Maybe it will pick up some success in a summer slot? Maybe they can advertise for it like they should have the first time around?
Posts: 1604 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
I can't remember, was this show officially cancelled? Now that Terminator's dead and gone I need a new hopeless cause.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, not canceled, they just moved it to the summer. I'm watching but I admit it's because there isn't anything more amusing to watch at the moment. It's a bit dry.
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's definitely a niche show. I don't expect it to last because the target audience is so small and I assume it's fairly expensive to shoot, but I actually like it a lot.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that if they'd put it in West Wing's old slot, it would have gotten very popular. Putting it on Saturday nights is FOX-worthy (with apologies to Jeff).
And yes, it's been officially cancelled. They're going to finish up the eps they have (there are 13 eps total, and they've already aired 7 of them), and that's it.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think that if they'd put it in West Wing's old slot, it would have gotten very popular.
It certainly would have had an excellent chance. It had the right sort of feel to it to even tap into the same crowd.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Did Cupid ever move beyond "Random crazy romantic guy teaches shut in romance-less woman to be fun and spontaneous and forget all her hard earned lessons about what can go wrong with love when all you rely on is fun and spontaneity?"
I didn't watch past the first episode, but it seemed to me the type of show that is representative of everything wrong with romantic comedies that give people unrealistic expectations of hollywood romances. I did like the core concept of this random guy who might or might not be Cupid though. If the plot ended being more like, say, How I Met Your Mother, I think I could have stomached it.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hulu has two more episodes so it's up to 7 I think. In the last episode (vague spoiler alert) I didn't like David's decision at the end. Just disagreed, I guess.
Posts: 1261 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
You mean keeping the secret from Silas? I think that was a grey enough area that I can't fault him for either choice, although not keeping the secret would probably cause fewer problems in the long run.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
The irony being the King didn't care about the two seeing each other but Davids not telling him cut him to the bone.
Posts: 305 | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, but David didn't know that he wouldn't care. And it wasn't just his secret, it was Michelle's. And while maybe his greater obligation should have been to his King, for most people I think it's reasonable to strongly consider obligations to someone you're involved with.
I'd agree he chose wrong, I just don't fault him for making the mistake.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I cried when I saw that Silas had burned the amyrillis (sp?). That was his friendship with David he was burning. And David could explain to him that it wasn't only his secret to tell, but I don't think Silas is going to be that receptive. He opened himself up to David in ways he never opened himself up to anyone else.
When Michelle told him that she'd told her father, he looked like he was going to throw up. I think he realized in that moment that he'd broken something irreparably.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ouch! I'm watching it right now, and seeing Silas take David to meet his illegitimate (legally) but true (in the heart) family, and guessing that David won't tell Silas about him and the princess...whew! Bad call, David!
ETA: And then it gets worse! Though from Silas's angle, he doesn't really have the right to expect that sort of deep honesty from David, having conspired against him many times in the past behind a guise of friendship. Except from David, who doesn't know about that...day-um!
posted
I actually disagreed with the pursuit of the relationship between David and Michelle as long as Michelle felt that God disapproved. Then I was disappointed in the next episode with David for not telling Silas.
Posts: 1261 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
I'm kinda annoyed about Katrina Ghent. I really liked her.
Also, for someone who knows Samuel I and II - it was pretty cool to see their take on the story of the stolen ark. I enjoyed seeing and hearing the names of biblical names expressed in modern times.
I also liked David mother and her tirade against Silas. It helped me realized what I think I've been denying to myself for a while. That Silas is actually not a good person. Of course, he has much good in him, but his negative traits, his desire for power, noticeably overshadows the good in him. I enjoy that the evil of this character is not simple.
Posts: 1604 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
That was irksome...but very plausible. She didn't really seem quite aware of just how ruthless Mrs. Silas was capable of being.
quote: I also liked David mother and her tirade against Silas. It helped me realized what I think I've been denying to myself for a while. That Silas is actually not a good person. Of course, he has much good in him, but his negative traits, his desire for power, noticeably overshadows the good in him. I enjoy that the evil of this character is not simple.
That made for some enjoyable storytelling for me, too. The way I see Silas is like this: his moral highs aren't nearly as high as his moral lows are low...but in spite of that, he likes his moral highs, and he's either dissatisfied with or doesn't think about his moral lows. Or justifies them.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: I'm kinda annoyed about Katrina Ghent. I really liked her.
Well, she really was out of her depths. She thought she could play with the Queen, and the Queen just ate her for supper.
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: Also, for someone who knows Samuel I and II - it was pretty cool to see their take on the story of the stolen ark. I enjoyed seeing and hearing the names of biblical names expressed in modern times.
