Being Human
![[info]](http://stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
jaydk and I watched the pilot and first episode of Being Human and…
You guys, what the hell was that!? Why was everyone telling me watch this??? It was like giving me a cookie and then SLAPPING IT OUT OF MY HAND.
The pilot was amazing. It was the best pilot I’ve seen in years! It was dark and atmospheric and eerie, and then it was quirky and adorable and funny. The vampire guy was SO HOT, and kind of adorably emo, and had this awesome kind of dark scary alien quality at the same time as a really understandable connection to humanity. I could buy that he felt a real struggle between vampiric instincts and human morality–he was, as a proper vampire should be, a little bit creepy and off-putting, at the same time as being conflicted enough to intrigue my interest and sympathetic because of his friendship with the werewolf guy. Those two had the best subtexty-friendship-chemistry that I’ve seen in ages–the real estate lady thinking they were gay? And the whole exchange about carrying over the threshold of the new apartment? And then the Hogwarts house-sorting debate? AWESOME BEYOND WORDS.
And … and … WTF?!!! The first episode was CRAP. They recast the awesome vampire guy (and the quirky ghost girl) with bland generic hero types, and totally erased all the eerie atmosphere and the sly humor and the chemistry in favor of a bunch of derivative cliches. The ghost girl being all sad about her fiance, and the vampire guy being all BROODY and HEROIC and not at all complicated or ambiguous? YEAH, I’VE NEVER SEEN THOSE STORIES BEFORE. Did someone switch the Being Human writers with the writers of Moonlight? THAT’S HOW BAD IT WAS.
And I’m sure that if I had just watched the first episode, I’d have been all “Eh, that was fine, maybe I’ll keep watching,” but after seeing how awesome the pilot was and how much was MISSING, all I could feel was anger and frustration that every unique thing I liked had been stripped away. The only good part was that they kept Russell Tovey, who is a great actor, but even there the writing wasn’t as interesting as in the pilot.
I’m actually really sad about this. The pilot was amazing. I’m assuming that there’s no point in watching the rest of the series when all I can see is what’s lacking. *sigh*
Current Mood: 
pissed-off
27 Responses to “Being Human”
trepkos on March 23, 2009 2:59 pm | Link
Well, I loved it: I thought it was quite unique in the way it approached the supernatural genre. I never saw the pilot, but most people I’ve seen posting have enjoyed the series despite having seen the pilot. But if you are really cross about it, yes, I suppose there’s no point in carrying on watching.
[reply to this comment]
rusty-halo on March 23, 2009 3:14 pm | Link
Yeah, it’s definitely not for me. I don’t mean any offense to the people who do like it; I’m glad you enjoy it. I think I am just drifting further and further from the mainstream in my fictional preferences. (*goes back to reading a weird historical fiction series that no one’s ever heard of and listening to rock music written ten years before I was born*)
[reply to this comment]
trepkos on March 23, 2009 5:20 pm | Link
Oh, what rock music are you listening to?
[reply to this comment]
rusty-halo on March 23, 2009 5:33 pm | Link
Ziggy-era Bowie. If only it was 1973 I’d be super cool.
[reply to this comment]
cindergal on March 23, 2009 3:22 pm | Link
Interesting. I (purposefully) did not see the pilot, but you are the first person I know of who has not loved the show, even if they saw the pilot.
And Mitchell is definitely complicated and ambiguous and there is lots of subtexty chemistry between he and George throughout the series. And between the two of them and Annie.
But no, you probably shouldn’t watch it if it’s pissing you off this much. :-)
[reply to this comment]
rusty-halo on March 23, 2009 3:30 pm | Link
To be honest, I am mostly just enjoying being pissed off about something completely trivial. It’s distracting my attention from AIG and torture and war and the economy and a future that looks increasingly terrifying.
But, yeah, the Being Human pilot was really amazing. I wouldn’t be so disappointed if it hadn’t been incredible.
