Ask Matt: | TVGuide.com
Mar. 28th, 2011 12:15 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shipperxhttp://www.tvguide.com/News/Ask-Matt-FX-1031165.aspx
Excerpt:
Question: Do you have any opinion to offer on Showtime's The Borgias yet? I really like Jeremy Irons, but I'm afraid to watch it after seeing the hatchet job that The Tudors did on historical fact. I'm not terribly interested in watching another costumed fantasy. — Diana
Matt Roush: I'll be posting a review later this week (which will appear in the magazine soon as well), but Jeremy Irons' deliciously debauched performance is reason enough to watch—although I understand in physique he's the total opposite of the actual Borgia-who-becomes-Pope. If you're looking for documentary-like veracity, this may not be your thing. But most people are going to tune in for a peep-show window into power-grabbing mendacity and murderously nasty doings. In which case, this show delivers. I had the reservations you had with The Tudors, and I was put off when they refused to age Jonathan Rhys Meyers appropriately. (I didn't make it much past the Anne Boleyn period.) But I would venture that the history of The Borgias is much less familiar to most viewers—and as others have noted, is clouded by the fact that their story is often interpreted from the perspective of their rivals and successors. My advice: Sit back and enjoy.
Question: I saw the announcement of the new George R. R. Martin book (A Dance With Dragons) finally being released in July and thought of you, as I remember reading you are a fan of the Song of Ice and Fire series. Now with the HBO version (Game of Thrones) premiering next month, I wondered again: When should a book be turned into a TV show or miniseries or movie? I know each brings its own pros and cons, but I am troubled by the trend to convert books, if only because it shows a lack of originality. Aren't there thousands of new stories to be told? What's your perspective? — Megan
Matt Roush: Couldn't be more thrilled that the next volume is finally being published, and now that I've had a taste of the HBO adaptation—I'll be watching more of it this week to prepare a review—I can't really think of a downside of HBO going this route. Film and TV have turned to literary and theatrical source material from the very beginning to adapt some of the greatest stories ever told. And some are even better told on film. It's not a matter of originality as much as it is in finding inspiration and executing it with style and care. (You want to see a lack of originality? Try making it through the upcoming Kennedys miniseries.) George R. R. Martin's story unfolds on such an extravagant canvas that TV is the ideal medium for it to come to dramatic life, and because of its harsh and raw content, HBO is the perfect venue. Of course, original visions are just as valued, from The Sopranos and The Wire to Treme, but I see no reason to denigrate any project for being adapted from another format. Besides, look at True Blood. It brings a new audience to the enjoyable book series while forging new territory of its own.
Question: I have watched the latest episode ("Original Song") of Glee four times already and kind of want to watch it a few more times. This is very unusual for me. Yes, part of it is due to the Kurt/Blaine scenes. But it overall felt like a return to the old Glee that I originally loved. I think Glee at its best has an emotional core of portraying youth who come to terms with and celebrate who they are and the struggles they have being different. This year, I feel like the show has deluded itself into a teen melodrama (and don't get me started on Sue). A good example is the character of Quinn. For someone who went through an incredibly adult and life-altering experience last year, her character has been reduced to a stereotypical popularity-seeking teen.. — Amy
[ME: 'has deluded itself into...'? Shouldn't that be 'devolved into...' ?]
