Orbach/(Noth/Bratt)/Waterston/Hennessey was my favourite cast.
― GoT SPOILER ALERT (Gukbe), Tuesday, 1 May 2012 06:17 (1 year ago) Permalink
No Hargitay, no cred.
― nickn, Tuesday, 1 May 2012 06:27 (1 year ago) Permalink
― Choad of Choad Hall (kingfish), Tuesday, 1 May 2012 06:32 (1 year ago) Permalink
There's a buncha animated gifs out there for this one, so here's a couple
― Choad of Choad Hall (kingfish), Tuesday, 1 May 2012 06:44 (1 year ago) Permalink
I agree that from the original series, Orbach/(Noth/Bratt)/Hennessey/Waterston was the high point
for SVU, I think there's something to be said (aka I luv Mariska Hargity) for every season but the early ones when they were still shuffling the ensemble are incredible
CI is most entertaining when it's the D'Onofrio Crazypants Show
TBJ was super boring
― I'M THAT POSTA, AAAAAAAAAH (DJP), Tuesday, 1 May 2012 13:22 (1 year ago) Permalink
Can you just jump in and watch L&O episodes or do you need to start from the beginning for continuity?
― EveningStar (Sund4r), Tuesday, 1 May 2012 13:23 (1 year ago) Permalink
i can't imagine Law & Order: The Blow Job being boring but i never saw it
― some dude, Tuesday, 1 May 2012 13:24 (1 year ago) Permalink
For regular L&O you can jump in at any point -- there's not much serialization or focus on the characters lives outside of the cases.
SVU is a whole 'nother mess that borders on Days of Our Lives.
― Respectfully, Tyrese Gibson (Nicole), Tuesday, 1 May 2012 13:28 (1 year ago) Permalink
Most of the continuity/character progression is in the background aside from the two or three random episodes where a BIG PERSONAL REVELATION happens that makes a character EMOTE for your viewing pleasure; I got into the show mostly through watching random episodes and from being transfixed by Mariska Hargitay on SVU. You can totally watch SVU out of order and enjoy the hell out of it, but watching it in order is like "omg you've unlocked the secret level and can now shoot fireballs from yr eyes, ENJOY"
All the flavors of L&O have similar story rhythms; the main differences between them are:
OG: murders galoreSVU: mostly sex crimes that often involve someone's deathCI: mostly murders, but a good chunk of the episode is told from the criminal's point of view and the payoff of the story is seeing how Crazypants D'Onofrio sticks his crazy into the perp's brain and makes them crackTBJ: I never watched more than 5 minutes of this because it was so boring but I think it was all trial shit (because Trial By Jury, see? it's FASCINATING watching people sit in a juror's box for an hour! gtfo imo, if you're gonna do that you better give me Cop Rock-esque ensemble numbers otherwise I'm changing the channel)
also lol sd
― I'M THAT POSTA, AAAAAAAAAH (DJP), Tuesday, 1 May 2012 13:31 (1 year ago) Permalink
xpost
Mmm, I dunno, I've sat in on a number of those SVU marathons and didn't feel like I was missing anything by not being a regular viewer. It's been a few years, mind.
― Vaginal Meshes Of The Afternoon (Deric W. Haircare), Tuesday, 1 May 2012 13:32 (1 year ago) Permalink
yeah i have to say it's kind of hilarious for someone who's never seen L&O to ask about 'continuity' since L&O is kind of the classic 'drop in and watch a marathon of non-sequential episodes' procedural show
― some dude, Tuesday, 1 May 2012 13:38 (1 year ago) Permalink
You probably can watch SVU out of order, but I get so tired of hearing about Olivia's messed up childhood/family, her attempted rape, etc. and then Stabler's family was the most annoying hellspawn and any episode that centered on them drove me crazy.
