New to Carnivale

[Mr Light]

Speaking of LOST in comparison to the show, LOST is my favorite show on the air right now. I love it and I always loved it. I think it's paced just right with plenty of revelations. Now the first season was a different story; I loved it but it was way too much filler, but starting in the second season they gave answers at an acceptable pace. The other good thing about LOST, even its secondary characters are interesting in their own right and have some kind of mystery or greater connection to them.

At least LOST has a nice blend of different tones. You have comedy, action, drama, romance, mystery... Carnivale is just the same bleak tone every episode.

 

[Ben Sisko3]

Rome was 10 times better than Carnivale, and From The Earth to the Moon at least 100 times better with much stronger fx, acting, dialogue and production.

Uh...huh. Sure, pal. Whatever you say.

What did I mean by dollars flowing from the third? Read again what I wrote and you might understand.

Nope, sorry.

Or let me explain : In my opinion Daniel Knauf, García, Prestwich, Moore and Bender started to see the series as cash cow once some critics started to warm to the series. They saw it as an idea that would now be generating unusually high profit which IMO is why they decided to drag the series out and make the story rudderless, they took a gamble to strech it and the series flopped.

Incorrect. Upon the series pick-up, Knauf told HBO that he could make the series last for either three years or six, depending on how long HBO wanted to be involved with it/have it last. They told him to count on six, yet canceled it after two. Fact.

SPOILER SPACE

So you say Justin's kid wasn't sudden because of Appy! Who the heck is Appy? I assume that's the Apollonia veggie character right?

Correct. It was, you know, a common nickname on the show. Pay attention here, we're talking about details.

If I remember her only talent was she would dream up visions and psychically communicate them to her kid and for about 5 seconds during an episode we were left with some extremely vague vison of some tattoo man violating her, the vision is sooo damn murky it could have happened back in the 1800s.

Your point being...? And it clearly wasn't the 1800s, as Sofie is around 19 when the series starts in 1934.


END SPOILERS

Explain to me how the hell the audience was supposed to know she was preggers. When she didn't even have a bump and spent 99.99% of the series in a vegtable like catatonic state!?

They never showed Appolonia pregnant, but I'm fairly certain Sofie didn't pop out of her head fully-formed like Athena did from Zeus. I don't understand your confusion here. After all, the series took place long after she gave birth. Do you doubt the parentage of every child whose parents you meet because you never saw them pregnant?

Yes there are few example like HBO's From The Earth to the Moon which have zero intention of dragging a story and just want to make a short, high quality compact series.

That was always intended as a mini-series, though. Comparing a mini-series to an ongoing TV show is, in a lot of ways, like comparing a graphic novel to an ongoing comic book series.

 

[Mr Light]

Well I just saw an excellent episode, 2X07 Damascus. Ben finally found Scudder, took him to Management, we learned that Justin is Management's son, and Management tried to kill Scudder so Ben killed him. Oh yeah and Ben had a tussle with Stroud. See now THIS is a good episode

 

[Ben Sisko3]

Well I just saw an excellent episode, 2X07 Damascus. Ben finally found Scudder, took him to Management, we learned that Justin is Management's son, and Management tried to kill Scudder so Ben killed him. Oh yeah and Ben had a tussle with Stroud. See now THIS is a good episode

Wait til you get to "Lincoln Highway".

 

[DS9Continuing]

I hated the way they named their episodes. There was a stretch where they went something like "On the Way to Hicksville," "Almost at Hicksville," "Hicksville," "A Bit Past Hicksville," and so on. How are you supposed to remember which episode is which when the names are so non-specific and irrelevant to the actual plot?

 

[sidious618]

If Carnivale had its full run it would have been the best television show ever. As it is, it's just one of the best. I should really rewatch it (for the third time!) soon.

 

[Ben Sisko3]

I hated the way they named their episodes. There was a stretch where they went something like "On the Way to Hicksville," "Almost at Hicksville," "Hicksville," "A Bit Past Hicksville," and so on. How are you supposed to remember which episode is which when the names are so non-specific and irrelevant to the actual plot?

It was "The Road to Damascus", "Damascus, NE" and "Outskirts, Damascus, NE". Any religious scholar (or anyone who appreciates symbolism) will be able to tell you the significance of the Road to Damascus, and its relevance to the plot. It spells out the parallels between the Bible's Saul/Paul and one of the major characters for you, right there (AND in my avatar). If anything, it's overly blatant as opposed to non-specific.

 

[stj]

It's pretty obvious it's not worth Netflixing.

 

[Ben Sisko3]

It's pretty obvious it's not worth Netflixing.

