![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
a tale of two cities
Sep. 18th, 2010 10:11 pmTwo shows, two interviews, two completely different viewpoints.
On White Collar, despite the large amount of press about the supposed bromance between Burke nand Caffrey, TPTB keep explicitly stating that no matter how friendly the boys are, deep down they don't trust each other and are willing to betray each other and, this, we are told, is what keeps the show exciting.
I beg to differ. It keeps the show distressing and distancing. Who wants to watch two supposed friends knife each other in the back? Or, at least, be expected to watch it and still respect them in the morning? (Not on, not even in Oz politics).
Butch and Sundance? Hardly. More like Pat Garrett and billy the Kid.
Meanwhile, over on Sherlock, we're told that no matter how prickly the boys are with each other, deep down there is a real connection and friendship and yes, even affection. They understand they are what each other needs, the missing parts of themselves. All very co-dependent but when it comes down to it, they would do anything for each other.
So, which is the better approach? Well, Holmes and Watson have been going for over a hundred years, so if longetivity and popularity and continued relevance was any measure, I'd have to say the Holmes/Watson aproach to bromance wins.
( more: school for tv tough guys )
On White Collar, despite the large amount of press about the supposed bromance between Burke nand Caffrey, TPTB keep explicitly stating that no matter how friendly the boys are, deep down they don't trust each other and are willing to betray each other and, this, we are told, is what keeps the show exciting.
I beg to differ. It keeps the show distressing and distancing. Who wants to watch two supposed friends knife each other in the back? Or, at least, be expected to watch it and still respect them in the morning? (Not on, not even in Oz politics).
Butch and Sundance? Hardly. More like Pat Garrett and billy the Kid.
Meanwhile, over on Sherlock, we're told that no matter how prickly the boys are with each other, deep down there is a real connection and friendship and yes, even affection. They understand they are what each other needs, the missing parts of themselves. All very co-dependent but when it comes down to it, they would do anything for each other.
So, which is the better approach? Well, Holmes and Watson have been going for over a hundred years, so if longetivity and popularity and continued relevance was any measure, I'd have to say the Holmes/Watson aproach to bromance wins.
( more: school for tv tough guys )
