Mad Men

Does anyone else watch this? It's been on for a few seasons now. I'm a big fan. The show is basically about the men and women working in a New York ad agency in the late '60s. It is probably best known for highlighting a lot of the norms of business during the time - sexism, racism, excessive drinking, etc. What makes it great, though, are the characters. They are so deep, complex, and multidimensional that you want to keep watching just to learn more about them long after the ‘wow, things were different back then’ shock factor wears off. Just like in life, there are no truly good or bad people. There are just people reacting to the various personal and social pressures we all feel. The show captures that like few I've ever seen. It's amazing in that nothing actually happens in the show, but that nothing is so well acted and crafted that it's addicting.

I was going to post a few clips, but apparently videos in posts are limited to one now. (?)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ssa3...eature=related

Watched first season, must admit that was a bit dissapointed after hearing so much praise. Which absolutely doesn't mean it bored me, but expected it to be edgier. Main character is awesome, both in the series and real life; I also can't stand Paris Hilton

Quote:

---

excessive drinking

---

No such thing.

I've met bunches of truly good people, and some truly bad ones as well. The other people were varieties of weird and unexpected that you rarely find in tv shows. So these "realistic" shows just end up being writers excusing their own failings. "I cheated on my wife, does that make me a bad person? Yeah, but everyone cheats, or would if they could" just keep telling yourself that pal. This is one of the biggest failings of movie/tv making today. Sorry but if the only way you can't write saintly or satanic characters is by making them "morally ambiguous" then you suck as a writer.

A show about people who get up in the morning go to work then return to there wives and finally go to sleep after letterman would suck big time.

Sure no character even a real historical figure stands up to the scrutiny of todays world I bet even Ghandi had stuff about thats not nice to think on nowadays.

That usually means when we make a tv show on some historical figure today, like for example George Washington then we might stress some things that he done or said that maybe we wish he hadnt.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy

A show about people who get up in the morning go to work then return to there wives and finally go to sleep after letterman would suck big time.

---

Yes...yes it would?

Quote:

---

Sure no character even a real historical figure stands up to the scrutiny of todays world I bet even Ghandi had stuff about thats not nice to think on nowadays.

---

Ghandi only has a saintly reputation because of people who think in very christian terms. But rejecting that doesn't get you very far.

In children's movies you usually have a caricatured distinction between good and evil characters. But the "grown up" movies that make a point of discarding that model are usually just adolescent. There's a short list of traits they pick from, and a short list of "acceptable" vices. He's usually cool or tough or something else teenagers really admire, and then has a vice like infidelity or drugs or taking bribes, or stealing over-priced artwork--vices that teenagers think are cool. They are probably overly cynical too, and likely a smoker. The real bad guys are often representatives of authority like bishops, mayors, army generals. Anyway, that's what they usually call morally ambiguous, but there usually isn't that much ambiguity--the only people who would call it ambiguous are the people who can't differentiate very well.

Well there are plenty of movies that aren't like that, and even movies that are can be good if done right, nicolas cage can make the corrupt cop role work. But it's pretty tiresome when done poorly and that was my impression of mad men from the few episodes I watched.

Quote:

---

That usually means when we make a tv show on some historical figure today, like for example George Washington then we might stress some things that he done or said that maybe we wish he hadnt.

---

Yes, the hack writers would google for some "dirt" on him and gleefully set about destroying the "myth" of george washington. The "myth" being what people get from a bad high school education...it's the adolescent mindset...no real intellectual depth at all.


ps. I don't really really hate mad men or the people who like it or something, I was just thinking about it recently and said something of the sort about "drive" in the movie review thread. It's disappointing when movies turn out to be bad because of this lame crap.

I've watched this show from the beginning and watched the new episode last night. I don't really think it's good though. The acting and writing are superb, but there's just no plot of any kind. Season after season, every episode is just another 'day in the life' of a group of people who live relatively dull lives. I tuned in for this season hoping they would finally get their act together and include an actual plot for the season, but I was apparently wrong. What exactly is the point of having a special double length episode if nothing happens the entire time? Surely we could have gotten through all the dullness in one hour instead of two?

Ugh... this is what they cut Walking Dead's budget for? Thank god Game of Thrones is back on this weekend.

Alcohol and promiscuity

<3

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2vFOzG3GYqo
:tongue:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TinCow

I've watched this show from the beginning and watched the new episode last night. I don't really think it's good though. The acting and writing are superb, but there's just no plot of any kind. Season after season, every episode is just another 'day in the life' of a group of people who live relatively dull lives. I tuned in for this season hoping they would finally get their act together and include an actual plot for the season, but I was apparently wrong. What exactly is the point of having a special double length episode if nothing happens the entire time? Surely we could have gotten through all the dullness in one hour instead of two?

---

The slice of life genre typically is filled with a lot of "nothing" happening. It is more focused on character interaction and exploration rather than plot advancement. Character growth is usually a distant third in this case, as half the point is just seeing how the people act and react to one another. Obviously, it's not to everyone's liking and is something of an acquired taste. You either like it or you don't. :shrug:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Monk

The slice of life genre typically is filled with a lot of "nothing" happening. It is more focused on character interaction and exploration rather than plot advancement. Character growth is usually a distant third in this case, as half the point is just seeing how the people act and react to one another. Obviously, it's not to everyone's liking and is something of an acquired taste. You either like it or you don't. :shrug:

---

Eh, that seems like an excuse for unimaginative writing. Plus, it's also unrealistic. Many characters on the show go through rather significant dramatic events; events that would have a permanent impact on any normal person going through them. Yet on Mad Men little changes, no one ever learns from the past, and events from more than a year ago (chronologically) might as well have never happened. It shakes the believability of the characters, as well as their reactions to them. Plus, the show has actually had major plotlines at several points. The first season had a very solid plot running all the way from beginning to end. A few of the other seasons introduced major issues (largely work-related) that impacted most of the characters, but even then they were handled haphazardly and eventually resolved without making a significant impact on anything. I'm starting to compare Mad Men to Weeds and Dexter, two other shows I used to love, but eventually stopped watching because they continued for way too long after the writers had run out of ideas.

In any case, I neither like it nor dislike it. I've watched the entire thing from the beginning and will continue watching, though at this point I'm largely watching just because it's "a show I watch" rather than because I am interested in seeing what happens each week.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drone

:tongue:

---

Excellent. :grin:

I think Monk best summarizes people's reaction to the show. You either find the character development and interplay interesting and enjoyable or you don't.