|
|
Post by maggiethecat on Oct 12, 2005 19:29:01 GMT -5
And they said that there was a lack of possible storylines for another season of BJ! Boy were they ever wrong! Look at what we came up with in a few days! WHO said there was a lack of possible story lines for season two? The show was cancelled because of the ratings and to make "room on the schedule for new fall dramas." Period. Or do you know something we don't know?! VERY curious as to just where you're getting this! |
|
|
|
Post by awlrite4now on Oct 12, 2005 22:28:36 GMT -5
I would have liked to have seen some of Jim's rehab, as mentioned earlier. We got that fleeting moment in the pilot of him with the judo instructor, but it would be a great plot line just to see how he trained with Hank. And think of the hand moments we could have had if they had shown Jim learning to read braille. Sigh.
The personal lives of the squad members would have made a great subplot too. Look at how that was done with NYPD Blue, for example, and how it's done to a small extent with CSI. These people have lives outside of work, and it affects how they do their jobs. Let us see some of that.
|
|
|
|
Post by hoosier on Oct 13, 2005 17:36:49 GMT -5
WHO said there was a lack of possible story lines for season two? The show was cancelled because of the ratings and to make "room on the schedule for new fall dramas." Period. Or do you know something we don't know?! VERY curious as to just where you're getting this! I came across this in a review I read when the show first came out and thought how ridiculous it was! Can't think where I saw it but it stuck in my mind. It didn't have anything to do with the cancellation, just that critic's personal opinion--which I definitely do not hold with!!! |
|
|
|
Post by maggiethecat on Oct 13, 2005 18:37:23 GMT -5
WHO said there was a lack of possible story lines for season two? The show was cancelled because of the ratings and to make "room on the schedule for new fall dramas." Period. Or do you know something we don't know?! VERY curious as to just where you're getting this! I came across this in a review I read when the show first came out and thought how ridiculous it was! Can't think where I saw it but it stuck in my mind. It didn't have anything to do with the cancellation, just that critic's personal opinion--which I definitely do not hold with!!! Okay! Gotcha. How many of the critics really "got" this show? Not many. Golden in my memory is the television critic for The Detroit Free Press -- may his tribe increase, whoever he is -- who did get it, loved both the show and Ron Eldard's performance, understood it, and praised it as not only being a worthy successor to NYPD Blue, but better. Sigh.  I think his reviews may still be there if you Google Blind Justice. Which, of course, we all have. |
|
|
|
Post by hoosier on Oct 14, 2005 10:40:31 GMT -5
I had seen several critics reviews who had actually loved the show and hoped that it would be renewed but another negative one also stuck in my mind--this critic claimed that in the Pilot where Jim told Marty if he could take his gun from him he could keep it that Jim "screamed" the words at Marty! Screamed???  Jim 'dared' Marty--there was no screaming, no raising of the voice. Jim was pretty secure in his ability to protect himself even against someone he had just met. This critic made him out to be some kind of hysterical ninny. Not our Jimmy!  |
|
|
|
Post by mlm828 on Oct 14, 2005 16:22:51 GMT -5
I just thought of something else I would have liked to see in a second season: Christie and Karen have a "girls' gripe session" -- and commiserate about Jim!
|
|
|
|
Post by inuvik on Jan 30, 2006 14:58:04 GMT -5
Not sure where to put this so will put it here! I can't find the thread on promoting the show.
Here's what I would have done for BJ to succeed:
1. Premiered it in the regular fall season, not as a midseason replacement.
2. Aired it somewhere other than in NYPD Blue's old timeslot. Yes, they are both Bochco cop shows, but very different. I think a lot of people were still sad and upset that NYPD Blue ended, and were not interested in trying something else. For those who did, this is not a typical cop show like NYPD Blue and they might have got turned off.
3. My most discussion inducing suggestion I'm sure!
I would have had Jim start without the gun. A blind cop carrying a gun probably turned off a lot of viewers for not being realistic. I would have him start his new job as a blind cop and adjust to that. Then, as a season finale cliffhanger, I'd have him go to Fisk and say he wants to carry a gun. He is used to the job now and thinks he can handle it.