Trust me, the haters are very much a minority. I mean, IMDB.com's rating for the show is a 9.1 out of ten, with over 6,000 votes. Several posters in this thread have stated their love for it, some even saying it's "one of the greatest shows of all time".

Give it a look and judge for yourself. Don't let the views of those who don't "get" or properly understand the show in any number of ways sway your decision about watching it.

And believe me, someone with your signature will very much enjoy the content.

 

[DS9Continuing]

I hated the way they named their episodes. There was a stretch where they went something like "On the Way to Hicksville," "Almost at Hicksville," "Hicksville," "A Bit Past Hicksville," and so on. How are you supposed to remember which episode is which when the names are so non-specific and irrelevant to the actual plot?

It was "The Road to Damascus", "Damascus, NE" and "Outskirts, Damascus, NE". Any religious scholar (or anyone who appreciates symbolism) will be able to tell you the significance of the Road to Damascus, and its relevance to the plot. It spells out the parallels between the Bible's Saul/Paul and one of the major characters for you, right there (AND in my avatar). If anything, it's overly blatant as opposed to non-specific.

Yeah, I did actually get that. Still, there's such a thing as overkill.

 

[Ben Sisko3]

I hated the way they named their episodes. There was a stretch where they went something like "On the Way to Hicksville," "Almost at Hicksville," "Hicksville," "A Bit Past Hicksville," and so on. How are you supposed to remember which episode is which when the names are so non-specific and irrelevant to the actual plot?

It was "The Road to Damascus", "Damascus, NE" and "Outskirts, Damascus, NE". Any religious scholar (or anyone who appreciates symbolism) will be able to tell you the significance of the Road to Damascus, and its relevance to the plot. It spells out the parallels between the Bible's Saul/Paul and one of the major characters for you, right there (AND in my avatar). If anything, it's overly blatant as opposed to non-specific.

Yeah, I did actually get that. Still, there's such a thing as overkill.

Overkill in what regard? Do you get confused by what happened in, say, which segment of the Lost season one finale, "Exodus", because it's commonly divided into two or even three segments when aired on television, separated only by meager "Part (number here)" settings? Would having the episodes be named "Damascus, Parts I, II and III" do away with your confusion?

Personally, I have no problem separating any of the episodes from one another, and think the episode names are cool, especially if you read them like the list of destinations for a touring rock band, or indeed, a traveling circus. This was most likely the intention.

 

[stj]

It's pretty obvious it's not worth Netflixing.

Trust me, the haters are very much a minority. I mean, IMDB.com's rating for the show is a 9.1 out of ten, with over 6,000 votes. Several posters in this thread have stated their love for it, some even saying it's "one of the greatest shows of all time".

Give it a look and judge for yourself. Don't let the views of those who don't "get" or properly understand the show in any number of ways sway your decision about watching it.

And believe me, someone with your signature will very much enjoy the content.

Everything still suggests that the series is about some sort of (religious) apocalypse, which we know doesn't happen. There are suspension of disbelief problems there, and it really seems pretty unlikely that it is worth my time (and money) Netflixing it.

As to the signature---my belief is that TV scifi comments more on current events than the regular broadcast dramas, and that can be one of the interesting things about TV scifi. When BSG debuted, I naturally took that series to be commentary on current events. As it turned out, I found the overall writing quality of BSG to be dreadful.

Even worse, I despised the political implications so much I can't really ignore the harebrained praise. Really it's pretty obvious that the critical praise for BSG is precisely for the political content, and as such is a political statement, not a literary judgment.

In discussing BSG in the BSG forum, incredible as it may seem, BSG fans unanimously denied the perfectly obvious, on the grounds that Ron D. Moore denied the relevance. Ungenerous souls would forthrightly call that lying. And the personal conduct of the BSG fans in discussions, when confronted with the obvious, was vile, with no significant exceptions.

With the loss of the Iraq war, a prowar series has little value. BSG has turned to pseudo-Mormonite mumbo jumbo from the original series. Now Moore can admit the obvious (the quote in the signature is pretty recent) since he's talking up the religious symbolism. I quote the signature in the hopes that BSG fans would have the decency to maintain discreet silence.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

Carnivale has a very incoherent storytelling structure that can be maddening. I still appreciated the style and the characters, and didn't mind the bleak tone. But the most frustrating aspect of it is how it has no good ending. So if you don't find it captivating in its own right, no sense suffering through the whole thing.

 

[Mr Light]

Temis, I thought I always remembered you as being one of the people who talked up the show. So you're not crazy about it?

