Jump to content

Archived

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

Sci-2

Brooklyn Nine Nine [SPOILERS]

Recommended Posts

So, am I the only one who has actually gone "full Boyle" in this thread?



That was rough until I met the fiance.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, am I the only one who has actually gone "full Boyle" in this thread?

That was rough until I met the fiance.

Nope... In my youth, I went "Full Boyle" quite a bit in all actuality... Fortunately I now have a cold, dead spot in the place in my chest where my heart used to be and I don't do that anymore...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Had a bout of insomnia and watch some eps back to back.



It's interesting how a few things like Scully singing or Boyle's foodiness come back later, and Jake-Amy shipping starts early on.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I've figured out what's been bugging me about Peralta - it's not that he's an immature, selfish jackass. I'm fine with that. It's not that he's an immature selfish jackass the show asks me to root for - that's where I live. It's that he's an immature selfish jackass the show asks me to root for, by exploiting Holt's homosexuality. That is not ok and is a cheap crutch to characterization. Too often, when Peralta screws up in some fashion, particularly vis a vis Holt, it's not because he's a bigot - it's because he's a immature jackass. But to redeem him, what the show will do is contrive to place him in the right spot to take a wonderfully progressive stance on Holt's gayness in some way, forgiving everything he's done in the episode.



In this episode, that actually happened with Holt. Holt was acting immature, possessive and shortsighted about his organization, from what seemed to stem from a personal place, and then he came through by having a political epiphany rather than a personal one. That's perfectly fair, because it's clear that the personal is the political for Holt here, but it isn't for Peralta. Peralta has not spent decades being a gay black cop. Allowing him insights into that as a counterpoint to his personal flaws feels like a copout.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Too often, when Peralta screws up in some fashion, particularly vis a vis Holt, it's not because he's a bigot - it's because he's a immature jackass. But to redeem him, what the show will do is contrive to place him in the right spot to take a wonderfully progressive stance on Holt's gayness in some way, forgiving everything he's done in the episode.

Watched a good chunk of the first season last night in one go, and I'm not seeing this.

Feels like you're connecting two unrelated things in the show.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Watched a good chunk of the first season last night in one go, and I'm not seeing this.

Feels like you're connecting two unrelated things in the show.

I don't think so - there's the pilot, where Peralta figures out Holt's gayness is what makes him a stickler for team feeling. There's the episode with the douchebag old time reporter who's charms Peralta falls for and makes an ass of himself, only to come through when he punches him out for a homophobic comment (not for the fact the douchbag glamorized violence, disparaged any kind of work ethic or responsibility in policing, got him drunk and talking shit about his co-workers, etc, etc.) There's the party episode where he talks to Holt's husband at the end after being a dork at their party, and works out that it's all because of the husband being used to homophobia, etc. I don't mind in the slightest when gayness is an issue around Holt, I just think it's an easy characterization crutch when his lack-of-homophobia is constantly used to delineate Peralta.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Had a bout of insomnia and watch some eps back to back.

It's interesting how a few things like Scully singing or Boyle's foodiness come back later, and Jake-Amy shipping starts early on.

Just curious, where does the term "shipping" come from?

I haven't really seen it used or noticed until some threads this year and I was just curious what it means and where it comes from.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

there's the pilot, where Peralta figures out Holt's gayness is what makes him a stickler for team feeling.

Him being last to figure things out wasn't really something that redeemed him.

There's the episode with the douchebag old time reporter who's charms Peralta falls for and makes an ass of himself, only to come through when he punches him out for a homophobic comment

I'll give you that one, I forgot about it.

There's the party episode where he talks to Holt's husband at the end after being a dork at their party, and works out that it's all because of the husband being used to homophobia, etc.

Was Peralta really in need of redemption over this?

I don't mind in the slightest when gayness is an issue around Holt, I just think it's an easy characterization crutch when his lack-of-homophobia is constantly used to delineate Peralta.

But no one in the department is homophobic, so those incidents just present Peralta as meeting the minimum requirements for decent human being. Peralta became more likeable overall as the show went on, not to mention the focus shifting more to other cast members.

