|
|
Post by kytdunne on Feb 5, 2006 14:07:28 GMT -5
Certainly I found flaws in his behavior. No one behaves flawlessly all the time. ... I am pointing out, however that on that first day, several behaviors that would probably have been unacceptable in the past are now a necessity. The rules of the game have changed, Jim didn't change them, he is just adapting to them. I was willing to cut him some slack for what others might have deemed a bad attitude. I was on his side from the beginning. Flawed behavior is flawed, regardless of the circumstances. If the circumstances warrant that an individual chooses to overlook the flaws, that is up to the individual. You were on his side from the outset. Got it. Kyt |
|
|
|
Post by maggiethecat on Feb 5, 2006 16:11:30 GMT -5
Flawed behavior is flawed, regardless of the circumstances. If the circumstances warrant that an individual chooses to overlook the flaws, that is up to the individual.Kyt Taking a deep breath because I am no doubt opening a HUGE can of worms here, I have to ask, Kyt . . . in what specific instance was Dunbar's behaviour in The Pilot so seriously flawed that you found it unacceptable given his circumstances? (And, if you don't mind, let's put aside the bank shootout since we pretty much thrashed that into the ground last week.) The interview with Fisk? Taking on Marty over the gun? Getting pissed off at Christie? Running with his hunches on The Tongue Collector case instead of concentating on that $12 kited check? Call me extremely curious.  |
|
|
|
Post by maggiethecat on Feb 5, 2006 16:30:04 GMT -5
When you look at it objectively, he was being assertive on a number of occasions: insisting the SUV was a crime scene; getting Karen to withhold information from Fisk so they wouldn't get pulled off the case; and eventually highjacking the "Tongue Collector" case. Was he too assertive? It's a difficult line to draw. Great slant, mlm88. But is it that difficult a line to draw considering the possible outcome had Jim not been as assertive as he was? I found his assertiveness gutsy, given his precarious position. If he hadn't convinced Karen -- who was openly skeptical -- that the stolen car was a crime scene? If he and Karen hadn't "hijacked" the Tongue Collector case? If he'd been a good little boy and stuck to stolen cars and bad checks? I'm guessing Randy Lyman would still be out there! Terry going to see Jim on his first day back is all about Terry, not Jim. Terry goes to see him because Terry wants Jim to hear him say he's sorry. He's doing it for himself, not for Jim. He doesn't even wish Jim good luck on his first day back. Some friend. Yeah, how about that? Jim does accept Terry's apology, lip service thought it may be, but this bitter little scene is all about Terry, Terry, Terry. I don't believe Jim's has been what Kyt called "wussing out" over Terry's actions at the bank anywhere near as much as Terry has. "Pissed off at the guy" is a far cry from staging a shooting and then lying your @ss off. Score one for Dunbar. Or two. |
|
|
|
Post by mlm828 on Feb 5, 2006 16:54:38 GMT -5
When you look at it objectively, he was being assertive on a number of occasions: insisting the SUV was a crime scene; getting Karen to withhold information from Fisk so they wouldn't get pulled off the case; and eventually highjacking the "Tongue Collector" case. Was he too assertive? It's a difficult line to draw. Great slant, mlm88. But is it that difficult a line to draw considering the possible outcome had Jim not been as assertive as he was? I found his assertiveness gutsy, given his precarious position. If he hadn't convinced Karen -- who was openly skeptical -- that the stolen car was a crime scene? If he and Karen hadn't "hijacked" the Tongue Collector case? If he'd been a good little boy and stuck to stolen cars and bad checks? I'm guessing Randy Lyman would still be out there! I think the difficult issue is not whether he will have to assert himself -- under the circumstances, it's probably a given that he will have to. The trickier issue is how to do it without alienating the people whose cooperation (at a minimum) and support (ideally) he needs in order to succeed on the job, especially considering that they're predisposed against him to begin with. We learn in later episodes that he didn't entirely succeed in this -- as demonstrated by the escalating conflict with Marty and Fisk's obvious irritation with him on several occasions. That's why I called it a difficult line to draw. |
|
|
|
Post by maggiethecat on Feb 5, 2006 17:50:12 GMT -5
Certainly I found flaws in his behavior. No one behaves flawlessly all the time. Can you imagine how interminably boring this show would have been had Dunbar behaved flawlessly? The stoic noble blind hero, admired and respected by all, who shared every inner emotion with his wife, closed every case in a heartbeat, and never got snarky with his shrink. Blecchh.  |
|
|
|
Post by kytdunne on Feb 5, 2006 19:04:26 GMT -5
Taking a deep breath because I am no doubt opening a HUGE can of worms here, I have to ask, Kyt . . . in what specific instance was Dunbar's behaviour in The Pilot so seriously flawed that you found it unacceptable given his circumstances? This appears to be an entanglement of comments being translated to opinions. Mouse suggested that Dunbar was not flawed. Upon further discussion, she said he was flawed, but given his circumstances, his flawed behavior was necessity. My response is that flawed behavior is *flawed behavior* and whether or not someone makes allowances for that, does not change the fact that the behavior is still flawed. I maintain that Dunbar was a flawed character, and everyone now appears to not only agree with that, but point it out as making the character interesting. Okay. Then it appears that the only difference is in the final interpretation. At the end of the hour, some knew they'd tune in the next week to watch a character they liked. I tuned in the next week to find out if I'd like the character enough to keep watching the series. Presumably, some people didn't tune in because it wasn't the cop drama they wanted. Kyt |
|
|
|
Post by awlrite4now on Feb 5, 2006 23:22:06 GMT -5
