Why I love the shows I love.

[deird_lj]

I was just thinking about my favourite tv shows and the moment I first realised I was going to love them.

Surprisingly, they were actually all quite similar. Although... not.


The List

Firefly: when Mal kicked the evil guy through the ship's engine.

Frasier: the "flashback episode"... that turned out not to be a standard flashback episode, because modern-day Frasier and Niles were inside it, looking at early-years Frasier and Niles, and commenting on them.

Buffy the Vampire Slayer: the moment Spike appeared and started talking about Woodstock.

NCIS: when they kidnapped a body from the FBI (by bluffing really well) so that they'd have jurisdiction over it.

Farscape: when the episode's teaser ended with "I demand... one of your Pilot's arms!" *dramatic music* - and I was sure the episode was going to be about the moral dilemma of do-we-cut-off-the-Pilot's-arm-or-not-hmm-we-must-think-about-this-deeply-and-moralise... but, two minutes later, they CUT HIS ARM OFF, and the rest of the episode was about something else.



I like many shows. For many reasons. But the thing that makes me grin and love them is when they start surprising me. When I can see the standard tv moment that's about to happen - and then something else happens instead. When a show about gothic, dramatic vampires turns out to be more interested in punk vampires who roll their eyes at the rules. When it's suddenly not what I thought it was, and I suddenly don't know everything.

I love that.

Comments

[ohwaluvusbab.livejournal.com]

when they kidnapped a body from the FBI (by bluffing really well) so that they'd have jurisdiction over it.

Ah yes, good times XD

I pretty much agree with your assessment.

That Farscape thing sounds hysterical. Must watch more of that show...

[deird1]

Farscape really is wonderful. It's worth watching - but only if you're willing to commit to seeing the whole thing...

[ohwaluvusbab.livejournal.com]

Oh, I'm a committee. Just have *so many other shows to watch* like eilowyn...

[deird1]

Oh, me too. I still haven't watched all the dvds I own - and yet somehow, I keep on buying more...

[eilowyn.livejournal.com]

I feel like such a sheep. I watch what smart people on my f-list tell me to watch. So, simply by cutting off a guy's arm, Farscape is officially on my "what I need to watch" list. I've almost got Supernatural down, next up is Who, and I've been given permission by various friends to start with the eleventh Doctor. Then Being Human, and Farscape.

[rebcake.livejournal.com]

Your list is giving you excellent advice. I might add Veronica Mars to the list. Although it's not science fiction, her preternatural intelligence makes up for it.

[eilowyn.livejournal.com]

Done and done. VM was last summer's big discovery, where I jumped up and down whenever a Whedonverse alum (or Whedon himself) had a cameo, and I decided I wanted to be Veronica Mars when I grow up.

[immer-am-lesen.livejournal.com]

...of course, I'll tell you now that Pilot is not human.
Which actually makes it worse, really.
Poor Pilot. :-(

[a2zmom.livejournal.com]

For me that happened in the first 15 minutes of Buffy. I didn't know any of the actors, so I expected that opening scene to end with the guy killing the poor helpless girl or the girl turning out to be Buffy and staking the guy. I did not at all expect what actually happened.

Mal kicking that guy into the engine was a total Hans Solo moment.

[deird1]

The start of Buffy really was brilliant. :)

[shipperx.livejournal.com]

Farscape: when the episode's teaser ended with "I demand... one of your Pilot's arms!" *dramatic music* - and I was sure the episode was going to be about the moral dilemma of do-we-cut-off-the-Pilot's-arm-or-not-hmm-we-must-think-about-this-deeply-and-moralise... but, two minutes later, they CUT HIS ARM OFF, and the rest of the episode was about something else.

Poor Pilot. He was, quite understandably, hella pissed off.

[deird1]

*loves your icon*

[roccondilrinon.livejournal.com]

I'll add a few more:

M*A*S*H: "Sometimes You Hear The Bullet".

Doctor Who (old series): "Logopolis" (first one I saw) or "Inferno" (earliest chronologically).

Yes Minister: The one with the President of Buranda.

Doctor Who (new series): "The Empty Child".

I have to agree with your Buffy and Firefly moments.

JL rambles on and on... Part 1 about movies

[jl-in-the-lane.livejournal.com]

I started this comment the other day and then the computer DELETED IT and now I've decided I still want to say it.

SO, I really like these thoughts. It had me thinking about my shows... although I'd already been thinking about why I like them.

