ENTERTAINMENT

Should Under the Dome crawl under a rock?

From October 2014

Back in 2010, I wrote about Stephen King's novel Under the Dome. I enjoyed the book. Unfortunately, however, I have not enjoyed the television series adaptation. In fact, I would say the television series is more of a mutation than an adaptation of the original story. Mutations can make for some good storytelling in the right science fiction plot. That is not the case with Under the Dome.

Many of the comments contained in online reviews about season two of the series criticize lazy writing and poor plot development. While there is, sadly, an abundance of this in season two, I think the poor reception to the series also has to do with the fact that it is difficult to have any real emotional connection to the characters. Granted, this is connected to poor writing because the stilted dialogue does make it difficult for the actors to offer a convincing performance. Yet, there were so many subplots taking place that I found myself waiting for conclusions, hoping a new subplot would allow for a bit more character development and give me a reason to care about at least one character.

I compare my gradual disengagement with the show to how I feel with much of the weak offerings on "reality" television. In the end, I have a hard time rooting for anyone on a series like Big Brother, and find myself, not really giving a care in the world who ends up the winner. Much of that attitude also surfaces with shows like Under the Dome. It is unfortunate, because while I found season one a bit bumpy and awkward, it was watchable. I was hoping the show would find its feet by season two. By the fourth episode, however, it appeared evident that season two would be cut off at the knees before the finale. I cannot personally confirm it was horribly maimed, since I stopped watching the show, but given what I have read online, it appears the show is seriously struggling.