Writing -- Six Feet Under

[TV Fan]

The quality of the writing on this show seems to vary a tremendous
amount. Some episodes are great, but many are just average and a good
number really suck ("The Bomb Shelter").

What was the story with the writers on SFU? Did they let just anyone
write episodes? Was it friends and family of the producers or
something?

It seems crazy that the original writers were not able to maintain the
quality throughout the series run.

TV Fan

[m***@gmail.com]

Well, TV fan, just a couple of points.

The "quality" of any writing, whether of Six Feet Under scripts, or
anything else, is a matter of opinion. Try looking up
s-u-b-j-e-c-t-i-v-e in a dictionary.

In ***your*** opinion, some SFU episodes "sucked". In my opinion, none
did. All were good, and some were extra good. To that extent I will
allow that the quality varied.

[TV Fan]

Well of course, I am only expressing an opinion -- isn't that pretty
much what Usenet is all about?

The thing that kills me is that the show had amazing potential, which
it reached with certain writers. With other writers though it was not
nearly as good as it could have been. Why did they let so many
different writers and directors work on it? Wasn't it obvious that the
quality was suffering?

It is also strange how, in certain eopisodes, characters do things
that are totally out of character for them. It's like each writer had
their own ideas about who each character really was. That is not a
good way to produce a consistent series.

BTW, I am just finishing the next-to-last season on DVD, like many
other people. Maybe the final season will win me back over.

TVF

Post by m***@gmail.com
Well, TV fan, just a couple of points.
The "quality" of any writing, whether of Six Feet Under scripts, or
anything else, is a matter of opinion. Try looking up
s-u-b-j-e-c-t-i-v-e in a dictionary.
In ***your*** opinion, some SFU episodes "sucked". In my opinion, none
did. All were good, and some were extra good. To that extent I will
allow that the quality varied.

[Fab]

Post by TV Fan
Well of course, I am only expressing an opinion -- isn't that pretty
much what Usenet is all about?
The thing that kills me is that the show had amazing potential, which
it reached with certain writers. With other writers though it was not
nearly as good as it could have been. Why did they let so many
different writers and directors work on it? Wasn't it obvious that the
quality was suffering?
It is also strange how, in certain eopisodes, characters do things
that are totally out of character for them. It's like each writer had
their own ideas about who each character really was. That is not a
good way to produce a consistent series.
BTW, I am just finishing the next-to-last season on DVD, like many
other people. Maybe the final season will win me back over.
TVF

I DO agree with you !!!
And those who don't see ANY difference, I am glad for you guys !!!
Some episodes just seem to be empty , with some good artistic points
though...
Well, definitely I do agree with that, things are very good, but they could
be "very" better, or even very best ^_^ .

[w***@netzero.net]

I have never seen the show until the past month on DVD. I am in the
middle of season 3. I found season one to be superbly written (when
characters I can't stand are still amazingly interesting, that's a sign
of a well written show IMO). Season two was good, but season three is
such a leap downward so far. This huge leap for Nate to marry Lisa,
seven months just not covered and all these character leaps made, it
seems sloppy. I think the show's strongest point is the cast - everyone
is excellent in their roles.

[m***@gmail.com]

Me and my partner are watching the whole thing over, at the rate of
about 4 shows a week, (Bit Torrent is your friend) and we have just
started season 3. I know what you mean about Lisa. She is so annoying!
And looks-wise, she is a hound next to Brenda! Ok that was a bit
frivolous, but there is a credibility issue I guess. Never mind. Great
works of art have flaws, so what?

TV fan, sorry if I seemed a bit snippy back there.

[w***@netzero.net]

Post by m***@gmail.com
Me and my partner are watching the whole thing over, at the rate of
about 4 shows a week, (Bit Torrent is your friend) and we have just
started season 3. I know what you mean about Lisa. She is so annoying!
And looks-wise, she is a hound next to Brenda! Ok that was a bit
frivolous, but there is a credibility issue I guess. Never mind. Great
works of art have flaws, so what?

Actually, looks and personalitywise I like Lisa way better, I just
think it was a leap for Nate open the 3rd season married to her when we
last saw him, he had no intentions of it or even acted like there was
any chance. I can't stand the Brenda character, I think Rachel is a
great actress and does a superb job making her so unlikeable. I've
known women like that before. Everytime I see that character on screen
all I can think of is how I would have stop seeing her after the
airport incident.

[Fab]

Post by w***@netzero.net

Post by m***@gmail.com
Me and my partner are watching the whole thing over, at the rate of
about 4 shows a week, (Bit Torrent is your friend) and we have just
started season 3. I know what you mean about Lisa. She is so annoying!
And looks-wise, she is a hound next to Brenda! Ok that was a bit
frivolous, but there is a credibility issue I guess. Never mind. Great
works of art have flaws, so what?

