Monday, August 28, 2006

Deadwood: Suckage

I saw the last episode of Season 3 (series got canned by HBO), and it totally fucking sucked, pardon my French.

"It told us so much about each of the characters."

It contradicted everything that the characters have established. I'm not appealing for a bloodbath, but some preservation of the characters that we have all seen develop through the seasons, even if it was Bullock's use of his badge to thwart Hearst in some way. To see them all buckle tells us that it was all just an act. That they were nothing more than the "bullies" that Bullock lamented about to Hearst. What was this? The author's way of telling us he had us all fooled?

And more generally, when an author foretells of something within a story, and uses lots of devices to build to it, but then doesn't follow through with it, it's very reasonable for an audience to be unsatisfied. The author seems to have indulged a bit too much here for the audience's liking. The conclusion he deprived us of was the hook that kept us coming back, and we feel cheated."

This sums my feelings up. Seth didn't act like Seth, nor Al act like Al, and on down the line. Even Cy seems oddly out of character, although he's been erratic since he nearly died at the ending of the 2nd season.

Fucking stupid, I say, for all the reasons listed above. Limber dick cocksuckers, as the great Ellsworth said. It continues...

"To those people here that mistook people standing down to Hearst as being anticlimactic, what's happened here is that Deadwood has shown itself to be strong by showing itself to be united. "

Bullock loses the election. Ellsworth leaves town. Who knows what will happen to Charlie since Bullock loses. The Doc is dying. What's so united about this? Their futures are all left hanging. We have no idea of what happens next.

I don't even think it's historically accurate. Bullock was the sherrif of the town from it's inception. There is no mention of his defeat so shortly after being appointed sherrif. History places him as the sherrif there for quite a while and that he restored "Law and Order" in the town.

"It's about priority, and learning to adapt. And we see that in everyone's decisions, right down to Charlie accepting the tea instead of coffee. Hearst's departure is worth a fucking lot to everyone in the camp. And Hearst has seen how unpleasant it is for him to be there, the poor put-upon delusional cocksucker. It's win-fucking-win. Everyone's standing up to Hearst, saying "we know you have the power to destroy us but we aren't gonna suck your ass pretending we like you." But they misunderestimate him as much as he misunderestimated them when he showed up in the town. He'll still be a presence, but again, the camp will adapt."

And what exactly is attractive about a story where everyone gives into corrupt power and and conforms? They aren't standing up, to Hearst whatsoever. If you think that Charlie's and Seth's little speaches to Hearst were not pretending, you lend too much weight to hollow words.

Basically, the characters acted contrary not only to their established character:

  1. The impulsive, righteous Sheriff not only did nothing, but he didn't even object to an innocent whore being murdered in place of another, as demanded by the Big Bad Guy Hearst.
  2. The conniving bad guy allied with the good guys bends over for the Big Bad Guy Hearst and kills one of his own whores to placate him - and not even the right one. Supposedly, that was something nice he did - but I object. Even Al didn't think it was "fair."
  3. Alma sells her claim to Big Bad Guy Hearst because he had her sweet, noble old husband murdered. Nevermind Ellsworth would be thumping and thrashing in his grave at this.
  4. We had nearly every character in town gunning for Big Bad Guy Hearst and they fucking have him just stroll away with armed Pinkertons. He got all he wanted and everyone in town proved they were wussies, that everything the series had established was a lie.