|
|
Post by jill on Oct 3, 2010 10:06:46 GMT
Pickled onion monster munch for me too, although all monster munch is quite disgusting. I couldn't fit my view into an either/or answer. The experiment with TIE 86 was interesting. I didn't feel negative about the Harper directed episodes, but I did think they were 'Meadows-like', but somehow not Meadows. For this reason, I'm not sure I'd like to see it done in quite this way again (that's a 'no' then). On the otherhand, if there was a similar project in the future involving a Meadws film/characters and Shane couldn't or didn't want to direct all of it, why not go 'free style' and allow the other(s) to interrept the story/characters in their own way/style? So, four episodes, four stories centred around four characters interrepted in different ways (that's a yes then). I suppose this kind of thing would be too radical for TV though which seems totally risk averse artistically these day. Shame, I'd like to see it.
|
|
|
|
Post by kelpie on Oct 3, 2010 10:33:05 GMT
Pickled onion monster munch for me too, although all monster munch is quite disgusting. I couldn't fit my view into an either/or answer. The experiment with TIE 86 was interesting. I didn't feel negative about the Harper directed episodes, but I did think they were 'Meadows-like', but somehow not Meadows. For this reason, I'm not sure I'd like to see it done in quite this way again (that's a 'no' then). On the otherhand, if there was a similar project in the future involving a Meadws film/characters and Shane couldn't or didn't want to direct all of it, why not go 'free style' and allow the other(s) to interrept the story/characters in their own way/style? So, four episodes, four stories centred around four characters interrepted in different ways (that's a yes then). I suppose this kind of thing would be too radical for TV though which seems totally risk averse artistically these day. Shame, I'd like to see it. You mean so that it wouldn't be two directors/writers sharing one story, but they'd each have their own stories that they could see through from start to finish, fully their own vision? |
|
|
|
Post by jill on Oct 3, 2010 10:47:52 GMT
Pickled onion monster munch for me too, although all monster munch is quite disgusting. I couldn't fit my view into an either/or answer. The experiment with TIE 86 was interesting. I didn't feel negative about the Harper directed episodes, but I did think they were 'Meadows-like', but somehow not Meadows. For this reason, I'm not sure I'd like to see it done in quite this way again (that's a 'no' then). On the otherhand, if there was a similar project in the future involving a Meadws film/characters and Shane couldn't or didn't want to direct all of it, why not go 'free style' and allow the other(s) to interrept the story/characters in their own way/style? So, four episodes, four stories centred around four characters interrepted in different ways (that's a yes then). I suppose this kind of thing would be too radical for TV though which seems totally risk averse artistically these day. Shame, I'd like to see it. You mean so that it wouldn't be two directors/writers sharing one story, but they'd each have their own stories that they could see through from start to finish, fully their own vision? Kind of-a different way of thinking about collaboration, I suppose. Again it assumes a scenario where Shane couldn't commit to directing all episodes (which would be my number one preference). Rather than have some episodes directed by other who are trying to ensure a continuity in style by aping Meadows, take four characters, with self-contained stories in each episode, (within a longer story arc maybe) and allow the director free reign in how to tell the story? Probably wouldn't work for TIE 90 though, since there is now an existing TV audience hungry for more who already have certain expectations of the 'brand', I guess. I'm not sure it would work on TV at all these days. Would be nice to imagine a trilogy or quartet of episode that were more like hour long films with interlinked stories and recurring characters interrepted my Meadows and ? and ? and ? Or maybe this is a terrible idea and I'm the only person who would watch it ;D Edit: Just wanted to say that 'aping' wasn't meant as an insult-like I posted before, I think Harper had the best and worst gig in the world here and did a good job. |
|
|
|
Post by Dazza on Oct 3, 2010 11:01:43 GMT
The Street was a good BBC drama Series (Weirdly made by ITV) that was written mainly by Jimmy Mcgovern and a few others but each episode was directed by different directors and if you looked closely enough each episode was made slightly different in a film making sense and style.
Anything Shane had a hand in writing I'd watch even if he wasn't directing it. I personally had no issue with TIE86 and Tom Harper (a bloody good director) directing as he did a brilliant job. Yes I can spot the differences in the two episodes but were they bad........NO!
