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

[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.