Export thread

So, after hearing just about every customer at work rave about it, I caved in and rented the first disc (first three episodes) of Mad Men.

And it's...okay. I don't see what all the hullaballoo is about, to be honest. It's set in the 60s and it seems like the two huge things going on is that everybody - and I mean everybody - smokes...and that women are treated like shit.

I don't see how either are such a huge honking deal because that really was, as much as I hate to admit it about the latter, part of the times.

As far as the acting, it's pretty good. I tried out the show to see whether Jon Hamm would make for a good Superman, as people have been talking about. Even though he plays a total and complete douche, I'd say he has the right look for it. Maybe bulk up more, but a couple of times, when they did a side profile of him, it convinced me. Who knows whether he'll get the role or not, of course.

But yeah, after three episodes, I don't think I'm going to bother continuing on. I just don't see what the big appeal of the show is.

Mad Men

I think it's a pretty good show, I may or may not remember the era in which it partakes, but for some reason lately I can't stop thinking 'It's Their Fault they're Female(or Male)' whenever I watch it.

Mad Men

Not everyone has to like good things.

Mad Men

I'd say give it more of a chance. I didn't like it at first either but the characters grew on me.

Mad Men

It's not just the era and look of it. The writing and stories are executed very well. Each show is very thematic, and usually sort of based around the ad campaign they're working on at the time. And, it's a show where the characters show rather than tell. Meaning, you have to pick up on the way a character is acting/what actions they're taking, rather than just expository "I feel sad right now" sort of stuff.

Mad Men

Joe Johnson said:

Meaning, you have to pick up on the way a character is acting/what actions they're taking, rather than just expository "I feel sad right now" sort of stuff.

Click to expand...

This. It's not my favorite show ever, but the acting and pacing is superb. There's *a lot* of emotion running underneath the surface, and you can actually feel the social pressures involved in shaping how people respond to things.

Mad Men

Oddbot said:

I'd say give it more of a chance. I didn't like it at first either but the characters grew on me.

Click to expand...

This. Except... over time we stopped liking the characters. Pretty much any of them. We still watch it... but... it's kind of in horror more than anything else.

Mad Men

Just because I like a character doesn't mean they're good people or anything like that. It just means they're entertaining to watch. Train wrecks are entertaining to watch too.

Mad Men

I would never argue anything differently, merely that for my wife and I the generally vile nature of 99% of the characters and their actions got overwhelming. If one has ever read any posts I've ever written on any tv show or movie you would know I have no problem with complicated characters (hint: my favorite show is The Wire), but Madmen seems to delight in making the audience suffer, almost taunting the viewer, saying, "you thought that was bad? Lets see if you can handle how bad this person is!". It's a great show, don't get me wrong, but it's emotionally very intense.

Mad Men

I tried watching it too. After 4 or 5 episodes, I stopped, because I couldn't get interested in it. Christina Hendricks was the only thing that kept me going THAT long

Mad Men

It's one of my favorite shows.

Mad Men

They're not -that- bad. I mean, don draper is the devil, but everyone else is at their worst kind of a dick.

Mad Men

phil said:

They're not -that- bad. I mean, don draper is the devil,

Click to expand...

The episode where he ritualistically carved his secretary's heart out and drank her soul from her eye sockets was really shocking for me, too.

Mad Men

What about the episode where Sal kissed another man!


SO EVIL!

Mad Men

I find it interesting, if fast-forwardable, series. Don Draper ends up being more than he's cracked up to be later in the series...

Mad Men

To the original post...not surprising.

As for the show itself:

It is one of the best shows on televsion right now. Period. If you do not like, the I really do not know what to tell you.

Mad Men

Shannow said:

To the original post...not surprising.

As for the show itself:

It is one of the best shows on televsion right now. Period. If you do not like, the I really do not know what to tell you.

Click to expand...

How about "different strokes for different folks"? Not everything is going to appease everyone.

Mad Men

of course, some folks are just wrong, that is all. :smug:

No point making another similar thread.

