The TV Discussion Thread

[Winston*]

Finished season 2 of Slings and Arrows last night. Much funnier, and perhaps even better, than the first. Unless season three is complete garbage (and with them doing my favorite Shakespeare play in King Lear, I can't imagine it will be), this is going to be right up there with my absolute favorite comedies. Like Arrested Development, Freaks and Geeks level.

Also finished season 2 last night. Definitely funnier than the first: Colm Feore is hilarious in this. The first season was more dramatically engaging though, and had the more compelling parallels to the play.

[Qrazy]

Speaking of Freaks and Geeks I saw half of it a few years ago and then rewatched the whole thing a couple weeks ago. It's not very good.

[Mara]

Just saw a 10-year-old but completely recognizable Corey Feldman on an old episode of Cheers. Good times.

[number8]

Speaking of Freaks and Geeks I saw half of it a few years ago and then rewatched the whole thing a couple weeks ago. It's not very good.

What, do you rape cats, too?

[DavidSeven]

Speaking of Freaks and Geeks I saw half of it a few years ago and then rewatched the whole thing a couple weeks ago. It's not very good.

You don't like nice things.

But seriously, what didn't you like about it? I watched it for the first time a couple months ago, and I thought it was great. I don't think they had a bad episode.

[Qrazy]

I didn't dislike it per se I just don't think it's very good. That is to say it's hyped up to be one of the better shows and I'd say overall it's quite average. For starters I found it formulaic. Episodes just go through the motions. How many times must Bill be picked on then tell off the bully who in turn learns a valuable lesson (classmate bully, gym teacher, girl in closet, etc). How many times must Sam go back and forth with Cindy (granted that plotline ended well once it finally gained some traction). How many times must the guidance counselor come in and say the exact same thing.

Frankly Lindsay and Sam aren't very interesting characters and Sam is a borderline bad actor. Also on a purely stylistic level the use of music, the way characters are staged and their dramatic entanglements all seem pure Hollywood schmaltz to me (see the Seth Rogen love plotline for example). For the most part it's just another jocks, nerds, drug kids tale which in relation to my high school experiences doesn't ring true at all. I went to three high schools and not one of them broke down into these neat little categories. Usually there's a ton of overlap between these roles.

[number8]

Not sure how you got that impression since one of the major themes of the show is that people's footing in high school changes and they break out of their neat little categories, and shuffle around cliques. Which definitely rings true to the high school experience.

[Qrazy]

Not sure how you got that impression since one of the major themes of the show is that people's footing in high school changes and they break out of their neat little categories, and shuffle around cliques. Which definitely rings true to the high school experience.

Barely. In the show these cliques are shown to be a big deal and getting in or out of one is a major transformation. In my schools some smart kids were jocks also, some jocks weren't that smart, some jocks were also nerdy, some nerds were jocks, etc. And everyone did drugs.

[Irish]

Barely. In the show these cliques are shown to be a big deal and getting in or out of one is a major transformation. In my schools some smart kids were jocks also, some jocks weren't that smart, some jocks were also nerdy, some nerds were jocks, etc. And everyone did drugs.

This is an interesting viewpoint, but I'm curious how closely something has to mimic your own real life experience in order for you to perceive it as authentic. (I'm asking because I think a lot of people view TV shows and movies in this way).

I went to a parochial high school. I visited the public highschool in my hometown during the regular school year. It was so radically different that I experienced a form of extreme culture shock, and these two schools were in the same county, less than 20 miles from each other. I haven't seen "Freaks and Geeks" but I'm guessing that the show's presentation of high school life isn't remotely associated with anything I experienced during those years. But that wouldn't necessarily an automatic knock on the show.

The other thing I find interesting about this stuff is that shows like "Freaks and Geeks" or "The Wonder Years" might start off from a personal place -- a writer's or showrunners life experience -- but then they're filtered through the needs of theater distribution and broadcast television.

In other words, "Freaks and Geeks" is probably just as informed by "Fast Times at Ridgemont High," "Clueless," or even "Uncle Buck" as it is any one person's experience. These kind of efforts always divide high school social constructs into a strict caste system, as a form of dramatic shorthand. So a jock is always just a jock, in the same way the villain is wearing a black hat in an old Western. It's just easier to communicate what you need to communicate to the audience that way.

[Qrazy]

This is an interesting viewpoint, but I'm curious how closely something has to mimic your own real life experience in order for you to perceive it as authentic. (I'm asking because I think a lot of people view TV shows and movies in this way).

It definitely doesn't have to. Aside from a few eccentricities (ex: Brother Mouzone) I accept The Wire as authentic and my life does not resemble that in the slightest. Also I love Breaking Bad but I don't think the show is supposed to resemble reality at all either.

