Nice piece by Chuck Klosterman (from http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id...ians-grantland-year-end-television-reckonings):
Homeland vs. Mad Men and Breaking Bad
By Chuck Klosterman
Let's pretend you own the worst TV set on Earth. Let's pretend your television is only functional for one hour every week, and — once you program that specific window into the hard drive of your DVR — you can never change it again (you can switch the channel, but not the time frame). Obviously, your life would border on the unlivable. But if you had to live this way, at least the decision about which hour to select would be easy: You would pick 10 p.m. EST on Sunday. It's the only valid choice — you could spend one-fourth of the year watching Mad Men, one-fourth of the year watching Breaking Bad, one-fourth of the year watching Homeland, and one-fourth of the year waiting for these three shows to come back. For a variety for reasons, 10 p.m. on Sunday is where great shows are now supposed to live. The only snag is that one of these aforementioned shows is not, technically, "great." Homeland is merely "good" (sometimes "very good," for never more than). And I think I've figured out why.
On Homeland, something always needs to happen.
I like Homeland, and I will watch it until the very end. It validates the existence of Showtime. But its problems are deep, and that makes it a second-tier program. If Mad Men and Breaking Bad were SEC football teams, Homeland would have to play in the Pac-12.
In every episode of Homeland, at least one scene is wholly implausible, and all the romantic relationships feel rushed and unconvincing (particularly — and most problematically — the main one). This is not the fault of the actors, or even the overall premise. It's mostly because Homeland is a high-end version of how television used to be in the 1980s, before TV got good. It's consumed by the tropes of traditional television, which is why it dominated the 2012 Emmys — it was, quite simply, less artful and less challenging than its competition (which, in the context of an awards show, is usually an advantage). Its plot mechanics are excellent, but they're over-emphasized. The plot and the pacing are absolutely everything. And once a show becomes mortally dependent on narrative, its verisimilitude and depth start to erode. Getting from point A to point B becomes the totality of the Homeland experience. The show's creators end up forcing profound events into every single episode, which is how we end up with preposterous murders and silly sex scenes and random dumb moments that only serve to remind us that we're watching conventional TV.
This, I think, is what makes Breaking Bad and (especially) Mad Men so vastly different: When nothing happens, nothing is lost. The quiet moments are better than the loud ones. There is subtext in everything — the language, the clothes, and even the semiotics (once, on a JetBlue flight, I watched an early episode of Mad Men without audio and was amazed by how much could be deduced, simply by the various characters' posture and where they happened to be standing around the office). A week in which nothing happens might still be the apex of an entire season. Breaking Bad and Mad Men are just richer, better products, which doesn't make Homeland bad; it simply means certain 10 p.m. programs deserve to be taken more seriously than others. Time will validate this. I don't care how many Emmy awards Homeland ends up winning. It will still have to settle for the Rose Bowl.
Ridiculous. An insult to the intelligence of every viewer, that whole chain of events was downright silly.
We're supposed to believe that a terrorist group managed to infiltrate the US government so deeply that they
a) Get to a congressman's car and pack it with explosives
b) Move it while it's parked in CIA headquarter for the VPs service which would be one of the most secure locations on earth
c) Don't show up on camera moving the car
Really? That's all a series of Deus ex Machina moments, the entire thing was completely spun out of thin air. If the network had that sort of access and strike capabilities then Brody fucking with the VP's pacemaker was meaningless and Abu Nazir would have known it.
And then Carrie and Brody drive OUT of the CIA HQ and nobody notices? Like the place was not locked down 10 seconds after the blast? Who is dumb enough to buy that nonsense?
I had to think about this EP for a few days as it didn't sit well with me, but I was impressed they finally did something that had me interested and not watching wondering if I could skip it and not miss any developments.
The car moving thing really bothered the hell out of me. I, like you couldn't understand how they could get a car full of that stuff anywhere close to the building. There were a ton of people there,it was the VP, the President should have been attending. There's no way they would have been able to get a car full of explosives anywhere near that building let alone do it without any camera/person seeing it.
