|
|
Post by CRAMBAM on Apr 8, 2014 9:20:03 GMT -5
So, by now, I would think people have seen the movie.
Any thoughts? Or thoughts about the post-credits stuff?
First scene led us into Avengers 2. Second led us into Captain America 3.
|
|
|
|
Post by TK on Apr 8, 2014 10:59:57 GMT -5
So, by now, I would think people have seen the movie. Any thoughts? Or thoughts about the post-credits stuff? First scene led us into Avengers 2. Second led us into Captain America 3. I have many thoughts but don't have time to post them now. Really liked the movie though. Almost as much as the first Iron Man. As far as post-credit stuff, my biggest concern was that they leave us hanging heading into Cap 3, and I wish Ultron wasn't coming out before that. "I'm gonna go do this, but first let me join my friends to fight an evil robot." I worry Avengers 2 will hurt the momentum from the end of this movie. -TK |
|
|
|
Post by StarFuryG7 on Apr 8, 2014 12:19:08 GMT -5
So, by now, I would think people have seen the movie. Any thoughts? Or thoughts about the post-credits stuff? First scene led us into Avengers 2. Second led us into Captain America 3. I saw it, liked it, but like TK, I don't have the time to get into it in any detail at the moment. It was well-written and entertaining, but there were things about the first movie I liked more I think. The first one also started off slower because it was an origin story though, whereas this one throws you right into the action. Good flick though --enjoyable. |
|
|
|
Post by CRAMBAM on Apr 10, 2014 7:30:25 GMT -5
I consider this movie the best Marvel film since Avengers, easily topping Iron Man 3 and Thor 2.
What's also interesting as that this movie was directly connected to the Agents of Shield show, and a major game changer happened on the show in the first episode that aired after the movie came out (so 2 days ago).
|
|
|
|
Post by TrekBeatTK on Apr 10, 2014 15:40:05 GMT -5
I agree it's easily the best since Avengers, and tops that too (Avengers is fun, but it's a big cartoon. I have more and more problems with it every time I watch it).
I hope to see it again this week. I'll try to post my thoughts tomorrow. I was glad the way they handled the fallout on Agents of SHIELD. Best episode ever. If they keep up more of that and less of Skye who the show keeps telling me to like but I hate with a passion, this show will improve immensely.
-TK
|
|
|
|
Post by CRAMBAM on Apr 11, 2014 6:18:39 GMT -5
It was perfect that they advertised it as a game changer. I really hope the show gets a second season.
I get why people wouldn't like it, but I am a fan of Coulson. Waiting for him to show up in a movie.
|
|
|
|
Post by TrekBeatTK on Apr 11, 2014 16:14:24 GMT -5
All right, here are some of my thoughts on Captain America: The Winter Soldier. SPOILERS AHEAD!!
From the beginning I liked that they didn't shy away from humor where they could, but that the film on the whole had a consistent serious tone. This is a change from both Iron Man 2 and Thor 2 which went the jokier route. Not that there weren't amusing moments, but they were in keeping with Cap and the characters here. There's no attempt at bringing a Tony Stark style of snark into things, which I liked. I was a big fan of the first Captain America, and I was glad to see that this movie is a worthy, if very different, successor. I'll have to see it again, but it's my second favorite of all the Marvel films right now.
I really liked the introduction of Falcon and the way they used the character and his relationship to Steve. I like that he works at the VA. While the whole notion of a winged jetpack is ridiculous, they did just enough with it to make it work. I liked that this really did have a kind of '70s feel, as well as recapturing some of the resurgent paranoia of the 1990s. You know, like in the X-Files' hey day. It had that sort of feeling for me again. I liked that everyone stayed true to their character's ideals; even if you didn't necessarily agree with what they were doing, you could see why. I'm with Cap, I don't like the idea of Project Insight, but the movie gave reason for Nick Fury to at least entertain it and gave cause for his philosophy of not trusting anyone. I liked the little story about his grandfather the elevator operator.
