This is a silly thought, but I feel like writing about it. I really like Bane as a villain, the way he was portrayed in The Dark Knight Rises. Let me rephrase that. While I think Bane deserved more screen time and more back story (and less love story), I found Tom Hardy's performance just the right mixture of menacing, disturbing, brutal, and smart. And since that movie, I can only ever picture Tom Hardy as Bane.
Lawless is Bane kicking the shit out of people in the Prohibition-era South. Warrior is Bane kicking the shit out of people as an MMA fighter. And Bronson is Bane kicking the shit out of people... because he enjoys the attention. I'm not saying Hardy is a typecast actor; on the contrary, he is very talented. But something about the character Bane left such an impression on me.
Lately my obsession over the Bane character has overflowed into other movies. I now envision Bane as the ultimate villain, finding his way into other movie franchises. For example, I am right now watching a Lord of the Rings marathon. The fell beast just grabbed Theodin and his horse and threw them across the battlefield. And as the Witch King of Angmar instructs the beast to "feast on his flesh", I, for some reason, picture Bane dismounting, cracking his knuckles and saying, in his raspy, slightly mechanical voice "now I will break you".
And then my imagination just gets out of control. Thus my envisioning Bane as every villain in Lord of the Rings. Or Bane as a Bond villain. Bane working for Gustavo Fring. Bane in the zombie apocalypse. Bane tasting half-and-half and getting some on his mask. Bane waiting on a bench at a bus stop in Alabama. Bane going through airport security. Bane on a blind date....
I think I have a problem.
Sunday, December 23, 2012
Monday, December 17, 2012
It's about nothing! (Finding Bigfoot)
This post is about the show Finding Bigfoot on the Animal Planet. I like to think of this show as the smart man's Jersey Shore. It is a show that you know is going to be awful. And then you, for some reason, turn it on just to see how horrible it is. And while, yes, your expectations are confirmed and the show is laughably bad, you find that you can't look away.
Four adults, who consider themselves professionals of something, go all over the country trying to find evidence of the sasquatch. And even though, season after season, episode after episode, they find absolutely nothing, they are all convinced that everywhere they go, sasquatches are close by. Their methods for discovery include: 1) listening to hillbillies and young children describe easily contrived stories about seeing giant hairy monsters in the woods, 2) going into the woods at night and screaming at the top of their lungs (because they honestly believe that this attracts bigfoots) while often mistaking each other for sasquatches on an infrared camera, and 3) sidestepping every remotely scientific approach to each situation. And yet at the end of each episode, the lead member of the team sums up the episode by saying that after all that, there is definitive evidence that sasquatches exist in that area.
My favorite part of the show is how they use the made-up word 'squatch' -- as a noun, verb, and adjective -- to evade actual observations. For example, they often say an area is 'squatchy', which apparently means that a sasquatch COULD live there. But they do not give guidelines for what makes something 'squatchy'; it seems like the only requirement is trees. When they walk around in the woods, it is called 'squatching', and when they see anything at all, it is usually a 'squatch'.
But while watching this show, I had an epiphany. There is so much more to this show than four lonely idiots getting paid to yell at trees in the dark. It is actually about THREE lonely idiots...and the smartest bigfoot ever. You see, the fourth member of the sasquatch team is a guy named Bobo. Yes, Bobo (no last name). He is a giant, hairy buffoon who hulks around and says little, and yet mysteriously seems to have the most first-hand experience when it comes to sasquatches. And why is this? Well, the answer is obvious. Bobo himself is a sasquatch, and the show documents him infiltrating the world's leading bigfoot research team (probably) and sabotaging their "research" in order to keep the trail cold on the search for his enigmatic brethren.
This show is a real-life Breaking Bad. Bobo is the elusive Heisenburg, hiding his true identity in plain sight. Just as Walter stays close to his brother-in-law in the DEA to throw them off his trail, but occasionally remind them that he is still out there, Bobo, on the surface, is a hardcore sasquatch fanatic, but behind the scenes, he is manipulating his teammates and destroying any evidence before the team gets too close. Whereas Walter is hiding the fact that he cooks meth, Bobo is hiding the fact that he is actually the missing link.
When viewed this way, the show becomes so much more prolific. At every turn, you see the gears turning behind Bobo's blank drool-covered stare, as he choreographs an elaborate waltz around the obvious truth. And the fascinating part is that, unlike shows like Breaking Bad and Dexter where the character with the second life is the (anti)hero, here this revelation is not made clear; the audience is as in the dark as the rest of the team. I wonder how long until one of the team members gets too close; will Bobo cook up some ricin poison, or, more simply, will he just eat them?
