I need to be honest and admit something, which is that I'm not particularly enthused about watching a forthcoming F/X TV series called 4 oz., as in one quarter of a pound, which is the weight of a surgically severed penis. I don't think this one holds great interest for me. 21 Grams -- the weight of a human soul -- worked as a title but not this...sorry. Ryan Murphy's forthcoming series is about a married sportswriter who decides to become a woman...terrific. I haven't been permitted to see Murphy's Running With Scissors (Columbia, 10.27), but as far as I know it's only about verbal (as opposed to surgical) slicings.
Posted by Jeffrey Wells on September 27, 2006 at 3:24 PM
comment #1
jeffmcm
says ...
I was hoping it would be a weekly reality series. One week would be John Bobbitt, the next week, somebody in the Philippines, then Brazil, etc.
Posted by jeffmcm
at September 27, 2006 3:45 PM
comment #2
fnt
says ...
If you've ever seen Ryan Murphy's ongoing FX series Nip/Tuck, this show's premise holds no shock. This is definitely the sort of mileu Murphy loves.
Since you don't, Jeff, you're probably not the target audience. Which is fine, since Nip/Tuck has FX's best ratings and this show should appeal to all those who love it.
Posted by fnt
at September 27, 2006 4:39 PM
comment #3
Griff
says ...
It sounds painfully cute.
Posted by Griff
at September 27, 2006 5:29 PM
comment #4
Mark
says ...
4 oz. is a much better title than 21 grams. Any title referencing one's soul, unless used for a C. Thomas Howell comedy, is just drowning in pretentiousness.
Now an implicit nod to a cut off wang...that's fine.
Posted by Mark
at September 27, 2006 6:37 PM
comment #5
TKC
says ...
"Nip/Tuck" would've been an awesome title for the new show, had Murphy not already used it. (Depending on how the surgery takes place, I'd imagine "Running With Scissors" could also have worked.)
(BTW, for those who haven't seen it -- "Nip/Tuck" is pretty great.)
Posted by TKC
at September 27, 2006 6:37 PM
comment #6
Hallick
says ...
"21 grams" always sounded like a cocaine title to me and still does, even knowing what it's actually in reference to. Which oddly makes it work better than just thinking about what a soul weighs.
And this is the same reason I'm feeling pretty blah about "4 oz" as a title. As a working title, okay fine. I'm sure countless parents everywhere have tossed around equally absurd "working titles" for their own forthcoming offspring; but when it comes down to a real birth and a permanent certificate, NO WAY do you run with something so "way off over there" unless you're a hippie with your head so far up your hole it winds back up in your head again. Or a Hollywood celebrity. Oh boy.... There's nothing wrong with good weird titles, but this one is just lame.
Posted by Hallick
at September 27, 2006 11:21 PM
comment #7
MPNeeb
says ...
Actually, unless my info is bad, sexual reassignment does not involve severing the penis.
The penis is, "altered." Drastically altered, but certainly not severed.
Posted by MPNeeb
at September 28, 2006 4:00 AM
comment #8
Nicol D
says ...
I remember being vauguely interested in Nip/Tuck when it first came out, so after a few months I found the time to flip on the show one night.
I had heard how 'edgy' and 'daring' the show was.
When I flipped it on I remember it was a scene with one of the leads kicking the shit out of a priest in a church. I shrugged and turn the channel.
I guess 'edgy' and 'daring' nowadays just means more of the same 'ol same 'ol.
This sounds like more crap for the Sex in the City/Desperate Housewives generation.
Posted by Nicol D
at September 28, 2006 5:29 AM
comment #9
NYCBusybody
says ...
Not sure what it's worth Nicol, but National Review Online had a column about the nascent pro-life sentiments of recent Nip/Tuck episodes. I haven't seen the show, so not sure.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YWNmOThjMDZlNTkyY2RhZjhmYTdmMjdmM2I0ZDFiOTM=
Posted by NYCBusybody
at September 28, 2006 6:31 AM
comment #10
christian
says ...
and college-educated people actually get paid to come up with these ideas...why oh why can't i?
Posted by christian
at September 28, 2006 8:21 AM
comment #11
storymark
says ...
So, Nicol, watching one scene, without context, was enough for you to judge the entire series?
Posted by storymark
at September 28, 2006 11:16 AM
comment #12
James Leer
says ...
Wow, how coincidental that Nicol, who regularly rails against a perceived anti-Catholic bias in entertainment, turned on the TV and just happened to see EXACTLY THAT SCENE! That's great that he didn't, y'know, just hear about that scene and pretend he saw it to make a point.
Posted by James Leer
at September 28, 2006 11:40 AM
comment #13
Nicol D
says ...
Actually James, that's exactly how it happened.
I figure any show where when I randomly put it on and it happens to be the lead kicking the shit out of a priest in a church must be so rife with PC that it won't be to my tastes.
I'm not trying to start up here friend...but it really did play out that way.
Posted by Nicol D
at September 28, 2006 1:09 PM
comment #14
christian
says ...
it's okay, nichol. i've seen the show for you and it's trash tv at its finest. shallow and stupid smothered in meta-ironic hollywood snark to make it go down easier with those who crave gross edge.
move along...
Posted by christian
at September 28, 2006 1:19 PM
comment #15
Nicol D
says ...
NYC,
Thanks for the read. It's interesting.
Posted by Nicol D
at September 28, 2006 1:30 PM