erichkaroly
Joined Jun 2012
Welcome to the new profile
We're still working on updating some profile features. To see the badges, ratings breakdowns, and polls for this profile, please go to the previous version.
Ratings38
erichkaroly's rating
Reviews19
erichkaroly's rating
Lindelof & Co's "Lost" proved that a broad audience on then ubiquitous Network TV could be brought along a panoply of rich multicultural stories told realistically, with high production values as well as excellence in all areas - if the central conceit as a vehicle was fantastical enough to lure them in.
"The Walking Dead" tied the template to a horror trope. A group of strangers (varied enough that almost any audience member can readily identify with at least one character), more or less ordinary-seeming persons, are suddenly facing together strange and unusual circumstances. A ruggedly handsome, youngish white male with a background in authority fills the immediate void and takes a leadership role. Clues are dropped for them and us often enough to keep everyone guessing. And - Gilligan's Island did not have this - backstories, usually one per spisode, take us all over the world as well as past time barriers, future and past.
"Glitch" has its own conceit, and the "science" can be a little hard to swallow - you sometimes don't know if the writers are going for science fiction, spirituality or just plain old ancient folk tales, with regard to defending the plot. But it's never really about plot in the better of these shows, which these three shows certainly are - they are about life and love, and sacrifice, which is always very satisfying in a story well-told.
Watching these series on small screens from beginning to end the way so many of us are now (I practice hours of piano scales and exercises, sound diminished, to make double use of the time they both take) - 'binge-watching' them shows off their qualities in a different light, especially when a show was written originally for a weekly, with beats to cut to commercials. "Glitch" one goes back to 2015, Australia, and I'm guessing it was a very popular tv series.The extra 'beats', the repetition of ideas and information to keep the audience up with the story in spite of the many breaks - these things tend to dull the storytelling a bit when there are no commericals, let alone the break of days between episodes.
That said, the actors are all excellent, the backstories often very moving, and I actually would have happily followed them around another season or so. But 3 seasons wrapped things up rather like a good short novel, and it was very satisfying indeed.
"The Walking Dead" tied the template to a horror trope. A group of strangers (varied enough that almost any audience member can readily identify with at least one character), more or less ordinary-seeming persons, are suddenly facing together strange and unusual circumstances. A ruggedly handsome, youngish white male with a background in authority fills the immediate void and takes a leadership role. Clues are dropped for them and us often enough to keep everyone guessing. And - Gilligan's Island did not have this - backstories, usually one per spisode, take us all over the world as well as past time barriers, future and past.
"Glitch" has its own conceit, and the "science" can be a little hard to swallow - you sometimes don't know if the writers are going for science fiction, spirituality or just plain old ancient folk tales, with regard to defending the plot. But it's never really about plot in the better of these shows, which these three shows certainly are - they are about life and love, and sacrifice, which is always very satisfying in a story well-told.
Watching these series on small screens from beginning to end the way so many of us are now (I practice hours of piano scales and exercises, sound diminished, to make double use of the time they both take) - 'binge-watching' them shows off their qualities in a different light, especially when a show was written originally for a weekly, with beats to cut to commercials. "Glitch" one goes back to 2015, Australia, and I'm guessing it was a very popular tv series.The extra 'beats', the repetition of ideas and information to keep the audience up with the story in spite of the many breaks - these things tend to dull the storytelling a bit when there are no commericals, let alone the break of days between episodes.
That said, the actors are all excellent, the backstories often very moving, and I actually would have happily followed them around another season or so. But 3 seasons wrapped things up rather like a good short novel, and it was very satisfying indeed.
I finally got around to watching Twin Peaks, after all these years!
So much has been said that I hardly need to note the show's many interesting qualities.
Coming from music theater as I do, the theatricality is the first thing I noticed. A great deal of the simplest movements - two people talking for example - is choreographed to create a proscenium picture - for example. Which gives the tv show a stylized tone.
And the characters are all - characters. Types. Excepting perhaps Sheriff Harry S Truman, a kind of stand-in for the audience's perspective.
There's unexpected plot, great fun with style, and of course all the rule-breaking which back then must have felt remarkable indeed. But I think what really makes the show memorable and beloved is the warmth that the actors bring to their characters. Lynch clearly engendered their trust, and they all hit their marks with aplomb and style and enthusiasm - and not an ounce of judgement or knowing sarcasm. They appear to have fallen in love with their characters, and we do too.
It's interesting to note how they had to work so hard to draw out the one full network season they had to fill. And also a reminder how easily shows got cancelled back then - abruptly, dangling midair plotwise.
That's Seasons 1 & 2. On Netflix. I'm planning on watching all the subsequent iterations, but this is one of those franchises with fractured ownership. You apparently have to go to a different platform for each one. I'd like to watch the very next part that was made - the 1992 film. But I am not amused that Amazon wants me to pay a fee beyond the membership to see it....
So much has been said that I hardly need to note the show's many interesting qualities.
Coming from music theater as I do, the theatricality is the first thing I noticed. A great deal of the simplest movements - two people talking for example - is choreographed to create a proscenium picture - for example. Which gives the tv show a stylized tone.
And the characters are all - characters. Types. Excepting perhaps Sheriff Harry S Truman, a kind of stand-in for the audience's perspective.
There's unexpected plot, great fun with style, and of course all the rule-breaking which back then must have felt remarkable indeed. But I think what really makes the show memorable and beloved is the warmth that the actors bring to their characters. Lynch clearly engendered their trust, and they all hit their marks with aplomb and style and enthusiasm - and not an ounce of judgement or knowing sarcasm. They appear to have fallen in love with their characters, and we do too.
It's interesting to note how they had to work so hard to draw out the one full network season they had to fill. And also a reminder how easily shows got cancelled back then - abruptly, dangling midair plotwise.
That's Seasons 1 & 2. On Netflix. I'm planning on watching all the subsequent iterations, but this is one of those franchises with fractured ownership. You apparently have to go to a different platform for each one. I'd like to watch the very next part that was made - the 1992 film. But I am not amused that Amazon wants me to pay a fee beyond the membership to see it....