Four adults, who consider themselves professionals of something, go all over the country trying to find evidence of the sasquatch. And even though, season after season, episode after episode, they find absolutely nothing, they are all convinced that everywhere they go, sasquatches are close by. Their methods for discovery include: 1) listening to hillbillies and young children describe easily contrived stories about seeing giant hairy monsters in the woods, 2) going into the woods at night and screaming at the top of their lungs (because they honestly believe that this attracts bigfoots) while often mistaking each other for sasquatches on an infrared camera, and 3) sidestepping every remotely scientific approach to each situation. And yet at the end of each episode, the lead member of the team sums up the episode by saying that after all that, there is definitive evidence that sasquatches exist in that area.
My favorite part of the show is how they use the made-up word 'squatch' -- as a noun, verb, and adjective -- to evade actual observations. For example, they often say an area is 'squatchy', which apparently means that a sasquatch COULD live there. But they do not give guidelines for what makes something 'squatchy'; it seems like the only requirement is trees. When they walk around in the woods, it is called 'squatching', and when they see anything at all, it is usually a 'squatch'.
But while watching this show, I had an epiphany. There is so much more to this show than four lonely idiots getting paid to yell at trees in the dark. It is actually about THREE lonely idiots...and the smartest bigfoot ever. You see, the fourth member of the sasquatch team is a guy named Bobo. Yes, Bobo (no last name). He is a giant, hairy buffoon who hulks around and says little, and yet mysteriously seems to have the most first-hand experience when it comes to sasquatches. And why is this? Well, the answer is obvious. Bobo himself is a sasquatch, and the show documents him infiltrating the world's leading bigfoot research team (probably) and sabotaging their "research" in order to keep the trail cold on the search for his enigmatic brethren.
This show is a real-life Breaking Bad. Bobo is the elusive Heisenburg, hiding his true identity in plain sight. Just as Walter stays close to his brother-in-law in the DEA to throw them off his trail, but occasionally remind them that he is still out there, Bobo, on the surface, is a hardcore sasquatch fanatic, but behind the scenes, he is manipulating his teammates and destroying any evidence before the team gets too close. Whereas Walter is hiding the fact that he cooks meth, Bobo is hiding the fact that he is actually the missing link.
When viewed this way, the show becomes so much more prolific. At every turn, you see the gears turning behind Bobo's blank drool-covered stare, as he choreographs an elaborate waltz around the obvious truth. And the fascinating part is that, unlike shows like Breaking Bad and Dexter where the character with the second life is the (anti)hero, here this revelation is not made clear; the audience is as in the dark as the rest of the team. I wonder how long until one of the team members gets too close; will Bobo cook up some ricin poison, or, more simply, will he just eat them?
Saturday, December 15, 2012
A strange, erotic journey (The Hobbit)
I do not want to get into the habit of writing movie reviews on here. There are plenty of professionals who are paid to watch and critique movies, and they usually have an education in film making and analysis. Then again, there are plenty of people out there with opinions who have no idea what they are talking about. I guess I fall somewhere in the middle.
First and foremost, I will say that I really enjoyed The Hobbit. I have been aching for another visit to Middle Earth and this expansion of the universe was the answer to my prayers. It is because of how much I love the story and how much anticipation I had leading up to this film that I feel the need to write about it now.
Now for the critique. I saw the movie in IMAX 3D. I made the mistake of thinking that the new 48 frames per second version was standard to the IMAX, and I was wrong. So I cannot comment on that, though I really would like to experience it. My main complaint is with the 3D. I just do not see the appeal of 3D, especially in life-action movies. The only movie I saw where the 3D really added to the experience was Toy Story 3. And since then, whenever I see an animated movie, I go for the 3D. But in live-action, it just seems like the 3D distorts and ruins the action. There were some well-choreographed and entertaining action sequences here that I just couldn't make out on the screen because the images became dark and blurry. Maybe this is not the case in the 48 fps version. The Hobbit features a lot of panoramic landscapes and sweeping CG environments, and this is where the 3D really adds to the story, but for close-up action it just does not work.
