Jump to content

Brooklyn Nine Nine [SPOILERS]


Sci-2

Recommended Posts

I think it's fine to have cutting comedies examining prejudice, but not every comedy has to do that.



I think B-99 is impressive in the way it's managed to talk about prejudice in the context of a lighthearted comedy that is creative, has a diverse cast, and most importantly makes me happier having watched an episode.



Progressive without being preachy is how I see it.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, for me, the bits where it gets serious about social issues are the ones that feel preachy. The multiethnic smorgasboard of the Thanksgiving meal, to get away from the gay stuff for a moment, felt cheap and unearned to me, an easy, moralistic ideal with obvious and didactic ideological implications. The comedy early 21st century liberalism equivalent of a socialist realist mural in a kolkhoz dining room.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eh, art is funny that way. It's very hard to be wrong. :) I do like the show. It's got a lot going for it - good cast, nice, wacky sense of place and I particularly enjoy the send up of police shows. But Its politics are a little easy - do you disagree with that? Whether that's good or bad is a matter taste, and it happens to run counter to mine. Explaining why and how it does is perforce personal and eccentric and therefore hard to get across, but that doesn't make it reaching. There's stuff I certainly do reach on, for the simple and perverse pleasure of doing so (Marxist reading of TBBT, for example.) This one, however, strikes me as self evident, and the dispute being about the matter of attempting to assign politics to a comedy at all, not their content.



Jesus, I sound like a badly programmed Solo emulator. I'm sorry, it's a prism that takes over sometimes.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

With datepalm on this one. It doesn't happen in every episode, but I notice sometimes and its eye rolling. <br />

<br />

Thought about it strongly after the pilot but decided that the shows strengths are enough to mostly ignore. But I do think they're doing exactly what dp said

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My wife rolls her eyes at BB9 (she doesn't like Community either), but I'm enjoying it a lot. Great ensemble and developing well -- not just a vanity vehicle for the lead, unlike a ton of examples I'm too classy to name.



And special mention for the opening credits and theme tune. I don't know why but it always makes me ready to laugh. Best, and fastest, warm-up act ever.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

But Its politics are a little easy - do you disagree with that? Whether that's good or bad is a matter taste, and it happens to run counter to mine. Explaining why and how it does is perforce personal and eccentric and therefore hard to get across, but that doesn't make it reaching. There's stuff I certainly do reach on, for the simple and perverse pleasure of doing so (Marxist reading of TBBT, for example.) This one, however, strikes me as self evident, and the dispute being about the matter of attempting to assign politics to a comedy at all, not their content.

Jesus, I sound like a badly programmed Solo emulator. I'm sorry, it's a prism that takes over sometimes.

I actually don't disagree with that, I just don't think Peralta's the worst example he just comes across as this super-progressive 'I-don't-care-that-you're-gay' type but really he's the lead and he's functioning as the voice of the cast in the rest of these matters. Nobody cares, not even the older cops like shirtless Hitchcock or Incompetent Scully. It doesn't necessarily bother me. Not every show needs to have some deep examination of cultural issues, but I could see how it would irk others especially how B99 makes prominent use of Holt's homosexuality as a storyline yet doesn't touch on the 'hot button' issues of it.

Then again, Kima in The Wire was gay and I don't recall that ever being a big thing in the show. Nobody seemed to care there and The Wire was a far more realistic portrayal of law-enforcement than B99.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I actually don't disagree with that, I just don't think Peralta's the worst example he just comes across as this super-progressive 'I-don't-care-that-you're-gay' type

....

B99 makes prominent use of Holt's homosexuality as a storyline yet doesn't touch on the 'hot button' issues of it.

I don't mind Peralta's characterization here at all - I don't think it's at all unrealistic that he would be all I-don't-care, and I don't even find it too much of a stretch for the whole cast. Even the lack of awkwardness around it, which I think is a stretch, I can give a pass. What does bug me is that the show makes a point of emphasizing Peralta's lack-of-homophobia in his relationship with Holt like it's a merit badge he's earned, as a redeeming character trait in an otherwise somewhat insufferable personality.

I think he does better as a character - more interesting, more indentifiable, more fleshed out - when he's interacting with pretty much anyone else, really. The only time I really felt sympathy for him was when he was freaking out for Terry, for example, because he was just being a marshmallow hearted goofball without it being framed through that political lens, which I think is cheap. :dunno:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't mind Peralta's characterization here at all - I don't think it's at all unrealistic that he would be all I-don't-care, and I don't even find it too much of a stretch for the whole cast. Even the lack of awkwardness around it, which I think is a stretch, I can give a pass. What does bug me is that the show makes a point of emphasizing Peralta's lack-of-homophobia in his relationship with Holt like it's a merit badge he's earned, as a redeeming character trait in an otherwise somewhat insufferable personality.

I think he does better as a character - more interesting, more indentifiable, more fleshed out - when he's interacting with pretty much anyone else, really. The only time I really felt sympathy for him was when he was freaking out for Terry, for example, because he was just being a marshmallow hearted goofball without it being framed through that political lens, which I think is cheap. :dunno:

Yeah, aside from the one episode with the old crime writer, I just don't see that.

