Jump to content

Upcoming Television Shows (and general TV chitchat)


Jay

Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, JNHFan2000 said:

I agree. The tone of the series hasn't changed that much. The way we look at the historical events are different because we are so much closer to it than the start of Queen Elizabeth's reign.

 

And the whole thing with Diana was that there was so much coverage on her. It's what got her killed.

 

I saw a set photo of a young William & Kate so they're going pretty far into the future so there must be some timejumps if they're also covering Diana's death.

 

Now I'm curious if they'll go up to the Queen's death.

Exactly! Thanks for saying what I said better and more succinctly than I did lol.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Tom Guernsey said:

Regarding The Crown, my feeling is that the writing didn't get worse in so much that the tone of the show changed to reflect the fact that the royal family and its coverage by the media got more sensationalist and tabloidy. It was all polite, deferential and stately in the beginning but slowly got trashier (as it largely remains) with the younger generation/s.

 

I don't really know how they could have dramatised the whole Charles and Diana thing much better. When you have Liz and Phil having slightly reserved, but private, marriage issues in the 50s, it's much closer to period drama style so it feels more highbrow. However, we know so much more about Charles and Diana (or at least it was much more reported on) and due to the time shift and the nature of the breakup, the tone is significantly different. I just don't really see how they could have avoided it.

 

I've heard similar complaints about The Crown from people of my parents' generation who vividly remember all the Charles and Diana dramas when they happened (even I remember where I was the night Diana died - eating chips with a friend in his car if you must know...). However, they would only have had that superficial, glossy media coverage of the Queen and family when they were younger so there's sufficient detachment from the events depicted in earlier seasons so I think it gives the impression that those early seasons were more "realistic" as there's less reality to compare them to. However, I'd suggest that earlier events like Princess Margaret having an affair with a photographer is presented as a whirlwind romance out of a novel (or something) which feels more serious/highbrow than (say) Diana inviting the surgeon round to her house/palace for crisps and whatever else.

 

 

Of course you may still feel there has been a quality decline in later seasons, but given that the key writers and production people have stayed in place and they haven't run out of source material (not mentioning no Game of Thrones), my feeling is that the tonal shift gives the impression of a different, slightly more tawdry melodrama, but only because the lives of the characters being depicted essentially demanded such a change.

 

 

Very much a "I know what I'm trying to say but don't think I'm putting my point across that well no matter how much I consider it and edit it" post...

 

Thanks for your thoughts, and I agree with a lot of it. I don't really have much of a problem with the Charles/Diana/Camilla storyline - indeed, it was easily the strongest part of Season 5, and despite Dominic West not reaching the highs of Josh O'Connor's portrayal of Charles, Debicki is a powerhouse and their scenes are electric. But everything around that storyline that has dipped in quality. Take the Season 5 opener, Queen Victoria Syndrome, which hamfistedly beats us around the head with the comparisons of the the Royal Yacht to the Queen herself. This kind of metaphor can be effective, but it's employed with a heavy hand and the emotional climax has Elizabeth clumsily making the allegory explicit in the text. It's the kind of hand-holding that the show trusted its audience not to need in the early seasons, and for me it's a disappointing shift in tone. I can't really recall much else of Elizabeth's arc in the season because it was either similiarly clumsy or just not there, which speaks volumes.

 

It's also clear that Morgan has no idea what to do with Philip in this era, giving him a frankly tepid character arc with the carriage restoration and the frustratingly opaque relationship with Lady Romsey. It's a strange choice seeing as they have an actor of Jonathan Pryce's calibre. I understand that Elizabeth and Philip are no longer the sole focus of the show - considering the Diana and Charles-shaped elephant in the room - but given they were such dynamic and compelling characters in earlier seasons it's hard not to be disappointed with their storylines. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Docteur Qui said:

 

Thanks for your thoughts, and I agree with a lot of it. I don't really have much of a problem with the Charles/Diana/Camilla storyline - indeed, it was easily the strongest part of Season 5, and despite Dominic West not reaching the highs of Josh O'Connor's portrayal of Charles, Debicki is a powerhouse and their scenes are electric. But everything around that storyline that has dipped in quality. Take the Season 5 opener, Queen Victoria Syndrome, which hamfistedly beats us around the head with the comparisons of the the Royal Yacht to the Queen herself. This kind of metaphor can be effective, but it's employed with a heavy hand and the emotional climax has Elizabeth clumsily making the allegory explicit in the text. It's the kind of hand-holding that the show trusted its audience not to need in the early seasons, and for me it's a disappointing shift in tone. I can't really recall much else of Elizabeth's arc in the season because it was either similiarly clumsy or just not there, which speaks volumes.

 

It's also clear that Morgan has no idea what to do with Philip in this era, giving him a frankly tepid character arc with the carriage restoration and the frustratingly opaque relationship with Lady Romsey. It's a strange choice seeing as they have an actor of Jonathan Pryce's calibre. I understand that Elizabeth and Philip are no longer the sole focus of the show - considering the Diana and Charles-shaped elephant in the room - but given they were such dynamic and compelling characters in earlier seasons it's hard not to be disappointed with their storylines. 