Part of me wishes they had gone through with killing Nick Fury and keeping him dead, because that would be a MAJOR shake-up. But no, he pulled a Captain Kirk and just happened to have been drugged to simulate death. While it's easy to buy that out on the ritual plains of Vulcan, I have a harder time believing it in a hospital when he's hooked up to monitors and things. You may slow down the heart rate, but surely it's going to ping every now and then, right? At least the movie had plot reasons for Nick to fake his death and go underground. We still don't know why Coulson was revived on Agents of SHIELD, and this makes the third fake death of the film series (after Coulson and Loki). So far the only one to really stay dead is Frigga. But with Evans' contract up soon, I wonder if Steve Rogers will die in Cap 3 and they'll continue with a certain someone else in the suit.
Redford was really good in this movie, playing a villain which he doesn't usually get to do. I liked how they incorporated the council, who just sort of appeared for no reason in Avengers. It actually worked here. And I was amused when Jenny Agutter started kicking butt before it was revealed to be Natasha in disguise. ...Though if they have such sophisticated disguises, you really can't trust anyone, can you? It's the same problem I have with the Harry Potter universe where there's SO much polyjuice potion employed.
The whole thing with HYDRA being involved all along was brilliantly done. Liked the use of Zola in the old computer bay (better than in the comics where he's got like an android body with a TV monitor in the chest), and the WarGames joke. I really liked the themes of the movie, and thought this one succeeded at everything that Iron Man 3 tried to do. The U.S. government is becoming dangerously involved in everyone's business. The difference is that in reality, there's no secret cabal of neo-Nazis behind it all. A part of me almost felt the movie weakened itself by putting HYDRYA behind all of it, because I thought it was gutsy of a Hollywood movie to call out America on its growingly invasive agenda. The plot here was on one level about the ethics of drone strikes against one's own citizens. HYDRA's plan here was actually essentially Red Skull's plan from the first movie: take out your enemies from the air in one fell swoop. So I felt it was a logical progression from that film. Having the Gary Shandling senator from Iron Man 2 turn out to be HYDRA was another stroke of genius. It gives an added layer to that film too. One of my big complaints about Agents of SHIELD has been why do they put the SHIELD logo on everything if they are a supersecret spy organization? But I can totally buy it if Nazis are making these decisions! Similarly, I noticed that Red Skull's office walls had this honeycomb pattern, and the holding cells on AOS are also honeycomb walls. I wonder if this was a subtle hint of HYDRA's influence in SHIELD.
The fight scenes were brutal! We haven't seen fights that hard since Incredible Hulk in one of these movies. It's fine to have cool looking choreography (like the Black Widow chair sequence in Avengers) but here the fights were FIGHTS! When Bucky's just pummeling Steve, that's great stuff. I loved the editing in the chase sequences. This is one of the better edited of the Marvel movies, possibly the best since Incredible Hulk. Really nicely made film.
If I have any complaints (and I do), they are two-fold. First, there is just not enough of the titular Winter Soldier. Like, you could have called this movie Rise of the Falcon and it would have had roughly the same relevance. The Winter Soldier kicks things off with a bang, but then he sort of drops out of the story in the middle only to return at the end and by then he's a secondary character. The movie doesn't explore his character enough, and saves any resolution for future films. We hear about Soviet connections, but those are never made clear. In the movie, he's found and revived and exploited by Nazi scientists. So where does the Soviet connection come from? It was so frustrating for the movie to end with Steve in "Let's go find Bucky!" mode, especially knowing that Avengers 2 is going to come out first. I wish they'd called the movie something else and saved the title for later. Ultimately, the title was a marketing gimmick; a misdirect for fanboys to hide the details of the real plot. In these terms, it's immensely successful, but as a movie title, it doesn't fully work.
But my second big complaint is with the Project Insight helicarrier plan. The plan itself, to take out your enemies with secret drone gunships, is fine. But the execution of it being helicarriers is just stupid and the more I think about it the more illogical it is. It's just another instance of "because it looks cool", which is a shame for a movie that was so smart outside this point. What I mean is:
1) why helicarriers? Why not just drone airships? The plan only requires airships. Why make them look like aircraft carriers? Especially since:
2) Fury specifically says they've got new Stark tech that means they can stay in the air indefinitely. They never have to land. So why build a plane that's part boat if you have no intention of it being a boat?
3) why did they launch with all those planes on top? Again, the plan only required the big guns on the ship itself. Why launch them with all those planes and then not use them? They should have had the planes manned so that when Cap and Falcon show up, those planes can be buzzing about shooting at them to protect the mother ships. Otherwise, there's no point in them being there. Or maybe this actually happened and I can't remember because there was so much shooting and stuff. But I just don't see the point of launching with all those planes except as a defensive tactic, and that would assume you needed the defense. Speaking of which...
