Showing posts with label Sleepy Hollow. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Sleepy Hollow. Show all posts

Friday, April 29, 2016

Alright, Prepare To Uncouple...


Is the Odd Couple pairing as unbreakable a trope as it used to be? In the evolving world of television storytelling, the OTP (One True Pairing) may be in the throes of evolution.

With the Odd Couple procedural drama Castle kicking off next season minus one of the leading pair (Stana Katic as Kate Beckett), and Sleepy Hollow still a possible renewal despite killing off one of the OTP leads (Nicole Beharie as Abbie Mills) it would seem times are a changin'.

Sexual tension/possible romance between lead characters has long been an audience drawcard. "Shipping" is a term used to describe viewers' emotional investment in the idea of a couple. Many a showrunner will tell you messing with an established "ship" can impact ratings.

But these days TV is in a state of flux, with demand for new material at an all-time high. Programs willing to play with popular formats and tropes are catching the attention of viewers, and as a result networks are becoming more open to experimentation.

The question is, have we reached a point where a series can not just continue, but actually flourish after the loss of its original Odd Couple? 

One of the most notable partner replacement gone wrong in TV history was The X-Files back in the day. Mulder's departure, it can be argued, effectively rung the death knell for the series.

However it's worth noting Mulder was the quirky one in the partnership, and in the cases of Castle and Sleepy Hollow, each series' charismatic quirkster is remaining. Could this be a key factor when it comes to surviving the break-from-trope?

Another point to consider is whether the bold move of ending an Odd Couple pairing onscreen is a reflection of changing times and shifting cultural attitudes. Our belief in HEA (Happily Ever After) isn't what it used to be. 

Are audiences becoming okay with a sparks-fly couple not working out onscreen - or not even getting together in a romantic sense in the first place? Whether death or more mundane life choices lead to a separation, chances are we've become familiar with the bittersweet transience of finding that elusive synergy with another person.

Maybe, as audiences, we're ready to watch and empathize with characters dealing with life once a Grand Love, or the potential for such, has passed. Moving on: is that where the next small screen storytelling trend is at?











Wednesday, October 30, 2013

Kind of a Spookfest This Halloween...



...by witch (ha!) I mean, these new shows range from barely eery to manageably weird. (Welcome to my general level of horror tolerance.) The programs are supernatural in theme, but instead of a gore overload, it's more about that creepy feeling you get when things don't seem quite right.

Some, of course, are better than others. It's still possible to mess up the spooky spices, even if you're only brewing a mildly scary tv show(!).


Witches of East End
Rating: Atrocious out of 5.


Witches of East End is like a soapie with a supernatural flavour. Lots of the scenes border on farcical; by the second episode, this show's pretty much given up on taking itself seriously. 

One witch regularly turns into a cat, meaning they manage to fit as many "tasteful" nude shots of her post-transformation as possible (and that's just in the first episode).

We know one of the young fiery female leads has a passionate nature, because she wears a push-up bra and low-cut tops the entire time and wants to have it off with two brothers. (Note to writers: having ev-er-y other lead call the character "dramatic" in the first two episodes is inspiration for a drinking game. Instead of bluntly stating said trait, maybe you should infer it through A WELL CONSTRUCTED SCRIPT.)*

 Likewise, there's a "shy librarian", who dresses in mousy, loose clothing. Don't television writers ever get tired of these tropes? Although to be fair, it's not the tropes I'm against. They can be useful and entertaining when employed well. In this scenario... well, the lack of effort is just a shocker.

*Note: don't be fooled by the "So it's like Charmed, right?" attitude prevalent online. Sure, it's like Charmed, if you took all the elements out of Charmed that made the show enjoyable, fun viewing O_O

Sleepy Hollow
Rating: Crazy, chaotic fun out of 5.


I like Sleepy Hollow for the character of Ichabod Crane, transported through time to the present day, along with his headless horseman nemesis (who, it turns out, is actually one of the four horsemen of the Apocalypse. I love it when those guys rock up. And quotes from the bible about them, to boot!). 

I'm not really a fan of the female lead character, but I think it's because she's written so "straight laced" that she crosses over into unlikeable, a common flaw in odd couple procedural partnerings (ie Blue Collar, Castle, to name a few).

The premise allows for some hilarious modern day social commentary. The conspiracy elements are also great, the demon freaks me out, and the links with the past are fun for history buffs. (As someone who plans on watching a Civil War re-enactment one day, this show has enough civil war flashbacks to keep me happy till then.) 

Sleepy Hollow balances out Apocalyptic intensity with flashes of humour, and that's always a solid selling point.

The Originals
Rating: Erratic with potential out of 5.


This show stumbles for the first few episodes. Frankly, I expected better. The original vampires were the most compelling characters on The Vampire Diaries so I thought they would carry their own show well. Unfortunately, the series' set-up is a tad clumsy.

I think it's an issue some spin-offs face, especially if the characters were deeply embedded in the previous series. We've seen these leads face similar plot devices/threats in TVD, so it's hard to drum up the kind of shocked reaction the writers want to evoke. "A character who can maybe take down an Original? Yeah, we saw that with Silas. Why is everyone so astounded? Is there some kind of memory loss associated with a show change??"

Good news is, the fifth episode is when the show starts to find its stride, thanks to those trademark Julie Plec storyline twists that make The Vampire Diaries so much fun. Already, the audiences perception of the different factions in New Orleans (love New Orleans) has been turned on its head (their heads?), making for the kind of gasp-worthy storytelling I originally expected (that was an Original pun, in case anyone missed it).

Verdict? Am sticking with this vamp crew because there's epic potential here that looks set to come to fruition further down the track x

Ravenswood
Rating: Teen spooky out of 5.


I like this show for the exact reason many won't. It's spooky, but in an ABC Family way (meaning this aint HBO fare, people) and the tropes that annoy in other shows are used well here.

The lead Caleb is also a favourite from Pretty Little Liars (of which this is a spin-off), but it's a much "easier" spin-off, in a sense, because there's barely any link to the other show. The lead dates one of the characters in PLL, but that's literally the only element referenced... so it has a much easier job than, say, The Originals.

I love the grey filter, I love the spooky weird town. I love that all this stuff's already happened (ie the murdered Mayor), so mysteries are afoot before Caleb even steps off the bus. I love the ghost woman on the bridge (very Supernatural), the hand around the curtain, the creepy (but kind of goth-sexy) mortuary guy, the prerequisite small town newspaper, the insecure prom queen, the spooky housekeeper, and so much more.

A few episodes in and the plots going a tad Final Destination, but at this point, I'm enjoying everything they're throwing at the audience. Oh, and there's already a ghost character! And graves are moving around in the cemetery! And the ravens seem whacked! And there's an ancient tragedy in the town's past that's sufficiently creepy! Good times. (In, you know, a way that won't give me epic nightmares. Total woose, table for one.)

ADDENDUM: It's interesting to note the weakest of Ravenswood's five leads, the popular twin, was not originally cast in a lead role. The crossover episode included a different actress, Elizabeth Whitson, who was fantastic in her brief appearance. A surprising last minute change was made, apparently the network "re-concieved" the character. Personally, I wish they could un-concieve themselves back to the original casting decision, because I think they've weakened, rather than strengthened, the ensemble cast.