Mail Robot
Newbie
beep! beep! beep! beep! whirrrrrrrrr
Posts: 41
|
Post by Mail Robot on Mar 23, 2017 8:43:18 GMT -8
(Original thread posted June 26, 2012.)JacqLeeO (6/26/12):Maybe Dexter, or Firefly (is that too short?). Though I've never seen Lost, does it have stuff to say? I'm just thinking more members might need some more shows? MikeJer:There are several other shows that would be a reviewing candidate. The problem, actually, boils down to finding a reviewer. The Angel Completion Project is fun for what it is, but it was born out of necessity rather than a direction I want the site to take in the future. So with that in mind, it's tough pickings to find a reviewer that is intelligent, friendly, and genuinely committed to the content and passionate about the material (as, you know, none of us get paid!). Over the years I've had several people e-mail me with interest in reviewing a particular show. They always sound incredibly enthusiastic and motivated in those initial back-and-forths. But the moment I ask them to prove it by writing a test review of the pilot episode of that show, it all falls apart. 6 months later... "oh, sorry, school got busy." "ooops, lost track of time." "too many life issues came up." If you can't set aside the time to review the FIRST episode of a show, then you have no chance in hell making it through 50, or 100, or 144. I sympathize with all of these excuses to a point. My problem is how poorly people seem to be able to really assess their life, their schedule, and their ability to finish long-term projects. Reviewing any show, let alone a large one, is not for the timid. It requires being so excited about the material and what you want to say about it that you can push through when you may not actually feel like it. It requires an excellent work ethic. I guess not many people realize how much time, effort, and detail goes into each and every review put up on the site. It's a much longer process than a lot of people assume. But I think that's precisely what makes Critically Touched so different from some somewhat comparable sites out there. Even the big guns who pay their staff. In light of my own struggles reviewing Buffy, and in my experience working with Ryan, my criteria for accepting a new reviewer on Critically Touched has been substantially raised. Countless factors are now taken into consideration. It's precsisely because my 'interview' process is so rigorous and I'm so careful about not inheriting another orphaned site that you haven't yet seen another show pop up on the site yet. But do know that I'm always exploring opportunities and that there are even a couple of new shows that are somewhat far along the process of appearing on the site. But until I actually see real effort and pen put to paper, so to speak, nothing's for sure, hence why you haven't heard much about it yet. So in the end, to be blunt, most people simply aren't equipped to be a full-time reviewer here on Critically Touched. Sometimes it's due to someone's schedule, sometimes it's due to their personal issues and lack of maturity, and sometimes it's due to something else entirely. Not everyone is cut out for it, and there's no shame in admitting that. I just wish more people could figure that out for themselves. P.S. Dexter, no. Firefly, yes. Lost, probably, but I'd need some convincing. I feel pretty solid now in restricting reviewed shows to only those which are complete (i.e. no longer on air). Dexter is a good lesson in how a show can seem interesting and ripe for the site only to quickly dissipate into nothing all that interesting.
RunawayMarbles:So a week ago I'd consider this blasphemy, but actually watching Supernatural I'd thought a lot about what Mike would say about it. There are all these great character moments in there; I was really surprised, actually, since I went into it with very low expectations. The plots can be really random, but the character arcs are quite good. Anyway. I know I'm not the type of person who could review it all, but. There's stuff there. fray-adjacent:I was just wondering the same thing the other day: what is Mike's criteria for a show to be reviewed on CT? For some reason I'd been thinking that you weren't open to hosting Firefly reviews because of the show's length, but obviously I was wrong! JacqLeeO:Anapestic Tetrameter won't do this right, I will not even try (don't tell Ryan, I beg?): FYI, I should probably have read this at first MikeJer:To expand on what Jackie quoted, there are several things that go into the determination about whether a show is open for review on the site. A few of the big ones are: *The show is complete (i.e. not airing anymore). *There's at least some critical aura around the show outside of what you or I might think. *The reviewer can make a case that they can offer something to the discourse of the show that no one else can. For example, when I started reviewing Buffy there were almost no other reviewers out there that looked at the show from a retrospective outlook. Also, of the reviews I'd read I found the vast majority of them focusing on the wrong things. I felt like I had a unique perspective on the show and something to offer that hadn't been done before. *The reviewer convinces me that the show is of substantial enough quality to be worthy of the site's review treatment. This means that it has to have a mix of critical depth, emotion, and well developed characters. This can be a particularly subjective criteria, but I would never reject something purely on the basis of whether I, personally, liked it or not. As long as I'm convinced there's consistent enough quality there and that the prospective reviewer is passionate about it, I'll keep an open mind (and even be willing to watch parts of shows I haven't seen before so I can be a decent judge). But at the end of the day it'll be a judgment call by me. There are some other factors too, but the ones I've listed tend to be the biggies. buffyholic (6/27/12):Runaway, I´ve also thought about that too. But it has too much mythology, especially from season four onwards, that I don´t think that I would be good to review it. I also considered Veronica Mars but the problem is that I don´t feel up to the task. I mean, I don´t think I would be able to develop it properly and give it depth, analyse it in a way that Mike and the other Angel reviewers do it. Riis:I would actually be interested in reviewing Firefly. It was the first Whedon show that I watched and I have deep love for it. But, as extrapolated above, I would want to make sure that I could really commit and do it justice! Mike, I think that I'm going to rewatch the show and then decide if I want to make a formal offer. I want to make sure that I can do it justice and live up to your standards! fray-adjacent:Exciting! I hope it works out. It would be great to have another show here. MikeJer:To be honest, I'm a little surprised no one has submitted a review request for Firefly yet. I've mostly had people ask me whether I would review it or not. Anyway, good luck! Alex:Riis, if you're much of an Angel fan then why don't you volunteer for one of the ACP (Angel Completion Project) reviews? A lot of us here on the forum have been involved in that and it's great fun! And it might help you to decide whether you do want to take on a whole show yourself. MikeJer:That's an excellent suggestion Alex. Riis, if you're interested, you can take a look at what episodes are still available: viewtopic.php?f=2&t=691 I'll be doing a commitment check on everyone's reviews very soon, which usually means a few episodes open back up again too. Riis (6/28/12):Thank you for the suggestion Alex! Sadly, I haven't actually finished Angel yet, so I'm certainly not in a position to review it. I think that I'm going to rewatch Firefly and do a review of the pilot to feel it out. Thanks for the encouragement!
|
|
Mail Robot
Newbie
beep! beep! beep! beep! whirrrrrrrrr
Posts: 41
|
Post by Mail Robot on Mar 23, 2017 8:46:54 GMT -8
buffyholic (7/04/12): I have a question for you, Mike.
How do you stay subjective in some of the episodes or characters you really love? Aren´t you afraid of being a bit bias towards some episodes?
That´s another reason I don´t think I would be able to review a show. I wouldn´t know how to keep from being subjective in some matters. For example, Dean from Supernatural. I see his flaws and wrong doings but I´m not the perfect person to analyse him.
MikeJer: I think it boils down to a few things, buffyholic.
1. I actively enjoy thinking about all the characters, putting myself in their shoes, and trying to see what makes them tick. It's surprisingly hard to even do this with most other shows out there, I find, because the psychology underlining most of them tends to be quite shallow (if there at all). Most other shows I watch I can always see the writers' puppet strings forcing the characters to say this or that. Most of Whedon's shows have the quality of being able to enjoy seeing characters as actual people rather than characters, which makes a more objective type analysis of their actions all the more fun.
2. When I first look over my notes after watching an episode, I find that I'm not always quite as un-biased as it seems in the final product. I go through several iterations as I construct and finalize my reviews to make sure they're well-rounded, cover each relevant character, make coherent points, and read very easily.
3. If it turns out that there are characters that just aren't very interesting to talk about -- and by this I mean that their story isn't worth talking about or isn't interesting, not that you just don't like that kind of person -- then that can turn into a complaint of the show in the review. I made the distinction I did, though, for cases like Riley in Buffy. Most people hate the guy and say he's boring or horrible because of where he comes from (the midwest). Now that annoys me, because they're projecting their own values onto a character and not putting themselves in his shoes and his background to understand where he's coming from. Riley actually has a couple fairly well-written arcs between S4 and S5 where he learns a lot and makes some changes (and there's also the effect he has on Buffy's arc as well), and there's a lot to explore/talk about in there. But you wouldn't know that reading a lot of other Buffy reviews.
JacqLeeO (7/05/12): Maybe Ryan and I could try Leverage reviews after Season 5 ends (and unless it sucks ... eggs and then even if so, we could justify why)? (I mean Ryan O'Neil, not the ACP guy: It does not look like working with him would go well)
I'm just thinking that Ryan raised lots of good points about Nathan's psychology (Parker's as well)
buffyholic (7/06/12): Thanks for the interesting read, Mike.
