|
Post by Hodge on Feb 13, 2015 7:40:09 GMT
How do you know the audience is largely female? And does the female segment of the audience react the same way? Or is the female segment as diverse as the male segment? Speaking as one female viewer, frankly I really don't get what everyone is reacting to. William and Julia look, to me anyway, as typical reserved Torontonians....... Typical reserved Torontonians? Why would they act more reserved after marriage than before and at home too? They were much more outgoing before they were married, even in public. People are upset that as soon as they were married, and after Peter Mitchell said he wanted to prove romance doesn't die after marriage, the romance does indeed seem to have died, there's been a noticeable lack of closeness the last few eps. I'm not a romantic at heart and I must admit that the W&J ship is the first one that's ever really captured me. That's because the writers made me care, it now feels like they're telling me I shouldn't. My main beef however has been the marginalization of the female characters. Julia in particular seems to have been put out to pasture despite her importance in the earlier seasons. I want to see her importance to the storylines back as it was in the last ep and not just as Mrs. Murdoch. I hope the last eps of the season return her to that. I was hoping she'd be included in the mysteries like she was even in S6 & 7 despite no longer working in the morgue. William used to discuss cases with her and bounce ideas off her, I haven't really seen much of that this season.
|
|
|
Post by snacky on Feb 13, 2015 7:50:39 GMT
I am sensing a theme here. Didn't it also catch them by surprise that people thought Julia was missing and women were being marginalized? I wonder if the response to Lillian caught them by surprise, too. Perhaps some "audience testing" is in order if the producers and writers are going to keep on being surprised by how a largely female audience and a bunch of shippers are going to feel about the marginalization of women, the absence of Julia, and an MIA marriage? And this is NOT about wanting "fan service"!!! How do you know the audience is largely female? And does the female segment of the audience react the same way? Or is the female segment as diverse as the male segment? Speaking as one female viewer, frankly I really don't get what everyone is reacting to. William and Julia look, to me anyway, as typical reserved Torontonians....... Perhaps I should correct that to *vociferous* audience. You certainly don't see the *male* audience rising up with the level of story analysis, commitment to the characters, or caring about the story's outcome. You do get a good percentage of men on Twitter, but they seem chiefly interested in making witty remarks while the show is in progress. Regarding the diversity of the female audience - I haven't made any claims to that effect: a number of women on this forum aren't shippers, and a few are very aggressively anti-shipper. The "and" above was a "plus sign". There are many Murdoch Mysteries fans - like in all mystery shows - who claim to only care about the mystery and not about "relationships". But they notice as quickly as everyone else when a show has lost "something" - that "something" being any sense of character development or emotional stakes. As I see it, the duty of those folks is to issue complaints when writers start bloating a show with spurious fan service that has nothing to do with the mystery plots. The duty of shippers, on the other hand, is to pay attention to those relationship nuances, and let the writers/producers/et al know if their long term character arcs are going tragically wrong. Reserved is good - these are folks raised in the Victorian era after all. Hodge already reminded our French friends of Canadian/British mores as well. But even given that, this isn't the sham marriage of a couple of Russian spies, this is is the marriage of people who are ostensibly in love and waited many years to be together. Moreover, before the marriage it seemed like Julia was pretty naughty.
