TV Thoughts

[next_to_normal]

In an effort to post something else besides icons (sorry, it's what my brain can handle best right now!), let's talk about TV. I already did a recap of new shows I'm watching, but we haven't checked in on the old gang yet this season, which is now one-third over already. (Where does the time go?)

Shows I am loving this season:

* Downton Abbey - THIS SHOW IS DELIGHTFUL. I loved the whole war arc, and the fact that now it's over, all of the women are chafing at the idea of life going back to the way it was before, when they had no purpose in their lives. I am shipping Mary/Matthew like BURNING, and although I do feel bad for Lavinia, that Carlyle dude better end up dead somehow. He's a douche-canoe. The Dowager Countess continues to be FABULOUS, everything that comes out of her mouth is perfect. SO GLAD that Edith is nicer because of the war. I felt so bad for her when pseudo-Patrick showed up - she's clearly so desperate to be loved that she immediately accepted that he was telling the truth (even though I'm pretty sure he was lying and everybody else knew it, or was at least cautious enough to want to be certain).

That said, I don't quite love it as much as S1 because I am pissed that they ruined Sybil/Branson and don't acknowledge it AT ALL (we're clearly still supposed to ship them and I just... ugh, no), and I'm uncomfortable with the amount of slut-shaming and victim-blaming in the Ethel storyline, even if it's pretty clear we're not supposed to agree with it? I'm also really bored with the Mrs. Bates storyline. Even as much as I love Maria Doyle Kennedy, I have just wanted this whole thing to go away from the beginning, but now she's dead and it still won't go away. Oh, also, DNW on the Lord Crawley seducing the maid nonsense.

Hmmm, that seems like a lot of negatives? But I really do love it.

* Parks & Recreation - Another show that is just an utter delight. I just - this whole show gives me warm fuzzies. And it makes me laugh! I want to be Leslie Knope when I grow up. On a related note, Ben Wyatt is my future husband (see icon). The Batman costume? OMG! I particularly love that they are developing Ben's relationships with the rest of the folks (living with April and Andy, treating himself with Tom and Donna, advising Tom and Jean-Ralphio on their finances), so that he has more reason to stay in Pawnee than just Leslie. (Also, he's a great straight man to their zany antics.) I honestly am not sure I could come up with anything to dislike about this show. Oh, wait, yes I can. Chris and Jerry's daughter being wildly inappropriate in front of Jerry. Gross and OOC for Chris.

* The Vampire Diaries - LMFAO we all know how I feel about this show. (And if by some chance, you don't, go read ever_neutral's posts, since she feels all my feelings for me these days.) To sum up: Loved seeing Anna and Vicki and the rest popping up post-mortem, but, uh, I'm glad the ghost-plot is over with. TROLOLOLOL bring on the "season of the Originals"! Damon/Mason is hilarious forever, though. Also Damon/his Persian rug. CLEAN!FREAK!DAMON IS TOTALLY CANON, YOU GUYS! I am still clinging desperately to my hopeless optimism reserving judgment on the Stefan storyline, because I want to believe that the writers do actually know what they're doing and aren't going to punk out and absolve Stefan of all culpability because he was compelled. I want to believe that Elena's view that Stefan is "not himself" is simply a coping mechanism and not some endorsement of Angel/Angelus bullshit. I want - no, I NEED Elena to totally have her worldview shattered. I love Stefan/Elena when it's doomed to end in tragedy, not when it's the shining example of "love conquers all." Elena needs to accept that evil!Stefan IS STILL STEFAN, otherwise I am not on board. Don't let me down, Show!

Shows that disappoint me:

* HIMYM continues to be subpar. There's still enough there that I keep tuning in on Monday nights (it also helps that it no longer has any competition now that Chuck's moved to Fridays), but I really have nothing to say except stop ruining Robin?

* The Office - I wanted to be DONE with this show last season, but I gave it another shot, hoping that Steve Carell's departure would shake things up enough to give it a fresher feel. But no. It is still as stale as ever. Only worse, because now they are doing strange things to Andy to make him into Michael-lite, and it just doesn't work.

Shows I have no strong feelings on, but continue to watch anyway:

* Community - I am kinda surprised that this one isn't in the "loving it" category anymore. I really, really loved the alternate universes episode, but the rest have felt kinda flat to me. I'm hoping the season's just starting out a bit slow and it'll be back to firing on all cylinders soon.

