E.... C.... (godiva@kublai.com)
Tue, 2 Jun 1998 16:04:28 -0400
Fires burning...
On Tue, Jun 02, 1998 at 09:49:30PM +1000, ldarling wrote:
> Hi Stash.
>
> Well, when I joined this list (the first time) I hadn't seen TAC. So I
> often wondered how good it could be, given that it generated more chatter
> than all the other episodes put together. I finally saw it last week. And
> I have to say - I was impressed, but not ecstatic.
>
Now mind this, I'm not saying it's my favorite episode, but I absolutely adored
it. The way they could cope with such serious (yet overplayed (for lack of a
better word)) subject as drugs, with the cheerful backdrop of a soccer match
was simply amazin!
> This is a very hard-hitting episode. When that hypodermic rolled under the
> door that first time, my heart caught in my throat. The message against
> drugs is strong (perhaps too strong) as is the drama we get from the
> characters. And this is all great. My problem is that to be this
> hard-hitting, it had to make some sacrifices.
>
I'm younger than everyone else, so don't mind this next comment too much,
after all, naivety is an adolescents main characteristic, but I didn't think
the episode was about drugs that much. Drugs were just a way to show that
there are crocodiles, the granted the most obvious way. Later you see Lynda
talking to David Jefford (sp) and telling him about his crocodile. Drugs were
just a way of wiping out the paper, after all, what else could so terribly
wipe out a childrens newspaper than a member of the staff O.D.ing?
> Firstly, it was pushed for time. Something Terrible was much better
> because it could ease into the topic slowly instead of hitting you in the
> face with it. Sure, TAC has more punch, but it also fails to cover the
> issue in sufficient depth (unlike ST). Secondly, to demonstrate the
> tension of the situation, I think some liberties were taken with
> characters. Though the conflict between Lynda and Spike sets the whole
> point of the episode up, it is out of character for Lynda to be so cold,
> and Spike so distant. And Colin, despite his love of money is loyal to the
> paper over all else - otherwise he would have sold out long ago. But then
> you could claim that this was because of the situation they were in.
>
Lynda has always been cold (except for the first few episodes, but I think
she was more out of character in those than in TAC). I agree, maybe not like
that, but I'm probably the only one that agrees with Lynda's views on the
subject (don't kill me for being what I suppose is heartless, that would
only divert the topic from PG and become an Eavan bashing mailing list, which
I don't want to be involved in anymore...). I actually see her as using her
head more than her heart, which doesn't mean heartless and cold, just implies
it. I think it has more to do with good sense, but hey, let's not open that
can of worms...
> This is my main problem with the episode: by choosing such a hugely
> dramatic subject to attack, the last episode of Press Gang fails to have a
> Press Gang feel about it: Lynda and Spike are hurting each other, we never
> see the newsroom running, most of it is just about Lynda, everyone else is
> upset and distant. So it ends up leaving you feeling that you've just seen
> the team through their lowest point of all - whereas, I would have like the
> last episode to be more, I don't know, reflective? A summary? An
> inidication of past and future?
>
Okay, now this I don't get. The way Seinfeld went out I couldn't stand. It was
just as you described above, but universaly aknowledged for being bad. I would
have loved to see them (Seinfeld) do one terrific episode, like PG did. A
series finale shouldn't reflect on how great the show once was, but it should
be saying "look what we can do, this is how we want to be remembered." The
newsroom shouldn't have been running for their lives, they should have been
running for the goal (teehee). I thought the way they carried this out was
wonderful, in that you see the rest of the newsroom as their characters, which
always shift when there is something important to be done. I prefer seeing
them at their leisure personally, so them not knowing was better for me. After
all, ignorance is bliss.
> I say again though, that this episode is a masterpiece in children's
> television. Although I agree with Stash in that the drug message may not
> be as effective as believed (any (ex) drug users on this list want to tell
> us how it made them feel?) it does handle the subject in an ADULT way,
> talking seriously to kids and making hard points. (I certainly don't
> remember any drug awareness pamphlets spelling out "If you take drugs,
> you're stupid and will die!") And treating kids like adults is what PG does
> best - such as in ST; Moffat is a boundary-breaking genius.
>
Agreed, excepting of course that I believe this episode was trying to focus
more on the crocodiles, instead of the drugs.
> It is difficult however to analyse the effect of the drug message without
> some sort of knowledge in this field. Any child pyschologists out there
> willing to have a bash? I also disliked the cliffhanger ending - fairly
> trite way to end a series, I thought.
>
It depends. For some shows, you want to know the way the show ends, because
you either a) have no clue as to how they could possibly do it, or b) would
like to leave the show knowing all about their futures. For PG, I felt as
though I had known the characters so well, that I could see their futures
well enough to write more episodes (those being not at all comparable to
Steven Moffats, as I am not anywhere near his God-like status). Besides, going
back to Seinfeld, what if they don't end it the way I think they should? I
can't stand Seinfeld now. They should have killed them off!!! What if they
had continued the episode a few more minutes, then we see Lynda vanish?!? Nope,
I wouldn't allow it. Kevin managed to write a short story based on the show,
which would not have been allowed if the show ended leaving you full of their
future. The Wonder Years ended wonderfully, a full episode showing that they
could still do it, and giving us a whif of the future, though I couldn't take
their whif. Now they leave me no choice but to be mad at the series, whereas
PG let's me think. When I saw the series finale, and saw Spike moving in, I
was overwhelmed by the last bit. It made me feel absolutely wonderful, as they
ended it just the way they ought to have.
> So in summary, TAC blew me away with its incredible heart-wrenching
> throat-catching character drama and issue discussion, but it left me a
> little nonplussed in terms of what I wanted from the last episode of Press
> Gang.
>
The only bone I have to pick with TAC is that Spike says that the reporters
could have found out at the hospital what had happened. Why would they have?
Is ODing that odd in England that the reporters investigate every druggie
they come across? Or am I missing something?
--Eavan "The Did I miss the point of the entire episode?" Cully
> OK, bring on the flames.
If only I had hot dogs...
Steve
>
>
>
> --
> T H E P R E S S G A N G M A I L I N G L I S T
> By default, pressing 'reply' will send mail back to the list, not
> to the author of the message you're replying to.
> To unsubscribe e-mail: pressgang-unsubscribe@lists.yoyo.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: pressgang-help@lists.yoyo.org
-- It is only with the heart one can see clearly; what is essential is invisible to the eye. -- The Fox, 'The Little Prince"-- T H E P R E S S G A N G M A I L I N G L I S T By default, pressing 'reply' will send mail back to the list, not to the author of the message you're replying to. To unsubscribe e-mail: pressgang-unsubscribe@lists.yoyo.org For additional commands, e-mail: pressgang-help@lists.yoyo.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Fri Sep 18 1998 - 02:42:32 BST