Even optimistically, The Hobbit is at least an hour too long. It seems that Peter Jackson had three main goals: 1) to be very faithful to the source material, 2) to parallel the Lord of the Rings trilogy, and 3) to personally revisit the excitement of Middle Earth. Because of 2) and 3), we are getting three long movies from a single book that, alone, is shorter than any one of the three Lord of the Rings novels. And so, despite being very loyal to the novel, Jackson and his team have written in an entirely separate story about the emergence Sauron that is meant to connect the Hobbit trilogy to the Lord of the Rings. This is my main complaint about the movie. The story is meant to be about thirteen dwarves, Bilbo, and Gandalf going on a quest to destroy a dragon and reclaim the dwarves' kingdom. But their story keeps getting halted to talk about Sauron and a greater evil. Well, if there's a greater evil, then why am I following these uninteresting dwarves, whose are fairly forgettable compared to the fellowship, which is what they are clearly being compared to.
And that brings me to my other comment on Jackson's third goal. He obviously loves Middle Earth and his own experiences on the set of the movies. The man permanently build a town in a hillside to film the Shire scenes, which is now a tourist attraction in New Zealand. And because of this, he goes to extra lengths to showcase landscapes and characters that sort of conflict with the story as we know it. Frodo, Galadriel, Radagast, and Saruman really have no reason to be in this movie except to remind us that they exist and to talk about Sauron (except for Frodo, who essentially just walks around Bilbo's home for a few minutes). Even the actors seem like they are playfully parodying themselves from the other films. There's no question Jackson and co. got a kick out of donning the same costumes and flying helicopters all over New Zealand, but the movie sidetracks from the storytelling and becomes more of a video blog of production. There are even times when a voice over essentially reads the book verbatim while the camera sweeps over empty hills and fields.
I will stop there, because, while I do have other comments, it isn't really fair to talk about them unless it is with someone who has also seen the movie already. I hope that with the next two movies, we get an idea of what the movie is actually supposed to be about. This movie tried too hard to remind us that a better version of the movie already exists, at the expense of the main plot. While I enjoyed it, I think the sequel needs to raise the bar - maybe by actually cutting some of the extra material - in order to compete with the original trilogy.
Monday, December 10, 2012
Will somebody answer that damn phone! (A rant about smoke detectors)
Smoke detectors. Who needs them? You would think that in this day and age there would be more efficient ways to determine if there is smoke in the house. Now I don't mean to be ignorant. I know that some home security alarms have smoke and carbon monoxide detectors that immediately dial the alarm company when they detect a problem. But here in my house we have the standard wall-mounted detectors that make a high-pitched squeal to get your attention. So I am sitting in the den when one of the detectors in the house begins the period beep indicating that the battery is dying. And of course it doesn't beep every five seconds; it's more like every five minutes. So the first time it sounds I assume it's my imagination. The second time I wonder if it is something on TV. Finally, I mute the TV and sit in silence until I here it again and realize it's a smoke detector. Then begins the half hour long process of trying to determine where the sound is coming from when all I get is a single muffled beep every five minutes.
I finally locate the culprit at the top of the basement stairs. I pull it off the wall and stare at it, waiting for it to confirm if 1) it is the correct detector and 2) if it is, indeed, a question of the battery. There is a panel of lights that represent smoke, carbon monoxide, battery, and service, and a button in the middle labeled test/silence. Being the impatient guy that I am, I click test/silence figuring that it will tell me what's wrong. Big mistake! It starts blaring in my face. First the smoke alarm and then the CO alarm (because I guess I am supposed to memorize which one means which in case of an emergency?). But of course nothing with the battery. So then I sit and wait again for something to happen on its own, before the seeds of doubt start to germinate and I figure "was it really this one? Is it going to do it again?" And just as I figure it fixed itself and break eye contact with the panel of lights, it beeps again, forcing me to sit there for another five minutes, keeping my eyes focused on the battery light until I have a headache. At least, it beeps and the battery light flashes and I know that the smoke detector needs a new battery. The irritating truth: this smoke detector is brand new and was put on the wall a few days.
I finally locate the culprit at the top of the basement stairs. I pull it off the wall and stare at it, waiting for it to confirm if 1) it is the correct detector and 2) if it is, indeed, a question of the battery. There is a panel of lights that represent smoke, carbon monoxide, battery, and service, and a button in the middle labeled test/silence. Being the impatient guy that I am, I click test/silence figuring that it will tell me what's wrong. Big mistake! It starts blaring in my face. First the smoke alarm and then the CO alarm (because I guess I am supposed to memorize which one means which in case of an emergency?). But of course nothing with the battery. So then I sit and wait again for something to happen on its own, before the seeds of doubt start to germinate and I figure "was it really this one? Is it going to do it again?" And just as I figure it fixed itself and break eye contact with the panel of lights, it beeps again, forcing me to sit there for another five minutes, keeping my eyes focused on the battery light until I have a headache. At least, it beeps and the battery light flashes and I know that the smoke detector needs a new battery. The irritating truth: this smoke detector is brand new and was put on the wall a few days.