I never thought Peralta was a better person because he isn't homophobic. Nor did I really think of this as defining his character.

Just curious, where does the term "shipping" come from?

I haven't really seen it used or noticed until some threads this year and I was just curious what it means and where it comes from.

Never really thought about it but here's the etymology:

"The activity of fans creating relationships out of some or most of the cast of characters far predates the term. Though the word "ship" evolved from "relationship", where and when it was first used to indicate involvement with fictional romance is unclear. The first "ship" that became widely popular and accepted was Kirk and Spock of the television show Star Trek. This began in the mid 1960s, and was often referred to as K/S. This is why relationships between two men is often now referred to as "slash"."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just curious, where does the term "shipping" come from?

It originated on the X-Files usenet group back in '96. Of course, Tumblr-based shipper fandoms will tell you they invented it, but they're lying because ignorance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But no one in the department is homophobic, so those incidents just present Peralta as meeting the minimum requirements for decent human being. Peralta became more likeable overall as the show went on, not to mention the focus shifting more to other cast members.

So why does the show go out of it's way to emphasize Peralta's lack of homophobia?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So why does the show go out of it's way to emphasize Peralta's lack of homophobia?

It doesn't, I think you're projecting something onto the character. Peralta rarely mentions Holt's homosexuality, and is mostly concerned with the fact that he thinks he's a robot. Nobody on their team even seems to give a fuck about Holt's sexuality, in fact I think Holt is the one who brings it up the most.

As far as the incident when Peralta punches the sleazy writer, I saw that as protecting his team. He had to have a reason to turn on his idol, and defending the pride of his captain (and new idol) seemed good enough to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So why does the show go out of it's way to emphasize Peralta's lack of homophobia?

Because he's the lead, so he inevitably ends up being the center of storylines.

That's all the emphasis is AFAICTell. And is it really more than than three storylines, two of which aren't really redemption stories unless you're stretching it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:dunno: Eh, maybe I'm crazy. I just end up rolling my eyes a lot at the "Peralta comes through with being nice about the gays" stuff. It's not at the level of an overt statement, it's just a particular, subtextual strategy the show has, when it balances "Peralta is unlikeable" moments with "Peralta is likeable" moments. Maybe because Peralta is a particularly laddish sort of character so there may be expectation that, if anyone, he would be the one who would get a little politically incorrect about it and this is shoring up the show's liberal politics. Dunno.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:dunno: Eh, maybe I'm crazy. I just end up rolling my eyes a lot at the "Peralta comes through with being nice about the gays" stuff. It's not at the level of an overt statement, it's just a particular, subtextual strategy the show has, when it balances "Peralta is unlikeable" moments with "Peralta is likeable" moments. Maybe because Peralta is a particularly laddish sort of character so there may be expectation that, if anyone, he would be the one who would get a little politically incorrect about it and this is shoring up the show's liberal politics. Dunno.

The fact that nobody in the office has a problem with Holt's sexual preferences does far more to shore up the show's liberal politics than Peralta being 'likable.' Also, the only character that voices any opposition to it turns out to be a major douchenozzle.

Granted, I did have a bit of an eyeroll when Peralta punched his writer-hero and why he did it, but I think think that was more a singular moment rather than something endemic to Peralta's character.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The fact that nobody in the office has a problem with Holt's sexual preferences does far more to shore up the show's liberal politics than Peralta being 'likable.' Also, the only character that voices any opposition to it turns out to be a major douchenozzle.

Granted, I did have a bit of an eyeroll when Peralta punched his writer-hero and why he did it, but I think think that was more a singular moment rather than something endemic to Peralta's character.

