Ripper Street season 2 ep 1

[shapinglight]

Watched this last night and enjoyed it enormously.

Spoilers behind cut.



Though I think I'll probably enjoy it more if I opt to watch it on my own from now on. S is just the worst person in the world to watch telly with, unless it's something like Agents of SHIELD, which we both agree is stupid.

Anyway, the first episode of the new series of Ripper Street was great, once I'd got my head around the weird dialogue again. While it's true that we don't know people didn't speak like that in Victorian times, the literature of the period does make it seem a little unlikely. Plus, the whole thing does have a bit of lawless Wild West feel about it, which is probably deliberate, to sell it to the Americans.

But I still think it's great, and this first episode didn't disappoint, though I am disappointed to look on the BBC website season 2 page and see that Emily Reid and Deborah Goren probably won't be back. Also, a new female character is to be introduced (I assume as a love interest for Reid, or at least a female character for him to engage with) who is supposed to be Jane Cobden, the suffragette. This is both exciting and worrying. I can see how such a person would appeal to Reid, but hope she won't be just thrown in as a random SFC, especially as she's based on a real person. There's also to be a new detective sergeant, Albert Flight, who is Irish, and will no doubt have Fenian connections.

Scared of cliche, but hoping they can pull it off.

As for the first ep, it looks like this series will be different, in that it's introduced a nemesis for Reid in DI Shine, who didn't die in the same episode. So, not so much monster of the week this time, more of a seasonal arc. I wonder if that's the last we'll see of Blush Pang? She was a nasty piece of work, but all the more reason to bring her back. It could be, though, that they feel they've 'done' the Chinese story now and don't need to.

I do like Reid. I think he's a great character. I like Drake and Jackson too. I don't agree with much that the Guardian's TV critic said about the show (she baled after the first episode last year, and seems to think that every single episode in the series was about horrible rapes and murders of women, which is not the case), but I do agree that at its heart it's a three way bromance.

Speaking of TV, I've started watching season 2 of The Good Wife again. I stalled for some reason about half way through. Can't understand why. It's such a good show!

Comments

[chasingdemons.livejournal.com]

I downloaded season one of The Good Wife on my iPad. Look forward to starting it at some point. I caught a current episode on TV and it seemed like something I could get into.

[shapinglight]

It's a great show. It really is. I don't know why I got stalled. I'm nearly at the end of season 2 now.

[ex_peasant441]

I watched it on iPlayer in the end. I agree, it is a three way bromance, although Sergeant Drake always feels a bit like the gooseberry. But it does have its ridiculous side. The dialogue, as you say, but also the taste for bringing in the wildly atypical for effect - like Merrick and kung-fu Chinamen this week. The whole thing is silly. Good, silly fun, so very watchable, but ultimately silly.

[shapinglight]

but ultimately silly.

I'm always puzzled by your definition of silly. Most of the shows you like (the Sunday teatime things and Bones etc) strike me as pretty silly.

[ex_peasant441]

Bones is silly, Merlin is silly, Doctor Who is mostly silly, Game of Thrones is mostly silly. Something like The Politician's Husband* or Broadchurch is not silly.

Sillyness is mostly about being enjoyable but lacking something. Exactly what each show lacks varies with the show, I think, but in a lot of cases it is 'unpredictability', 'true originality' and 'a sense of reality'.


* All except the last two minutes, which was very silly.

[shapinglight]

Hmm, well in the case of GoT, I think it would be a bit much to say it's silly because it lacks a sense of reality. It's a fantasy show, after all.

I think good scripts/stories can save shows from silliness by your definition even if they're not about 'real life.'

Which is why I'd agree with you about Merlin and DW, but not about this or GoT.

[ex_peasant441]

I agree that shows don't have to be reality based to be not-silly. Although I think most fantasy shows have to work harder because writers, cast and crew tend not to take things as seriously when there is a large fantasy element. I think what bugs me about Ripper Street and GoT is that they don't know how silly they are. I suspect the writers of Ripper Street have made an honest effort to write 'realistic' dialogue and have now idea how ridiculous it sounds. I suspect the people involved in GoT honestly believe they are creating something highly original and well-thought out. The fact that so many viewers believe GoT to be a very good show means they have obviously got something right - the fact that aspects of it bug the hell out of me and strike me as very, very silly makes me wonder why nobody else can see it. So obviously the judgement of 'silliness' is a personal one. And anyway, I quite enjoy silly shows. I watch high powered non-silly stuff as well, but sometimes it is good to relax and not bother and watch an hour of enjoyable nonsense.

[shapinglight]

So obviously the judgement of 'silliness' is a personal one

Yep. Obviously, and one I don't agree with in either instance. Torchwood now...