So Much for Dead Like Me
David Johnston
and tries some kind of futile rebellion" thing has worn out it's
welcome with me, and I've only seen three episodes.
Al
rgo...@telusplanet.net says...
> This formulaic "George refuses to accept the reality of her situation
> and tries some kind of futile rebellion" thing has worn out it's
> welcome with me, and I've only seen three episodes.
>
That's just about where she stopped doing that and accepted her fate.
David Johnston
Do they have anything else for her to do?
Al
says...
Between working at Happy Time, taking souls, and meddling in the affairs
of her family, she keeps pretty busy.
See www.deadlikeme.tv for an episode guide to see what goes on in this
series.
PkJ0891
For me, the show was an acquired taste. George was such an obnoxious kid in
the beginning that I wanted to slap her. I hated her mom, and her Happy Time
job co-workers were irritating.
Having said that, give the show more time. I absolutely have fallen in love
with it. The series underwent one of those dreaded changes in direction,
resulting in some iffy-ness in the early plots, but it seems to be on track
now. The only caveat I would offer is that its focus is supposed to be on
George's (and the others) coming to terms with their unlived lives. If you're
looking for more traditional scifi/fantasy/etc, this one is not it (barring
another change in direction).
PKJ
jayembee
> Al wrote:
>>
>> rgo...@telusplanet.net says...
>>
>>> This formulaic "George refuses to accept the reality of
>>> her situation and tries some kind of futile rebellion"
>>> thing has worn out it's welcome with me, and I've only
>>> seen three episodes.
>>
>> That's just about where she stopped doing that and
>> accepted her fate.
>
> Do they have anything else for her to do?
Yes, they do. She's learning how to live. That's what the
show is all about: the irony of George having to die in
order to learn how to participate in life rather than just
exist (as she was doing pre-toiletseat).
To a degree, she's still doing things that piss off Rube,
so she hasn't completely straightened out her act, but
she's not as openly defiant as she was at the beginning.
-- jayembee
jayembee
> The series underwent one of those dreaded changes in direction,
Largely the result of MGM kicking creator Bryan Fuller off
the show, and handing it over to John Masius.
-- jayembee
JRD
I'm getting tired of women with men's names.
Paul Vader
>Is George really her name , or is short for Geogina or something?
Georgia.
>I'm getting tired of women with men's names.
Indeed - it's disturbingly common to give independent females men's names
on TV. That's a really bad message. *
--
* PV something like badgers--something like lizards--and something
like corkscrews.
PkJ0891
Yes, but in this case, I'm not sure that is ultimately a bad thing. Had it
continued with the cynicism of the first few episodes, I don't think I would've
stuck around. A little bit of that goes a long way, and George (as the main
character) was just about over my line of "I can't stand this person". And if
I hate someone, I'm not about to spend an hour with her every week.
While the change screwed up some continuity, it also made her tolerable to be
around. She was way too "life sucks" for me to care about her. In the
beginning, I was wishing that Rube would zap her off into hell, the whiny
little bitch.
What I still find annoying is that the "rule" of elective invisibility to the
living seems to have fallen by the wayside. That was a good one that they
should've left alone.
PKJ
Quiet Desperation
<rgo...@telusplanet.net> wrote:
She's been slowly coming around. Personally, I like a show that takes
its time with character development, and I think the pace has been
adequate.
Quiet Desperation
<jayembe...@snurcher.com> wrote:
> Largely the result of MGM kicking creator Bryan Fuller off
> the show, and handing it over to John Masius.
Was he actually kicked off? I thought he left on his own to do
Wonderfalls (one of the few show's I'm waiting for)?
Ian J. Ball
Quiet Desperation <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
I got the impression from the articles at the time that he was replaced.
--
Ian J. Ball | "I can't ask my roommate because he has
TV lover, and | a work disorder." - Katie about Henry
Usenet slacker | ATWT 04/09/03
ijb...@mac.com | http://homepage.mac.com/ijball/TV.html
PkJ0891
>In article <190920031859173447%nos...@nospam.com>,
> Quiet Desperation <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>> In article <d3aeee5b.03091...@posting.google.com>, jayembee
>> <jayembe...@snurcher.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Largely the result of MGM kicking creator Bryan Fuller off
>> > the show, and handing it over to John Masius.
>>
>> Was he actually kicked off? I thought he left on his own to do
>> Wonderfalls (one of the few show's I'm waiting for)?
>
>I got the impression from the articles at the time that he was replaced.
I agree. This article makes it sound as though Fuller was either fired or was
forced to leave when HBO insisted on changing the tone of the show (scroll
toward the end for the "My way or the highway" quote):
http://heraldonline.com/24hour/entertainment/tv/news/story/926275p-6452872
c.html
PKJ
Al
pkj...@aol.com says...