Then again, I don't remember the pilot episode at all and I have no intention of watching again it any time soon. It just was not that good of an episode that I want to re-watch it right now. However, if you say Peralta's lack-of-homosexuality was a major plot point there, well then I'll just concede this argument. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I rewatched the pilot pretty recently with my sister, who just got into the show, and his turnabout there from immature idiot to totally-onboard-because-sympathy-for-the-gay jumped out really loudly.

yeah. i think it was at its most pronounced in the pilot, and i might not have noticed in subsequent episodes if it hadn't jumped out at my so much then.

it struck me as hamhanded in the way that praks and rec often is but perhaps even more so.

Yeah, aside from the one episode with the old crime writer, I just don't see that.

Then again, I don't remember the pilot episode at all and I have no intention of watching again it any time soon. It just was not that good of an episode that I want to re-watch it right now. However, if you say Peralta's lack-of-homosexuality was a major plot point there, well then I'll just concede this argument. :)

its not a major plot point. its just that it's overemphasized

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How can something be overemphasized if it's only in three episodes?



I guess I thought Peralta figuring out the tie thing was quickly undercut by him going on about it while they should be arresting the perp. Everyone else was already following the captain's orders. It'd be a different thing if others had followed Jake's no tie policy.



Not to mention he undoes the good will by saying "Holt would rather I wear a tie than solve the case" in the Squad writer episode.



Maybe I just never though these moments redeemed Peralta - he's the lead so he represents the cast. Also I thought he was detracting from the show, at least a little bit, until the Medical Examiner and Pontiac Bandit cases.



Though on a re-watch I didn't mind him much at all.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

How can something be overemphasized if it's only in three episodes?

I guess I thought Peralta figuring out the tie thing was quickly undercut by him going on about it while they should be arresting the perp. Everyone else was already following the captain's orders. It'd be a different thing if others had followed Jake's no tie policy.

Not to mention he undoes the good will by saying "Holt would rather I wear a tie than solve the case" in the Squad writer episode.

Maybe I just never though these moments redeemed Peralta - he's the lead so he represents the cast. Also I thought he was detracting from the show, at least a little bit, until the Medical Examiner and Pontiac Bandit cases.

Though on a re-watch I didn't mind him much at all.

Its not consistently emphasizing it but when it does, it overemphasizes it. Goes for cheap emotion. Maybe i wouldn't have noticed it all if I wasn't so tired of parks doing things with similar technique(though not relating to homosexuality/ tolerance)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its not consistently emphasizing it but when it does, it overemphasizes it. Goes for cheap emotion. Maybe i wouldn't have noticed it all if I wasn't so tired of parks doing things with similar technique(though not relating to homosexuality/ tolerance)

Don't feel this way, so I guess it comes down to taste.

No point in arguing against your subjective preferences.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What does Parks and Rec do? (I've tried watching it a bunch of times and I can never get past the first few episodes.)

The first six are all just bad, and also quite different in how they handle Amy Poehler's character. The first episode of season two is a vast improvement, and it continues to get better and better until the end of season three.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What does Parks and Rec do? (I've tried watching it a bunch of times and I can never get past the first few episodes.)

its hamhanded in the same way. by using a "this is why character x is a good person" moments. similar to peralta,

not that i dont like several seasons of parks. the first season was terrible then it got much better. but the thing that i like least about it is exactly the same thing i like least about brooklyn(which again i do like)

and its the same thing that you dont like about how they treat peralta. tonally, if not topically.

tangent

what i think both shows do well is the characters that the show doesnt feel it needs to make you root for. second leads like holt and ron swanson that stand on their own without making you feel like your being manipulated.

or smaller role characters, on brooklyn so so far terry, santiago, hitchcock and scully, boyle, rose. sometimes these characters switched around in parks and they may at some point do that in brooklyn too. but for parks early april and andy, sometimes tom, jerry. (and where parks goes downhill for me is when andy and april made that switch, from funny characters to characters the show felt compelled to get you to like and ship, bleh)

its kinda like both shows want you to like everyone. (and to some extent create workplaces where everyone likes each other)

this is all as opposed to the office which felt comfortable with having characters that could entertain you without having you like them. toby, angela, meredith, creed. and in many ways michael. and dwight above all. by being neutral about dwight, when people eventually started liking him, it was more real. by letting good/bad characters like michael and dwight grow, I at least became much more invested in them than i will ever be about leslie knope or peralta.

Don't feel this way, so I guess it comes down to taste.

No point in arguing against your subjective preferences.

but this is certainly true. that side of parks doesnt rub against everyone the wrong way. and if so, brooklyn probably wont either

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess next time I feel compelled to give Parks and Rec a go, i'll just start with season 2.



And I should probably watch the office.



It's odd about workplace comedies. A lot of the humor has to be the place itself, as somewhere weird and filled with misfits and stuff, so I guess they have a harder line to walk in terms of likeable characters. I mean, my favorite parts of 30 Rock are Pete and Jenna, who were fully unashamed of their awfulness.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess next time I feel compelled to give Parks and Rec a go, i'll just start with season 2.

And I should probably watch the office.

It's odd about workplace comedies. A lot of the humor has to be the place itself, as somewhere weird and filled with misfits and stuff, so I guess they have a harder line to walk in terms of likeable characters. I mean, my favorite parts of 30 Rock are Pete and Jenna, who were fully unashamed of their awfulness.

you can do the same thing with the office. i dont dislike the first season of that but starting with the second gives you much more of a feel of what the show will be like. and the second and third seasons of both are very much worth watching

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...