Just think we could have been watching Big Brother but instead we get one of the best TV series in years. So I voted yes I'd watch anything Mr Meadows has involvement in earlier on in the post.
|
|
|
|
Post by kelpie on Oct 3, 2010 11:23:28 GMT
When TIE'86 was very first announced, I thought each episode was going to be concentrating on one or two characters' self-contained stories within a larger narrative. I'm glad we got the powerful story we did, but I wouldn't be adverse to watching a TIE'90 done this way. Only Shane knows what he has in mind though and what would work best for the stories he has left to tell.
|
|
|
|
Post by desmond22 on Oct 3, 2010 15:18:35 GMT
I disliked episodes 1 and 2, mainly because of Jack Thorne's obvious influence. I hated the over the top characterisations like the scooter boy bullies, the pointless wheelchair race in the hospital and Gadgets ridiculous affair. The sex and humour seemed so laboured it just served to distance me from the characters as they werent as intimate and personable as the film. It's been said before but ep 2 really was like watching an episode of skins or shameless. I knew it would all change for eps 3 and 4, I just didnt realise how radically. Meadows really pulled it out the bag and made some of the best television I've ever seen. It really is not my place to say but I hope that for his next TV project shane takes complete control, or atleast collaborates with people who, like Considine and fraser have an inherent understanding of the stories he tells
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave on Oct 3, 2010 15:37:04 GMT
I wish to clarify my original answer which was YES, Shane should let others direct.
I only meant future TV work, not films! That's a NO from me. ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by jill on Oct 3, 2010 15:51:21 GMT
I disliked episodes 1 and 2, mainly because of Jack Thorne's obvious influence. I hated the over the top characterisations like the scooter boy bullies, the pointless wheelchair race in the hospital and Gadgets ridiculous affair. The sex and humour seemed so laboured it just served to distance me from the characters as they werent as intimate and personable as the film. It's been said before but ep 2 really was like watching an episode of skins or shameless. I knew it would all change for eps 3 and 4, I just didnt realise how radically. Meadows really pulled it out the bag and made some of the best television I've ever seen. It really is not my place to say but I hope that for his next TV project shane takes complete control, or atleast collaborates with people who, like Considine and fraser have an inherent understanding of the stories he tells I'm not sure that you can say that the influence of one writer is felt in 1 and 2 and the other in 3 and 4. Might be wrong, but from what I can make out, Shane and Jack Thorne wrote all the episodes together. Maybe it is because it moves from mainly light to mainly dark as the episodes progress? |
|
|
|
Post by kelpie on Oct 3, 2010 16:00:20 GMT
I disliked episodes 1 and 2, mainly because of Jack Thorne's obvious influence. I hated the over the top characterisations like the scooter boy bullies, the pointless wheelchair race in the hospital and Gadgets ridiculous affair. The sex and humour seemed so laboured it just served to distance me from the characters as they werent as intimate and personable as the film. It's been said before but ep 2 really was like watching an episode of skins or shameless. I knew it would all change for eps 3 and 4, I just didnt realise how radically. Meadows really pulled it out the bag and made some of the best television I've ever seen. It really is not my place to say but I hope that for his next TV project shane takes complete control, or atleast collaborates with people who, like Considine and fraser have an inherent understanding of the stories he tells I'm not sure that you can say that the influence of one writer is felt in 1 and 2 and the other in 3 and 4. Might be wrong, but from what I can make out, Shane and Jack Thorne wrote all the episodes together. Maybe it is because it moves from mainly light to mainly dark as the episodes progress? I was thinking that. As much as Jack Thorne is known for Skins, he does also write drama. I haven't watched The Scouting Book for Boys yet, but it doesn't look like constant hi-jinks to me. Just as Shane's films often have a comedic edge to them. I'm not sure it's as clear-cut as we think. Like I said, I think one of the main things about this is that it was a continuation of a film in which we already felt we knew the world, the characters and the tone. We were hypersensitive to any changes. If this was a brand new world, would people have been as critical? |
|
|
|
Post by desmond22 on Oct 3, 2010 16:35:10 GMT
I'm not sure that you can say that the influence of one writer is felt in 1 and 2 and the other in 3 and 4. Might be wrong, but from what I can make out, Shane and Jack Thorne wrote all the episodes together. Maybe it is because it moves from mainly light to mainly dark as the episodes progress? [/quote] Yeah I know Shane and Thorne wrote the show together, I just disliked the comedic story lines in 1 and 2. I found them more reminiscent of Skins, Shameless etc which I (rightly or wrongly) associate with Thorne. I also think Meadows makes great comedy, which alot of people overlook. My favourite moments in TIE, DMS and ARFRB are the comedic ones. Le Donk and Morell are 2 of the best characters on film because their humour and comedy comes from a very real place whereas the humour in ep 1 and 2 felt contrived to me so it's not the shift from light to dark I disliked. But that's just me you know? Art is subjective and I'm sure there are people who love ep 1 and 2 more than 3 and 4, I'm just a nobody throwing in my 2 bobs worth  |
|
|
|
Post by colston on Oct 9, 2010 15:08:17 GMT
I think things certainly improved ep 3. That said it was in this that there was the rape scene which was pretty awful. Just not necessary to have it there. Or at least not in the detail. Awful stuff.
|
|