Actually, looks and personalitywise I like Lisa way better, I just
think it was a leap for Nate open the 3rd season married to her when we
last saw him, he had no intentions of it or even acted like there was
any chance. I can't stand the Brenda character, I think Rachel is a
great actress and does a superb job making her so unlikeable. I've
known women like that before. Everytime I see that character on screen
all I can think of is how I would have stop seeing her after the
airport incident.

OKAY, seriously, what's wrong with Brenda ?
She is a little bit weird sometimes, but who isn't ? Claire isn't ? David
isn't ? Nate isn't ? KEITH isn't ?
I "hate" Keith in third season (I guess, maybe it's on the second one), he's
so unlikeable (specially with David !!!)
But Brenda ?

[w***@netzero.net]

Post by Fab

Post by Fab
OKAY, seriously, what's wrong with Brenda ?

She is a little bit weird sometimes, but who isn't ? Claire isn't ? David
isn't ? Nate isn't ? KEITH isn't ?
I "hate" Keith in third season (I guess, maybe it's on the second one), he's
so unlikeable (specially with David !!!)
But Brenda ?

Of course, it's just a character, but a selfish, condescending
character who believes the world revolves around her. She's so wrapped
up in blaming all her issues on her childhood, she's incapable of
having a regular relationship with a man because she's a nut. she's a
very liberal thinker which is fine, but hypocritical and a huge
complainer. Every scene between Nate and her, I just think "man, this
is where I'd be breaking up with her."

[Fab]

<***@netzero.net> a écrit dans le message de news:
***@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

Of course, it's just a character, but a selfish, condescending
character who believes the world revolves around her. She's so wrapped
up in blaming all her issues on her childhood, she's incapable of
having a regular relationship with a man because she's a nut. she's a
very liberal thinker which is fine, but hypocritical and a huge
complainer. Every scene between Nate and her, I just think "man, this
is where I'd be breaking up with her."


Well yeah that's true, but I don't think she's the worst character... ?
A lot of people are like that, specially when they "were very intelligent",
and they could think about a lot of different things, and also wonder too
much questions about life ... which they're not "intelligent enough" to
answer to, and they end up just like Brenda. That's inonical (and they are
aware of it), they know they are a little bit more intelligent than people
around them, but they also know they are those who are suffering the most
(FOR NOTHING). I don't remember everything about my psychology class, but
the second thing to be seen is some sexual trouble, which she had. This part
of her got worst when she actually realised people could die every day...
and she must "live" now or never.
The other characters are just "normal", with some regular problems, which
they can handle. The most "horrible" on it, is that both her parents are
working on psychology, and they both don't see it, can they just think about
anything else but fuck ? , no. "Fucking is life", and Brenda believed on it
'till she faces life. (Well when I say fuck, I mean fuck, not making love).
Brenda starts to think of making love at season 4...
Okay I stop with Brenda, it's just it's not a character to be seen just
like one o a kind.

[k***@gmail.com]

What's "inonical" mean?

Post by w***@netzero.net
Of course, it's just a character, but a selfish, condescending
character who believes the world revolves around her. She's so wrapped
up in blaming all her issues on her childhood, she's incapable of
having a regular relationship with a man because she's a nut. she's a
very liberal thinker which is fine, but hypocritical and a huge
complainer. Every scene between Nate and her, I just think "man, this
is where I'd be breaking up with her."
Well yeah that's true, but I don't think she's the worst character... ?
A lot of people are like that, specially when they "were very intelligent",
and they could think about a lot of different things, and also wonder too
much questions about life ... which they're not "intelligent enough" to
answer to, and they end up just like Brenda. That's inonical (and they are
aware of it), they know they are a little bit more intelligent than people
around them, but they also know they are those who are suffering the most
(FOR NOTHING). I don't remember everything about my psychology class, but
the second thing to be seen is some sexual trouble, which she had. This part
of her got worst when she actually realised people could die every day...
and she must "live" now or never.
The other characters are just "normal", with some regular problems, which
they can handle. The most "horrible" on it, is that both her parents are
working on psychology, and they both don't see it, can they just think about
anything else but fuck ? , no. "Fucking is life", and Brenda believed on it
'till she faces life. (Well when I say fuck, I mean fuck, not making love).
Brenda starts to think of making love at season 4...
Okay I stop with Brenda, it's just it's not a character to be seen just
like one o a kind.

[Fab]

I meant ironical ("ironic"), I must've written that too fast.
Webster clearly doesn't know inonical.

<***@gmail.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
***@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
What's "inonical" mean?