|
|
|
Post by snacky on Feb 13, 2015 8:03:59 GMT
People are upset that as soon as they were married, and after Peter Mitchell said he wanted to prove romance doesn't die after marriage, the romance does indeed seem to have died, there's been a noticeable lack of closeness the last few eps. PM is either very confused about what he's doing or he is deliberately throwing out a lot of mixed messages/red herrings. He also said at one point that they had strategies for keeping William and Julia apart for UST purposes. But you say in the facebook chat he claims the writing team was employing no such strategies. And I did hear that part about proving romance within marriage. WTF, make up your mind, dude. Ironically, I think the only time they had the balance perfect this whole season was in PM's own episodes On the Waterfront p1/p2. There's a little mystery, a little danger, a little jungle!William, a little kicking of Leslie Garland's butt, and then there's just enough tie action in there. Nice! I wonder what Helene and Yannick think about all this. It strikes me that they were both really into the whoopee cushion scene, which was one of the few scenes that showed some casual domestic bliss. ( Who do we have to thank for making one of the few domestic bliss scenes we have to hang on to about a fart joke? )
|
|
|
Post by lizmc on Feb 13, 2015 8:07:56 GMT
How do you know the audience is largely female? And does the female segment of the audience react the same way? Or is the female segment as diverse as the male segment? Speaking as one female viewer, frankly I really don't get what everyone is reacting to. William and Julia look, to me anyway, as typical reserved Torontonians....... Typical reserved Torontonians? Why would they act more reserved after marriage than before and at home too? They were much more outgoing before they were married even in public. People are upset that as soon as they were married, and after Peter Mitchell said he wanted to prove romance doesn't die after marriage, the romance does indeed seem to have died, there's been a noticeable lack of closeness the last few eps. I'm not a romantic at heart and I must admit that the W&J ship is the first one that's ever really captured me, that's because the writers made me care. However my main beef was the marginalization of the female characters, Julia in particular seems to have been put out to pasture despite her importance in the earlier seasons. I want to see her importance to the storylines back as it was in the last ep and not just as Mrs. Murdoch. I hope the last eps of the season return her to that. I was hoping she'd be included in the mysteries like she was even in S6 & 7 despite no longer working in the morgue. William used to discuss cases with her and bounce ideas off her, I haven't really seen much of that this season. Maybe it's just me, but, yes, they are behaving like typical Torontonians from my perspective. (I should mention that I was told someone could tell I was a Torontonian by watching me and my brother through binoculars in a crowded hockey arena in Ottawa). Yes, there have been variances over the course of the 8 seasons, which is understandable given the number of writers involved, but I honestly feel people are reading way too much into this. I agree that the female characters have been neglected somewhat, and I don't like the way the Lillian Moss character has been written (too much of a cliché, and her rudeness and intolerance of both Julia and William doesn't make sense. Both of them were breaking down social barriers, so you'd think she'd admire them and recognise that they are the very sort of people she should be trying to cultivate....) I also think the development of Emily's character has been uneven........
|
|
|
Post by snacky on Feb 13, 2015 8:11:31 GMT
To be fair, in the podcasts I've listened to, he typically only uses last names. Still,if they don't think anything's different that's bad news. lol, kind of reminds me of American bureaucrats who just get away with pretending things don't exist.
|
|
|
Post by snacky on Feb 13, 2015 8:21:12 GMT
, but I honestly feel people are reading way too much into this. I agree that the female characters have been neglected somewhat, and I don't like the way the Lillian Moss character has been written (too much of a cliché, and her rudeness and intolerance of both Julia and William doesn't make sense. Both of them were breaking down social barriers, so you'd think she'd admire them and recognise that they are the very sort of people she should be trying to cultivate....) I also think the development of Emily's character has been uneven........ Well, part of this is a factor of the environment you are currently in. This is a forum dedicated to discussing, analyzing, and speculating about Murdoch Mysteries. Reading way too much into things is what we do. There is a certain touchiness that goes with love and romance. Before marriage, it's enjoyed covertly. William and Julia were not supposed to be making out in William's office. Julia pulls William into an alley for a kiss. etc. After marriage, there still isn't supposed to be embarrassing public displays of affection - but what about interior scenes? At that point William and Julia should be making up for lost time by being as intimate as possible. And if they aren't, then there needs to be an emotional or cultural reason for that in order for we of the Shipper Species to be able to fit their behavior into any sort of long term character development framework. I still think Fallenbelle's explanation was excellent by the way. If the writers hadn't thought of William's insecurities as a protector, they should have plagiarized.
