible people meet (sometimes ineligible too) there has to be that undertone. You know, little glances at each other with smiles. That kind of shit.
This isn't bad on its face. We are supposed to like characters on TV, so them getting it on and/or finding love is supposed to make us feel good because something good happens to someone you like. I have no problem with this, except when it happens in every TV show ever. Seriously, I can't think of a TV show that didn't devolve into primary characters putting their genitals together.
My problem comes from the "need" for people to be paired off (most of the time in male-female relationships) and the subsequent enforcing of social stigma on sex with people who aren't an S.O. I don't mean cheating on people, that's fucked up and you probably shouldn't do it. No, I mean one night stands, friends with benefits, or casual sex. This also reinforces the idea that men and women can't be Platonic friends.
Basically by showing only one type of relationship, you reinforce stigmas against alternatives that have nothing really wrong with them. I get that its a ratings disaster to do something that's unpopular, but I wanna point something out to TV and Movie producers: you get to help decide what is acceptable. Also, if people freak their shit out about your TV show, more people will watch it, just to see why. Also Also, if a side story about characters romantic lives "ruins" your show, it must have been pretty shitty to begin with.
This isn't bad on its face. We are supposed to like characters on TV, so them getting it on and/or finding love is supposed to make us feel good because something good happens to someone you like. I have no problem with this, except when it happens in every TV show ever. Seriously, I can't think of a TV show that didn't devolve into primary characters putting their genitals together.
My problem comes from the "need" for people to be paired off (most of the time in male-female relationships) and the subsequent enforcing of social stigma on sex with people who aren't an S.O. I don't mean cheating on people, that's fucked up and you probably shouldn't do it. No, I mean one night stands, friends with benefits, or casual sex. This also reinforces the idea that men and women can't be Platonic friends.
Basically by showing only one type of relationship, you reinforce stigmas against alternatives that have nothing really wrong with them. I get that its a ratings disaster to do something that's unpopular, but I wanna point something out to TV and Movie producers: you get to help decide what is acceptable. Also, if people freak their shit out about your TV show, more people will watch it, just to see why. Also Also, if a side story about characters romantic lives "ruins" your show, it must have been pretty shitty to begin with.
Tuesday, January 27, 2015
I Am Not Mad At J.J. Abrams, Just Disappointed.
I love Sci-Fi. This should come as no surprise to readers of my past posts. Sci-Fi TV shows in particular are on of my favorite things to watch. This is why I kind of hate and love J.J. Abrams. Both Lost and Fringe had amazing potential, but shit the bed around 2/3 of the way through. I know that he isn't the only person behind these shows, but he makes a nice surrogate for the show as a whole since his name is on the title cards as a creator.
Lost had some great ideas. It set up an intriguing mystery that made the characters and the viewers question the reality of the show. Existentialism is a very interesting subject and making a show that introduced the concept as a main theme is great. Whats not great is what happened around halfway through the series. Laziness.
It started setting up mysteries and never solving them. Fuck, they ended the series by copying a fan theory about what they show was all about. I am big on fans being included in the creation of something, but that is going a little to far. It was later revealed that the show was essentially ad-libed, they made all of it up as they went along. The creators came out and said that they had no intention of building a mythology in the first couple seasons. Most fans of the show assumed that they were, myself included, because the show was set up like a mystery, which tend to be a coherent thing, not shit made up on the spot. You can't have an immersive, engaging show without building some kind of mythology, its fucking irresponsible.
Fringe had a different problem at the start. I love sci-fi serials. The X-Files, The Twilight Zone, and Star Trek and the like are some of my favorite style of program. There is sometimes an overarching story line sure, but it plays second fiddle to a monster-of-the-week structure which each explores a new idea or concept with each episode. Fringe was great because the character that is supposed to be the scientific genius is a mad scientist who isn't a bad guy, something that rarely happens. The series explores a bunch of ideas and does so in an interesting way.
Unfortunately, it ended up in kind of a mess. Characters went evil for no reason, possibly because universe jumping made it so that there was no coherent character arcs. This same universe jumping was also used as a cheap way to retcon series mythology. I feel like I need to point out that alternate reality is a great thing to explore, but the base reality needs to remain fucking consistent, otherwise the whole thing starts to come off as a masturbation session for the writers. You can cram ideas into a story all day, but if there isn't some underlying method to the madness everything falls apart.
Both series have a common problem that I would like to make my own theory about. J. J. Abrams has a ton of cool ideas but he is impatient and/or lazy. He wanted to make a bunch of cool sci-fi ideas into a coherent show so he jammed as many ideas as he could into his scripts but after a while got bored with the execution and just ended both in ways that just kind of fell flat. I think that Abrams loves the idea behind a sci-fi mystery serial, a show that builds a massive story/world and seeks to explore it, but doesn't want to put in the effort to make the mythology mean something.
