The Official Good Television Thread

[Einherjar86]

Not only do you take things super literally, you also contradict yourself here.

From what I interpreted, he wanted to confess. There was no struggle, there was an almost immediate confession. He wanted Stella to know he had the hold on her with her friend. It was his last gratifying moment, to see her weak like that.

Dying to confess? Where do you get that from? haha It was his last power play to dodge jail, and it didn't work out.

I'm not sure which side you stand on, but I am saying that he did want to confess; he wanted to confess to Stella. That was her play. Get him to ask for her. If she just went in he would not feel as though he had put up any resistance, made any effort. She's catering to his arrogance the whole time.

I don't even think the show addressed why they didn't want to arrest him. The show was oblivious to it, and it seems like most fans missed it too. There wasn't a discussion between Stella and the Commissioner dude about bringing him in or not, it was just glossed over.

Do you need to be spoon-fed everything? Why does everything literally have to happen in a certain way?

The police could have brought in anyone, at any time, on their own. Stella was called in for a reason: the initial case remained unsolved and evidence was inconclusive. The city is in a state of anxiety over the murders, and the commissioner wants not only a suspect, but an open and shut case. Once they build up enough evidence against him, it's only a matter of time until he confesses, making sure he dictates his fate in his own way.

This all seems more than plausible to me; now, I'm willing to grant that the show might not be "oblivious" to certain details just because it doesn't bother to depict them. If you think a bit about what's going on, you can arrive at plausible conclusions.

From my memory the only people that talked to him were the younger police chick and her partner. I don't even think he said anything to them, and made that one plea to Stella at the camera. It was apparent to me that the scene was being set up as some sort of psychological battle between cop and killer, who may be entirely related deep down. And it really wasn't. 1/1.5 hr isn't something that I would call a lot of pressure regardless.

The interrogation itself wasn't 1.5 hours. It was days. This is what we call representation. The show isn't going to show every second of every interview; it's going to show some in order to give the impression that several are being conducted before introducing Stella into the room. I don't mean to be short here, but your demands of this series are ridiculous and appear to be little more than efforts to rationalize your distaste for it.

I find it interesting that neither of you thought that she was so upset because her big case, one that was so close to her heart, was being taken away from her by someone else. She never got her closure. Instead you guys think, if I understand your POV, that she has daddy issues and related it to him?

Why can't it be both?

Besides, watch her body language. If there was nothing deeper going on, then I find it odd that they would portray her cradling his body in such an affectionate manner.

 

[Jimmy... Dead.]

Her body language was incredibly telling. I was shocked. I thought she'd go for Anderson and watch Spector die. I mean she had him. It wasnt about the case and her reward, it was about stopping this man from killing another woman. But that was the whole point of setting up the scene where she wakes up with Det Anderson (or introducing this character at all). She picks the man she despises (that loosely represents her father/ a father/ Men) over the man she was intimate with. Anderson was right that morning in bed, when he mentioned that she saw a piece of Spector in him and chose to sleep with him unconsciously based on that.

The only things I didn't like was I feel it was forcing the female slant a bit. A couple of cringe worthy moments but nothing I couldn't overlook. Yes, women can be strong and men vulnerable, we get it. And I thought Spector made too many dumb mistakes for a smart dude and I didnt like some of his answers or reactions during the interrogation with Stella. I thought they could have made him a bit more profound and poised. When she said "but you're not free you're under arrest" I expected him to say something about the human condition being under arrest or how he's always been under arrest in a sense and then relate it to her and how they're alike, blah blah. Just my personal taste, it was a pretty good show.

 

[rms]

I'm not sure which side you stand on, but I am saying that he did want to confess; he wanted to confess to Stella. That was her play. Get him to ask for her. If she just went in he would not feel as though he had put up any resistance, made any effort. She's catering to his arrogance the whole time.

My side is that it wasn't her play. It was always his. She did nothing. Her looks and the apparent psychological reading Paul had on her facilitated everything.

I find it interesting that you give her character total agency but none for Paul. Paul is the uncontrollable psycho who can't control himself while Stella is the calculated hero who knows what to do all along.

Do you need to be spoon-fed everything? Why does everything literally have to happen in a certain way?

