I make this resolution. I will strive to avoid compound sentences. Each sentence will be short and pertinent. Will this resolution last the duration of this post
( Read more... )
We now have more flesh on the Nathan/Hunter team. Nathan is supposedly in charge but has not come to grips with his team at all.
The more I see of them, the more I see odd but striking parallels with "Yes, Minister" with the Hunter being Sir Humphrey Appbleby, and Nathan being Jim Hacker. Were you a fan of that show? In any case, their bickering about who's in charge is quickly becoming the highlight of each week's show for me.
The India storyline bored me to tears except for one thing - that amazing cake. I think elephants holding up the tiers are definitely the way forward.
Not so much Yes, Minister for me, which I did watch avidly, than the alleged Bush/Cheney relationship. For all his oily manoeuvring, Appleby did have his charms and did at least make the effort to pretend to support Jim Hacker. I think you are to something though. If the writers would take a leaf from that book and clarify Nathan and the Hunter’s motives a little bit more, it could be a well of great wit and interest.
The cake scared me. I did like the elephants and had a momentary flash to Discworld, but the colour and … solidity of the icing made my stomach hurt.
Not so much for the personalities, no - there are very few similarities, you're right. Hump definitely had an unflappable, patrician charm, yes. Some differences are due to them plainly being very different personalities but also because Humph was much more secure in his position. Unlike Danko, as Perm Sec, he wasn't ever in danger of being fired and he had many decades practice in seeing off ministers and their plans. Also, all Humphrey really wanted was for nothing to change and for his Department to grow so they wanted to achieve different things. Now in some ways, this makes Humph a much more difficult opponent - he knows the turf, he knows all the players, and he has no positive competing agenda that Hacker can trade against. Danko is in theory somewhat aligned with Nathan's aim even if the objectives seem very rather different. There *should* therefore be more common ground. That there isn't makes me think that boundaries are a problem combined with Nathan not doing the stuff he really should doing and here he IS like Jim
( ... )
I assume Danko is the character's name. I hadn't heard it used but I don't ever think I have to pay attention in Heroes, so I may well have missed it.
You make a very good point. That scene is certainly universal as between politicians and those who serve in the various institutions over which politicians are given temporary charge. It worked well for Yes, Minister because Whitehall is in itself a well-established institution. People know and understand what it does. Where I think I have a problem, or rather, where I think the writers are falling down, is that I don't know what Danko is. I don't know where he's come from. I haven't a clue about his motivations. If he was military or CIA or identified with something, I could at least start to get a handle on him. For now, I can't separate the job (and its objectives) with the man. He is irritated by Nathan but is it because Nathan is not supporting the objectives his superiors (whoever they are or were) or his objectives or because he's anti-authoritarian himself or... I don't want to
( ... )
assume Danko is the character's name. Seems to be. Something close to that anyway - Nathan mentions his name when he's slagging him off in that endless phonecall to his mum. The phonecall also gave more clues as Angela is idly reading a dossier whilst she tells Nathan to piss off. If the newspaper headline in that dossier is to be believed, it suggests Danko is a former Angolan Mercanary (are there any other kind in fiction, I wonder?) associated with a bunch of civilian deaths. Who could have thought the selection process for recruiting someone to gather people up and stick them in camps might attract such an unsavouray element?
I agree there's a bunch of stuff still to be explained but for some unearned reason (Heroes track record on this sort of thing is shocking), I seem to find myself relaxed about finding out all this kind of stuff in the fullness of time. Weird, really.
Isn't there some studies that prove we have trouble digesting food that's the wrong colour?Not heard of it but it sounds plausible. Be interesting to know
( ... )
Comments 5
The more I see of them, the more I see odd but striking parallels with "Yes, Minister" with the Hunter being Sir Humphrey Appbleby, and Nathan being Jim Hacker. Were you a fan of that show? In any case, their bickering about who's in charge is quickly becoming the highlight of each week's show for me.
The India storyline bored me to tears except for one thing - that amazing cake. I think elephants holding up the tiers are definitely the way forward.
Reply
The cake scared me. I did like the elephants and had a momentary flash to Discworld, but the colour and … solidity of the icing made my stomach hurt.
Reply
Reply
You make a very good point. That scene is certainly universal as between politicians and those who serve in the various institutions over which politicians are given temporary charge. It worked well for Yes, Minister because Whitehall is in itself a well-established institution. People know and understand what it does. Where I think I have a problem, or rather, where I think the writers are falling down, is that I don't know what Danko is. I don't know where he's come from. I haven't a clue about his motivations. If he was military or CIA or identified with something, I could at least start to get a handle on him. For now, I can't separate the job (and its objectives) with the man. He is irritated by Nathan but is it because Nathan is not supporting the objectives his superiors (whoever they are or were) or his objectives or because he's anti-authoritarian himself or... I don't want to ( ... )
Reply
I agree there's a bunch of stuff still to be explained but for some unearned reason (Heroes track record on this sort of thing is shocking), I seem to find myself relaxed about finding out all this kind of stuff in the fullness of time. Weird, really.
Isn't there some studies that prove we have trouble digesting food that's the wrong colour?Not heard of it but it sounds plausible. Be interesting to know ( ... )
Reply
Leave a comment