[reply to this comment]
butterfly on March 23, 2009 3:41 pm | Link
Definitely, if you think that you’re going to be unhappy with it, you should go the less stressful route of not watching!
I loved the series (probably obvious, I was all *yay* about in my journal) and I think I fell in love with New!Annie during the first episode and New!Mitchell in the third. And when I tried rewatching the original pilot, I actually had a hard time getting through it because the original Annie and Mitchell felt so wrong (that happened with me and Terminator, too — after watching the Sarah Connor Chronicles, the original Sarah Connor in the movies doesn’t feel right anymore. She’s not my Sarah, I guess).
[reply to this comment]
rusty-halo on March 23, 2009 3:52 pm | Link
I like that they’re continuing Sarah Connor’s story–that she’s a strong enough heroine that she can survive multiple interpretations–but in my heart, Linda Hamilton will always be my Sarah. I just adore her. I respect the TV show, but I don’t have enough interest to actually watch it.
I’m guessing Being Human gets better and that New!Mitchell must have something to recommend him, but the contrast between the pilot and first episode just seemed very clear: complex, creepy, funny, interesting vampire vs. same old broody generic vampire that I’ve already had more than my fill of in shows like Angel or Moonlight. It was a shift in archetype from one I love to one I loathe. The original guy was a lot more androgynous and weird, he had this whole sleek, alien way of moving and this detached attitude, whereas the new guy was all traditionally handsome, self-righteous, manly man hero type.
[reply to this comment]
butterfly on March 23, 2009 4:04 pm | Link
I think that BH gets better with each episode — it kinda builds. It also gets darker and darker.
And, actually, the arc that they have really shows why they adjusted the characters (and I don’t think you’d find a single person who would tried to argue that the new Annie and Mitchell are the same as the originals).
The changes that they made are really consistent with how they wanted to move the characters in a different direction (though it was, I believe prompted in part by actor availability — I’m not certain about the Mitchell actor, but the woman who played Annie was doing something else). Which, if you didn’t want the show to move in that different direction, would naturally be a disappointment for you.
I’m not a big vampire person to begin with, though — I liked Blood Ties and the vampires on that, but the vampires are, probably, the least interesting part of BtVS/Angel for me.
When I watched the BH pilot, the character that I fell in love with was George. I liked Mitchell and I really enjoyed his relationship with George, but I did not really get attached to him or Annie in the same way, so that probably helped me.
Plus, New!Mitchell pretty much caters to what I find most attractive in men. So. There’s that.
[reply to this comment]
Chase820 on March 23, 2009 4:17 pm | Link
The first episode definitely has a different feel from the pilot, but you might want to give the show another chance. They do some interesting things with the characters in later episodes.
[reply to this comment]
rusty-halo on March 23, 2009 4:20 pm | Link
I’d have to give it a while for the pilot to fade from my memory. Right now all I can see is all the good stuff that’s missing.
[reply to this comment]
queenofattolia on March 23, 2009 4:22 pm | Link
For me the inverse is true - I was totally “meh” about the pilot, and only got into it after a couple of people urged me to watch the first episode of the series. Then I was completely hooked.
If you hate it, you hate it. I thought the pilot was a mass of cliches (silky-smooth black big bad intoning his credo in an Anne-Rice-like cave, lead vampire who looked as if he’d dropped out of a PBS Austen series or (worse) a Harry Potter film, a Darla-like character (played by an awful actress) who preened around as if she was posing for Helmut Newton, etc.) and remember being hugely disappointed considering all the hype surrounding it.
By the time I was into the series, though, I thought, “This is what Buffy would have been if Joss had half a brain.” I don’t think I’ve cried more over anything since “The Gift” (which I now consider to be the true Buffy series finale). The writers brought something new and intelligent to the genre, and made me care intensely about almost all of the characters (even the evil ones, something Whedon failed to do).
But of course, different strokes, etc.
