iZombie season 2 discussion thread

[Saga]

if Liv ate the brains of nice, normal, everyday people then it would be uninteresting to watch.

Oh, come on, that's a straw man. Obviously it is possible to make fictional characters interesting without making them broad, cartoony stereotypes. Indeed, one-dimensional stereotypes are uninteresting to watch. That's my problem. I have no reason to care about Cartoonishly Racist Old Creep or Cartoonishly Stupid and Sexist Frat Boy or Cartoonishly Shallow and Bitchy Housewife. There is nothing remotely interesting about characters who have no personality or substance beyond a single exaggerated trait. Why couldn't we have had, say, an elderly man whose surface bitterness masked a deep-rooted loneliness and grief at the death of all his loved ones, or a frat boy who acted obnoxious and sexist because he was afraid to come out of the closet, or a rich housewife who obsessed over her clothes and makeup because she deeply loved her husband and was afraid he was losing interest as she aged? It's not that hard to add complexity and depth and sympathetic qualities to characters. Just write them like individual human beings rather than generic "types."

This is supposed to be a show about getting into other people's heads. And that's how good writing works. You don't just treat characters as stereotypes defined by how they act on the outside. You get into their heads, see things through their eyes, feel what they feel, understand the hidden motivations beneath the surface behavior. You identify with them so you can portray their emotions and reactions authentically. It's about empathy. By the very nature of this show, its writing should be defined by empathy for the murder victims, by viewing the world through their eyes. But that's not what we're getting, except on the most superficial level.

the one note cliche characters are uninteresting...the interesting part comes from watching Liv deal with those personalities.

 

[Christopher]

I'll point out that there was a very short break between Seasons 1 and 2. They probably used most of their writing and creative brain power on figuring out the overall story arc for this season, and let the individual episode characters be somewhat simple and quick/easy to write.

If so, that's an unfortunate set of priorities. Too much TV writing has become about plot at the expense of character, or about having character beats that only exist to set up the next plot twist. It should be the other way around. The value of plots is in how they affect or reveal characters.

And really, like I said -- this is a show fundamentally built around the premise of the main character directly experiencing the thoughts and feelings of other people, channeling their personalities. How can that not be a show driven by character first and foremost? It shouldn't be driven by plot arcs above all just because most other shows today are like that. That reduces it to cookie-cutter formula and takes away what's distinctive and valuable about its premise. If they chose to prioritize plot over character, then that was absolutely the wrong choice, and it's damaged the show.

If you didn't catch the preview for next week's episode

Spoiler: what brains will Liv be eating next week

looks like Liv will be dining on a country singer. Not sure that lends itself to quite as much comedy as the first 3 episodes, but maybe Liv will be moping around about pickup trucks and tractors or something like that.

Hopefully it won't be as obnoxious a personality, but it's still a type that easily lends itself to lazy stereotyping and stock tropes. So I'm not optimistic.

the one note cliche characters are uninteresting...the interesting part comes from watching Liv deal with those personalities.

First off, it shouldn't be an either-or choice. Doing quality work, in writing or any other field, is not about putting care into only one thing and slacking off on everything else. It's about trying to do every aspect of your work with as much quality as possible, or at least about trying to find a workable balance.

Second, we're not watching Liv deal with those personalities, because the personalities are too damn superficial to give her anything to deal with. Okay, there are lip-service attempts to have some connection between the caricature of the week and what Liv is going through. Supposedly the hateful old racist taught her something about not pushing people away, and supposedly her shallow bonding with the personal shopper tied into her fears of losing her friends. (I have no idea what relevance the stupid frat boy had to her life.) But they're simplistic and shallow connections at best, and nowhere near as effective as the storylines we got last season. What we're getting is not interesting, either in terms of the personalities themselves or in terms of their impact on Liv. We just get Liv's own personality shoved aside for most of the episode so that Rose McIver can act out her latest goofy stereotype, and then there's maybe two lines of lip service about what the one has to do with the other. It was done better last year, with more depth, more nuance, more meaning, and better integration of the victim personalities with Liv's own story arc.

 

[Saga]

i find it interesting. i dunno, maybe this show just isn't for you.

 

[Greg Cox]

I'm enjoying the brain-eating schtick this season. Sure, it's mostly being played for laughs, but it adds a welcome degree of humor and silliness to the show that helps distinguish it from other, grimmer horror shows, like, ahem, The Walking Dead. And half the fun is watching Clive's baffled double-takes. I almost hope he never finds out Liv's secret . . ..

iZombie is one-third goofy horror comedy, one-third supernatural soap opera, and one-third police procedural. Trying to keep all those elements in the right balance is no doubt a balancing act, but so far I'm finding very zesty and refreshing--not unlike one of Liv's brain salads.