Sunday, December 9, 2012
As it all comes crumbling down!! (Zombies)
Let's talk about zombies! I am right now watching a show on the history channel - scratch that, the history 2 channel - entitled 'Zombies: A Living Hostory'. Now we all know that at some point a few years ago all of these educational networks gave up on actually having informative, scientifically thought-provoking shows and documentaries and began an arms race of crappy reality shows and made-up history. The history channels have devolved into programs limited to nazis, aliens, nazi aliens, the apocalypse, and the nazi alien apocalypse.
The fact that this entire month is devoted to shows about the end of the world is no surprise. What I find remarkable is how prevalent the idea of zombies has become as the most likely cause of the end of the world. And I think this faux documentary I am watching accidentally explains why zombies are on everyone's mind: zombies are the manifestation of all of mankind's deepest fears. They carry disease that cannot be cured, their weapon is infection and cannibalism, they cannot be stopped, and they may have been a product of our own creation. These themes have been drilled into our souls for thousands of years (apparently).
And so I have to hand it to George Romero for understanding those innate fears and creating the modern idea of the 'zombie'. It is a creature and an idea that will always be around in some form or another, because humans will always, at their core, be afraid of the same things.
I used to spend hours in college discussing zombie outbreak plans with my friends; how would we get weapons, where would we get food, who would we trust, and where would we make our last stand. (In fact it's ironic that this is my shortest post so far and yet I could write pages and pages about my thoughts on zombies.) Now, with zombies becoming such a mainstream idea on television and in the movies, even my parents are (jokingly?) brainstorming strategies for the apocalypse. There is an entire brand of real, live ammunition called Zombie Max and targets that are shaped like blood-thirsty walking dead. There are 'zombie runs' all over the country where you can run a marathon through mud and over obstacles while being chased at top speed by awesome people in makeup. I mean, the very thought of zombies proves to be much more infectious than the zombie plague itself (fingers crossed).
So I also think that since zombies represent all of mankind's deepest fears, the way people have been manipulating it into pop culture is a brilliant way of dealing with those fears. At this point we are so desensitized to the gore and horror of a zombie apocalypse, that if it should actually take place, not only would we be prepared for the shock, we may even be more anticipatory of the social breakdown. In fact, at this point, I would prefer dying in a zombie apocalypse than, say, a nuclear explosion or a giant meteor, because at least I get to experience the fantasy that we all share, that of gunning down everyone in my community that I hate.
The fact that this entire month is devoted to shows about the end of the world is no surprise. What I find remarkable is how prevalent the idea of zombies has become as the most likely cause of the end of the world. And I think this faux documentary I am watching accidentally explains why zombies are on everyone's mind: zombies are the manifestation of all of mankind's deepest fears. They carry disease that cannot be cured, their weapon is infection and cannibalism, they cannot be stopped, and they may have been a product of our own creation. These themes have been drilled into our souls for thousands of years (apparently).
And so I have to hand it to George Romero for understanding those innate fears and creating the modern idea of the 'zombie'. It is a creature and an idea that will always be around in some form or another, because humans will always, at their core, be afraid of the same things.
I used to spend hours in college discussing zombie outbreak plans with my friends; how would we get weapons, where would we get food, who would we trust, and where would we make our last stand. (In fact it's ironic that this is my shortest post so far and yet I could write pages and pages about my thoughts on zombies.) Now, with zombies becoming such a mainstream idea on television and in the movies, even my parents are (jokingly?) brainstorming strategies for the apocalypse. There is an entire brand of real, live ammunition called Zombie Max and targets that are shaped like blood-thirsty walking dead. There are 'zombie runs' all over the country where you can run a marathon through mud and over obstacles while being chased at top speed by awesome people in makeup. I mean, the very thought of zombies proves to be much more infectious than the zombie plague itself (fingers crossed).
So I also think that since zombies represent all of mankind's deepest fears, the way people have been manipulating it into pop culture is a brilliant way of dealing with those fears. At this point we are so desensitized to the gore and horror of a zombie apocalypse, that if it should actually take place, not only would we be prepared for the shock, we may even be more anticipatory of the social breakdown. In fact, at this point, I would prefer dying in a zombie apocalypse than, say, a nuclear explosion or a giant meteor, because at least I get to experience the fantasy that we all share, that of gunning down everyone in my community that I hate.