Matt Roush: Using this season as a guide, I fear Glee is destined to be a show that is always going to give us whiplash, veering from terrific peaks — and I agree the "Original Song" episode was a high point — to many episodes that make us wonder what in the world they think they're doing. Some weeks, it feels like they're trying to give us a tricked-up modern-day Afterschool Special lacing the message-of-the-week with cheap-shock outrageousness that gets awfully tiresome. Character development from week to week is laughably inconsistent, and Quinn is hardly the only victim, though she's one of the more prominent ones. But despite the inevitable (and equally tiresome) backlash against the show's clumsy inconsistencies and excesses, including Sue's psycho-clown act that is becoming harder and harder to endure, I keep getting drawn back to Glee for its energy, itsexuberance, and of course its embrace of diversity of all types, even when cringe-worthy episodes like "Blame It on the Alcohol" and "Sexy" make me want to drop out
Excerpt:
Question: Do you have any opinion to offer on Showtime's The Borgias yet? I really like Jeremy Irons, but I'm afraid to watch it after seeing the hatchet job that The Tudors did on historical fact. I'm not terribly interested in watching another costumed fantasy. — Diana
Matt Roush: I'll be posting a review later this week (which will appear in the magazine soon as well), but Jeremy Irons' deliciously debauched performance is reason enough to watch—although I understand in physique he's the total opposite of the actual Borgia-who-becomes-Pope. If you're looking for documentary-like veracity, this may not be your thing. But most people are going to tune in for a peep-show window into power-grabbing mendacity and murderously nasty doings. In which case, this show delivers. I had the reservations you had with The Tudors, and I was put off when they refused to age Jonathan Rhys Meyers appropriately. (I didn't make it much past the Anne Boleyn period.) But I would venture that the history of The Borgias is much less familiar to most viewers—and as others have noted, is clouded by the fact that their story is often interpreted from the perspective of their rivals and successors. My advice: Sit back and enjoy.
Question: I saw the announcement of the new George R. R. Martin book (A Dance With Dragons) finally being released in July and thought of you, as I remember reading you are a fan of the Song of Ice and Fire series. Now with the HBO version (Game of Thrones) premiering next month, I wondered again: When should a book be turned into a TV show or miniseries or movie? I know each brings its own pros and cons, but I am troubled by the trend to convert books, if only because it shows a lack of originality. Aren't there thousands of new stories to be told? What's your perspective? — Megan
Matt Roush: Couldn't be more thrilled that the next volume is finally being published, and now that I've had a taste of the HBO adaptation—I'll be watching more of it this week to prepare a review—I can't really think of a downside of HBO going this route. Film and TV have turned to literary and theatrical source material from the very beginning to adapt some of the greatest stories ever told. And some are even better told on film. It's not a matter of originality as much as it is in finding inspiration and executing it with style and care. (You want to see a lack of originality? Try making it through the upcoming Kennedys miniseries.) George R. R. Martin's story unfolds on such an extravagant canvas that TV is the ideal medium for it to come to dramatic life, and because of its harsh and raw content, HBO is the perfect venue. Of course, original visions are just as valued, from The Sopranos and The Wire to Treme, but I see no reason to denigrate any project for being adapted from another format. Besides, look at True Blood. It brings a new audience to the enjoyable book series while forging new territory of its own.
Question: I have watched the latest episode ("Original Song") of Glee four times already and kind of want to watch it a few more times. This is very unusual for me. Yes, part of it is due to the Kurt/Blaine scenes. But it overall felt like a return to the old Glee that I originally loved. I think Glee at its best has an emotional core of portraying youth who come to terms with and celebrate who they are and the struggles they have being different. This year, I feel like the show has deluded itself into a teen melodrama (and don't get me started on Sue). A good example is the character of Quinn. For someone who went through an incredibly adult and life-altering experience last year, her character has been reduced to a stereotypical popularity-seeking teen.. — Amy
[ME: 'has deluded itself into...'? Shouldn't that be 'devolved into...' ?]
Matt Roush: Using this season as a guide, I fear Glee is destined to be a show that is always going to give us whiplash, veering from terrific peaks — and I agree the "Original Song" episode was a high point — to many episodes that make us wonder what in the world they think they're doing. Some weeks, it feels like they're trying to give us a tricked-up modern-day Afterschool Special lacing the message-of-the-week with cheap-shock outrageousness that gets awfully tiresome. Character development from week to week is laughably inconsistent, and Quinn is hardly the only victim, though she's one of the more prominent ones. But despite the inevitable (and equally tiresome) backlash against the show's clumsy inconsistencies and excesses, including Sue's psycho-clown act that is becoming harder and harder to endure, I keep getting drawn back to Glee for its energy, itsexuberance, and of course its embrace of diversity of all types, even when cringe-worthy episodes like "Blame It on the Alcohol" and "Sexy" make me want to drop out
