I am really suprised that no one on this site is talking about NBC's Kings. I really liked it. They managed to modernise the tale while staying pretty close to the original story. What did everyone else think?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I watched about 45 minutes. It was all right. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The decision to (apparently) make Jonathan a homosexual was predictable. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
It didn't really entice me enough to continue to watch it.
Posted by aeolusdallas (Member # 11455) on :
Well it's not like there isn't an obvious argument to be made. I am not saying Jonathan was gay but it is a defensible argument.
Posted by adenam (Member # 11902) on :
Getting anoited king with axel grease is hilarious
I really liked it and will keep watching.
Posted by adenam (Member # 11902) on :
quote:Originally posted by aeolusdallas: Well it's not like there isn't an obvious argument to be made. I am not saying Jonathan was gay but it is a defensible argument.
As defensible as David being gay (though it doesn't look like that will happen).
Posted by aeolusdallas (Member # 11455) on :
I am pretty sure the way they are going to play this is that David will be completely straight. Jack will either fall in love with him or ally with him and warn him that Silas is going to have him killed. All in all a clever compromise.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
What is this based off of? And is it a TV show, TV movie or miniseries?
Posted by aeolusdallas (Member # 11455) on :
Kings is a new series on NBC is a loose retelling of the life of David from the bible but set in a world with modern trappings.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
I watched about half and found myself pretty bored with it.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
I just saw it. The chicken/egg breakfast speech as delightful. I watched the scene twice and am still tickled. I also liked watching Silas lash out at David on the stairs after Silas was blackmailed into continuing the war. It was a good moment because at that moment, David was both naive and absolutely right. And way Silas spat out the Royal "We" was INSANE. I also appreciated that Jack wasn't an incompetent commander, and that Silas actually removed his back-up in order to provoke an attack, not knowing that he would put his son in danger.
I don't like Jack as a black hat, it's too easy. I like that Jack's gay, but there isn't a need to make him evil, self-absorbed and gay. It may be enough to ruin the entire show, but I hope not. _____________
That said, I love the idea and I respect NBC for putting it on. I've skimmed the old testament, but most of what I know I've learned from Heller's "God Knows," which I think is just fine. But having that as my background, I can't help but think that the story should be told from David's POV in flashbacks as Absalom raises a rival army.
[ March 17, 2009, 12:19 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I just watched it. I don't have the biblical background to know what's taken directly and what was changed, but it was definitely interesting overall. I really liked the chicken/egg comment (I've tried to explain that to people whenever the metaphor is brought up, but people tend not to get it).
How long is the series supposed to run for? The wikipedia page about David makes it look like the story's about a fourth of the way done. Then again, the actual Moses story is only a few pages long and Prince of Egypt stretched that out to 2 hours.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I caught the second half of the first episode and want to watch it all the way through. It looks interesting, and there is certainly a lot to do with it, but if it ends up being too soap opera like, it'll end up turning me off pretty fast.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
What was the chicken/egg comment?
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
It's a great message that touches on evolution, creation, uniqueness and the divine right of kings all in the same soliloquy.
I think I appreciate the seriousness with which kingship is treated in the show. It's not Shakespeare, but how many people really take the divine right of kings seriously in a political sense in 21st century America. It's a stretch even in religious contexts: Whatever happens before the white smoke appears at the Vatican, I can't help but think it looks more like a jury room or CSPAN than the Pentecost scene from Acts.
The show not only has a depict a drama, it has to motivate and play upon a complicated ontological and political world that really doesn't match up with our own, but where the characters actions and words make sense to serious people. Big Love can get away with it because Bill is a rube.
Bravo to NBC for trying.
[ March 17, 2009, 11:38 AM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
I just saw it. Wasn't going to bother, because I don't think they did a very good job with the pre-show advertising; I don't generally get involved with dramas and it looked like just another soap opera to me. Thanks for the buzz, Hatrack.
I really enjoyed the first episode. I love that it was based off of David and that there's a king who believes he was divinely appointed and also lives in the real, modern world with all that implies. I love David already, which is completely appropriate for who that character should be. Which means I suppose that when we get to Bathsheba he's going to break my heart....
As for Jack:
quote:I don't like Jack as a black hat, it's too easy. I like that Jack's gay, but there isn't a need to make him evil, self-absorbed and gay. It may be enough to ruin the entire show, but I hope not.
I agree. I don't mind him being gay; I figured they'd go that direction. But he and David supposedly were really close. At this point I can't see how they're going to trust and love each other unless Jack changes. I hope he does. Seems there are enough other villains to fight against, they don't need Jack to be one.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
OK, I decided to at least finish the first episode and I think the second half got better. I may give it another episode. I'm still not sold. It really depends upon where they take a lot of the little threads they've started.
Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
That wife - I guess she's the queen - she's good. I really believed her whole "You know how I don't like to get involved in politics!" spiel until about 3/4 of the way through.
Posted by aeolusdallas (Member # 11455) on :
That stunt the queen pulled with the cell phone completely blindside me
Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
Exactly. Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
After swallowing how un-biblical it is, i really enjoyed the pilot.
The acting is phenomenal and deserves watching regardless of the story.
I think we're all agreed on Jack. No need to make him the bad guy. I'm more interested in Reverend Samuels and the interplay between man and God.
David's bravery makes him great, but Silas doesn't seem to be too bad a guy either. What's all this garbage with the King's brother-in-law? I
Posted by adenam (Member # 11902) on :
So whose watching it tonight?
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I'll be watching it sometime over the course of the week on Hulu.
Posted by adenam (Member # 11902) on :
same
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
I enjoyed this week's episode. I think they need to give us a bit more character development than they are giving us, but the religious symbolism is enjoyable.
Posted by adenam (Member # 11902) on :
PIGEONS!!!
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
I was actually really impressed when Rev. Samuels tells David that dreams are 1/60th prophecy. It's something out of the Talmud. Means the writers do their research.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Latest episode impressed me a lot. It gave me a more visceral understanding of exactly how complicated the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
It is getting better and better. And Rev. Samuel's temple looked a lot more like a synagogue than a church, which was kind of cool.
And Raymond, the ep wasn't even slightly parallel to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It was parallel to the internal conflict in Israel between a government that's all realpolitik and a citizenry that is largely ideological.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
It was an episode about people living on land that was conquered from other people, which was later returned to the people it was conquered from. This seems relevant to both sides of the conflict to me.
EDIT: Perhaps more accurately, yes, it's a parallel of internal conflict within Israel, but that conflict existed explicitly BECAUSE of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: It was an episode about people living on land that was conquered from other people, which was later returned to the people it was conquered from. This seems relevant to both sides of the conflict to me.
EDIT: Perhaps more accurately, yes, it's a parallel of internal conflict within Israel, but that conflict existed explicitly BECAUSE of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
It's not relevant to this thread, but just as it is in the show, the internal conflict exists independent of the particular context that's causing it to become prominent. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is simply the proximate cause. The underlying cause is a cultural gap that's there with or without the Palestinians.
You should have seen what was going on in Jerusalem before the first intifada started in 1987. The onslaught of Arab terror, as barbaric as it was, at least put something of an end (temporary as it may have been) to our internal strife.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Ah. That's interesting. I still think it's fair to say the show is at least roughly allegorical the situation as whole. (Okay, it's actually allegorical of a situation several thousand years ago. I'm not a biblical scholar but it seems to me the current situation in Israel is at least tangentially relevant to the situation then)
Posted by adenam (Member # 11902) on :
I'm really hoping to see Rev. Samuels recieve prophecy.
Does anyone know if the ratings have gone up?
Posted by Papa Moose (Member # 1992) on :
Spoiler to follow, I guess.
Rev. Samuels did receive prophecy. At least, that's how I interpreted the direction of the smoke changing when the direction the flag was blowing didn't (around 29:00 on hulu). Are you saying you're looking for something more precise, like specific language? At least it seemed more supernatural than a car breaking down and someone knowing how to fix it.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: Ah. That's interesting. I still think it's fair to say the show is at least roughly allegorical the situation as whole. (Okay, it's actually allegorical of a situation several thousand years ago. I'm not a biblical scholar but it seems to me the current situation in Israel is at least tangentially relevant to the situation then)
It's the same two people groups, same struggle. Palestinian comes from Palestine which is the Latin form of Philistine - the people whom the biblical kingdom of Israel (under Saul especially) constantly fought with.
I don't think there was a modern day political agenda, though. It seemed to be a pretty fair representation of the biblical account.
Posted by adenam (Member # 11902) on :
quote:Originally posted by Papa Moose: Spoiler to follow, I guess.
Rev. Samuels did receive prophecy. At least, that's how I interpreted the direction of the smoke changing when the direction the flag was blowing didn't (around 29:00 on hulu). Are you saying you're looking for something more precise, like specific language? At least it seemed more supernatural than a car breaking down and someone knowing how to fix it.
I totally missed that! I had no idea why he was staring at the flag and smokestack. Now the storyline makes a lot more sense. Thanks for pointing that out.
