Writer John Scalzi wrote an interesting post this week about the varying purposes of criticism (of film, television, games, books, etc.) and how to make sure your criticism is taken seriously (or when to know to ignore it if you are the one under review).
Go ahead, take a few minutes to read it, it's very well written and definitely worth a look. I'll wait.
The whole thing got me thinking once more on a topic that crosses my mind from time to time, and that is that I could probably never be a professional critic, or reviewer even. Why? Because it seems to me that anything I feel is worth writing about is something that I love. You tend to be more forgiving of flaws in that which you love, and willing to give the benefit of the doubt more often than not. Heck, I don't even tend to look at reviews of things that I know I don't actually like (or strongly suspect I won't).*
If I love a show, for example, I will not continue to read reviews by a writer who clearly cannot stand that show and is just enjoying tearing it apart. I can acknowledge, on an academic level, that something I love is stupid and terrible and not very well made. But I will still love it nonetheless. I have no need to experience another's hate for that thing. Now, a well thought out, critical assessment pointing out the flaws objectively, that I can deal with, because I understand that what I enjoy is not necessarily what anyone else enjoys. But plain old vitriol? No, thank you.
I tend to seek out those things that I think I will enjoy, and very rarely am I disappointed that way. (When I am disappointed, the blows always seem to hit pretty hard, however.) If a new show or a film or a book doesn't appeal to me, I usually just don't give it any thought, other than, perhaps, to be annoyed when I have to hear all about it on Facebook the next day. Occasionally I will step out of my comfort zone and give something a try even if I think it looks stupid or just doesn't appeal to me (usually because either someone I trust thinks that I will enjoy it or because there is an actor/writer involved that I generally enjoy). Often, when I do this, I am pleasantly surprised by what I find. I discovered two of my favorite television shows this way--Human Target and Leverage. I had no intention of watching either until I learned of particular bits of casting, and I gave them a try. From this, I know that there is probably a lot out there that I think is stupid but might actually enjoy if I gave it a try.**
But there is just so much out there to read, or to see, or to watch, or to play, or what have you. I can't partake of it all. So I stick with what I am pretty sure I know I will like, and I am content in this way. I trust the universe to play out in a manner such that if there is something I need to experience, I will, eventually. I have learned to walk away when something I love becomes unrecognizable and I no longer enjoy it. That doesn't mean that others who once loved it have stopped as well, though. I may not understand why they would choose continue loving that thing, but I don't need to. They simply do.
We are not all the same. These days, there is something out there for everyone. You might not like what I like, and vice versa. I try to remind myself of this, and not to judge those who like something I consider unworthy.*** To bring it back to Scalzi's post, the bit where he talks about the difference between "I don't like that/I don't understand why you like that" and "Only idiots like that/What's wrong with you, if you like that" really struck a nerve with me. Like I said, I try not to judge others who don't see these things in the same way that I do, but I am not sure I would be able to convey that correctly in writing a review or critique. Because I have found that when I do write about these shows or books or movies, all I want to do is sing their praises. I don't want to talk about the things I didn't like, because for me they are not worth mentioning, unless they ruined the whole thing, and then I just want to talk about that thing at all. There's not much point to that, in my mind. If you've been reading my Stargate rewatch posts, or any of the other reviews on this site (which I try to call "recommendations" rather than reviews, because really, that's what they are), then you've probably noticed they are all mostly lovefests. Sure, there might be things I gripe about here and there, but that is because I enjoy griping about it, and it comes from a place of love.
For me, being a critic would mean setting aside that part of my personality that likes to look at the bright side. I am not a blind fool. I know there is unpleasantness in life, and even in myself at times, but when it comes along I deal with it as best as I can, and try not to burden others with it if at all possible.
Then I find something happy to dwell on instead.
*The exception to this are Flick Filosopher's reviews. I can admit that I sometimes look forward to her reviews of things I suspect I will not like or are stupid, because generally she sees them the same way, and manages to convey as such in a witty and amusing manner.
**Except for reality shows. I maintain that they are inherently stupid and I cannot get behind them.
***This is really hard when it comes to reality shows. I cannot understand how anyone actually enjoys them and I am not sure I want to, because I fear it would make me weep for humanity. Or myself. It disturbs me that I am that much different from, apparently, the rest of the world.
Showing posts with label Leverage. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Leverage. Show all posts
Friday, September 2, 2011
Tuesday, June 28, 2011
New TV Scorecard: Falling Skies
I would pick the week all of the summer shows premiere to go out of town, wouldn't I? Then I came back into town and actually started doing stuff, rather than just sit around and watch television all day. What is this world coming to? Anyway, the DVR backlog that has resulted as of this sudden burst of strange behavior means that I just got around to watching the pilot (and also second episode) of Falling Skies last night.
Wow.
First The Closer, then Leverage, not to mention a few other incredible shows...TNT is really raising the bar for quality television. NBC, Fox, CBS, ABC take note guys, this is how you do television. TNT has got the formula down. They hire incredibly talented actors, one or two who are fairly well known or just familiar faces (in the case of Falling Skies we've got Noah Wyle, Moon Bloodgood, and Colin Cunningham) leading a pack of other incredibly talented actors who are maybe less known but who all work together seamlessly. They keep the seasons short, allowing for tighter storytelling, and they hire competent writers capable of telling a damn good story.
Falling Skies is the kind of show that I think will have broad appeal despite its science fiction trappings, because it is just amazing storytelling. The scifi angle isn't the story, it is just one aspect of it. This is how good scifi is in its natural environment, of course, it's just that most non-fans don't know or believe this because there is such a glut of pure crap out there dressed up in a thin scifi shell.
