Season two ending

[Guest Jim McLean]

This balance struggle kind of reminds me of yet another brilliant masterpiece from Millennium S2 called "Beware of the Dog".

Ooo, the weakest story from season two bar one - have I missed out on a great parlay of wisdom times past? :)

I think Lynch is an excellent comparison in the review you posted; the scene did feel very Lynchesque, but as I said before, it lacked any real narrative or symbolic motivator in relation to its duration - for reasons I have explained.

I'm sure many people loved it, but then many people love the X-Factor - doesn't make it intelligent TV. There will be a lot of people who just like cool visuals, those who loved the song, those who love montages and of course people like yourself who just bloody well enjoyed it. A large group doesn't necessarily mean a large consolidated group with feelings grounded in the same justifications. It can simply show a lot of people liked that sequence - it doesn't account for its credibility in context to the show or its own intentions.

But saying that, this is a debate and I'm personally very glad someone is sticking up for it and not afraid to speak out against a lot of dissent for that scene.

I do refute - certainly in my experience here - that this a concentration on the negative of season two. This is a rather controversial scene and as such I think its being fairly assessed on its own merits and not as a conclusion or comparison to the rest of the season.

While I think season one was a better approach for Millennium that gave it far more identity than season two (which IMO strayed too close to X-Files territory), I still very much enjoyed season two's stories and diversity. To me, this is a diversity that didn't work, and I think there is a lot that can be said as to why which isn't tainting The Time Is Now with unfair criticism, but looking at why the montage failed in its potential - a point I recall the writers themselves have made. My focus is because I think its an interesting topic of writing and production not because I want to diss The Time is Now or season two in general. I know your point wasn't directed at me, but I felt a little explanation at this point was necessary.

Edited October 25, 2007 by Jim McLean

[ethsnafu]

It's not an election where the side with the most numbers behind it gets to "win" and be appointed champion. The fact will always remain that there are those who will feel differently.

Bravo!

It is my greatest disappointment that discussion such as these should always garner the need for a defensive reaction in fans who feel their affinity with a certain season challenged. Millennium is a subjective experience, a Rorschach inkblot through which we experience a unique emotional response that is not replicated by any other viewer. Each scene, character, storyline and season will engender countless different responses and multitudinous preferences and it is a pointless endeavor in hoping that one can ever influence the perception of others to fall in line with your own thinking. It is grossly erroneous to assume that if an isolated scene is viewed as controversial that this is an blanket commentary on the entire season that encompasses it and those who created it. This thread has been a deconstruction of one small element of one particular story had has not appeared to me to proffer any negative commentary on season two as entity. Whilst it is understandable that those with a particular propensity towards this season, myself included, will feel conflicted when others offer less than celebratory opinions about aspects of it it is unnecessary for this to undergo such distortion that it is perceived as an attack on the season in its entirety. I assert, what is the problem with someone liking a different season to the one you like? Could it not be that this demarcation of appreciation is what fuels such scintillating debate in the forums in the first place?

Numerous posters in this section have expressed the point that whilst they have grave concerns regarding the depiction of Lara's psychosis they are not offering a commentary on the episode as a whole and yet somehow this solitary scene and the deconstruction of it has been taken as perceived crusade to avenge the demonisation of season three and I see absolutely no evidence of this in the posts.

Let us be clear that a success is defined on a personal level, majority success is arbitrary if we the individual disagree. It matters not if the whole of the Western hemisphere enjoy a particular episode if we find it left wanting. Millennium's successes and failures are unique to each individual viewer, this is the precursor to debate and the reason for it.

The brilliance we perceive in millennium is judged through a process of acquiring, interpreting, selecting, and organizing sensory information. As one scene may give rise to multiple percepts, viewed by another it may fail to give rise to any percept at all. Ultimately know what it is that you relish about Millennium and worry not if others do not share it much less seek to proselytize in the hope of conversion.

Edited October 25, 2007 by ethsnafu

[Guest ZeusFaber]

My only point, when using the numbers, is that many times these scenes or episodes from season 2, or any other season for that matter, are deemed a failure or poorly done, but my view is that they are a success if they succeeded in pleasing the vast majority of the viewers, not that this vast majority renders the opinion of others invalid.

I appreciate you wanting to "fight your corner", as it were, but it's just when things start coming to "more people are with me than are with you" that I worry.

In terms of success and failure, there are basically two ways to measure it -- artistic success and commercial success. Artistic success can only be measured by the individual, while commercial success, for television, is only measured by the Nielsen representation of the masses.

[hippyroo]

Some of you are quite verbose.

[hippyroo]

Bliss, who is attacking season two? If there is a conspiracy at TIWWA it should be exposed. Have you told the Old Man about this? I mean really, the nerve of people - expressing their opinions about such things. tsk tsk...

[Guest Jim McLean]

In terms of success and failure, there are basically two ways to measure it -- artistic success and commercial success. Artistic success can only be measured by the individual, while commercial success, for television, is only measured by the Nielsen representation of the masses.

I think there is some truth in there. Of course, there is a factor of personal taste as with all things, but critically, I see the artistic merit as weak even if commercially it didn't hinder the show, or held popularity with the majority of the audience. What's popular doesn't always validate, of course neither does it work the other way round. It's really a subjective thing to analyse a scene and shouldn't be governed excessively with the question of support or lack thereof.

Finally, I never write posts about the brilliance of Millennium. Given I'm here, I sort of take that largely as a granted. So I'll tend to chat about some of the problems, and with all things there are always problems. I would dearly have loved to have seen what Morgan and Wong intended for this sequence rather than what they could pull together. I would really like to have scene how the optimum version would have compared.

[Guest ZeusFaber]

I see the artistic merit as weak even if commercially it didn't hinder the show, or held popularity with the majority of the audience.

