OT: Let's talk about movies (and TV shows)... Part XIX

[Laurentide]

BCS is the king of the so-called "slow burn" and the reason people stick with it through those episodes that don't seem to go anywhere fast is the confidence they have in Gilligan to make it worth the wait. He didn't disappoint with Breaking Bad and he won't here either.

For me, what I want and need from any show with a long story arc is closure. I don't need the ending to be "happy", but I need an ending. I need closure. What I cannot abide are shows like the Sopranos who cop out at the end and don't give you that ultimate satisfaction. I didn't need to know how the rest of Tony's life turned out but I did need to know if, in that final scene, he left the diner in his car or in a coroner's meat wagon. We the viewers were owed at least that much after 7 years. Breaking Bad's finale gave the viewer closure and I've no doubt that BCS will also.

One of my favourite shows of recent years was the British series "Life on Mars" (not the cheesy US remake) and its sequel series "Ashes to Ashes". You want closure? You get closure. The ending of Life on Mars was great and if a sequel had never happened I would have been fine with how it wrapped up. But the way the sequel ended really blew me away because it answered all the questions and tied both shows up with a bow. It wasn't necessarily a "happy" ending, but it was an immensely satisfying one.

 

[Grate n Colorful Oz]

Started watching the weed cooking show on Netflix. Everything seems half baked

 

[Grate n Colorful Oz]

BCS is the king of the so-called "slow burn" and the reason people stick with it through those episodes that don't seem to go anywhere fast is the confidence they have in Gilligan to make it worth the wait. He didn't disappoint with Breaking Bad and he won't here either.

For me, what I want and need from any show with a long story arc is closure. I don't need the ending to be "happy", but I need an ending. I need closure. What I cannot abide are shows like the Sopranos who cop out at the end and don't give you that ultimate satisfaction. I didn't need to know how the rest of Tony's life turned out but I did need to know if, in that final scene, he left the diner in his car or in a coroner's meat wagon. We the viewers were owed at least that much after 7 years. Breaking Bad's finale gave the viewer closure and I've no doubt that BCS will also.

One of my favourite shows of recent years was the British series "Life on Mars" (not the cheesy US remake) and its sequel series "Ashes to Ashes". You want closure? You get closure. The ending of Life on Mars was great and if a sequel had never happened I would have been fine with how it wrapped up. But the way the sequel ended really blew me away because it answered all the questions and tied both shows up with a bow. It wasn't necessarily a "happy" ending, but it was an immensely satisfying one.

I always thought, since the show ends there, you have to think he's dead.

 

[GoodKiwi]

BCS is the king of the so-called "slow burn" and the reason people stick with it through those episodes that don't seem to go anywhere fast is the confidence they have in Gilligan to make it worth the wait. He didn't disappoint with Breaking Bad and he won't here either.

For me, what I want and need from any show with a long story arc is closure. I don't need the ending to be "happy", but I need an ending. I need closure. What I cannot abide are shows like the Sopranos who cop out at the end and don't give you that ultimate satisfaction. I didn't need to know how the rest of Tony's life turned out but I did need to know if, in that final scene, he left the diner in his car or in a coroner's meat wagon. We the viewers were owed at least that much after 7 years. Breaking Bad's finale gave the viewer closure and I've no doubt that BCS will also.

One of my favourite shows of recent years was the British series "Life on Mars" (not the cheesy US remake) and its sequel series "Ashes to Ashes". You want closure? You get closure. The ending of Life on Mars was great and if a sequel had never happened I would have been fine with how it wrapped up. But the way the sequel ended really blew me away because it answered all the questions and tied both shows up with a bow. It wasn't necessarily a "happy" ending, but it was an immensely satisfying one.

What I want is engagement and entertainment throughout. I won't give my time to a slow burn that doesn't really burn or is barely smoking even. Now, as you said, you can put a blind trust into Gilligan and see it through, but I chose not to. There is too much quality TV out there for me to be waiting on a show to elevate its arc.

The reason I seem more bitter about BCS than most other unsuccessful TV series (at least when it comes to my personal estimation of such) is because I felt like Saul's story and character was largely wasted here. It was a tough pill to swallow for me personally.

 

[Runner77]

To me, the only "good content" of the show is Bob Odenkirk. Amazing talent.

Odenkirk is amazing. It's the role he was meant to play.