 

[stj]

^^^She said it got cut short, which messed up the ending; that it's got a real bleak tone, and that it's hard to understand the plot. She also said it had style and good characters. I don't see how that's talking the show down. It just seems like an effort at an objective assessment to me. Of course, all I really know is that the "Is Armageddon nigh?" hook doesn't work for me, since Armageddon still hasn't taken place.

 

[marillion]

Ok.. Sorry I'm late to the party here, but I'm glad to see Ben has been taking care of business on the support end...

Ben and I were part of a very devote group of Carnivale fans who were/are very dedicated to the show.. Never, IMHO, has a show been so smartly written or played out.. unfortunately, as it was cut off before its story had ended, we didn't get a lot of the answers we needed.

When my wife first started watching the show, she only caught about half of the episodes and thus, felt completely left out of what was going on. But later, as we watched the DVDs, she quickly became a staunch fan..

This is a thinking person's show.. unlike Star Wars/Trek, Firefly, Buffy and Smallville, the plot is something that comes in layers and needs some rewatching to get all the finer points of.

I will admit to being somewhat disappointed with the second season as it was obvious the production values weren't quite as high.. Their ability to go to different locations for shooting was obviously limited and so a lot of episodes look like they're in the same place.. That said, the pacing was somewhat better and do you got more action.

I'm still mad over this show getting the axe by HBO, but I guess it was just too smart for the casual viewer to get into.. It really was something you had to stay current with, or you'd be unable to really catch up.

 

[Ben Sisko3]

Everything still suggests that the series is about some sort of (religious) apocalypse, which we know doesn't happen.

The type of apocalypse the show refers to cannot be understood simply by viewing this thread, but by viewing the show. It is a different sort of apocalypse altogether, probably more along the lines of a(n accidental?) genocide which very well may have happened within the show's timeline if the series had been allowed a proper ending. I know for a fact the event implied happened historically on July 16, 1945 in the United States, and continued overseas just a few short weeks later (If you're really that curious, Google the date -- you don't need to look too hard to find the event in question). The impending apocalypse is only really implied to be such a thing by one fanatical, extremely self-interested individual over the course of the show, and it's more of a concern for himself and for the statistically very few people of his "race" or whatever you want to call it. Being as subtle as I can in revealing plot elements in the hopes that I can alter your incorrect perceptions of the show's storylines, the "apocalypse" you refer to is, in essence, the day science finally triumphs over magic. To some of the characters on this show, that would very much seem like the end of days.

I mean, if you want to get technical, how are you supposed to enjoy From Hell and Watchmen, knowing full well that Jack the Ripper probably wasn't a time traveler, and that a giant squid didn't destroy Manhattan in 1985 in Nixon's, what, fourth or fifth term? How does one enjoy Star Wars if one looks at the evolution of humanity in this galaxy, the development of the English language, and the various scientific, spiritual and technological issues? How are we to enjoy speculative fiction or fantasy set in the past at all?

P.S. Marillion, good to see you around.

 

[Forbin]

That was well said, Ben.

A lot of fiction requires the reader/viewer to simpley understand that the author is saying "What if this happened this way?"

 

[stj]

^^^That actually does address the apocalypse question, and gives ground for thought. If the Apocalypse issue is just one character's interpretation, it is indeed different from my previous impression.

But to get technical, From Hell can be enjoyed as a possible solution to a known mystery. To people unacquanted with the Jack the Ripper case, it may even be convincing. (I've only seen the movie.) SF or fantasy set in the past need not flagrantly contradict commonly known fact.

Something like Watchmen, which does flagrantly contradict known fact, falls into the category of alternate history. But I think Watchmen suffers from a certain incoherence---it does not convince me that the presence of superheroes would somehow give Nixon a fourth term, nor that the Cold War would continue, getting tenser and tenser. This just seems thrown in for sensationalism, which does not intensify but falsify the serious themes Watchmen tries to address. The best alternate history follow the internal logic and the external logic of how the world really works as closely as possible.

Willing suspension of disbelief can work easier for a two hour movie, or even a six hour movie series, than it can for a TV series, where each installment comes with ample time to reflect. This is especially true in serialized shows in which reflection is encouraged by anticipation. Therefore the believability (or plausibility or coherency) requirement is higher for TV series than for movies. Plus the plausibility of FX is higher for movies, which have more money. This may seem unfair, but there it is.

 

[Bob The Skutter]

Why is it any harder to suspend disbelief for a fictional 1930s America than it is to suspend disbelief for a fictional planet called Vulcan? It's just a setting within which to tell the story. If you have to tell yourself it's an alternate timeline for it to be believable within your imagination then do so, but why act like just because it's set in the past that it has to be something that possibly happened but you some how missed?