|
|
|
Post by lizmc on Feb 13, 2015 8:22:45 GMT
How do you know the audience is largely female? And does the female segment of the audience react the same way? Or is the female segment as diverse as the male segment? Speaking as one female viewer, frankly I really don't get what everyone is reacting to. William and Julia look, to me anyway, as typical reserved Torontonians....... Perhaps I should correct that to *vociferous* audience. You certainly don't see the *male* audience rising up with the level of story analysis, commitment to the characters, or caring about the story's outcome. You do get a good percentage of men on Twitter, but they seem chiefly interested in making witty remarks while the show is in progress. Regarding the diversity of the female audience - I haven't made any claims to that effect: a number of women on this forum aren't shippers, and a few are very aggressively anti-shipper. The "and" above was a "plus sign". There are many Murdoch Mysteries fans - like in all mystery shows - who claim to only care about the mystery and not about "relationships". But they notice as quickly as everyone else when a show has lost "something" - that "something" being any sense of character development or emotional stakes. As I see it, the duty of those folks is to issue complaints when writers start bloating a show with spurious fan service that has nothing to do with the mystery plots. The duty of shippers, on the other hand, is to pay attention to those relationship nuances, and let the writers/producers/et al know if their long term character arcs are going tragically wrong. Reserved is good - these are folks raised in the Victorian era after all. Hodge already reminded our French friends of Canadian/British mores as well. But even given that, this isn't the sham marriage of a couple of Russian spies, this is is the marriage of people who are ostensibly in love and waited many years to be together. Moreover, before the marriage it seemed like Julia was pretty naughty. Then let me ask you this. If the show is falling apart and fans are becoming dissatisfied, why are viewing numbers going up? I find it interesting that with several episodes, this one included, the initial reaction after the broadcast was mostly positive, and yet, now, most of the comments are negative, and picking apart scenes that make up a few minutes in the overall programme......also, the people who post, whether here or on Facebook, represent a very small portion of the overall audience and really can't presume to speak for them.......
|
|
|
Post by monty151 on Feb 13, 2015 8:47:56 GMT
I tried to watch the episode again last night 3 times and 3 times I fell asleep but I may have managed to get a full episode.
I am a mystery fan but I am invested, as I am sure all lot of people are, in W/J. Doesn't mean we want W/J the whole episode. I am going to trust the writers to come good in the end. Do not let us down. I am wondering if they had to work around Helene's arm a bit more than we realise. I wonder if the had to cut some Jilliam scenes cause she was not able to be there.
|
|
|
Post by snacky on Feb 13, 2015 8:52:34 GMT
Then let me ask you this. If the show is falling apart and fans are becoming dissatisfied, why are viewing numbers going up? I find it interesting that with several episodes, this one included, the initial reaction after the broadcast was mostly positive, and yet, now, most of the comments are negative, and picking apart scenes that make up a few minutes in the overall programme......also, the people who post, whether here or on Facebook, represent a very small portion of the overall audience and really can't presume to speak for them.......
I can't tell you much at all since I don't have a Facebook account and don't see very much of what happens. But I will make the following surmises: 1) The shipper segment of the audience has been considered an essential one in American TV shows. Perhaps MM did indeed try to test that theory at the end of Season 4. I have no access to those numbers. It's hard to keep people interested from week to week without an ongoing arc, though. 2) I've been TOLD that Twitter and FB have been reacting negatively to Julia's lack of participation this year, and that MAY be one reason why PM is making a point of saying he is "surprised" that people perceived a lack of Julia and "surprised" that people perceive a lack of romance... 3) The French audience is nearly as important for MM as the Canadian one is. The French participants on this forum are a apparently a lot more unhappy than we are about what they perceive as estrangement between William and Julia. Again I do not know if we can extrapolate from the French participants here, who are shippers, to the entire French audience. 4) Numbers going up: could be sheer momentum of "everyone else watching it". Which means they could easily go down when "everyone else isn't watching it". People on this forum are loyal long-term viewers who also possess some word-of-mouth advertising capabilities. Perhaps there are some MM show execs who fantasize that MM is something like Law and Order. Each show is excellently written, a self-contained mystery - it might as well be an anthology series! As much as I hate to say it - MM is not consistently great and just does not play like an anthology series. It's a character series - a quirky, cult character series, but a character series nonetheless. And characters develop over time. So what the audience thinks about that development - and whether that development is logical - becomes important. Now for the $10,000 - when you have a large audience with conflicting demands, who do you play to? This was a huge factor in the marriage question. While I'm a shipper, I was personally against the marriage. Other fans were claiming they and their posse would bring the show down if they didn't get a marriage. Now we have people who think the show should wrap while it's "on a high" (meaning: the marriage has happened). Who get's to define "on a high"? You've been around long enough to see what radical disagreement there is on the Lillian question, as well. Given all that disagreement and controversy is the normal state of affairs, I don't think PM is going to come out and make a statement on something unless he feels the wind IS blowing, or is going to blow, in a particular direction audience-wise.