The article says, "Now the tables are turned and he's trying to make a go
of another writer's concept. "Dead Like Me" was created by Bryan Fuller,
who left to work on a broadcast network series.".
How do you read that to mean he was ousted? Sounds like he found a better
deal. Showtime does not have a good relationship with the creative
community. That is why HBO has all the Emmys and Showtime has hardly any.
David Johnston
>
> jrd...@aol.comDONTSPAM (JRD) writes:
> >Is George really her name , or is short for Geogina or something?
>
> Georgia.
>
> >I'm getting tired of women with men's names.
>
> Indeed - it's disturbingly common to give independent females men's names
> on TV. That's a really bad message. *
I don't find George to be particularly independant.
Travers Naran
Interesting. One of the few times network interference saves a show.
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Travers Naran | Visit the SFTV Science Blunders
F/T Programmer,P/T Meddler In Time&Space | Hall of Infamy!
New Westminster, British Columbia, |
Canada, Earth, Milky Way, etc. | <www.geocities.com/naran500/>
"Stand Back! I'm a programmer!" |
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Iain Odlin
>
> jrd...@aol.comDONTSPAM (JRD) writes:
> >Is George really her name , or is short for Geogina or something?
>
> Georgia.
>
> >I'm getting tired of women with men's names.
>
> Indeed - it's disturbingly common to give independent females men's names
> on TV. That's a really bad message. *
Bad message -- who can say. The practice has been around for far longer
than television. Read up on George Sand for a start. You'd be hard pressed
to find a more independent woman, I think.
-Iain
jayembee
> Is George really her name , or is short for Geogina or
> something?
Yes, it's short for Georgia.
> I'm getting tired of women with men's names.
I'm not. Certainly no more than I'm tired of seeing women
wear men's clothes (eg. bluejeans) instead of dresses.
-- jayembee
jayembee
> jayembe...@snurcher.com (jayembee) wrote:
>
>> pkj...@aol.com (PkJ0891) wrote:
>>
>>> The series underwent one of those dreaded changes in direction,
>>
>> Largely the result of MGM kicking creator Bryan Fuller
>> off the show, and handing it over to John Masius.
>
> Yes, but in this case, I'm not sure that is ultimately a
> bad thing. Had it continued with the cynicism of the first
> few episodes, I don't think I would've stuck around.
I don't know. It's hard to say where Fuller would've taken
it if he stayed. While I've admired the direction the show
has taken, I can also say without hesitation that I've not
enjoyed any episode half as much as I enjoyed the pilot.
> A little bit of that goes a long way, and George (as the
> main character) was just about over my line of "I can't
> stand this person". And if I hate someone, I'm not about
> to spend an hour with her every week.
There's where we differ. I can understand your point of
view, but it's not one I share. I really don't care if
characters are likeable as people, I just want them to be
good (read: interesting) characters. I had this epiphany
back about a dozen years ago when watching L.A. LAW, and
thinking that there wasn't a single character on the show
that I could stand to be in the presence of for more than
about two minutes, but that I also thought every single
one was a great character.
More relevant, perhaps, to DLM, I almost always feel that
way about virtually every character that I've seen Mandy
Patinkin play -- about the only exceptions that come to
mind are Inigo Montoya and Sam Francisco -- and Rube is
no exception. Patinkin is just terrific at being able to
bring out the irritant in the characters he plays.
Also more relevant to DLM is the fact that I've really
started loving the character of Dolores. If I knew her
in real life, it probably wouldn't be long before I brought
a gun to work and put a bullet in her brainpan, but as a
character, she's an absolute stitch.
> While the change screwed up some continuity, it also made
> her tolerable to be around. She was way too "life sucks"
> for me to care about her. In the beginning, I was wishing
> that Rube would zap her off into hell, the whiny little bitch.
But that's the point. In order to see how far she comes,
we have to see where she started from.
> What I still find annoying is that the "rule" of elective
> invisibility to the living seems to have fallen by the
> wayside. That was a good one that they should've left alone.
I'm not sure it has fallen by the wayside. They're just more
subtle about it. I mean, the reapers *must* be invisible to
some degree to the living when they interact with the dead.
Otherwise, wouldn't the people around them give them funny
looks for talking to thin air?
I think this is one of those things where one has to set aside
the typical fanboy "how does this work?" mentality, and just
go with it.
-- jayembee
jayembee
> The article says, "Now the tables are turned and he's trying
> to make a go of another writer's concept. "Dead Like Me" was
> created by Bryan Fuller, who left to work on a broadcast
> network series.".
>
> How do you read that to mean he was ousted? Sounds like he
> found a better deal.
I think you're putting yourself in the same boat. To me, the
statement is neutral. It simply states that Fuller left (which
he did) to work on another series (which he's doing). It really
doesn't imply cause and effect.
