The Following

Started last week on Sky, the story of a serial killer (Purefoy) and the guy who caught him (Bacon). Purefoy is giving lessons to would-be serial killers, and there's absolutely no idea who can be trusted.

Some wonderfully gruesome moments. The woman covered in the Raven in the foyer of the police station is brilliant.

I watched the first episode last night, after recording it on the Sky box and series linking. I've got the second episode still to watch, but - ominously - the box says 'part recorded'.....

I saw the extended trailer for this on YouTube. I like the concept; I think it has the potential to go in some interesting directions. And I like the way the series will be limited to fifteen episodes per season (because Kevin Bacon wants to keep doing films), because it should negate some of the listless mid-season fluff that these shows inevitably indulge in to pad out the episode count to twenty-two or twenty-four episodes. I remember "Revenge" did it (and did a really poor job of it to boot) - there was a point where it seemed that everything was going to be resolved and wrapped up for the season, but then they introduced a series of subplots that were totally unnecessary and distracted from the main premise.

That said, I'm not keen on the brutality. I never have been. I hate films like SAW and HOSTEL; I hate the fact that there are audiences big enough to justify making them in the first place, much less make six or seven sequels. From what I've heard, "The Following" doesn't hold back on the violence, but it doesn't try to offset it with humour, either. I like the idea that the characters are revolted by it, and that it affects them ... but at the same time, I hope they're not looking at brutality for the sake of it.

I don't like Saw or Hostel either. I saw the first and thought it was ridiculous. Never bothered with Hostel.

I lost signal part way through episode 2 so I downloaded it from On Demand to watch.

It certainly doesn't hold back on the violence, but it's not the cartoon violence of films like Saw. I've seen criticism of the series because it shows serial killers practicing on animals - even though they're not real animals, of course. Some people just thought it was sick.

So cutting up young women is fine, but don't kick the puppy.

What I liked about the first episode, and I hope they keep it throughout, was the sheer banality of evil. It can be your teacher, your next door neighbour, your best friend - someone you've known for years. Contrary to general opinion, you can't spot a psycho that easily. And there isn't really anything to like about the psychos in it.

Although I usually find quite a lot to like about Purefoy. And his psycho is obsessed with Poe, who is one of my favourite writers ;)

Still, there's nothing to like about them. Purefoy's character may be seductive, but it's the seductiveness of the Devil, the allure of Evil. And it's more about him wanting to project that. Most serial killers are boring characters. They're not Hannibal Lecter. And this series seems to move far away from the Serial Killer as Superman thing, which is great, because I always hated that about Hannibal Lecter.

Ravenstone wrote:

So cutting up young women is fine, but don't kick the puppy.

Well, a young women isn't completely defenceless.

The more disturbing double standard for me is how shows like this are given the green light, whereas graphic sex between two adult consenting partners is deemed a taboo.

I agree with you there.

Ravenstone wrote:

I don't like Saw or Hostel either. I saw the first and thought it was ridiculous.

The idea behind the first one - how far would you go to save yourself? - was an interesting on, even if the execution was flawed. The problem was that they started making sequels, and the emphasis became gory deaths: people being injected with a litre of acid, or being flayed alive, etc.

Ravenstone wrote:

I've seen criticism of the series because it shows serial killers practicing on animals - even though they're not real animals, of course. Some people just thought it was sick.

Isn't torturing small animals one of the first major signs of a serial killer? From what I've read of "The Following", the writers are trying to create genuinely-scary villains.

Ravenstone wrote:

And this series seems to move far away from the Serial Killer as Superman thing, which is great, because I always hated that about Hannibal Lecter.

Lecter was unusual in that he was one of the original super-killers. Taken on his own, it's fine - but the problem is that every writer then felt the need to make his or her character near-omnipotent. Serial killers succeed because they know how to keep their heads down and avoid detection, which is something that practicall every writer ignores.

Prisoner Monkeys wrote:

Isn't torturing small animals one of the first major signs of a serial killer?
.

Exactly

Quote :

Lecter was unusual in that he was one of the original super-killers. Taken on his own, it's fine - but the problem is that every writer then felt the need to make his or her character near-omnipotent.

Exactly. All of a sudden, evil became the hero. Not very acceptable to make the bad guy a better prospect than the good guy. And no serial killer is that kind of genius. Well, except perhaps for the ones who didn't get caught ;)

I caught up with episodes 2 and 3 yesterday. Oh boy is it freaky! :shock: The female killer is seriously doo-lally; even more deranged that Purefoy.

Actually, I was referring more to the way serial killers are often written in such a way that they have incredibly elaborate plans, and are able to predict the precise actions of people to a superhuman extent. Even if the police come up with an elaborate scenario to trap the killer, the kilelr will somehow be able to anticipate everything in advance and work it into his plans. I once read a novel called Play Dead where the killer wanted the police to witness the death of his final victim, but not be able to stop it. His solution was to send the police a tesselation, where the pieces corresponded to the rooftops of buildings around the city, which when properly arranged, would form a map and direct them to the location of the final murder. It was immensely complicated, and somehow the timing worked out precisely in the killer's favour. The whole thing was ridiculous.

Serial killers - like Nazis and terrorists - are what I like to call "easy evil' in fiction. It doesn't take much to make them into villains; usually, all you have to do is drop the words "serial killer" in and hey presto, evil!

To a point, a killer might be aware of procedure, and thereby extrapolate the most obvious course of action from his pursuers. But the kind of omniscience you describe is why I usually detest the modern day crime stories

I have the first 4 episodes recorded but I haven't watched a single one.

Is it worth watching?

I hate to start following a new TV series and have it turn out to be a waste of time.

It's like that show The Americans.

I recorded the first 3 episodes.

I finally got around to watching episode 1 last night and I wasn't too impressed.

Now I'm debating if I should give it another chance and watch episodes 2-3 or just call it quits and forget about it.

Depends. Most of the threads on IMDb would have you think it's rubbish. Personally, I'm enjoying it. It's the right kind of entertainment where I don't feel that the serial killer is being turned into the hero, or that the violence is too clean, or too excessive and turns voyeuristic.

Ravenstone wrote:

Depends. Most of the threads on IMDb would have you think it's rubbish. Personally, I'm enjoying it. It's the right kind of entertainment where I don't feel that the serial killer is being turned into the hero, or that the violence is too clean, or too excessive and turns voyeuristic.

Are there any boobies in the show?

Naked chick strips off to her knickers before gouging her eyes out in the first episode.

Not exactly titillating though