|
|
|
Post by Fallenbelle on Feb 13, 2015 9:04:02 GMT
Perhaps I should correct that to *vociferous* audience. You certainly don't see the *male* audience rising up with the level of story analysis, commitment to the characters, or caring about the story's outcome. You do get a good percentage of men on Twitter, but they seem chiefly interested in making witty remarks while the show is in progress. Regarding the diversity of the female audience - I haven't made any claims to that effect: a number of women on this forum aren't shippers, and a few are very aggressively anti-shipper. The "and" above was a "plus sign". There are many Murdoch Mysteries fans - like in all mystery shows - who claim to only care about the mystery and not about "relationships". But they notice as quickly as everyone else when a show has lost "something" - that "something" being any sense of character development or emotional stakes. As I see it, the duty of those folks is to issue complaints when writers start bloating a show with spurious fan service that has nothing to do with the mystery plots. The duty of shippers, on the other hand, is to pay attention to those relationship nuances, and let the writers/producers/et al know if their long term character arcs are going tragically wrong. Reserved is good - these are folks raised in the Victorian era after all. Hodge already reminded our French friends of Canadian/British mores as well. But even given that, this isn't the sham marriage of a couple of Russian spies, this is is the marriage of people who are ostensibly in love and waited many years to be together. Moreover, before the marriage it seemed like Julia was pretty naughty. Then let me ask you this. If the show is falling apart and fans are becoming dissatisfied, why are viewing numbers going up? I find it interesting that with several episodes, this one included, the initial reaction after the broadcast was mostly positive, and yet, now, most of the comments are negative, and picking apart scenes that make up a few minutes in the overall programme......also, the people who post, whether here or on Facebook, represent a very small portion of the overall audience and really can't presume to speak for them.......
I can speak only for myself, but I don't watch a lot of TV. I haven't for years-I typically think most popular shows are a bit too formulaic and singular and while a great many people enjoy them, they don't do much for me. However, I happened to catch an ep of MM with my step-mom last summer and I was intrigued, which soon became absolutely enamored. It was multi-faceted, it sparkled, it broke the formulas, it was unique, it was impossible to categorize, etc. I was hooked. Now, it probably fits the formula for successful shows, but for me, this season has lost its sparkle, and it falls flat. Others have already mentioned integral elements such as female characterization and romance, and I concur: these were parts of a whole with strong, intriguing characters, interesting mysteries, challenging stereotypes held about the era, Victorian repression combined with human desires, historical elements, etc. I could go on. But the characterization has been largely MIA this season, along with the women, and the romance. To me it's become formulaic, and I've commented before that the episodes this season haven't held my attention as much as previous seasons. If it's become a better show for most people, that's fine. But I may not be interested for a lot longer if these recent trends continue. To each their own. But, it's not the same show I fell in love with, a show that still existed even last season. Part of me hopes that balance is restored soon, but comments that state the Showrunner doesn't see anything different are concerning to me-the show is, in my opinion, not the show it used to be. I'm a loyal viewer, I'm going to stick around for future episodes and hopes the show corrects itself, but if I'm honest, that may not be for much longer. I wish MM every success, but if they prefer the current formula, well, this is where we agree to disagree, and we part ways. I'm on my iPad right now, so this post is not as detailed as I would have liked. Apologies if I've left out any other good points.
|
|
|
Post by snacky on Feb 13, 2015 9:06:00 GMT
I tried to watch the episode again last night 3 times and 3 times I fell asleep but I may have managed to get a full episode. I am a mystery fan but I am invested, as I am sure all lot of people are, in W/J. Doesn't mean we want W/J the whole episode. I am going to trust the writers to come good in the end. Do not let us down. I am wondering if they had to work around Helene's arm a bit more than we realise. I wonder if the had to cut some Jilliam scenes cause she was not able to be there. We found out from Peter Mitchell's interview that they actually used a stunt double for some of Helene's scenes even though Helene was very much raring to go. If you are talking about Julia's role being reduced over the course of several episodes, I agree that her arm - as well as her hiatus to guest star on other shows - had something to do with this. However, that doesn't excuse the distance in the body language used by Helene and Yannick. I first noticed this in The Devil Wears Whalebone, and it was underscored in The Incurables. When Julia was almost killed by the corset, William practically holds her at arms length after untying her. Very strange. Then this week there are repeated instances where William sort of gingerly touches Julia, but he's not all the way there for her until when he goes to rescue her (too late) in the end. Then there's a very quick cut scene. I think this could have been remedied by William showing some more physical affection in the scene in their hotel room at the end. But instead Julia was left to comfort herself with a stiff drink while they sat across the sofa from each other and discussed the case. So wrong. Couldn't William have at least gotten Julia a blanket or something? Even Darcy gave his wife foot-rubs! Our French peeps now have the impression that William is just a bad husband.
