Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'TV Show Talk' started by sigma1914, Mar 1, 2014.
I just finished it and was pretty surprised that I liked it. Anyone else watch it?
Yes, my wife and I were really surprised we liked it.
There's a lot of reviewers just crucifying Mixology. They may have a point or two, but it feels like they are piling on for the sake of piling on.
Many of these complaints seem to deal with the lifestyle depicted. And granted, the lifestyle of 20-somethings that hang out in bars brings up lots of issues. But, it's a meat market, and the people there are going to behave like they’re in a meat market. Yes, its a soul-crushing misogynistic milieu, but people go there because that's what they want to do.
And that is their choice, and that environment, for better or for worse, is the choice made by the producers as to where they want this show to take place. So I have an issue with reviewers turning up their noses and sniffing at what the show is about and how the characters are acting, as if they were somehow better than that. That sort of elitist write-off is ludicrously-equivalent to giving a bad review to Duck Dynasty simply because their million-dollar business supports the hunting and killing of ducks (murder most fowl? - sorry).
Maybe a show about this subject matter isn't for you. And it does seem like scheduling this after Modern Family is less than a strategic coup for ABC, but it still might be the best scheduling opportunity that they could find. Of course, that raises questions about just how high they are on the show.
Still, while pointing out the moral faults of a program such as this, or pointing out gratuitous violence and sex can be of service to those who are wondering whether they should tune in to Criminal Minds or The Black List, the bashing that this show is getting seems to be more self-serving and elitist than helpful.
If picayune squabbling about perceived imperfections regarding the show’s concept is the goal of reviewing the program because it serves the reviewer's hidden agenda of pointing out how smart and moralistic they are, which in turn feeds their fragile egos, then those reviewers need to start looking for a different line of work.
It also seems that moaning about the cancellation of shows that some reviewers thought never should have been canceled, is pretty pointless. Whether they were better or worse than this show is beside the point. Those shows had their chance and failed. Game over. Mixology getting a tryout run is not about what didn't work for ABC in the past, it's about ABC gamely trying to find a new show that works today.
And if you get past all of the things that might not sit quite right with you about what the show is, you might find as I did that it is still pretty entertaining, and well done. I felt like the writing captured the real essence of what the climate is like in that environment. Also, some of the characters, while not all, are pretty likable.
I particularly liked “Tom’s” adorably-clumsy pickup technique in the pilot, and his ball-busting target’s reaction to that. It was cleverly written, and actually kind of sweet. And it made me smile. And “Tom” might even score. More power to him; he needs all the help he can get.
Inside the unfortunately-smarmy thin candy shell is a smart, clever TV show trying to get out. I think that if the writing continues to rise to the occasion, that this show even has a fighting chance.
Not that I expect it to survive beyond its tryout run, but stranger things have happened. Odds are stacked against, in particular because some viewers may find the entire idea off-putting. But if they can get beyond that, there is a Seinfeldian appeal here that might even catch on (not that there's anything wrong with that).
If the show fails, these talented writers need to bear down and try again, and not be discouraged, because they have already proven, just in the pilot, that they truly have the goods.
Regardless, I’m giving it another shot.
I liked it, but the wife didn't seem too thrilled. Good for me, I can watch it at me leisure.
After reading some of the comments on this show, I decided to record it last night. When I went to watch it the program was unwatchable so I recorded it from VOD. This morning I notice that it was not on the playlist. I check history and it had this message.
"This pay per view was recorded on Monday, 3/3 at 11.09p. This program was deleted because it was no longer purchasable."
Any idea on what happen?
I don't, but anything that happens rarely surprises me anymore. Can you at least start downloading it and see if you have the right program coming down?
Mixology no longer available on VOD.
So, start watching the show. You'll figure it out, it's not a complicated show. Might not even last but a few weeks.
I have it set to recorded.
Well, it looks to me like Seacreast might just have something, here.