Wednesday, December 5, 2012
Bizarro World (Superhero Movies)
Marvel vs. DC. I love comic books movies and I love the tug-of-war between Marvel and DC comics that has been going on since live-action comic book movies have gone mainstream. Marvel has a number of successful franchises, including the X-Men, Spider-Man, and the Avengers (wherein each Avengers has a franchise of his own). DC, thanks to the brilliant Christopher Nolan, is being held up pretty much by the Dark Knight Trilogy alone.
Marvel knew five or six years ago that they were going to attempt an Avengers movie. Franchise crossovers don't happen very often, but when they do, we get things like Freddy vs. Jason and AvP: Alien vs. Predator. But a staple of comic books is character/storyline intersections, and it was only a matter of time before the film adaptations attempted this. DC, on the other hand, only recently decided that in order to compete they would have to do something similar; this idea has led to the Justice League movie slated for 2015. However, instead of having standalone movies for each member of team - as Marvel did preceding the Avengers - they intend to make up time by going straight for the Justice League.
At least that was the plan. The latest news is that Joseph Gordon Levitt from the Dark Knight Trilogy and Henry Cavill's superman from next year's Man of Steel will fill the Batman and Superman roles in the JL movie. My first reaction was that this seems like a complete cop-out by DC. The Dark Knight Trilogy is a unique Batman story and was not intended to tie in with the rest of the DC universe. So it seems that they are going to try to ride the success of Nolan's Batman right into a Justice League movie.
However, having given it some thought, I think this is a pretty good idea. Marvel had to repeat to us again and again that the four Avenger characters all live in the same universe (mainly by having them acknowledge each other and occasionally sit down with Phil Coulson). If the film stage of the DC universe is going to be in any way unique, I think it would be wise to have each member of the Justice League stay in his own universe. This has two benefits: 1) we will never expect to see the Justice League in any individual movie. The challenge facing every Avengers movie from here on out is giving us reasons why the Avengers and S.H.I.E.L.D. don't face the problems of each individual hero. This problem would be even greater in the DC universe, where there is virtually no challenge Batman could spend a whole movie dealing with that Superman couldn't handle in a few minutes. By keeping all of the characters blatantly, almost ignorantly separate, in their individual franchises, there is much more freedom for the writers. 2) This makes more sense as far as how DC comics are. Most Marvel heroes are assumed to exist in the same world, with some exceptions. But in the DC universe, there are plenty of worlds, dimensions, alternate realities; all things that would make it more sensible to avoid overlap outside of the Justice League movies.
Hopefully this is their plan. In addition, the villain in JL will be Darkseid, who is the Marvel counterpart to Thanos, the villain in the Avengers 2. And since both movies are set for the summer of 2015, it will be very interesting to see what each studio comes up with.
Marvel knew five or six years ago that they were going to attempt an Avengers movie. Franchise crossovers don't happen very often, but when they do, we get things like Freddy vs. Jason and AvP: Alien vs. Predator. But a staple of comic books is character/storyline intersections, and it was only a matter of time before the film adaptations attempted this. DC, on the other hand, only recently decided that in order to compete they would have to do something similar; this idea has led to the Justice League movie slated for 2015. However, instead of having standalone movies for each member of team - as Marvel did preceding the Avengers - they intend to make up time by going straight for the Justice League.
At least that was the plan. The latest news is that Joseph Gordon Levitt from the Dark Knight Trilogy and Henry Cavill's superman from next year's Man of Steel will fill the Batman and Superman roles in the JL movie. My first reaction was that this seems like a complete cop-out by DC. The Dark Knight Trilogy is a unique Batman story and was not intended to tie in with the rest of the DC universe. So it seems that they are going to try to ride the success of Nolan's Batman right into a Justice League movie.
However, having given it some thought, I think this is a pretty good idea. Marvel had to repeat to us again and again that the four Avenger characters all live in the same universe (mainly by having them acknowledge each other and occasionally sit down with Phil Coulson). If the film stage of the DC universe is going to be in any way unique, I think it would be wise to have each member of the Justice League stay in his own universe. This has two benefits: 1) we will never expect to see the Justice League in any individual movie. The challenge facing every Avengers movie from here on out is giving us reasons why the Avengers and S.H.I.E.L.D. don't face the problems of each individual hero. This problem would be even greater in the DC universe, where there is virtually no challenge Batman could spend a whole movie dealing with that Superman couldn't handle in a few minutes. By keeping all of the characters blatantly, almost ignorantly separate, in their individual franchises, there is much more freedom for the writers. 2) This makes more sense as far as how DC comics are. Most Marvel heroes are assumed to exist in the same world, with some exceptions. But in the DC universe, there are plenty of worlds, dimensions, alternate realities; all things that would make it more sensible to avoid overlap outside of the Justice League movies.
