Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeRedskin
I am not watching next season. Like soooo many others, I was sticking it out to see who the killer was. At some point next year they will say who it was, it will be posted and I'll read it on the internet.
AMC may actually get wind of the likely mass viewer exodus and force the killer to be revealed early and with lots of lead in promo, though why anyone would believe them at this point is beyond me (yes - killer is revealed along with an extensive conspiracy that effectively still eliminates no one from consideration).
It's really a shame. The show had such promise early - the first couple of episodes were gripping. Also, given the crap they had to work with, I think the acting was strong even to the end. The elements of an excellent story were there and the premise was strong: Take a season to fully explore the various elements/human factors that are created by a murder. In addition, they got strong actors who had subtelty and range. Unfortunately, the writers and the "show runner" (is that a new term for director?) squandered it all with poor writing and a complete lack of a vision.
Yes, Ms. Sud - solving a crime in a single season is (can be) just as "formulaic" as solving it in an episode. But, you know what? Everything on TV is formulaic and derivative. Entertainment is formulaic and deriviative - You sing, you dance, you tell a story or some combination of the above. Just present your story well and it will be received well - maybe even acclaimed.
Here, Sud was clearly just to entranced with her own brilliance to see that she was putting out exactly what she claimed not to be - Typical crime drama short on fundamentals (Two weeks later you check the odometer/gas tank of the murder vehicle against existing records? And this is the top murder detective in Seattle?) and long on "shocking" reveals which turn out to be red herrings. I could go on and on and on. I am just pissed that I sat around hoping it would get better only to have my intelligence insulted with a big middle finger at the end.
|
Show runner is the prime producer of the show. In TV land director is a much less senior position as many shows have different directors week-to-week. That way a director can focus on an episode from an execution standpoint and not necessarily have to worry about the season story arcs and the organizational aspects of the show. Show runner is the person who manages the writing team usually and generally defines the arc of the show. They essentially "own" the show from a responsibility standpoint.
On another note: in reference to Smoot's last post. The only thing the show had that was consistently good was his character and the actor's performance...AND THEY EVEN HAD TO TAKE THAT AWAY IN THE END WITH SOME NONSENSICAL CRAP!!!
Memo to TV people. Characters can have hidden agendas...that is fine. Even characters that the audience has grown to like and appreciate can do things that are unlikeable. What characters can't do...because it doesn't follow in any logical sense...is act one way the entire season, especially in the "only the audience can see this stuff going on" context, and then act in a way completely contrary to all that they have been established as. They might as well have just introduced a whole entire new character at the end with no explanation. Holder can't be the slightly-off good-intentioned cop and then not all of a sudden. Perhaps if that was the facade he presented his co-workers when in reality we, the audience, knew he was less sympathetic it would have been acceptable. But that isn't the hand they played.