I'm so happy to have On Demand (only the free service part, I don't pay for anything extra). Last week I came across episodes of "An Idiot Abroad," Ricky Gervais' new show. The show is a bit of a practical joke--sending Ricky's friend Karl to exotic locales to experience other cultures. Of course, the entertainment comes from the fact that Karl is not adventurous in any sense of the word--he even packs his own snacks.
I was drawn into the show because the first episode sent Karl to Beijing and some nearby locations. As a first trip outside of England, China is a shock. My greatest source of amusement was watching Karl's reaction to the local food--especially as he watches a girl enjoy a scorpion on a stick and a man chow down on chicken embryos. Unlike Anthony Bourdain and Andrew Zimmern, Karl doesn't encounter stinky tofu. On his trip along the Great Wall, he gets to watch his host kill and cook frogs. He tries to politely decline the delicacy, but is force-fed by his host. I must admit I do enjoy the taste of frog, especially the Sichuan/Chongqing-style dishes, but I also find the small bones annoying.
It isn't all torture for Karl; he seems to enjoy some of the travel. He gets some amusement out of his Shaolin kung fu training. Of course, that is followed by some traditional Chinese therapy involving fire on his body (I'm convinced that anything that is supposedly good for you in China is painful).
In other episodes, Karl travels through Israel, Jordan, Mexico, India, and Egypt. Surprisingly, the most unusual foods he encounters are in Mexico and Egypt. In Mexico, he eats some wasp larva with some chili at a Mayan village. And in Egypt, he eats some animal testicles and other organs before his host tells him what's in the dish.
After going through the first five episodes, I'm waiting for the new ones. I don't know where they'll send Karl next or how Ricky Gervais will try to torture him.
Showing posts with label tv. Show all posts
Showing posts with label tv. Show all posts
Monday, February 21, 2011
Monday, April 23, 2007
Woohoo! TV!
After enduring the last three and a half months without TV (ok, that's an exaggeration, I have 3 channels all in Chinese), I finally can watch something worthwhile. Thanks to some friendly info on a message board, I've downloaded a great little program for my computer. I can watch hockey! I'm actually watching some of game 7 of Vancouver-Dallas. The picture quality isn't great, but it's good enough. I can also get CNN, BBC, and ESPN. I'll have to see how much hockey I can really watch here. With any luck I'll also get some football when the season rolls around.
Life in Shenzhen just got a lot better.
Life in Shenzhen just got a lot better.
Wednesday, September 21, 2005
Over There, part II
It's getting near the end of the first season of FX's new series "Over There." After the first two episodes I didn't think much of the show--it didn't show much promise as a enjoyable entertainment (at least not up to par with "The Shield" or "Nip/Tuck"). I continued to watch the series in the expectation of viewing something compelling. It was wrong to think that.
"Over There" lacks. The actors do a fine job at protraying their stereotypical, one-dimensional characters, but that's about the only redeeming quality. The problem with the show isn't that the actors are flat or that the direction is bad (these aspects are terrific); the problem rests squarely on the writing. So far, only "Dim" has shown true emotion and character development (and this just developed in tonight's episode). The remaining characters are exactly how they were at the beginning of the series. Their emotions don't change much and neither do their attitudes and insight. Characters need to be more than one-dimensional. These people are not compelling. They are not forming what could become meaningful relationships. These characters do not create enough interest to keep viewers.
The storylines aren't much better. The first few episodes sounded vaguely like news reports. From then on the show has tried to incorporate more Iraqi life and culture--too little, too late. In tonight's episode, the crew finds $5 million dollars and debates what to do. There are ethical conversations, as well as questions of trust. Funny how this sounds a little like "The Shield" and its money train storyline. The difference being that "The Shield" slowly dealt with the money in a much more intriguing way.
Unless "Over There" can come up with some better storylines and a lot more character development, I don't see the series lasting. If I really wanted emotion to connect with the war in Iraq, I'd turn on CNN or talk to some recently returned soldiers.
As a side note: I may be a little biased in viewing this series as I have a few friends in the military--including those who have been to Iraq and are going back there.
"Over There" lacks. The actors do a fine job at protraying their stereotypical, one-dimensional characters, but that's about the only redeeming quality. The problem with the show isn't that the actors are flat or that the direction is bad (these aspects are terrific); the problem rests squarely on the writing. So far, only "Dim" has shown true emotion and character development (and this just developed in tonight's episode). The remaining characters are exactly how they were at the beginning of the series. Their emotions don't change much and neither do their attitudes and insight. Characters need to be more than one-dimensional. These people are not compelling. They are not forming what could become meaningful relationships. These characters do not create enough interest to keep viewers.