The show is set in Massachusetts about six months after an alien force arrived on Earth and wiped out 90% of the human population. The intentions of the aliens are not yet known, at least not to the viewer. What is known is that they kill any adults they find and capture any kids. The kids are turned into some sort of slave labor using a parasitic "harness" attached to the spine. The aliens don't seem particularly interested in hunting humans down. They've parked themselves in all of the major cities and built strange ginormous structures that loom over the skyline. They do send out patrol ships over the countryside, but again, they don't seem to be hunting, just taking out what they see and keeping the pesky indigenous species in check.
Flick Filosopher compared Falling Skies to the recent remake of V and to The Walking Dead, stating that it is everything she had hoped those two shows would be and that they failed at utterly. To me it evokes more memories of Jericho, which was another fantastic piece of television, even though it went a little bit off of the rails with the conspiracy theories in the end. Falling Skies has no hint of conspiracy theories so far (thankfully). While, like Jericho, it does pit the occasional group of surviving humans against each other, those conflicts are almost incidental.
Falling Skies is about people. These people are trying to recover some of what they have lost, a sense of security, home, and normalcy. There is resistance to the aliens, yes, it is small but growing. The dynamic between the civilians and the military seems to be headed toward a rocky clash, it seems to be doing so in a natural way, and not in one that will spell out disaster for everyone because the writers decide to beat someone over the head with the stupid stick. But I will be interested in seeing how the "civilians are slowing us down" and the "civilians give us something to fight for" mentalities resolve their inevitable conflict.
My history major self isn't too upset that the main character was a history professor either.
In case you couldn't tell, I absolutely loved this show. I am really looking forward to following these characters and watching their story unfold. The pilot and second episode did an excellent job setting up the primary characters and making me actually care about them. Did we get their life stories? No. Did we get enough that we feel for them and hope they will survive and overcome adversity? Heck yeah. My fingers are crossed that the show continues to build momentum as it has done, answering a few questions here and there but leaving enough suspense to keep things interesting.
If things keep going like they are going, this looks to be an amazing series. Thank you TNT, please, keep it up.
First Impression Rating: 11/10 (No, seriously. It was that good. Also, it gets a bonus point for creative use of Colin Cunningham. He will never just be Major Davis again.)
Wow.
First The Closer, then Leverage, not to mention a few other incredible shows...TNT is really raising the bar for quality television. NBC, Fox, CBS, ABC take note guys, this is how you do television. TNT has got the formula down. They hire incredibly talented actors, one or two who are fairly well known or just familiar faces (in the case of Falling Skies we've got Noah Wyle, Moon Bloodgood, and Colin Cunningham) leading a pack of other incredibly talented actors who are maybe less known but who all work together seamlessly. They keep the seasons short, allowing for tighter storytelling, and they hire competent writers capable of telling a damn good story.
Falling Skies is the kind of show that I think will have broad appeal despite its science fiction trappings, because it is just amazing storytelling. The scifi angle isn't the story, it is just one aspect of it. This is how good scifi is in its natural environment, of course, it's just that most non-fans don't know or believe this because there is such a glut of pure crap out there dressed up in a thin scifi shell.
The show is set in Massachusetts about six months after an alien force arrived on Earth and wiped out 90% of the human population. The intentions of the aliens are not yet known, at least not to the viewer. What is known is that they kill any adults they find and capture any kids. The kids are turned into some sort of slave labor using a parasitic "harness" attached to the spine. The aliens don't seem particularly interested in hunting humans down. They've parked themselves in all of the major cities and built strange ginormous structures that loom over the skyline. They do send out patrol ships over the countryside, but again, they don't seem to be hunting, just taking out what they see and keeping the pesky indigenous species in check.
Flick Filosopher compared Falling Skies to the recent remake of V and to The Walking Dead, stating that it is everything she had hoped those two shows would be and that they failed at utterly. To me it evokes more memories of Jericho, which was another fantastic piece of television, even though it went a little bit off of the rails with the conspiracy theories in the end. Falling Skies has no hint of conspiracy theories so far (thankfully). While, like Jericho, it does pit the occasional group of surviving humans against each other, those conflicts are almost incidental.
Falling Skies is about people. These people are trying to recover some of what they have lost, a sense of security, home, and normalcy. There is resistance to the aliens, yes, it is small but growing. The dynamic between the civilians and the military seems to be headed toward a rocky clash, it seems to be doing so in a natural way, and not in one that will spell out disaster for everyone because the writers decide to beat someone over the head with the stupid stick. But I will be interested in seeing how the "civilians are slowing us down" and the "civilians give us something to fight for" mentalities resolve their inevitable conflict.
My history major self isn't too upset that the main character was a history professor either.
In case you couldn't tell, I absolutely loved this show. I am really looking forward to following these characters and watching their story unfold. The pilot and second episode did an excellent job setting up the primary characters and making me actually care about them. Did we get their life stories? No. Did we get enough that we feel for them and hope they will survive and overcome adversity? Heck yeah. My fingers are crossed that the show continues to build momentum as it has done, answering a few questions here and there but leaving enough suspense to keep things interesting.
If things keep going like they are going, this looks to be an amazing series. Thank you TNT, please, keep it up.
First Impression Rating: 11/10 (No, seriously. It was that good. Also, it gets a bonus point for creative use of Colin Cunningham. He will never just be Major Davis again.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)