I was thinking abvout this because, back when I used to go to the movies reasonably often, I was quite happy to see a variety of films. Whereas, these days, I go about twice a year. And I find I just can't be bothered with most of them any more. It's like, "This is going to be my movie experience for the next 6 months, so if it doesn't fulfil these exact criteria, I'm not interested."

Specifically, it has to be
1) funny
2) exciting - as in, interesting enough to keep me interested
3) cinematically flashy enough to make it worth going to see on the big screen.

This cuts out:
- anything that is going to be sad, or thoughtful;
- most romantic comedies
- most movies that are not kinda whiz-bangy.

Here's what fits this list (ok, this is kind of made up of moviees I've seen over the past 10 years that would still fit these criteria):
- Ocean's 11 (first one)
- Pirates of the C (first one)
- Intolerable Cruelty
- Harry Potter
- Ironman
- Sherlock Holmes
- Burn After Reading
- Inside Man
- Love Actually
and I wish I'd seen Death At A Funeral at the movies.
That's pretty much it. The End.

Seriously, I used to think of myself as someone who was into thought-provoking stuff. Or romantic comedies. Or stuff that was a bit emotional. Or even your blockbusters that weren't terribly witty or intriguing.
But, these days, I just can't be bothered with them...

JL rambles on and on... Part 2 About Shows and Characters

[jl-in-the-lane.livejournal.com]

Anyway, I'm also much more selective about my shows in a similar way. These days, I watch fewer shows, because I just can't be bothered with most of them any more.

So I was thinking about the shows I'm into and have been into in the past. And it's very different criteria from yours, because I can't think of any particular plot events that made me go, "COOL."

(BTW, that arm cutting off thing is seriously awesome.)

Here are the shows that spring to mind when I think about 'My Shows':
(and I'm bolding the ones I got properly obsessed by - as in, I'd spend mental energy on them while not actually watching them)

Two half hour sketch shows (I was properly nuts, so I'm going to include them):
- I'm Sorry I'll Read That Again
- Monty Python

Two half hour sitcoms:
- Red Dwarf (Rimmer, and Rimmer-Lister (as opposed to R/L))
- The Big Bang Theory (Sheldon, and Sheldon/Penny)

Three Hour Dramas:
- NCIS (briefly - Tony/Kate, so I gave up when she died)
- The Practice / Boston Legal (specifically, Alan Shore, and Alan/Tara, and Alan-Denny)
- House (House, and House/Cuddy)

plus a couple of ones like
- Hustle
- Burn Notice
that I watch occasionally but don't think about at any other time

and my current fixation
- The Daily Show - well, only the parts with Jon Stewart, really, particularly the bits where he talks to Stephen Colbert... and any Even Stevphen bits with Steve Carell and Stephen Colbert... and the any bits involving STEPHEN COLBERT, OH, THAT WONDERFUL MAN, which is why I *really* like The Colbert Report which cuts out all those annoying other people and just has HIM for Half An Hour with only the occasional interruption by some tiresome guest, YAY.

Ahem. *drags self back to earth*

The reason I ended up on the movies tangent was because I think my criteria for shows tend to be similar. i.e. for me to be interested, it has to be Interesting, which usually means some sort of mystery / con job to keep me interested for an hour. Or, it has to be a half hour sitcom / show that is funny enough to keep me entertained.

But to get me HOOKED, it has to have
1) a very cheeky sense of humour
2) a character for me to fall madly in love with.
i.e. Rimmer, Alan Shore, House, Sheldon, and Colbert.

In each case,

1) the character as written sounds DREADFUL, and many viewers are disbelieving that anyone could find them attractive or feel any sympathy for them at all;

2) BUT the actor brings a sweetness to thir portrayal that makes you love them despite their outrageous behaviour AND

3) a depth of characterisation that indicates personal angst and pain and history and longing and irony that makes you understand what might cause their behaviour (and to which I usually strongly relate)

4) AND this brilliant characterisation means that the character gradually shapes the show around themselves because the writers enjoy exploring them and giving them growth and stuff

5) PLUS, there's always someone else with whom they have magnificent chemistry and those scenes are the best. It's usually arguments with a bit of flirting thrown in.

I find it interesting that all the shows I've gone bananas about have this one character that I'm set on...

... and the shows I'm not 'besotted with' but just 'like', don't have a stand-out character like that. And so I end up watching with one eye - like NCIS. Or, I was into Burn Notice, but the characters aren't engaging enough these days to get me interested enough to spend my brain on the plot.

And there are other shows where it's the opposite, because I'm wildly into Ten, and Donna, and the Master - but not enough into the overall show to keep concentrating for full shows. Not quite enough my style to be worth the mental energy investment. I'd be happy with the character bits but ignoring all the other stuff.

