TV Thread

A forum for creative people.

Re: TV Thread

Postby Garrett Gilchrist » Mon Apr 25, 2016 9:04 pm

User avatar
Garrett Gilchrist
Site Admin
 
Posts: 6009
Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2013 1:23 am

Re: TV Thread

Postby JustinHoskie » Mon May 02, 2016 2:34 pm

RIP, Peter Thomas. Thank you for the countless hours of entertainment and for making Forensic Files what it was. You voice was a major part of my childhood and I will be forever grateful for it. http://www.naplesnews.com/news/local/fa ... 01571.html

Forensic Files - Season 1, Ep 12: "The List Murders"
"In 1971, John List left a note with the bodies of his mother, wife and three children in his mansion ballroom right before he disappeared. Eighteen years later, all detectives had to work from is an outdated photograph of List. America's Most Wanted commissioned an age-scaled bust of List to help viewers in identifying the confessed murderer."

Forensic Files - Season 4, Ep 11: Haunting Vision"
"Lori Keidel, her two sisters and her brother were left home alone while their father went to a nearby laundromat. Suddenly, a large fire engulfed their brick ranch home. Only a few months earlier, the children's mother had disappeared and made no effort to contact them. Lori found the courage to tell police that she had witnessed her own mother's death."

Forensic Files - Season 7, Ep 23: Cold Storage"
"The 1987 disappearance of Tracy Jo Shine is recalled. The investigation went cold until 2000, when a special cold case squad discovered that the woman's ex-boyfriend had bragged about killing her. "
User avatar
JustinHoskie
 
Posts: 351
Joined: Tue Jul 02, 2013 11:07 pm

Re: TV Thread

Postby Garrett Gilchrist » Sun May 08, 2016 1:48 pm

I loved Daredevil season 1 but haven't been able to finish season 2, as they embrace the street-level fascism that The Punisher (and a Batman like character like Daredevil) represents. Feels like it was written by a 12 year old, or Frank Miller. So, comic accurate, but not in a way I'm comfortable with.
User avatar
Garrett Gilchrist
Site Admin
 
Posts: 6009
Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2013 1:23 am

Re: TV Thread

Postby Garrett Gilchrist » Fri May 13, 2016 10:28 pm

http://www.slashfilm.com/rocky-horror-p ... irst-look/

Bad. And betraying a lack of knowledge about the material.

And I'm not even a Rocky Horror fan.

There's a generation gap problem here too, in that the original film was making fun of cultural norms that no longer exist. It was based on watching monster movies on black and white TV -- a form of cheap television which no longer exists either.

It was rebelling against something which younger audiences wouldn't even recognize now.

The characters originally looked a bit macabre, daring conservative America to find fault with them. Riff Raff's look recalled that of a horror film's butler. These looks weren't blow dried and focus grouped. They dared to be messy, like putting on heavy makeup for a horror play or a party, and getting sweat and eventually pool water all over it.

It certainly functioned as a flare gun shooting up for anyone "queer" or sympathetic to same to gather together and be silly. I'd say it's served its purpose by now but at the time ...!

These kids just look "fashionable" in an ugly Disney Channel way rather than Halloween-y and different from what you'd see on the street. You could see these looks onstage from some current crappy musical group.

It doesn't differentiate anyone from Brad and Janet's conservativism. It's not outrageous. It looks like the idea of "fashion" of someone like Noel Fielding or Russell Brand.

O'Brien was saying, in effect, that when watching monster movies he could identify with the monsters, since he didn't feel like he fit in with conservative society either - that they'd hate and fear him and what he considers fun. That's 100% lost here, with these "straight from the mall" looks.

There's an update to be made, focusing on today's battle between conservative values and those who are proud to be different than that. This is not that update.

And they've already done a "Rocky Horror" set in a TV studio that's not overtly about being outrageously, defiantly queer.

It's called "Shock Treatment" and it bombed for that exact reason.

It's also, from what we've seen so far, a whole lot better than this.

I haven't watched any of these live events, and I've been bemused by them happening at all. We could be reinventing the musical for TV using all the tricks film production has now. Instead we look backward to create weirdly hokey stuff for the kids and grandma. Peter Pan in particular seemed very odd to me from what I saw, almost trainwreck TV.

These events are aimed at the sort of people who watch American Idol (and similar) ... and they're old-fashioned and unforgivably corny in an eerily modern way.

On Broadway, "Hamilton" is happening, and you're doing "The Sound of Music" live like it's 1965. And "Grease," like it's the 80s but you're obsessed with 1961.

Seems like every decade, television works overtime to reintroduce really ancient tropes and ideas as if they're new and thrilling. Somehow it's always the 1950s on TV. Happy days indeed ...

This also muddies the issue of the original show's idea of LGBT labels ... now dated a bit. Despite coming from "[planet] Transsexual Transylvania" the movie characters don't seem to be trans. Tim Curry's Frank plays as gay or bi (and genderfluid?) ...

For Laverne Cox to play the role, it's basically gender swapping, and requires a different subtext, a different kind of defiant sexuality. Which could be very 2016, the fight that's going on now. It could work, I'd have to see, but in general this doesn't look good.

For a long time, it was so common for villains to be coded as gay ... still is to an extent. So O'Brien was riffing off of films like Bride of Frankenstein, and saying, be outrageous, be their idea of a "monster, " but be yourself.

Times change and we're at the point where so much of the cultural context of the original show/film is lost. So what's even the point of doing it this way?

