John Kineman

The posts here are not organized by date, so I could not see if anyone commented recently. Still ...... I watched 1/2 of Season 3 Episode 1 and bailed out in disgust. My wife and I are of the opinion that the show has lost all meaning. Season 2 was the first decline, where it suffered greatly from the lack of immediacy that had us so rivited to our seats in Season 1. That was about something that had never happened before. I want to say a little more about that before returning to Season 3, which in fairness I am asking others about, since I have only seen 1/2 of one episode. There were three things that made Season 1 memorable and important. (1) The novel, shocking, and exploratory plot. Nobody knows how to deal with a situation like that and it was appropriate the way they complexified it. Agent Wells was a little ridiculous in her lonership after a while, but theatrically excusible. (2) Sutherland's portrayal of Kirland. He acted it very well and it was engaging. (3) the character of Kirkland. The whooolllleee point to us was that Kirkland, being an outsider, not wanting the job (theory has it such people are the best managers), shy about his role, but ultimately strong in character to everyone's surprise; approached the challenge with ETHICS. Let me repeat that word for people who have forgotten that it exists. ETHICS. He didn't just want the oval office - in fact he didn't want it - he respected it and was awed by the incredible fate that put him in charge. That carried through all of his decisions in Season 1. Along with that respect came a higher level of ETHICS (there's that word again) in the Staff, where of course, theatrically and in real life, the exception is needed to prove the rule. That takes me to Season 3 Episode 1. What the F**!? I understand reviewers are lauding the 'new normal' of crude language and quick judgements - its like real life! First, its not like our real life. We aren't unschooled in civil languate nor are we trying to "be somebody" with a beer and an insult. But that comment can get me a lot of blowback, because foul language is fairly common. Is it faily common for Kirkland, or new moral leader? The one who is teaching us ETHICS (again). And RESPECT for the office and the White House? So, our feeling is the program as strayed from the original emergency (they ended it) and also lost Kirkland's meaning entirely. Now it is more like real life, and its all about winning, not about anything else. Or at least that was our impression from this sour opening. If I get a strong counter to this view, I may be encouraged to watch more, but it seems that the loss of vision and meaning that began strongly in Season 2 has not been reversed but accelerated. But what about 'real life'? For those Trekkies out there, my opinion is that Rick Berman did somewhat the same thing to Roddenberry's vision for Star Trek. He 'modernized' the story, made the characters more 'real', with problems and moods, and basically gutted the archetypes that produce a real vision. I don't watch TV to see real life - that is better seen in the real world. I watch TV for inspiration to go beyond real life or to imagine some way to better it. I look for visions of hope. What, really, is the use of endless apocalypse? Some believe it is a catharsis - to vent our base feelings and thoughts in some virtual form instead of kicking the dog or yelling at people at work. But it doesn't really work that way. What you practice is what you get.