It's not about his character, it's about the show's strategy when it comes to his character. Peralta's actual personality as a non-homophobe is not in doubt here. It's that show uses his non-homophobia to make up for other, totally unrelated issues. Couldn't Peralta have agreed to finally wear a tie in the pilot because he respected Holt as his commanding officer, or understood the value of a professional dress code for a policeman, or simply agreed to obey an order even if it as a whim, because that's how command structures work, or any reason except understanding, and being sympathetic, to Holt's motivation as a gay man. :dunno:

Yeah, I'm just going to accept no one can see this/is annoyed by this/it doesn't actually exist and chalk this up to my cabin fever. (You'll all be happy to know semester starts monday and I will hopefully have something to do with my life than over-watch American sitcoms. I kid, I'm totally going to keep doing this.)

(That said, you'd think someone in the damned precinct would have a problem with having a gay captain, even in a not directly homophobic way - just in a "times, eh?" or making bad jokes or being subconsciously awkward around him or too eager to come across as not-homophobic in any way, etc. Scully and Hitchcock, maybe. That's where the show gets too sentimental for me. It's not just that everyone's hearts are in the exactly right place, it's that so are their brains, and their senses of humor, and their grasp of social decorum, nuances of political correctness and language and discourse, etc, etc.

These are people who break into their boss's bathroom at a party or show each other their foot-fungus or don't know how to smile or propose to women they've known for a week or can fascinate a department of psychiatrists - but none of them has made a genuinely embarassing pratfall in months having a gay captain. Because that is totally something that is entirely so comfortable, familiar, well established and pedestrian as to be completely beyond note or possibility of awkwardness in this day and age. Yeah, whatever.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you're demanding too much from a show that's just supposed to be relaxing and fun.



I wouldn't want to see homophobia among the group because it would take me out of the magical realism of the show.



Besides, I think it's unfair to assume a group of people in NYC, no matter their age, would be intolerant of homosexuality.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you're demanding too much from a show that's just supposed to be relaxing and fun.

I wouldn't want to see homophobia among the group because it would take me out of the magical realism of the show.

Besides, I think it's unfair to assume a group of people in NYC, no matter their age, would be intolerant of homosexuality.

I make my own fun! No,honestly, this does bother me a little - precisely because it is a comedy, and therefore can be held to slightly different standards. A serious show (not to mention actual political dialogue) might well be admirable for demanding it's audience accept a world where absolutely everyone in a Brooklyn police department staffed by social misfits is not only politically pro-gay, but also utterly comfortable and un-self conscious about it on a personal level and an expert at navigating workplace discourse, hitting just the right balance of acknowledgement, casualness, appropriate humor, etc. For a comedy though, it strikes me as a little bloodless. Just a matter of taste, I guess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well the show should be enjoyable for people who are gay as well. Similar to how I don't want a show with Indians to deal with racism or prejudice against Hinduism at every turn.



I think the show strikes a nice balance of addressing prejudice without making it detract from the overall feel good vibes.



The show could've presented negative caricatures of cops, who aren't exactly well liked by everyone in the U.S., but they made an effort to avoid the easy route of relying on cliched stereotypes.



I also think this whole thing about making Peralta sympathetic by his lack of homophobia is largely baseless and easily explained via him being the lead. If anything, Peralta is among the least sympathetic characters in the show.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well the show should be enjoyable for people who are gay as well. Similar to how I don't want a show with Indians to deal with racism or prejudice against Hinduism at every turn.

I think there's a difference between laughing at prejudice, and the knots and absurdities that prejudice can produce, and condoning it, but again, I guess that's me. I'm Israeli* - a comedy about us had better be nasty, or else. A comedy can be pleasant, but that actually makes it less progressive, in my opinion, not more. Discomfort is the truest political tool of art. The best Israeli sitcom of recent years is called Arab Labour, and it's incredibly unflattering to Jews, to Arabs, and to everyone trying to be somewhere in between - and it's one of the most progressive, radical, anti-racist things ever on Israeli tv, doing more to normalize Jewish-Arab relations than decades of very, very serious shows and movies and Late-show specials about racism and discrimination and god knows what.

(*If you want to get precise, I'm Russian-Ukrainian Israeli un-Jewish. It's a cultural background that pretty much dictates that if laughter doesn't hurt, it's not doing it's job very well.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×