Hopefully, all the loyal viewers by episode 13 would be intrigued enough by Jim and the show to want to tune in next season, to see how it was handled.
Or, maybe it would have backfired, and people would have thought the show was jumping the shark. It would depend on the ratings by episode 13 how this was viewed. But I think it could have worked! Backwards from how it actually played out.
|
|
|
|
Post by inuvik on Feb 2, 2006 14:59:40 GMT -5
3. My most discussion inducing suggestion I'm sure! I would have had Jim start without the gun. A blind cop carrying a gun probably turned off a lot of viewers for not being realistic. I would have him start his new job as a blind cop and adjust to that. Then, as a season finale cliffhanger, I'd have him go to Fisk and say he wants to carry a gun. He is used to the job now and thinks he can handle it. Hopefully, all the loyal viewers by episode 13 would be intrigued enough by Jim and the show to want to tune in next season, to see how it was handled. Or, maybe it would have backfired, and people would have thought the show was jumping the shark. It would depend on the ratings by episode 13 how this was viewed. But I think it could have worked! Backwards from how it actually played out. Or, perhaps not discussion-inducing.  |
|
|
|
Post by hoosier on Feb 2, 2006 17:47:20 GMT -5
It would certainly have been a different slant I felt that they put waaaaay too much emphasis on him carrying a gun and I do feel that it had a negative impact. People were too hung up on it. When Jim proved that he could do the job, he could have petitioned to be able to carry his gun or he may have proved to himself that he really didn't need one after all. |
|
|
|
Post by greenbeing on Feb 2, 2006 19:09:33 GMT -5
It would certainly have been a different slant I felt that they put waaaaay too much emphasis on him carrying a gun and I do feel that it had a negative impact. People were too hung up on it. When Jim proved that he could do the job, he could have petitioned to be able to carry his gun or he may have proved to himself that he really didn't need one after all. The gun thing was a point of contention with me, not because I had a view on whether or not he should have been carrying one, but because the writers were so obsessed with it. After I was done watching the series, I looked back at the overall theme, thinking I would see some philosophical put your mind to it and do it debate. But all I saw was: This is the story of a gun. From the beginning to the end, the only theme that really was hit over and over and over was the gun. I think it should have been addressed in the Pilot. But after that, couldn't they have picked something else? Maybe they were just trying to use it as a metaphor, but after a while it was used too much. The waiver, proving no one could take it from him, pulling it on the street, Marty always harping on it, the Chief harping on it, Christie using it as a sex symbol, losing the gun, tying his personality to whether or not he could carry it, giving it up because Bo Matheson didn't know what else to do with his life... It's always about the gun! It might have been nice if they'd been more ecclectic. If they would have started Jim off without the gun, I'm afraid there would have been a lot of red tape and legality to go through if he wanted to carry it later. I don't know if it would have made much difference, and it still would have been all about the gun. There are a lot of other police procedural issues that would have arisen; 'twould have been nice to see them crop up in place of the gun at least once or twice. --GB |
|
|
|
Post by maggiethecat on Feb 2, 2006 20:31:05 GMT -5
After I was done watching the series, I looked back at the overall theme, thinking I would see some philosophical put your mind to it and do it debate. But all I saw was: This is the story of a gun. From the beginning to the end, the only theme that really was hit over and over and over was the gun. --GB Interesting take, I must say. You saw the gun: I saw the man. For me, the gun was almost incidental. Blind Justice was Jim Dunbar's journey of redemption and expiation, as he fought to find his place in the world after a life-altering trauma: with his wife, with his co-workers, and, most importantly, with himself. The gun was a prop, a symbol. Take away the gun? (As others have suggested.) Jim Dunbar is still a man trying to prove that he can do what he once did. And that, I believe, was the essence of the show. The gun has nothing to do with his instincts, his experience as an investigator, or his interrogation skills, the skills he uses to close cases. The gun? A hook, a talking point. Dunbar's journey was about far more than the gun. |
|
|
|
Post by Duchess of Lashes on Feb 2, 2006 20:58:39 GMT -5
Well said, Maggie! That gun may have been the biggest obsession for those proponents of the show's ultimate failure. The doomsayers couldn't see past it to see what was actually laid out before them, and that was the journey of the man, the struggle to adjust and learn to live in a life that had been forever altered, to come to terms with all those things he used to be, all those things he never would be again, and what he learned through that journey of discovery. To me the gun was only symbolic of his attempt to hold onto the past, learn to accept the changes in his life and the changes in himself, and finally, ultimately, being able to put all that behind him and move on.