I don't have the Nielsen figures, so this is based more on hearsay, but the ratings were supposedly on the decline, so I don't think you could call it a commercial success.

I would dearly have loved to have seen what Morgan and Wong intended for this sequence rather than what they could pull together. I would really like to have scene how the optimum version would have compared.

Really, I don't think a bigger budget or longer production schedule would have made any real difference to my view of the scene. Even if it were executed with the highest production values and flawless technology, I think it was fundamentally a step in the wrong direction to have an entire act devoted to a music video. All the time and money in the world wouldn't change that for me.

[Guest Jim McLean]

I don't have the Nielsen figures, so this is based more on hearsay, but the ratings were supposedly on the decline, so I don't think you could call it a commercial success.

I recall the figures were in decline, but that doesn't necessarily account for the audience approval for this particular episode, or whether the episode itself is indicative of the show's commercial success at this juncture. It's a tough one to evaluate, particularly with a finale (the indication of success cannot be measured the following week). More specifically, the success of this scene is even more difficult to commercially evaluate, though I'd be surprised if the scene kept the casual audience viewing than it probably turned the away. Audiences have short attention spans, which is why most music videos - regardless of whether the album cut is longer rarely extend beyond 4 minutes - attention drifts. So a 7 odd minute "music video" in the middle of a drama - I can't see it being a popular commercial move in itself. Of course, MM isn't about being commercial, but as with any product, it is about retaining its audience and thereby the advertising revenue.

Really, I don't think a bigger budget or longer production schedule would have made any real difference to my view of the scene. Even if it were executed with the highest production values and flawless technology, I think it was fundamentally a step in the wrong direction to have an entire act devoted to a music video. All the time and money in the world wouldn't change that for me.

I don't like to speculate on how good/bad a version of a given result might have been if it was completed akin to its initial expectation - I'd simply like to see it. Given that time and budget ended up being a constraint, logic suggests that if they weren't - more likely than not - this would have been a more interesting piece of drama.

Whether I'd personally suggest at that juncture it was worthy of inclusion is another matter. They'd have to do something pretty damn amazing to make me agree that a 7min music montage of shots - no matter how clever and/or symbolic/dramatically suggestive - was a better choice than some more of what Millennium does so well: straight honest drama. But I don't think we are in a position to suggest that it would be impossible for this to have been interesting and relevant if they'd had the power to do it as they planned. Given that Millennium under Morgan and Wong retained a consistent and relevant vision, even if it wasn't quite what everyone wanted, I'd like to give them the benefit of the doubt that what was planned would have been closer to their consistent show quality than what we got.

[Guest ZeusFaber]

Given that time and budget ended up being a constraint, logic suggests that if they weren't - more likely than not - this would have been a more interesting piece of drama.

This is the only part of your logic that I disagree with. Some things are dependent solely on the fundamentals. If something is a bad idea, no amount of money or time or technology or expert tools is going to change that. It's like a painting. If it's a painting of something ugly, it doesn't matter how expensive the paints or how much time the painter has.

Take Star Wars as an example. The original trilogy was made on a shoestring with few technological magic-wands at their disposal. The prequel trilogy was made with a massive budget and all the latest wonders of computer technology. And yet, many people regard the original trilogy as superior to the prequel trilogy.

[Guest Jim McLean]

This is the only part of your logic that I disagree with. Some things are dependent solely on the fundamentals. If something is a bad idea, no amount of money or time or technology or expert tools is going to change that. It's like a painting. If it's a painting of something ugly, it doesn't matter how expensive the paints or how much time the painter has.

Take Star Wars as an example. The original trilogy was made on a shoestring with few technological magic-wands at their disposal. The prequel trilogy was made with a massive budget and all the latest wonders of computer technology. And yet, many people regard the original trilogy as superior to the prequel trilogy.

I must disagree in turn. I don't think it would be glitz and glam that would make it better, but and time and money allow you to add ideas, symbolism, hints, imagery. It could even explore character background narratives montaged in, or montages pertaining to the realtime events; the event of the virus as it started to move into the area.

What I saw was a segement which used stock pre-edited episode footage from Forth Horseman, such cheap stock, some other images held for season two's titles and a lot of filters and effects over the actress on that one set. The only real addition were some of the shots of Legion. That to me smells of an empty money pit, the last ditch attempts to keep a segment interesting by raiding the stock store fairly randomly and trying to hold a preplanned segement with a pop song (which probably cost them a fair bit of their budget - copyright songs don't come cheap). So I don't think what we saw was anything like what they had planned. If they had to edit without the budget and time they hoped for - as their quote suggested, then I think there would have been more substance and overall relevance to that sequence - either to Laura or the current catastrophe. The lack of money and time seems to have meant it scrapped the bottom of the barrel.

Personally I'd have preferred more straight drama, but given what we know, I think the montage would have had more character relevance to Laura or at least more relevant to the circumstances happening while Laura suffered if it hadn't been so short on time and cash. I think they hoped to roll some of the less immediate elements into that act (IMO) - as the story never really touched on the crisis in episode two aside from what we're told and Catherine's death. I think this epic story was to have used a montage to neatly join some dots with what's going on with Laura Means. Montages are commonly used to that effect in Hollywood, and I speculate given the money - this sequence would have tied Laura's pain to more specially shot sequences they never got to do. In the end, they had to roll back to the monkey/jungle/blood rushing to correlate her pain with current events, and that alone is something I think the sequence would have explored more professionally.

IMO of course, no evidence of this whatsoever. I guess my point is that there is a lot of narrative relevant elements the montage COULD have run with if it had more money, and could have given it more substance beyond any extra editing glam time might have provided. But we'll never know.