(Am I the only who gets hungry watching her fix each week's new recipe?)

Although Major's slow, mopey, downward spiral is growing tiresome. I find myself quietly groaning whenever he shows up--and waiting for Liv and Ravi and Clive to take center stage again.

 

[Christopher]

i dunno, maybe this show just isn't for you.

That's just it. The first season didn't have these problems. The brains she ate weren't just excuses for Rose McIver to play caricatures, they actually had dimension and substance and contributed meaningfully to her character development. Like in the second episode, where she absorbed an artist's way of seeing the world and was moved and enriched by what she gained. That was beautiful. Or when she had to absorb the memories of a murdered friend of hers and it got personal for her. Or when she became an agoraphobe and had to deal with a genuine impediment to her life rather than simply a set of broad stereotyped attitudes. Or when absorbing a sniper's outlook and skills dovetailed with the arc story about Blaine and Lowell and led her to confront a moral quandary about whether she could kill in cold blood. This was a better show last season, and I'm perfectly entitled to be disappointed that it seems to have sunk to a far more superficial and lazy level so far this season.

I'm enjoying the brain-eating schtick this season. Sure, it's mostly being played for laughs, but it adds a welcome degree of humor and silliness to the show that helps distinguish it from other, grimmer horror shows, like, ahem, The Walking Dead.

This is a Rob Thomas show. It's never lacked for humor and snark, but in the first season it was in combination with the darker, more disquieting stuff, as in Veronica Mars before it. And it was smart humor, character-driven humor. Now it's stereotype-driven humor, which is not smart at all.


Speaking of Veronica Mars, did anyone catch Liv's line about the dress that belonged to Peyton? "A long time ago, we used to be friends."

 

[Greg Cox]

Speaking of Veronica Mars, did anyone catch Liv's line about the dress that belonged to Peyton? "A long time ago, we used to be friends."

I missed that. I think I was distracted by the fact that they actually made a "Peyton Place" joke, despite the fact that, in my experience, nobody under the age of fifty even knows what "Peyton Place" is anymore.

And, honestly, I don't think that this is "fundamentally" a show about absorbing other people's consciousnesses. First and foremost, it's a fun, fizzy lark about a sexy, crime-fighting, brain-eating zombie detective.

 

[Saga]

I think I was distracted by the fact that they actually made a "Peyton Place" joke, despite the fact that, in my experience, nobody under the age of fifty even knows what "Peyton Place" is anymore.

i know.

 

[Greg Cox]

I think I was distracted by the fact that they actually made a "Peyton Place" joke, despite the fact that, in my experience, nobody under the age of fifty even knows what "Peyton Place" is anymore.

i know.

I'm impressed. CSI made a "Peyton Place" joke a few years ago, and neither of my younger siblings had the slightest idea what was being referred to.

 

[Christopher]

And, honestly, I don't think that this is "fundamentally" a show about absorbing other people's consciousnesses. First and foremost, it's a fun, fizzy lark about a sexy, crime-fighting, brain-eating zombie detective.

What I'm saying is that the premise should naturally lend itself to character-driven writing based on empathy. Good writers, even comedy writers, have empathy for their characters, the ability to get into their heads and see the world through their eyes. Liv's ability is practically a metaphor for how writers -- good ones, anyway -- approach characterization. Bad writers resort to caricature and stereotype, but good writers grasp how their characters think and feel and see the world and are thus able to write them with nuance and authenticity, to make them sympathetic and relatable even when they're comically awful people. I just think it's paradoxical that a show about the idea of walking a mile in other people's shoes would be written without that same kind of empathy.

 

[Sto-Vo-Kory]

I'm really enjoying this season.

When Liv eats brains, she doesn't become the person; that person's personality only affects her in broader ways and sometimes gives her flashes of memories. McIver's not playing a different persona -- she's playing Liv under the influence of another character's personality traits.

Sometimes the personality traits help her cope in unexpected ways or sometimes they hang a lamp on something Liv is dealing with and reveals something new about her, like this week's episode.

It was fun seeing Liv endulge in dressing up and expressing her egocentric side, but it was also showing us, the audience, how lonely she's been since Peyton moved out and her jarring absence of no close female friends.

