It started off well, but seemed to be a bit dull and drag as it went on. I could see the racial relations/street violence thing coming from the first episode, so that didn't bother me at all, just their execution of it just seemed pretty pedestrian.
Thanks for the post about The Gilded Age. I watch so little of present TV now; so much of it is violent or dark/disturbing/twisted w/too much of it graphic (watching DVDs of earlier 2000s or late '90s shows I enjoyed) that I'm not seeing adverts for what's coming up. I mightn't have caught this & while IDK that the content will hold my interest, it does look to have quite an exceptional cast, so I'll at least give it a go!
Interesting plot ..late 1930s l.a. racial element, cop story + the nazis, supernatural good vs evil .. big budget. I liked Natalie Dormer and Rory Kinnear.
We're late to this series (found it in the city library). Three episodes in and it's...not bad. We are confused by Rory Kinnear's character. Is he supposed to be the son of the monster from the earlier series?
Much as I like Rory Kinnear (and his father!), it's ridiculous. Imagine a new series of Peaky Blinders, set 50 years later, where Paul Anderson (Arthur) reappears as a teacher. Imagine a new series of Breaking Bad where Aaron Paul returns, playing a judge. Absurd.
Depends upon genre and the contract with the viewer/viewer's mode of 'reading'. Look at American Horror Story, Outlander, Twin Peaks, etc. Not written in defense of City of Angels - haven't seen it, having watched the trailer - just pointing out the convention within the medium.
I mean, as @raye_penber mentioned look at American Horror Story; all takes place in the same universe and you have the same actors playing different parts. Or the work of Scorsese and Tarantino. It's Hollywood tradition for people to have muses and use them repeatedly.
OK in a series where multiple actors return within a series of sketches/plays to play different roles. I first saw that technique on the BBC in the late 60s/early 70s with The Sextet (with Billie Whitelaw, Denholm Elliot, Denis Waterman,...). Of course, many film directors have returned to their favourite/fetish actors through successive films. All of which has nothing whatsoever to do with the ludicrous idea of bringing ONE actor back to the subsequent series of the same name, in a completely different role. Uniquely ridiculous.
Maybe the show isn’t for you. Seems to be quite upsetting for you. Almost as upsetting as Prince reissue pricing.
Not upsetting at all, just very disappointing after the brilliant original series. Not a problem, I bought them all when they were first released.
I don't want to spill the unpublicized tea but having worked with some of the companies involved, I think the problem here (that at least you have, if not others) is not that they cast the same actor in a different role. The problem (if any) is that they called it Penny Dreadful at all - my double secret info is that this was done more for tax reasons than anything else. It was simply cheaper to have it be considered a "returning" series production than a new one. So if anyone has ever wondered why the two series have the same name despite taking place decades and thousands of miles apart, with no character connection, now you know why. Same creator, same dark tone perhaps, but really, as Wikipedia will tell you, "Penny dreadfuls were cheap popular serial literature produced during the 19th century in the United Kingdom." Which is why it is a perfectly fitting name for a series that took place....during the 19th century in the United Kingdom, but has nothing to do a series about Los Angeles in the 1930's. I'm not knocking the show whatsoever. Just explaining what I understand, about why it was called that.
I wouldn't care if they changed the whole thing, if it was a good story. This one suffered in comparison to the original series. Reminds me of HBO's True Detective, another show that had a terrific 1st season, but what came afterward was disappointing.
Yeah, PD: COA was a big dud. I was fully prepared for it being a completely different story and setting that the first series. That wasn't an issue at all for me. It just wasn't a compelling show.
Interesting...thanks for that info. At the time I took it for what it appeared to be; John Logan wanting to tell different "penny dreadful" type stores.
