Prole Judgmentally Reviews A Random Selection Of TV Shows

You lasted one episode more than me. I knew it was all over when I laughed at

I so wanted more TV shows about explorers, and this is what we’re given…

Yeah, I'm a big fanboy of the book but this is pretty disappointing. Lots of little changes that don't seem to serve any purpose other than just being for the hell of it, glacially paced, shoddy CGI (not their fault on that budget but still), etc. etc. Amazingly well cast though and Jared Harris is still the absolute boy. Only 2 episodes left so I might as well see it through though.

hm. I may watch this now. initial glance at the trailers made me think "man, this looks super cheesy, but I don't know if it's cheese enough?"

weird ambition that awkwardly straddles the line can be pretty compelling though. perhaps I'll give it a shot. keep up the reviews!

I've been watching the show since the beginning, expecting it to be - at best - a Castle-esque "hang out with these appealing people and ignore the plot" kind of show, and I'm absolutely stunned at how good the show got.I'm really going to miss it now that it's gone. And I think you really nailed all of the reasons why it worked.

Basically because it's a pun worthy of the Shoutbox. It's a horror show (allegedly), but it's, like, also the name of one of the ships! To quote myself from the Bond reviews: Shoutbox Would Be Ashamed Of This

What's The Show?  Roseanne (Slight Return)
What's It All About, Proley? Well, ostensibly it's about a working class family in the fictional town of Lanford, IL struggling to make ends meet and dealing with the family, loves, successes and failures of everyday life.  That may not be what it's remembered for now though... The revived Roseanne is part of the pattern of dragging old properties from the past and giving them another season years after the original bowed out, and everything from The X-Files to Will & Grace has been reanimated in the hopes of hitting that ratings magic again. The surprise is that Roseanne actually managed it, proving to be a big ratings hit and getting a near-instant second season renewal.  That's all fallen by the wayside now, thanks to Ms. Barr's ability - like the president she so admires - to be racist on Twitter, a move which got the show cancelled just as swiftly as it got its initial renewal (and, though it's understandably and correctly not what people are focussing on, all credit to the network, ABC, for not fannying about and just canning the show straight up despite its success).
Why Did You Give It A Go? The original Roseanne remains extremely defensible - a smartly written sitcom that, particularly for the time, was unusual for its focus on working class families and struggles at a time when most sitcoms were blandly middle-class.  There was a verisimilitude about it that rang true, and an outstanding cast delivered funny material in a meaningfully emotional way without just being cloying or patronizing.  It fell apart in its last season (fairly spectacularly), but for the most part it really is an excellent TV show. So of course I was going to try this.
Is It Any Good?  Not especially.  One of the most dispiriting aspects of the show's return is just how little effort seems to have gone into it.  The idea of picking up the lives of the Connors a decade on, dealing with the concerns of aging in the same way as the original show dealt with the problems of a poor family struggling to get by, is in fact a good one.  But there's a clumsiness to the revived Roseanne the belies the intelligence of the original.  People have criticized the show for being pro-Trump, and that's fair enough, but honestly it's relatively small fry.  There's a couple of comments in the early running about how "he talked about jobs" that suggests a legitimate line of enquiry as to why working-class families would support a blowhard bigot like Trump, but it doesn't go anywhere and politics takes a back-seat to other issues. Well, I say "other issues" but the revival is frustrating poor at landing its points in the way the original excelled at.  Take the episode that "dealt" with the opioids problem, and Dan and Roseanne sharing drugs to get by. That's a legitimately great thing for the show to discuss, but it peters out and the whole thing eventually gets resolved by a flooded basement, an insurance claim and Roseanne getting surgery - the show goes for a happy ending when it should go for pathos or tragedy, and it just doesn't work.
How Many Episodes Did You Watch?  All of them, for my sins.  I kept hoping the spirit of the original might poke through - after all, it had been off the air for a while and it's understandable that it might take a little time for the old rhythms to click back in.  They, however, did not.  The revived Will And Grace was a bit shaky in its early episodes as well, but it found its feet fairly quickly and long before the season bowed out we were back to the show as it was - charming, funny, and a little bit pointed.  Roseanne never found it's balance again - and it's not exactly hard to guess why.
Would You Recommend It? Even before the obvious racist tweet issue, not really.  Again, this is mightily frustrating, because even the idea of this cast getting back together - especially John Goodman, who quite rightly bailed before the final, dreadful season - seemed impossible.  Yet, aside from Laurie Metcalf (always excellent) and Sara Gilbert (beyond excellent, and far too good for this rubbish) nobody in the original cast is trying a leg.  John Goodman is an out-and-out brilliant actor but gets maybe... two minutes of acting in nine episodes? I have no idea why he even bothered being in this - he was already free and the character was dead, so why bother even being here if you're not even going to make the effort?  Roseanne herself seems to struggle to do anything with the role she created - she can land the odd zinger or one-liner, but the caring-person-under-the-hard-exterior that made the original version of the character so appealing has gone, replaced by Actual Roseanne rather than Character Roseanne, and the different is stark. To put it another way, she's not acting any more, and that's a great shame because she was good at playing that character. Not any more.  Now, to be fair,  Other Becky (Sarah Chalke) does fine and in his one episode appearance, so does the why-did-he-come-back Johnny Galecki - his moment opposite John Goodman, cowed but just a little defiant, is one of only two moments where Goodman appears to act, rather than just recite lines, and the different is amazing.  Yet annoyingly this can't be completely written off either - there's a proper attempt at diversity in having a young boy (Mark Conner-Healy, played remarkably well by Ames McNamara) be gender non-conformist, and it's redolent of the "oddness" of D.J. from the original run without simply replicating it - just what a show like this should be doing (and again, that's strikingly unusual in a working class sitcom, rather than the cosy middle-classness of something like Modern Family). Children having to move back in with their parents - families and all - because they just can't afford anything else and are desperate?  A valid concern, and again one that a show like Roseanne ought to address.  The fact that it comes so close, yet misses by such a wide margin, is indicative of just how lazy all of this is.  This is a bust.
Scores On The Doors? 4/10