― Respectfully, Tyrese Gibson (Nicole), Tuesday, 1 May 2012 13:39 (1 year ago) Permalink
I think that's the genius of L&O. There was always this huge ball of backstory/continuity lurking in the background, but it was always subservient to whatever case was going on that week. When characters' personal lives did get pulled it, it was usually because of some aspect of the case (Ice T's son's involvement with the gay-bashing case on SVU, for example) or because something was going on that impacted their ability to work (Van Buren's cancer arc on OG comes to mind)
― I'M THAT POSTA, AAAAAAAAAH (DJP), Tuesday, 1 May 2012 13:45 (1 year ago) Permalink
although yeah, Stabler's family was the worst
― I'M THAT POSTA, AAAAAAAAAH (DJP), Tuesday, 1 May 2012 13:46 (1 year ago) Permalink
I really loved that in original L&O they would just throw out continuity nods every so often, but almost always like a 1 minute scene every 5 episodes that might pay off like 3 years later, in another 1 minute scene at the very end of an episode (see: everything involving Brisco). But yeah, totally ignorable
― Nhex, Tuesday, 1 May 2012 14:26 (1 year ago) Permalink
liked this ep more than i expected (i'm p tired of the 'high-concept' stuff in general), i think precisely because characterization/"moving things forward" wasn't a big consideration here. also it's a funny way to get rid of starburns.
― madame boo berry (donna rouge), Tuesday, 1 May 2012 15:11 (1 year ago) Permalink
^^^
― some dude, Tuesday, 1 May 2012 15:11 (1 year ago) Permalink
i'm not even a big l&o guy either
― madame boo berry (donna rouge), Tuesday, 1 May 2012 15:12 (1 year ago) Permalink
i have never consciously chosen to watch an episode of any L&O series in my entire life but i have still ambivalently marinated in that franchise enough over the past 20 years that i got/appreciated pretty much every gag
― some dude, Tuesday, 1 May 2012 15:14 (1 year ago) Permalink
^^yeah, ditto
― catbus otm (gbx), Tuesday, 1 May 2012 15:23 (1 year ago) Permalink
i feel like a robot when i say stuff like i really don't care about character development/relationships in tv shows, just jokes, but i think really it's just that what's considered character development/relationships in tv/movies is so ridiculously facile and unrealistic 99 percent of the time so i'd rather just do without it completely.
― congratulations (n/a), Tuesday, 1 May 2012 17:30 (1 year ago) Permalink
i hope starburns is actually really dead, not that i dislike the character but it would make that joke even funnier in perpetuity if he just, like, was dead now
― flopson, Tuesday, 1 May 2012 17:36 (1 year ago) Permalink
Dino wanted off of the show, so I think he is really dead.
― Respectfully, Tyrese Gibson (Nicole), Tuesday, 1 May 2012 17:37 (1 year ago) Permalink
it seems like they're committed to it, notwithstanding flashbacks or a ghost plotline or something, although yeah hopefully they won't do anything like that and he's just gone for good
― Neil Young’s social media channels (some dude), Tuesday, 1 May 2012 17:38 (1 year ago) Permalink
he'll always live on in our hearts... and the Dreamatorium
― I'M THAT POSTA, AAAAAAAAAH (DJP), Tuesday, 1 May 2012 17:40 (1 year ago) Permalink
god, the top of my wishlist for the season finale is that it culminates with the dreamatorium being destroyed
― Neil Young’s social media channels (some dude), Tuesday, 1 May 2012 17:41 (1 year ago) Permalink
why does some dude hate imagination?
― heated debate over derpy hooves (jon /via/ chi 2.0), Tuesday, 1 May 2012 17:41 (1 year ago) Permalink
willy wonka molested me as a child
― Neil Young’s social media channels (some dude), Tuesday, 1 May 2012 17:42 (1 year ago) Permalink
― I'M THAT POSTA, AAAAAAAAAH (DJP), Tuesday, 1 May 2012 17:46 (1 year ago) Permalink
some dude gets it
― madame boo berry (donna rouge), Tuesday, 1 May 2012 17:56 (1 year ago) Permalink
i feel like a robot when i say stuff like i really don't care about character development/relationships in tv shows, just jokes
you and me both. we are both robots that just want laffs.