4) Why not use the reflector plating and make the ships invisible? This was supposed to be a sudden secret operation to take out everyone so that HYDRA could come out in force. We know the helicarriers can go invisible. So why not strike from the air invisibly? Like no one is supposed to freak out that there are 3 aircraft carriers rising out of the Potomac? Remember, they have to get in place before they fire. It just seems silly to be so visible. But then, it seems silly to launch them all from the same place, too.
Those are my problems. I just don't see why the plan required their top secret weapons be flying boats. And I suppose I could question the other logic of how HYDRA has police resources on its own to take down Fury and such. But on the whole, this was a really strong movie and the logical questions aren't as bad as in something like The Dark Knight. These nitpicks keep the movie from being the best ever for me (the original Iron Man is still tops), but it was REALLY good.
And then there was the teaser. Is that Loki's staff or just some other random staff? Probably Loki's, which means SHIELD (well, HYDRA) likely got it when they cleaned up New York after Avengers. We get a little tease of Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver, but that's all. Sort of a bummer we have to wait a year for Age of Ultron for this to pay off. I hope Guardians of the Galaxy is good. I wonder if it will have an Avengers tease as well.
Oh, there was a Stephen Strange mention too, so a Doctor Strange movie is definitely closer. It was a surprise for Agent Sitwell to be HYDRA. Great reveal! The fallout on the TV show has been good so far and I hope this continues.
I really liked Steve's scene with the old Agent Carter. It was good to see her again. I liked some of the other little flashback moments to the first film (and before). I also like Agent 13 and the way she was introduced. One thing that bothered me: her name is revealed to be Sharon (indeed, she is Sharon Carter, related to the former Agent Carter). But the credits list her as "Kate/Agent 13" and I'm thinking, when was she ever called Kate? It was just odd since her name had just been mentioned shortly before!
I'm probably forgetting things, but there was a lot to like here. The first Marvel movie in awhile that I can't wait to see again.
-TK
|
|
|
|
Post by StarFuryG7 on Jul 17, 2014 11:59:53 GMT -5
I don't know about you guys, but I've had more than my fill of all this PC crap, and I guess the only thing I can really do is to start tuning it out in response, since it's not only not going to stop, but will pick up steam and increase. So not only will they not get my money at a movie theater when it comes to that here too, but I won't even be tuning in for free once things like this make it to regular broadcast TV. And I don't give a shit what they say about this only being for the comic, as we all know they're using it to set the stage for where they plan to go next, which is the movies and series television. |
|
|
|
Post by TK on Jul 17, 2014 12:56:26 GMT -5
I don't know about you guys, but I've had more than my fill of all this PC crap, and I guess the only thing I can really do is to start tuning it out in response, since it's not only not going to stop, but will pick up steam and increase. So not only will they not get my money at a movie theater when it comes to that here too, but I won't even be tuning in for free once things like this make it to regular broadcast TV. And I don't give a shit what they say about this only being for the comic, as we all know they're using it to set the stage for where they plan to go next, which is the movies and series television. The girl Thor thing DOES smack of PC crap, and doing it at the same time as having Wilson be Cap also reeks of something similar. HOWEVER, this is nothing new for Captain America, as others have been Cap for awhile besides Steve Rogers, and Wilson wouldn't be the first black one. This is one that's pretty understandable, and really not much different from one of the Robins taking over from Batman for awhile. So I don't know whether this decision is really about being PC so much as it is a stunt to sell comic books. It's part of a whole line of stunts the comic industry regularly pulls now to boost declining sales. So they'll do something crazy like make Thor a woman or make Wilson Captain America or kill off characters (they're set to kill Wolverine soon too). These changes rarely last long, and I think it's worth separating some of these as business as usual from the truly PC stunts, like gay X-Men weddings. As far as the films go, they will get rid of Steve Rogers at some point since Chris Evans has only a few more films left in his contract. But I think it far more likely that Bucky will take over as Captain America. They're only doing Wilson in the comics right now because they've already done Bucky as Cap in the comics, and to capitalize on Falcon's recognition from the recent movie, so non-readers who like the character might by the book. I don't see this particular instance as a PC stunt; just a typical marketing gimmick. -TK |
|
|
|
Post by CRAMBAM on Jul 18, 2014 14:16:52 GMT -5
That's the thing though--if they've done that, why do it again except to be PC? It's unoriginal.