Posted by adenam (Member # 11902) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath:
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: Ah. That's interesting. I still think it's fair to say the show is at least roughly allegorical the situation as whole. (Okay, it's actually allegorical of a situation several thousand years ago. I'm not a biblical scholar but it seems to me the current situation in Israel is at least tangentially relevant to the situation then)
It's the same two people groups, same struggle. Palestinian comes from Palestine which is the Latin form of Philistine - the people whom the biblical kingdom of Israel (under Saul especially) constantly fought with.
The Palestinians of today have absolutely no connection to the Philistines that King Saul fought. In those times the land of the Phiistines was a small portion of the southern coast (think Gaza Strip). They are called Palestinians because they were inhabitants of a land called Palestine (basically Israel today), a name given to that land when it was still a Roman province (it was originally called Judea but the Romans changed the name after a Jewish revolt to crush Jewish nationalistic feeling) and the name stuck. Additionally, many of them only came to that area after Jewish and Zionist immigrants began to develop a "desolate wasteland" (ask Mark Twain and Churchil), creating jobs and opportunities.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I don't think the writers set out to tell a story that reflected the current Israeli-Palestinian situation, but I also don't think they were ignorant of the parallels that can be drawn. History repeats itself et al.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Im watching King's now and woah, the King's son sounds like Bishop from Neverwinter Nights 2.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Hrrrm, eerily reminds me of the current palistinian-israeli crisis, but with the gath reasonable and the palistinians as we know in real life, are not.
Posted by Lanfear (Member # 7776) on :
Seriously, those guy who make these dumbass decisions need to be dragged onto the street and shot.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
And once again, I agree with Blayne. What a frakkin amazing show, and what idiots they are for not putting it on a weeknight.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
And the endtimes are nigh.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
They gotta give this show a chance. I'm so upset. It's doing fairly well on Hulu...no? Does that even matter?
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Probly not, are there commercials?
But anyways I also love the show and want more. But the show is expensive to run apparently, 1 million an episode.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Yes, there are commercials on Hulu. It DOES matter, but not a lot.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Bad ratings.
Really, really expensive show.
Those two things don't add up to renewal.
They should have given the show a chance by starting it off in a decent time slot. I think Kings would have played well on Monday nights.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Seems to me there should be a way to check Hulu ratings at any given time. Anyone know if you can do that?
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: They should have given the show a chance by starting it off in a decent time slot. I think Kings would have played well on Monday nights.
I think Wednesday nights, in the old West Wing slot, would have been perfect.
Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
If you were wondering, it was moved to the summer after the fourth episode. Grrrrr. Hulu says it'll be back in mid June. Here is the update blog post.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
Isn't that a good thing?
Maybe it will pick up some success in a summer slot? Maybe they can advertise for it like they should have the first time around?
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
The summer half-season just started.
I can't remember, was this show officially cancelled? Now that Terminator's dead and gone I need a new hopeless cause.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
No, not canceled, they just moved it to the summer. I'm watching but I admit it's because there isn't anything more amusing to watch at the moment. It's a bit dry.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
It's definitely a niche show. I don't expect it to last because the target audience is so small and I assume it's fairly expensive to shoot, but I actually like it a lot.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
I think that if they'd put it in West Wing's old slot, it would have gotten very popular. Putting it on Saturday nights is FOX-worthy (with apologies to Jeff).
And yes, it's been officially cancelled. They're going to finish up the eps they have (there are 13 eps total, and they've already aired 7 of them), and that's it.
Posted by Lupus (Member # 6516) on :
I enjoy it, and was sad to see it canceled. I also wish Cupid had been continued. Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:I think that if they'd put it in West Wing's old slot, it would have gotten very popular.
It certainly would have had an excellent chance. It had the right sort of feel to it to even tap into the same crowd.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Did Cupid ever move beyond "Random crazy romantic guy teaches shut in romance-less woman to be fun and spontaneous and forget all her hard earned lessons about what can go wrong with love when all you rely on is fun and spontaneity?"
I didn't watch past the first episode, but it seemed to me the type of show that is representative of everything wrong with romantic comedies that give people unrealistic expectations of hollywood romances. I did like the core concept of this random guy who might or might not be Cupid though. If the plot ended being more like, say, How I Met Your Mother, I think I could have stomached it.
Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
Hulu has two more episodes so it's up to 7 I think. In the last episode (vague spoiler alert) I didn't like David's decision at the end. Just disagreed, I guess.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
SPOILERish
You mean keeping the secret from Silas? I think that was a grey enough area that I can't fault him for either choice, although not keeping the secret would probably cause fewer problems in the long run.