I had several moments when watching Breaking Bad, where I too found that it was unnecessarily slow. However, this happened in the early episodes, as I was still trying to get invested into the characters. And once I did, it looked to me that the pace of it just fit the environment where it was shot.

As one piece put it: The deserts, pools, looming Mexican border and relentlessly searing sun are an integral part of the show’s DNA; along with Walt, Jesse, Skyler, Hank, Gus, Saul and Mike, the locations are a character all to themselves.

Of course, it's not for everyone and I totally appreciate that.

 

[Laurentide]

What I want is engagement and entertainment throughout. I won't give my time to a slow burn that doesn't really burn or is barely smoking even. Now, as you said, you can put a blind trust into Gilligan and see it through, but I chose not to. There is too much quality TV out there for me to be waiting on a show to elevate its arc.

The reason I seem more bitter about BCS than most other unsuccessful TV series (at least when it comes to my personal estimation of such) is because I felt like Saul's story and character was largely wasted here. It was a tough pill to swallow for me personally.

I've started re-watching BCS from the beginning with my wife who hadn't yet seen it (and because I'm impatiently waiting for the next season to drop on Netflix) I'm enjoying it the second time around. It's just a well made show and it's wonderfully filmed. For me, the most annoying part of the series so far has been Chuck and his mental illness. I'm actually kind of glad that he's not going to be around next season.

 

[Laurentide]

I always thought, since the show ends there, you have to think he's dead.

Except there was all this talk about making a feature-length movie, which looked like it was going to happen until James Gandolfini suddenly died. It was a needlessly ambiguous ending, in my opinion.

 

[peate]

When I first saw the ending, I thought I was missing part of the video. Had to recheck to be sure. T'was a bizarre ending to say the least.

 

[Runner77]

When I first saw the ending, I thought I was missing part of the video. Had to recheck to be sure. T'was a bizarre ending to say the least.

Looked improvised. It's as if they didn't have the footage they really wanted and edited in a random diner scene.

 

[Bryson]

I'm so bored of Craig at this point. I wished they would have taken the opportunity to cast a Bond for the new generation. There must be some Downtown Abby actors that would be fit the role somehow.

Well I never liked Craig so you'll hear no complaints from me about moving on from him. Maybe as a one off like Casiono Royale is fine but how this guy ever got to make 5 Bond films is beyond me. I guess the movies keep doing really well so they keep casting him. Craig's time should be over as Bond. Time for a fresh face. He has become a major diva. It's the reason why Danny Boyle left. Craig is getting paid to act? Then act and let the Director do his job. Nolan won't do it until he gets to start fresh with his own Bond and universe.

 

[uiCk]

Looking forward to the next bonds as all bond movies, but mostly looking forward to post Craig bonds.

Based on (my) interpretation of the Bond cycle, the 'generation' that got into Bond because of Goldeneye has outgrown the bonds at this point, and they will be forced to go back to more 'goofy' bonds to try and attract a newer younger audience. (Since the Craig bonds have mostly been 'darker' and more serious then the goofy phase of Brosnan bonds. My breakdown = mid 70s - mid 80s goofy, late 80s - serious, 90s- early 00s goofy, late 00s-10s cerial, 20s expect goofy again)
One reason ive always loved the bonds was that they were able to adapt and stay relevant during all these decades.
And if you think the timothy dalton Bonds were crap, time for a re watch, they are great! (Bonus young Benicio Del Toro special appearance)

 

[Runner77]

Looking forward to the next bonds as all bond movies, but mostly looking forward to post Craig bonds.

Based on (my) interpretation of the Bond cycle, the 'generation' that got into Bond because of Goldeneye has outgrown the bonds at this point, and they will be forced to go back to more 'goofy' bonds to try and attract a newer younger audience. (Since the Craig bonds have mostly been 'darker' and more serious then the goofy phase of Brosnan bonds. My breakdown = mid 70s - mid 80s goofy, late 80s - serious, 90s- early 00s goofy, late 00s-10s cerial, 20s expect goofy again)
One reason ive always loved the bonds was that they were able to adapt and stay relevant during all these decades.
And if you think the timothy dalton Bonds were crap, time for a re watch, they are great! (Bonus young Benicio Del Toro special appearance)

If they're going to go with goofy, maybe the main character in the series Lucifer, gets a shot.

 

[Bryson]

If they're going to go with goofy, maybe the main character in the series Lucifer, gets a shot.