I maintain that Dunbar was a flawed character, and everyone now appears to not only agree with that, but point it out as making the character interesting. Okay. Then it appears that the only difference is in the final interpretation. At the end of the hour, some knew they'd tune in the next week to watch a character they liked. I tuned in the next week to find out if I'd like the character enough to keep watching the series. Presumably, some people didn't tune in because it wasn't the cop drama they wanted. Kyt Jim Dunbar was definitely a flawed character, and what perfect one would be interesting at all to watch? He really did have to grow on me over a couple of episodes, because I have had more than my share of dealing with men who have something to prove. That's all I have to say about that. All this debate makes me wonder if Jim Dunbar the beautiful blonde blind guy fashionista as played (quite well, btw) by Ron Eldard would have the same fan base had he been played by say, someone like Forrest Whittaker, another very underrated actor who has been in some outstanding roles? Hmmm... Ok, take my karma now. I fully expect it.  |
|
|
|
Post by bjobsessed on Feb 5, 2006 23:30:35 GMT -5
All this debate makes me wonder if Jim Dunbar the beautiful blonde blind guy fashionista as played (quite well, btw) by Ron Eldard would have the same fan base had he been played by say, someone like Forrest Whittaker, another very underrated actor who has been in some outstanding roles? Hmmm... Ok, take my karma now. I fully expect it. Not knowing who Forrest Whittaker was, I just googled him. I'll admit he's no RE in the looks department, at least not for me, but I don't know what kind of an actor he is either. Could he have done the same job as Ron? I find that hard to imagine, but I may be a little biased. I have to say though Alice, that I would never take your karma for thinking and wondering out loud. That's what makes for good discussion. ;D |
|
|
|
Post by awlrite4now on Feb 6, 2006 0:09:03 GMT -5
All this debate makes me wonder if Jim Dunbar the beautiful blonde blind guy fashionista as played (quite well, btw) by Ron Eldard would have the same fan base had he been played by say, someone like Forrest Whittaker, another very underrated actor who has been in some outstanding roles? Hmmm... Ok, take my karma now. I fully expect it. Not knowing who Forrest Whittaker was, I just googled him. I'll admit he's no RE in the looks department, at least not for me, but I don't know what kind of an actor he is either. Could he have done the same job as Ron? I find that hard to imagine, but I may be a little biased. I have to say though Alice, that I would never take your karma for thinking and wondering out loud. That's what makes for good discussion. ;D Thank you for that. What you say proves a bit of a point to me. Whether we like to admit it or not, eye candy is important to a lot of people. Good looks often help to disguise some of the other flaws in a character. It works that way in the real world. I look really good on paper, but walk in for a job interview? I'm turned down in a heartbeat for someone who is 25, never mind no experience. Looks sway everything. I'm just sayin'.... |
|
|
|
Post by kytdunne on Feb 6, 2006 0:37:28 GMT -5
Not knowing who Forrest Whittaker was, I just googled him. I'll admit he's no RE in the looks department, at least not for me, but I don't know what kind of an actor he is either. Could he have done the same job as Ron? I find that hard to imagine, but I may be a little biased. The *same* job? Not a chance, because they're different people and assuming each actor brings something of himself to the role.... Whitaker's got a wide range and a *ton* of talent. He would have been outstanding!   Kyt |
|
|
|
Post by bjobsessed on Feb 6, 2006 0:45:04 GMT -5
The *same* job? Not a chance, because they're different people and assuming each actor brings something of himself to the role.... Whitaker's got a wide range and a *ton* of talent. He would have been outstanding! Kyt I was referring to the same quality and dedication. Since I don't know Forrest Whittikar or his work, I can't make a fair comparison. As you said, each actor is different and would have had a different interpretation of the character of Jim Dunbar. While it would definitely be interesting to compare two actors take on the same character, I think it would be hard to compare them fairly assuming that both are on the same level in their acting ability. |
|
|
|
Post by kytdunne on Feb 6, 2006 0:46:05 GMT -5
Whether we like to admit it or not, eye candy is important to a lot of people. Good looks often help to disguise some of the other flaws in a character. It works that way in the real world. I look really good on paper, but walk in for a job interview? I'm turned down in a heartbeat for someone who is 25, never mind no experience. Looks sway everything. I'm just sayin'.... Well said. Though you've got me curious now whether or not Whitaker's take on the character would've won me over sooner. I know from his previous roles, that Whitaker can readily win my support for various characters. I just don't know what kind of traits he'd have brought to the role of Dunbar. An entertaining consideration. Thanks. Kyt |
|
|
|
Post by inuvik on Feb 6, 2006 12:35:08 GMT -5
I would have watched no matter who played Jim-- cute or not, good actor or not. I was interested because of the blindness. And, I had never heard of RE before this show so that wasn't a factor for me.
I am so pleased BJ introduced me to RE's acting!
|
|
|
|
Post by maggiethecat on Feb 6, 2006 13:02:23 GMT -5
Interesting. Why don't we start an Alternate Casting thread in Oddities and Analysis for this kind of "what if?"
|
|
|
|
Post by housemouse on Feb 6, 2006 17:12:29 GMT -5
This appears to be an entanglement of comments being translated to opinions. Mouse suggested that Dunbar was not flawed. Upon further discussion, she said he was flawed, but given his circumstances, his flawed behavior was necessity. My response is that flawed behavior is *flawed behavior* and whether or not someone makes allowances for that, does not change the fact that the behavior is still flawed. I maintain that Dunbar was a flawed character, and everyone now appears to not only agree with that, but point it out as making the character interesting. Okay. Then it appears that the only difference is in the final interpretation. At the end of the hour, some knew they'd tune in the next week to watch a character they liked. I tuned in the next week to find out if I'd like the character enough to keep watching the series. Presumably, some people didn't tune in because it wasn't the cop drama they wanted. Kyt I don't recall saying that Dunbar did not have any flaws. I just thought his behavior, for the most part, was justifiable. |
|