The writers could convey this same information by showing Liv cry alone at home or earnestly expressing it to her co-worker (and a lot of shows take this route), but instead, it's revealed by Liv comically behaving like a superficial rich woman and with her burgeoning (yet short-lived) friendship with the personal stylist. Liv is feeling isolated but masking it in her professional life (an authentic behavior in many people). The birthday cake at the end is more poignant and bittersweet because we now know what's hiding behind her capable exterior.

This show is ultimately about Liv and her journey, not the murder victims. She's trying to solve their murders, not explore their full lives. I'm more interested in what the influence of the personas tell us about Liv and her supporting cast than a character that dies before the opening credits. If the influence can be played for laughs, all the better. Shows about a brain-eating zombie should muster all the humor they can from the premise.

 

[Christopher]

I'm really enjoying this season.

When Liv eats brains, she doesn't become the person; that person's personality only affects her in broader ways and sometimes gives her flashes of memories. McIver's not playing a different persona -- she's playing Liv under the influence of another character's personality traits.

Yes, in principle that's how it works, and that's how it did work in the first season. My complaint is that it doesn't feel like that anymore. She just simplistically acts out the grotesquely exaggerated caricature of the week, and it's hard to see any connection to her own personality or life. The nuance has been lost.

Sometimes the personality traits help her cope in unexpected ways or sometimes they hang a lamp on something Liv is dealing with and reveals something new about her, like this week's episode.

And as I already said, I feel that this season's episodes so far have been much more inept and superficial in their attempts to achieve that than the first-season episodes were. Okay, maybe the grumpy old guy taught her something about the cost of driving away the people in her life, but that could've been achieved without treating racism as a source of casual humor. I have no clue what she learned from being a frat boy. And the link between the personal-shopper friendship and Liv's concerns about losing her friends was cursory and tacked-on at best.

The writers could convey this same information by showing Liv cry alone at home or earnestly expressing it to her co-worker (and a lot of shows take this route), but instead, it's revealed by Liv comically behaving like a superficial rich woman and with her burgeoning (yet short-lived) friendship with the personal stylist.

Yes, thank you, I do not need a lecture about what the writers were trying to do. I know perfectly well how the show was supposed to work and what the intent was. My point, one more time, is that I feel the execution of that intent is inferior to the first season's execution of the same intent.

This show is ultimately about Liv and her journey, not the murder victims. She's trying to solve their murders, not explore their full lives.

Even so, the first season gave us victims who were more than just simplistic caricatures of the most obnoxious breeds of human being on the planet. People keep trying to lecture me on how "the show" is supposed to work in general, but that's missing my point. I'm disappointed in the second season because the first season did the same things much, much better. It doesn't make sense to defend the superficiality of this season by saying "That's how the show works," because the show itself has already proven that it can, in fact, do better -- that it doesn't have to be as superficial as it is now.

If the influence can be played for laughs, all the better. Shows about a brain-eating zombie should muster all the humor they can from the premise.

I defy you to demonstrate that the first season in any way failed to muster humor from its premise. It was full of humor. But it was smarter and better humor than the one-joke stereotypes we're getting now.

I just want the show to work as well as it did last year. Is that so hard to understand?

 

[Sto-Vo-Kory]

Yes, thank you, I do not need a lecture about what the writers were trying to do.

Nor do we.

And that's how good writing works. You don't just treat characters as stereotypes defined by how they act on the outside. You get into their heads, see things through their eyes, feel what they feel, understand the hidden motivations beneath the surface behavior. You identify with them so you can portray their emotions and reactions authentically. It's about empathy. By the very nature of this show, its writing should be defined by empathy for the murder victims, by viewing the world through their eyes. But that's not what we're getting, except on the most superficial level.

What I'm saying is that the premise should naturally lend itself to character-driven writing based on empathy. Good writers, even comedy writers, have empathy for their characters, the ability to get into their heads and see the world through their eyes. Liv's ability is practically a metaphor for how writers -- good ones, anyway -- approach characterization. Bad writers resort to caricature and stereotype, but good writers grasp how their characters think and feel and see the world and are thus able to write them with nuance and authenticity, to make them sympathetic and relatable even when they're comically awful people. I just think it's paradoxical that a show about the idea of walking a mile in other people's shoes would be written without that same kind of empathy.

 

[Guy Gardener]

Happy writers write how they want to write.

Successful writers cater to the largest audience.

Writers on the coal face, write how they're told to write.

If they can't adapt to write differently for different projects, per direction, intended for different audiences, then they are bad writers.

But then, what really is the difference between writing an episode of IZombie, and writing an episode of NCIS LA?