I can see your last point. I visit another Buffy forum and I see that most people are a bit bias with season seven. And bias in hating it.
I´ve said this already, but your site and reviews are wonderful food for thought and open to good, healthy dialogue and I also say that whenever I post here or read the reviews, I find something new and interesting. And also your site made keep an open mind regarding season seven. I feel I enjoyed that season much more due to some comments I´ve read here.
|
|
Mail Robot
Newbie
beep! beep! beep! beep! whirrrrrrrrr
Posts: 41
|
Post by Mail Robot on Mar 23, 2017 9:03:59 GMT -8
Alexei (11/12/12):Kinda resurrecting the thread, but how about X files? It is, in my opinion, the best 90s tv show out there. MikeJer:The X-Files has some great individual episodes and two central characters that are, by and large, fairly interesting to talk about. The problem, though, is that the show only very slowly evolves them, and it doesn't always do it in a consistent manner -- it's too precedural (not just in plot, but in character) for its own good. Plus, there's just WAY too much of it. 9 seasons is nuts, and the show doesn't even come close to maintaining consistent quality. To me, The X-Files seems like a show much, much better suited for the realm of essays/articles than the Critically Touched episode-by-episode treatment. I've actually been watching The X-Files again for the first time since I was a kid, and while there's some neat stuff in that huge mass of episodes, it rarely gives its characters room to grow. buffyholic (11/13/12):I remember watching X-Files but giving up halfway because it just felt the same thing every week. The characters didn´t seem to develop much and it just felt like a case of the week, that´s all. Jeremy:The X-Files was a fun and creepy show, but it really ran out of ideas during the last three or four seasons. I very much liked the Mulder/Scully dynamic, though. I think the shows from the 90s which best fit this site's criteria are Homicide: Life on the Street and Star Trek: Deep Space Nine. I haven't yet seen too much of either of them, but they look like very character-driven and thematically deep shows. MikeJer:I've seen Deep Space Nine. Really good show, but I'm not sure I'm comfortable calling it great. I'm on the fence with it. It does have some nice characters arcs though, and some fabulous plot serialization in the later seasons. On a more superficial level, it easily has the biggest and most bad-ass space battles I've ever seen on television to this day (that often merge real models with CGI effects, the very best use of both technologies imo). I'd be open to someone tackling DS9, but I'd need a bit more convincing. I haven't ever seen Homicide (not my type of show), so I have no comment.
Brachen Man (11/14/12):While I do agree that a 9 season show might be too large, I think "The X-Files" is perfectly reviewable. It might not be able to advance the characters in leaps and bounds at first, but I think by around the third season, and definitely by the fourth season, it really hit a nice groove of character development, plot advancement, and awesome standalones that the series stayed with until at least season 7, and even then season 8 is pretty underrated. If any reviewer has the kind of determination it takes to review every season, plus actually likes the ongoing Mythology arc through the seasons, I think "The X-Files" would be perfect for this site. It's certainly one of the top 5 Non-Whedon TV shows ever made. MikeJer:Brachen, the frequency in which The X-Files uses the reset button on its characters pretty much single-handedly disqualifies it from being reviewed on the site. That mechanism demonlishes emotional connection and commitment from the viewer to truly care about what happens. Of course, this is not the only problem. This is not to say the show doesn't explore interesting themes or have some fabulous episodes -- it does. But there's a tremendous amount of dead weight in there, and that is not remotely conducive to the very definition of what Critically Touched is shooting for. Someone would need to make one hell of an argument to convince me otherwise, because I've been watching a lot of the show recently, and I really have to disagree with you at this point. P.S. I'm somewhere in S7 right now, and I find myself not wanting to watch anymore, even casually. Very few episodes can manage to hold my attention at this point; I've gotten bored with it, and things have felt really repetitive since ~S5/S6. "X-COPS" was a fun episode at least! Stake&Cheese:@mike, so it's not quite latter-season BSG level character-focus? Alexei:I agree with Mike on the character evolution problem with X files, it is mostly Molder-Scully interaction and plot driven show. But not all the time ofc. But both of those aspects are more then fantastic. Still, i think its one of the all time classic sci-fi shows. TheShanshuProphecy (11/16/12):I would love to see a Firefly project - I would certainly consider submitting for it, but not an entire show on my own, I don't have the time. Twin Peaks also springs to mind as something which has both a popular and critical discourse attached to it and could use something in-between? MikeJer:Twin Peaks would be a perfect fit for Critically Touched. Firefly as well. It's all a matter of finding the right people capable of doing them. Doing this sort of thing is time-consuming, and most people are either far too busy or just not passionate enough about it to work out. But believe me, I'm always keeping my eyes open when opportunities pass by. There have been a few people that got close to starting up their own reviews, but it just never seems to work out.
Jeremy (11/17/12): Huh. I would never have pegged Twin Peaks as a fit for this site. 1 It's a well-written show and all (at least in the first season), but it seems far more plot-driven than character-driven. Maybe that's because I can't emotionally connect with all those weird, quirky characters. But I'm currently in middle of a Firefly rewatch, and it's really impressive, both character- and story-wise. It could definitely use a reviewer. I mean, I'm writing an Angel review at the moment, but maybe afterwards... P.S. Mike, congratulations on hitting 2000 posts!
MikeJer: I kinda feel like Twin Peaks wants you to think it's a plot-driven show, what with the whole murder mystery aspect to it. But when taken as a whole, there's so much unexpectedly coherent emotional and spiritual depth in it that I can't help but be consistently mesmerized by it. It's far from a flawless show, and there's that dreadful stretch of episodes (4-5 of them, I think) in Season 2 that really hurt the second season, but I do think it's got some great character material (mostly around Cooper) and extremely deep themes. It's one of the few shows that isn't Buffy that is able to communicate with me on an intimate level. Plus there's the fact that it's only like 29 episodes long, which is very manageable for someone to actually complete.
Jeremy: Actually, I thought that pretty much everything in the show following the resolution of the murder was, as you say, "dreadful". The show didn't pick up the slack quickly enough, and by the time it eventually found a new story thread, it was already far too bogged down by that mid-season slump to make a recovery. I ended up growing more and more annoyed with it. Also, the sight of Fox Mulder dressed as a woman is something I will not soon live down. But I agree that the first season and, to a lesser extent, the early episodes of the second are very good television and probably worth analyzing.
MikeJer: The first time I saw it I would have agreed with you. But on multiple viewings, knowing it has that extremely weak stretch in the middle, the final arc comes off quite nicely. I enjoy the introduction of Annie quite a bit, and there's some haunting stuff towards the end. There's quite a bit to explore there. And when you really boil it down, there's only ~5 eps of the 29 that have those severe problems -- not enough to disqualify it from contention. Very few shows are capable of reaching me on a level that goes beyond emotion and beyond the intellect. Twin Peaks is one of those shows.
Stake&Cheese: I think Freaks and Geeks would be a good fit, but I wouldn't want to review it myself, haha.
MikeJer: I agree. F&G would probably be a really nice fit. TheShanshuProphecy (11/18/12):Agreed Mike .. Twin peaks has some amazing character/s, emotional complexity and begs repeat viewings. It is one of the few shoes that ... resonates beyond its temporal location ... from the very banal/suburban murder of Laura to Cooper's metaphysical musings, there is much to explore irrrespective of the obvious S2 flaws.
Jeremy: I could definitely see Freaks & Geeks being reviewed here. 2 And it's pretty short (18 episodes), so that's a plus. I mean, it's not a plus, because the show is so good, but you get my meaning. And hey, what about The West Wing? It's a pretty long project, but that show had some terrific character work.
MikeJer: Politics tend to nauseate me, so I've never had any interest in seeing The West Wing. 3 But I've only heard really good things about it. That means I don't know: I'd need to have someone submit a proposal for it that was convincing. FYI: Here's how one would approach making that kind of proposal: www.criticallytouched.com/about.php#_joining
TheShanshuProphecy: I have tried to watch The West Wing several time due to rave reviews but have never been able to engage so . . . it would be great to hear what fans and reviewers would say ...
Jeremy: The West Wing is my favorite show after Buffy. The characters are very well-realized and the plots service them quite effectively. Unfortunately, I've yet to come across a complete character study of the series. I think there's more depth to it than most people realize.
Brachen Man (11/19/12): "The West Wing" would be a good show to review... for the first four seasons. After that it goes off the rails and produces some of the greatest failures in Televised Drama I've ever seen. Season 5 is just abysmal, and while 6 and 7 are a definite improvement, they often felt like someone remaking "The West Wing" with a new cast. In addition, even in the first four seasons (And make no mistake, I love those seasons to death), the show always had mysteriously dropped plot threads and characters would just vanish without anyone ever mentioning them again. 4 I guess you could say the same thing about parts of BtVS, but I just wanted to put this here as a warning to any potential reviewers.