The other thing I find interesting about this stuff is that shows like "Freaks and Geeks" or "The Wonder Years" might start off from a personal place -- a writer's or showrunners life experience -- but then they're filtered through the needs of theater distribution and broadcast television.

In other words, "Freaks and Geeks" is probably just as informed by "Fast Times at Ridgemont High," "Clueless," or even "Uncle Buck" as it is any one person's experience. These kind of efforts always divide high school social constructs into a strict caste system, as a form of dramatic shorthand. So a jock is always just a jock, in the same way the villain is wearing a black hat in an old Western. It's just easier to communicate what you need to communicate to the audience that way.

See this is where I disagree and why I find a film like Dazed and Confused so much more interesting. While it has some problems of it's own it blurs these categories to convincing effect. I do agree that as a writer it is always easier to write simplistic generalizations but it also makes the work less rewarding. And in the case of Freaks and Geeks it's positioned as one of the more honest examinations of high school life and aside from a handful of genuine moments I just don't buy it. Ultimately for me the problem is the drama just isn't strong enough to move beyond certain narrative simplifications employed by the writers. Again, it's not a bad show but it didn't wow me either.

[Watashi]

Freaks and Geeks aired when I was a freshman in high school. Some of it was too painful to watch because how accurate it portrayed my high school.

[number8]

Freaks and Geeks aired when I was a freshman in high school. Some of it was too painful to watch because how accurate it portrayed my high school.

I think I'd said this before in the F&G thread, but this is certainly the consensus among fans and online critics who champion the show.

I've met some people who have said exactly this, and more (real life, not online, if that matters) who said that they discovered the show in their late 20s and believe that they can appreciate it now, but if they'd known about it when it was on, they wouldn't have watched it because it would have hit too close to home.

Although that might prove Qrazy's point, because these people usually relate to both the freaks and the geeks' experience. I think that's why Lindsay is the main character, since throughout the show, she can be argued to be both.

[Irish]

It definitely doesn't have to. Aside from a few eccentricities (ex: Brother Mouzone) I accept The Wire as authentic and my life does not resemble that in the slightest. Also I love Breaking Bad but I don't think the show is supposed to resemble reality at all either.

Well, the obvious difference there is that everyone went to high school, but not everyone has been a vice cop in Baltimore. Stuff like "The Wire" has to provide you with different cues in order to feel authentic.

That's kinda what I was digging at -- I was curious whether you thought F&G was inauthentic because of the setup or because the writing, at a dramatic level, just left you cold (which you pretty much answered in paragraph below).

See this is where I disagree and why I find a film like Dazed and Confused so much more interesting. While it has some problems of it's own it blurs these categories to convincing effect.

Yeah, damn. D&T is a great counter-example.

And in the case of Freaks and Geeks it's positioned as one of the more honest examinations of high school life and aside from a handful of genuine moments I just don't buy it. Ultimately for me the problem is the drama just isn't strong enough to move beyond certain narrative simplifications employed by the writers. Again, it's not a bad show but it didn't wow me either.

Heh, I think I may have to watch this now. I put it off for the longest time because something about its rep just rubs me the wrong way.

[elixir]

Well, Freaks and Geeks doesn't speak to my HS experience at all (and I wouldn't ever want any book/TV/film to do that...), but I do like it. I agree that it can be a bit formulaic at times and the acting can be off, but ultimately it brought the laughs.

[Irish]

See this is where I disagree and why I find a film like Dazed and Confused so much more interesting. While it has some problems of it's own it blurs these categories to convincing effect. I do agree that as a writer it is always easier to write simplistic generalizations but it also makes the work less rewarding. And in the case of Freaks and Geeks it's positioned as one of the more honest examinations of high school life and aside from a handful of genuine moments I just don't buy it. Ultimately for me the problem is the drama just isn't strong enough to move beyond certain narrative simplifications employed by the writers. Again, it's not a bad show but it didn't wow me either.

Okay, I watched the first two episodes. :lol:

Pretty much agree with your take so far. I think it's a cut above most of the shows that were on air at that time, but it's not a life altering experience or some kind of nerd nirvana.

The second episode registered as particularly false. I realize that network TV has its limits, but c'mon. A keg party where nobody brings any other booze? Nobody does drugs? And not one kid smokes in 1980? Please.

[

Show Spoiler

The younger brother almost narc'ing on his sister and then fucking with her beer? For no reason? WTF? And then the other kid calling the cops on the sister's party on her behalf? Uh, no. Not believable. Even remotely.

]

Edit: I do think in tone it's very close to some of John Hughes' stuff, particularly "Sixteen Candles."