[reply to this comment]
rusty-halo on March 23, 2009 4:30 pm | Link
I agree about the big bad and the Darla-like character–both were improved in the revised version. But that didn’t at all make up for the recasting of the awesome quirky/weird vampire guy with a generic hero type or for the tone becoming a whole lot less dark and eerie.
I might have a different opinion if I watched the entire series–I’m just comparing pilot and first episode here. But the contrast between those two has pretty much cemented my lack of interest in continuing to watch. *shrugs* I’m glad you enjoyed it, though.
[reply to this comment]
Rashaka on March 23, 2009 6:13 pm | Link
I have only seen up to episode 4. I enjoyed the Annie and Mitchell of the pilot for the reasons you mentioned, but I also enjoyed the recasts. Mitchell took a second episode for me to gel with the new version… Annie, I actually liked more for the change. She was less annoying, and in the context you get a few eps later, her new characterization makes a lot of sense, and is well-developed.
“generic hero type”
I liked the eerie, slick stylishness of the Pilot Mitchell, but I actually felt that was more of a cliche than what we get later. The emo, well-dressed, broody, philosophy-spouting androgynous vampire is every bit as generic (thanks anne rice & co) as the buff, gorgeous hunk. It’s just a different type of general.
What made me okay with the new Mitchell was realizing that they were writing his approach to be significantly different: this Mitchell is more gritty, more animalistic, and ultimately a lot more menacing. They did away with the sleek refinement (also gone from the vampire leader, who went from a yuppy to a street cop), and his performance is a lot more based on physicality. It’s about hunger and nature, not about the sexy inescapability of evil.
In terms of darkness, the pilot is pretty tame compared to the middle episodes, and I haven’t even gotten to the end yet.
I’d say give it a week and try some more. There’s only 6 episodes in total, and I’ve watched more episodes than that to TRY an American show that I eventually ended up dropping. I’d say if you still really hate it by episode 3 then give up, but I think you’ll be pleasantly surprised. The cast gel really well together, and George makes a strong emotional touchstone for the audience.
I don’t agree that it is what Buffy would have been if Joss had half a brain, because I adored Buffy and I also think you tell a different story in 6 episodes than you do in seven seasons–and frankly seven seasons is a lot more difficult than six episodes. But Being Human is *good*–it’s rooted in its characters and their friendship, so when things go bad, they go to disaster with excellent characterization and inventive surprises.
[reply to this comment]
rusty-halo on March 23, 2009 7:15 pm | Link
The emo, well-dressed, broody, philosophy-spouting androgynous vampire is every bit as generic (thanks anne rice & co) as the buff, gorgeous hunk.
Well, both archetypes are pretty emo (at least in the broody/whiny sense), but yes, the androgynous well-dressed vampire is a “type” as much as the hunky macho kind. But in TV, the macho hunk is far more common. It’s why Angel got his own TV show and Spike didn’t, and why Moonlight was about the boring broody hunk while the complex ambiguous vampire lurked in the background and was lucky to get five minutes per episode. (Or if you take it out of the realm of vampires, it’s why Highlander was about Duncan MacLeod instead of Methos, even though Methos was a far more interesting character. Or why Profit, which put the screwed up scary character in the lead role [and was one of the greatest television shows ever made], got canceled after something like four episodes.)
I understand why. Television is a business and they’re going for the most widespread mainstream appeal. So they choose the traditionally masculine hunk instead of someone androgynous, and they choose a main character with typical righteous hero morality and leave the moral ambiguity to a side character.
I’m obviously at a disadvantage here because I’ve only seen the first episode, but the new Mitchell just so didn’t appeal to me. Maybe it’s the bad taste that Moonlight left in my mouth (why oh why did I watch an entire sixteen episodes of that crap??) but I soooo don’t have the patience for another broody self-righteous vampire right now. Especially after getting a taste of the awesome that could have been.