― Porto for Pyros (The Cursed Return of the Dastardly Thermo Thinwall), Tuesday, 1 May 2012 17:57 (1 year ago) Permalink
character development in sitcoms is best when it's an offhand show-don't-tell thing imo. Community can be very deft about it but sometimes they're about as subtle as anime characters screaming "NOW WE ARE ENEMIES, BUT BEFORE WE WERE FRIENDS, HA HA"
― Neil Young’s social media channels (some dude), Tuesday, 1 May 2012 18:13 (1 year ago) Permalink
what is a sitcom that does character development effectively?
― congratulations (n/a), Tuesday, 1 May 2012 18:16 (1 year ago) Permalink
A current one? Maybe Suburgatory?
― I'M THAT POSTA, AAAAAAAAAH (DJP), Tuesday, 1 May 2012 18:17 (1 year ago) Permalink
for a period I woulda said parks & rec.
― s.clover, Tuesday, 1 May 2012 18:25 (1 year ago) Permalink
it kind of goes hand in hand with my show-don't-tell point that a lot of my favorite shows ended up with really three dimensional characters that evolved over time but i wouldn't really point to them and say WOW THEY REALLY DEVELOPED THE FUCK OUTTA THAT CHARACTER
― Neil Young’s social media channels (some dude), Tuesday, 1 May 2012 18:27 (1 year ago) Permalink
sorry for whiney-style capslock overkill btw
― Neil Young’s social media channels (some dude), Tuesday, 1 May 2012 18:28 (1 year ago) Permalink
Don't worry, you shook it off.
― Respectfully, Tyrese Gibson (Nicole), Tuesday, 1 May 2012 18:37 (1 year ago) Permalink
I think Troy, Abed, and Annie have generally been developed really effectively, sometimes subtly! They've all grown considerably from s1.
― EveningStar (Sund4r), Tuesday, 1 May 2012 18:40 (1 year ago) Permalink
but in sitcoms there's always a very fine line between actual 'character development' and just altering the characters' traits for whatever reason ie writers lose track of the character, start to play to what the audience likes, start to play to what they like, just screwing around with things bc it works for the plot. i'm not convinced community isn't still mostly in the latter half. which is fine -- even the simpsons altered homer's character throughout the first four or five seasons for no meaningful reason. would never call that character development tho
― JIM THOMETHEUS (zachlyon), Tuesday, 1 May 2012 18:55 (1 year ago) Permalink
― EveningStar (Sund4r), Tuesday, May 1, 2012 2:40 PM (57 minutes ago) Bookmark
oh i agree with this (Abed regression aside), i don't think what i said contradicts it at all.
― Neil Young’s social media channels (some dude), Tuesday, 1 May 2012 19:42 (1 year ago) Permalink
No, I wasn't directing that at you, sd (and we agree about Abed in this season).
― EveningStar (Sund4r), Tuesday, 1 May 2012 20:33 (1 year ago) Permalink
aight
― Neil Young’s social media channels (some dude), Tuesday, 1 May 2012 20:37 (1 year ago) Permalink
In addition to Community and Parks and Recreation (to an extent), I'd say How I Met Your Mother is a decent example of a current sitcom that's good at character development. Sometimes the very point of a sitcom, though, is how completely it avoids developing characters (e.g. the relatively static universe of 30 Rock, or the Peep Show characters who never seem to learn or grow no matter how much their lives change).
― grickodda thunder, zoos (Deric W. Haircare), Tuesday, 1 May 2012 20:39 (1 year ago) Permalink
(I assume we're using "development" to mean "growing/changing over time" here, as opposed to "fleshing out a believable, three-dimensional character". A lot of overlap there, but they're definitely different aspects of character construction.)