Plus, why do it at the expense of the actual character? They can introduce new heroes without sacrificing their top ones.
Want a new female hero? Create one.
They don't have to get rid of Steve Rogers. They just need to get a new actor. There's no way the original actors are going to play the roles forever. They all will need to be replaced.
|
|
|
|
Post by TrekBeatTK on Jul 18, 2014 14:26:16 GMT -5
Some follow-up thoughts regarding the "diversity" initiatives that seem prevalent these days.
1) What Marvel Comics is doing right now is not nearly as crazy as the casting of the Fantastic Four movie reboot. And I'm a fan of Michael B. Jordan (he was amazing in Fruitvale Station), but having a black Johnny Storm "just because" is a problem for me as well as for many of others. I'm tired of automatically being called a racist because I have a problem with it. And his sister, Sue Storm, is still white! As long as you are swapping race, why not make it consistent. I'd rather they have just cast an entirely black Fantastic Four than what they are doing. I'm not completely opposed to doing a "black version" of something it the property supports it. Disney's black version of Pollyanna was great, and the black Hello Dolly with Pearl Bailey is arguably better than the original. But let's not pretend diversity for diversity's sake is always right(eous?) and that anyone with a dissenting opinion is a racist.
2) What troubles me most about the current comic book situations is the subtext of the diversification. I don't have a problem with diversity in comics; let's have men and women of all races be heroes. But they aren't taking the opportunity to create new characters, or revitalize existing ones. They are just changing existing characters. After all, who cares about some guy named Falcon when they can read Captain America, right? [eye roll] In giving Sam Wilson the role of Captain America, it promotes diversification through REPLACEMENT, rather than through co-existence. It says, "the history of the white male is now outdated and we must take over the roles he once had". Subtextually, this isn't a message of tolerance or working side-by-side. This is revolutionary, and it's lazy. I think they'll mostly get away with it in this case because Wilson and Rogers are on the same side and they are friends. Also, because Sam Wilson has no superpowers himself, this won't last long; people want to see Captain America with superhuman abilities. So in this case it's also about seeing "America" as an idea that embraces all colors and they'll get away with it. But in a broader sense I feel like this same tactic being used again and again undermines a message of harmony and promotes radicalism under the guise of "progress".
3) Similarly, the female Thor thing rubs me the wrong way in its subtext. I have no problem with female superheroes, or even with a woman wielding the hammer for awhile (calling her Thor though is problematic for reasons that have nothing to do with gender). Thor's power is tied to his hammer. Indeed, his origin story is that he was banished and made a weak handicapped human with no memory of Asgard until he proved his worthiness; only then could he take up his hammer and regain his godlike power. Again, not saying women can't be worthy of that power. But to say that now Thor is unworthy again, but a woman takes his hammer and gets his power and his title doesn't sit well with me. Is it not, in essence, a message of emasculation? This woman only becomes super because she takes away from Thor the thing that makes him powerful and uses it herself? I don't want to see women promoted through emasculation. It promotes an idea that they can't succeed without cutting men down, and even perhaps promotes Freudian ideas of penis envy, against which the modern fourth-wave feminist fervently fights. So how is this new lady Thor "good" for women really? If we are to embrace equality, I don't want to see it done via replacement. That's the wrong kind of fantasy, even for a comic book.
-TK
|
|
|
|
Post by CRAMBAM on Jul 18, 2014 23:45:10 GMT -5
I'm likely not going to see Fantastic Four because of that decision. It wreaks of PC garbage.