The police could have brought in anyone, at any time, on their own. Stella was called in for a reason: the initial case remained unsolved and evidence was inconclusive. The city is in a state of anxiety over the murders, and the commissioner wants not only a suspect, but an open and shut case. Once they build up enough evidence against him, it's only a matter of time until he confesses, making sure he dictates his fate in his own way.

This all seems more than plausible to me; now, I'm willing to grant that the show might not be "oblivious" to certain details just because it doesn't bother to depict them. If you think a bit about what's going on, you can arrive at plausible conclusions.

Weird that an English scholar is getting upset at people having different perspectives, with evidence, from a piece of 'art'. But whatever, I won't insult or get upset over a silly debate about a mediocre TV show.

I don't know why you are getting into the context of the hiring of Stella, I don't think it's relevant. I think the show spanned several months in "real time", so the media hype would have been gone a long time ago. This was not a 2 day investigation, one that warrants a quick fall guy.

Again, it's my problem for not thinking, but you still have not addressed this idea at all in two posts now. Don't get upset because you don't have any evidence to base your claim off of. If you don't think the head of the police being concerned with bringing someone in so that he can show his bosses that the case is progressing, then there I think is a fundamental issue in the TV show of not accurately predicting a police hierarchy.

The interrogation itself wasn't 1.5 hours. It was days. This is what we call representation. The show isn't going to show every second of every interview; it's going to show some in order to give the impression that several are being conducted before introducing Stella into the room. I don't mean to be short here, but your demands of this series are ridiculous and appear to be little more than efforts to rationalize your distaste for it.

Episode 5 ends with Stella's second bang buddy charging/reading rights of Paul. He asks Paul if he wants to speak, he doesn't, cuts to the kidnapped girl's video confession/plea thing. Stella's brought to tears to this.

The timeline of this episode is quick. Rights Reading -> Stella watching the video -> Finishes video, goes back to watch the end of the questioning of Paul-> Sends her wanna be bisexual partner to entice Paul, fails. There's no way this hints at a multi day process.

Even ends with showing the police team going through the burned car or whatever happened there, I forget. And that's where episode 6 starts and shows Paul getting more charges against him from this evidence. But shows a continuous timeline throughout episode 5 and 6.

I'm kind of going through the episode quickly, episode 6 that is, and there is on police officer who walks in charges Paul with 3 more murders following more evidence. No questions asked, other than his rights being read, nothing said, and Paul asks for Stella. Is this really a power play on her part?

Isn't it hypocritical for you to assume that the interrogation lasted days to support your claim? It isn't depicted either way, and if anything, it wasn't hinted at being a long process. I would say that he was arrested/in custody for a few days but was not interrogated for a long time, and never really interrogated until Stella came in.

Why can't it be both?

Besides, watch her body language. If there was nothing deeper going on, then I find it odd that they would portray her cradling his body in such an affectionate manner.

Well I don't know what perspectives you and Jimmy had, you only offered one viewing of it.

It seemed more sexual + police rather than daddy + police

 

[Jimmy... Dead.]

I'm on to a new show now but I don't know which to pick. Here are my choices: The Bridge (watched the first episode. I like the premise, don't like the actors really), The Following, House of Cards (overrated?), American Horror Story? (should I even bother?) Battlestar Gallactica (I'm not even sure I'd enjoy this but everyone raves about it)

 

[Einherjar86]

Weird that an English scholar is getting upset at people having different perspectives, with evidence, from a piece of 'art'. But whatever, I won't insult or get upset over a silly debate about a mediocre TV show.

Clever girl...

Alternative perspectives don't bother me. What bothers me is when someone criticizes a text for being "lame" and then gives piss-poor reasons as to why. I may not enjoy reading Samuel Richardson, but I'm not going to start railing against his novels as "lame." Don't get upset about it; but start thinking beyond your personal expectations as the parameters for whether or not something can be understood as good or bad.

Again, it's my problem for not thinking, but you still have not addressed this idea at all in two posts now. Don't get upset because you don't have any evidence to base your claim off of. If you don't think the head of the police being concerned with bringing someone in so that he can show his bosses that the case is progressing, then there I think is a fundamental issue in the TV show of not accurately predicting a police hierarchy.

