Penny Dreadful: Night Work
May 12, 2014 12:24 PM - Season 1, Episode 1 - Subscribe
Explorer Sir Malcolm Murray, American gunslinger Ethan Chandler, and others unite to combat supernatural threats in Victorian London. Series premiere.
Yes it is. It's off to a good start, imo.
posted by homunculus at 12:34 PM on May 12, 2014
posted by homunculus at 12:34 PM on May 12, 2014
So it's worth getting into, by those of you who have watched it?
posted by mudpuppie at 1:01 PM on May 12, 2014
posted by mudpuppie at 1:01 PM on May 12, 2014
It's too soon to tell. The first episode was entertaining and promising, and I'm going to check it out again next week.
posted by homunculus at 2:05 PM on May 12, 2014
posted by homunculus at 2:05 PM on May 12, 2014
This show looks so good but honestly it's getting my time investment because I'll watch anything with T-Dalts.
posted by troika at 2:40 PM on May 12, 2014 [1 favorite]
posted by troika at 2:40 PM on May 12, 2014 [1 favorite]
Okay I will watch the pilot after my nap!
posted by elizardbits at 2:44 PM on May 12, 2014
posted by elizardbits at 2:44 PM on May 12, 2014
Josh Hartnett effectively pulls off the Keanu Reeves trick: he plays a character whose emotional limitations mirror his shortcomings as an actor, making him a more than serviceable star, even though he won't win any awards.
Warning to the sensitive though: Penny Dreadful is VERY GORY, as in makes Walking Dead seem tame kinda gory.
posted by DirtyOldTown at 3:00 PM on May 12, 2014 [1 favorite]
Warning to the sensitive though: Penny Dreadful is VERY GORY, as in makes Walking Dead seem tame kinda gory.
posted by DirtyOldTown at 3:00 PM on May 12, 2014 [1 favorite]
It does look wonderful and has lots of fineness about it. I do have a couple of caveats:
Firstly, there's something slightly stiff about the dramas that Sky makes, or at least the ones I've seen. Beautifully presented, generously budgeted, but with an air of lifelessness about them, like expensive modern airports. They exist primarily to support Sky's strategy to market itself as a "proper" broadcaster (rather than because Sky wants to make television programmes). This is one of the better ones, though.
Furthermore, the programme's conceit co-exists with The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen and Anno Dracula (among many others, I'm sure) and suffers a bit by comparison. The writer has neither Alan Moore's discipline (he's jumping between "real" characters found in actual novels and analogues he's made up as he feels like it), nor Kim Newman's exuberance (Newman tries to slot in as many vampires, associated characters and real Victorians as he possibly can, leaving the reader slightly dizzy and bewildered). For example, it seems that the scientist with the taste for galvanism is supposed to be Victor Frankenstein, yet Frankenstein's value as an idea (and why quote these characters unless you want to use them to represent ideas) comes from his proper time in the early 19th century - post-enlightenment Romanticism - rather than 1891, the age of the Mediums and the Golden Dawn.
It is hugely watchable – I mean, Timothy Dalton and Eva Green, how could it not be? – and entertaining in a slightly glutinous way, but doesn't seem to be able to choose between being the prestigious dramatic production Sky wants it to be (and has paid for) or the lurid confection the title promises (and which, at heart, it really wants to be).
posted by Grangousier at 3:03 PM on May 12, 2014 [7 favorites]
Firstly, there's something slightly stiff about the dramas that Sky makes, or at least the ones I've seen. Beautifully presented, generously budgeted, but with an air of lifelessness about them, like expensive modern airports. They exist primarily to support Sky's strategy to market itself as a "proper" broadcaster (rather than because Sky wants to make television programmes). This is one of the better ones, though.
Furthermore, the programme's conceit co-exists with The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen and Anno Dracula (among many others, I'm sure) and suffers a bit by comparison. The writer has neither Alan Moore's discipline (he's jumping between "real" characters found in actual novels and analogues he's made up as he feels like it), nor Kim Newman's exuberance (Newman tries to slot in as many vampires, associated characters and real Victorians as he possibly can, leaving the reader slightly dizzy and bewildered). For example, it seems that the scientist with the taste for galvanism is supposed to be Victor Frankenstein, yet Frankenstein's value as an idea (and why quote these characters unless you want to use them to represent ideas) comes from his proper time in the early 19th century - post-enlightenment Romanticism - rather than 1891, the age of the Mediums and the Golden Dawn.
It is hugely watchable – I mean, Timothy Dalton and Eva Green, how could it not be? – and entertaining in a slightly glutinous way, but doesn't seem to be able to choose between being the prestigious dramatic production Sky wants it to be (and has paid for) or the lurid confection the title promises (and which, at heart, it really wants to be).
posted by Grangousier at 3:03 PM on May 12, 2014 [7 favorites]
It turns out a significant portion of Josh Hartnett's appeal when I was 13 was ... I was 13.
posted by ChuraChura at 3:20 PM on May 12, 2014
posted by ChuraChura at 3:20 PM on May 12, 2014
But I will totally watch this show and I hope it delivers on the Frankenstein/monster sex soon!
posted by ChuraChura at 3:21 PM on May 12, 2014
posted by ChuraChura at 3:21 PM on May 12, 2014
and entertaining in a slightly glutinous way
Honest question: Do you mean in a gluttonous way, or that the show is, like, sticky in some way?
posted by mudpuppie at 4:19 PM on May 12, 2014
Honest question: Do you mean in a gluttonous way, or that the show is, like, sticky in some way?
posted by mudpuppie at 4:19 PM on May 12, 2014
Totally sticky.
posted by ursus_comiter at 5:44 PM on May 12, 2014
posted by ursus_comiter at 5:44 PM on May 12, 2014
But I will totally watch this show and I hope it delivers on the Frankenstein/monster sex soon!
Oh good, I wasn't the only one who thought there was sexual tension there. Sexual tension aside though, that final Frankenstein/monster scene was weirdly, genuinely moving.
Not sure if this will be worth sticking with for me, but I'm at least sticking around until Billie Piper shows up.
posted by yasaman at 6:37 PM on May 12, 2014
Oh good, I wasn't the only one who thought there was sexual tension there. Sexual tension aside though, that final Frankenstein/monster scene was weirdly, genuinely moving.
Not sure if this will be worth sticking with for me, but I'm at least sticking around until Billie Piper shows up.
posted by yasaman at 6:37 PM on May 12, 2014
For example, it seems that the scientist with the taste for galvanism is supposed to be Victor Frankenstein, yet Frankenstein's value as an idea (and why quote these characters unless you want to use them to represent ideas) comes from his proper time in the early 19th century - post-enlightenment Romanticism - rather than 1891, the age of the Mediums and the Golden Dawn.
Well put. Frankenstein just doesn't fit in this context and his character didn't quite work for me because of it. But it is a re-imagining, so we'll see what they do. I did like that the creature was so unimpressive and vulnerable.
posted by homunculus at 7:07 PM on May 12, 2014 [2 favorites]
Well put. Frankenstein just doesn't fit in this context and his character didn't quite work for me because of it. But it is a re-imagining, so we'll see what they do. I did like that the creature was so unimpressive and vulnerable.
posted by homunculus at 7:07 PM on May 12, 2014 [2 favorites]
Feeble creature was good! Also, I'm curious as to what did Ives (Green's character) do to the vampire when she got in his face. Mesmerism? Does she have some weird status on account of whatever apparent curse she got on herself as suggested by the fireplace exchange with the Lord? This has lots of potential, I hope they don't screw it up for a change.
posted by Iosephus at 3:26 AM on May 13, 2014
posted by Iosephus at 3:26 AM on May 13, 2014
and entertaining in a slightly glutinous way
Honest question: Do you mean in a gluttonous way, or that the show is, like, sticky in some way?
I meant that it progressed slowly but surely, like treacle off a spoon or possibly tomato ketchup.
It's possible that I might simply be down on the series because of the channel that made it, but I don't think so. It is a bit of Hammer hokum dressed up as something more serious, and it is entering a field (Victorian fantasy characters at play beyond the bounds of their original novels) where it has to do something pretty special in order to stand out. Something about it didn't seem to gel, despite the fact that everyone involved seemed to be doing sterling work, and I wonder if that's the influence of the commissioning editors, as a number of Sky's shows have this imbalance (for example the Terry Pratchett adaptations or A Touch of Cloth).
But I will keep on sneaking the episodes and watching them. I don't hate it, I'd prefer it to be a little lighter on its feet.
posted by Grangousier at 10:28 AM on May 13, 2014 [1 favorite]
Honest question: Do you mean in a gluttonous way, or that the show is, like, sticky in some way?
I meant that it progressed slowly but surely, like treacle off a spoon or possibly tomato ketchup.
It's possible that I might simply be down on the series because of the channel that made it, but I don't think so. It is a bit of Hammer hokum dressed up as something more serious, and it is entering a field (Victorian fantasy characters at play beyond the bounds of their original novels) where it has to do something pretty special in order to stand out. Something about it didn't seem to gel, despite the fact that everyone involved seemed to be doing sterling work, and I wonder if that's the influence of the commissioning editors, as a number of Sky's shows have this imbalance (for example the Terry Pratchett adaptations or A Touch of Cloth).
But I will keep on sneaking the episodes and watching them. I don't hate it, I'd prefer it to be a little lighter on its feet.
posted by Grangousier at 10:28 AM on May 13, 2014 [1 favorite]
If anyone wants to get ahead of the game, episode 2 is on Showtime Anytime
posted by Mick at 5:57 PM on May 13, 2014
posted by Mick at 5:57 PM on May 13, 2014
> Firstly, there's something slightly stiff about the dramas that Sky makes, or at least the ones I've seen. Beautifully presented, generously budgeted, but with an air of lifelessness about them, like expensive modern airports.
Yes! Completely agree about it being oddly lifeless; in this regard it reminded me of NBC's Dracula, the one with Jonathan Rhys Myers as the titular vampire. Adequate dialogue and adequate acting. Slightly disjointed storytelling with a lack of momentum or genuine intrigue. Lots of dimly lit CGI rooms (some opulent, some wretched) in Caravaggio colour palettes.
> Furthermore, the programme's conceit co-exists with The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen and Anno Dracula
I follow Kim Newman on Facebook and seem to remember him raising a figurative eyebrow when the synopsis for Penny Dreadful was first released sometime last year.
But yeah, so far it seems totally watchable and I'll give a few more episodes to see how it goes.
> I hope it delivers on the Frankenstein/monster sex soon!
I know, right? I thought that final scene was the best and most interesting part of the whole episode, and I thought the Frankenstein/monster shipping (surely that's what that was) felt weirdly original. The eroticised monster has been done loads of times in derivatives like Weird Science and Splice, but I don't remember seeing a version that used sexual frission between the original characters before.
posted by EXISTENZ IS PAUSED at 6:42 PM on May 13, 2014 [2 favorites]
Yes! Completely agree about it being oddly lifeless; in this regard it reminded me of NBC's Dracula, the one with Jonathan Rhys Myers as the titular vampire. Adequate dialogue and adequate acting. Slightly disjointed storytelling with a lack of momentum or genuine intrigue. Lots of dimly lit CGI rooms (some opulent, some wretched) in Caravaggio colour palettes.
> Furthermore, the programme's conceit co-exists with The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen and Anno Dracula
I follow Kim Newman on Facebook and seem to remember him raising a figurative eyebrow when the synopsis for Penny Dreadful was first released sometime last year.
But yeah, so far it seems totally watchable and I'll give a few more episodes to see how it goes.
> I hope it delivers on the Frankenstein/monster sex soon!
I know, right? I thought that final scene was the best and most interesting part of the whole episode, and I thought the Frankenstein/monster shipping (surely that's what that was) felt weirdly original. The eroticised monster has been done loads of times in derivatives like Weird Science and Splice, but I don't remember seeing a version that used sexual frission between the original characters before.
posted by EXISTENZ IS PAUSED at 6:42 PM on May 13, 2014 [2 favorites]
All they ever had to say was 'Eva Green, being enigmatic and appearing at all times to be thinking wry and vaguely murderous things' and I was there.
But we also get Timothy Dalton lumbering around like a big wall of beautifully-dictioned charismatic growl and that is an awesome bonus.
For my part, I liked the weird, meandering pacing they went with. It was kind of nice to have a pilot not try to exposition me to death.
The tone is odd (maybe in a good way?), though. I was trying to describe it to a friend and ended up going with 'like they took that shitty Jack The Ripper movie with Johnny Depp, or one of those crappy Syfy shows like Warehouse 13, and mixed it with some fine, delicate period drama, like a Pride & Prejudice. And then also The Walking Dead.'
Kind of like they took a high-toned cast/look/scenery/cinematography, and mixed with a low-toned script and sensibility.
But more importantly, EVA GREEN.
posted by pseudonymph at 9:25 PM on May 13, 2014 [5 favorites]
But we also get Timothy Dalton lumbering around like a big wall of beautifully-dictioned charismatic growl and that is an awesome bonus.
For my part, I liked the weird, meandering pacing they went with. It was kind of nice to have a pilot not try to exposition me to death.
The tone is odd (maybe in a good way?), though. I was trying to describe it to a friend and ended up going with 'like they took that shitty Jack The Ripper movie with Johnny Depp, or one of those crappy Syfy shows like Warehouse 13, and mixed it with some fine, delicate period drama, like a Pride & Prejudice. And then also The Walking Dead.'
Kind of like they took a high-toned cast/look/scenery/cinematography, and mixed with a low-toned script and sensibility.
But more importantly, EVA GREEN.
posted by pseudonymph at 9:25 PM on May 13, 2014 [5 favorites]
In other news: Dracula’s Castle Now for Sale to the Right Bidder
posted by homunculus at 10:28 PM on May 13, 2014
posted by homunculus at 10:28 PM on May 13, 2014
Just watched this during the middle of the day and it STILL made me jump a few times.
I am LOVING IT. I caught it on Hulu, and hope that this isn't just a ploy to get us to subscribe to Showtime and further episodes will also be shown.
This is what League of Extraordinary Gentlemen should have been.
posted by John Kennedy Toole Box at 10:35 AM on May 14, 2014
I am LOVING IT. I caught it on Hulu, and hope that this isn't just a ploy to get us to subscribe to Showtime and further episodes will also be shown.
This is what League of Extraordinary Gentlemen should have been.
posted by John Kennedy Toole Box at 10:35 AM on May 14, 2014
Am I the only one who thought the dialogue was really horribly trite? I liked most everything else about it - I just hope the dialogue writing gets better.
posted by destructive cactus at 10:40 AM on May 14, 2014 [3 favorites]
posted by destructive cactus at 10:40 AM on May 14, 2014 [3 favorites]
Agreed, destructive cactus. Some of the lines really broke me out of just enjoying.
posted by bfranklin at 1:54 PM on May 14, 2014
posted by bfranklin at 1:54 PM on May 14, 2014
Can anyone help me out by letting me know if there are more spiders than in the intro and the second scene?
posted by mlis at 6:57 PM on May 14, 2014
posted by mlis at 6:57 PM on May 14, 2014
Yeah, there needs to be a "SPIDERS INSIDE" warning, people. [shudder]
posted by computech_apolloniajames at 7:58 PM on May 14, 2014
posted by computech_apolloniajames at 7:58 PM on May 14, 2014
Okay yeah no 5 minutes in and there are way too many gross bugs for me to deal with.
posted by elizardbits at 8:13 PM on May 14, 2014
posted by elizardbits at 8:13 PM on May 14, 2014
Can anyone help me out by letting me know if there are more spiders than in the intro and the second scene?
I'm not certain. I don't think there are after the initial underground scenes, but I'm not sure. They were part of the background to me so I could have missed them.
posted by homunculus at 8:36 PM on May 14, 2014
I'm not certain. I don't think there are after the initial underground scenes, but I'm not sure. They were part of the background to me so I could have missed them.
posted by homunculus at 8:36 PM on May 14, 2014
The truth is I'm so mesmerized by Eva Green's eyes that everything else fades away.
posted by homunculus at 8:37 PM on May 14, 2014 [3 favorites]
posted by homunculus at 8:37 PM on May 14, 2014 [3 favorites]
There is a scene at the egyptologist's office with a slow close up of carrion beetles, and another scene with spiders coming out from behind the cross, except this time there are hundreds.
posted by elizardbits at 8:56 PM on May 14, 2014
posted by elizardbits at 8:56 PM on May 14, 2014
It is very close to unacceptable cooty levels for me.
posted by elizardbits at 8:56 PM on May 14, 2014
posted by elizardbits at 8:56 PM on May 14, 2014
Episode 2 is, aside from the opening credits, almost entirely cooty-free. There are some grimy rats for a moment or two, but no hideous skittering critters.
posted by elizardbits at 10:44 PM on May 14, 2014
posted by elizardbits at 10:44 PM on May 14, 2014
but I'm at least sticking around until Billie Piper shows up.
I said this too, but I suspect it was for the opposite reason.
posted by Squeak Attack at 6:27 PM on May 15, 2014
I said this too, but I suspect it was for the opposite reason.
posted by Squeak Attack at 6:27 PM on May 15, 2014
I said this too, but I suspect it was for the opposite reason.
I don't suppose it counts as a spoiler to say she's completely shitting awful, as she has been in every role since her charming pre-surname turn in the 'aliens invade Coronation Street' video for Because We Want To.
Anyway, is there a reason there isn't a post for the second episode yet?
It's been over a week since it aired now and I'm dying to talk about the Very Exciting Things that happened!
(I haven't been following the Fanfare threads on MetaTalk closely, so am not 100% sure of the posting rules, sorry.)
posted by jack_mo at 6:02 AM on May 19, 2014
I don't suppose it counts as a spoiler to say she's completely shitting awful, as she has been in every role since her charming pre-surname turn in the 'aliens invade Coronation Street' video for Because We Want To.
Anyway, is there a reason there isn't a post for the second episode yet?
It's been over a week since it aired now and I'm dying to talk about the Very Exciting Things that happened!
(I haven't been following the Fanfare threads on MetaTalk closely, so am not 100% sure of the posting rules, sorry.)
posted by jack_mo at 6:02 AM on May 19, 2014
Um, I swear that episode two post wasn't there when I looked just now, even though the timestamps say otherwise - sorry again!
posted by jack_mo at 6:25 AM on May 19, 2014
posted by jack_mo at 6:25 AM on May 19, 2014
You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments
SCREAM
posted by elizardbits at 12:29 PM on May 12, 2014 [1 favorite]