What was the last TV show you watched?

[Fading Fast]

...Started with the first episode of The Crown. It looks
promising.

It's good, solid TV, not great, but very good. It is also incredibly beautiful done - the sets and period details are outstanding.

Additionally, IMHO, Jonathan Lithgow kills it as Churchill - he's just fantastic - and also look for Pip Torrens as Tommy as he is awesome in the role.

We are currently a couple of episodes into season 2.

 

[Doctor Strange]

It's TOO beautifully done. I think its over-the-top opulence actually detracts from the storytelling. Sure, all of the ceremonial stuff has to be that opulent, but for example, in the second season there are side-trips minus the main characters just to set up current events that obviously cost a bundle... and are totally unnecessary.

(I'm reminded of Eric Idle as the TV reporter in The Rutles: "We're here in Mississippi to show how expensive it is to make these documentaries."!)

And everybody goes on about Lithgow, and he's good, but he's no better than several other Churchills that we've seen over the years. I think the real standout performance in the first season is by Jared Harris as Elizabeth's father. He's the one who really deserved an Emmy nom, it's a much more shaded and subtle performance than Lithgow's.

And I've said this before: Claire Foy is good... but her part largely consists of pursing her lips and looking concerned. Even when she finally has more agency in the second season, she's mostly just reacting. It's an odd way to present the central character.

As you said, it's good, not great.

 

[belfastboy]

[QUOTEShermanfevil, post: 2353983, member: 9687"]The last two episodes of Shetland. Nicely done.
Started with the first episode of The Crown. It looks
promising.
[/QUOTE]
Loved Shetland.

 

[Fading Fast]

It's TOO beautifully done. I think its over-the-top opulence actually detracts from the storytelling. Sure, all of the ceremonial stuff has to be that opulent, but for example, in the second season there are side-trips minus the main characters just to set up current events that obviously cost a bundle... and are totally unnecessary.

(I'm reminded of Eric Idle as the TV reporter in The Rutles: "We're here in Mississippi to show how expensive it is to make these documentaries."!)

And everybody goes on about Lithgow, and he's good, but he's no better than several other Churchills that we've seen over the years. I think the real standout performance in the first season is by Jared Harris as Elizabeth's father. He's the one who really deserved an Emmy nom, it's a much more shaded and subtle performance than Lithgow's.

And I've said this before: Claire Foy is good... but her part largely consists of pursing her lips and looking concerned. Even when she finally has more agency in the second season, she's mostly just reacting. It's an odd way to present the central character.

As you said, it's good, not great.

I believe in prior posts I've used the word "slick" several times in describing "The Crown" as well as noting it feels "over engineered" to the point that you see the seams despite all the beauty.

The writers are very good at creating emotionally impactful scenes and dialogue, but (also noted in some past post I believe), the production lacks an over-arching vision that allows you to deeply connect with the story and characters; instead, it's good TV full of beauty and some powerful scenes, but nothing that truly moves you.

It might ultimately fail as they've asked a lot of their audience to go along with the alternative history / all those films, but for now, "Man in the High Castle" has all the beauty and powerful scenes that "The Crown" has, but also - so far and on credit - has engaged with its audience in a deeper way as you feel an holistic philosophy is behind it. That's what is, IMHO, missing in "The Crown."

 

[Nobert]

I watched the first season of The Crown, and it was okay, but not enough to make me want to keep up with it. I'll say, I've always been nonplussed as to why the Royal family is given such vital status (I think even the average English person is pretty "meh" about them). When I read recently that Prince Phillip had announced his retirement, all I could think was, "from what?" The series didn't clear up my preconceptions, but gave me some inkling as to why certain people, like Churchill, attached such import to the institution.

 

[3fingers]

We are working on season 2 of "The Crown".
I would agree with the above. Plus the worst JFK in memory. It's a tough character to pull off, but this is obviously overall a high budget show.