* Chuck - Well, it only just started, so there's not much to have feelings ON just yet. I am intrigued by the new set-up but find Morgan a much less convincing Intersect (maybe Joshua Gomez just isn't as good at the stunts as Zachary Levi is?). I do enjoy Chuck getting back to his computer nerd roots and realizing that he is a valuable member of the team even without the Intersect.

* Parenthood, Fringe, and Dexter, about which I have NO THOUGHTS WHATSOEVER. Yeah.

I think Being Erica requires its own post, so watch this space...
 

Comments

[pocochina]

Chuck! I forget sometimes how much that show can bring the pathos but aww, he had me there.

And yeah, you know I agree that Stefan could work out still. I do acknowledge that as long as the show continues to give such good Damon I won't lose any love for it, though, so the stakes aren't particularly high for me.

[next_to_normal]

It seems like SUCH a long time since we've had Chuck. I have missed it so! But now I'm in this excited/anxious state because it's the last season, and I worry that they're squandering valuable time on the Morgan-as-Intersect plot because it's just not that enjoyable to watch, although I do love that Chuck/Casey/Sarah are more of a trio again. (Last season they seemed to split up in pairs, one of them with Morgan, more often than not.)

And hahaha, yeah, I'll keep watching TVD as long as Ian Somerhalder exists, basically. So.

[ever_neutral]

yeah, I've heard that Downton Abbey is… weird, this season? And there's a lot of Sybil/Branson and Anna/Bates fail? Maybe it's a good thing my locale~ is months behind…

And if by some chance, you don't, go read ever_neutral's posts, since she feels all my feelings for me these days.

Oh, you. Agreed with all your thoughts, of course. And, yeah, like Poco, SO LONG AS MY OWN BOY IS FABULOUS, I will continue to be absurdly invested in this fucking show, ahahaha...

[next_to_normal]

It is a bit weird, but still lovely for the most part. It's kinda like TVD, I guess - as long as my own girl (Mary) is fabulous, and I can ship Mary/Matthew like burning, I will continue to be absurdly invested in this show. :)

[goldenusagi]

Weirdly, I am enjoying The Office this season. It's mainly James Spader.

We know I'm enjoying TVD.

Downton Abbey:

they ruined Sybil/Branson and don't acknowledge it AT ALL

They had a cute vibe in S1, and now it's just...weird. Plus, she's all, "I want to see the world!" Um, how exactly does getting married do that? You want to keep making a difference? Work, volunteer, go to university. Hell, see if you can't get daddy to spring for a Grand Tour. But marrying the help (who, BTW, wants to tell you exactly what do to--how is that being free?)

I'm uncomfortable with the amount of slut-shaming and victim-blaming in the Ethel storyline

Hmm, I'm not, really. Mainly because I don't expect she'd get any other treatment in the early 1900s. IDK. I mean, I fully realize that you shouldn't blame women for having sex. But there was no free love, condoms, or the pill. If you had sex, you'd probably end up with a (completely life changing) baby. Which is one of the reasons sex was something you weren't supposed to do before marriage, purely for economical reasons. Eh, I'm probably not making sense. Though obviously it's unfair that the fathers could easily escape responsibilty.

DNW on the Lord Crawley seducing the maid nonsense.

That was weird. And sort of out of the blue. War over, midlife crisis, kiss the maid?

[next_to_normal]

Heh, I do like James Spader. I just feel like the show still has no direction, and I'm at the point where I'm watching for the background characters because all the regulars have become stagnant, which is frustrating.

But there was no free love, condoms, or the pill. If you had sex, you'd probably end up with a (completely life changing) baby.

Well, there were actually condoms - they've been around in various forms for over 400 years, though the rubber ones only started being made in the 19th century. But that's rather beside the point.

Because, sure, you can say it's "purely for economical reasons" but it's not, really. If it were, there'd be responsibility on both sides. It's entirely about sexism and repressing women's sexuality, which is why it's only the woman who gets shamed. No one shames the soldiers for fucking whoever they want, since they're not the ones who end up pregnant.

It's not that I expect them all to react differently, because I know that's the time period. But when you have all these women talking about how they want more out of life and they want their lives to be meaningful, clearly chafing against sexist boundaries in other ways - I expected to see someone at least voice the opposite opinion. Sybil the budding feminist, perhaps. She should certainly care about this kind of thing. And I get why Mary would be bitter about being stuck with consequences of one's actions, but it makes her a hypocrite after what happened to her.