The funny part is Falcon is a good character in his own right. It's an example of doing exactly what I suggest--you want a black character--great, create one.
|
|
|
|
Post by StarFuryG7 on Jul 23, 2014 7:15:28 GMT -5
The girl Thor thing DOES smack of PC crap, and doing it at the same time as having Wilson be Cap also reeks of something similar. HOWEVER, this is nothing new for Captain America, as others have been Cap for awhile besides Steve Rogers, and Wilson wouldn't be the first black one. This is one that's pretty understandable, and really not much different from one of the Robins taking over from Batman for awhile. So I don't know whether this decision is really about being PC so much as it is a stunt to sell comic books. So you think it's just a temporary ploy that will ultimately revert back. Okay. I don't read or follow the comics, but maybe I've become overly sensitive when it comes to this kind of stuff. Let's not forget that Superman is a citizen of the world now. Do you read and follow the superhero comics, or did you just do some research on the character? Because I don't read them at all, but it struck me as their looking to make a permanent change here, and in conjunction with that other BS about a woman Thor and so forth, there's only so much more I can take. Last week I was watching "Graceland" before going to bed and they had to throw in a kissing-makeout scene betwern two guys, one of them a regular on the show. It seems as though every where you turn now, we're inundated with this bullshit. Limbaugh was even making a point of it on his show the other day --how is that kind of thing everywhere you look nowadays, when gays only make up less than three percent of the overall population? And that figure was reported the last week by one of the free morning newspapers in NYC. I forget whether it was the Metro or the AM New York, but it was in one of those papers on the same day he cited that percentage on the air. So how does this shit happen, and why? Hell, I'm surprised they haven't turned Batman into a black transgendered female, be it pre-op or post-op at this stage. But this is yet another major consequence of having lost the culture war. Conservatives closed their eyes, stuck their fingers in their ears and whistled Dixie for decades leading up to the point we're at now, ignoring it all as it was taking place in front of everyone's eyes to see. I sometimes wish I could fly off to a quiet corner of the world, somewhere out of this country entirely, so I don't have to watch this shit anymore. Sorry for the rant, but I really do feel like a stranger in a strange land. |
|
|
|
Post by StarFuryG7 on Jul 23, 2014 7:21:21 GMT -5
That's the thing though--if they've done that, why do it again except to be PC? It's unoriginal. Plus, why do it at the expense of the actual character? They can introduce new heroes without sacrificing their top ones. Want a new female hero? Create one. That's what makes this stuff so insidious. I mean, it's rather blatant what they're doing, and they want it to be noticed, but I think that for the younger generation, they're hoping it'll just fly under the radar, and that these kids won't give it a second thought because of how they've been trained to think, by popular entertainment especially and otherwise. I just wish there were certain things they would leave the hell alone. It's as though there's nothing sacred anymore, especially with respect to this country and what made it great. So now we have to dilute Captain America rather than just leaving him be, for the sake of diversity. Forget who the character was, forget his roots --let's just change him. And next maybe we should transform him into a women too. I mean, why the hell not? Who says Captain America has to be a man after all? And maybe we can scrap the current canon, 'reboot' everything, and have Scarlett Johansson play the part. God Almighty --maybe it's just me. Perhaps I'm really the dinosaur. |
|
|
|
Post by TK on Jul 23, 2014 14:22:43 GMT -5
So you think it's just a temporary ploy that will ultimately revert back. Okay. I don't read or follow the comics, but maybe I've become overly sensitive when it comes to this kind of stuff. Let's not forget that Superman is a citizen of the world now. Do you read and follow the superhero comics, or did you just do some research on the character? Because I don't read them at all, but it struck me as their looking to make a permanent change here, and in conjunction with that other BS about a woman Thor and so forth, there's only so much more I can take. Last week I was watching "Graceland" before going to bed and they had to throw in a kissing-makeout scene betwern two guys, one of them a regular on the show. It seems as though every where you turn now, we're inundated with this bullshit. Limbaugh was even making a point of it on his show the other day --how is that kind of thing everywhere you look nowadays, when gays only make up less than three percent of the overall population? And that figure was reported the last week by one of the free morning newspapers in NYC. I forget whether it was the Metro or the AM New York, but it was in one of those papers on the same day he cited that percentage on the air. So how does this shit happen, and why? Hell, I'm surprised they haven't turned Batman into a black transgendered female, be it pre-op or post-op at this stage. But this is yet another major consequence of having lost the culture war. Conservatives closed their eyes, stuck their fingers in their ears and whistled Dixie for decades leading up to the point we're at now, ignoring it all as it was taking place in front of everyone's eyes to see. The words "great silent majority" come to mind. I don't follow the comics world very much (have enough stuff to follow), but I do think these are just temporary stunts. These kinds of things have happened before in the comics and then it's reverted back. I get where you're coming from though. I had to stop watching Glee because every week I was just yelling at the TV. When it stops being fun and just becomes Ryan Murphy's big gay soapbox (not to mention the annoying song choices, etc.) I had to give it up. |
|
|
|
Post by CRAMBAM on Jul 24, 2014 7:21:06 GMT -5
With Glee, it's a little different. I believe Ryan Murphy himself is gay, and he's using his own experiences to run the show.
