Scots Taffer on 30/9/2010 at 11:40
So, Dexter is back with us for a fifth season. Perhaps the last, or perhaps just my last.
Oh snappp... that's right, Uncle Chris is losing patience with this show.
For some reason most websites seem to be universal in their praise of this season's opener but I found it to be a largely nothing episode. The basic format was Dexter acts blank, Dexter acts out, Dexter opens up. Maybe it's just me, but I wanted something more...
Maybe I was alone in being quite excited by the prospect of Dexter ditching the kids and going on the run, the writers definitely weren't - though it is admittedly a tough box to paint themselves into so early in the season. However it seemed fitting and new and an interesting direction to take the show in, but now we're back to the same ole.
I predict that Dexter will have to act dumb with the Feds and we'll have to endure excruciating voiceovers, Dexter will start killing again and Doakes Mark II will follow him around, Deborah will slowly start to see her emotionless brother in a different light (leading to the inevitable, in this season or the next, poor Deb), we'll have more THRILLING marital tension between Angel and LaGuerta, and blah blah blah. Hey, maybe we can even touch on that subject so likely to utterly kill plausibility once and for all and have the kids start to kill people too!
It's not really surprising that I'm losing interest as the past season had me at odds with most reviewers/audiences going ga-ga over the Trinity killer plot, which mostly left me cold - don't get me wrong, there were some great moments of tension and a killer of a finale, but so many of the events with Trinity and Dexter pushed believability beyond what I could accept (even for Dexter, which is saying something, really).
I preferred the much maligned third season as I felt the slow boil with Smits was perfect for the kind of relationship Dexter might feasibly strike up and it precipitated in such a way with the personalities clashing to give rise to (
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JHImG_wpxVw) one of the best scenes in the show.
Anyway, early to be condemning the show, but I was hoping for more. Will see out the season for sure.
Thirith on 30/9/2010 at 12:50
I'm usually a real series whore, and it's very rare that I watch a first season and leave it at that. With Dexter, that's what happened. I enjoyed it enough, but I found most of the characters other than Dexter hopelessly flat and the acting (other than Michael C. Hall's) middling. In some ways, the Ice Truck Killer was the only character other than Dexter that I was interested in; Angel had his moments, as did Dexter's sister, but by and large I was too meh about the series to bother with S2. If I see it's come down in price a lot, I might get it, but most likely I won't.
Scots Taffer on 30/9/2010 at 13:11
Dexter is the equivalent of popcorn cinema, flawed entertainment that's fine provided you don't look for too much depth. Season 2 is great and I think Season 3 upped the ante nicely but in different ways. It was a very big change in pace from the frenetic and crazy tension of Season 2.
Queue on 30/9/2010 at 14:05
Quote Posted by Scots Taffer
Dexter is the equivalent of popcorn cinema, flawed entertainment that's fine provided you don't look for too much depth.
That kinda describes
all TV, doesn't it?
Most television shows shouldn't last more than two or three seasons. The storylines either devolve into the writers throwing out chucks of ridiculousness just to keep the viewers speculating, so they'll keep watching (Lost); or resorting to sex and titillation because the formula is getting a bit stale and there's nowhere else to go (House).
Thirith on 30/9/2010 at 14:05
I'll check out seasons 2 and 3 then.
In many ways I feel that series such as
The Sopranos,
Deadwood,
The Wire,
Six Feet Under,
Rome and
Generation Kill have ruined me for popcorn TV, although I still get my kicks out of fastfood TV such as
Fringe. My threshold of tolerance for TV BS has been lowered considerably, though.
Quote Posted by Queue
Most television shows shouldn't last more than two or three seasons.
More than that, I can't think of many TV series, whether they have story arcs or not, that manage to have 20-25 *good* episodes per season. There's always way too much filler and half-baked ideas thrown in there because, well, you have to get your 20+ episodes per season. IMO
Lost improved when it reduced its seasons to ~15 episodes, but even then the series would've been better if they'd made the seasons even leaner. I can't think of any series right now that can carry off that number of episodes per season. (
24, which I only enjoyed for 1 1/2 seasons, needed 24 episodes because of its central gimmick, but every storyline would have been better if it had been tightened.)
Scots Taffer on 30/9/2010 at 14:20
Quote Posted by Queue
That kinda describes
all TV, doesn't it?
I don't watch
much TV, only the good stuff. Dexter qualifies by Hall's performance, some of the humour and plotting, but it frequently has the pitfalls of all the kind of shows I avoid.
Queue on 30/9/2010 at 14:28
That's what I love about many of the Brit-coms (like Blackadder, Fawlty Towers, Red Dwarf and Ripping Yarns), and most recently Eastbound and Down, six shows per series and out.
I don't necessarily think the writers are inept (though I did sign up for a creative writing class once and dropped it immediately when, on the first day, the instructor informed us all that he was only interested in television-style writing because he, personally, was trying to get into television) but the sheer amount of storytelling required for a series that revolves around a single premisses is too taxing.
That's where shows like the Twilight Zone and Ray Bradbury Theater shone, each episode was a stand alone story so the writing had the potential to always be fresh--whether it was or not.
[edit]
Scots - To be honest, I don't watch much either. But what I have is pretty groan inspiring.
fett on 30/9/2010 at 19:21
I totally disagree - I thought season 3 was a snore fest and Smits totally got on my nerves, plus, who didn't predict the ending to the season? I've been a Lithgow fan for years and I'd say his role as Trinity is the best of his career, and the finale to that season, though a bit shoehorned in retrospect, was a "wow" moment for me, almost akin to "Luke, I am your father."
But yeah, the Angel/DeGeurta thing was old after about 5 minutes. I hope they deal with the complete disconnect between Deb and Dexter this season to - I can only suspend my disbelief for so long and the relationship is so patently and transparently one sided that someone as sharp as Deb would have known something was wrong long ago. The clock is ticking on that one. I've been entertained enough by it in the past to cut the writer's some slack a while longer. Wish I could say the same for Weeds. :(
SubJeff on 30/9/2010 at 23:59
Quote Posted by Scots Taffer
Uncle Chris is losing patience with this show.
Its dark and its different, pay attention or be like shit how did I missed it?
Yu, maar sys giftig, oo jussie is dit?
Quote Posted by fett
I've been a Lithgow fan for years and I'd say his role as Trinity is the best of his career.
(
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D52ctr0dI5Q&feature=related) Surely you jest!
But yeah, it's getting old now. The 1st and 2nd seasons were the best, even though 3 and 4 had their moments. This opener was.... mmmm, okay. Let's see where they take it.
fett on 1/10/2010 at 02:04
Eh, he was great in 3rd Rock, but his Trinity role was way more focused and intense.