[goldenusagi]

Well, economic reasons on the woman's side. There was definitely a double standard, because women did get stuck with any babies, and men could escape the responsibilty entirely.

I realize intelectually that it was about repressing women's sexuality, but it's hard for me to wrap my mind around, since sexuality is so different today. The fact was that then, if you had sex, despite methods of contraception, you were very likely going to end up with a baby. Hence the stigma/control over sex that developed in society for hundreds/thousands of years. Only in modern times do women have the ability to have sex without any consequences of pregnancy (if you do it right). But of course, the stimga has remained, even if the reasons for it aren't valid anymore.

[next_to_normal]

The fact was that then, if you had sex, despite methods of contraception, you were very likely going to end up with a baby.

Right, but why is it solely the woman's responsibility to prevent it? It takes two to tango, as they say.

It's no coincidence that the controls society developed are almost exclusively to limit women's sexual activity, while allowing men free rein to do whatever they want without consequences. It's tied up in all sorts of sexist beliefs.

Society could have developed a stigma that shamed men who don't fulfill their paternal obligations. It would have been just as effective as shaming women. Why didn't it? It wasn't for any practical reason, apparently.

[goldenusagi]

Well, then, if you had sex, you were likely going to get someone pregnant. I never said it was solely the woman's responsibilty to prevent it. Just that sex always had risks that it doesn't have to have today. But because society sucked, the risk mainly fell on the woman.

Society could have developed a stigma that shamed men who don't fulfill their paternal obligations.

I suppose there was no way to tell for certain who the father was? When there was always a way to tell for certain who the mother was, so she's the one who got shamed. Men had the unfortunate ability to say, "that's not my child," and walk away. It wasn't like there were paternity tests.

[next_to_normal]

I never said it was solely the woman's responsibilty to prevent it.

No, I know that, but that IS what people thought up until very recently. And it is sexist. That's all I'm trying to say.

Everyone who condemned Ethel in this episode may have believed it was based on "practical" arguments, but that's because they're entrenched in the misogynistic culture. It can't be a practical argument if it only applies to women. And I just wish SOMEONE had come out and said that.

(It's also complicated because she WAS justifiably fired for breaking the rules. So she did suffer consequences even without the baby. And if it had ended there, I'd be fine with it, because that was totally her choice and she's stuck with it, as Mary says. But the pregnancy thing brings in all this extra baggage where blaming Ethel becomes slut-shaming.)

Men had the unfortunate ability to say, "that's not my child," and walk away. It wasn't like there were paternity tests.

Yeah, although again, that's a product of sexism. I mean, what you have is simply one person's word against another's - unless one of them has some sort of absolute proof, which is incredibly unlikely, there's no reason to believe one over the other. But the man's word will almost always be privileged over the woman's - he is seen as more credible simply because he's male.

[goldenusagi]

Oh, but I did actually think that Mary's line was about accepting consequences, lol. I didn't think she was being hypocritical. She had to accept her consequences (marrying Sir Richard to cover it up), and she doesn't care that Ethel has to accept her own (being jobless). She could be more sympathetic or she could have been the one to say/realize, "this sucks", but I didn't think she was being hypocritical, because as far as she can see, she's not 'getting off' with no consequences.

[next_to_normal]

No, I agree, she's thinking of herself and the fact that she's stuck in a situation of her own making. But it's not like she just rolled over and accepted her fate. She fought it every step of the way - for years - trying to salvage her reputation and still end up with a good marriage.

And, in fact, she DID. Mary has a bit of a selective memory when it comes to what she's stuck with. If she'd accepted Matthew's proposal, we wouldn't even be having this conversation because Mary would be living happily ever after with the man she loves. Instead, she turned him down, gambled with his affections, because she thought she might be able to do better.

The point being - if Mary's allowed to fight that hard, why should Ethel get condemned for doing the same thing? She's not asking to get off scot-free, just for a little help so her baby doesn't starve to death.

To be clear, I think it's perfectly in character for Mary to react the way she did - she tends to react in a "if I have to miserable, so does everyone else" sort of way, though I'd thought she was getting better with trying to accept Lavinia. But even though it's in character, I'm still disappointed in her for being so harsh and unfair.

[tamsin]

I am in awe at how many shows you manage to watch. I can only handle one or two at a time.

[next_to_normal]

Haha! I'm not sure it's a good thing that I'm a TV-aholic.