Most of the choices he made I'm ok with, though making Santana and Britney gay? Not so much. It was like they changed orientations mid show, which felt forced.
But the other stuff? No issue at all, and Kurt's dad is one of the better characters on television when we see him. I can sort of see Murphy saying, "what is the perfect way a straight father can react and treat his gay son," and then writing that character.
So Glee is fine for me.
But changing comic genders? That really annoys me.
I don't mind a hero of color. I don't mind a gay hero. I don't mind a woman hero. But I do mind when they take previously established characters, some decades old, and change them to get there. That's the kind of decision that drives me away. You want a new hero of a certain type? Cool. Create one.
|
|
|
|
Post by TrekBeatTK on Jul 24, 2014 8:48:08 GMT -5
With Glee, it's a little different. I believe Ryan Murphy himself is gay, and he's using his own experiences to run the show. Most of the choices he made I'm ok with, though making Santana and Britney gay? Not so much. It was like they changed orientations mid show, which felt forced. But the other stuff? No issue at all, and Kurt's dad is one of the better characters on television when we see him. I can sort of see Murphy saying, "what is the perfect way a straight father can react and treat his gay son," and then writing that character. So Glee is fine for me. Yes, Ryan Murphy is gay and I don't have a problem with Kurt being gay on the show. In the early episodes, it was used effectively and they wrote his dad well. Despite early episodes leaning heavily on erroneous stereotypes ("I knew you were gay because when you were four you put on your mom's heels"), it was fine. But then we had the Santana/Britney thing which bothered me too. As you said, they changed orientation mid-show. They've never said Britney is gay, just that she loves Santana. But why is Santana suddenly a lesbian? They could have said bisexual, which I still would have felt was forced, but they didn't. In my review of the episode "Sexy" this is what I had to say: Santana will begin identifying herself as a closet lesbian in later episodes. And the viewpoint of the show seems to be that she is just embracing who she really is. But I think this reading is wrong. Santana has never shown any indication that she is interested in girls in general, only that she loves Brittany. This actually makes perfect sense. She has divorced sex from intimacy, so what she gets from guys is a sexual release, but not a real relationship. Meanwhile, Brittany is her best friend, who she has spent lots of close time with in Cheerios. They stuck by each other when they were ostracized for sticking with glee club over cheerleading. It's understandable for her to love Brittany, and to transfer that level of intimacy that is otherwise lacking in her prior sexual relationships onto her. And I think what's happened is this "gay is okay" society we live in has made her identify these feelings as her own lesbian tendencies. But from what I've seen, I don't think she is gay. I think she just loves Brittany. What she needs is to work out her intimacy issues. Until I see some indication that Santana is after anyone on the ladies' team, I can't see her as a lesbian and I think it is irresponsible of the series to paint it in such reductive light. For all those girls out there who might be confused over feelings for their best friend, and are watching thinking "does this mean I'm gay?" I think the show owes it to them to say, "not necessarily." I think Naya Rivera does a good acting job in this episode, and portrays the inner feelings well, I just don't want the show to lead the character where she shouldn't be. Why do lesbians on TV always turn out being girls who "turn"? I fear the show is becoming too gay for its own good. None of that takes away from a fine performance from Rivera, and at least addressing things seen in prior episodes. I am just really hoping that it ends differently from where it's going right now. Where's the Santana who was jealous about Puck? Who wanted Carl the dentist to drill her? What Santana needs is to be comfortable enough with a man to have the intimacy before the sex. And really, that's an angle that this episode terribly failed to address, when it would have been a perfect opportunity.
