Law and Order: UK

[altariel]

I just left this comment in communicator's post on Law and Order: UK, and since it pretty much sums up what I thought, I'm copying, tweaking, and pasting.

As you know, Bob, I adore Law and Order, and I thought this was a pretty decent stab at it. I felt there weren't quite enough twists in the police story (L&O generally weaves around a hell of a lot in the first 20 minutes) and there was the notorious stock TV scene-ender at one point ("Oh, and [character]?" [character pauses at door and looks back questioningly] "Thanks." [character beams and leaves]) [1].

The legal scenes didn't capture that sense of civic society being constructed and enacted in the court-room (which programmes like L&O and Boston Legal do so well); partly because we, er, don't do that so much in the UK. mraltariel was saying last night that given the UK court system is about weighing competing narratives, it might work better dramatically to have cutaways as people gave evidence, like in Without a Trace.

[1] As noted in Rusty's The Writer's Tale.

Comments

[thanatos-kalos.livejournal.com]

Oh, have I missed the premiere? Damn-- when does the series air?

[manna]

I thought the main weakness, even more that the crappy dialogue, was the plotting, which was plain *awful*. In places it made no sense to an almost offensive degree. I like to feel that the writers are at least putting a minimum of effort into the story, rather than just slapping any old crap down on the page and hoping the audience has dozed off by that point. None of the characters ever actually said 'I'm doing this because the writer says I have to', but it got very close.

All in all, I'd much rather watch Deed, which is at least all-guns-blazing, heart-felt, foot-to-the-floor craptastic craziness. This was just weak and lazy.

I did admire the cast, though, who were sweating blood over some absolutely dire material.

[owl]

So if UK courts are about competing narratives, what about US courts?

Does it never end?

[(Anonymous)]

Look, L&O creators (and all you others), it's not that courtroom drama is overdone, it's just that it's... overdone. And you were responsible for a large part of that - there are already L&O, L&O: SVU, L&O: CI (which is, in my opinion, inexcusable in its very being), L&O: Crime and Punishment, and L&O: Trial by Jury. We do not need another one.

Britain especially doesn't need this, because dammit, Britain gave us Rumpole of the Bailey, and that, by God, is a thing to celebrate. There is no need for a pale knock-off of a neurotic and earnest U.S. prosecutor when you have Leo McKern to regale you with his cross-examination speeches, blunt cantankerousness, and frumpy decadence.

Dwim

[toft-froggy.livejournal.com]

But it doesn't have Jeremy Brett in, and therefore can't be good. That's my new verdict about TV.

*sighs adoringly*

[sherlock1.livejournal.com]

Worst bit of dialogue:

"Go home, it's over."
"... For us maybe."

Argh! And the "doink doinks" freaked me out. And it was obvious who was behind the death from about five minutes into the show - at least the US version tends to double-bluff you a bit.

In the American versions they have pretty good character actors in the L&O shows, which I think is a major reason why they're still interesting to watch despite the fact you don't know that much about their personal lives. Bradley Walsh is never going to compete with Jerry Orbach or Christopher Meloni, or Ben Daniels with Sam Waterston. I do think Bill Paterson was a good bit of casting though. And I'll reserve judgement on Harriet Walter.

Agree with Mr Altariel that dramatic cutaways would work very well. It's never great when your dramatic courtroom action is limited to health and safety...