Post by w***@netzero.net
Of course, it's just a character, but a selfish, condescending
character who believes the world revolves around her. She's so wrapped
up in blaming all her issues on her childhood, she's incapable of
having a regular relationship with a man because she's a nut. she's a
very liberal thinker which is fine, but hypocritical and a huge
complainer. Every scene between Nate and her, I just think "man, this
is where I'd be breaking up with her."
Well yeah that's true, but I don't think she's the worst character... ?
A lot of people are like that, specially when they "were very

intelligent",

Post by w***@netzero.net
and they could think about a lot of different things, and also wonder too
much questions about life ... which they're not "intelligent enough" to
answer to, and they end up just like Brenda. That's inonical (and they are
aware of it), they know they are a little bit more intelligent than people
around them, but they also know they are those who are suffering the most
(FOR NOTHING). I don't remember everything about my psychology class, but
the second thing to be seen is some sexual trouble, which she had. This part
of her got worst when she actually realised people could die every day...
and she must "live" now or never.
The other characters are just "normal", with some regular problems, which
they can handle. The most "horrible" on it, is that both her parents are
working on psychology, and they both don't see it, can they just think about
anything else but fuck ? , no. "Fucking is life", and Brenda believed on it
'till she faces life. (Well when I say fuck, I mean fuck, not making love).
Brenda starts to think of making love at season 4...
Okay I stop with Brenda, it's just it's not a character to be seen just
like one o a kind.

[m***@gmail.com]

Every scene between Nate and her, (Brenda) I just think "man, this
is where I'd be breaking up with her."

Funnily enough, that's EXACTLY how I feel during the scenes between
Nate and Lisa. Lisa just nags all the time! I can't wait till she gets
murdered. I just plain don't like Lisa, I guess, whereas I felt sorry
for Brenda, what with her awful parents & crazy childhood

[w***@netzero.net]

I remember after watching the first couple episodes thinking "this
Brenda character isn't a regular on the show is she?" I looked on HBO's
website and the IMDB to see she was there for the entire run of the
show, I find it baffling and disappointing. I myself have been involved
in "one-night" stands similar to what they did in the airport, and
there wasn't a girl no matter how beautiful, that I could ever see as a
potential mate after that (as shallow as that may sound). There are a
lot of qualities in the Nate character I relate to. I find it odd his
character would want to stay with a nut like Brenda.

[m***@gmail.com]

Post by w***@netzero.net
I can't stand the Brenda character, I think Rachel is a
great actress and does a superb job making her so unlikeable. I've
known women like that before. Everytime I see that character on screen
all I can think of is how I would have stop seeing her after the
airport incident.

But the actress who plays her has great - er - eyes... I never would
have guessed she's Australian. I take your point about the airport
incident. I just think the Lisa character is a major pain in the ass,
always moaning and complaining. Why has she got that dumb job?

[m***@rogers.com]

Post by w***@netzero.net
I have never seen the show until the past month on DVD. I am in the
middle of season 3. I found season one to be superbly written (when
characters I can't stand are still amazingly interesting, that's a sign
of a well written show IMO). Season two was good, but season three is
such a leap downward so far. This huge leap for Nate to marry Lisa,
seven months just not covered and all these character leaps made, it
seems sloppy. I think the show's strongest point is the cast - everyone
is excellent in their roles.

Agree totally.

The problem wasn't a variation in quality among the writers, all of
whom did fine work at some time or another.

The problem was Alan Ball who very obviously lost interest in the show
after two years, and was content to proceed with a
slap-dash/try-anything-once approach, more typical of the third-rate
sitcoms where he'd previously worked.

He even acknowledged his ennui on a PBS interview with Charlie Rose, as
I recall.

The Nate/Lisa marriage totally destroyed the show's macro-credibility.
And, yes, it was the actors who kept the show going for five years, and
fine directors.







CPJ

[wunnuy]

Post by m***@rogers.com
The problem was Alan Ball who very obviously lost interest in the show
after two years, and was content to proceed with a
slap-dash/try-anything-once approach, more typical of the third-rate
sitcoms where he'd previously worked.
He even acknowledged his ennui on a PBS interview with Charlie Rose, as
I recall.
The Nate/Lisa marriage totally destroyed the show's macro-credibility.
And, yes, it was the actors who kept the show going for five years, and
fine directors.

Yup. We finished season 3 last night and both my girlfriend and I
agreed that season was a huge drop off from the other two. If we had
started watching the show in its 3rd season, we never would have
finished it. But the cast, however, are all superb down to the
semi-regulars. One of the best cast shows of the new millennium. I look
forward to seeing these people in anything they do.

[k***@gmail.com]

I agree. The first season is phenomenal. The second, uneven.

After that, it's a different show entirely, such that it's best to just
quit at the end of season two.