Yes, significantly. The first season is sort of a fun, laid-back hang-out show, but the difference in quality between the first and second seasons is almost as big a jump in quality as, say, Buffy had. They fixed a lot of what wasn't working and added a lot of new and more interesting mythology, plus started really playing with stories pairing up a couple of the supporting characters.

What's The Show?  The Expanse
What's It All About, Proley? Hard sci-fi for the Asimov and Clarke crowd who find the likes of Star Trek too silly and unrealistic, the likes of Doctor Who too fantastical, the likes of Dark Matter to soapy, but who want to spend some time above the clouds nevertheless.  Set in the near future, The Expanse gives us a vision where humanity has spread out among the solar system and split into, essentially, three power blocks, Earth, Mars and "The Belt", the latter being a group of largely disenfranchised peoples who live and work in the asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter.  We follow a number of different perspectives - political, personal, social - as we explore the diaspora of humanity and what happens when the fragile balance that exists between the major power blocs is disrupted by the arrival of an extra-solar "proto-molecule", which represents both a potentially decisive weapon for one bloc to gain victory over the rest, as well as first contact with an alien species.  There's a solid commitment to realism, so signals take take to travel from Earth to Mars (no handy subspace here), distances can take weeks (and episodes) to be crossed, and there's a proper sense that the verisimilitude is more than just window-dressing but in many ways is the point.
Why Did You Give It A Go? It looked good. Not a very complicated reason, admittedly, but there it is.  In some ways there's an impression that, although based on a book, the TV version of The Expanse was picking up the mantle of Battlestar Galactica, taking the care and time to really dig into the politics and personal lives of characters involved in these frameworks in a meaningful way. Some of the events, like The Ring, might be a bit more fantastical and traditionally sci-fi, but the way in which they're dealt with remains rooted in that plausible approach. We get real consequences and character progression based on experiences, light years away from the soapy space opera that's more common in space-based adventure shows, and the plot is used as a mechanism to drive the characters, not the other way around.  That also sounded like it would make the show worth spending time with.
Is It Any Good? Yes. Yes it is. The first couple of season in particular really take the time to explore and understand the different aspects of all the societies portrayed, how the various political alliances work and just how society has moved on so that, when we get to the proto-molecule and Ring stuff, we understand deeply how this is going to change things.  There's no easy answers presented and the sense of good people doing the wrong things while trying to get them right lends a compelling aspect to everything that happens.  Sometimes the commitment to realism can be a bit of a barrier, so for example all the people of The Belt (Belters) have a cod-Carribbean (Creole? Jamaican? It depends who's talking) accent, which in theory is a really nice way of differentiating them from the non-Belters but in practice can be incredibly distracting - Season Three cast addition David Strathairn can't land it and it's vastly undermining to his performance, which is unfortunate to say the least. But for the most part the commitment to show how all the different aspects of society work remains very successful, and a mostly terrific cast add considerably to this.  Thomas Jane's laconic detective adds a much-needed note of wry levity in the early going, David Strait provides an easy-to-like character that doesn't distract from him having actual edges, and of course there's the inevitable shout-out to Shohreh Adhdashloo, who's simply terrific as Chrisjen Avasarala, another wonderfully rounded-out character.  Not everyone is perfect - Elizabeth Mitchell turns up to do That One Thing Elizabeth Mitchell Does, and Dominique Tipper proves surprisingly difficult to care about - but for the most part we have a well-assembled cast that really bring detail to their characters.  The plots are simple enough to follow without being distracting, yet leave more than enough space to be nuanced and allow shading and complexity.  Overall, this is, in fact, a very well balanced show indeed.
How Many Episodes Did You Watch? All of 'em, and I shall be continuing to do so.
Would You Recommend It? Definitely.  Even though Season Three has been a bit wobbly in places (after the excellent first couple of episodes, things do sag a bit with a lot "we're at The Ring", "we're still at The Ring," "yup, still sitting here!" material before events get going again) it's very refreshing to have a show like The Expanse out there. Don't get me wrong, I love soapy ol' space opera as much as anyone, but The Expanse is genuinely occupying a space in sci-fi television that no other show is at the moment, and it's doing it with the sort of understated confidence and commitment that really lets the material come to life.  It's not completely flawless by any stretch, but in its commitment to using sci-fi to tell stories that are about people first, rather than plot, special effects or gosh-wow, it's grown to be a thoughtful, compelling piece of fiction.  Recently saved from cancellation by Amazon (which in itself says something - that it was actually worth saving), The Expanse definitely deserves your attention.
Scores On The Doors? 8/10