|
|
|
Post by snacky on Feb 13, 2015 9:10:04 GMT
But, it's not the same show I fell in love with, a show that still existed even last season. Part of me hopes that balance is restored soon, but comments that state the Showrunner doesn't see anything different are concerning to me-the show is, in my opinion, not the show it used to be. I just realized another irony: it seems like PM may of brought about the Moonlighting Curse he was afraid would happen if he "pulled the trigger". But it's because he didn't follow through on what he was supposed to do to prevent said Curse.
|
|
|
Post by Fallenbelle on Feb 13, 2015 9:17:44 GMT
But, it's not the same show I fell in love with, a show that still existed even last season. Part of me hopes that balance is restored soon, but comments that state the Showrunner doesn't see anything different are concerning to me-the show is, in my opinion, not the show it used to be. I just realized another irony: it seems like PM may of brought about the Moonlighting Curse he was afraid would happen if he "pulled the trigger". But it's because he didn't follow through on what he was supposed to do to prevent said Curse. I've actually read recently that the whole Moonlighting curse is bunk, and actually, the argument makes perfect sense to me: weminoredinfilm.com/2013/09/18/debunking-the-moonlighting-curse-18-tv-couples-who-did-or-did-not-kill-their-show-when-they-got-together/But yeah, I've thought the same thing that in trying to avoid said curse, the show is actually self-inflicting it.
|
|
|
Post by snacky on Feb 13, 2015 9:36:52 GMT
Hmm, there are a lot of variables in play, though. I think House and Castle are probably the best comparisons. The Castle marriage occurred at the same time, so it's on the same Curse timeline and can't be used for comparison. Regarding House - they didn't actually get married. Maybe things would have gone differently if they had, lol! But I think some of the other examples show the importance of having a well-balanced ensemble cast and the ability to shift gears to a new romantic quest. You really can't do that in MM. I suppose they have been trying, and that's what all those diversionary side plots have been about, but in the end this is MURDOCH Mysteries. The audience is mainly interested in William's character arc. This doesn't necessarily mean that closing the marriage arc needs to end the show, though. William just needs a new background quest. A serious villain he MUST get. Revenge he MUST take. A goal he MUST reach. Something of that ilk.
|
|
|
Post by Fallenbelle on Feb 13, 2015 14:23:29 GMT
Hmm, there are a lot of variables in play, though. I think House and Castle are probably the best comparisons. The Castle marriage occurred at the same time, so it's on the same Curse timeline and can't be used for comparison. Regarding House - they didn't actually get married. Maybe things would have gone differently if they had, lol! But I think some of the other examples show the importance of having a well-balanced ensemble cast and the ability to shift gears to a new romantic quest. You really can't do that in MM. I suppose they have been trying, and that's what all those diversionary side plots have been about, but in the end this is MURDOCH Mysteries. The audience is mainly interested in William's character arc. This doesn't necessarily mean that closing the marriage arc needs to end the show, though. William just needs a new background quest. A serious villain he MUST get. Revenge he MUST take. A goal he MUST reach. Something of that ilk. If you read the article, here's what I find interesting (BTW: Dave and Maddie (Moonlighting couple-FYI) are the #2 couple discussed). There's a quote from the show creator/head writer who believes the theory is crap and explains why: Does any of that sound the slightest bit familiar? I'm not saying it's a perfect parallel, but I think that there's some resemblance. I've heard of the Moonlighting Curse pretty much my whole life-I've never seen the show (too young when it aired), but it's been more than 25 years now...can we let the effects of this so-called curse die? If anything, note the mistakes made and try not to repeat them. History does not have to be repeated!
|
|