The storylines aren't much better. The first few episodes sounded vaguely like news reports. From then on the show has tried to incorporate more Iraqi life and culture--too little, too late. In tonight's episode, the crew finds $5 million dollars and debates what to do. There are ethical conversations, as well as questions of trust. Funny how this sounds a little like "The Shield" and its money train storyline. The difference being that "The Shield" slowly dealt with the money in a much more intriguing way.
Unless "Over There" can come up with some better storylines and a lot more character development, I don't see the series lasting. If I really wanted emotion to connect with the war in Iraq, I'd turn on CNN or talk to some recently returned soldiers.
As a side note: I may be a little biased in viewing this series as I have a few friends in the military--including those who have been to Iraq and are going back there.
Thursday, August 04, 2005
Over There
I have now watched the first two episodes of the hyped new FX series "Over There." I have to admit that it is, so far, unimpressive.
The first episode made sense--getting to know the soldiers as they say goodbye to their families and understanding their respective family situations. First episodes of TV shows are general forgettable and unnecessary in long-run of a show. However, the second episode should build a great deal more on the characters that are introduced in the first. This series failed to do so.
There were quite a few characters to remember in the first episode (in fact, I can't recall many of their names or nicknames). There were half the number in the second. This brings the question: What happened to the other characters? What about the two women and their dilemmas in combat? They disappeared in the second episode--aside from a brief moment at the beginning.
I am having a little difficulty with the character "Smoke." This is the inner city, black man who tends to turn any conversation into a racial debate. It's fine that they have a character who is proud of his heritage, but this one is also against all others--he's anti-white and anti-Arab. He has no respect (or any hint of it) for anyone but his own. And they didn't balance this out with an Arab-hating white guy. But just to be safe, they added the educated Arab American.
It is almost impossible to connect to any character yet. They are all superficial. The series seems to make its aim at fictionalizing news reports without any human element. I'm sure I've read about all the action that's happened in the show so far. All it has done is put a nameless face on the war.
I should mention that there is one character who is almost sympathetic--the soldier whose name can't be remembered, but he's the one who got his leg blown off in the first episode. A viewer can see how bad his emotional state is and sympathize with his predicament. However, there is still not enough to connect with him.
"Over There" is just a show about a war--retelling everything we've read in newspapers and watched on TV news. There is no connection to the audience, which is exactly what they claimed to do with the show. To be successful, a show must have a human element. The writers of the show are forgetting this. I will continue to watch it, at least to give it another chance for redemption. If it doesn't get better in the next week or two, I'm changing the channel.
The first episode made sense--getting to know the soldiers as they say goodbye to their families and understanding their respective family situations. First episodes of TV shows are general forgettable and unnecessary in long-run of a show. However, the second episode should build a great deal more on the characters that are introduced in the first. This series failed to do so.
There were quite a few characters to remember in the first episode (in fact, I can't recall many of their names or nicknames). There were half the number in the second. This brings the question: What happened to the other characters? What about the two women and their dilemmas in combat? They disappeared in the second episode--aside from a brief moment at the beginning.
I am having a little difficulty with the character "Smoke." This is the inner city, black man who tends to turn any conversation into a racial debate. It's fine that they have a character who is proud of his heritage, but this one is also against all others--he's anti-white and anti-Arab. He has no respect (or any hint of it) for anyone but his own. And they didn't balance this out with an Arab-hating white guy. But just to be safe, they added the educated Arab American.
It is almost impossible to connect to any character yet. They are all superficial. The series seems to make its aim at fictionalizing news reports without any human element. I'm sure I've read about all the action that's happened in the show so far. All it has done is put a nameless face on the war.
I should mention that there is one character who is almost sympathetic--the soldier whose name can't be remembered, but he's the one who got his leg blown off in the first episode. A viewer can see how bad his emotional state is and sympathize with his predicament. However, there is still not enough to connect with him.
"Over There" is just a show about a war--retelling everything we've read in newspapers and watched on TV news. There is no connection to the audience, which is exactly what they claimed to do with the show. To be successful, a show must have a human element. The writers of the show are forgetting this. I will continue to watch it, at least to give it another chance for redemption. If it doesn't get better in the next week or two, I'm changing the channel.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)