― grickodda thunder, zoos (Deric W. Haircare), Tuesday, 1 May 2012 20:43 (1 year ago) Permalink
― flopson, Tuesday, May 1, 2012 12:36 PM (3 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
thought it would actually be kind of funny if he was just in the next episode with no explanation.
― flesh, the devil, and a wolf (wolf) (amateurist), Tuesday, 1 May 2012 21:58 (1 year ago) Permalink
Ha, that would be a true shark jump.
in sitcoms there's always a very fine line between actual 'character development' and just altering the characters' traits for whatever reason ie writers lose track of the character, start to play to what the audience likes, start to play to what they like, just screwing around with things bc it works for the plot. i'm not convinced community isn't still mostly in the latter half.
Hm, well, you're right about Pierce and Chang but I see it differently with most of the core group and this is a big part of why I like the show. (It's also why I get so dismayed when the writers do certain things with Abed's character that probably bother other people much less). Troy, Abed, and Annie were the three main characters who began the series as awkward teenagers, straight out of high school, and all three have shown appreciable growth imo. In fact, I think the show is remarkable for being so patently surreal while also showing surprisingly believable development in these characters. Troy was still wearing his varsity jacket in the pilot, forcing a tough exterior, e.g. threatening Jeff, but it soon became clear that he was uncomfortable in that role. Through the series, he has been increasingly coming to terms with his sensitivity and imagination, largely via his friendship with Abed but also through e.g. dance lessons. Despite his initial machismo, he was actually fairly awkward with women, so the gradual flirtation preceded by actual friendship with Britta, an older woman who is probably far removed from the sorts of girls he would have tried to date in high school, is an important step.
Annie began as a prudish, inexperienced girl with low self-esteem, recovering from a pill addiction, still infatuated with her high school's quarterback. The debate episode was a key turning point for her. She has become increasingly confident and self-aware in her sexuality to the point where she deliberately uses it to manipulate Jeff. Her self-realization about Jeff in the dreamatorium was another turning point.
Abed also began with less self-esteem, almost subservient to Jeff in some early episodes, a bit desperate and friendless. Through coming to terms with his family issues and his friendship with Troy, he sometimes takes on a leadership role now, e.g. in the s3 Christmas episode and in the dreamatorium.
― EveningStar (Sund4r), Wednesday, 2 May 2012 00:03 (1 year ago) Permalink
ON THE OTHER HAND, Britta went from smart and confident, matching wits with Jeff, to a the butt of everyone's jokes. I know Harmon says on the season 1 commentary that his friends didn't like her character early on, so he tried to make her self-seriousness into her humanizing flaw ("the idea that you compulsively filter yourself makes your lack of flavor kind of a flavor"), but in season 3 she's been a slapstick dumb blonde liberal straw man joke. I guess he figures America likes stupid pretty things? I mean, she's "developed" in that she has a major now, but they just play on her being bad at everything and it bums me out because because early on I found her the most relatable.
Also, I feel like Jeff's gone back and forth between selfishness and opening himself up to love repeatedly. I mean, he starts the Jack Black episode in Season 1 by mocking how shallow he used to be, but then he still has to have this breakthrough that he loves everybody a year later. I guess backsliding is a real part of being a flawed human being, but I feel like this show is closer to being a sitcom that returns to something like default every week than it is to showing us 7 friends each realizing their potential together. I mean, they're all supposedly psychotic now, except for the increasingly difficult kid with aspergers
― Fellini.Kuti, Wednesday, 2 May 2012 01:03 (1 year ago) Permalink
Troy, Abed, and Annie were the three main characters who began the series as awkward teenagers, straight out of high school, and all three have shown appreciable growth imo.
Abed is older than the others, probably mid-20s now. (They've avoided nailing it down deliberately.)
― ┗|∵|┓ (sic), Wednesday, 2 May 2012 01:06 (1 year ago) Permalink
really i have no problem with any of the changes any of the characters have made over the course of the series that don't involve turning into Screech
― Neil Young’s social media channels (some dude), Wednesday, 2 May 2012 01:13 (1 year ago) Permalink