Jeremy: I agree that the later seasons weren't up to par with the earlier ones, but I wouldn't go so far as to call any of them "abysmal". The show still produced some very effective and thought-provoking drama. And I liked Season Seven a lot -- in fact, a little more than S7 of Buffy. Then again, it's difficult to compare the two. One more idea: Would Veronica Mars fit in? It seems to be a well-regarded show among forumers here (including myself), so I figured it was worth mentioning.
MikeJer: Considering how VM opened strong (S1) and then slid downhill from there, I'd say probably not. If it had ended with S1, I'd say probably yes. Maybe even after the first two seasons. But with S3 in there... It's one of those unfortunate things where when you take it as a whole, it likely doesn't meet the standard. I want to stress that I'd be hard-pressed to shut down any show completely. There's a lot of 'probably not,' but I will always avoid making grand declarations. You never know when someone will make a case for a show in a way you never expected/saw. 1: This was before Jay began his Twin Peaks reviews. 2: This was before Jeremy started his Freaks and Geeks reviews. 3: This was before... you get the point. 4: R.I.P. Marina
|
|
Mail Robot
Newbie
beep! beep! beep! beep! whirrrrrrrrr
Posts: 41
|
Post by Mail Robot on Mar 23, 2017 9:06:53 GMT -8
JammyJu (11/19/12): I'm not sure how popular this show is with around members on this site, but Friday Night Lights seems perfect to review.
Yes, it's a show which is about a town passionate about American Football, but you most certainly don't need to have any interest in the sport, and the show is full of emotional resonance and character studies.
MikeJer: FNL, S2 aside, is an excellent show. I would be very open to hearing a case for it.
Stake&Cheese: Hey now, S2 had a couple of redeeming moments!
Alright, there was one redeeming moment in the second to last episode when Seven was crying in the shower about how there's something wrong with him since everyone leaves.
TheShanshuProphecy: FNL was a great show .. it's more - conventional - than what I would expect to see here - but, for me, that goes for VM, Lost, The West Wing as well so maybe I am being to narrow in my thinking.
I adore FNL, it certainly went far beyond the premise of 'American football' but the character's driving forces, the conflicts and the resolutions, while effectively and often beautifully played out, lacked anything more than standard fare.
I would love to be proven wrong on this however .. and that Mike is not closed to any specific texts without proper consideration.
What about The Wire or Carnivale ? These are right up with The Sopranos for me (of which there has been masses written).
MikeJer: My understanding of The Wire is that it's a very theme-oriented show, with characters that are largely at the whim of the plot and social statements the creator is trying to make. If true (I've only seen the first two episodes thus far), it might not be the best fit. But considering its critical clout, and the fact that I haven't really seen it, I'd be nuts to disregard it out of hand.
Carnivale, like Twin Peaks, is a show I think could be a good fit on CT. Strong atmosphere, lots of emotion, interesting themes, decent (if sometimes a little sporadic) character work, and a short run all combine to make it an interesting prospect.
TheShanshuProphecy: You are quite right Mike - The Wire is thematically-driven with a different social issue being the main focus for different seasons. Having said that, there are some terrific charactersiations through which these are played out.
If you haven't seen it, it is worth the viewing/investment - highly recommend all 5 seasons. It is a slow burn but compelling stuff.
Agreed about Carnivale, I didn't like the ending (there wa supposed to be a S3 so I try not to judge too harshly) but it has all the right elements to make it an interesting prospect.
MikeJer: The Wire might be a tough one for me to enjoy. The first couple episodes didn't hold my attention, and there weren't any characters that stuck out or seemed all-that fun to watch. But I will eventually force myself through S1 regardless of how I feel due to its critical clout. It's just one of those shows I have to try to get educated on.
The Sopranos, another big show I haven't seen, seems a little more up my alley from what I've heard about it. Unfortunately I don't really have the time for new shows. I'm going to try to spend a lot of my spare time burning through my final Buffy updates over the next few months.
Stake&Cheese: From what I hear S1 and S2 of The Wire are really good, but it doesn't become transcendent until S3.
|
|
Mail Robot
Newbie
beep! beep! beep! beep! whirrrrrrrrr
Posts: 41
|
Post by Mail Robot on Mar 23, 2017 9:13:34 GMT -8
MissJay (2/14/13): Farscape anyone?
Seele: I've never heard of that, what's it about?
Iguana-on-a-stick: It's a science fiction show about an American astronaut who gets sucked into a wormhole and ends up in in an entirely different area of space populated by all kinds of alien races. Specifically, in a former prison-spaceship of the local human-lookalike Space Nazis now run by refugees fleeing said space-nazis. A living prison-spaceship. With a bunch of aliens, some of whom are muppets. (Jim Henson was involved.) This all works a lot better than it sounds. It's fairly highly regarded as a show, I think, but I personally lost interest after watching a season and a half. I liked the main character, who has far more going for him than it would seem at first sight. I loved Aeryn. Claudia Black is amazing. The season 2 episode focussing on her backstory was the absolute highlight of the parts of the show I watched. I just didn't care about any of the aliens, though. And there were so many planet-of-the-week episodes focussing on some cast member or other I just wasn't interested in. It's a show I kinda maybe want to someday finish because I've heard there's a lot of good stuff coming up, but I'm not sure I want to wade through the non-interesting bits before that.
MissJay: Iguana, if you didn't make it to Scorpius, you really should give it another shot. For me this is when things consistently get interesting. And by interesting I mean badass. In a lot of ways it reminds me of Buffy. Some episodes do just fail, but when the show gets it right, it is AMAZING. There is real comedy, pop culture references, (mostly) intelligent writing, interesting characters that truly develop over the series, and great plot with plenty of "Holy crap did they really just do that??" moments. The viewer gets so invested in the characters, you forget some of them are essentially muppets. It was recently streaming on netflix, but sadly no longer is.
Stake&Cheese: Not related to Farscape, but: Watch The Wire everyone! It's all on Project Free TV and it's awesome. You have to watch the first three or four episodes in a row in order to really get into it, but then it's impossible to stop. It's definitely a show to review, and so is Slings and Arrows which is a brilliant little Canadian show about a Shakespearean theater company, and it's only 3 seasons of 6 episodes!
Stake&Cheese: Oh, and Chuck. Chuck is awesome.
Jeremy: I am seriously considering watching The Wire. Currently, I'm watching Homicide: Life on the Street, which is said to be something of a spiritual predecessor to The Wire (since it's based on David Simon's book), and it is an incredible show. Well-crafted characters, vivid themes, and a terrifically dark sense of humor. I'm on the third season right now, and it just keeps getting better. Also, is Chuck really a show worth reviewing? Granted, I haven't seen too much of it, but it seems to skew too much in the "comedy" direction.
MikeJer: Chuck shoots for drama too, Jeremy. It often tries to have that Buffy blend of the elements, but overall it's lighter stuff than Buffy ever was in practice. Chuck's a really fun show at its best (i.e. Season 2), with even some decent character work, but I think it falls just under the bar for merit on the site. I'm always open to have someone convince me otherwise, but that's where I sit on the show now. Note: I've seen all of Chuck (save for maybe a few episodes here or there). The end of Season 2 is really really good though.
Stake&Cheese: Every planned series finale (2x22, 3x13, 3x19, 4x13, 4x24 and 5x13) was pretty amazing. Although I'll admit that I still haven't seen most of S4's back half. But the main reason I love Chuck is that it straight up makes me happy every time I watch it. It's not always funny, but it always makes me smile.
Iguana-on-a-stick (2/15/13): I've seen an episode or two of "Chuck" but I didn't really like it. Too silly. MissJay: I think I saw one or two episodes with someone named Scorpius in it, but not enough to make an impression. I'll consider giving it another go, since I found a skip/watch Farscape guide that might help. Oh, and welcome to the forum.
alpha54: Chuck, while light, was excellent for the first two seasons. After that, however, the writing got continuously weaker very quickly. The show really ran out of ideas in later seasons and by the time the season 5 finale (series finale) came around, I was sorta wishing I'd stopped watching about 2-3 seasons earlier.
Ryan ONeil: Yeah, but the Wire was still really good, it never slowed down, seriously it's the best show since Breaking Bad, and everybody here should watch it.
MissJay: Thanks for the welcome Iguana, I just finished your review on Calvary - great stuff. I really wish I had stumbled across this website earlier! As far as Farscape goes, both Scorpius and the series just get better and better the further in you get. There's an interesting (though long) article www.strangehorizons.com/2002/20021014/farscape.shtmlabout the reasons it was cancelled. The speculation about the future of Farscape is obviously outdated, but about halfway through there are some really perfect descriptions of the show. I hope at some point you give it another shot!
Jeremy: I've heard a lot of great stuff about Farscape, mostly over the last two seasons. I may check it out soon myself, being a fan on both science-fiction and the Muppets. The order of the DVDs is kind of confusing, though. Wait... I think you mean that Breaking Bad is the best show since The Wire, seeing as The Wire came first. Also, is that a Family Guy reference?
Ryan ONeil: Yes but they're still good
Jeremy: I only knew that because I happened to catch that scene when the episode first aired last month. Generally, though, I dislike Family Guy. I don't find it very funny or the characters very likable. Mostly it just irritates me. When I was a kid, my greatest love was The Simpsons. I thought it was the best comedy ever (and still do). I know it's gone on far too long, but the early years produced some of the finest television I've ever seen. That show had a huge influence on me growing up, and I didn't find a better series till Buffy came along. And now you know... the rest of my life story. Good day.
Stake&Cheese: I started watching in S3, and it's kinda tough to watch S1, it's really, really light and inconsequential. I didn't see the "peak" of S2 so I guess I never really noticed that it had declined, I just always thought it was really good/happy. and S5 was definitely a resurgence from the end of S4. The Vivian Volkoff stuff was absolutely brutal.
|
|
Mail Robot
Newbie
beep! beep! beep! beep! whirrrrrrrrr
Posts: 41
|
Post by Mail Robot on Mar 23, 2017 9:18:44 GMT -8
Arachnea (2/25/13): Hi, I've been away for a long while for too many good and bad reasons, but I'm back :oops: . I'd really enjoy reviews about Carnivale and Twin Peaks, though I understand why it would be difficult. They are both happening within a very bizarre (in a good way) atmosphere, with strange characters and twists. To define the plots would be easy, but the development and the psychology of some of the characters could be tricky. Though that's what made those shows interesting. Someone mentioned Deep Space Nine. I'm not sure it's a good idea, not because it's bad but: There are many existant reviews of Trek and reviewing one series and not the others doesn't really fit. Then, choosing DS9 over the other Trek could be controversial (among the hard core fans), because it's the one show that delibarately forgets some of the mythos and the ethics of the Trek's Universe. Though I agree that the plot-arcs made it interesting and some of the recurring characters were amazing. Now, some talked about Farscape. I agree it got better after season 2 with some excellent episodes, but It was very much plot driven. There's a lot of crazy development about the main and second characters, but I'm not sure it would be enough to sustain a "Critically Touched" review. To remain in Sci-Fi, the one show that could be interesting because it involves story, arcs and character growth is Babylon 5. Some dislike the show because there's a lot of dialogue and monologues, but there's no denying that some of the lines are memorable, most of the characters are complex and three-dimensional and would merit a close analysis. Not to mention the themes about societies, religions and politics. Well, if you just take the journey of G'kar: from victim with thoughts for only vengeance to the powerful philosopher he became and compare it to the tragic path the seemingly strong, but ultimately weak Londo took, you'd already have an essay to write. Everything happens in the length of five seasons and the changes are subtle. (The first time I watched, I laughed so much at the Centauri hair style, I couldn't take it seriously. But if you haven't seen B5 yet, I assure you, you'll get over it very soon ). Now I like to write and I've made some book reviews, but in my language. And though I'd love to contribute on this great site and making comments in english becomes easier, writing reviews in english would take me at least twice the time and with a poor result in literary terms...
Stake&Cheese: I think Treme would definitely fit the bill from what I've seen so far, assuming it sticks the landing next fall. In fact, its biggest issue might be that it's too character based, to the point where they don't even pretend to have a master plot.
Jeremy (2/26/13): See, I think there are a lot of shows which fit the character-focused nature of this site. Obviously, the standard was set by Buffy, and that’s an incredibly high standard to match. I can probably think of five or six shows (some of which I already mentioned, and one of which I’m currently reviewing) that mirror Buffy’s character-based structure and sometimes rival to its level of quality. The thing that makes Buffy so special, though, is that it maintained a high level of quality (minus a few admitted missteps) for seven seasons. I’ve seen a lot of shows start out promisingly in their first couple of seasons, but then rapidly lose quality in later years. Some parts of these shows are well worth reviewing, others are not. The only other seven-year show I’ve seen that consistently maintained a level of excellence is The West Wing (which again, admittedly, had a few missteps). For example, I think the first seasons of Veronica Mars and Murder One are perfect for analysis on their own. But they get bogged down by the flaws of the later seasons. (Though Season Two of VM is still pretty good.) In any case, the question doesn’t really lie with the show, but with the reviewer. And speaking of which, I’m kinda curious as to whether anyone here is up for reviewing a show.
Stake&Cheese: Community has pretty much fallen off of a cliff this season, so it's out barring a massive course correction. Or we could just pretend that it ended after S3. The season finale works as a series finale.
Riis: Are there any Six Feet Under fans here? It's such an excellent character-based drama--I think that it's perfect for Critically Touched.
MikeJer: I'm a fan of the first couple seasons (and last half of S5) of Six Feet Under. S3 is mediocre and S4 fell off a cliff for me. It's got seasons where it's well-written, thoughtful (even if I vehemently disagree with some of the show's thematic conclusions), and character driven. It's a show that can be great *at times* but isn't consistently so. I don't care for probably slightly over half the show, unfortunately. But I'd be open to a proposal.
Jeremy (2/27/13): Reviews or no, I do think this thread is a lot of fun. Not least because I get to plug some of my favorite shows. Speaking of, I'd like to suggest Wonderfalls. It's a wonderful show (semi-pun not intended), with great characters and darkly funny storylines. It's also just quirky enough to establish its own identity, without going overboard. And it's a mere 13 episodes long. Also, My So-Called Life. Another show that's short and sweet.
Riis: Mike, I'm so curious what it is that you disagree with, though you certainly don't to elaborate if you don't feel so inclined. Most of my friends haven't seen it so I've mostly just talked about it with my partner, who has a world view pretty similar to mine. I definitely agree with you about Season Four but I love Season Five and the way that it brings things together.
MikeJer: Jeremy, Wonderfalls starts off a bit slow I feel, but it definitely ends with a string of excellent episodes if I recall. It's a very quirky show, but would definitely be something I'm open to a proposal for. My So Called Life? It's in many ways a precursor to Buffy, emotionally-speaking at least, so definitely yes on that one. Riis, I should have clarified by adding "as I recall" to all of that. It's been a many years since I've seen any SFU. But at the time I recall having mixed feelings about its themes (not as much the execution of them, but how I felt about the meaning of them). Sadly many of the details of how I felt are a little fuzzy. One common thread I remember is that I got increasingly annoyed at how all the central characters were seriously psychologically damaged. There weren't any role models in the Fisher House, or in the show's universe. I had a really hard time relating to or empathizing with most of the characters beyond the first season or two. This is not to say the show didn't have good writing (some of the time, at least), but I often felt an enormous gap in relating to these people. There was a distance there I always struggled with. I had more detailed thoughts, but I only clearly remember that I had them and not so much what they were outside of unhelpful broad thoughts.
Iguana-on-a-stick (2/28/13): I thought of "Wonderfalls" as well. It's an amazing little show, definitely one of my favourites. I disagree with your assessment though, Mike. I think the start was perfect but it wobbled a bit with too much relationship-drama near the end. (But recovered nicely for the finale.) There's a lot of meat in the all the relationships between the members of Jaye's family and how those evolve even during the show's short run. I think that's just the kind of thing that suits this site.
Jeremy: Glad to see some Wonderfalls love. I tend to agree with Mike a bit more, though. Most of the show’s best episodes are in the show’s second half (though the first half has some definite highlights). What made the show work (for me) was how willing Bryan Fuller was to take this totally out-there premise and use it to develop the characters in completely fresh and unexpected ways. I don’t hear it praised as much as his other shows, though. I’ve never seen Dead Like Me, but I watched a few episodes of Pushing Daisies, and boy, is that show overrated. Here’s hoping the upcoming Hannibal fares better.
Iguana-on-a-stick: I haven't seen "Pushing Daisies," but I found "dead like me" impossible to stomach and stopped watching after a half dozen episodes. Mostly because every single one of the characters on that show range from "unlikeable" to "loathsome." Sometimes with a hefty added dose of "caricature." (See: everybody at the main character's workplace.) Now I don't mind shows with or about characters who are unlikeable and do things that render them unsympathetic. But I do mind it when it is the show itself that depicts them hatefully and spitefully. When it is the writers who seem to say "Look how these people all basically suck, haha, laugh at how terrible they are. Even when they try they just make things worse. Sucks to be them." I mean, to name an example, Walter White on "Breaking Bad" is a horrible man. But he's -depicted- as a fully rounded, well developed character whose actions lead us to judge him. He's human. Meanwhile, Delores Herbig on "Dead like Me" merely exists for us to be horrified by how close-minded and shallow she is and the rest of the cast isn't much better. They're like the Dursleys in Harry Potter. Now "Dead like me" probably does this partially on purpose because it's meant to depict teenage angst or something, and when I was that age I did know a bunch of people who seemed to have nothing better to do than bemoan the way the world sucked utterly, but even back then they annoyed me. Part of I like about "Wonderfalls" is how Jaye's family at first -seems- like a typical comedy-family made up of losers and stuck-up prigs, but they all quickly turn out to have much more depth to them and relate to one another in complicated and very believable ways. One of the better depictions of a functioning, loving but still somewhat messed up family I've seen on TV. And an interesting contrast with how Whedon-shows are always about groups of friends (often from mostly broken homes) who come together as a kind of chosen replacement-family.
Jeremy: True on Walter White. He naturally progresses down the road to evil, without ever being depicted as a pure mustache-twirling villain, so there’s always room for the audience to sympathize with him. I also think Mad Men succeeds at this, though for different reasons – Don Draper, for all his misdeeds, is portrayed against an unusual (though not surreal) background, so we’re kept on our toes trying to wonder what we should judge him for. I’ve heard a lot of praise over the way Dead Like Me uses dark humor, which seems to be something Bryan Fuller prides himself on. Incidentally, Fuller left the show after the fifth episode. I’m not sure if the tone changed at all after that, though. As for Pushing Daisies, I quit after seven episodes. My problem was not so much disliking the characters as it was failing to find them remotely relatable. The show contains a lot of the quirkiness and surrealism of Wonderfalls, only dialed up to eleven. The characters are so two-dimensionally strange that it was impossible for me to establish a real connection with any of them, except maybe Olive. Plus, there was the issue of the incredibly formulaic plots. Now, I don’t really mind formulaic plots as long as they service the characters (e.g. Joan of Arcadia). But the plots on Pushing Daisies – in addition to being unbelievably quirky – have practically no relation to the characters whatsoever. The first episode sets up what could have been an interesting arc for Ned, only for the third episode to quickly chicken out of it. Wonderfalls had some formulaic plots (mostly in its first half), but they all gave us some nice insight into Jaye and her family, who are a very interesting bunch of characters. It’s one of the few shows I’ve seen that makes me think and makes me feel good whenever I watch it.
Riis (3/13/13): Mike, sorry for the slow response. Not too much to say, other than that I can relate to that feeling of separation from the characters on some level. That said, I did feel like most of the characters grew over the course of the show, even if I didn't always like the characters they grew into. I could be more detailed with my thoughts but will leave it at that, since this isn't an SFU thread. As for reviewing the show, I think that it would be a great addition to the site, but I think that it would be more than I could handle!
|
|
Mail Robot
Newbie
beep! beep! beep! beep! whirrrrrrrrr
Posts: 41
|
Post by Mail Robot on Mar 23, 2017 9:26:32 GMT -8
Jeremy (3/13/17): Okay, Mike. Looking back at this and other threads, it seems the shows you feel that would fit this site (that you’ve seen) are: Probably: Firefly My So-Called Life Wonderfalls Twin Peaks Carnivale Friday Night Lights Breaking Bad Maybe: Lost Veronica Mars Star Trek: DS9 Mad Men Battlestar Galactica Joan of Arcadia Six Feet Under That pretty much covers all the shows I can think of. If there’s anything else – Wait a second… Dollhouse! I forgot about Dollhouse! (smacks forehead)
Seele (3/16/13): How about the new Doctor Who? It has everything that made Buffy/Angel and Sherlock great, and so far I don't think you need to watch everything going back to 1963 (stupid fires ).
RunawayMarbles (3/21/13): Doctor Who doesn't have the continuity, though, I don't think. One thing I love about Buffy and other shows I watch is how the character arcs build up, and how the plots tie together- and although Doctor Who does some of that, their method of foreshadowing seems to be sneaking "Bad Wolf" references into every episode and having the Doctor hate himself. Not that I don't love the show. I do. I just don't know how much there is to say, I guess. I know I've brought this up before, and I know Mike isn't a huge fan, but the more I think about it the more I warm up to trying to tackle Supernatural. I was writing an analysis on just the first scene, and there was so much to say, and so much that tied in later... I also realize that this is a show with about 170 episodes, but... well, I don't know. I've been wanting to do a thing on the first season and how it's not as useless as everyone seems to think it is. (And the best bit is, even at the improbable rate of one episode a week, it'd probably be over before hitting season eight or nine.)
buffyholic (3/24/13): You´re away for some days, and you already have a lot to answer to. About Wonderfalls, I remember watching it a few years back and I was marvelled at how quirky the characters and the situations were. Unfortunately, I think I saw the episodes out of order but as soon as I have more time, I would like to watch it again because I remember being hooked right away and even if I saw it years ago, I remember liking it a lot. About Pushing Daisies, I am so glad I am not the only one thinking that show is overrated. Everyone, or almost everyone I know loves the show and I just don´t see it. I quit after three episodes because a) I found the narration annoying and b) the characters didn´t thrill me at all. RunawayMarbles, that´s a great idea! Some time ago, I was thinking about Supernatural review but then, I thought I couldn´t handle it because of the big mythology and well, I´m a bit biased towards Dean. But if you want to review, you have my approval and I would be the first one to read it! Also, I´m gonna start a Supernatural rewatch in a couple of days. Care to join me and we can trade some opinions? About reviews, I would love Firefly, Dollhouse and Friday Night Lights reviews. About Veronica Mars, I´ve been thinking about reviewing for a while. I just feel there´s so much more to it than meets the eye and it´s much deeper than some people give it credit. But I´m afraid of taking the next step, mainly for three main reaons: a) I´m kinda busy with work and right now, I don´t know how many episodes I would review, maybe in a week or two or if I would take a long time between reviews; b) I´m not really good at deepening a subject matter, doing a really intense, in-depth review. I also look at the reviews in this site and think to myself: "I could never do this" or "I could never analyse this with such depth". I´m just not sure if I could be as good as others reviewers in this site; c) I might be a bit biased towards some episodes or characters and I´m not sure if I could separate it, to objectively review it. What do you guys think?
RunawayMarbles: I say go for it, as long as you admit your biases up front. I mean, I think we all have ships and opinions and such... that doesn't mean we can't look at the others objectively. That being said, I don't think I'd be able to review seasons seven and eight (especially eight) of Supernatural without touching on the Dean bisexuality thing, but I know that I can analyze the show without shipper goggles on. (Although if I did tackle this project, I wouldn't get to season eight until season nine or ten was done airing, so then there'd be a definitive answer to questions like "are the blatant Dean/Cas parallels in the one-offs of season eight pointing to anything?") I haven't seen Veronica Mars, but I have heard that there's going to be a movie, so I'm really happy for that fandom. If it ever goes on Netflix, I'm sure I'll watch it, but I think it'd be cool if you did reviews.
MikeJer (4/10/13): Hey Jeremy, on your list of shows, I would actually put Wonderfalls on the list of Maybes. But due to how small the show is, it likely wouldn't take too much convincing. Joan of Arcadia is one that belongs in the Maybe list, but a part of me wants to push it into the Probably camp just because virtually no one has talked about the show. The TWoP recaps (which are shockingly favorable to the show) are probably the closest, but no formal episode reviews (that I can easily find). The only Sepinwall reference I can find is: "Some [of these shows] have been quite good, like Joan of Arcadia." It's also not a show that most writer-types would ever want to touch (God/religion isn't exactly a popular topic in these circles). Between its lack of existing reviews and its smart take on an oft-avoided subject (in TV), I think it's a prime target for Critically Touched. I'm not going to lie though: I'm pretty sure I'm the only person on the planet that has interest in reviewing it. I recently rewatched a handful of episodes to refresh my memory, and it's a flawed but impressive show. The Season 2 (sadly, series) finale is fabulous, giving me that same angry (for there not being more) feeling that I get every time I finish Firefly again. (SPOILERS) A couple episodes prior, an 'adversary' -- Wentworth Miller -- is introduced, and he also talks to God. Yet he resents/rejects God all the same. He's charming, good-looking, and pervasive, yet also dangerous and scheming. His character also puts the first two seasons of the show into an entirely new perspective/purpose, as God was essentially giving Joan training wheels for the tougher conflict ahead. It's great stuff. (END SPOILERS) If you were to ever see it reviewed here, it would probably be me reviewing it. I think it would be a heck of a neat challenge though. It only has 2 seasons, so if I ever put a bow on Buffy, you never know... P.S. Did you know that Armin Shimmerman (Snyder) guest stars as a high school teacher in Season 2? Also, there's totally a Joan of Arcadia/Breaking Bad fanfic just waiting to be written! You know ex-cop Mike in Breaking Bad? Well, the same actor plays a cop on JoA, with the name of... wait for it... MIKE. Mind = blown. Clearly the same disgruntled character (lol). Also, Ted (Skylar's boss) is in it as a lawyer. Good times.
Stake&Cheese: I think Slings and Arrows would be a perfect fit, but I don't really think I have much to say that Todd VanDerWerff hasn't covered over the last several weeks.
Jeremy: You’re probably right, Mike. While I think that Joan of Arcadia does tackle some interesting themes, and usually quite well, I would not want to review it. I just feel the show relies too much on standalone, formulaic plots, to the point that it distracts from many of its finer qualities. But I get why you would want to review it, and you have my blessing. Now, Wonderfalls – that’s a show I’m actually interested in. I admit it has some episodic flaws, but there’s a lot about the show worth analyzing. I’ve actually considered the possibility of reviewing it, after finishing Freaks and Geeks. By the same token, I actually think reviewing long-running shows can be more fun than prematurely cancelled ones. I’ve been toying with the idea of doing West Wing reviews. Like religion, politics are a difficult matter for a TV show to pull off, and it handles it really well. I also think the character development is well done, and deserves more recognition than it gets. In short, if I want to review another show after F&G, it’s most likely going to be one of those two. By the way, which list would Dollhouse be on (if either)?
MikeJer: Long shows are great and all, but they're a much bigger commitment. But your impressive scheduling of the F&G reviews buys you serious credibility for a larger show, and I've heard nothing but good things about The West Wing (although I've seen none of it thus far). It's your choice what you do next, of course, but I'd love to see a proposal for any of these shows (note: the process would obviously be more streamlined this time for you, Jeremy). Dollhouse is a tough one. I feel it straddles that yes/no line. I'm very open to a proposal, but it would require some convincing that it's a coherent piece of work. I'm just not entirely convinced of that yet. It tackles interesting themes and has some great episodes, but I can't help but feel its inconsistency on a regular basis. As for JoA, you're pretty much right. But although some of the plots are standalone-ish/formulaic, I feel the writing quality and the thematic intelligence/cohesiveness largely helps make up for it (most of the time). And as we all know, I care far more about serialized character work -- which JoA does pretty well -- than serialized plots.
Jeremy: Yeah, I agree. Dollhouse is a pretty good show, but it never grabbed me nearly the way that Whedon’s other shows did. Right now, I’m just going to concentrate on wrapping up the F&G reviews. After that, I’ll see if I’m up to tackling something else. Also, on the subject of Armin Shimerman: I started watching DS9 from the beginning recently, and Quark just cracks me up. It took me a moment to recognize him, but there’s no mistaking those beady Snyder eyes.
MikeJer: Quark is pretty hilarious most of the time. A really fun character. DS9 takes a couple seasons to get going, but it's one of those shows that keeps getting better and better. Oh, and it has the best TV space battles ever (particularly in S5-S7). Hands down.
Jeremy: I'm in the second season now. It's pretty good at times, but there are a number of episodes that are just plain dull. Still, I'll definitely stick around for the later years.
MikeJer: Yep, that's entirely true.
Arachnea (4/11/13): I second Mike about the space battles ! And keep going, if only for the marvelous recurring characters like Garak, Weyoun, Martok, Dukat (minus S7 Dukat), Damar and....Morn :mrgreen: . There are some directions and some themes I disliked in DS9, but on the whole, it's very good television with some brilliant episodes!
buffyholic: I´ve been thinking about it and even though I´m still a bit fearful because well, I don´t really know how to write an in-depth review and analyse everything, I just get a voice in my head telling me to at least do a review of the Veronica Mars pilot. And I´m really looking forward to it. So, Mike, as soon as I get it done, can I send it to you just to test the waters and see what you think about it?
WCRobinson: I was actually going to ask this, I was looking around LOVEFiLM (due to it being my access point to Buffy/Angel) and I saw Dollhouse... Eliza Dushku is great in Buffy/Angel and Joss Whedon writes it, but is it any good?
RunawayMarbles: I liked Dollhouse... *shrug* It's not my favorite show ever, but I liked it.
MikeJer: buffyholic, read this first: criticallytouched.com/about.php#_joiningReally evaluate what format would be best to review in. Not everyone (or every show) is suited to review for this site, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't create a blog and share your thoughts. Regardless, if you read through that section and submit a strong case to me, I'll certainly consider it.
MikeJer: Hey Jeremy, I keep accidentally bumping into funny connections between shows we're talking about. Check out the new thread I created: "Interesting Hollywood Connections!"
|
|
Mail Robot
Newbie
beep! beep! beep! beep! whirrrrrrrrr
Posts: 41
|
Post by Mail Robot on Mar 23, 2017 9:31:32 GMT -8
WCRobinson (4/14/13): In terms of reviewing, I guess I could try a whole show if I had a lot of time (e.g. this summer) on my hands. I already do reviews - mainly for games and occasionally TV shows/movies - but going real in-depth could be interesting. The main problem is what show, I guess. I love the show Primeval but I am not sure if there is enough depth there for this site.
Jeremy: I glanced at Jammer’s review site when I Googled “Star Trek reviews” a while back. It looks like it could be an interesting read, but there’s a spoiler tag at the top of the page. So I’ll probably hold off until finishing the series. Has he reviewed all the different Star Trek series? Holy cow. That's some commitment.
MikeJer: He reviewed the show as it aired, Jeremy. He's referring to the fact that each review will have spoilers for that episode. I don't recall there being any kind of advance spoilers.
Arachnea: Jeremy, you can safely read the reviews. There may be some pointers now and then, but usually not more than one or two episodes ahead and nothing like big spoilers or revelations. Watch out about the comments though, they are full of spoilers ! Also, if you'd like to talk about Trek on this forum, I'll be happy to jump on any topic :mrgreen: . I grew up with the Original Trek and enjoyed the other series, so even if some of it hasn't aged that well, I'll always be fond of the Trek franchise.
Jeremy: Mike: Ohhh. I must have been confusing it with some other site that features spoiler-heavy reviews. Anyway, I’ll check it out. Always good to find more review sites. Arachnea: There’s a Trek thread somewhere on this forum. I may post thoughts on it when I get a little further into DS9. Right now, the episodes are hit-and-miss. The character-focused ones usually click, but the gimmicky ones are just… gimmicky. And the standalone format doesn’t work as well as it did in TNG. On the plus side, the tone is noticeably moodier than the TNG tone. Also, the writers have clearly learned from the Wesley fiasco, and created a much less annoying teenage character in Jake. I’m halfway through the second season now, and it’s not great, but it’s more enjoyable than the first. (“Necessary Evil” has probably been the best episode so far.) I didn’t watch much Trek as a kid, apart from the occasional Voyager episode that aired on UPN. I was pretty young, but my seven-year-old mind remembers three things: 1) The Captain was a woman. 2) Neelix was freaky. 3) The finale was dumb. Strangely, I don’t think I've ever watched any Enterprise.
MikeJer: And you don't need to ever watch any Enterprise. Let's just say that the Season 2 finale of DS9 starts something that will have ramifications for the rest of the show. And although the show never becomes completely serialized, you will start to notice larger and larger groups of episodes that are.
Jeremy: Speaking of plot serialization, I think I’ve figured out why Joan of Arcadia was cancelled just as it was developing a major story arc: Because it was developing a major story arc. I can just picture the CBS executives recoiling in terror: “What’s this? Continuity? A plot that requires viewers to follow the series for more than a single episode?! Sorry, this show is canned. Now go make another crime procedural.” It astonishes me that they pull in 20 million viewers each week.
MikeJer: CBS pulling in 20 million viewers by regurgitating the same stuff ever year? Yeah, that never ceases to frustrate me. Sadly, my parents are among them. Oh, and I found out what they replaced Joan of Arcadia with: Ghost Whisperer. To paraphrase a CBS exec, "A young woman with a fireman husband is both hipper and sexier than a young woman who talks to God."
Jeremy: I have a number of friends who watch lots of CBS – and not just the dramas. Two and a Half Men is depressingly popular. The Big Bang Theory, too. (And how many times have my non-geeky acquaintances compared me to Sheldon? Don’t even ask.) About their only halfway decent show is How I Met Your Mother. I try to get my friends into shows I like, but with little success. You think getting people into something called Buffy the Vampire Slayer is tough? Try telling them to watch something that actually calls itself Freaks and Geeks.
Stake&Cheese: Freaks and Geeks is pretty seminal, though. And the cast is literally full of big name movie stars.
Stake&Cheese: Also, The Good Wife is supposed to be quite excellent.
Jeremy: Granted, F&G has a lot of future stars in it. I think I'm just a little frustrated by the fact that the few people I did convince to watch the show hated it. And I have no idea why. Although I suppose it has to do with the fact that the geeks on the show are not nearly as entertaining as the geeks on The Big Bang Theory. (Look! They're speaking Klingon! It's funny because normal people don't usually speak Klingon!) That said, I've heard a lot of good things about The Good Wife. I actually caught about 10 minutes of one episode and found it to be rather boring... but that's probably not fair. I know my mother loves it, so I may give it a real shot sometime soon.
MikeJer: I have to admit, I can sometimes enjoy the Big Bang Theory as a guilty pleasure. The plots are redundant and the characters are total stereotypes, but sometimes the individual jokes land pretty well.
RunawayMarbles: Confession time: I can't stand Big Bang Theory. All their Whedon jokes make me happy-- "He owns FOX and they canceled Firefly"-- but at the same time, the premise seems to be "let's make fun of people who have Aspergers, shut up Penny you are blonde."
alpha54 (4/15/13): Unfortunately I totes fall into this category, even though I've watched lots and lots of TV for years now. Regardless of how many of my friends recommended it to me, I never got around to watching Buffy until last year, due almost entirely to the name. It wasn't until I watched the majority of Joss Whedon's other stuff and enjoyed it, that I could finally be convinced to give Buffy a shot. Obv that was a great choice, but yah, the name made the show a hard sell for me.
WCRobinson: I agree, I long thought little of the show due to its name - until I tried it recently. Now my favourite TV show. Maybe something like just "Buffy" could have worked better... or, Buffy the Slayer of the Vampyres? ;D
|
|
Mail Robot
Newbie
beep! beep! beep! beep! whirrrrrrrrr
Posts: 41
|
Post by Mail Robot on Mar 23, 2017 9:35:54 GMT -8
FaithFanatic (12/08/13): Getting back to the original topic of this forum, about new shows to review: Would a Firefly reviewer be allowed to review the movie Serenity as well on this site? And would Serenity spoilers be allowed in the reviews of Firefly? And would the Firefly S1 review be reviewing Serenity the movie as well, or would that come afterwards? For me, Firefly is the most obvious choice to review for this site.
WCRobinson: I've often wondered that. Surely Serenity is an integral part of the canon of the show? I'd personally say it should be reviewed as a 15th episode, if you will. Though, I would say it comes after S1? So maybe an S1 review, then an S1+Serenity review? Damn this is getting too convoluted now. XD Also, I'm gonna watch it through again first, but I'm seriously considering the prospect of reviewing Dollhouse at some point. Loved that show.
FaithFanatic: There's no doubt Dollhouse is by far the most flawed of the Whedon shows, but I think it definitely has the depth of theme and character to appear on the site. Best of luck if you do decide to review it.
WCRobinson: Yeah, I totally get that its flawed; but it's a diamond in the rough, and some of the episodes are exceptional. Characters like Topher are some of my favourite committed to screen... actually, especially Topher.
Iguana-on-a-stick: I'm not so sure whether "Serenity" should be thrown in with "Firefly." I mean, it'd be up to the hypothetical reviewer in question, but I get the distinct impression that Firefly was not written with a "Serenity" type follow-up in mind. Plus the film has a very different feel to it. It is much more of a generic action-science-fiction type story and atmosphere. The western theme and American civil war parallels seem to have vanished. Don't get me wrong, there were quite a few good elements in the film and I quite enjoyed it. Mal had some good scenes and I loved the Operative. But it's a different beast than the series. I think that a Critically Touched style retrospective review of Firefly could work either way; it could treat "Serenity" as an integral part of the series mythos and overarching plot, or it could discuss the show "Firefly" on its own merits and maybe put in an appendix on the film. I think these two approaches would result in two quite different types of analysis and may well lead a reviewer to different conclusions. And I think that either approach would be valuable and interesting.
MikeJer: I think a review of Serenity would be best off being linked to (the new Movies section coming soon) from the end of the Season 1 Review. (Whoops, I think I just revealed something. Ssshhh...)
Jeremy: And then the Internet imploded.
MikeJer: (SHOCKED EMOTICON)
Jeremy: ......Indeed. Oh, yeah - dibs on The Avengers!
MikeJer: The joy of that section will be that there will be no dibs on anything. Multiple people will be able to review the same movie and offer their own perspective/grade.
Stake&Cheese: I hate Serenity. That is all.
Jeremy: Stake, do you aim to misbehave?
FaithFanatic (12/09/13): There's a movies section? Tell me more. Personally, I'd quite like to review Firefly and/or Serenity if I can get my life in working order first.
MikeJer: There might be soon. You'll have to wait.
|
|
Mail Robot
Newbie
beep! beep! beep! beep! whirrrrrrrrr
Posts: 41
|
Post by Mail Robot on Mar 23, 2017 9:38:36 GMT -8
Jared (1/18/14): Love this idea, Mike. I think I'd be a lot more likely to contribute a movie than a TV series. Much less daunting when it's something a bit more contained than a 100+ episode series like Buffy!
Zarnium: I think Warehouse 13 would be an excellent show for someone to review, as it has a lot of "character fluency" like Buffy does. I'm certainly not up for such a project, though.
Iguana-on-a-stick: Really? Maybe I do need to watch the other seasons.
But the show isn't done yet, is it? Would be kinda hard to do a retrospective until it's done.
Zarnium:
If you want to check it out again, you should watch at least the 2nd season, and probably rewatch the final episode of season 1 since it's sort of a two-parter with the season 2 opener.
Maybe it's just me, but I like it for many of the same reasons I like Buffy.
It has one more season left, of only six episodes, so it'll be done soon.
|
|
Mail Robot
Newbie
beep! beep! beep! beep! whirrrrrrrrr
Posts: 41
|
Post by Mail Robot on Mar 23, 2017 9:48:50 GMT -8
guttersnipe (5/17/14): It shows how little television I watch as I've never heard of some of these shows, and haven't seen a single episode of some of the ones I have heard of. How paramount is continuity is terms of eligibility? One of my favourite shows is Dekalog, which is constructed of largely unrelated episodes, yet there are links via theme, topic of course, setting and a single unnamed character (if you're familiar with the Three Colours film trilogy, this is applied in a similar fashion to the people recycling bottles). Oh, and this is my new favourite Freudian Slip:
Other Scott: Not sure that's a Freudian Slip so much as a garden variety misspelling, guttersnipe. There I go raining on parades again. I never used to be this way.
Freudian Vampire (5/18/14): I should probably let Mike speak for himself, but on the subject of continuity: I have never seen Decalogue, but as long as there is thematic link between the episodes and at least one character who appears in all of them, I imagine Mike would be open to a proposal. Personally, I like the idea of a site dedicated purely to character-driven television, but I think we should not be too rigid with the requirements - otherwise great shows like Sherlock, Band of Brothers and Dollhouse wouldn't be eligible, and that would be a shame because I'd love to see them reviewed here at some point.
guttersnipe (5/20/14): If it weren't for the "not my type of show" suffix, I might be inclined to agree. I guess he's not really much for the timber. From what I've ascertained, the key obstacle regarding potential shows is the length, as that will invariably dictate the desire to commit to full review coverage. So I've come up with a few miniseries as suggestions: Cowboy Bebop (frequently self-contained episodes, but a wealth of detail in each) Kids on the Slope (same director) Berlin AlexanderplatzThe Hitchhiker's Guide to the GalaxyBand of Brothers (already suggested by Freudian Vampire) RevelationsThis is England '86 and '88Paranoia AgentAngels in AmericaTinker Tailor Soldier Spy and Smiley's PeopleShogunI, Claudius
Jeremy: I wouldn't say that series length is a key problem as much as a byproduct. For me, at least, it boils down to how much I love the show. Then again, I'm more matter-of-fact than most about my objectives, so I don't think many others will share this view. According to the site rules (which Mike revised a few months ago, I believe), first-time reviewers should volunteer to do a short show. If that works out, they can do as lengthy a series as they want. There's also the matter that shorter shows are less likely to feature mediocre episodes, in part because they're cancelled before they can go sour. I believe Homicide (I'll be watching closely for the first wiseguy who starts misspelling the show intentionally) is solid Critically Touched material in its early seasons, but much less so in its later ones. By the way, Mike, I think Homicide is your type of show.
Zarnium: Guttersnipe: Out of curiosity, is there some particular reason why you you think The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy would be a good show to review on Critically Touched? It's a decent show, but it doesn't strike me as having enough depth to it to be Critically Touched material.
guttersnipe (5/22/14): Mmm, that's what I was thinking. A short show would be an ideal springboard to a longer serial, which is why I drummed up a few miniseries. I'm actually quite the advocate of the miniseries as I'm not actually terribly fond of TV as a medium, as this quote from a poster on another forum I attend should explain: That's essentially what I feel, and everything I suggested is a miniseries, something crafted with every intent of existing just for that single run, positing the creator/showrunner as something of an auteur and thereby maintaining a consistent tone or quality throughout.This is perhaps true, Hitchhiker's might not be the best candidate; you could argue that any parody or spoof is so designed to resist heavy analysis. But I think it carries a wealth of detail if not depth that could be explored by anyone sufficiently savvy with its particulars, such as comparing Marvin with Asimov's robots, its presentation of of pioneering space travel as folly and the irony of the B ship as an ark, stranding just the middle class in deep space. This site has an admirable stab at it (the book). I've read an article or two about the place (or absence) of religion and karma in the series, too. I should perhaps mention that I wouldn't necessarily be the ideal guy to give the CT treatment to those shows, rather they were shows that I reckon a dedicated fan could give the whole nine yards.
Freudian Vampire: I think that a good reviewer well-versed in sci-fi could manage to mine enough depth out of Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy to make it worthy of place on the site. True, it is far less serious than Buffy or Freaks & Geeks, and its value is only really apparent if you understand all the references and parallels to other work of fiction, but, as I said before, I think the requirements should be reasonably lax. Personally, I prefer the TV medium to film by a considerable amount, although there are a great number of movies I love as well. Many series run too long and fail to come together coherently and this is absolutely a weakness, although I think it is more to do with the business model adopted by showrunners and channels than it is to do with the nature of television itself. Similarly, mad as it makes me, I would not hold the preposterous amount of cynical cash-in sequels and superhero movies against the film industry, as I know it is capable of much better. Sturgeon's law applies. The main reason I love TV better is the length, as I find it easier to immerse myself in a world and fall in love with its characters if I'm allowed tens, hundreds of episodes to grow attached. I also feel that, at its best, television is capable of producing stories that cannot be seen anywhere else - Breaking Bad and The Wire come to mind in particular. I do agree to some extent though that films are more arty and experimental when it comes to cinematography and direction, although there's no reason TV can't keep up - once again, Breaking Bad is a prime example, and The Sopranos had some beautiful shots as well. I think it's more that writers prioritize writing over direction, and unlike movies the writers are the most important people in the TV world. I love miniseries too, though - Band of Brothers in particular. Band of Brothers was awesome and you all should watch it.
Stake&Cheese: Especially since Band of Brothers is now available on Amazon Prime (along with The Sopranos, The Wire, Deadwood, Rome, The Pacific, Generation Kill, In Treatment, Enlightened, Oz, Six Feet Under, Carnivale, Eastbound and Down and the first three seasons of Treme)!
Jeremy: Stake, something tells me we won't be seeing much of you around CT for the next few months...
Zarnium: Interestingly enough, I was just thinking about creating a thread about this exact topic. Personally, I like TV a lot more than film for the exact reason you describe here; it's just so much longer. With a movie, I rarely become immersed because it's over so quickly. As you say, Breaking Bad is a good example; you could probably make a good 2-hour movie with the same premise, but it would be a distinctly different story that wouldn't make the same kind of impression. Well, if anyone ever thinks they have a good enough case to pitch to Mike, they can be my guest . For the record, I think there's plenty of material in Hitchhiker's Guide worthy of being analyzed, it just doesn't strike me as having the kind of deep characters or plot coherency necessary for it be CT material. (Not to mention that the TV show is one of the weaker versions of the story, IMO.) But it's ultimately Mike's call.
Stake&Cheese (5/23/14): Well, I do have a job, Jeremy. That means I'll have plenty of time for here.
|
|
Mail Robot
Newbie
beep! beep! beep! beep! whirrrrrrrrr
Posts: 41
|
Post by Mail Robot on Mar 23, 2017 9:52:06 GMT -8
guttersnipe (5/23/14): Ah, now I'm basically the opposite. I find story pretty low on the totem pole when it comes to the visual mediums. Perhaps it's an effect of British series typically running for a brief period, but I still find myself amazed that most American shows maintain an industry standard of twenty-plus episodes per season. Personally, I find that frequently exhausting. I mean, in the past few years I've taken a chance on True Blood, Mad Men, Dexter and Big Love, enjoyed them all, yet found I simply couldn't be bothered to go past the first season of any of them (well, two seasons of Mad Men); I'd be surprised if I ever even finish The X-Files despite loving the first few seasons as an adolescent.I have to say I respectfully disagree. I'm not disputing that television can sometimes make some fine-looking shows, especially HBO's. But whilst the cinematography, set design, costumes etc can make for sharp and intricate aesthetics, I've rarely borne witness to television work that truly broke boundaries, and part of that is comes down to the pressure of appealing to its key demographics - a TV serial that doesn't meet a sufficiently wide audience to justify its budget will have its plug pulled by its financiers, regardless of its artistic merits. The more homogenised TV, the stiffer the reaction to invention. Indeed, the presence of "Hush" and "Restless" in my top Buffy episodes functions as much a celebration of Joss' experimentation as a lament that such creativity can't manifest more often. We have alternatives to Hollywood (and Bollywood) in the film world, we have alternatives to Billboard radio in music, and alternatives to Stephenie Meyer and [whoever wrote Fifty Shades of Grey] in literature. With television, the backers will put a bullet in a show that doesn't pull in Joe and Joanne Public. And it feels tragic that they wield such power. So though I agree that it's a writers' medium, they don't carry the clout that a cinema auteur does - the money dictates all. Edges are there to be sanded down; the product is to be made more palatable. This is perhaps a statement that requires greater detail some other time, but I've never forgotten that cinema essentially derives from the concept of the zoetrope, and those first thirty-plus years before sound yielded some amazing achievements in visual storytelling. Television, conversely, seems inspired by (if you'll pardon the harshness) aiming a camera at a play, and accordingly most of the 60s and 70s TV I've watched is grindingly stagey. Unless my cynicism has blinded me, I see little evidence of television ever keeping up with arthouse or experimental film, or even being capable of trying. Television has no Philippe Garrel, Kenneth Anger or Hiroshi Teshigahara, nor could it create one within its confines. I think the problem might actually be worse now than ever before, as even a cursory glance at a British TV guide on any given night prompts an armada of soaps, sitcoms and reality TV, notoriously the laziest of all genres. David Lynch and Lars von Trier both found the TV environment stifling, never returning to the medium that hamstrung them (that reminds me, Riget is CT material), and Joss Whedon seems to be pretty disillusioned ever since Firefly.
Zarnium: I must admit, I really like my long-running American shows, such as Buffy or Deep Space Nine; but even shorter non-American shows still last a lot longer than a movie. Sherlock, for example, is currently about 13.5 hours long. Only the longest movie series approach that. Not that I'm knocking film too much; sometimes there's a story that works better as a singular, short entity than as a TV series. Actually, I'd argue that many internet-distributed shows are the "independent" version of television. To my knowledge, there's nothing quite like a Buffy or Sherlock type of show being produced independently (in terms of scope, budget, or sheer quality), but there are still multiple "indie TV shows" out there that aren't hampered by a big studio, such as Red Vs. Blue or Homestar Runner. The individual installments are usually pretty short, but in terms of total run time, a lot of them are as long as at least the average British show.
guttersnipe: Believe it or not, I've never actually watched a webshow other than Doctor Who's "Scream of the Shalka". It does sound like something I might find agreeable, given the comparative freedom. Budget isn't actually a concern at all, as I've long firmly held that it's better to have a director with ideas and no money than a director with money and no ideas, so there's no real reason why that can't be applied to a creator on the small screen. I do realise after my little tirade earlier I probably haven't endeared myself to the community as a likely candidate to review a TV show, but I do feel that I could do a miniseries justice sometime.
Boscalyn (5/30/14): I think the question I'd like to ask is if a straight comedy series would ever be considered for this site. I certainly can't think of one. Arrested Development?
Stake&Cheese: Community, maybe. Clone High. Maybe Parks and Rec if they stick the landing. I'd make an argument for Enlisted depending on how the last few episodes work out.
|
|
Quiara
Grade School
Posts: 775
|
Post by Quiara on Mar 25, 2017 19:23:08 GMT -8
So, nearly three years later, are there any new new shows we should try to review?
I've suggested Bunheads in the past based solely on the buzz surrounding it(s corpse). And there are several dramas that have largely gone overlooked that Jeremy would love to see get more recognition. Manhattan comes to mind instantly; provided it nails the landing season two I'd love to say something about Search Party. And this is overlooking more obvious prestige fare (read: Rectify).
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Mar 25, 2017 19:58:39 GMT -8
I need a while to get comfy with the new site and its various bells and whistles before I start thinking about bringing new writers aboard. But it could certainly happen eventually.
I think Manhattan would be an excellent fit for CT, and it's not a huge commitment (23 episodes). It doesn't yet fit under the three-year rule, though.
|
|
|
Post by Dannflor on Mar 25, 2017 20:20:41 GMT -8
I'm rather new around here so pardon my ignorance, but what's the three year rule? Do reviewed shows have to be at least three years old? Why is that?
|
|