MovieChat Forums > mobocracy
avatar

mobocracy (372)


Posts


Why did her career crater? The U-North settlement -- why didn't it happen anyway? How expensive was Rick Dalton's house in 1969? Reboot potential? Vincent vs. Nino The kids at the end not aged Where were the cops and where was the town? Vasquez doesn't start shooting and they bug out before getting attacked What kind of box office did this do? Strangely better than it should be View all posts >


Replies


My take is yes. For better or for worse, science fiction is "genre fiction" and doesn't get a ton of respect from writers themselves and is often semi-cynically cranked out to satisfy fans, not as an art form. Don't get me wrong, I think it's an unfair deal and that science fiction has real potential as an art form to explore very interesting subjects. But rare is the television show that has both high quality dramatic content and also tells a compelling science fiction story. I loved this show. That being said, when I started watching season 3 I realized that while I understood enough of the narrative to keep watching it, I was also pretty fucking lost on most of the details that kept cropping up and had a hard time keeping up with the various characters in different eras where they were not recognizable or played by other actors. What kind of amazed me about this show is how excellent the acting was for what amounted to a science fiction/fantasy type show. I keep waiting for the younger actors who played Jonas and Martha to turn up in Hollywood. I mean I did, too, but was it ever spelled out clearly? I want to like this show, but there are times it feels like a cheap copy of Broadchurch, minus the excellent David Tennant and with a much watered down supporting cast and an all-too-predictable set of local scandals. I swear they must keep the budget down by having the one detective only ever wear a vest. I don't think they ever said who the rapist was. This is a slightly above average police procedural with some nice plot twists, but the Devils Bridge sequence left a bunch of loose ends. For one, the rape of Catrin John was never explained in terms of who or whether it happened in the Girls' Home. For another, what was the point of the Byron character? He winds up dead, and almost seemed to serve no purpose in the narrative other than as somebody to interview for background. He didn't seem to really be involved in the bad doings' at the Girls Home. While I can see a conspiracy to steal groundwater and some local ranch family dynasty benefiting, the whole taking hallucinogens and general weirdness seems to break my verisimilitude. I think some of the symbolism there is she's shooing this deer away, thinking she's doing the right thing, but she might have shooed it towards the hunters, resulting in its death. I think this is meant to be a metaphor for her personal responsibility with Diana's death, with the idea that her actions or inactions resulting in Diana being exiled from the royal family may have resulted in her death. In terms of the land boundaries and hunting, my sense is she was just near the border of the estate. What's interesting about this is the lack of security. I would have expected the Queen to have more sophisticated security that would prevent armed people, even well-off estate hunters, from coming near the Queen. I would have kind of expected her to have the kind of security you would expect for any senior government figure, if anything because of her symbolic value. At a minimum the IRA were a theoretical risk still in 1997, and then there's just the general risk of other potential terrorists or even just crazies or whatnot. Even without bad faith actors, just the that hunters would be allowed to be in a position to even *potentially* have the Queen down range is a risky business. You'd not want her to get shot accidentally. In an ideal world, they shoot for 16:9 but frame every shot with the vital stuff inside 4:3. I think the reality of this is that the 16:9 extra width becomes irrelevant because they've had to keep everything essential inside 4:3 borders. You basically end up compromising the 16:9 framing because you can't use the extra space for anything or frame shots to take advantage of it without it looking compromised at 4:3. So you wind up with marginal 16:9 cinematography. I don't think FX existed in HD in 2002, so the compromise that made sense was to frame it all for 4:3, although, IMHO, it was sloppy to not keep crew and equipment out of the 16:9 frame. That was naive in 2002 given even the existing use anamorphic DVDs and the coming explosion of HD everywhere. At least if the 16:9 shots were clean they would have had an easy path to HD. I mean maybe they could have shot it 16:9 and showed it letterboxed at broadcast, but who would have been happy with that? In 2002 most people were still watching SD TV sets and would have griped about the tiny image. Unless your production process was pretty visionary and had a lot of budget, getting your cinematography right in the early days of HD was impossible. It's kind of puzzling. The normal explanation would be that she married a high-end attorney, and both her husband and herself come from fairly affluent families, so slogging in Hollywood wasn't really necessary. Yet, slog she has, and I can't quite grasp why she continued to take so many small roles for so long. I *kind of* would have expected her to just bow out, between her husband's income, her Shield income, and whatever her and her husband might have gotten from their parents. Even more surprising was the lack of any actual traction in terms of better roles. Honestly, she would have made a great recurring character on "Justified" given her natural southern accent, and Walton Goggins would have been the link. She would have been as or more interesting as Deputy Marshall Rachel Brooks than the actress who played her. Viggo had the most dramatic role playing Lucifer so he made a bigger splash. Walken mopped the floor with the rest of the cast, it’s like they weren’t even acting. I think it fell out of favor over time because some of its design elements, especially the luxury apartments, became seen as dated. A fair number of 1970s films depicting the near future really dived into the modernist design styles of the late 1960s and early 1970s. This probably worked at the time to sell audiences on the setting representing a future evolved from our present, but over the years these designs have become dated themselves, which renders the vision of the future as dated itself and it kind of damages the film's verisimilitude. I think it was also something of the product of its time when there was a lot more public acceptance/credibility about things like overpopulation, resource scarcity and environmental poisoning. Ironically, that same public concern led to environmental changes that have resulted in significant declines in pollution and in combination with improvements in technology have led to a general belief that global population growth is mostly sustainable and not the crisis it once was. Most people are against remakes, but I think this one could probably be remade in ways that would make it more believable. It might help to have more world-building done, too, as I think the original was awfully vague in terms of the nature of political leadership. View all replies >