Hopefully this is their plan. In addition, the villain in JL will be Darkseid, who is the Marvel counterpart to Thanos, the villain in the Avengers 2. And since both movies are set for the summer of 2015, it will be very interesting to see what each studio comes up with.
Monday, December 3, 2012
Why am I watching it? Because it's on TV. (Dexter)
Since this is my first official blog post, I feel like I should start out by telling a little more about myself and about the things I expect to write about. This post is about the television series Dexter. The tedium of the college dorm and a mostly uneventful social life resulted in many hours spent browsing Netflix for something to kill time. Anyone with a Netflix account knows that they pretty much gave up on streaming quality movies and are more focused now on television (something I will probably end up writing another post about someday). The first series I introduced myself to were Dexter and Breaking Bad. (There was also the month I dedicated to watching all seven seasons of Nip/Tuck, but we don't like to talk about that). Breaking Bad, now probably my favorite show - alongside The Wire - will also most certainly be the topic of discussion further down the line, especially once this ridiculous full-year mid-season break comes to an end next summer.
I digress. I first started watching Dexter on Netflix just before the fourth season began on Showtime. Despite being a soulless killing machine who constantly reminds us via inner monologue how emotionless he is, Dexter was surprisingly easy to relate to. (I guess I'll keep this as spoiler-free as possible. Though I would expect anyone who hasn't seen the show to have given up on this post by now.) Suffice it to say that season 1 had a fair share of twists and turns and, as one of the first and only mature dramas I had seen, it quickly became one of my favorites. Seasons 2 and 3 each deviated from the first in quality, and maybe the reason I didn't stop watching the show back then was because I raced through those three seasons in time to jump into season 4, which was easily the best of the series. I also enjoyed season 5.
But the fact is, Dexter should have ended with the fourth season. Dexter is a sociopath who has to kill in order to satisfy the urges of his "dark passenger". We find out early on in the first season that he got this way because of an incident that occurred when he was a little boy, and throughout his childhood and adolescence his foster father policeman Harry gave Dexter a "code" to live by that would channel his urges into intelligent assassinations and prevent him from death or capture. That is the premise of the show, and every season Dexter ends up in a battle of wits with some other serial killer, begins doubting Harry's code, attempts to learn and evolve from the villain and, in the end, realizes that the only way to defeat the foe is to listen to Harry's (in the form of Dexter's conscience) advice. Meanwhile, there is usually a female interest who, on some level, seems to understand and accept Dexter (though in season 3, instead of a love interest it was a friend: Miguel Prado).
The most obvious reason the show should have ended years ago is the fact that even though Dexter is a tormented character, the formula of each season quickly grows irritating. Rita, Lila, Miguel, Rita, Lumen, Deb, Hannah...each season, Dexter finds someone to fill a void in his soul. Each season he believes that this person accepts him for who he is, and in the end, realizes it was all a mistake, and, in most cases, that person ends up with a needle in their neck. As for villains, the most provocative character was certainly the Ice Truck Killer in season 1, who turns out to be Dexter's very own biological brother.
Now I do not write for television, and I do not assume to know the intentions and thoughts of those behind the creation and execution of these shows. But it seems to me that what we are supposed to get out of the show is that, even though Dexter is the hero and a pretty likable guy, he is a sociopath who murders people, and he will always murder people because he has to. Each season he tries to relate to other, he tries to let other people in, and in the end it winds up backfiring. So the message must be that he is hopeless, destined to be alone and different from everyone else, living a lie until he gets caught. He ALWAYS comes to the realization that it was a mistake to ignore Harry's warnings and a mistake to let the killer - the identity of whom he usually discovers about halfway through the season - live as long as he did.
By the end of season 4, Dexter's entire world was thrown upside down. The life he built around a lie was destroyed. The bad guy won. It becomes clear that Dexter is a danger to everyone around him. Because in the end, Dexter is the true bad guy. His inner monologue reminds us in nearly every episode: he is ruled by his dark passenger, he must kill, etc. The overarching message of the series then reads as 'Dexter is what he is. Despite his efforts to be more human, he can't help but be a monster, a vehicle for destruction. The end.'
Wow, I almost wish I made all that a separate post. My intention here was, and continues to be, to talk about how season 7 has completely fallen apart, and so far all I've done is talk about how I would have liked to see the show end 3 seasons ago. Maybe I can snap back to the point. Season 6 was horrendous. I stuck through it because I like Dexter and I wanted to stay a faithful fan. Since that was last year, I will try not to get into it. Season 7 started out promising. Deb walked in on Dexter finishing off last season's foe and quickly realized that he has been killing people under her nose for years. Meanwhile, Dexter manages to piss off the wrong Ukrainian mafia boss by killing his boyfriend. So we have the setup for an interesting season. Or so I thought.
