"*%#@$*&%" Deadwood

Well you had the little angry at the end of your other post.

I mean, I'm not angry that someone doesn't agree with me, but I do stand my ground. I'm actually in a fairly good mood at the moment.

Btw, I never said nobody could watch the show, but I will criticize it for it's excessive use of profanity which as an adult, I'm entitled to find objectionable. I lasted the first three or four episodes hoping the series would clean up it's verbal act as it went along, but it didn't.

We'll just have to agree to disagree on this one, that's all. No hard feelings.

 

b8375629,
The only part of your criticisim that I take issue with is the implication that they swear just to shock people or be scandalous; as if they just walk around exclaiming, "F__! f___ f___, f___ and f___. Haha! f___" or something, when in reality the dialogue is arranged more thoughtfully than any other on TV (except maybe the Gillmore Girls- not a show I watch, but it's equally famous for its tightly scripted dialogue).
If it were true that the swearing is only there for scandal, how long would people watch that sort of one-dimensional programming? Certainly not 2 seasons, going into a 3rd where it takes the place of the Sopranos, the biggest TV phenomenon since Seinfeld, and incidentally another show that used to be accused of excessive swearing.

It's one thing to say "I don't like all the swearing," just like another person didn't like a torture scene, and another to accuse of something, the whole if-I-don't-like-it-there-must-be-something-inherently-wrong-with-it attitude that rubs people the wrong way.

If I had to think of something other than the language to find offensive about the show, it's that truly despicable characters become likeable. A Deadwood fan is an Al Swearingen fan, and he is a stone-cold bastard.

I'm glad that HBO has some programming that is for adults only. Shows like the Sopranos and Deadwood allow us revel in evil and darkness and profanity in a safe, fun way.

 

Hi,

Cancel enough of your best shows and you will lose subscribers! When Sopranos is done at the end of this year, i'm not sure there will be enough reason for me to continue to subscribe.

Take care,
Jeffrey

 

As long as ROME comes back I'll be happy. That one, IMO, is the best thing HBO has going for it.

I'm disappointed that Deadwood is apparently departing as well, and if what I understand is true, it will end on either a cliff-hanger or unresolved storyline; that's tragic. I have to agree with the critics of Deadwood's explicit language, not that I found the cursing offensive, just unrealistic. What always confounds me is historical inaccuracy, and Deadwood had such an odd mixture of accuracy combined with inaccuracy that it was often disconcerting.

On the plus side, I agree with the description of Deadwood having tightly scripted, almost Shakespearian prose. The gritiness and dangers of the Old West have never been so vividly displayed, IMO, and this aspect of the series does ring true in spite of the overly colorful language. This series has an addictive quality to it and I have to agree with those who feel that HBO is making a serious error in failing to support it, just as they did by dropping Carnivale. But at least Carnivale ended on a reasonably complete, albeit dark, story arc.

:cheers;
Cat

 

Well I don't think we know the full story yet re: the show's cancellation- Milch is woring on some surfer thing, so maybe some of it is a matter of how much time he can spend on it. We just don't know.

I've only seen one season of Carnivale on DVD, and the 2nd is still not out, AFAIK. It's pretty interesting.

I couldn't dig Rome. One thing that bothered me was that they did historically inaccurate things for no apparent benefit to the drama, which was weird. Also, I'm reading a series of historical novels about the subject matter and I guess it just spoils me from TV's version. Maybe one day I'll give it another shot.

Whatever happens I hope Deadwood doesn't just end on some big cliffhanger.

 

Just curious. What elements of the history do you find inaccurate, specifically or in general?

While I enjoy Deadwood's grittiness and atmosphere, I find Rome a tad more accurate based on my knowledge as an amateur historian (especially in the areas of historical events, medical knowledge, cultural trappings and language associated with the period). In fact, I recall reading somewhere that Rome's producers went so far as to employ a team of historians to make sure that the cultural elements were accurate, thus insuring the authenticity of historical elements within the framework of it's dramatic content.

Absolutely.


Cat

 

Fair enough. But I do believe that. Most definitely. Why else would it be there if not for ratings. And on top of that, you ask the audience to suspend disbelief by apply 20th century profanity to the 19th century, making that particular point about the show stick out like a sore thumb.

Oh it's quite Shakespearian-like when the dialog is civil. I agree with you there. Then it throws profanity from out of nowhere like a drunken sailor or a truck-driver, all designed to shock and throw the audience off guard. You could have the same flowery-wording and script without all the curve-ball filth. It's not necessary to the plot since (I believe) it's there to appeal to the lowest common denominator, in the first place.

But that's what most programming is. One-dimensional. Otherwise there'd be nothing but documentaries on TV all day.

2 seasons is nothing to crow about. And it sounds like season 3 is on life-support. True, it may have a small, dedicated fan base, but not enough to save the show. And except for the dialog, it never got as much attention in the press as The Sopranos had.

I'm talking about the show, not you. You like the show, fine. I don't. That's fine too. My view isn't any less valid than yours is, and I'm glad I had the opportunity to say that, here.

Anyway, I'm done...

 

Yeah, see, I should have expected that (very fair) question before I said that, because I don't remember the details. They were specifically political (something about Caesar's titles and such), but I don't remember, so I can't back up my observation with anything specific. Apologies.

The other thing I remember turning me off of Rome was that it got so soap-opera-y with that soldier and his wife and his family. I can understand them wanting to show a family drama we can relate to but how it happened in that time period, I just couldn't get myself to care. It's as if the show couldn't decide between a dramatic telling of history (which I love) and a costume piece parlor drama, and tried to play it both ways. Maybe after I stopped watching it all came together better, that's certainly possible.

The show just couldn't compete to the books I'm reading. Not a fair comparison, I know, but I never said I was fair.

 

...absolutely no hard feelings my friend.

 

It seems my views have been misrepresented in the last few posts.

I'm no prude and swearing doesn't bother me at all. If I had kids, they could watch whatever they wanted. I could go off on a long rant about how we are protecting our kids to death! But I won't.

My point was -- I don't believe they really talked like that back then. I think the dialogue is the way it is because it's HBO and it has to be cutting edge. That sort of ruins it for me -- it doesn't ring true, IMO.

And I never said the show glorified violence. I said one scene gave me nightmares -- not the same thing.

All in all -- I'm sorry it's going off, but it had lost me a long time ago.

 

http://www.nypost.com/entertainment/68731.htm

sunuvabich