 

[belfastboy]

Finishing up season 4 of "Peaky Blinders". It has held up fairly well but there have been a few jump the shark moments in this season. However the worst of it is Adrian Brody's performance as a mafiosa. It is as if he watched Godfather and is doing his impersonation of Brando or an amalgam of every terrible portrayal of a mafiosa ever to appear on screen.

 

[Ernest P Shackleton]

Watched a lot of TV the past two weeks. Godless. Ozark. Game of Thrones. Vikings.

Godless was very good, but I'm not a Western connoisseur. I can see a Western connoisseur not caring for it. Michelle Dockery's best performance since Downton Abbey? I think so. Good characters. Daniels makes a good villain.

Ozark requires several episodes. Each episode is better than the last, but the first isn't particularly great.

Game of Thrones. This last season is the worst season so far. Subpar story. Really stupid dialog.

Vikings is possibly the best season so far. It's at least the best season since season one. I've been highly critical, and thoroughly disappointed, in this series as a whole, so it is nice to see an investment finally pay off to some degree. The continuity is far better than in the past. I suspect it is because Hirst is depending less on historical snippets and ceremonial/ritual assumptions to provide the meat of the show. There's more of a focus on the story and the characters (imagine that).

 

[Just Jim]

I've been watching (re-watching) the entire run of Babylon 5. I like the way the storyline builds layer upon layer.

 

[Seb Lucas]

It's TOO beautifully done. I think its over-the-top opulence actually detracts from the storytelling. Sure, all of the ceremonial stuff has to be that opulent, but for example, in the second season there are side-trips minus the main characters just to set up current events that obviously cost a bundle... and are totally unnecessary.

(I'm reminded of Eric Idle as the TV reporter in The Rutles: "We're here in Mississippi to show how expensive it is to make these documentaries."!)

And everybody goes on about Lithgow, and he's good, but he's no better than several other Churchills that we've seen over the years. I think the real standout performance in the first season is by Jared Harris as Elizabeth's father. He's the one who really deserved an Emmy nom, it's a much more shaded and subtle performance than Lithgow's.

And I've said this before: Claire Foy is good... but her part largely consists of pursing her lips and looking concerned. Even when she finally has more agency in the second season, she's mostly just reacting. It's an odd way to present the central character.

As you said, it's good, not great.

I agree with everything you say here. Well put.

 

[Benzadmiral]

American Gods: Season One - Nice idea with some great moments but loses impact as it continues. It's worth checking out although its reliance on CGI effects was noticeable and strained plausibility. It was fun and atmospheric although I'm not sure I could do another season unless I had a lot of time to kill.

Is this based on the novel of the same name by Neil Gaiman? I've been trying to find it at my school's library, but it's always checked out.

OH, and my most recent TV was Have Gun - Will Travel's only 2-parter, "A Quiet Night in Town," with Sydney Pollack (yes! that Sydney Pollack) as a particularly unpleasant gunman. Written by Harry Julian Fink, the creator (about 10 years later) of Dirty Harry. I'm beginning to appreciate his TV work: He often created more vivid characters and explored more moral issues than a lot of TV scribes of those days.

 

[Fading Fast]

First few episodes of season 3 of "The Ranch."

While there are several very good drama / period pieces on TV now, there seem to be fewer good comedy shows so we stayed with this one despite a ho-hum first season and we're rewarded with a more thoughtful season 2.

Season 3, however is proving to be slightly disappointing as they seem to be going for too many sound-track and hackneyed jokes and, also, the plots are being manipulated for too much drama each episode which is also forcing inconsistencies from the characters.

We're going to stay with it for now as, again, there aren't that many good comedy options (recently watched the pilot of "La to Vegas" and felt a few brain cells die), but are hoping it returns to season 2 form.

 

[Doctor Strange]

Is this based on the novel of the same name by Neil Gaiman? I've been trying to find it at my school's library, but it's always checked out.

Yes, that's it. And it's a very good adaptation, better than I expected - though once it was announced that Ian McShane was cast, I knew they were on the right track. He's literally THE perfect actor for the part. All the casting, and the various ways that the adaptation updates/extends the story, are very good. It's gutsy and boundary pushing... one of last year's TV highlights, IMHO.