I don't need literal evidence to base my claim on. In Hemingway's short story, "Hills Like White Elephants," the word "abortion" is never mentioned once. I don't need the word "abortion" to know that the story is about abortion.

As far as the second sentence of that comment, I have no idea what you're trying to say.

To be honest, I'm skeptical of your opinion because I know your previous comments about the show. I think you see it as an attempt to offer a strong female lead amid a flurry of accusations and feminist criticism that television lacks fully-realized female characters; and I think you're a bit peeved about that, and so you automatically distrust the show and look for flaws in it. But I don't think that what you identify as flaws are flaws, and I think your assessment of the show's quality is based less on any analytical effort and more on your initial impression of the show. In other words, you don't bother thinking about the show; you're only concerned with how you react to the show.

It's not your opinions or reactions I'm calling into question; it's how you privilege them as standards for the show's relevance and quality.

 

[TechnicalBarbarity]

I'm on to a new show now but I don't know which to pick. Here are my choices: The Bridge (watched the first episode. I like the premise, don't like the actors really), The Following, House of Cards (overrated?), American Horror Story? (should I even bother?) Battlestar Gallactica (I'm not even sure I'd enjoy this but everyone raves about it)

Only AHS season i enjoyed was Asylum. The great James Cromwell fucking stole the show.



One of my buddies has been bugging about The Bridge for over a year now, i might just fuck with that one next.

I need to catch up on Justified. Only seen the first two seasons.

 

[rms]

Alternative perspectives don't bother me. What bothers me is when someone criticizes a text for being "lame" and then gives piss-poor reasons as to why.

It's a crime drama. I said the interrogation scene was lame and that you are giving Stella's character a lot of agency for things that I don't think she had any in.

You still are derailing this discussion with this reply more than anything else.

The first season wasn't that bad and obviously enticed me enough to watch the second season. I still think the show could have ended in one season, and definitely a few episodes shorter in the second. I think the second season was an attempt to make more money off the show while it still can, and now you can see it's going for a third season probably. It's not a huge deal, lots of shows do this. Dexter lost me at Season 5 finale I think, Homeland was really bad after the first season. Not that big of a deal, I just move on and never talk about it again.

But I am always interested in hearing people's perspectives on why it is such a good show, and I am still waiting, much like Blade Runner. Maybe it's the cool thing to just say you like it and that is it.

I may not enjoy reading Samuel Richardson, but I'm not going to start railing against his novels as "lame." Don't get upset about it; but start thinking beyond your personal expectations as the parameters for whether or not something can be understood as good or bad.

What? You are saying what you liked about the show, subjectively, and so am I. I have no interest in having an objective debate about the quality of the show, and neither are you, thus far.

I don't need literal evidence to base my claim on. In Hemingway's short story, "Hills Like White Elephants," the word "abortion" is never mentioned once. I don't need the word "abortion" to know that the story is about abortion.

This is like the hundredth time you've implied that i'm dumb. No shit a story doesn't have to talk about abortion to be about abortion, look at the damn pizza episode of Seinfeld. Yay, I can be obscure and act like a pretentious asshole too.

As far as the second sentence of that comment, I have no idea what you're trying to say.

Stella had overwhelming, and I think DNA evidence, of Paul in the murder with the scissors. There was no discussion in the show about charging him right then or anything. It doesn't make sense to me. I never said it ruined the show for me, I just don't think they addressed that at all, and to me they should have.

Wow different opinions here, crazy! I just challenged your idea that you were right because I am the dumb viewer who must have everything spelled out for me while you are the delicate genius who can assume everything, and that their assumption is right.

You apparently just assume they did talk about it and then decided to not show it or act on it but instead build a better case because of the media attention. But the show spans a long time, and the media would have left that story for something else, unless Irish media is way different than American media (which I highly doubt). I think I disproved your point, but you don't address my rebuttal, instead you show your vast intellect by citing a Hemingway short story and Samuel Richardson.