Posted by aeolusdallas (Member # 11455) on :
The irony being the King didn't care about the two seeing each other but Davids not telling him cut him to the bone.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Yeah, but David didn't know that he wouldn't care. And it wasn't just his secret, it was Michelle's. And while maybe his greater obligation should have been to his King, for most people I think it's reasonable to strongly consider obligations to someone you're involved with.
I'd agree he chose wrong, I just don't fault him for making the mistake.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
I cried when I saw that Silas had burned the amyrillis (sp?). That was his friendship with David he was burning. And David could explain to him that it wasn't only his secret to tell, but I don't think Silas is going to be that receptive. He opened himself up to David in ways he never opened himself up to anyone else.
When Michelle told him that she'd told her father, he looked like he was going to throw up. I think he realized in that moment that he'd broken something irreparably.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Ouch! I'm watching it right now, and seeing Silas take David to meet his illegitimate (legally) but true (in the heart) family, and guessing that David won't tell Silas about him and the princess...whew! Bad call, David!
ETA: And then it gets worse! Though from Silas's angle, he doesn't really have the right to expect that sort of deep honesty from David, having conspired against him many times in the past behind a guise of friendship. Except from David, who doesn't know about that...day-um!
[ June 30, 2009, 09:17 AM: Message edited by: Rakeesh ]
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
Every time I watch an episode of this show, its cancellation gets me more and more upset.
Posted by J-Put (Member # 11752) on :
I don't think it got canceled....I think there were only ever going to be those 13 episodes.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
Seriously? But it could have been picked up, no?
Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
I actually disagreed with the pursuit of the relationship between David and Michelle as long as Michelle felt that God disapproved. Then I was disappointed in the next episode with David for not telling Silas.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
Just caught up...
I'm kinda annoyed about Katrina Ghent. I really liked her.
Also, for someone who knows Samuel I and II - it was pretty cool to see their take on the story of the stolen ark. I enjoyed seeing and hearing the names of biblical names expressed in modern times.
I also liked David mother and her tirade against Silas. It helped me realized what I think I've been denying to myself for a while. That Silas is actually not a good person. Of course, he has much good in him, but his negative traits, his desire for power, noticeably overshadows the good in him. I enjoy that the evil of this character is not simple.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
That was irksome...but very plausible. She didn't really seem quite aware of just how ruthless Mrs. Silas was capable of being.
quote: I also liked David mother and her tirade against Silas. It helped me realized what I think I've been denying to myself for a while. That Silas is actually not a good person. Of course, he has much good in him, but his negative traits, his desire for power, noticeably overshadows the good in him. I enjoy that the evil of this character is not simple.
That made for some enjoyable storytelling for me, too. The way I see Silas is like this: his moral highs aren't nearly as high as his moral lows are low...but in spite of that, he likes his moral highs, and he's either dissatisfied with or doesn't think about his moral lows. Or justifies them.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: I'm kinda annoyed about Katrina Ghent. I really liked her.
Well, she really was out of her depths. She thought she could play with the Queen, and the Queen just ate her for supper.
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: Also, for someone who knows Samuel I and II - it was pretty cool to see their take on the story of the stolen ark. I enjoyed seeing and hearing the names of biblical names expressed in modern times.
Interesting. I hadn't thought of it as being parallel to the ark. Good call.
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: I also liked David mother and her tirade against Silas. It helped me realized what I think I've been denying to myself for a while. That Silas is actually not a good person. Of course, he has much good in him, but his negative traits, his desire for power, noticeably overshadows the good in him. I enjoy that the evil of this character is not simple.
He's not evil, I don't think. No more than Saul was. He's just too willing to resort to expedience. And he's far too thin-skinned and sensitive to make a good king.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
Lisa, you missed that? There was actually a scene on the train when he busted the thing out of the box, where you see, for a split second, in another crate - the golden ark with the cherubim and everything.
As for Silas? I think he is more evil than Saul. The narrative about Saul makes him seem like a perfect servant of God, but only at his fall with Amalek and David does a "spirit of evil" come over him. Silas seemed shady always.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: I'm kinda annoyed about Katrina Ghent. I really liked her.
Well, she really was out of her depths. She thought she could play with the Queen, and the Queen just ate her for supper.
This was the one part of last week's episode that confused me. I get that the queen outmaneuvered her but I don't get how. One second she's trying on a wedding gown and the next Jack is engaged to some naive brunette. What happened?