To be fair, it might not have been laziness. Maybe Abrams doesn't want to create a more structured series because he doesn't know what he might have to change later due to network interference. Or maybe he wants fans to have a say in the show. In any case, these series both started out as amazing works, but ended in way that at least felt lazy and disappointing. I feel like I can't explain how unfortunate it is to see something with a ton of potential just fall flat. I just felt like I needed to say this in hopes that any creative type people who read it will strive to do better when it comes to ending a show, or even just in building a mythology. Both your creation and your fans deserve it.
Lost had some great ideas. It set up an intriguing mystery that made the characters and the viewers question the reality of the show. Existentialism is a very interesting subject and making a show that introduced the concept as a main theme is great. Whats not great is what happened around halfway through the series. Laziness.
It started setting up mysteries and never solving them. Fuck, they ended the series by copying a fan theory about what they show was all about. I am big on fans being included in the creation of something, but that is going a little to far. It was later revealed that the show was essentially ad-libed, they made all of it up as they went along. The creators came out and said that they had no intention of building a mythology in the first couple seasons. Most fans of the show assumed that they were, myself included, because the show was set up like a mystery, which tend to be a coherent thing, not shit made up on the spot. You can't have an immersive, engaging show without building some kind of mythology, its fucking irresponsible.
Fringe had a different problem at the start. I love sci-fi serials. The X-Files, The Twilight Zone, and Star Trek and the like are some of my favorite style of program. There is sometimes an overarching story line sure, but it plays second fiddle to a monster-of-the-week structure which each explores a new idea or concept with each episode. Fringe was great because the character that is supposed to be the scientific genius is a mad scientist who isn't a bad guy, something that rarely happens. The series explores a bunch of ideas and does so in an interesting way.
Unfortunately, it ended up in kind of a mess. Characters went evil for no reason, possibly because universe jumping made it so that there was no coherent character arcs. This same universe jumping was also used as a cheap way to retcon series mythology. I feel like I need to point out that alternate reality is a great thing to explore, but the base reality needs to remain fucking consistent, otherwise the whole thing starts to come off as a masturbation session for the writers. You can cram ideas into a story all day, but if there isn't some underlying method to the madness everything falls apart.
Both series have a common problem that I would like to make my own theory about. J. J. Abrams has a ton of cool ideas but he is impatient and/or lazy. He wanted to make a bunch of cool sci-fi ideas into a coherent show so he jammed as many ideas as he could into his scripts but after a while got bored with the execution and just ended both in ways that just kind of fell flat. I think that Abrams loves the idea behind a sci-fi mystery serial, a show that builds a massive story/world and seeks to explore it, but doesn't want to put in the effort to make the mythology mean something.
To be fair, it might not have been laziness. Maybe Abrams doesn't want to create a more structured series because he doesn't know what he might have to change later due to network interference. Or maybe he wants fans to have a say in the show. In any case, these series both started out as amazing works, but ended in way that at least felt lazy and disappointing. I feel like I can't explain how unfortunate it is to see something with a ton of potential just fall flat. I just felt like I needed to say this in hopes that any creative type people who read it will strive to do better when it comes to ending a show, or even just in building a mythology. Both your creation and your fans deserve it.
Tuesday, September 16, 2014
This Is The Song That Never Ends
Eshi and I have been talking recently about something that we have dubbed "the shonen problem". For those of you who do not know, shonen is a brand of manga/anime that focuses on audiences of boys in their early teens and up. Some of the most popular anime falls into this classification: Dragon Ball Z, Naruto, Bleach, and the like. Now, "the shonen problem" doesn't necessarily only happen in shonen, but is something that is very apparent in them. Basically it is a problem that centers on escalation. Basically the story lines always follow this rough pattern with very minimal changes: hero fights bad guy, bad guy beats hero, hero trains to become more powerful, good guy fights the bad guy and wins. This, as a generic story arc, isn't terrible. The problem arises when this pattern is continued ad nauseam.
Every new villain has to be more powerful, every new case has to be more dramatic and convoluted, every new disease has to be more obscure or obfuscated, otherwise the difficulty of manufacturing a satisfying climax is likely to outstrip the skill of the writers. Its way easier to write the same essential story over and over, changing faces and increasing disparities, than to inject novel character development. This means that the longer a series runs the more outlandish this escalation gets to the point where the audience can't help but become desensitized. Dragon Ball Z was 291 episodes of people getting more and more powerful in a way that shows that all of their previous training wasn't good enough. This is a problem that happens when you try to extend the length of a series artificially. A good story will have a message or point, but this type of "development" removes from that message in favor of perpetuating a brand.