To be honest, I'm skeptical of your opinion because I know your previous comments about the show. I think you see it as an attempt to offer a strong female lead amid a flurry of accusations and feminist criticism that television lacks fully-realized female characters; and I think you're a bit peeved about that, and so you automatically distrust the show and look for flaws in it. But I don't think that what you identify as flaws are flaws, and I think your assessment of the show's quality is based less on any analytical effort and more on your initial impression of the show. In other words, you don't bother thinking about the show; you're only concerned with how you react to the show.

It's not your opinions or reactions I'm calling into question; it's how you privilege them as standards for the show's relevance and quality.

Why is this show getting any attention?

I heard about it from a review of True Detective by some reporter that The Fall was a better TV show than True Detective.

So I was like oh mah god a show better than True Detective?! I can't believe I haven't heard of it!

So I watched it. It was OK. The crime plot narrative is like Law and Order. It never gets old, it piques my interest, and I wasn't upset that I watched it. It passed the time, and got me interested in some episodes.

But what baffles me is that somehow people think The Fall is even in the same galaxy as True Detective.

 

[Einherjar86]

Look, I never said you were dumb. Sorry if it came off that way; part of the way I argue is to give counter examples that demonstrate why something someone says isn't necessarily always the case. That is what I did when I cited both Richardson and Hemingway. It was to prove a point. Stop accusing me of being condescending.

Finally, I didn't address your point because I thought it was common knowledge that, in a case of serial murder like this, you always want a confession. It just seals the deal; it seems obvious to me. He confessed to every single murder, something that evidence did not attest to. They wanted a confession, he wanted to give a confession. I'm sorry, I don't see what's so desperately inconceivable about that.

 

[rms]

The point of the authors has no correlation to this story. There isn't an allusion to a different aspect here, it's a straightforward crime drama with elements of being controversial & progressive in its casting a female lead.

Never said they didn't want a confession, I just said he could have been arrested like 2 episodes before he actually was and the reasons he wasn't weren't clear or addressed.

He actually gets charged for all the murders before he confesses to Stella, or enough to lock him up for max term.

 

[Einherjar86]

a. The point I was making by referring to those other authors does pertain here because I was targeting aspects of your comments that aren't genre-specific.

b. They didn't want to arrest him when all they had were the scissors. It's a partial match to Spector, but nothing definitive. They don't get the video evidence until after they arrest him.

c. Yes, they charge him with the murders; but it's a hell of a lot easier to convict when you have a confession.

 

[Zephyrus]

Started watching The Borgias recently (the Showtime version). Really enjoying it, though it's certainly flawed. It's like HBO's Rome 1500 years later, with less depth.

I'm a sucker for any historical fiction dramas. I'll probably move on to Vikings and Sons of Liberty after this.

 

[rms]

I think netflix is doing their own version of the Borgias, if i'm not mistaken

 

[Zephyrus]

They do, and it's awful.

 

[rms]

I figured as much, I don't respect Netflix TV yet

 

[unknown]

Not sure if it's been discussed, but I watched the amazon pilot for Man in the High Castle. Interested to see what others think about it. I haven't read the source material, so I have no frame of reference (I think Ein is a PKD fan), but the idea is certainly interesting. What would have happened if the Allies lost and the Axis Powers divided the US. I thought it was pretty good

Also finally got around to watching the Black Mirror Christmas special. Crushing. Loved it

 

[Einherjar86]

I've read the book, haven't watched the pilot yet; but I've heard that it's fantastic. The book is phenomenal, one of Dick's most highly regarded works. It was a hit when it was released too, if I'm not mistaken. Lots of cool stuff going on regarding simulacra, the ephemeral concept of "the original," and thus the ambiguous question of history in general. There's also a very humorous depiction (in my opinion) of a John Galt type character. Really good book.

Is the Black Mirror Christmas special on Netflix yet???

 

[unknown]

no I had to use one of my favorite not-so-legal streaming sites to find it. It's definitely worth hunting down. Jon Hamm is fantastic in it

 

[Einherjar86]

I don't get why they don't upload it. The rest of the episodes are on there. Whatever, I'll try to find it.

 

[unknown]

Yeah I don't get it either. That's like the first two seasons of Adventuretime have been on there for at least a year...no word on the remaining seasons. Whatever, netflix

 

[Matt]

I really liked The Borgias, sucks it got cancelled. I thought it was well done for what it was as someone not overly concerned with historical accuracy