Isaak is a pretty interesting guy, and I'm not just saying that because I like Ray Stevenson. Like Dexter, he is also a meticulous killer who feeds on the thrill of chasing his prey. Needless to say, he and Dexter make obvious their intentions to kill each other a few episodes in and then proceed to do anything but. What makes their tango slightly more interesting is the fact that Deb, now Dexter's ally, is in on the whole plot and tries to protect Dexter from Isaak. What makes Isaak different is that he is a man with means and talent and vows to stop at nothing to kill Dexter, even if it takes the rest of his life. And yet, starting in episode 8, all of the central characters seem to completely abandon their motivations and rational thought in order to add a false sense of suspense. I don't know if it was when Isaak decided to open fire on a coffee shop window from a car in the parking lot, or when Dexter subdued and executed some guy he found in Isaak's apartment. But since then, nothing seems to make sense. In the episode after that, Isaak suddenly decides he won't kill Dexter, as long as Dexter kills two other people he has never researched and knows nothing about. For some reason he agrees, and even kills them both in broad daylight in relatively populated areas, while we see Isaak sitting on the couch in his apartment. Isaak is then killed off by a peripheral character who says nothing and then escapes without explanation, even though Dex is only a few feet away.
Without a villain, it is clear that the writers do not know what to do with the last few episodes of the season. They threw in another serial killer that we've never heard about, just to show that Dexter is willing to change his mind about killing someone. To reinforce this point, they also threw in the father of Dexter's love interest, who is of course a bad guy. But despite not actually being a killer, the man is dispatched by Dexter because it seems to him like the safest way to ask the man to get out of his daughter's life. Quinn finds some unimportant reason to kill the guy that shot Isaak, which neatly wraps up any loose ends with the Ukrainian mafia story line (although you'd expect that now that three of this Kashka brotherhood have been killed - two by police - they would do anything but simply disappear). So where exactly was the climax of the season? With the exception of LaGuerta looking into Dexter's true identity, there is virtually no reason to look forward to the rest of the season. We already know that his 'love' for Hannah is going to result in her dying, which I am certainly not opposed to. Deb seems to be okay with Dexter being a killer. If LaGuerta happens to walk in on him killing someone, why shouldn't we assume that she'll just come around to his side by next season too.
I digress. I first started watching Dexter on Netflix just before the fourth season began on Showtime. Despite being a soulless killing machine who constantly reminds us via inner monologue how emotionless he is, Dexter was surprisingly easy to relate to. (I guess I'll keep this as spoiler-free as possible. Though I would expect anyone who hasn't seen the show to have given up on this post by now.) Suffice it to say that season 1 had a fair share of twists and turns and, as one of the first and only mature dramas I had seen, it quickly became one of my favorites. Seasons 2 and 3 each deviated from the first in quality, and maybe the reason I didn't stop watching the show back then was because I raced through those three seasons in time to jump into season 4, which was easily the best of the series. I also enjoyed season 5.
But the fact is, Dexter should have ended with the fourth season. Dexter is a sociopath who has to kill in order to satisfy the urges of his "dark passenger". We find out early on in the first season that he got this way because of an incident that occurred when he was a little boy, and throughout his childhood and adolescence his foster father policeman Harry gave Dexter a "code" to live by that would channel his urges into intelligent assassinations and prevent him from death or capture. That is the premise of the show, and every season Dexter ends up in a battle of wits with some other serial killer, begins doubting Harry's code, attempts to learn and evolve from the villain and, in the end, realizes that the only way to defeat the foe is to listen to Harry's (in the form of Dexter's conscience) advice. Meanwhile, there is usually a female interest who, on some level, seems to understand and accept Dexter (though in season 3, instead of a love interest it was a friend: Miguel Prado).
The most obvious reason the show should have ended years ago is the fact that even though Dexter is a tormented character, the formula of each season quickly grows irritating. Rita, Lila, Miguel, Rita, Lumen, Deb, Hannah...each season, Dexter finds someone to fill a void in his soul. Each season he believes that this person accepts him for who he is, and in the end, realizes it was all a mistake, and, in most cases, that person ends up with a needle in their neck. As for villains, the most provocative character was certainly the Ice Truck Killer in season 1, who turns out to be Dexter's very own biological brother.