This show gets it about right. Nothing to really care about the characters when they're offscreen, but plenty enough entertaining when they are onscreen. Seems to move at good pace, and the half-hour is up before you know it.
The only real problem I have with this show is too much shakey camera. I understand the need for hand-held, but if you can't hold it still, then put it on a stick, for cripes sake! (Looks like the camera people are the ones consuming all of the drinks.)
Missed the pilot, but first ep I watched relegated to smaller screen because of sickening shake. (Note to camera people: Turn on image stabilization.)
Del, I think they are doing that on purpose. Somehow, way too many zipperheaded producers have got it in their heads that shaking the camera on purpose adds edge, or emotion, or indicates a mood of intensity. It does none of that; all it does is annoy.
I shot handheld professionally from the time handheld video cameras were available (RCA TK-76, Ikegami HL79, etc.) mid-70's until about 1987. The goal was to be as smooth as silk, or as smooth as possible, and if you put your mind to it you could get pretty good at it in a matter of months. Then shakey-cam came along and turned all of that on its head. We had shakey-cam from just bad technique, and we had shakey-cam on purpose. I blame MTV for much of it.
I had to stop watching NYPD Blue because it was obvious that they were moving the camera around unnecessarily for effect. They would put it on a tripod, but then adjust the pan every second or two, for no particular reason. Everything that was edited in looked like stuff that should have been edited out.
My advice to all of them and any like them? Wake up, dummies; it is not an effective technique.
At about the same time (1975) Garret Brown patented the Steadicam, which was probably the most important breakthrough in creative production technique since talkies. That great shot of Rocky running through the Italian Market area and up the art museum steps while training in Philly was one of the first uses in a big feature film of that capability. Bound for Glory, Marathon Man, The Shining, and a lot of other movies of the time could never have been as impressive as they were without it. But it had as its second main virtue after portability, that it was smoooooth, and the exact opposite of shakey-cam.
Today it is ubiquitous in any production that is bigger than a youtube video. Try to imagine Rust Cohle chasing the spaghetti monster through Carcosa last Sunday night without a Steadicam shooting the action. It would have looked about as cheap as The Blair Witch Project.
Pro versions go for 20K and up, but you can also buy one for a hundee through Best Buy if you really want to add professionalism to what you shoot. Back in the day I used to use half a broomstick with a camera mount at the top end and a 10 lb weight at the bottom, to simulate the effect. We would also shoot from wheelchairs and shopping carts to combine that with truck and dolly effects (you have to be creative when the budget is small). But it helped us win awards, so we must have been doing something right.
And like you say, now much of that can be done electronically, even after the fact. My $400 Nikon point-and-shoot has amazing image stabilization built right in.
Yet some idiots think it makes sense to shake the camera. I don't get it.
I like this one. Reminds me of those days gone by when I was one of those in the club trying to connect and playing all those games to 'score'!! Nice light fun!
Funny thing is I have never notice the shaking camera. Now I hope that I won't start noticing it and it starts distracting me.
How'd you make out? I used to love going hunting at about midnight.
Made out less than I got shot down!!
And yeah, those late night hunts were the most productive. Of course, then the old adage shows up "I never went to bed with an ugly woman, but I woke up with a few!!"
Yeah, I woke up with a few of them. Amazing how good they looked that night and coyote ugly in the morning. I always went out late, the hunting was better and the inhibitions were down. This would be a good topic for the OT. Bet we'd hear some stories there.
I am finding this show surprisingly good. I hear that it will not be renew which in this case would make perfect sense since one season is all it takes to tell the story line.
Well, no one on the outside really knows. It's a guessing game. There are too many hidden variables, unless the ratings are just terrible, and they aren't. But we'll know in a couple of weeks.
My wife has absolutely nothing good to say about this program. On the other hand, I like it. I guess I'll just keep recording it and watch the whole thing when the season is over. Probably a show that's best watched in a binge.