 

[Sto-Vo-Kory]

I agree with your first two statements, Guy, but I don't know what "coal face" is.

Also I agree about bad writers not being able to adapt to the project their working on.

The NCIS: LA thing? I've never seen that show, so I can't comment on it, but Mouse Boy from You're the Worst would definitely agree with you.

 

[Christopher]

I agree with your first two statements, Guy, but I don't know what "coal face" is.

It's a mining term, apparently. Basically synonymous with "on the front lines" or "in the trenches" -- it's doing the work and getting your hands dirty rather than being one of the higher-ups giving orders.

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/at_the_coal_face

Not sure how it's meant to apply here, though. The writers are the same people this year as last year. They've just changed their approach for some reason.

 

[Guy Gardener]

You're the best if you like you're the worst.

But yes, of course, that is exactly why I said there what I said there.

 

[kitik]

I liked that it wasn't any of the "expected" suspects in the murder case in tonight's episode. Sometimes its just a random case of the wrong place at the wrong time.

Perfect iZombie coincidence that Peyton is working with Blaine now. That's how this show operates.

Apparently Major has finally figured out that he is burying himself way, way, way too deeply, and has completely lost control, and he needs to ask for help. I was just waiting for redhead roommate to show up and warn him to leave and stay away from Liv. Maybe next episode.

Looks like Clive might finally get a girlfriend? About damn time. You know Liv will come between them somehow though. Speaking of girlfriend, what's up with Ravi? They made it clear he was looking. Are we to assume that he's going to get back together with Peyton? This really is a CW show.

 

[Sto-Vo-Kory]

I liked that it wasn't any of the "expected" suspects in the murder case in tonight's episode. Sometimes its just a random case of the wrong place at the wrong time.

Perfect iZombie coincidence that Peyton is working with Blaine now. That's how this show operates.

Apparently Major has finally figured out that he is burying himself way, way, way too deeply, and has completely lost control, and he needs to ask for help. I was just waiting for redhead roommate to show up and warn him to leave and stay away from Liv. Maybe next episode.

Looks like Clive might finally get a girlfriend? About damn time. You know Liv will come between them somehow though. Speaking of girlfriend, what's up with Ravi? They made it clear he was looking. Are we to assume that he's going to get back together with Peyton? This really is a CW show.

Peyton implied to Liv that she's interested in Blaine now.

 

[Guy Gardener]

Blaine has investigated liv, so he knows who Peyton is.

If Peyton sleeps with or dates Blaine, that will scuttle her case and probably get her fired for sleeping with or dating a key witness. If she has plans for him, which she probably does, even though he's a thug drug dealer, it's 2 years down the line after the case is finished.

Major knows that Gilda (the red head) works for Du Clark (Stephen Webber) as a fixer (is she a secretary also? Or was that just a cover?), Major may not know that Gilda is Liv's flatmate, but he definitely does not know that Gilda is Du Clark's daughter.

Dale, Clive's new love interest, is most likely a plant from Du Clark?

(Although buying off an FBI agent can't be cheap? Unless it's Vaughn's other daughter?)

Agent Dale (Jessica Harmon) was in a youtube miniseires called chose your victim which is about a fake reality TV show where people are told that they are contestants, dropped on a deserted island, and then hunted for sport. Not seen. Downloading now.

 

[Christopher]

I finally gave up waiting for On Demand to show the episode -- somehow my cable system seems to have abruptly switched from one-day-later to one-week-later for primetime shows -- and watched it on Hulu (which my computer in its current state is able to handle as long as I don't watch fullscreen). It was better than the last few, in that the dead girl wasn't an obnoxious cartoony stereotype to the same degree as the last few victims -- though she didn't really seem to have any personality traits at all beyond spouting corny country aphorisms and liking/writing country music. But that's still a breath of fresh air after the total jerks Liv has turned into in the previous episodes this season.

I'm starting to feel that too much of this show's plotting is starting to rely on the characters not telling each other stuff. How long can they sustain the thing with Peyton and Blaine? It was set up at the beginning that Peyton intended to ask Liv for the whole story and that Liv intended to tell her, so assuming they get around to that conversation with reasonable timeliness, it should nip the whole Blaine-Peyton thing in the bud. But I fear they'll instead concoct some excuse to keep Peyton in the dark about who Blaine is. Which can go right alongside Liv and Major not realizing that his handler/sex partner Rita and Liv's roommate Gilda are the same person. When Major came to Liv's apartment at the end there, I kept waiting for "Gilda"/Rita to show up and go "Uh-oh." But I guess that will also continue to be dragged out for a while.