Nice piece by Chuck Klosterman (from http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id...ians-grantland-year-end-television-reckonings):
A lot of silly plot holes in this show. Biggest one isWHY IS A KNOWN TERRORIST ALLOWED TO PARK HIS TRUCK AT THE CIA BUILDING WITHOUT IT BEING SEARCHED AND ALLOWED IN THE CIA BUILDING UNSUPERVISED?
Not only that, there is simply no way in hell a car loaded with explosives could be driven onto the CIA headquarters campus with that number of VIPs present, even by a U.S. Congressman (particularly not one known by the CIA to be a spy). There would DEFINITELY be a visual inspection of the car and its contents, including underneath it, as well as a pass by explosive-sniffing dogs. I would not be surprised by additional electronic "sniffer" tests as well. I doubt any car, other than perhaps the Presidential limousine, would be permitted to bypass a thorough inspection under those circumstances.
I also find it ludicrous that the VP died, with a known spy in his office at the time, yet there have never been any repercussions whatsoever as a result. Indeed, that same known spy was invited to his funeral.
isn't carries disappearance for 24+ hours to drive brody to Canada going to be suspicious
i think him being a "known terrorist" was only known to a few people... right? but then again estes knew that he was one.
The heart attack moment didn't really bother me as I was too stuck on asking myself when did pacemakers get wifi?
Some people think too hard about shows, that must be very distracting
if it continues to get emmys / golden globes, it will be renewed.
Some people think too hard about shows, that must be very distracting
enough people knew to the point where he shouldn't have even been allowed near the event. I don't understand why IMMEDIATELY after they got nazir they didn't have brody resign from office and put him in witness relocation. Why is he allowed to go spend a romantic weekend with Carrie?
I think your argument about him being a "known" terrorist is unfair. Like others have said only a few people considered him suspect and after 1-2 episodes they were pretty laxed about it. To everyone else, he was a perfectly normal Congressman. He was slated for the VP position yet very few people recognized him. He walks into bars, drives around DC without much fanfare. He is invited everywhere and you think it makes sense for him to suddenly be banned from the funeral of the VP?
It's drama television. It baffles me even more that people continue to watch shows when all they do is complain about plot holes and realism.
LOL, well put. And I think I put too much thought/time into some shows...but some people are just ridiculous. It's not a documentary. It's drama television. It baffles me even more that people continue to watch shows when all they do is complain about plot holes and realism.
Ummm, 'cause several excellent series have succeeded without having to resort to such silliness? (The Wire and Band of Brothers -ironically-come to mind) The writers for Homeland are symptomatic of the dumb laziness that pervades TV today.
Some people think too hard about shows, that must be very distracting
Uhh, it's pretty distracting. The entire Season 1 and good parts of Season highlighted Carrie's ability to reason and to see clues that people would often overlook.
Now the show is glossing over "details" that everyone sees. It's quite ridiculous now. People will argue that this is better than 24 because Claire Daines is an amazing actress and that we haven't had like 4 seasons straight of idiotic plots with the same rehashed "mole," blunders, plot holes, etc, but for a show like this to start out so well and come crashing so horribly in the end? WTF? Remember we've only had like 24 episodes total or something, so it's only one season of 24 so far, and the quality of episodes has changed quite drastically already. Let's not forget 24's first two season were stellar, with the 3rd and 4th doing quite well still before 5-8 being total meh.
And was the season finale good? I mean really? Sure it was a shocker or whatever, but to me this is a classic case of "Oh crap I don't know what to write into the plot, so let me put something crazy and dramatic." Any of us can create a Season 3 out of the Season 2 ending. You can have 500 different possibilities now with this ending. Putting in such an ending allows you to branch off any way you want. Thus, it's not even a work of art to me. It's just a "let's throw in something crazy to keep the crowd amused." Quite honestly the show would've ended better if they cut it at Season 1 with Brody blowing the vest and everyone dying. At least that was a well wrapped up story. Now it's just a desperate attempt to revive the hunt for Brody or something like that. It could still continue well if the writers do a good job, but who knows?