Even just the monster-movie context ... I ran into this problem when trying to explain MST3K to someone a bit younger. It's odd to have to explain that as late as the 80s, during daytime, you'd get these cheap old movies on TV, and also kid's show hosts showing cartoons with puppets and so on. TV's not like that now.

And you generally watched the networks and a few syndication channels rather than cable. Or run off antenna where you only got a couple stations, like everyone did in the seventies and maybe eighties.

So you'd actually watch this stuff. You'd have a knob with maybe thirteen channels on it, and maybe some other controls to find UHF stations and higher numbers. I had to fiddle with a dozen plastic gears to get MTV on my old TV.  

Not like that now ... being on a network, or a syndicated station with a low channel number like 9, doesn't mean what it did.
User avatar
Garrett Gilchrist
Site Admin
 
Posts: 6009
Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2013 1:23 am

Re: TV Thread

Postby filmfan94 » Tue May 17, 2016 10:36 pm

Orson Welles on the Dean Martin Show around the time he was making Chimes at Midnight:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VJ6v7GHYDbM
User avatar
filmfan94
 
Posts: 208
Joined: Fri May 24, 2013 6:26 pm

Re: TV Thread

Postby Garrett Gilchrist » Tue May 17, 2016 11:46 pm

Hearing "The Big Bang Theory" from a few feet away, and wishing I wasn't. The joke in this episode is that nerds don't watch television or know who actors are. [AUDIENCE LAUGHTER]
User avatar
Garrett Gilchrist
Site Admin
 
Posts: 6009
Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2013 1:23 am

Re: TV Thread

Postby Garrett Gilchrist » Tue Aug 02, 2016 1:27 pm

User avatar
Garrett Gilchrist
Site Admin
 
Posts: 6009
Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2013 1:23 am

Re: TV Thread

Postby JustinHoskie » Fri Aug 19, 2016 5:29 pm

I miss William Ivey Long's costumes, but my god I can't wait. https://youtu.be/CZ7K0sbmIKk
User avatar
JustinHoskie
 
Posts: 351
Joined: Tue Jul 02, 2013 11:07 pm

Re: TV Thread

Postby Garrett Gilchrist » Sat Aug 20, 2016 5:14 pm

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B01J776HVW/

A surprisingly serious, grim and gritty reboot of the cartoony "Tick." Not entirely sure what to think about that, but it definitely has potential. It's written and run by The Tick's creator, Ben Edlund, so if that's what he wants to explore, then fine.

The cartoon show was for FOX Kids, so it was always going to be cartoony and light - though actually more realistic than your average superhero cartoon. Although certainly a "superhero spoof," it showed the contrast between that and "normal people" like Arthur, the superhero-obsessed accountant. The live-action show was also cartoony and felt a little embarrassing. It's hard to make that work in live action. Its heart was in the right place and I wish it had run much longer. Both series specifically spoofed heroes like Wonder Woman and Batman (Bat-Manuel, a scene-stealing Nestor Carbonell). Patrick Warburton was great casting and could easily have returned here.

The new "Tick" is comedian Peter Serafinowicz, from "Look Around You," "Shaun of the Dead" and his own show. A great voice actor, he handles the character like the pro he is. The costume is overly detailed and ugly-looking, though it does suit the tone of the show. We don't get the big-chinned, always enthusiastic Tick of the cartoon show, but he's still a beaming ray of light for the show when he shows up. Someone described it as dropping The Tick into Nolan's Gotham City, which is fair enough.

I've only read some of the comics, which started in 1986. Like the "Ninja Turtles" and other small creator-owned comics at the time, it was partly a black and white spoof of Frank Miller's run on "Daredevil." And this pilot could almost fit in the dark world of Netflix's "Daredevil," though the tone is just a little lighter, more like Barry Sonnenfeld's "Men In Black." (Sonnenfeld produced the previous live action "Tick.")

From what I have read of the comics, there's always been a certain mystery about the "Tick." He has no clear backstory, seems to come from nowhere, and may simply be insane (an escaped mental patient) - but invulnerably so. That much, at least, comes across clearly here. The pilot also toys with the idea that the Tick is a figment of Arthur's imagination. He wouldn't be, but this Arthur is a bit mentally ill, traumatized with PTSD from losing his father to creepy villain The Terror. That's Oscar nominee Jackie Earle Haley, a master at playing villains, so they're not going for jokes here. In a flashback to "twenty years ago" (which looks more like fifty years ago), he kills a Fantastic Four-type super team.

So Arthur and the rest of the world are handled pretty seriously, coming off like in a drama, though we also see that there is a colorful world of superheroes lurking in other cities and in this world. This is not a city stuffed with goofy, spoofy heroes, as in the other "Tick" series and comics. But given a full series budget we would presumably see a more "realistic" take on a world of heroes, possibly spoofing superhero films as they are today.

We do see how this all started with a "Superman" type hero (Superian), though in these sorts of stories he could well turn out to be a villain. Superian's introduction and interview with Whoopi Goldberg borders on incoherent in the way it's shot and edited, and in general the pilot struggles a little with its TV budget. But it's comparable enough to a show like Daredevil, and for a more "realistic" take on the comedic hero this pilot hits a lot of the right notes. I voted for it on Amazon. I'd like to see where this could go.
User avatar
Garrett Gilchrist
Site Admin
 
Posts: 6009
Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2013 1:23 am

Re: TV Thread

Postby Garrett Gilchrist » Fri Sep 16, 2016 4:41 am

User avatar
Garrett Gilchrist
Site Admin
 
Posts: 6009
Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2013 1:23 am

PreviousNext

Return to The Big Round Room

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest