Also, it can't just be about running from zombies. That will get tiresome, I promise you. The first half of this season, though not up to my high standards, wasn't completely worthless. The show needs to slow down every now and then and really ask the question "Is just surviving even worth it." Though they didn't nail it in terms of raising the stakes or pacing or even character development, I see what they are trying to do and I respect it.
Now go kill some zombies, god dammit.
I don't know about that. The big guy starting saying he was gonna shoot them in the head and take their cars if they weren't gonna help them and the first guy Rick shoots was very clearly reaching for his gun. I really feel that they'd be dead if Rick hadn't shot those two. Now, I don't necessarily think they were bad people, its a pretty desperate situation and people will naturally become rabid to survive, I think Rick had to do it.
I can't figure out ho wto start a new thread. Sorry, this comment is not related to the one I'm "replying" to.
This is a pretty good article, but I think you were a bit quick to come to Fox's defense. Sure, they kept Fringe on and Dollhouse got second season, but there is more than one way to kill a show. Just because they haven't canceled Fringe, doesn't mean they didn't mortally wound it. This was the #1 show on Monday nights during season one and for season two they moved it Thursday against some of the highest rated shows on the planet. And Dollhouse is an unfair point because they only gave it 13 episodes a season (season one was a mid-season replacement, so that's understandable.) and they put it at Friday 8/7 Central; they might as well have called it "The Filler Until We Find Something Else Show." They do not deserve the reputation as the Show-Killers, I'd say no more than most networks, but they certainly did not deserve the defense you gave them. Firefly alone has earned them YEARS of penence that they'll just have to deal with.
And I would argue that Cable programming does have cooler stuff (though its fair share of failures) because they are not as limited by FCC and advertisers...they can kind of do whatever they want which often means pushing the envelope...but what they lack is to ask themselves "we can, but should we?"
This is a pretty good article, but I think you were a bit quick to come to Fox's defense. Sure, they kept Fringe on and Dollhouse got second season, but there is more than one way to kill a show. Just because they haven't canceled Fringe, doesn't mean they didn't mortally wound it. This was the #1 show on Monday nights during season one and for season two they moved it Thursday against some of the highest rated shows on the planet. And Dollhouse is an unfair point because they only gave it 13 episodes a season (season one was a mid-season replacement, so that's understandable.) and they put it at Friday 8/7 Central; they might as well have called it "The Filler Until We Find Something Else Show." They do not deserve the reputation as the Show-Killers, I'd say no more than most networks, but they certainly did not deserve the defense you gave them. Firefly alone has earned them YEARS of penence that they'll just have to deal with.
And I would argue that Cable programming does have cooler stuff (though its fair share of failures) because they are not as limited by FCC and advertisers...they can kind of do whatever they want which often means pushing the envelope...but what they lack is to ask themselves "we can, but should we?"
Wow. I was attempting to support your argument from the POV of a Joss fan and your two comments have simply proven that you're not only argumentative, but more than a little pretentious.
Thanks for the Latin lesson. But more importantly, thanks for reminding me why I gave up commenting on these stupid threads in the first place. You're just not worth it.
Thanks for the Latin lesson. But more importantly, thanks for reminding me why I gave up commenting on these stupid threads in the first place. You're just not worth it.
I agree with you. You are entitled to your opinion. What frustrates me is that we can't all just accept that there is "no accounting for taste." Because there just isn't.
That being said, it's always hard to accept criticism over something that you love and I think alot of "fans" have a knee-jerk reaction to argue and defend. Tell a Yankees fan in New York City how overrated you think Derek Jeter is and see how he reacts. That being said, it is so important, in life, to see things objectively.
I do think it's slightly unfair in these posts that people are invoking filmakers such as the Coen Brothers, Scorcese, Lynch, etc. For better or worse, these are widely accepted, well-praised, and mainstream staples in the film business. Genre just doesn't work that way.
As a lifelong fan of all things "nerdy" I have certainly felt like I have had to defend myself and my tastes and objects of my affection. And 90% percent of the kids who made fun of me for loving Star Trek had most likely never watched an episode. In fact, one of these kids told me at our 10 year reunion that he had always been a fan, but was afraid of getting made fun of, so he never told anyone. That is the result of a stigma put on genre.
We've come along way. In many ways, its practically taken over pop culture. This isn't necessarily a good thing. But most importantly we have a voice like we've never had before and more often than not, we are abusing it.
So maybe its important that we all step back and remember that at one point or another we have loved something that someone else hated. That criticism is an opion, of which we are all entitled, and not a fact. That we don't have to defensive, or aggresive, because we are all basically on the same team.
This is my first post in over a year. I read the sight everyday, but I got so disheartened at the nature of these pots. Why is that we have to either follow blindly or be cynical? Why do we have to fight tooth and nail to defend that.
I love Joss Whedon. He's not perfect, but I enjoy so much more than I dislike. I guess I'm a Whedonite; learning that he was directing this movie made my heart jump because I thought he could nail it. But I would never try to convince someone to agree with me, but I would expect that person to respect my likes as well.
I do think Joss is more self-deprecating than we give him credit for. I think he's aware of his mistakes. He has often made comments of how he's known for such successes as Alien Ressurection, and Parenthood the TV series. The above article even has him snarkly admitting that he is not macho. However, he is still an artist, and has every right to defend his work. Alien Ressurection is a misfire, even on Joss's part. The director, when asked to a director's cut, expressed that he saw no reason to do so because he had made the movie the way he wanted and that he loved it the way it is. That's unfortunate. Joss's big mistake is not respecting the fact that no matter how he intended the script to be portrated, those are not his decisions, they are the director's for better or worse. But is also unfair to toss away the fact that writer's do have a voice and how lines are delivered does make a difference.
Finally, I agree that he focuses to much on the female characters sometimes. But if that's his major flaw, then I wish more people had it as there just aren't enough strong female characters out there.
I love Joss Whedon and I'll see/read anything he does, probably for life...but that doesn't mean I'll like all of it. So, Whedonites, settle down. And if you're not a Whedonite, that's okay, but try to be understanding of our passion...it's not personal. :-)
Five by Five.
That being said, it's always hard to accept criticism over something that you love and I think alot of "fans" have a knee-jerk reaction to argue and defend. Tell a Yankees fan in New York City how overrated you think Derek Jeter is and see how he reacts. That being said, it is so important, in life, to see things objectively.
I do think it's slightly unfair in these posts that people are invoking filmakers such as the Coen Brothers, Scorcese, Lynch, etc. For better or worse, these are widely accepted, well-praised, and mainstream staples in the film business. Genre just doesn't work that way.
As a lifelong fan of all things "nerdy" I have certainly felt like I have had to defend myself and my tastes and objects of my affection. And 90% percent of the kids who made fun of me for loving Star Trek had most likely never watched an episode. In fact, one of these kids told me at our 10 year reunion that he had always been a fan, but was afraid of getting made fun of, so he never told anyone. That is the result of a stigma put on genre.
We've come along way. In many ways, its practically taken over pop culture. This isn't necessarily a good thing. But most importantly we have a voice like we've never had before and more often than not, we are abusing it.
So maybe its important that we all step back and remember that at one point or another we have loved something that someone else hated. That criticism is an opion, of which we are all entitled, and not a fact. That we don't have to defensive, or aggresive, because we are all basically on the same team.
This is my first post in over a year. I read the sight everyday, but I got so disheartened at the nature of these pots. Why is that we have to either follow blindly or be cynical? Why do we have to fight tooth and nail to defend that.
I love Joss Whedon. He's not perfect, but I enjoy so much more than I dislike. I guess I'm a Whedonite; learning that he was directing this movie made my heart jump because I thought he could nail it. But I would never try to convince someone to agree with me, but I would expect that person to respect my likes as well.
I do think Joss is more self-deprecating than we give him credit for. I think he's aware of his mistakes. He has often made comments of how he's known for such successes as Alien Ressurection, and Parenthood the TV series. The above article even has him snarkly admitting that he is not macho. However, he is still an artist, and has every right to defend his work. Alien Ressurection is a misfire, even on Joss's part. The director, when asked to a director's cut, expressed that he saw no reason to do so because he had made the movie the way he wanted and that he loved it the way it is. That's unfortunate. Joss's big mistake is not respecting the fact that no matter how he intended the script to be portrated, those are not his decisions, they are the director's for better or worse. But is also unfair to toss away the fact that writer's do have a voice and how lines are delivered does make a difference.
Finally, I agree that he focuses to much on the female characters sometimes. But if that's his major flaw, then I wish more people had it as there just aren't enough strong female characters out there.
I love Joss Whedon and I'll see/read anything he does, probably for life...but that doesn't mean I'll like all of it. So, Whedonites, settle down. And if you're not a Whedonite, that's okay, but try to be understanding of our passion...it's not personal. :-)
Five by Five.
@serenada: Didn't catch the pre-airing review. My bad and thanks for setting me straight.
But, to be fair, I was taking issue with the (what I believed to be) lack of premiere coverage, not SHOW coverage (which I agree, is excessive.)
I guess I was upset that with all the unnecessary fringe coverage, I was frustrated that the only thing I cared about was being ignored (I thought).
#observationdeck
But, to be fair, I was taking issue with the (what I believed to be) lack of premiere coverage, not SHOW coverage (which I agree, is excessive.)
I guess I was upset that with all the unnecessary fringe coverage, I was frustrated that the only thing I cared about was being ignored (I thought).
#observationdeck
I am shocked that io9 has so criminally ignored the premiere of "Fringe." A spectacular premiere, I might add. What gives?
#observationdeck
#observationdeck
I thought that top picture was Allyson Hannigan, and I was so shocked she would do this movie. To my relief, that is not her!
Whew!
Whew!
@ziplizard: Exactly!!
@Meredith Woerner: Fair enough.
AHHH! I can't believe it. I'm with you on Buffy, The Becoming...but it should part 2, not part one. Don't get me wrong, the end of part 1 is terrific, but the end of part 2?!?!
Buffy stabs angel with a sword and exiles him to a hell dimension and then leaves Sunnydale without telling anyone?! My jaw hit the floor!!
Buffy stabs angel with a sword and exiles him to a hell dimension and then leaves Sunnydale without telling anyone?! My jaw hit the floor!!
Meredith, three things.
1) no mention of the scene with Terry? He's one of my favorite characters.
2)Sookie would have had to drink a lot of Bill's blood to be completely healed at the beginning of the episode, and a little V can make you strong. So I imagine that the dose she guzzled would have made her strong enough to drag in Eric and the King. That being said, I have no idea why I'm defending this show, because I f-ing hated this episode.
3) Even Alan Ball was practically apologizing for this limp-dick season by assuring us that great things were coming next season and that we were the best fans ever.
A completely lame-ass ending to a lame-ass season. I really disliked season one, but season two was so good and then I just watched them flush everything down the toilet this season.
Congratulations True Blood for ruining almost every good character you had and ignoring the rest. This is "Heroes" all over again; except this time, I'm the only one who seems to realize this. I won't make the sdame mistake twice. I'm out.
1) no mention of the scene with Terry? He's one of my favorite characters.
2)Sookie would have had to drink a lot of Bill's blood to be completely healed at the beginning of the episode, and a little V can make you strong. So I imagine that the dose she guzzled would have made her strong enough to drag in Eric and the King. That being said, I have no idea why I'm defending this show, because I f-ing hated this episode.
3) Even Alan Ball was practically apologizing for this limp-dick season by assuring us that great things were coming next season and that we were the best fans ever.
A completely lame-ass ending to a lame-ass season. I really disliked season one, but season two was so good and then I just watched them flush everything down the toilet this season.
Congratulations True Blood for ruining almost every good character you had and ignoring the rest. This is "Heroes" all over again; except this time, I'm the only one who seems to realize this. I won't make the sdame mistake twice. I'm out.
@crosis101: No offense, mate. I was just making a joke at the expense of the author.
@ArleenCabango: Again, I 100% agree. His theories were just for fun and I always took them that way. Though I do think they they were a bit less "shoehorned." My point was that now, io9 is attempting to praise his articles as if they were superior to the show, which I think is hooey. This site never acknowledges the point you just made and denies any sort of credit to the show at all.
Re: RED
Since its based on the graphic novel written by a easily defined "genre-writer," I'd say this film falls well within your jurisdiction.
Not to mention that Hollwood's idea of spy movies have almost always qualified as Science Fiction. A real spy must look at Salt, Mr. & Mrs. Smith, or any of the Roger Moore Bond films and just laugh, thinking "I wish."
Since its based on the graphic novel written by a easily defined "genre-writer," I'd say this film falls well within your jurisdiction.
Not to mention that Hollwood's idea of spy movies have almost always qualified as Science Fiction. A real spy must look at Salt, Mr. & Mrs. Smith, or any of the Roger Moore Bond films and just laugh, thinking "I wish."
Wait, how old are you? Why are you spending so much time at house parties and dorm rooms?
@Ungruntled: Nobody in their right mind disagrees with you.
@sabriel: I agree with everything you just said. Everything...
...but damn it, I really miss this show and I get frickin' giddy at even the glimmer of an idea that I could see something more that is even remotely related, you know?
I really do NOT want to be excited. But damn it to hell, I really am.
...but damn it, I really miss this show and I get frickin' giddy at even the glimmer of an idea that I could see something more that is even remotely related, you know?
I really do NOT want to be excited. But damn it to hell, I really am.
As a dedicated fan of "Doc" Jensen, I'd like to say that this is, yet again, a cynical attempt by io9 to cut down LOST for not being what they wanted it to be.
Yes, Jensen's theories are fun and incredibly thought out, but what Charlie and io9 seem to always forget is that 100% of his theories come from the groundwork and storytelling textures of the show. What makes these theories great, is that he made damn sure he could justify it through the show.
Please do not bombard me with arguments for why the show failed or was bad, I understand why people feel let down and why people hated it, but that is not the argument. The point is that this site continues to turn the screw against LOST by giving acclaim to those who are building off of what the show is doing, not starting from scratch (which is what the show IS doing.)
I'm confident that Jeff "Doc" Jensen would tell you that his work is great because the show was great; but unlike io9, he gives credit where credit is due.
Yes, Jensen's theories are fun and incredibly thought out, but what Charlie and io9 seem to always forget is that 100% of his theories come from the groundwork and storytelling textures of the show. What makes these theories great, is that he made damn sure he could justify it through the show.
Please do not bombard me with arguments for why the show failed or was bad, I understand why people feel let down and why people hated it, but that is not the argument. The point is that this site continues to turn the screw against LOST by giving acclaim to those who are building off of what the show is doing, not starting from scratch (which is what the show IS doing.)
I'm confident that Jeff "Doc" Jensen would tell you that his work is great because the show was great; but unlike io9, he gives credit where credit is due.