Character death is the most poignant version of this. Character death ought to be terminal for a storyline, even if it isn't permanent for the character. Death is something that needs to carry a lot of emotional weight, when you take that weight away from a character to justify continuing a story you diminish the character, the story, and what death means. The main character from DBZ, Goku, sacrifices himself on multiple occasions to save the universe and defeat the bad guy, but each and every time is resurrected. This removes the value behind the sacrifice. The impact of a main character who dies is huge, something that people shouldn't see coming, and all of that impact goes away if you bring that hero back. If you know that you will come back to life when you die there is no reason to not sacrifice yourself and the sacrifice is less a price one must pay and more a minor inconvenience.
American comics do this too, there is no end to escalation in story lines for most Marvel and DC comics. Superman is the worst offender in my opinion, and not just because he has been around since the 1930s but because of a trend he started in American comics. Superman getting resurrected was great for the writers in terms of continuing what is essentially a brand name, but it removed the value from his death at the hands of Doomsday. Superman is essentially a deity in the DC universe, and the death of someone who held that much sway would have changed the way comics where written if it wasn't for the cop out, which changed the way comics are written as well, just in a much worse direction. It was both lazy and manipulative and set up a precedent for other writers to follow. Comic writers didn't need to make up a new character to replace the dead hero after their emotionally charged death nor write any story lines which dealt with the long term effect of a dead superhero on their friends, family, or civilians who relied on the protection of the hero.
Really this is a problem that happens with non-episodic series in general. The X Files started strong from a creative standpoint, but the less episodic it became the more it grew to rely on threat escalation and left-field "plot twists". Movies, TV, comics, and anime are all industries that have multiple goals, one of which seems to be disproportionately prioritized above artistic integrity: profit. I have talked about this in similar terms before, but I just keep seeing how pervasive this problem really is in popular culture and it always depresses me. These things are modern myths, and as Eshi, and countless others, have pointed out, myths are how we establish social values; trading out the core of our cultural values in order to pander to consumerism is pretty fucking disappointing.
Every new villain has to be more powerful, every new case has to be more dramatic and convoluted, every new disease has to be more obscure or obfuscated, otherwise the difficulty of manufacturing a satisfying climax is likely to outstrip the skill of the writers. Its way easier to write the same essential story over and over, changing faces and increasing disparities, than to inject novel character development. This means that the longer a series runs the more outlandish this escalation gets to the point where the audience can't help but become desensitized. Dragon Ball Z was 291 episodes of people getting more and more powerful in a way that shows that all of their previous training wasn't good enough. This is a problem that happens when you try to extend the length of a series artificially. A good story will have a message or point, but this type of "development" removes from that message in favor of perpetuating a brand.
Character death is the most poignant version of this. Character death ought to be terminal for a storyline, even if it isn't permanent for the character. Death is something that needs to carry a lot of emotional weight, when you take that weight away from a character to justify continuing a story you diminish the character, the story, and what death means. The main character from DBZ, Goku, sacrifices himself on multiple occasions to save the universe and defeat the bad guy, but each and every time is resurrected. This removes the value behind the sacrifice. The impact of a main character who dies is huge, something that people shouldn't see coming, and all of that impact goes away if you bring that hero back. If you know that you will come back to life when you die there is no reason to not sacrifice yourself and the sacrifice is less a price one must pay and more a minor inconvenience.
American comics do this too, there is no end to escalation in story lines for most Marvel and DC comics. Superman is the worst offender in my opinion, and not just because he has been around since the 1930s but because of a trend he started in American comics. Superman getting resurrected was great for the writers in terms of continuing what is essentially a brand name, but it removed the value from his death at the hands of Doomsday. Superman is essentially a deity in the DC universe, and the death of someone who held that much sway would have changed the way comics where written if it wasn't for the cop out, which changed the way comics are written as well, just in a much worse direction. It was both lazy and manipulative and set up a precedent for other writers to follow. Comic writers didn't need to make up a new character to replace the dead hero after their emotionally charged death nor write any story lines which dealt with the long term effect of a dead superhero on their friends, family, or civilians who relied on the protection of the hero.
Really this is a problem that happens with non-episodic series in general. The X Files started strong from a creative standpoint, but the less episodic it became the more it grew to rely on threat escalation and left-field "plot twists". Movies, TV, comics, and anime are all industries that have multiple goals, one of which seems to be disproportionately prioritized above artistic integrity: profit. I have talked about this in similar terms before, but I just keep seeing how pervasive this problem really is in popular culture and it always depresses me. These things are modern myths, and as Eshi, and countless others, have pointed out, myths are how we establish social values; trading out the core of our cultural values in order to pander to consumerism is pretty fucking disappointing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)