What's The Show? Broadchurch
What's It All About, Proley? That nice David Tennant and Olivia Coleman off the telly get to have slow-moving crime adventures in a picturesque part of the West Country.  There's been a death in the village - the titular Broadchurch - and lots of famous or soon-to-be-famous character actors are in the frame for it, many of whom fans of Doctor Who will instantly recognise (putting Tennant and Coleman aside, there's David Bradley, Eve Myles and Arthur Darvill, and naturally we now have to add Jodie Whittaker to that list, as well as the fact that Broadchurch's creator, Chris Chibnall, is Doctor Who's latest showrunner).  This means lots of tension, just about every inhabitant of the village having some possible motive and/or secret, and it all leads to a big reveal in the final episode of the first season.  Can you guess who did it? (hint: no)
Why Did You Give It A Go? Really?  But OK, aside from the Doctor Who connections, I genuinely like Tennant and Coleman as actors, and the show very quickly gained a reputation as the best thing ITV had broadcast in donkey's years. It seems like it was worth a punt.
Is It Any Good? Broadly (heh) yes.  It's first season in particular is extremely easy to like.  The whodunnit aspect of the show, as in "who was responsible for the death of Danny", is mostly used as an excuse to explore the lives and personalities of the village residents rather than constructing the mystery of who killed him in a more traditionally Christie-esque way.  That's a little frustrating for some, but it gives Broadchurch a slightly different angle to most contemporary whodunnits, and it leans in to this in largely very successful ways.  The eventual reveal of the killer mostly makes sense - ish - but in getting there a bunch of very good actors get to emote against some stunning English scenery while David Tennant mopes about in a beard looking serious. Bradley, in particular, is worthy of praise for portraying someone caught up in what amounts to a witch-hunt, and Whittaker, as Danny's mum, does a great job of portraying what could be a completely stock part. And special mention must go to former sitcom star Pauline Quirke, who is positively revelatory in a role that very much casts her against type, to great effect.  The show's pacing is slow but there's a deliberateness and intentionality to it that works very successfully both in terms of the plot and the character reveals, and everything is atmospherically shot and engrossing.  The second season is noticeably weaker - not bad, but it strikes a lot of the same notes as the first season, to little additional benefit (stringing out the investment in Danny's death and his killer is logical from a credibility perspective but it rapidly becomes wearisome, and if you've seen one TV courtroom drama you've seen 'em all).  Season Three is markedly better - tellingly, the Danny storyline is reduced to about the sixth or seventh sub-plot - revolving around the rape of a local woman, and the show reaches a satisfying conclusion that feels well connected to the successes of the first season.
How Many Episodes Did You Watch? All three seasons.  Even in the weaker moments of Season Two the show remains very watchable, anchored by Tennant and Cole's terrific performances.  They make a great double-act, and one of the great pleasures of the third season is that the two of them get to spend much more screen-time together, and clearly have a great time doing so.  That core relationship carries the show through it's odd dip, but honestly it's never less that watchable even if the plotting goes a bit wonky here and there.
Would You Recommend It? If you're a fan of well-known actors doing great things among nice scenery, characters that actually feel like people rather than typical TV stock archetypes, and thoughtful investigation over action, then unreservedly.  This is a well constructed show that bothers to take time to delve into the little nooks and crannies of people and how they interact rather than rushing towards pat solutions or relying on cliché. This is a show that favours character over plot, and if you go in looking for a meticulously constructed Christie whodunnit you're not going to get what you're after, and the emotional investment in the characters is what drives the heart of the show rather than it being a puzzle-box to unlock.  Yes, the plotting could be a bit tidier in places, but this is light years away from the usual shuffle-the-deck-of-cards murder mysteries - neither cookie-cutter ITV fodder nor Scandi Noir knockoff (while clearly owing a debt to both genres), Broadchurch is it's own thing and thoroughly worth watching.
Scores On The Doors?   8.5/10

I need to give Happy Valley a try, I know it has a great reputation but I've never gotten round to it.

I really, really liked Scott & Bailey.  I first watched it mostly because of Suranne Jones, but Amelia Bullmore's DCI Gill Murray soon became one of my favourite TV characters ever.  

And it looks like Amelia Bullmore is on Happy Valley.

Looks like I have a new binge-watch for the weekend!

Maybe for the UK, but Happy Valley is a bitter, harsh show by almost any standard. I mean, Yorkshire has a reputation, so I guess you go in expecting grim faces and defeat at the end of every tale. They do show a grudging comradery against the common fate, at least the good ones in it.

Highly recommended though!