And, yeah, on a purely shallow level, I’m just so damn sick of the macho hero type. There are not nearly enough pretty, sexually androgynous men on TV, especially playing complicated, morally ambiguous characters, especially since I’ve vowed not to watch any show in which my favorite character is not the lead (thanks to post-BtVS and VM bitterness and being spoiled by Doctor Who).
Sorry, I’m totally rambling. Thanks for commenting here. I might give Being Human another chance, sometime in the far future when the pilot has faded from memory.
[reply to this comment]
Rashaka on March 23, 2009 7:44 pm | Link
I enjoy rambling discussions! Forgive my rambling, as well.
I think I confused something in my earlier comment. I had mean to say that NewMitchell, while more menacing and more physical, did not strike me more macho, and of the three, he broods less than George, and equal to or less than Annie. I equate the kind of macho lead characters like Angel and the guy from Moonlight (I quit after two episodes, what drek that was) as more “American” guy’s guy, and NewMitchell is not that. He reads very European to me…but the stereotypes of Europeans that Americans have: skinny, slightly effeminate (though not as much as the first Mitchell, it’s still there in his body posture and his giddiness) very attractive but somewhat skeevy European guy in his twenties. I equate him far more to the junkies of Trainspotting than to Angel.
That’s still markedly different from the pilot, but I stopped caring after the second episode. How do I explain this…I’m not trying to convince you to see it, I just want to work out in my head and on the page here about why my brain went “wha?!” at the Mitchell/Angel comparison. Because I can kind of see how you see it, in terms of looks, but at the same time they feel so different to me. Angel carries all this guilt and is always trying to change the world, and he’s always about selflessness and doing the right thing and and being self-righteous and full of justice. Mitchell…only seems to feel guilty for the woman he turned in the pilot, and mostly he just wants the problem she represents to go away rather than feel guilty for her (he’s selfish sometimes.) Mitchell hates what he is, but he doesn’t have a crusade to make up for the lives of past victims. All he wants to do is going through his own form of rehab, and the best method he could figure was to convince George to go through the process with him. Mitchell wants to fit in… he doesn’t want to save humans, he wants to be their neighbor, be the guy they invite to game night for chips and drinks. He pins all his hopes on the idea that if they try hard enough they can be members of society. And of the three, he’s the outgoing, socially eager person who acts as an enabler to the other two: encouraging them, egging them on, coercing them into participating for their own good. He’s basically The Mom.
I don’t remember how much of that characterization comes out in the first episode, though. But having seen 4 episodes, it’s really hard for me to equate him with Angel in my mind.
Your mention of Spike had me smile, because I’m trying to imagine what Spike would think of Mitchell. Taking pre-soul Spike… I’d say he’d be dismissive of all three characters’ desire to fit in with humans–outright laugh at them for their delusions–and he’d probably want to hook up with the woman that Mitchell turned, but after a few scenes Spike would get to talking to Mitchell about beer and football and they’d probably bond just fine. Mitchell’s not a prig or stuck-up, even if he does get self-righteous and self-conscious about choosing not to drink blood anymore. Things the show eventually calls him on directly.
“So they choose the traditionally masculine hunk instead of someone androgynous, and they choose a main character with typical righteous hero morality and leave the moral ambiguity to a side character.”
I think if you watch more you’ll find that the things you want are all there in the show.
And, though I’m not sure it matters, I think George is the main character of BH, not Mitchell. As I watched, I read it as George being the most sympathetic character and the best acted, with the most complex emotional development. He’s the center of the trio.
[reply to this comment]
rusty-halo on March 24, 2009 11:04 am | Link
I did get the sense (in all versions) that George was the main character, but he’s not someone I’d ever get fannish about, so … *shrugs* I liked him fine but don’t have anything to say about him. Original!Mitchell was the one that intrigued me.
I think I compared new!Mitchell to a more macho type hero because he’s bigger and more traditionally handsome than original!Mitchell, and because I couldn’t stand the whole righteous goody-goody hero cliche of new!Mitchell trying to stop the other vampire from biting the guy in the hospital.
