_____________________________
Let's look at one of TV's polarizing shows: HBO's True Detective.
Here is a commentary that as shared with the other half The Dark Duo:
editor's note: It is important to note that this is in response to the following article from Wired as well as reviews by the A.V.Club.
I didn't even read the article before I knew I was going to share the same feelings you did about it.
Ironically enough I had just told Payton yesterday, in a long babbling monologue that she probably didn't care for, that I had never disagreed more with a review the A.V.Club had done then there two reviews for episodes 1 &2 of True Detective. It seemed as if they are part of the group that Wired described as wanting to take the show down a peg or two. Highly critical of the tone and even Vince Vaughn's acting. Which I couldn't disagree with more. A.V.Club stated that we finally got to see a glimpse of Vaughn looking comfortable and in his range in the scene in which he crosses the street and talks to the guy his goons just roughed up. Of course (!) that's the first time his character looked comfortable. He is playing a small time hustler and gangster that saved his whole life and tried faking it in a world of millionaires doing legitimate business. He is over his head in not in a world he knows. Fucking people up is what he does. The scene with Colin Farrell when he was a L.A. County Deputy shows that he is a pro at extorting and manipulating people for small time gains. The entire show is built around the murder of a guy who was possible playing him for 7 million dollars! He isn't built for the backdoor deals of LA County/Vinci City corruption.
I really think it's unfair to criticize an anthology series with the prior seasons. There is no connective tissue between season 1 & 2. Therefore it's just a show that bares the same name. They are their own things, separate and unique.
At best one can compare season 2 to other Film Noir and/or L.A. corruption plot movies/shows and/or the pulp mystery genre. I think that's fairer because that's the world season 2 lives in.
All these different reviews (Wired, A.V.Club, ect. ect.) should just be honest and say they wanted a sequel to season 1. They want the rural camera shots, the talks in the car, the slow character build up, the mystery front and center. Then I would take these reviews in a different light. But to beat around that issue and attack the show I feel is a low blow.
If Wired wants a show that is built for their needs go watch Law & Order: SVU. Other wise stfu. You can not say a show is off it's path when it's 1/4th into the story. You have no idea where it's going. Also a reminder that 2 episodes into season 1 critics didn't know what to make of the show. It wasn't until episodes 3-5 that people went ape shit.
Let me get off this soapbox...
Stay tuned for what has accidentally become our first TV review!
Let's look at one of TV's polarizing shows: HBO's True Detective.
Here is a commentary that as shared with the other half The Dark Duo:
editor's note: It is important to note that this is in response to the following article from Wired as well as reviews by the A.V.Club.
I didn't even read the article before I knew I was going to share the same feelings you did about it.
Ironically enough I had just told Payton yesterday, in a long babbling monologue that she probably didn't care for, that I had never disagreed more with a review the A.V.Club had done then there two reviews for episodes 1 &2 of True Detective. It seemed as if they are part of the group that Wired described as wanting to take the show down a peg or two. Highly critical of the tone and even Vince Vaughn's acting. Which I couldn't disagree with more. A.V.Club stated that we finally got to see a glimpse of Vaughn looking comfortable and in his range in the scene in which he crosses the street and talks to the guy his goons just roughed up. Of course (!) that's the first time his character looked comfortable. He is playing a small time hustler and gangster that saved his whole life and tried faking it in a world of millionaires doing legitimate business. He is over his head in not in a world he knows. Fucking people up is what he does. The scene with Colin Farrell when he was a L.A. County Deputy shows that he is a pro at extorting and manipulating people for small time gains. The entire show is built around the murder of a guy who was possible playing him for 7 million dollars! He isn't built for the backdoor deals of LA County/Vinci City corruption.
I really think it's unfair to criticize an anthology series with the prior seasons. There is no connective tissue between season 1 & 2. Therefore it's just a show that bares the same name. They are their own things, separate and unique.
At best one can compare season 2 to other Film Noir and/or L.A. corruption plot movies/shows and/or the pulp mystery genre. I think that's fairer because that's the world season 2 lives in.
All these different reviews (Wired, A.V.Club, ect. ect.) should just be honest and say they wanted a sequel to season 1. They want the rural camera shots, the talks in the car, the slow character build up, the mystery front and center. Then I would take these reviews in a different light. But to beat around that issue and attack the show I feel is a low blow.
If Wired wants a show that is built for their needs go watch Law & Order: SVU. Other wise stfu. You can not say a show is off it's path when it's 1/4th into the story. You have no idea where it's going. Also a reminder that 2 episodes into season 1 critics didn't know what to make of the show. It wasn't until episodes 3-5 that people went ape shit.
Let me get off this soapbox...
Stay tuned for what has accidentally become our first TV review!
No comments:
Post a Comment