Dexter

[Spiderdancer]

Has anyone else been watching this? I've been catching an episode at a time on my Netflix "instant watch" account after I read the books (three out at current count). I'm most of the way through Season 1.

It's only sketchily like the books, if only because the Dexter of the novels would be less than sympathetic on the big screen. There's considerable filler to make one book last a whole season. And I'm utterly confused by the decision to have Doakes and La Guerta be sympathetic characters. Your comments?

[TheLuckyOne]

Lady Luck and I have been watching the edited-for-content version on CBS when we can. (And when basketball games don't cause the previous show to run into the DVR slot, making us miss 3/4 of the episode, notthatthat'shappened.) I'm liking it a lot -- I enjoyed the first two books, while LL read the first but didn't care for it. You're right that the Dexter of the books, while probably more like an actual serial killer would be, wouldn't make for a very sympathetic lead, so it's probably good that they made some changes. As is, the TV Dexter is still a fascinating character, but he clearly has emotions no matter how much he might deny it. He's not quite as witty as the literary Dexter, but close. And I really like his relationship with Rita, it's so much more fleshed-out than the books, where it's less obvious that Dexter sees her as anything more than a disguise.

Honestly, I have no problem with LaGuerta and Doakes being made more sympathetic characters, I think it was probably a good idea. I actually don't think Doakes is much different from his book version, but LaGuerta certainly is. But if they had played her like the book version, she would have been a useless, supremely annoying character who they almost would have had to kill at the end of the first season. Whereas the TV version has many of the same tendencies but is more fleshed out and shows some positive qualities too, less of a caricature. I'd guess that's the same reason Angel became a full officer instead of a random lab tech with a few lines every book... for a full show, you need a better-realized supporting cast than a book that can focus solely on the narrator.

Besides, in LaGuerta's place we get Paul to play the jerk-ass role, which is definitely a fair trade in my book.

-D

[TheOogieBoogieMan]

I've only read the first book, but I think the TV show is much better. I totally enjoy how fleshed-out the supporting cast is in the show. To me, that is way more interesting than the "everyone else is lame, so I won't bother telling you much about them" approach that the first book took.

I think serious props are in order for Michael C. Hall. I didn't think I'd be able to separate him from his character in Six Feet Under (David Fisher and Dexter Morgan are 180 degrees from one another), so the fact that I can watch Dexter without thinking about gay morticians shows the guy has some serious acting chops.

[Rett Mikhal]

I wasn't too keen on Dexter. You'd think I'd like his character considering he kills bad people in strange ways. For some reason he just rubbed me the wrong way. It might be the whole hypocrisy that he kills serial killers but is himself a serial killer... of serial killers. I don't think I'd mind a cop that kills bad guys left and right in new and interesting ways if he didn't take such sick enjoyment out of it.

He's also a bit too ideal Byronic. You know the type. Rich, handsome, perfect wardrobe, knows exactly what to say in every situation possible... give me some flawed characters besides the flaw "they kill people," PLEASE. I'm starving for originality here.

I never read the books, however. I just didn't enjoy the show.

[TheLuckyOne]

Apr 27, 2008 20:36:14 GMT -5 Rett Mikhal said:

He's also a bit too ideal Byronic. You know the type. Rich, handsome, perfect wardrobe, knows exactly what to say in every situation possible... give me some flawed characters besides the flaw "they kill people," PLEASE. I'm starving for originality here.

I can see where you're coming from- he is a very capable protaganist. That said, I think the book Dexter is actually a lot more Byronic, since we get the entire story narrated from his perspective and he has a pretty healthy self-image. What I like about the show is that Dexter does make a lot of mistakes that risk his exposure, and almost all of them are a result of the emotions he continually insists, both to himself and to us, not to have.

As an example, the episode that aired on CBS this week had a great moment. Dexter's girlfriend, Rita, has an ex-husband Paul who has just gotten out of prison for drug abuse and domestic violence. He has supervised visits with the kids, and during the latest one Paul sidles up to Dexter in the kitchen and whispers that he'll do anything to have access to his kids, even if he has to hurt "that skinny bitch" to do it. Dex rather excellently slams the guy in the head with a sauce pan, then looks completely shocked with himself afterward. What really sells it, though, is you can tell he doesn't feel a thing about the violence; what surprised him is that he has any feelings whatsoever about Rita that would make him react that way. That is good TV, to me.

-D

[Spiderdancer]

I actually preferred Book Dexter. He was witty, he was fastidious, and he was a reasonably plausible serial killer - unlike the wildly inconsistent far-from-rules-obsessive TV Dexter. The thing that fascinated me most about the books was how true they were to the profiler-type books I've read about actual serial killers. That's flat gone from the show.

And then there's the way Dexter relates to the ice truck killer, which is underplayed in the show so that he won't seem, well, gay. The way this whole aspect is handled made it the least interesting part of the TV show, especially those things about the investigation that are taken way over the top (SPOILER SPOILER Debra is dating the killer. Riiiiight. SPOILER ENDS). One of the more interesting things about Dexter in the books is that sexual orientation doesn't really have meaning for him because sex doesn't have the same meaning to him that it does to other people.

And of course there's the fact, given the actual number of serial killers suspected to exist in the general population, that an awful lot of them must be in Miami for Dexter to take one down every single week. But that's just television.

[Rett Mikhal]

Hmm. The lack of emotions of lack of desire for sex makes him an interesting character and that having been said I can see why people compare him to me. I thought they were just being jackasses. I mean it's not exactly good dinner conversation to say 'Hey, know who is the most like a Serial killer? Rett.'

I don't know though. Something about Dexter just doesn't click with me. Going back to the Byronic hero comparison, I normally LOVE Byronic heroes except the 'classical' ones that have every feature including the insatiable lust. Dexter lacks that, but the way he talks and looks when he kills people makes it obvious he doesn't lack it he just replaces it. This makes a double red card for me because I was never one for characters that derive their confidence from getting laid, or characters that take way too much thrill in killing someone even if it is for revenge or the "right reasons."