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: Lisa, you missed that? There was actually a scene on the train when he busted the thing out of the box, where you see, for a split second, in another crate - the golden ark with the cherubim and everything.
That's right. I just hadn't thought of the two things being in parallel. I thought maybe they'd come back to the ark eventually.
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: As for Silas? I think he is more evil than Saul. The narrative about Saul makes him seem like a perfect servant of God, but only at his fall with Amalek and David does a "spirit of evil" come over him. Silas seemed shady always.
<shrug> He's a politician. And you can see Saul's fatal flaws before the war with Amalek. His failure in that war was an example of his flaws.
I Samuel 9:21 looks like modesty at first. Sort of like Moses at the burning bush. But in I Samuel 10:22, he's already taking that self-deprecation too far, hiding from everyone. In 10:27, people slandered him, even after he was accepted publically as king, and he did nothing. That was a huge mistake right there, and it demonstrated the characteristic that made him unfit for the throne. In 11:12-13, others tried to get him to punish the slanderers, but he refused to do so.
In 13:11, Saul takes his unfitness one step further, and starts making excuses. "But, but, the people were leaving? What was I supposed to do?" He's constitutionally unable to lead. He rules, like Joseph. He doesn't lead, like Judah. And the result? In 13:13-14, Samuel tells him that his dynasty won't last. That's already halfway to the full rejection he earns later.
Then in 14:24, Saul takes a public oath that anyone who eats before evening will be put to death. In 14:43, Jonathan admits that he ate and accepts that he will have to die. In 14:44, Saul decrees it so. And in 14:44, the people object, so Jonathan lives. Again, he bows to the will of the people. That's no king.
And then we get to I Samuel 15. Verse 9, Saul and the people spared Agag and the best of the animals. Verse 17, Samuel points to Saul's flaw: "Though thou be little in thine own sight, art thou not head of the tribes of Israel?" There's a place for modesty. When dealing with God, it's appropriate. When you're a king dealing with subjects, it's incredibly inappropriate. And more than that, Saul refuses to take responsibility. Verses 20-21: "I did what God said! It was the people who spared the animals!"
So Samuel tells him God rejects him as king, and Saul continues making excuses. Verse 24: "I violated God's orders because I was afraid of the people." ::head slap:: Digging himself deeper and deeper. And verse 30: "Let me return with you so that I won't be ashamed in front of the people." At this point, he's simply pathetic.
It's people with low self-esteem who get jealous and behave like petty tyrants. The "evil spirit" which came over him wasn't the cause of his actions; it was the result of his actions.
Saul wasn't evil. He was weak. And the tragedy is that if he hadn't had the potential to rise above that weakness, he never would have been made king in the first place. He didn't fail because he couldn't succeed; he failed because he wouldn't succeed.
I don't see Silas as evil, either. He's got a much healthier ego (in a good sense) than Saul did, but he's too willing to compromise morally. I don't think he does so because he wants to, but rather because he thinks he has to.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Christine:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: I'm kinda annoyed about Katrina Ghent. I really liked her.
Well, she really was out of her depths. She thought she could play with the Queen, and the Queen just ate her for supper.
This was the one part of last week's episode that confused me. I get that the queen outmaneuvered her but I don't get how. One second she's trying on a wedding gown and the next Jack is engaged to some naive brunette. What happened?
She made the mistake of telling the Queen where she was going. Apparently, she underestimated Rose's ruthlessness, and she died in a tragic car "accident".
She pushed Rose and pushed Rose. And if she hadn't gone too far, Rose might have put up with it. But she overstepped, and she paid the price.
Really, she should have known better.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote: Then in 14:24, Saul takes a public oath that anyone who eats before evening will be put to death. In 14:43, Jonathan admits that he ate and accepts that he will have to die. In 14:44, Saul decrees it so. And in 14:44, the people object, so Jonathan lives. Again, he bows to the will of the people. That's no king.
The part of this where he's no king is making the idiotic, murderous decree/oath-not listening to the people and rejecting it.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
He shouldn't have made the oath, granted. It was stupid. But letting the people force him to violate it because Jonathan was a rockstar was the bigger problem.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
I'll grant you that Saul may have been more of a weak personality, but in that respect, it makes it easier to see him as a sinner, but not as an evil person. At least not until David comes to the scene.
Silas? He is ruthless! I don't understand his philosophy when it comes to God. It's like he treats God like He is a real person, and if he doesn't like what God does, then he rejects him. That sounds like real evil to me, or at least arrogance on insane levels.
