Lucifer
Lucifer is based on an idea by Neil Gaiman. Tired of being Hell's warden, Lucifer decides to go on a vacation and ends up in L.A. (of course). Most critics seem to have hated the pilot but I loved it. Tom Ellis has a blast as Lucifer and (just like Lucifer) I am tired of everything being gritty, grim, dark and depressing. What's wrong with just having a bit of fun?
Originally posted by Bardock42
It looks ****ing awful. Lucifer Morningstar doesn't need to be dark, depressing and gritty, but this just looks stupid, and basically not related to the source material, which I hold in high esteem. Not sure why it needs to associate itself with it.
So you haven't seen it yet?
Very funny and watchable. Not quite what I would have envisioned (something more adult and character driven), but the lead is charming (if borderline camp) and the music is fine.
This show has a sort of Hank Moody/Californication vibe, but without the adult content. Could be really brilliant, could just be good.
I have found that 99% of the complaints revolve around one fact: The show is not the same as the comic books. But what confuses me about this complaint is that the makers of the show made it clear from the beginning that they never intended the show to be like the comic book series.
Yes, they took the character and the premise from the original comic book but they never hid the fact that the series would go in a different direction. Make no mistake, I am a big Neil Gaiman fan, but I do feel these complaints to be somewhat unfair.
Personally, I just loved the show for exactly what it was: A tongue-in-the-cheek, fresh reinterpretation of the classic buddy-cop premise, not to be taken seriously.
Originally posted by DreampantherIts a little different when the concept barely resembles the source material at all. Why even bother mentioning the vertigo series? Theres going in a different direction and theres whatever this is.
I have found that 99% of the complaints revolve around one fact: The show is not the same as the comic books. But what confuses me about this complaint is that the makers of the show made it clear from the beginning that they never intended the show to be like the comic book series.Yes, they took the character and the premise from the original comic book but they never hid the fact that the series would go in a different direction. Make no mistake, I am a big Neil Gaiman fan, but I do feel these complaints to be somewhat unfair.
Personally, I just loved the show for exactly what it was: A tongue-in-the-cheek, fresh reinterpretation of the classic buddy-cop premise, not to be taken seriously.
Originally posted by HueyFreeman
Its a little different when the concept barely resembles the source material at all. Why even bother mentioning the vertigo series? Theres going in a different direction and theres whatever this is.
Not exactly sure where you are heading with this post? 😕 I think most of these points were already addressed.
Again, if your complaint is mostly that the tv series does not resemble the comic books (apart from the original concept, that Lucifer has left Hell and is now chilling on Earth) then you are not, in fact, reviewing the show at all. You are reviewing a show that does not exist and never did exist.
I don't mind making it into CSI: Lucifer. Movies and shows differ from the source material all the time, this is just an extreme example of that..
MY problem is with the typical TV bashing on religion, and the way they portray "Evil.is good, good is evil."
Like the preacher in Walking Dead being ramped up from moral hypocrite in the comics, to bumbling foolish butt monkey. I'm hardly a religious guy, and don't have any problems with relgion being criticised in general, but this stuff stands out to me.
In the comics, the conflict between Lucifer and the Angels was that the angels supported an orderly design from their god. While Lucifer was an anarchist who wanted to live as he wished.
But they were BOTH assholes. People suffered and died all the time because of their actions/inactions.
But in the show, Lucifer comes across like a decent guy, while the angels are STILL assholes. And the angel even criticises Lucifer for being too merciful? That a balance needs to be maintained?
So, where's the angel detective, then? What angels are actually saving lives? Because all the angel we saw did was complain about Lucifer helping people, but we never see him helping anyone. So how is Lucifer destroying a balance by being a nice guy? Arguments of "balance" imply someone else has the job of being a good guy, but it doesn't look like the angels are too nice...
Originally posted by Dreampanther
I have found that 99% of the complaints revolve around one fact: The show is not the same as the comic books. But what confuses me about this complaint is that the makers of the show made it clear from the beginning that they never intended the show to be like the comic book series.Yes, they took the character and the premise from the original comic book but they never hid the fact that the series would go in a different direction. Make no mistake, I am a big Neil Gaiman fan, but I do feel these complaints to be somewhat unfair.
Personally, I just loved the show for exactly what it was: A tongue-in-the-cheek, fresh reinterpretation of the classic buddy-cop premise, not to be taken seriously.
I agree. No the show is not like the comics, but, as stated, it was never intended to.
The show is pretty funny, it's not my favorite show, but I do enjoy it. It's funny, witty and doesn't drag on and on.
No news yet, as far as I know. I have been keeping up with this for the most part. One thing I can say is that anyone who was afraid of Lucifer being portrayed as an innocent good guy don't have to worry. He's still a complete and utter selfish a$$hole, who only ever does anything "good" if he feels it can somehow further his personal agenda. It's actually quite staggering how self-absorbed he is. At least that's how he has come across to me so far.