Interesting. I hadn't thought of it as being parallel to the ark. Good call.
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: I also liked David mother and her tirade against Silas. It helped me realized what I think I've been denying to myself for a while. That Silas is actually not a good person. Of course, he has much good in him, but his negative traits, his desire for power, noticeably overshadows the good in him. I enjoy that the evil of this character is not simple.
He's not evil, I don't think. No more than Saul was. He's just too willing to resort to expedience. And he's far too thin-skinned and sensitive to make a good king.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lisa, you missed that? There was actually a scene on the train when he busted the thing out of the box, where you see, for a split second, in another crate - the golden ark with the cherubim and everything.
As for Silas? I think he is more evil than Saul. The narrative about Saul makes him seem like a perfect servant of God, but only at his fall with Amalek and David does a "spirit of evil" come over him. Silas seemed shady always.
Posts: 1604 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: I'm kinda annoyed about Katrina Ghent. I really liked her.
Well, she really was out of her depths. She thought she could play with the Queen, and the Queen just ate her for supper.
This was the one part of last week's episode that confused me. I get that the queen outmaneuvered her but I don't get how. One second she's trying on a wedding gown and the next Jack is engaged to some naive brunette. What happened?
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: Lisa, you missed that? There was actually a scene on the train when he busted the thing out of the box, where you see, for a split second, in another crate - the golden ark with the cherubim and everything.
That's right. I just hadn't thought of the two things being in parallel. I thought maybe they'd come back to the ark eventually.
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: As for Silas? I think he is more evil than Saul. The narrative about Saul makes him seem like a perfect servant of God, but only at his fall with Amalek and David does a "spirit of evil" come over him. Silas seemed shady always.
<shrug> He's a politician. And you can see Saul's fatal flaws before the war with Amalek. His failure in that war was an example of his flaws.
I Samuel 9:21 looks like modesty at first. Sort of like Moses at the burning bush. But in I Samuel 10:22, he's already taking that self-deprecation too far, hiding from everyone. In 10:27, people slandered him, even after he was accepted publically as king, and he did nothing. That was a huge mistake right there, and it demonstrated the characteristic that made him unfit for the throne. In 11:12-13, others tried to get him to punish the slanderers, but he refused to do so.
In 13:11, Saul takes his unfitness one step further, and starts making excuses. "But, but, the people were leaving? What was I supposed to do?" He's constitutionally unable to lead. He rules, like Joseph. He doesn't lead, like Judah. And the result? In 13:13-14, Samuel tells him that his dynasty won't last. That's already halfway to the full rejection he earns later.
Then in 14:24, Saul takes a public oath that anyone who eats before evening will be put to death. In 14:43, Jonathan admits that he ate and accepts that he will have to die. In 14:44, Saul decrees it so. And in 14:44, the people object, so Jonathan lives. Again, he bows to the will of the people. That's no king.
And then we get to I Samuel 15. Verse 9, Saul and the people spared Agag and the best of the animals. Verse 17, Samuel points to Saul's flaw: "Though thou be little in thine own sight, art thou not head of the tribes of Israel?" There's a place for modesty. When dealing with God, it's appropriate. When you're a king dealing with subjects, it's incredibly inappropriate. And more than that, Saul refuses to take responsibility. Verses 20-21: "I did what God said! It was the people who spared the animals!"
So Samuel tells him God rejects him as king, and Saul continues making excuses. Verse 24: "I violated God's orders because I was afraid of the people." ::head slap:: Digging himself deeper and deeper. And verse 30: "Let me return with you so that I won't be ashamed in front of the people." At this point, he's simply pathetic.
It's people with low self-esteem who get jealous and behave like petty tyrants. The "evil spirit" which came over him wasn't the cause of his actions; it was the result of his actions.
Saul wasn't evil. He was weak. And the tragedy is that if he hadn't had the potential to rise above that weakness, he never would have been made king in the first place. He didn't fail because he couldn't succeed; he failed because he wouldn't succeed.
I don't see Silas as evil, either. He's got a much healthier ego (in a good sense) than Saul did, but he's too willing to compromise morally. I don't think he does so because he wants to, but rather because he thinks he has to.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: I'm kinda annoyed about Katrina Ghent. I really liked her.
Well, she really was out of her depths. She thought she could play with the Queen, and the Queen just ate her for supper.
This was the one part of last week's episode that confused me. I get that the queen outmaneuvered her but I don't get how. One second she's trying on a wedding gown and the next Jack is engaged to some naive brunette. What happened?
She made the mistake of telling the Queen where she was going. Apparently, she underestimated Rose's ruthlessness, and she died in a tragic car "accident".
