ReCape: Watching The Cape
- Thread starter Elizabeth Grunewald
- Start date
I see what was trying to happen here, but it seemed a lot like you set out to dislike the show, then wrote 6 entire pages about how godawful it was, trying to bait people who actually liked it into being annoyed.
Humor is funny, trolling is not. Then Shamus trolling the people you trolled also is not.
It's a mildly entertaining show, it's nice to see stuff like this popping up, at least they're trying it. It's pretty campy and cheesy, but that seems to be what they're going for. It's hard to de-construct something when you're just pointing out what they did and not de-constructing it at all. "Ha ha, this happened and is exactly what they were going for, I pointed it out and that's funny!"
He fought a midget in one scene and you think it's supposed to be taken seriously when he's trained by a group of carnies?
Maybe I'm wrong and it is supposed to be a super serious drama, but I didn't take it that way. Maybe you just went into it with the wrong expectations. I dunno.
Humor is funny, trolling is not. Then Shamus trolling the people you trolled also is not.
It's a mildly entertaining show, it's nice to see stuff like this popping up, at least they're trying it. It's pretty campy and cheesy, but that seems to be what they're going for. It's hard to de-construct something when you're just pointing out what they did and not de-constructing it at all. "Ha ha, this happened and is exactly what they were going for, I pointed it out and that's funny!"
He fought a midget in one scene and you think it's supposed to be taken seriously when he's trained by a group of carnies?
Maybe I'm wrong and it is supposed to be a super serious drama, but I didn't take it that way. Maybe you just went into it with the wrong expectations. I dunno.
.....Shows like this are the reason I don't watch television...
Screw the cape! I got Megaman X and Zero!! Cause real heros don't wear capes!
Screw the cape! I got Megaman X and Zero!! Cause real heros don't wear capes!
I liked the article. Being in Britain, I don't think I'll get to see this any time soon. If the reviews/descriptions I've seen on the internets are anything to go by, that's not a bad thing.
Eh, the writing is weak, but the premise has a lot of potential. And throughout, there are moments were that potential can be seen leaking through... there's just not enough time to explore it. In cases like these, with an unproven series, I find it hard to blame the writers.Elizabeth Grunewald said:
I blame the people funding episodic television--which means the producers and audiences. A story like this could have some real depth and heart... but that kind of development takes an investment of time more than anything. Yet they give these shows such a limited window in which to prove themselves, which usually causes character development to take a backseat... or worse, to be done in a hurry, so you can't even go back and do it later.
It also forces writers to cram too many introductions in all at once. For this series, the early episodes needed to not have Summer Glau's character yet. Let that remain a mysterious force working in the background, seemingly for a common goal. It could have even been interesting to explore the Cape and Orwell in conflict with one another due to the mistrust prevalent in a corrupt city...
But I'm sure the producers said, "Glau is a closer on a series like this. People will tune in to see her. You put her in from day ONE." Which leaves us having to drop the circus... but that stunts the development of our main character's alter-ego. It'd be a stillbirth. Unfortunately, Summer Glau's character will be the weight that sinks this ship--through no fault of her own.
Short attention spans are killing the hope of any real depth in a miniseries like this. People require the series to tip its hand early on, in order to prove it's worth watching... and in doing so, they ruin any impact those elements could have had.
Wait.. Are Shamus and Grunewald the same person with different accounts? The writing seems similar, the ideologies seem similar, and in the face of one getting picked on by fanboys the other comes to the defense?
So... which is your superhero and which is your secret identity?
So... which is your superhero and which is your secret identity?
Thank you for writing this article not because I enjoyed reading it, but because it reminded me it was on and you lowered my expectations enough for me to be able to enjoy it. I started watching it expecting a complete train wreck but while it wasn't award winning quality, it was very entertaining and a lot better then I was expecting. I'm now looking foward to seeing where they take this series and as long as they slow down the story a bit, it has a lot of promise. My biggest problem is the lead keeps reminding me of one of the leads in Supernatural.
I have seen the show and now, just read the recap. I feel like it is spot on. The chess metaphor in the way they did it is like they couldn't find anything deeper than that. They might as well put out a book called Art of War for dummies. Oh, but then what would they have done for the villain's eyes. I can understand them laying out all the "chess peices"(heroes & villians) in this show from the beginning so the moves and motives are clear. I can understand the campy family for the cape so you know what drives him to be the cape. I even thought Dark Knight in the Carnival Bank heist as well. But overall, I was entertained with the show. Come on, how can you not like it when you got the actor who played
Bullet Tooth Tony(Snatch) getting beat up by a guy a third of his size. Besides, this is me supporting a writer/director/actor shows due to the hatred I have with reality TV shows.
Bullet Tooth Tony(Snatch) getting beat up by a guy a third of his size. Besides, this is me supporting a writer/director/actor shows due to the hatred I have with reality TV shows.
viranimus said:
Well, considering Shamus' work tends to be well thought out, entertaining and generally insightful and Grunwald's tends to be ill concieved, dull at best and irritatingly abrasive at worst; I'd say that Shamus is the superhero.viranimus said:
No, well written shows are good because they are well written and likewise for poorly written ones. There are plenty of procedural or one-off style shows that are horrible. I certainly don't think that the CSI: ~40 minutes of Act 1 - Introduce Problem, Act 2 - Fluff/Drama/Expand Problem, Act 3 - Solve Problem is instantly a more fulfilling entertainment experience because at least everything was resolved in 40 minutes(1 hour sans commercials).warmonkey said:
One episode/series narrative structure is no more open to bad writing than another.
In answer to your query, see below.omegawyrm said:
HG131 said:
"I like X, therefore X is objectively good, therefore I like X." It's a circular argument completely free of skepticism or qualitative judgments.Onyx Oblivion said:
Liking something and thinking it's good are two independent statements. I like the show Deadliest Warrior because it features a man dressed as a viking and a man dressed as a samurai fighting to the death in a forest. Is it a good show? Hell no! It's tripe; it's cultural refuse. I can still enjoy it, even if, from a critical perspective, it's consumer bullshit.
Like, I can empirically explain to you why The Cape was bad, from a Screenwriting and Directing 101 perspective. The first three pages of this review are about the first twenty-four minutes of the show. That is poor pacing. That is a weak introduction. In this first episode, we have already confronted three villains when it would be much better use of the time given to flesh out the protagonist's origin and develop the characters. You may have liked the show as it stands, but I guarantee you that if they had taken the other route the pilot and subsequent episodes would be a superior product overall.
And the vision behind the show was weak as well - just having a scene where one character reads a comicbook aloud to another gives the strong impression that the people making this show have absolutely no personal experience with comicbooks whatsoever, and that the director has no idea how to convey a father-son relationship without using a bedtime story scene. 'Blogging' is basically presented as a superpower in itself. This shows a disconnect from reality on the part of the creators. This. Isn't. Good. Writing.
And the excuse that the source material is campy and therefore the show can be is pretty flimsy. Comics actually take themselves verrry seriously most of the time. Just look at Watchmen, the Dark Knight, etc. Plus, to paraphrase MovieBob, bad source material doesn't permit bad products. Creative works need to be able to stand by themselves, without the corollary "It's bad because something else is bad." If it's meant to be bad, it isn't going get made in the first place.
What gets under the skin of critical people - i.e. Shamus, myself - is when people who prefer to just view their entertainment without analyzing it seem to think "I like this (due to various reasons that generally go beyond the material itself, such as actors, writers, premises, effects, or my own imaginary extrapolations of it) and therefore, it's Good Television." Completely different things.
Due to school my time is precious so thanks for writing what I wanted to write.mechanixis said:
*internet high five*