I agree with you that it doesn't make it clear that he was
ousted, but neither does it make clear that he voluntarily
left to pursue a better deal. The fact that he had WONDERFALLS
in the works already just meant that he had something to fall
back on. It's not like people can only do one series at a time.
Anyway, I've heard from a number of different sources that
Fuller was dumped.
> Showtime does not have a good relationship with the creative
> community. That is why HBO has all the Emmys and Showtime
> has hardly any.
Well, I don't think it's just that. Showtime just hasn't
managed to find that breakout hit that appeals to the
mainstream, as HBO seems to do. That's why I think that
they have this love/hate relationship with SF/Fantasy: the
genre shows seem to do really well for them, but they're
still just niche programming. Showtime wants a breakout hit
like THE SOPRANOS, SEX AND THE CITY, and SIX FEET UNDER,
and the genre shows just ain't gonna do that for them.
-- jayembee
PkJ0891
I guess I shouldn't have pointed to the end of the article, but the "tables are
turned" comment by Masius struck me as getting the point across. Sorry if I
steered you wrong.
At any rate, read the article in its entirety, because I thought it made it
pretty clear that Fuller was replaced/forced out over his vision for the
series. Fuller's intention was for a more angry tone, while Masius was "given
the job of easing the tale's darkness and cynicism". Whatever the specific
circumstances of Fuller's exit, I think this article *politely* establishes
that Fuller left over the direction of the show.
PKJ
PkJ0891
>pkj...@aol.com (PkJ0891) wrote:
>
>> jayembe...@snurcher.com (jayembee) wrote:
>>
>>> pkj...@aol.com (PkJ0891) wrote:
>>>
>>>> The series underwent one of those dreaded changes in direction,
>>>
>>> Largely the result of MGM kicking creator Bryan Fuller
>>> off the show, and handing it over to John Masius.
>>
>> Yes, but in this case, I'm not sure that is ultimately a
>> bad thing. Had it continued with the cynicism of the first
>> few episodes, I don't think I would've stuck around.
>
>I don't know. It's hard to say where Fuller would've taken
>it if he stayed. While I've admired the direction the show
>has taken, I can also say without hesitation that I've not
>enjoyed any episode half as much as I enjoyed the pilot.
When the show goes into reruns, I'm really looking forward to seeing the pilot
again - with the knowledge of where they all end up. The thing about the pilot
is, I thought it was damn clear by the end that George was going to grow over
time. What was frustrating was dealing with her obnoxious self until light
began to dawn. <g>
A long time ago, someone asked me why I stayed with shows that I hated. The
short version of my answer was that if I saw anything promising, no matter how
small, I hung around - because I figured that, eventually, the plot and
characters would unfold in a way that justified their initial promise. That's
how I feel about DLM.
I agree, but I'm looking at it from a "Who's gonna hang around to follow this
girl's story?" point of view. If I wanted all my characters to be likeable, I
would've changed the channel during the first 15 minutes of the pilot. I mean,
I liked *no one*, except for the Brit. Had the show stayed in its dark,
cynical vein, I would've zapped it as quickly as I did Seinfeld. I don't want
to watch a show about selfish, self-absorbed, nasty people. Not when they're
stuck in their self-absorption in perpetuity.
I'm familiar with the "likeability" debate, and my only quibble is that someone
on a show has to be tolerable. Yeah, Seinfeld was a huge hit, but how many
other shows with a surfeit of obnoxiousness were hits? Not many. Even if it
is the subsidiary characters you identify with and want to succeed, *someone*
on a weekly show has to be minimally civilized.
>> What I still find annoying is that the "rule" of elective
>> invisibility to the living seems to have fallen by the
>> wayside. That was a good one that they should've left alone.
>
>I'm not sure it has fallen by the wayside. They're just more
>subtle about it. I mean, the reapers *must* be invisible to
>some degree to the living when they interact with the dead.
>Otherwise, wouldn't the people around them give them funny
>looks for talking to thin air?
>
>I think this is one of those things where one has to set aside
>the typical fanboy "how does this work?" mentality, and just
>go with it.
Oddly enough, I was just making this same comment in another forum about the
reapers' living arrangements. I'm too tired to paraphrase, so I'm gonna
cut&paste. What I said about going with it:
"If DLM were a different show, I'd agree that we should have answers to all
your questions. But, ya know, I've come to think of this show as mainly
whimsical, and their living arrangements are not one of the aspects of the show
that I question.
I'd rather the writers spend a little time over the hiatus outlining the rules
of the reapers and the netherworld they inhabit. The focus of the show is on
forcing George and the reapers to figure out the mistakes of the actual lives
during their reaper lives. That says to me that creating an ordered netherworld
is more important than establishing how the dead people arrange the details of
their existence in the real world."
PKJ