One Tree Hill Sequel in Development at Netflix (My Thoughts)

Рет қаралды 269

Күн бұрын

Пікірлер: 13

@duffyiii 2 ай бұрын

I agree with your hot twitter take towards the end. As a child in the late 90s, I read too many interviews of TV actors extremely eager to send the message that they hadn't even watched any episodes of their shows, except the pilots (only because it was at a premiere party) and that they're not even interested in their respective genres. I'd also notice in later seasons when the actors would get to write and direct various episodes, often the results would reveal certain limitations. If Drama Queens is how you say, do you think they'll attempt to make the sequel closer to the prestige tv that you're less into? Or a revenge story of Mouth getting what he deserves?

@yourcultboyfriend 2 ай бұрын

It might be a poor imitation of prestige tv. I have a feeling there will be plenty of meta jokes about how "over the top" and "disagreeable" the original series was. I think it's great that you pointed out the limitations when the actors take more creative control in later seasons. That's a really cool point. 50% of the time, you're absolutely right. If Two Tree Hill goes the prestige route, I'd hate it. It's as if they wish that they were on Friday Night Lights (which was good, but had a lot of problems because of it being decidedly "prestige"). I think it's going to be a sequel with a lot of tonal inconsistency and mood swings. That, or they're going to be making fun of the original. If they could somehow manage to be like Gimore Girls: A Year in the Life, that would be great. OTH, part of its brilliance, was the emotional and narrative balancing act. It was daring. I don't think anyone attached to the sequel so far can pull it off.

@peytonsjenedits 2 ай бұрын

oh man you’re quick😂 will watch this later!

@JillRobertsIsmyGF 2 ай бұрын

I'm going to attempt to articulate this the best that I can. Can a great piece of art exist without being problematic? Is art inherently exploitative? I often ponder such notions in my spare time. As a Director/Showrunner you make use of the others around you to benefit your overhaul end goal as a Creative/Artist, is this by definition exploitative? There's varying degrees to this ofc, but YourCultBoyfriend was right when he said this would start a conversation some ppl might not be ready for. Great Artists are torture in some way & can be problematic at times & I do personally believe someone that is troubled or has suffered will turn to artistic expression in hopes of better understanding such philosophical conflicts they grapple with, in turn creating a great piece of art; that others, who deal with similar issues, connect with. But this all leads me back to the question of, is great art inherently exploitative? The answer: I don't know.

@yourcultboyfriend 2 ай бұрын

Thanks for jumping in. It's a difficult discussion to have. Basically everything on the planet is exploitative in some way, but not everything has to be abusive. Great art can exploit feelings and memories as well as actors and crew members. Guys like Mark and Joss were pretty bad though. Geniuses like Kevin Williamson, Darren Star, and Amy Sherman-Palladino prove that abusive behavior is the exception, not the expectation (I pray to God this sentence ages well). I think there's a fine line between utilizing resources and treating them unfairly. In cases such as those with Mark, the conversation is more intense because he went beyond exploiting unfairly, he was allegedly abusive and threatening. I don't really think anyone is beyond redemption. I'd personally love to hear Mark talk about his creative vision and the art of coming-of-age stories. He was unbelievably brilliant, but he was also seemingly cruel, petty, and aware. One Tree Hill was super unique and the show itself was often deeply exploitative. It's equally fascinating and revolting how Mark used a shool s**oting to shamelessly push his soap opera narratives into an artificially "prestige" framework. That was wild. A lot of the more controversial or intense storylines on OTH were handled in creative ways that bordered on the psychotic. That's part of Mark's brilliance. He had such an incredible understanding of television art and didn't seem to express any shame in that. I'm perfectly comfortable praising the art of problematic artists. I don't even like to separate the art as I feel the artist intimately informs the art itself. The actors as well as the fans have performed a complete erasure of Mark from his own creation. That's fine, and simple enough to do, until you try to make a sequel without his involvement and it ends up failing. It's then you'll have to ask, "What would Mark have done differently?" And I believe he was so insane, so singular, that no one but Mark himself would be able to accurately answer that question. Is all great art inherently exploitative? Isn't everything inherently exploitative under capitalism? We have to remember that OTH was quoting Ayn Rand by the second episode in a way that was genuinely inspiring and beautiful. OTH played by a different rulebook and philosophy altogether. According to Mark's philosophy within the show, exploitation is not simply intrinsically connected to great television art, exploitation is one of its strengths.

@morganf1968 2 ай бұрын

9:25 no he hasn’t appeared on the podcast unfortunately :/ most likely because Sophia is immature and still living in 2006 lol

@yourcultboyfriend 2 ай бұрын

Lol. I really hope old grudges won't hold the sequel back from being good, but I wouldn't be surprised. I love Sophia Bush and I love Chad.

@BanAllMusic 2 ай бұрын

From Deadline- “The sequel is said to take place 20 years later following best friends Brooke and Peyton who are now parents to teens and facing challenges not unfamiliar to what they tackled in the original series like love, insecurities and grief, we understand.”

@yourcultboyfriend 2 ай бұрын

That makes it sound like Brooke and Peyton might take a back seat. Maybe a more "prestige" take on Degrassi: The Next Generation? I'll try to keep up with information as it breaks.