It does use a lot of bizarre imagery and heavy CGI effects... but that's appropriate for its wait-is-this-stuff-really-happening?!? storytelling.

 

[HanauMan]

They're rerunning the TV series Frasier here, so I've been avidly watching the show again. It was one of my favorite shows in the 1990s and I still find it very funny.

Funny thing is that Cheers was a show that my mom used to watch though I didn't really go for it much. But I just couldn't get enough of this spin off and still giggle and scream like a girl at the antics of the Cranes, Daphne, Roz, Bulldog Briscoe, Gil Chesterton and all the rest, not forgetting Eddie, Of course.

 

[Zombie_61]

First few episodes of season 3 of "The Ranch."

While there are several very good drama / period pieces on TV now, there seem to be fewer good comedy shows so we stayed with this one despite a ho-hum first season and we're rewarded with a more thoughtful season 2.

Season 3, however is proving to be slightly disappointing as they seem to be going for too many sound-track and hackneyed jokes and, also, the plots are being manipulated for too much drama each episode which is also forcing inconsistencies from the characters.

We're going to stay with it for now as, again, there aren't that many good comedy options (recently watched the pilot of "La to Vegas" and felt a few brain cells die), but are hoping it returns to season 2 form.

My wife and I finished watching the fourth season last week. I'd like to tell you it gets better, but by season three it seems the actors have all settled into their respective roles, the writers have apparently found a formula that they think works for the show, and each subsequent episode tends to have that "more of the same" feeling. That's okay if you like the show, not so much if you don't. If you stick with it, I'd like to hear (or read) your thoughts and opinions after you've seen seasons three and four. We like the show well enough and find it to be more entertaining than most of what's on TV these days, but if they called it quits tomorrow we wouldn't be too heartbroken.

 

[3fingers]

I started season 1 of The Ranch and it didn't do much for me. Maybe I needed to give it a little more time, but it doesn't sound like there'd be much reward in that idea.

 

[Zombie_61]

I started season 1 of The Ranch and it didn't do much for me. Maybe I needed to give it a little more time, but it doesn't sound like there'd be much reward in that idea.

I'd say you would probably need to watch the first five to seven episodes to get a decent "feel" for the show. If it hasn't grabbed you by then, it probably never will. To be honest I don't really know why my wife and I like it, and can't even say I'd recommend it to anyone. They've done four seasons so it must have a following, but I'll be damned if I know why.

 

[Fading Fast]

I'd say you would probably need to watch the first five to seven episodes to get a decent "feel" for the show. If it hasn't grabbed you by then, it probably never will. To be honest I don't really know why my wife and I like it, and can't even say I'd recommend it to anyone. They've done four seasons so it must have a following, but I'll be damned if I know why.

I agree completely. We only really liked season 2, but darn if we don't keep watching it. We even find ourselves annoyed with it in season 4 - which is when we usually quit a show - but so far, we keep coming back.

 

[AmateisGal]

Finished up The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel. I enjoyed it quite a bit, especially the wonderful costumes and the settings. I get a big kick out of Midge's father, Abe. Tony Shalhoub does a wonderful job with this character. I also love Midge's "agent", Susie. The one thing about this show is that the characters are original and distinct - each has their own little quirks.

Looking forward to season 2!

 

[Fading Fast]

Finished up The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel. I enjoyed it quite a bit, especially the wonderful costumes and the settings. I get a big kick out of Midge's father, Abe. Tony Shalhoub does a wonderful job with this character. I also love Midge's "agent", Susie. The one thing about this show is that the characters are original and distinct - each has their own little quirks.

Looking forward to season 2!

The show really grew on me as, as you note, the characters really developed. The style is incredible - it's an idealized early '60s style with incredible clothes, cars, architecture (heck, it's what I want the early '60s to have looked like, but probably never did) - but what has really sold me are the lightning-quick dialogue exchanges that pack a lot of humor (and sly asides) that force you to be alert to catch all of it.