[Watashi]

I think all the performances are fantastic especially Sam's. I dunno what Qrazy is talking about there (but it's Qrazy). His facial expressions when dancing with Cindy and then the music turns upbeat is painful and excruciating. It almost destroyed me.

[Qrazy]

I think all the performances are fantastic especially Sam's. I dunno what Qrazy is talking about there (but it's Qrazy). His facial expressions when dancing with Cindy and then the music turns upbeat is painful and excruciating. It almost destroyed me.

He has a genuine smile which is probably why they cast him but his timing is all off. Even in that scene he telegraphs like a mofo.

[transmogrifier]

I didn't dislike it per se I just don't think it's very good. That is to say it's hyped up to be one of the better shows and I'd say overall it's quite average. For starters I found it formulaic. Episodes just go through the motions. How many times must Bill be picked on then tell off the bully who in turn learns a valuable lesson (classmate bully, gym teacher, girl in closet, etc). How many times must Sam go back and forth with Cindy (granted that plotline ended well once it finally gained some traction). How many times must the guidance counselor come in and say the exact same thing.

Frankly Lindsay and Sam aren't very interesting characters and Sam is a borderline bad actor. Also on a purely stylistic level the use of music, the way characters are staged and their dramatic entanglements all seem pure Hollywood schmaltz to me (see the Seth Rogen love plotline for example). For the most part it's just another jocks, nerds, drug kids tale which in relation to my high school experiences doesn't ring true at all. I went to three high schools and not one of them broke down into these neat little categories. Usually there's a ton of overlap between these roles.

I see you've been saving up your rations of Wrong for this binge right here.

[ledfloyd]

Two episodes into the final season of Slings & Arrows. Sarah Polley! and... heroin?

[Irish]

that might prove Qrazy's point, because these people usually relate to both the freaks and the geeks' experience. I think that's why Lindsay is the main character, since throughout the show, she can be argued to be both.

I like that insight into Lindsay, but I also think you can argue that the difference is negligible. All the characters here are poorly defined, at least in terms of being a 'freak' or a 'geek.' That was one of my biggest problems with the show: I wouldn't want to have hung out with any of those kids. Not because they were outcasts or socially awkward or whatever. But because none of them ever did or said anything that was all that interesting.

Frankly Lindsay and Sam aren't very interesting characters and Sam is a borderline bad actor. Also on a purely stylistic level the use of music, the way characters are staged and their dramatic entanglements all seem pure Hollywood schmaltz to me (see the Seth Rogen love plotline for example). For the most part it's just another jocks, nerds, drug kids tale which in relation to my high school experiences doesn't ring true at all. I went to three high schools and not one of them broke down into these neat little categories. Usually there's a ton of overlap between these roles.

Having finished the run now, I can fully agree. The problem is that both of them are far too passive. Lindsay becomes a burnout for no real reason, and over the course of eighteen episodes, Sam only actually makes one real decision. That's true to life, I guess, etc, but it makes for dull protagonists on a TV show.

The producers tried hard to skirt after-school-special territory, and sometimes failed. Other times, they jumped into insanely ridiculous plotlines and didn't blink [

Show Spoiler

I burst out laughing when it was revealed that Rogen's new girlfriend's big secret is that she was born a hermaphrodite. Like, seriously? WTF?!

]

It's interesting to me that this kind of high school drama-comedies persistently works in the movies, but always seem to struggle on the smaller screen (eg: "My So Called Life," etc).

[number8]

I never watched it, but I just found out about all the ridiculousness going on with Up All Night.

Apparently NBC has ordered the show to switch its format from a single-cam comedy into a multi-cam sitcom shot in front of a live audience. WTF?

As a result, both the series creator and star Christina Applegate quit the show in protest.

Run, Will Arnett. Arrested Development is back. GTFO.

[[ETM]]

That'd be almost like Abed's "Happy place sitcom" from the Community opener.

[Mara]

An impossibly young Frasier Crane just showed up on Cheers. YES PLEASE.

[number8]

Had nothing to do all day yesterday but recover from the previous night's party and get high so I ended up rewatching the entire first season of The Shield.

I'm not sure if I noticed this the first time through, but there is a small child dying/getting seriously injured/raped in literally almost every episode of S1. Eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeedgy.

[ledfloyd]

An impossibly young Frasier Crane just showed up on Cheers. YES PLEASE.

Is this your first time watching Cheers?

I'm not sure if I noticed this the first time through, but there is a small child dying/getting seriously injured/raped in literally almost every episode of S1. Eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeedgy.

The first season or two try way too hard to be edgy. It really put me off at first.