And that is what Silas is. Really really arrogant. I had an argument with my sister-in-law the other day. I'm currently working this summer as an intern for a judge. The other day, I was in Federal District Court and I was observing a mafia murder trial (Rico). I was in the room with a witness who is an ex-mafia guy, who is now cooperating with the government. On his cross, the defense tried to discredit him by having him admit all of his crimes. I'm staring a real life person in the eye as he admits to kill 6 people and being involved in the murder of 11 of others. It was straight out of a movie, but it was real life! It shook me to the core that someone could so casually and haphazardly kill for money.
My sister-in-law, a lawyer herself, said she couldn't understand people who defend child molesters, and rapists (granted, she is a woman and a mother). But I understand better someone who kills for an ideal, or engages in a crime of passion, rather than someone whose moral fiber deteriorated so much that he can kill for money.
That is Silas. In the beginning of the show, I kept looking for the good in him, for all his good deeds, for what a wonderful orator and leader he is. But who cares how well you lead when you kill all who oppose you? Silas has this tendency of sending people to die when they disagree with him. We've only seen like 9 episodes and he does it like once an episode. That's pretty chilling to me.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:He shouldn't have made the oath, granted. It was stupid. But letting the people force him to violate it because Jonathan was a rockstar was the bigger problem.
'Stupid' is characterizing that sort of thing far too lightly, I think. 'Anybody who eats before such and such time will be tarred and feathered' would be stupid, I think, and a bit malicious. Killed, though? That's downright evil, even if he didn't intend it as such.
Submitting to public acclaim not to murder someone over a stupid decree, on the other hand, doesn't strike me in and of itself as problematic. The problem is letting that sort of thing override good decisisions.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: She made the mistake of telling the Queen where she was going. Apparently, she underestimated Rose's ruthlessness, and she died in a tragic car "accident".
She died? Wow. I missed that. My husband did too. We were watching together on hulu and both he and I were very confused. I didn't even realize she'd died. You'd think after they spent several episodes setting that up they could have given the news of her death thirty seconds or so.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:He shouldn't have made the oath, granted. It was stupid. But letting the people force him to violate it because Jonathan was a rockstar was the bigger problem.
'Stupid' is characterizing that sort of thing far too lightly, I think. 'Anybody who eats before such and such time will be tarred and feathered' would be stupid, I think, and a bit malicious. Killed, though? That's downright evil, even if he didn't intend it as such.
Submitting to public acclaim not to murder someone over a stupid decree, on the other hand, doesn't strike me in and of itself as problematic. The problem is letting that sort of thing override good decisisions.
Either way - the fact that he bowed to the will of the people shows that he was weak. I had the same reaction to Lisa's post though - it was certainly a bigger problem, in my mind, that he made such a unilateral decree. But taken in the context of the turning point of Saul's kingship and his ultimate downfall - I think it serves more to highlight his weakness in being swayed more by the people rather than being faithful and true.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: Silas has this tendency of sending people to die when they disagree with him. We've only seen like 9 episodes and he does it like once an episode. That's pretty chilling to me.
Was David (the real one, not the TV one) evil?
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
quote:Either way - the fact that he bowed to the will of the people shows that he was weak.
I personally would rather have a ruler who changes his mind after people get pissed about a stupid decision he made than a leader who sticks to those stupid decisions no matter what anyone says. I don't think it's fair to judge "weakness" based on such a ridiculous example. (By contrast I do think it's perfectly fair to judge stupidity purely from the "kill random people for eating at random times.")
quote:Silas? He is ruthless! I don't understand his philosophy when it comes to God. It's like he treats God like He is a real person, and if he doesn't like what God does, then he rejects him. That sounds like real evil to me, or at least arrogance on insane levels.
While I'm not entirely familiar with the period in question, I think that in the era the show is referencing God hadn't quite been established as the all-benevolent, omnipresent, perfect deity that modern Western culture associates Him with. Silas' relationship with God seems accurate for an era when He made decisions based on jealousy and spite. Sure, it's arrogant to think you can stand up to God, but when God's actions/opinions are inscrutable and appear to be so unfair, I wouldn't blame him for lashing out in frustration, however futile it might be.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Was David (the real one, not the TV one) evil?
Sometimes, undoubtedly.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Wow, that last episode was pretty intense.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Yeah, Silas's political...catastrophe, is the best word I think...was fascinating to watch.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
Wow... what a meltdown. The ep was called Javelin, and now I realize that it's because it was parallel to the time that Saul cursed Jonathan out and threw a javelin at him when Jonathan defended David.
I can't believe there are only two episodes left. This show is so incredibly superb and superior to other crap on the tube.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
Wow. Just caught up. Wow wow wow.