And then they added a transgender character too so they could have the queer trifecta on the show. It seems like every time there is a gay character they changed schools and come to McKinley. The character Unique as a boy who identifies as a girl and crossdresses is not treated realistically. There was no issue with the school about things like Unique using the girls' bathroom or locker room (we see him in gym class with the girls -- I can't believe the school was okay with this, at least not right away). Ryan Murphy has something to say, but he's stretching the show too far just to make statements now. This is a school in Ohio, and yet by season 5 it has become this wonderful fantasy Tolerance Land. But even all of that would be tolerable if he weren't neglecting the rest of his cast to focus on these issues. Tina's an original cast member and rarely does she get a song or a story about her. Everything is about Kurt and Blaine and Santana (when it's not about Rachel, but that I get). They also came to make Britney so stupid that her parents should be charged with abuse. But then they pulled the ridiculous TV trope that this somehow means she's a super-genius who got a perfect SAT score (NO WAY) and scientists want to study her brain. The guys who created the show with Ryan Murphy also did the shortlived WB series Popular and I liked that show a lot. In the early days, Glee had it's satirical sense of humor. Now, Glee really doesn't know what its tone is, except "we have to send a message to middle America". Blaine's extravagant proposal to Kurt was, in Blaine's own words, "to send a message" about gay marriage. That's where I grow tired of it all; Ryan Murphy is no longer focusing on character, he's looking at the audience and saying "Think like I do, you bigot!" During season two, after Blaine kissed Kurt for the first time, some conservative folks like Victoria Jackson (remember her? She was on SNL years ago) criticized the show saying, "I don't want to see that on TV". And they're entitled to the opinion. What did Murphy do about it? He had Kathy Griffin guest star as a pearl-clutchin Sarah Palin cariacture who was there to judge Nationals and said, "That group seemed too gay. I don't want to see that." or words to that effect. I think she used the word "repulsive". Just Ryan Murphy mocking people he doesn't agree with, and there really was no joke there. It was just "Aren't conservative Christians so amusingly backward?" I don't fault the show for the gay characters kissing; at some point I expected it. But he had to know it would be polarizing and instead of just standing by it and ignoring the criticism, he demonizes his detractors. But I kept watching because while these things were bothering me, I could separate the show from the creator. But no longer. As they seasons went by the storylines got lamer, the humor more forced and the tone shifted wildly from episode to episode (or often within an episode). They went with the tired trope that the guy who bullies gay people is really a closet homosexual, even though I don't think there's any solid evidence for this kind of assertion. But I kept watching. And as I did, I noticed the show was holding the queer characters (I use that as an LGBT umbrella term, not derogatorily) to a different standard from its other characters. I was glad when Kurt and Blaine broke up because I feared the show was holding them too high as some paragon of a perfect couple while everyone else around them was breaking up. But that was short-lived and they got engaged. What bothered me here is that NO ONE had any problems with it. Not their parents, not their friends, not any adult they cross paths with, not the school bullies, no one. Compare this to when Finn proposed to Rachel and EVERYONE was against it. Friends said they were too young, parents said they didn't know what they were getting into, no one thought they'd thought it through. And that was all true. But Blaine and Kurt are the same age Finn and Rachel were, and to not ever bring up the "are you sure you know what you're doing?" question reeks of political correctness. That's a double standard. And sure, the show doesn't want to repeat itself, but... the show repeats itself all the time! They've done several "eating disorder" stories. They've done lots of bullying stories. And they do the same sort of music all the time now. We're no longer as often mixing Broadway and classic Rock and pop standards and modern hits. Now every episode is "let's sing whatever hit song was #1 when we shot this episode". And as so much of today's music is terrible, that got annoying. How many times can they do Katy Perry on this show and neglect other good songs and artists. Sure, good ones still occasionally pop up, but it's far less balanced. So even beyond Ryan Murphy's big gay soapbox, I find the writing to have gotten to a point I can no longer tolerate. The humor's not as funny, the songs not as inspired, and disproportionate focus put on the queer characters. It's one thing to not like Ryan Murphy preaching at me, but I'm an adult and I can take it. But when the rest of the show isn't fun for me either, and I just yell at the TV that the writing makes no sense, that was the point to give up. The last good episode was the Finn funeral episode. I watched one after that and gave up. [my reasons I laid out in this post: Sorry Glee, I'm Done] And momentarily flipping over a few times after confirmed that it was no longer worth it for me. So of course your mileage may vary, but that's where I'm at. And I hate giving up on shows I like. I've rarely done it, and usually it's because of changing time slots (though that didn't help in Glee's case). I'll usually just suffer through and casually hate watch for amusement. But I couldn't do that here. -TK |
|