[deird1]

1) the character as written sounds DREADFUL, and many viewers are disbelieving that anyone could find them attractive or feel any sympathy for them at all;

2) BUT the actor brings a sweetness to thir portrayal that makes you love them despite their outrageous behaviour AND

3) a depth of characterisation that indicates personal angst and pain and history and longing and irony that makes you understand what might cause their behaviour (and to which I usually strongly relate)

4) AND this brilliant characterisation means that the character gradually shapes the show around themselves because the writers enjoy exploring them and giving them growth and stuff

5) PLUS, there's always someone else with whom they have magnificent chemistry and those scenes are the best. It's usually arguments with a bit of flirting thrown in.

Oooh... Fascinating...

(Wesley from AtS would completely fit in with this definition. You have no idea.)

[jl-in-the-lane.livejournal.com]

Glad you like it. It was quite interesting lining all my boys up and noting the similarities.

Jack Sparrow is right up there, too.
And it's why I love Ten and the Master and Ten/Donna, even though I'm not into DW so much (although not quite, because The Dr doesn't sound DREADFUL, exactly).


And I'll be soppy and note that Matt kinda fits this, too. Sorta. :)

[jl-in-the-lane.livejournal.com]

BTW, I think that's why I like your list but I'm still not interested in watching the shows.

- I enjoy the humour and the interaction between some of the characters
- but they seem removed enough from my style that I wouldn't maintain concentration on the plots; AND / OR
- there's no one character that grabs me so hard to get me really relating to what's going on.

What do you make of my reasons for my shows? I'm interested to see your take on my rationale and also your reactions to those shows, because I'm sure I've inflicted them on you if you're not otherwise familiar with any of them...

What I still can't work out is whether there were specific MOMENTS of realisation about my shows. I think there may have been, but I wish I could remember... I love that you know yours.

[deird1]

So, looking at your shows...

- I'm Sorry I'll Read That Again
- Monty Python

- Red Dwarf (Rimmer, and Rimmer-Lister (as opposed to R/L))
- The Big Bang Theory (Sheldon, and Sheldon/Penny)

- NCIS (briefly - Tony/Kate, so I gave up when she died)
- The Practice / Boston Legal (specifically, Alan Shore, and Alan/Tara, and Alan-Denny)
- House (House, and House/Cuddy)

- Hustle
- Burn Notice

- The Daily Show

You seem to have several that don't fit your requirements for getting HOOKED. Like Monty Python, or NCIS. Why do you like them?


I agree with your reasoning as far as House goes - that's exactly why I watch it too. (Ditto for Boston Legal.)

With NCIS, there's no one character who's like that, but that's because, to a certain extent, the entire cast is like that. They're all unorthodox, and quirky, and surprisingly sweet, and capable of some extremely entertaining arguments. I get the same stuff out of watching NCIS and House - and tend to like them both for the same reasons.

You seem to be a very ONE TRUE CHARACTER person, from the way you were describing it. Which I find quite fascinating. I don't think like that at all. (Or... very rarely, anyway.)


So, if a show was going to be a perfect show for you in every way EXCEPT for having this one awesome character... what would that show be like?

[jl-in-the-lane.livejournal.com]

I agree with your reasoning as far as House goes - that's exactly why I watch it too. (Ditto for Boston Legal.)

With NCIS, there's no one character who's like that, but that's because, to a certain extent, the entire cast is like that. They're all unorthodox, and quirky, and surprisingly sweet, and capable of some extremely entertaining arguments. I get the same stuff out of watching NCIS and House - and tend to like them both for the same reasons.

You seem to have several that don't fit your requirements for getting HOOKED. Like Monty Python, or NCIS. Why do you like them?

Well, I put in Monty Python because I was a bit mental about it at one point there. It has everything going for it as far as humour and actors are concerned - I just didn't quite fixate on one particular actor. I flirted with the idea of Michael Palin quite a lot though - I tended to rewatch his scenes over and over. There's one where he's being seduced by Terry Jones, for instance...

As for NCIS, I was all excited about Tony/Kate, and then she left and I didn't warm to Ziva when she started, and I'd been watching just long enough to feel bored with it.

And I feel like it was about the same time I got into Boston Legal - at stage I was watching a LOT of tv. I used to watch CSI and CSI Miami and Law and Order at that time and all sorts of other stuff...

And then I got into House and all that went out the window.

And now I just can't be bothered with any of it.