That was amazing to watch. Especially with our previous conversation on the evil of Silas. Samuel said it best when he said that he supported Silas through his mistakes, but he never thought Silas was a villan.
Davids purity and Silas's evil was beautiful to watch. But what was the most surprising and delighting was Jack.
Jack stepped into the Jonathan role, as I thought the writers had forsaken from the beginning. I didn't realize the title was related to that story Lisa - thanks for pointing it out. But Jack, finally, has fallen in love (in the ideological sense) with David, and has accepted that he is not too good to be true, but that he is truly the better man. I wonder now how the ending will evolve.
The way they depict the ruach ra the spirit of evil that descended on Saul, is great. He truly undermines himself with his hatred of David.
I was a little disappointed with Michelle. I think she doesn't make the best decisions. I was also disappointed with Tomasina (sp?) - and unless they will develop her into a larger role, i thought her little thing with the guard distracted from the tempest that was brewing, and was totally unnecessary.
I can't believe this show is gonna be done in two episodes.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
It makes me wonder whether Jonathan and David in the Bible were friends from the get-go, or if there were rough times initially.
Lama yamut? Meh asah?
It was brilliantly done.
Also, Silas' hatred really is stemming from jealousy. When he saw the butterflies crowning David, that was the beginning of his suspicions. They were assuaged when he saw how completely loyal David was, but when David lied to him after he'd opened up to David so completely, he couldn't trust him any more. And butterfly crown + lack of trust = dangerous rival.
Posted by Tammy (Member # 4119) on :
I hate NBC for canceling this show.
I saw Saturday's show for the first time and had to go back and watch it from the first show.
Hate them.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
They really gave it NO time to succeed. Stupid Heroes. Stupid prostituting FNL to Direct tv.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I think this show was at least aware that it's chances for long term success were slim (although if they had just bothered marketing it to the religious demographic it should have had a much better shot), that the Season 1 arc is fairly self contained. I'm assuming it'll end with David becoming King, and while there's lots more stories to come after that a 12 part, high quality mini series with a self contained story isn't that bad a deal.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
It wasn't even a matter of giving it time to succeed. They started it on Sunday nights. When was the last time a new show started on Sunday nights and made it? They didn't bother advertising it much at all. I think someone at NBC just wasn't interested in it.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Lemme just echo Tammy and amplify: I hate `em with golf shoes and tabasco sauce, dangit. Also the folks watching other crap shows that suck down potential ad-revenue-production away from shows like Kings, and towards more reality TV or standard crappy drama/sitcoms.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
Celeb apprentice is on Sunday nights...::shrug::
Posted by adenam (Member # 11902) on :
Anyway, wasn't that a great episode.
Posted by Miro (Member # 1178) on :
*Spoilers for latest episode*
I like how, even though David is finally disillusioned about Silas, he still thinks Silas is the only one who can stand up to Cross for the good of the country. I don't really understand how Cross could command the loyalty of the soldiers like that. Weren't all the Generals conspiring with him killed? Would the soldiers really be willing to hold their prince-made-king and national hero at gunpoint by the word of some CEO? I keep itching for someone to pull a knife or gun on Cross and just put everyone out of their misery.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Cross isn't just some CEO, though. He's the head honcho over all spending in the country, particularly military spending. And he's been maneuvering for this for quite a long time. Another reason soldiers might follow him over Silas is that he's probably careful to pick the greediest or the most angry over the peace plan.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
Yea, I asked the same question of myself when Cross commanded the soldiers. It was a little annoying since in the last episode he told Jonathan that they answer to him...
But I took it for granted. In a show that tries to show us so much, there are assumptions you need to take for granted - the fact that William Cross infiltrated and commands the loyalty of the soldiers, I can deal with that.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
What, you believed Cross when he told Jonathan the military answered to him? Hehe, I've never believed anything he said, on the basis of him saying it that is.
Bear in mind, too, that 'the soldiers' isn't really a monolithic establishment here necessarily, nor does he really necessarily have control over the entire military. All he really needs is sufficient control over the local military, to be able to cow the royal family, and once he's the mouthpiece, the rest of the country's arms are his.
Posted by Tammy (Member # 4119) on :
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Yeah, no kidding:( Not nearly the resolutions I would've hoped for. Alas! Comeuppance for the real baddies in this show isn't in our destiny:(
Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
I'm content with the ending. It's perfect for a second season though Posted by Miro (Member # 1178) on :
It's a good ending only with a second season.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
It was a very good season finale. It was, alas, nothing like a resolution to a story that I was really becoming invested in. I am very upset with NBC for failing to stand behind this show in any meaningful way. Heroes gets another crappy season and they cancel Kings? Huh? Posted by adenam (Member # 11902) on :
Did anyone else jump out of their chairs the first time Reverend Samuels reappeared?
