 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Over halfway through season 1 of Blue Bloods and am considering dropping it. I'm totally on the fence though, because I have countless times been on the brink of departing a show that I ended up sticking with only to end up really loving. Blue Bloods has some great qualities, but there is too much that drags it down for me. Tom Selleck and Donnie Wahlberg are aces and Jennifer Esposito and Nick Turturro are outstanding in their supporting partner roles, but the rest of the cast doesn't really impress. Bridget Moynihan does reasonably well but Will Estes is terribly bland as youngest son Jamie and Len Cariou is such a clichéd grandpa and a bit irritating. There are no other guest stars that stick around long enough to impress. There are some great lines and philosophizing and of course the New York City backdrop is perfect, but the crimes are so uninspired, so cartoonish, and so by-the-numbers. The bad guys are mostly laughable and lame and usually given the most elementary dialogue. Routine cop plots, nothing special here, move along folks. There isn't enough serial storytelling for my taste, I prefer shows with more of an overall season arc. There is the Blue Templar, but they are barely mentioned every once in awhile. There's just really nothing fresh, exciting, or creatively unique about Blue Bloods so far. I get that a little bit, that it's the comfort of the family dynamic, all of them getting together for family dinner and really that is one of my favorite aspects of the show, how they all interact as a family (although sometimes the "warmth" of the family scenes is a bit too forced) but as a crime show it really fails in the crime department, which is kind of crucial. I'll stress again, I love Selleck and Wahlberg, they are fantastic, but I need a good, solid, uniformly excellent ensemble, not a few key main players that hold up the rest. I'll probably finish out the season but beyond that the jury is still out...
In the meantime there are several other TV shows that are jockeying for my attention should Blue Bloods take a hit in the line of fire. Contenders for my Next Great TV Show have been narrowed down to the following -- any suggestions as to which one I should pick, or should I stick with Blue Bloods? Let's hear from you people!
These are contenders for next in line:
The Walking Dead
Jericho
Southland
Arrow
I might revisit Buffy the Vampire Slayer for the first time since I saw it all the way through originally, or finally finish off Party of Five seasons 4-6...
Should I continue on with Blue Bloods or begin one of the above? Please, no additional suggestions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
May 6, 2015 - 9:07 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
MikeP
(Member)
|
My two cents.
Walking Dead- Everyone raves about that show, but it's a gore fest. Not for me but I'm in the minority.
Falling Skies- One of the worst written sci fi series ever. Avoid unless plot and continuity doesn't matter to you.
Agreed, Falling Skies is truly awful. I barely made it to the season 1 finale, but nothing could drag me back for any more.
And The Walking Dead...ehhh...started out fine, but slowly became increasingly stupid, especially when Super Duper Boogie Man The Governor is introduced, maybe the single most ridiculous character in a series that already can be infuriating. They have a few good episodes, then a slew of bad ones. For Pete's sake, stop Robert Kirkman from writing TV and stop Greg Nicotero from directing. Keep him doing the make up effects but NOTHING ELSE.
That being said, I'm still watching the damn thing  , mainly since Melissa McBride is superb.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
May 6, 2015 - 11:08 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
joan hue
(Member)
|
I'm the kind of person that if I get half way through the first season of a show and don't connect with it, I move on.
Of course, revisiting Buffy is always a treat for me. In the past two weeks, I've been rewatching and enjoying Angel as so many Buffy characters migrated to that series.
I'm hooked on Walking Dead. Yes, it is VERY gory. At times, I just shut my eyes. Also, there was in my opinion, one weak season; it just seemed like filler. However, overall, I've been hooked. It is one of the few TV shows that has ever really given me some authentic scares. I also care about many of the main characters, so I will keep on watching.
That's my two cents.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks for the suggestions and advice, folks! Life is short and a few of you have confirmed what I have suspected, so I have dropped Falling Skies from my list of contenders, as much as I love Noah Wyle.
Keep the advice coming!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
My suggestion is stick with Blue Bloods. I've been watching since the first season and have remained very entertained by it. However, if you do decide to drop it, I suggest Southland. It was a very well done show. My only criticism is that the characters cuss far beyond what is allowable on television so the words are bleeped out. After a while I found myself wishing they would substitute non-cuss words instead as the bleeping became distracting, almost like watching an episode of Jerry Springer.
Southland does seem to have a more uniformly impressive roster of talent, more edge, and more incisive storytelling than Blue Bloods, more gritty and more character driven. If I were to pick a cop show, it might be Southland. Incidentally, the DVDs I have my eye on at Amazon are Unrated (or Uncensored or something) so I don't think there will be any bleeping but full-on profanity! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
If it's scintillating crime plots that you're after, you might as well ditch "Blue Bloods." The only season-length story arc in the series occurs in season one. Subsequent seasons are all standalone "crime of the week" stories (with the occasional two-parter). The series is all about the family dynamics, as epitomized in the dinner table scenes. The plots exist primarily to set up moral dilemmas for the characters. If that's not enough for you (it is for me; I haven't missed a episode), dump it.
The only one of your possible replacements I've seen is "Southland." It's certainly grittier than "Blue Bloods." Most episodes begin by showing a short scene from about two-thirds of the way through the episode, then backtrack to show what preceded and followed that scene. I watched it as it was broadcast, first on NBC, then on TNT. It was always moving around, changing time slots, which made the serialized aspects tough to follow. It will play more coherently on DVD, as long as you don't let too much time pass between episodes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
