I got kicked out of the story when...

[mlm828]

anna said:

The only time I got kicked out was the scene in which Jim is making absolutely sure that Nancy knows he is blind in Marlon's Brando. The writers and director and maybe RE were so over the top. Ok, we get it already! The white cane would have done it. You didn't have to intentionally fall over a chair, too.

There are definitely some cringe-y moments in that scene. But I didn't get "kicked out of the story" by them, in the sense of having my attention diverted to wondering why the writers or RE did the scene that way. Given that the plan was to "play up the blindness," my reaction was that Jim (the character, not RE the actor) was overdoing it, and that didn't kick me out of the story.

[housemouse]

mlm828 said:

anna said:

The only time I got kicked out was the scene in which Jim is making absolutely sure that Nancy knows he is blind in Marlon's Brando. The writers and director and maybe RE were so over the top. Ok, we get it already! The white cane would have done it. You didn't have to intentionally fall over a chair, too.

There are definitely some cringe-y moments in that scene. But I didn't get "kicked out of the story" by them, in the sense of having my attention diverted to wondering why the writers or RE did the scene that way. Given that the plan was to "play up the blindness," my reaction was that Jim (the character, not RE the actor) was overdoing it, and that didn't kick me out of the story.

I agree with this assessment. I think it was showing Dunbar wanting to use his blindness, but not being exactly sure how. I think Eldard played it the exact right way and that scene never kicked me out of the story.

[mlm828]

A little off topic, but did you notice the character Nancy Dressler's reaction to Jim's "playing up the blindness"? You could almost see her thinking, "Who is this guy?"

Edited to add: I moved a copy of this over to the "Marlon's Brando" thread (see maggie's post, below).

[maggiethecat]

Great discussion about an interesting scene, so I've rolled it over to the "Marlon's Brando" thread.

See you there!

Mags

[spoony]

I love Hank. However, its obvious in a number of scenes that Hank isn't guiding Jim. That usually kicks me out, but only for a second.

[Dreamfire]

spoony said:

I love Hank. However, its obvious in a number of scenes that Hank isn't guiding Jim. That usually kicks me out, but only for a second.

Yeah ' specially in the opening credit sequence when Hank actually pulls away on theharness and Jim has to apply presure to keep him on the straight and narrow! I would have loved to have been a fly on the wall watching while they taped that one!

[maggiethecat]

I got kicked out of the story by . . .

. . . the doctor who is attending to Terry Jansen in "Up on the Roof." (Pardon if I misquote but it's been a while since I watched the episode.) He has one line: 'He's doing great." Huh? You went to medical school to talk like this? How about "He's doing well?"

Not only is the line grammatically dubious -- which always jerks me right out of any story -- but the delivery is bad. I'm guessing the producer's third cousin.

And karma, Kyt, for a very cool new thread.

[mlm828]

maggiethecat said:

I got kicked out of the story by . . .

. . . the doctor who is attending to Terry Jansen in "Up on the Roof." (Pardon if I misquote but it's been a while since I watched the episode.) He has one line: 'He's doing great." Huh? You went to medical school to talk like this? How about "He's doing well?"

Not only is the line grammatically dubious -- which always jerks me right out of any story -- but the delivery is bad. I'm guessing the producer's third cousin.

That bugs me, too, every time I watch that scene. How difficult would it have been for the writers to have him say something in doctor-speak?

[maggiethecat]

Ah, the grammatically, un-challenged are always on the same page! Thanks, mlm88. ;D

[hoosier]

I agree with Inuvik that Under the Gun just didn't do it for me for several reasons--

l.they had to bring up the gun issue which had slid by for a while
2.Jim took the gun to dancing and dinner and left Hank at home--if he stopped by the loft that long he could have dropped off the bag too
3.Marty had to snip at Jim again, bringing up old issues. He had actually become pretty decent. And we saw that Tom had been hiding his opinion about Jim all along too.
4.Chase Eastman

I was turned off by Karen's continued attitude in Past Imperfect and In Your Face. I know Jim stepped on her toes about Nick but he did apologize numerous times. We knew she was p*ssed, she needed to make her point and get over it. It was unprofessional and annoying.

In Doggone, the scene with Karen and Debbie Diament where Karen said they didn't look at her like a criminal. Huh? That was the reason Karen went to see her. And Debbie 'fessesd up too quickly. This tough as nails lady who got the cr** beaten out of her by Johnny and Luis , who whacks Bud on the back of the head with a baseball bat ,gives it up because Karen is nice to her? Come on!

On a lighter note, I didn't think Semple was such a bad character. He was a stunning contrast to Jim and showed how far Terry had fallen to be partnered up with a guy like him.

[inuvik]

hoosier said:

I agree with Inuvik that Under the Gun just didn't do it for me for several reasons--

l.they had to bring up the gun issue which had slid by for a while
2.Jim took the gun to dancing and dinner and left Hank at home--if he stopped by the loft that long he could have dropped off the bag too
3.Marty had to snip at Jim again, bringing up old issues. He had actually become pretty decent. And we saw that Tom had been hiding his opinion about Jim all along too.
4.Chase Eastman .

Those are all really good reasons. I should have elaborated more when I made my comment.

For me though, it's not as specific. It's two things: The whole crime plot with the Eastmans I found boring and hard to follow.
But, mainly, just the general tone of the whole episode. Someone said it about FF, that it just seemed off. UTG was for me. I can't really place it, but I just never connected with it.

[hoosier]

inuvik said:

hoosier said:

I agree with Inuvik that Under the Gun just didn't do it for me for several reasons--

l.they had to bring up the gun issue which had slid by for a while
2.Jim took the gun to dancing and dinner and left Hank at home--if he stopped by the loft that long he could have dropped off the bag too
3.Marty had to snip at Jim again, bringing up old issues. He had actually become pretty decent. And we saw that Tom had been hiding his opinion about Jim all along too.
4.Chase Eastman .

Those are all really good reasons. I should have elaborated more when I made my comment.

For me though, it's not as specific. It's two things: The whole crime plot with the Eastmans I found boring and hard to follow.
But, mainly, just the general tone of the whole episode. Someone said it about FF, that it just seemed off. UTG was for me. I can't really place it, but I just never connected with it.

Same here. It didn't seem to be one problem but a series of them. And the ending was just too pat. Maybe if Tyler had offed his friend instead of the dealer who you met when he was being questioned. Would have been too much to ask to have had Chase be the villian!

[hoosier]

Since my obession this week with Four Feet Under, I will include here that I was kicked out when Lloyd Crider showed up at the scene of the body. Wouldn't the uniformed officer have kept him away? Don't they all wait to get a positive id of the body once it is at the morgue. It played dramatically, the sobbing grief-sticken father clutching his child's hand but it was rather over the top for me and pushing it a little too far!