Oh wow that is an awesome choice! I forgot all about him. Tom Ellis got a wicked mouth, sharp tongue and he's devilishly handsome.

I don't think this is much of a stretch. Tom Ellis while playing Lucifer does pretty much everything Bond already does; fast cars, love of women, secret missions etc. I honestly can't think of a more British, charming, good looking, Bondesque actor to play him. People have suggested Idris Elba but even he thinks that is a crazy suggestion and doesn't want to do it. Tom is clearly the best person for the role and I honestly can't believe that there isn't already a petition out there for this.

 

[Laurentide]

Looking forward to the next bonds as all bond movies, but mostly looking forward to post Craig bonds.

Based on (my) interpretation of the Bond cycle, the 'generation' that got into Bond because of Goldeneye has outgrown the bonds at this point, and they will be forced to go back to more 'goofy' bonds to try and attract a newer younger audience. (Since the Craig bonds have mostly been 'darker' and more serious then the goofy phase of Brosnan bonds. My breakdown = mid 70s - mid 80s goofy, late 80s - serious, 90s- early 00s goofy, late 00s-10s cerial, 20s expect goofy again)
One reason ive always loved the bonds was that they were able to adapt and stay relevant during all these decades.
And if you think the timothy dalton Bonds were crap, time for a re watch, they are great! (Bonus young Benicio Del Toro special appearance)

I had no problem with Dalton's first go-round as Bond in The Living Daylights. After the last of the Roger Moore Bonds I was ready for the change. Moore was too old for the role in at least his last two Bond films. The stuntwork was lame. He just wasn't credible anymore. And because he couldn't do the physical stuff, the franchise relied too heavily on gag scenes and funny stuff. Moonraker was an absolute joke in the way that it tried to rip off the Star Wars franchise with that big outer space laser battle. and Jaws falling in love and becoming a good guy? Sorry, that is the definition of jumping the shark.

So I found Living Daylights to be a great palate cleanser and Dalton seemed to take the role seriously and played it straight. Unfortunately his second film, License to Kill, was a decent action flick but not a good Bond flick. It didn't follow the established formula of prior Bond films and the villains were no more than common drug dealers. All they wanted to do was be rich. Bond films need villains who want to enslave the entire planet like Ernst Stavro Blofeld. It was a plot which simply didn't need a James Bond to be the hero. Any random action hero would have sufficed, from Chuck Norris to Arnold Schwartzenegger to Bruce Willis.

I generally enjoyed the Pierce Brosnan films and aside from Quantum of Solace, the Craig films were okay. My problem is that in this post-Austin Powers, post-Cold War reality, James Bond films have stopped being must-see events like they used to be. Pretty much every movie released in the action genre does similar things. There's nothing or at least not enough about the Bond films that are special or unique anymore. I'd just as soon watch a Jason Bourne movie as a James Bond movie nowadays. The biggest kick I got in years from a Bond film was in Skyfall when the Aston-Martin was taken out of mothballs. I was in a theatre watching that movie and when the car appeared the audience began applauding and cheering. The only thing that would have topped it (and it was rumored that the makers of the film tried) was if Bond drove to his ancestral home in the Scottish highlands and the door to the cottage had been opened by Sean Connery instead of Albert Finney.

Unfortunately for all the other guys, Sean Connery was the first and will forever be the archetype to which all others are compared. None of them will ever displace him as "the guy" when it comes to this franchise. George Lazenby is derided by many but his one film had some very good action scenes. The hand to hand fighting in particular was very visceral-looking. The story was good, the supporting cast excellent, and rather than ignore the fact that he wasn't Connery, Lazenby poked fun at it when in the opening scene, after beating up some bad guys, the girl took off rather than swoon into his arms. He looks right at the camera and says "This never happened to the other fellow." That, to me, was brilliant.

 

[groovejuice]

If there's one reality TV show I hold an admiration for it's "Masterchef Australia". No, not really.

But the damn thing does span for more than 60 episodes over each one of its 10 seasons to date with each episode being nearly 90 minutes long.

Coooking competitions are de rigueur these days and comparatively cheap to produce. They also take the liberty of adding a couple of highly unlikeable teams to add that important soap opera quality.

 

[GoodKiwi]

Coooking competitions are de rigueur these days and comparatively cheap to produce. They also take the liberty of adding a couple of highly unlikeable teams to add that important soap opera quality.