I just finished watching first two episodes of True Blood. And once again, I just don't see what the big hullaballoo is about it. The writing is terrible, the secondary characters are cliche as hell (Tara an the outspoken black chick who has a problem with slavery? How original! And the gay guy is just...ugh, can we have one, just ONE gay character in a show who is not stupidly flamboyant?) and it's like exposition city. Vampires are this, vampires are that, vampires can do this, blah blah blah. This is shit that anyone who even knows what a vampire is would know, already.

So yeah, gave it two episodes and that'll be it. I've got the second disc of Mad Men rented right now, so going to try giving it a further chance this week.

True Blood is hilarious and campy as all heck.

Again, to OP

Do keep in mind that my dislike of True Blood also stems from the fact that I'm goddamn sick of vampires in pop culture or any form of medium. The only exception I make to that is Daybreakers, which was fantastic.

True blood is a great show (but terrible books) and so is Mad Men.

I don't know what to tell you either.

ThatNickGuy said:

No point making another similar thread.

I just finished watching first two episodes of True Blood. And once again, I just don't see what the big hullaballoo is about it. The writing is terrible, the secondary characters are cliche as hell (Tara an the outspoken black chick who has a problem with slavery? How original! And the gay guy is just...ugh, can we have one, just ONE gay character in a show who is not stupidly flamboyant?) and it's like exposition city. Vampires are this, vampires are that, vampires can do this, blah blah blah. This is shit that anyone who even knows what a vampire is would know, already.

So yeah, gave it two episodes and that'll be it. I've got the second disc of Mad Men rented right now, so going to try giving it a further chance this week.

Click to expand...

Yes, but later on

The Vampires in True Blood are fucking monsters. That's why it rules.

It is a great, hilarious show that revels in its camp and silliness. It is a great show.

I have fun with True Blood, but honestly the soap opera-y nature of it really turns me off sometimes. However, the rest of the show is so fucking crazy sometimes, it's awesome. I never predicted season 2 would go where it did - and I hear 3 gets even more off the wall.

ThatNickGuy said:

I just finished watching first two episodes of True Blood. And once again, I just don't see what the big hullaballoo is about it. The writing is terrible, the secondary characters are cliche as hell (Tara an the outspoken black chick who has a problem with slavery? How original! And the gay guy is just...ugh, can we have one, just ONE gay character in a show who is not stupidly flamboyant?) and it's like exposition city. Vampires are this, vampires are that, vampires can do this, blah blah blah. This is shit that anyone who even knows what a vampire is would know, already.

Click to expand...

The exposition on vampires is required to establish the baseline for the series. With the explosion of vampires in popular media it is required to establish how they are unique in this series as opposed to others like Daywalkers or Vampire High...

Lafyette you really need to give a pass on. For the TV show he was supposed to be just like the books, and all his character was going to amount to was a person who gets killed to provide a plot hook. Fortunately for the actor, fans loved him so much he was saved from death and is now a very important character. So for the first few episodes his development is terrible.

As to Tara, well I pretty much hate her character unless she is with Sookie. Together I think they have great chemistry, but apart from her Tara annoys me to no end.

HCGLNS said:

The exposition on vampires is required to establish the baseline for the series. With the explosion of vampires in popular media it is required to establish how they are unique in this series as opposed to others...

Click to expand...

Well, they don't sparkle in the sun..I, for one, was disappointed, shocked, and fascinated by this unique twist on vampire lore. And what's with those teeth? At least they got the angsty love down just right

Tinwhistler said:

At least they got the angsty love down just right

Click to expand...

True Blood is also much different from Twilight in that they FUCK. They FUCK ALL THE TIME.

yeah, there is that. Nude Rogue doing the reverse cowgirl just turns my crank

LOOK AT MY BIG TEXAS BELT BUCKLE

Ah, coming from these comments and a few on Facebook from friends, I think I went into this series the wrong way. I expected a serious HBO series and thus, thought it was terrible. If I had gone into it expecting camp or not take it so seriously, then yeah. Hmm.

Okay, I'll rent the next disc this week and give it the 'ol second try.

True Blood coming from the same person that made Six Feet Under is completely hilarious to me.