[reply to this comment]
cindergal on March 24, 2009 9:09 am | Link
The macho hero type with typical righteous hero morality you are describing is so not the Mitchell of BH that I have come to love. I think you have to give it more than one episode before you hit him with that label.
I get that you fell in love with the pilot and you are disappointed with the changes, but maybe give it a few weeks and try it again. The show is worth it for George alone, but the there are some really great moments for all three of them as the season progresses.
Normally, I wouldn’t try to talk you into watching, but how could you put yourself through 16 episodes of that dreck Moonlight and not give BH a fair shot? ;-)
[reply to this comment]
rusty-halo on March 24, 2009 10:57 am | Link
Once I started Moonlight, it was like I felt obligated to finish it in order to exorcise the horror from my brain.
[reply to this comment]
JayDK on March 23, 2009 6:07 pm | Link
Yeah, it’s a bummer. For me, it’s the change in Mitchells — I spent the whole first episode waiting for the original actor to come back. He was so interesting and kind of removed from it all but had that fantastic chemistry with George and great humor and I just loved him. The new guy is just so been there, done that. Look, he’s “dark” and “conflicted” in a totally heroic, boring way. The actor wasn’t horrible, but he didn’t bring anything more than good looks and straightforward if competent acting to the role. And I completely didn’t buy him as an immortal, whereas the other guy had a sort of ageless quality. The other guy was just so fun! Plus, the first episode seemed to lose the moody atmosphere and be much brighter and shinier, much more “TV world” than the pilot.
So yeah, it’s hard to imagine watching the rest of it, after spending the whole first episode comparing it negatively to the pilot. BH is probably one of the better shows out there, but for me it feels all about the lost potential.
[reply to this comment]
rusty-halo on March 24, 2009 11:16 am | Link
Yes, exactly this. It’s funny how our minds were totally in sync–we both loved the pilot and the original Mitchell, and couldn’t get over his loss and the change of tone in the first episode.
I might give it a try again someday, but probably months or years in the future, when the pilot has faded from my memory and I can think beyond “that would’ve been better in the pilot!”
[reply to this comment]
Paratti on March 23, 2009 6:48 pm | Link
I watched and loved the pilot when it came out but didn’t rewatch before seeing ep 1 and I think that helped the compare and contrast issue.
If it helps, it does get a lot darker and the recasts didn’t bother me at all really shortly after the first ep and the recasts really worked for me with the way they took the characters.
[reply to this comment]
rusty-halo on March 24, 2009 11:19 am | Link
I think it definitely would’ve helped if I hadn’t watched the pilot. I might give the series a try again someday in the far future, but for now all I can see is annoyance that so much would’ve been better in the original version.
[reply to this comment]
versaphile on March 23, 2009 10:24 pm | Link
I loved the pilot, and was really disappointed with the changes at first. But the later episodes totally made up for it, and I grew to love the S1 versions as much as the pilot versions.
[reply to this comment]
rusty-halo on March 24, 2009 12:19 pm | Link
It does sound like I might grow to like it once I get the pilot out of my mind. It’s possible that I’ll give it a try again sometime in the far future.
[reply to this comment]
lounge_lily on March 23, 2009 10:46 pm | Link
I’m sorry you didn’t enjoy it. I saw the pilot quite a while before I saw the series (saw it on youTube). I recognised that there had been cast changes made but couldn’t remember specifics. I loved the series and went back to dl the pilot. I liked both castings but I’m with you in thinking that the original casting was more the more interesting of the two.
It’s a pity it didn’t work for you but life is too short to waste your time on something you know you’re not going to enjoy. I’ve got my fingers crossed that you find something you totally adore.
[reply to this comment]
rusty-halo on March 24, 2009 6:09 pm | Link
Thank you! I appreciate it. I think you’re right–life is too short to waste time on “entertainment” that I find disappointing. I might give it a try again someday when the pilot fades from memory, but only if I genuinely want to.
[reply to this comment]