She pushed Rose and pushed Rose. And if she hadn't gone too far, Rose might have put up with it. But she overstepped, and she paid the price.
Really, she should have known better.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Then in 14:24, Saul takes a public oath that anyone who eats before evening will be put to death. In 14:43, Jonathan admits that he ate and accepts that he will have to die. In 14:44, Saul decrees it so. And in 14:44, the people object, so Jonathan lives. Again, he bows to the will of the people. That's no king.
The part of this where he's no king is making the idiotic, murderous decree/oath-not listening to the people and rejecting it.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
He shouldn't have made the oath, granted. It was stupid. But letting the people force him to violate it because Jonathan was a rockstar was the bigger problem.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'll grant you that Saul may have been more of a weak personality, but in that respect, it makes it easier to see him as a sinner, but not as an evil person. At least not until David comes to the scene.
Silas? He is ruthless! I don't understand his philosophy when it comes to God. It's like he treats God like He is a real person, and if he doesn't like what God does, then he rejects him. That sounds like real evil to me, or at least arrogance on insane levels.
And that is what Silas is. Really really arrogant. I had an argument with my sister-in-law the other day. I'm currently working this summer as an intern for a judge. The other day, I was in Federal District Court and I was observing a mafia murder trial (Rico). I was in the room with a witness who is an ex-mafia guy, who is now cooperating with the government. On his cross, the defense tried to discredit him by having him admit all of his crimes. I'm staring a real life person in the eye as he admits to kill 6 people and being involved in the murder of 11 of others. It was straight out of a movie, but it was real life! It shook me to the core that someone could so casually and haphazardly kill for money.
My sister-in-law, a lawyer herself, said she couldn't understand people who defend child molesters, and rapists (granted, she is a woman and a mother). But I understand better someone who kills for an ideal, or engages in a crime of passion, rather than someone whose moral fiber deteriorated so much that he can kill for money.
That is Silas. In the beginning of the show, I kept looking for the good in him, for all his good deeds, for what a wonderful orator and leader he is. But who cares how well you lead when you kill all who oppose you? Silas has this tendency of sending people to die when they disagree with him. We've only seen like 9 episodes and he does it like once an episode. That's pretty chilling to me.
Posts: 1604 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:He shouldn't have made the oath, granted. It was stupid. But letting the people force him to violate it because Jonathan was a rockstar was the bigger problem.
'Stupid' is characterizing that sort of thing far too lightly, I think. 'Anybody who eats before such and such time will be tarred and feathered' would be stupid, I think, and a bit malicious. Killed, though? That's downright evil, even if he didn't intend it as such.
Submitting to public acclaim not to murder someone over a stupid decree, on the other hand, doesn't strike me in and of itself as problematic. The problem is letting that sort of thing override good decisisions.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: She made the mistake of telling the Queen where she was going. Apparently, she underestimated Rose's ruthlessness, and she died in a tragic car "accident".
She died? Wow. I missed that. My husband did too. We were watching together on hulu and both he and I were very confused. I didn't even realize she'd died. You'd think after they spent several episodes setting that up they could have given the news of her death thirty seconds or so.
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:He shouldn't have made the oath, granted. It was stupid. But letting the people force him to violate it because Jonathan was a rockstar was the bigger problem.
'Stupid' is characterizing that sort of thing far too lightly, I think. 'Anybody who eats before such and such time will be tarred and feathered' would be stupid, I think, and a bit malicious. Killed, though? That's downright evil, even if he didn't intend it as such.
Submitting to public acclaim not to murder someone over a stupid decree, on the other hand, doesn't strike me in and of itself as problematic. The problem is letting that sort of thing override good decisisions.
Either way - the fact that he bowed to the will of the people shows that he was weak. I had the same reaction to Lisa's post though - it was certainly a bigger problem, in my mind, that he made such a unilateral decree. But taken in the context of the turning point of Saul's kingship and his ultimate downfall - I think it serves more to highlight his weakness in being swayed more by the people rather than being faithful and true.
Posts: 1604 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: Silas has this tendency of sending people to die when they disagree with him. We've only seen like 9 episodes and he does it like once an episode. That's pretty chilling to me.
Was David (the real one, not the TV one) evil?
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Either way - the fact that he bowed to the will of the people shows that he was weak.
I personally would rather have a ruler who changes his mind after people get pissed about a stupid decision he made than a leader who sticks to those stupid decisions no matter what anyone says. I don't think it's fair to judge "weakness" based on such a ridiculous example. (By contrast I do think it's perfectly fair to judge stupidity purely from the "kill random people for eating at random times.")
quote:Silas? He is ruthless! I don't understand his philosophy when it comes to God. It's like he treats God like He is a real person, and if he doesn't like what God does, then he rejects him. That sounds like real evil to me, or at least arrogance on insane levels.