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I didn't really jump, but was like "oh, huh."
Fortunately, with this particular cancellation we KNOW pretty much how the story ends. I am certainly disappointed that we won't get to see it executed but not gut wrenchingly frustrated. (sigh... Terminator, how thou hast forsaken me...)
For some reason I also felt the acting was a little stilted in this episode. Which is weird, because that acting's actually ALWAYS a little stilted, but usually it felt poetic and appropriate and this time it didn't (in particular when David and Michelle are saying they love each other and when Silas is talking to God on the roof)
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I had that same impression of the acting, in almost the same way, Raymond. I wonder how much of that was an effect of the show cancellation?
Posted by adenam (Member # 11902) on :
I think the script was the problem, especially for David and Michelle, rather than the acting.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
The ending for them was especially abrupt. David apparently forgot all his bitterness and finality with regards to her, no explanations required. Strangely, though, they did a pretty good job putting 'fin' on Silas and David for the show, though-his dislike and contempt never left, but his reasons for sticking with (or at least, alongside) Silas still got aired too.
Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
I was impressed with michelle's mother's method to save michelle's unborn child. Interesting they still choose not to tell David. Course I watched this with almost no knowledge of the actual David story. So a lot of plot points probably make sense in that context.
Posted by Temposs (Member # 6032) on :
I agree with Rakeesh. David said he didn't want to see any of the family again once Silas was restored. I was waiting for the more appropriate ending for them in which David walks off sadly but with determination and she calls out that she's pregnant. But, the opposite happened...
I guess I got an unexpected ending.
Posted by xtownaga (Member # 7187) on :
I was waiting for the same thing Temposs.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
I expected Michelle to tell him she was pregnant too. The fact that she didn't means that they're still lying to one another, which hurts their prospects in the long run. Michelle is playing politics. She may look and generally act nicer than the rest of her family, but she is clearly her mother's daughter.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
See, I know the story, so I thought what happened fit pretty well. David runs off and joins Gath and gets painted as a traitor, and really doesn't leave Gath until after Saul/Silas and Jonathan/Jack are killed.
I so wish this had continued. It's one of the most remarkable things I've seen on TV in a long time.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
In the show, in what way is David lying to Michelle?
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
He's not. It's just Michelle lying to him.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
I actually did not enjoy that finale.
First, David was mad at Michelle from the last episode bc she betrayed him. In this episode, they forgot about it.
Second, in the last episode Jack seemed also like he was taken hostage by William. he also seemed like a good king, and I kinda was interested in David and Jack finally being friends, ala the Bible.
I did not enjoy the ending. I think that what Silas did to Jack was obscene...I dunno what they were trying to do. It seems like they mixed up the biblical stories of Silas and Jack with David and Absalom, Once Absalom is taken care of, it reverts back to the original story where David runs away to Philistine and Saul keeps trying to kill him, while going a bit crazy himself. Too second seasony for me, when I was looking for a series finale.
What I DID enjoy was the way they spoke with God. That was awesome. But I wished that they had some closure for David, our main character, when this was a very Silas-centric episode.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
You're right, they did some serious flip-flopping on Jack's character, too.
1. Evil plan w/Silas to become next king. 2. Execution of evil plan against David. 3. Crisis of conscience at the last possible moment, reneges on evil plan. 4. Approached by Crosse. 5. Sort of reneges on Crosse's plan, apparently not going along with the worst of it - to the point of literally catching a bullet for the man who humiliated him in a very, well, Biblical way, heh. 6. Brings David in to help him be good. 7. Goes along with Crosse's evil plan.
That's one evenly cooked flapjack, that's for sure, all that flipping. The thing is, Jack's decision to finally usurp the crown is totally plausible, taking into account Silas's really dreadful hypocrisy and humiliation of his son for not going along with it to murder someone. That and his (Silas's) reprehensible hypocrisy to sneer at his son's perceived moral failures when he himself is a liar, murderer, adulterer, torturer, kidnapper, warmonger, and had more than once very specifically and knowingly gone directly against God's will.
I suspect, given the way the show ran early on, those very ample reasons would've been explored. I blame it on the cancellation.
Oh! And damn, Tomasina (sp?) turned out to be a really ice-cold evil bi#$h, didn't she? But as motivation that worked too-lots of folks think loyalty can make up for all sorts of things.
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)