I had forgotten about some aspects of the prior seasons in fairness; it seems to be the Charles and Diana stuff that most complaints have focussed about when it comes to style/tone hence why I particularly raised and mentioned it. However, I concede that some of the metaphor is pretty heavy handed as you note. I guess the issue with Liz and Phil is that ultimately they are quite boring (or too unknowable to effectively dramatise) so, from a story perspective, they are effectively bit players in the bigger dramas happening to everyone else. I don't really know how their stories could have been more interesting portrayed in later stages, but I agree that they have got less compelling. Maybe that's the point; they just became middle aged/old and their lives stagnated (to the extent possible when you're head of state and live in a palace...).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Tom Guernsey said:

I had forgotten about some aspects of the prior seasons in fairness; it seems to be the Charles and Diana stuff that most complaints have focussed about when it comes to style/tone hence why I particularly raised and mentioned it. However, I concede that some of the metaphor is pretty heavy handed as you note. I guess the issue with Liz and Phil is that ultimately they are quite boring (or too unknowable to effectively dramatise) so, from a story perspective, they are effectively bit players in the bigger dramas happening to everyone else. I don't really know how their stories could have been more interesting portrayed in later stages, but I agree that they have got less compelling. Maybe that's the point; they just became middle aged/old and their lives stagnated (to the extent possible when you're head of state and live in a palace...).

 

You make some great points, like the fact they're reaching a more reflective age, but I will disagree that the real figures are too unknowable for dramatic storytelling. The whole show is as much speculative fiction as it is historical, and they've invented so many character traits and plots that I don't think it's a stretch to expect some interesting drama from Liz and Phil. Colman as Liz got some tremendous scenes: from her rapport with Thatcher to her arguments with the young and hot-headed Charles; as did Foy and Smith. All of those encounters likely happened very differently in reality (or not at all) but the show presented them very compellingly. Those kinds of scenes now seem to sit solely with Charles and Diana, and the show is weaker for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I haven't seen the Frasier reboot and doubt I will, but Paramount accidentally uploaded a clip of the first episode before the extra canned laughter was added, where you can only hear the tepid response from the in-studio audience.  Pretty sad

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought it started out pretty good and with this last episode seems to be hitting it's stride. I have high hopes. Roz is coming back this season and I figure others will show up in later seasons. Obviously David Hyde Pierce would be the 900 pound gorilla. But Frasier went 10 years in Boston without seeing much of his family once. He might do it again.

 

David (Niles and Daphne's boy) is the weakest character as of yet but they might figure out what to do with him yet. Freddie is pretty good. Frasier's Harvard colleagues are my favorites so far.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Tallguy said:

I thought it started out pretty good and with this last episode seems to be hitting it's stride. I have high hopes. Roz is coming back this season and I figure others will show up in later seasons. Obviously David Hyde Pierce would be the 900 pound gorilla. But Frasier went 10 years in Boston without seeing much of his family once. He might do it again.

 

David (Niles and Daphne's boy) is the weakest character as of yet but they might figure out what to do with him yet. Freddie is pretty good. Frasier's Harvard colleagues are my favorites so far.

The first couple of episodes definitely had a lot of setup which wasn't that funny, but then the first few episodes of most comedies aren't as funny until they get going. Plot and setup just aren't funny, you need to know the dynamics and foibles before the characters come into their own. I did think the rationale for Freddy living with Frasier was impressively unconvincing and needlessly convoluted though... could he not just have been dumped by his girlfriend or something easy? Frasier's more overt wealth felt a bit odd to me too. He was clearly rich in the original show, but it was demonstrated through his tastes and interests than him actually saying it out loud.

 

Then again, by the third episode, we thought it was genuinely hilarious at times... as someone with a partner who went to Cambridge who "doesn't like to mention it" the running gag with Harvard replacing Cambridge was especially on point for me. Agree on David to some extent, he seems like more of an appendage character than a crucial central character. I'm definitely willing to give it the benefit of the doubt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Netflkx just uploaded the first episode of a new animated series on YouTube. 

It releases in full on Netflix and I'm looking forward to seeing it.

 

Has this ever done before a series releases?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Brónach said:

i hope it's great bc i love these planes

 

It looks a little CGI-slick for my taste, I prefer the grainy, dirty look of Band of Brothers (which of course borrowed from SPR). But it's 2024, and this is just what big budget TV looks like, so hopefully the script (based on the phenomenal book) is solid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, JNHFan2000 said:

First trailer for the live action The Last Airbender. 

Release: February 22nd

 

 

Some iffy greenscreen/volume notwithstanding, this looks visually great. Hopefully the scripts and actors can (and are allowed to) perform.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, JNHFan2000 said:

First trailer for the live action The Last Airbender. 

Release: February 22nd

 

 

 

Well. I recognized everything in it. That's gotta mean something, yeah? (I could probably say the same about Cowboy Bebop...)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Nick1Ø66 said:

 

This, Shogun, HoTD & Curb is all the TV I need for 2024.

Curb, Fallout, 3 Body Problem, HOTD and Masters of the Air for me! Also Severance if that gets released next year.

On 7/11/2023 at 2:54 PM, Jay said:

Hope it’s not the last one!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Severance 2 has to come out next year, and probably early in it. They were 90% done filming when the strike started. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 10/11/2023 at 2:24 PM, Jay said:

Severance 2 has to come out next year, and probably early in it. They were 90% done filming when the strike started. 

 

Eagerly waiting for that one. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.