Now I do not write for television, and I do not assume to know the intentions and thoughts of those behind the creation and execution of these shows. But it seems to me that what we are supposed to get out of the show is that, even though Dexter is the hero and a pretty likable guy, he is a sociopath who murders people, and he will always murder people because he has to. Each season he tries to relate to other, he tries to let other people in, and in the end it winds up backfiring. So the message must be that he is hopeless, destined to be alone and different from everyone else, living a lie until he gets caught. He ALWAYS comes to the realization that it was a mistake to ignore Harry's warnings and a mistake to let the killer - the identity of whom he usually discovers about halfway through the season - live as long as he did.
By the end of season 4, Dexter's entire world was thrown upside down. The life he built around a lie was destroyed. The bad guy won. It becomes clear that Dexter is a danger to everyone around him. Because in the end, Dexter is the true bad guy. His inner monologue reminds us in nearly every episode: he is ruled by his dark passenger, he must kill, etc. The overarching message of the series then reads as 'Dexter is what he is. Despite his efforts to be more human, he can't help but be a monster, a vehicle for destruction. The end.'
Wow, I almost wish I made all that a separate post. My intention here was, and continues to be, to talk about how season 7 has completely fallen apart, and so far all I've done is talk about how I would have liked to see the show end 3 seasons ago. Maybe I can snap back to the point. Season 6 was horrendous. I stuck through it because I like Dexter and I wanted to stay a faithful fan. Since that was last year, I will try not to get into it. Season 7 started out promising. Deb walked in on Dexter finishing off last season's foe and quickly realized that he has been killing people under her nose for years. Meanwhile, Dexter manages to piss off the wrong Ukrainian mafia boss by killing his boyfriend. So we have the setup for an interesting season. Or so I thought.
Isaak is a pretty interesting guy, and I'm not just saying that because I like Ray Stevenson. Like Dexter, he is also a meticulous killer who feeds on the thrill of chasing his prey. Needless to say, he and Dexter make obvious their intentions to kill each other a few episodes in and then proceed to do anything but. What makes their tango slightly more interesting is the fact that Deb, now Dexter's ally, is in on the whole plot and tries to protect Dexter from Isaak. What makes Isaak different is that he is a man with means and talent and vows to stop at nothing to kill Dexter, even if it takes the rest of his life. And yet, starting in episode 8, all of the central characters seem to completely abandon their motivations and rational thought in order to add a false sense of suspense. I don't know if it was when Isaak decided to open fire on a coffee shop window from a car in the parking lot, or when Dexter subdued and executed some guy he found in Isaak's apartment. But since then, nothing seems to make sense. In the episode after that, Isaak suddenly decides he won't kill Dexter, as long as Dexter kills two other people he has never researched and knows nothing about. For some reason he agrees, and even kills them both in broad daylight in relatively populated areas, while we see Isaak sitting on the couch in his apartment. Isaak is then killed off by a peripheral character who says nothing and then escapes without explanation, even though Dex is only a few feet away.
Without a villain, it is clear that the writers do not know what to do with the last few episodes of the season. They threw in another serial killer that we've never heard about, just to show that Dexter is willing to change his mind about killing someone. To reinforce this point, they also threw in the father of Dexter's love interest, who is of course a bad guy. But despite not actually being a killer, the man is dispatched by Dexter because it seems to him like the safest way to ask the man to get out of his daughter's life. Quinn finds some unimportant reason to kill the guy that shot Isaak, which neatly wraps up any loose ends with the Ukrainian mafia story line (although you'd expect that now that three of this Kashka brotherhood have been killed - two by police - they would do anything but simply disappear). So where exactly was the climax of the season? With the exception of LaGuerta looking into Dexter's true identity, there is virtually no reason to look forward to the rest of the season. We already know that his 'love' for Hannah is going to result in her dying, which I am certainly not opposed to. Deb seems to be okay with Dexter being a killer. If LaGuerta happens to walk in on him killing someone, why shouldn't we assume that she'll just come around to his side by next season too.
Dylan make blog
I have finally decided, like so many others, to embrace the anonymity of the internet and start a blog where I can voice my opinions about certain matters that are interesting to me. I am a first time blogger and for the most part not much of a blog reader. My blog etiquette may be shaky, but hopefully the content will be unique and entertaining. Though who am I kidding, in a world where anything at all can be found by clicking a button, I won't promise the most intriguing stories. I suppose the aim of this blog will be to inform and entertain those who share my interests. I will probably write mostly about movie and TV, with the occasional anecdote about my new puppy or the weather. Hope you (anonymous net surfer) enjoy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)