Since you seem to be up on your cooking competition shows I demand a detailed synopsis by season of all of "MasterChef Australia"!

It's only 900 or so hours of television you'd have to get through to deliver it.

 

[Grate n Colorful Oz]

I had no problem with Dalton's first go-round as Bond in The Living Daylights. After the last of the Roger Moore Bonds I was ready for the change. Moore was too old for the role in at least his last two Bond films. The stuntwork was lame. He just wasn't credible anymore. And because he couldn't do the physical stuff, the franchise relied too heavily on gag scenes and funny stuff. Moonraker was an absolute joke in the way that it tried to rip off the Star Wars franchise with that big outer space laser battle. and Jaws falling in love and becoming a good guy? Sorry, that is the definition of jumping the shark.

So I found Living Daylights to be a great palate cleanser and Dalton seemed to take the role seriously and played it straight. Unfortunately his second film, License to Kill, was a decent action flick but not a good Bond flick. It didn't follow the established formula of prior Bond films and the villains were no more than common drug dealers. All they wanted to do was be rich. Bond films need villains who want to enslave the entire planet like Ernst Stavro Blofeld. It was a plot which simply didn't need a James Bond to be the hero. Any random action hero would have sufficed, from Chuck Norris to Arnold Schwartzenegger to Bruce Willis.

I generally enjoyed the Pierce Brosnan films and aside from Quantum of Solace, the Craig films were okay. My problem is that in this post-Austin Powers, post-Cold War reality, James Bond films have stopped being must-see events like they used to be. Pretty much every movie released in the action genre does similar things. There's nothing or at least not enough about the Bond films that are special or unique anymore. I'd just as soon watch a Jason Bourne movie as a James Bond movie nowadays. The biggest kick I got in years from a Bond film was in Skyfall when the Aston-Martin was taken out of mothballs. I was in a theatre watching that movie and when the car appeared the audience began applauding and cheering. The only thing that would have topped it (and it was rumored that the makers of the film tried) was if Bond drove to his ancestral home in the Scottish highlands and the door to the cottage had been opened by Sean Connery instead of Albert Finney.

Unfortunately for all the other guys, Sean Connery was the first and will forever be the archetype to which all others are compared. None of them will ever displace him as "the guy" when it comes to this franchise. George Lazenby is derided by many but his one film had some very good action scenes. The hand to hand fighting in particular was very visceral-looking. The story was good, the supporting cast excellent, and rather than ignore the fact that he wasn't Connery, Lazenby poked fun at it when in the opening scene, after beating up some bad guys, the girl took off rather than swoon into his arms. He looks right at the camera and says "This never happened to the other fellow." That, to me, was brilliant.

In movie school, add a dog to that scene and it's about the biggest profanity in the eyes of the purists, that you could ever make.

 

[groovejuice]

Since you seem to be up on your cooking competition shows I demand a detailed synopsis by season of all of "MasterChef Australia"!

It's only 900 or so hours of television you'd have to get through to deliver it.

Watching that show and the similar ones from NZ and Canada / US are like having an enema. It's taken once in desperation, and you don't want another in the foreseeable future.

 

[BehindTheTimes]

First Episode of Better Call Saul didn't really do anything for me, but I suspect it will. Going to keep it going for sure.

 

[Kriss E]

I have a friend much like you (and sorry if I am mixing you up with another poster(s)... I know some here dislike superheroes) where he refuses to watch superhero movies except for the occasional X-Men flick.

I get why people dislike them but to me, provided it’s well done, that is fine. Many superhero movies cross genres. From what I hear, Hellboy reboot is supposed to be darker in tone. It hasn’t come out yet, but New Mutants is supposed to be a horror movie. The Punisher show on Netflicks has zero super powers.

Yeah, I get MCU and DCEU movies can be messy spectacles, but both have had gems. Ok, DC had one in WW, but for MCU, the last two Captain America’s were great, as was the last Thor.
\

I like superhero flicks, I just wished they did less of them. I can't even keep up, and, I mean, the plot is essentially the same in everyone. Guys with power are the good guys, and there's some evil character, they'll fight and well, we know 99% they will win.

 

[Frenchy]

Closed,

We are over a 1000 comments, please use the new thread:

https://hfboards.mandatory.com/threads/lets-talk-about-movies-and-tv-shows-part-xx.2532411/