|
|
|
|
Post by greenbeing on Feb 2, 2006 21:30:29 GMT -5
You saw the gun: I saw the man. For me, the gun was almost incidental. Blind Justice was Jim Dunbar's journey of redemption and expiation, as he fought to find his place in the world after a life-altering trauma: with his wife, with his co-workers, and, most importantly, with himself. The gun was a prop, a symbol. By the end of the series they proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that Jim could do the job with or without a gun. Did they really need 13 episodes to prove that? The gun should have been such a small point, but it was so pervasive, too many plots dwelt around the gun, making it more important than it needed to be. I saw the man as well, not merely the gun, but the gun was tied to everything to the point of obsession, and it seemed past the bounds of just being a symbol. Since we were tying this into what season two would have brought, what would the obsession have been about there? They'd exhausted the gun angle. But they probably would have gone into the problems of him not having a gun, if they kept to the theme. Whereas, if they would have branched out in season one (what if Marty's problem wasn't based on the gun? what if Jim had gotten in trouble (both times) for reasons other than pulling out the gun or losing the gun? what if Jim had decided earlier not to carry the gun, bringing up other issues that cops deal with every day?), perhaps they could have delved deeper into Jim As Cop, that bull-headed, brilliant, and likeable guy. Sometimes you just get so focused on one thing that, to quote someone I don't remember, you don't notice the waltzing elephants in the background. If they wouldn't have focused so much on the weapon I think they could have found some juicy things to chew over, which might have helped show us Jim's character even more clearly. What kind of cop he was before and after, how he really analyzed crime scenes before and after. I just feel there could have been more to show us, if they hadn't been so locked into one thing, even if it was on the grounds of symbolism. That's not saying I don't think Jim's journey was important. I happen to think that this was one of the deeper, more symbolic, better characterized shows on TV. I just wish the writers would have expanded the area they were looking at, instead of pounding this one idea into the ground. If the gun was so incidental, why didn't they explore issues like Hank at a crime scene (he walked right up to Lynn Bodner) or how useless (I know I'm going to get reamed over that word) he was while Karen searched Sam Berglass's apartment? I think those are two huge issues that got glossed over in a very lovely manner, showing that they weren't that important. Couldn't they have done the same with the gun? Maybe that's my problem--most of the show had a wonderful subtlty to it, but the gun just kept bashing us over the head. --GB |
|
|
|
Post by carl1951 on Feb 2, 2006 21:34:36 GMT -5
We could've found out why "women shoot men all the time."
Splitsville for Dunbar and Christy. It would have been inevitable.
And....please, please, please, Dunbar and Karen would not have ended-up together. Too pat. There would have been a different love-interest.
Later, Carl
|
|
|
|
Post by maggiethecat on Feb 2, 2006 22:35:47 GMT -5
Maybe that's my problem--most of the show had a wonderful subtlty to it, but the gun just kept bashing us over the head. --GB No, the gun kept bashing you over the head! It was just one element of Dunbar's journey, and even Russo -- no Rhodes scholar, I think we'll agree -- came in the end to see that it didn't have a damn thing to do with the way the man did his job. Detective work is 99% mental, and Dunbar proved every time he walked into an interrogation room that he was more than up to the task. The gun was a great device on which to hang the plotting for a few episodes toward the end of the series -- when Terry Jansen and Russo had been effectively eliminated as problems -- but, until the last episode? I would argue a device, just one element of many. Even Ron Eldard said it was the "quiet moments" that attracted him to the series and not the "cop stuff." Me, too. ;D So yeah, the gun was only part of it. Never the whole. |
|
I think his reviews may still be there if you Google Blind Justice. Which, of course, we all have. 
Jim 'dared' Marty--there was no screaming, no raising of the voice. Jim was pretty secure in his ability to protect himself even against someone he had just met. This critic made him out to be some kind of hysterical ninny. Not our Jimmy! 