I've gotten back into it a bit now. I agree with your assessment of NCIS. I'm attached to them all. I like the show. Same as I like Burn Notice. But somehow I can't be bothered watching *properly* these days. Because Stephen Colbert clips are RIGHT THERE, online, whenever I want them... so I sort of sit there with the computer on my knee and have the show on but don't really involve my brain in the plots so much.

Here's the thing - House got stuffed by changing in Season 4 from a 4-act structure to a 6-act structure. As a result, each episode is much more bitsy and you don't get to care about the storylines so much. As a result, I stopped caring about individual patients each week and only really watching for the character stuff.

I just feel like I can't be bothered engaging with plots any more. Heck, I can't even concentrate for HOUSE, unless it's a special enough episode (i.e. major character stuff) that I'm watching it completely unspoiled, in which case I'll sit there AGOG.

Whereas I could probably concentrate for a whole episode of Hustle, partly because I haven't seen enough episodes for the plots to feel... too familiar? And it's all about con jobs, so you know you HAVE to watch carefully. That's the whole reason I like that show.

[jl-in-the-lane.livejournal.com]

You seem to be a very ONE TRUE CHARACTER person, from the way you were describing it. Which I find quite fascinating. I don't think like that at all. (Or... very rarely, anyway.)

Yeeeeesss... although I think that's partly a combination of 'Into Ripper Writing' and being a 'One True Portrayal' person. I think it's to do with being a playwright and a drama teacher - I find myself very focussed on the way the character is constructed.

If I want to rave about stuff, it tends to be:

- how magnificent that actor is in portraying X
- the chemistry with That Other Person
- how I see that character / storyline being developed over time by the writers.

I tend to be especially interested in what's happening with a character / relationship over a long time, hence my ongoing Theories About What Should Happen To All The Characters On House. I don't tend to think about the plots of particular episodes especially, except inasmuch as they each contribute at an overall level. I currently keep wanting to make a post about "Why Sheldon And Penny Will Need To Get Romantic And How House And Cuddy Will Get Together As Proven By Ron and Hermione In Harry Potter."

And I do lots of ranting about how well that actor plays that role.

And I keep meaning to do a post about Why I Love The Ships I Love - but, basically, it's always a pairing that no one expected, with two actors that are just so in tune with each other, they pull the show around them. None of them were set up like that originally. Again, my focus really deals with the way those scenes are constructed and what makes them WORK. I LOVE watching people just work well together.

I was beside myself, briefly, over Whose Line Is It Anyway - specifically Colin and Ryan and their ability to act together. I just loved watching them interact.


Go on - do you have any OTCs, then?


So, if a show was going to be a perfect show for you in every way EXCEPT for having this one awesome character... what would that show be like?

Hustle is a pretty good example, because con artists tickle my brain in just the right place, but I haven't attached to any of the characters. I love Ocean's 11, and it doesn't have an OTC in it (although it has George, and I love George, and it has George-Brad which is AWESOME and so it comes close to fulfilling all the criteria but George isn't quite an OTC in this one).

As opposed to PotC, which has Jack, or Sherlock Holmes which has RDJ (and whom you HAVE to watch - for crying out loud, SEE IRONMAN. NOW. YOU WOULD LOVE IT SO MUCH.) - who are definitely OTCs.

Well, here's one I forgot to mention: Blackadder. LOVE IT. Originally I was specifically attached to George, but these days I'm really not. I just love all of them. I am besotted with Hugh Laurie AND Rowan Atkinson, but I'm quite potty about all of them, really (except Nursie. Not into Nursie.). And they are quite tightly written and intelligent and naughty and farcical. I LOVE farce. I think that's why I'm into half-hour sitcoms, to the extent that they are often farcical in nature.

But there is NO character development in Blackadder at all, is there?

I think the question is more, Can a show sustain my enthusiasm without a particular character to hang my heart on? I'm not sure that it can.

Here's my current theory: I reckon shows can do three seasons on their own merits, and then characters take over. And, at that point, I think you need to decide where the show and the characters are heading and how you're going to get there. And you need to hook the audience into those stories. And I reckon you can get another 4-5 seasons out of the show and then it's DONE. Everything is ALL about Harry Potter. All of it. :)

[deird1]

I currently keep wanting to make a post about "Why Sheldon And Penny Will Need To Get Romantic And How House And Cuddy Will Get Together As Proven By Ron and Hermione In Harry Potter."

Ooh. Please do. I'll comment all over it...


Go on - do you have any OTCs, then?

Hmm... Harvey? Abby Sciuto? Bruce Campbell in everything ever?

Basically, people who are rather nutty, and very positive.