Taking a few days off to recover from press tour (among other things, every item of clothing that I regularly wear needs to be washed), but enough people have requested details of the Ian McShane incident I alluded to a couple of days ago. I would write it up myself, but Joel Keller at TV Squad did such a fine job of capturing the spirit of the thing that I can just link to his account. Between McShane and Selma Blair, it was that rare final full day of press tour where the stars were more hostile than the overtired reporters.Possibly back tomorrow night with a "Doctor Who" review and definitely back Sunday morning with the big "Mad Men" feature I've been working on, folowed that night by a review of the season premiere.
10 comments:
I may just be ignorant, but I don't get the premise either. I don't mean the David/Saul plotline (that I get. Ian McShane as an aging, formerly massively popular ruler who is seeing his influence and relevance fade to this young upstart (whom his daughter and possibly his son are falling in love with). That part sounds pretty cool.)
But the lack of brands? I don't get that. Isn't that how most tv shows work? Unless there's explicit product placement, don't all tv families just shop at the grocery store (not Safeway) and buy furniture at the furniture store (not Pottery Barn) and go to the local cinema? How is that different for Kings? Why is that a part of the premise? Why'd they bother to bring it up?
It sounds to me like this show just goes a little further along the path of separating its world from that of reality. They're just using it as a tool to separate the viewer's previous conceptions about a place or an object from the story on screen.
The Wire was exactly opposite in a way. Everything that happened on screen was dependent on the city of Baltimore. Because of that, we could draw parallels between the world on screen, with our world. It sounds like this new show doesn't want us to do that, they want us to follow what's on screen and let them tell the story.
But I must say, that reporter in that story sounded TERRIBLY whiny. Seriously, if you don't understand something, ask a question in a way that isn't antagonizing.
Well, as long as we're quoting Deadwood, allow me to be anal and correct the quote. It's "be combative," not "get combative."
Did you hang with John Edwards?
Did he call anyone a... um... C.S.?
I think you had better do a Doctor Who post for this one or peoples' heads might explode a bit.
Sorry if I am being dense, but your review of Mad Men will be on Wednesday? Three days after the actual airing on Sunday?
Is this because you have not rec'd a review screener, or won't be able to watch it right away? Seems odd, but again maybe I am missing the obvious.
It will be a hardship to wait that long to get your usual excellent insights!
or maybe that was a typo..:)
Sorry if I am being dense, but your review of Mad Men will be on Wednesday? Three days after the actual airing on Sunday?
And that, right there, is why I need a few days off. I meant Sunday, but wrote Wednesday. Fixed.
I second that head exploding part if there is no Doctor Who review.
It sounds like his new show will be set in a Battlestar-esque sort of future, where everything is rateable and recognizable, but doesn't have any direct connection to the present. No "Cubs win the World Series!" bits, or ads for "Rocky XIV" or "New Classical Newer Classic Coke". I don't know why that's a selling point, though, or needs be a major piece of press.
I would also like to say, on a slightly different topic, that McShane was, for my money, the hands-down best part of Deadwood.
Post a Comment