While I'm not entirely familiar with the period in question, I think that in the era the show is referencing God hadn't quite been established as the all-benevolent, omnipresent, perfect deity that modern Western culture associates Him with. Silas' relationship with God seems accurate for an era when He made decisions based on jealousy and spite. Sure, it's arrogant to think you can stand up to God, but when God's actions/opinions are inscrutable and appear to be so unfair, I wouldn't blame him for lashing out in frustration, however futile it might be.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wow... what a meltdown. The ep was called Javelin, and now I realize that it's because it was parallel to the time that Saul cursed Jonathan out and threw a javelin at him when Jonathan defended David.
I can't believe there are only two episodes left. This show is so incredibly superb and superior to other crap on the tube.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
That was amazing to watch. Especially with our previous conversation on the evil of Silas. Samuel said it best when he said that he supported Silas through his mistakes, but he never thought Silas was a villan.
Davids purity and Silas's evil was beautiful to watch. But what was the most surprising and delighting was Jack.
Jack stepped into the Jonathan role, as I thought the writers had forsaken from the beginning. I didn't realize the title was related to that story Lisa - thanks for pointing it out. But Jack, finally, has fallen in love (in the ideological sense) with David, and has accepted that he is not too good to be true, but that he is truly the better man. I wonder now how the ending will evolve.
The way they depict the ruach ra the spirit of evil that descended on Saul, is great. He truly undermines himself with his hatred of David.
I was a little disappointed with Michelle. I think she doesn't make the best decisions. I was also disappointed with Tomasina (sp?) - and unless they will develop her into a larger role, i thought her little thing with the guard distracted from the tempest that was brewing, and was totally unnecessary.
I can't believe this show is gonna be done in two episodes.
Posts: 1604 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It makes me wonder whether Jonathan and David in the Bible were friends from the get-go, or if there were rough times initially.
Lama yamut? Meh asah?
It was brilliantly done.
Also, Silas' hatred really is stemming from jealousy. When he saw the butterflies crowning David, that was the beginning of his suspicions. They were assuaged when he saw how completely loyal David was, but when David lied to him after he'd opened up to David so completely, he couldn't trust him any more. And butterfly crown + lack of trust = dangerous rival.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think this show was at least aware that it's chances for long term success were slim (although if they had just bothered marketing it to the religious demographic it should have had a much better shot), that the Season 1 arc is fairly self contained. I'm assuming it'll end with David becoming King, and while there's lots more stories to come after that a 12 part, high quality mini series with a self contained story isn't that bad a deal.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
It wasn't even a matter of giving it time to succeed. They started it on Sunday nights. When was the last time a new show started on Sunday nights and made it? They didn't bother advertising it much at all. I think someone at NBC just wasn't interested in it.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lemme just echo Tammy and amplify: I hate `em with golf shoes and tabasco sauce, dangit. Also the folks watching other crap shows that suck down potential ad-revenue-production away from shows like Kings, and towards more reality TV or standard crappy drama/sitcoms.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
I like how, even though David is finally disillusioned about Silas, he still thinks Silas is the only one who can stand up to Cross for the good of the country. I don't really understand how Cross could command the loyalty of the soldiers like that. Weren't all the Generals conspiring with him killed? Would the soldiers really be willing to hold their prince-made-king and national hero at gunpoint by the word of some CEO? I keep itching for someone to pull a knife or gun on Cross and just put everyone out of their misery.
Posts: 2149 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Cross isn't just some CEO, though. He's the head honcho over all spending in the country, particularly military spending. And he's been maneuvering for this for quite a long time. Another reason soldiers might follow him over Silas is that he's probably careful to pick the greediest or the most angry over the peace plan.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yea, I asked the same question of myself when Cross commanded the soldiers. It was a little annoying since in the last episode he told Jonathan that they answer to him...
But I took it for granted. In a show that tries to show us so much, there are assumptions you need to take for granted - the fact that William Cross infiltrated and commands the loyalty of the soldiers, I can deal with that.
Posts: 1604 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
What, you believed Cross when he told Jonathan the military answered to him? Hehe, I've never believed anything he said, on the basis of him saying it that is.
Bear in mind, too, that 'the soldiers' isn't really a monolithic establishment here necessarily, nor does he really necessarily have control over the entire military. All he really needs is sufficient control over the local military, to be able to cow the royal family, and once he's the mouthpiece, the rest of the country's arms are his.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
