TV Shows renewed and cancelled. — Page 4

C3PX said:

TheBoost said:

"I hated Terminator, and I can't beleive they spit on it with the shameful T2! Blasphemy!"

Boost, stop mocking VINH!

Just trying to illustrate my confusion.  Ihave no secret agenda. Half the time I dont even bother to check whose post I'm quoting!

C3PX said:

Vaderisnothayden said:

Btw, you're getting into the habit of needling me with questions that seem designed to imply my thinking makes no sense. Sometimes I ignore it. But it's getting annoying. The above question was entirely unnecessary.

...

How the fuck was Book a comic relief character?

 

I think you might want to lay off the crack, because you seem really paranoid, as if everyone is out to get you.

 

 

 

It wasn't an unecessary question, it was completely relevant. It is interesting to hear you say Serenity was an insult to Firefly, when you seemed to have zero fondness for Firefly to begin with. 

I guess it would be like me saying The Animatrix was an insult to the Matrix trilogy, when in reality I don't care one bit for anything with Matrix in the title. I'd rather leave it to people who care about the series to decide which is better than what, because to me it is all equally unworthy of watching.

Ah, and I think he thought you were talking about Wash, not Book, when you said they killed off the best character. Wash was obviously comic relief. I was annoyed they killed off Book without every explaining his mysterious background that was hinted at several times during the duration of the show. That was a loose end they could have tied off, though it wouldn't have been satifactory, as it was obviously meant to be an underlying plotline over the course of the series.

I think you might want to lay off the crack, because you seem really paranoid, as if everyone is out to get you.

Which of course wouldn't have anything to do with a lot of people giving me a lot of shit. Both you and TheBoost have been quite hostile to me in past. So it's not unreasonable that I should suspect some hostile intentions. If you give somebody shit you can't complain if they don't give you the benefit of the doubt in the future.

It wasn't an unecessary question, it was completely relevant. It is interesting to hear you say Serenity was an insult to Firefly, when you seemed to have zero fondness for Firefly to begin with. 

I guess it would be like me saying The Animatrix was an insult to the Matrix trilogy, when in reality I don't care one bit for anything with Matrix in the title. I'd rather leave it to people who care about the series to decide which is better than what, because to me it is all equally unworthy of watching.

If you can't understand it that's not my fault. But it in no way reasonably required explaining. The two things are not contradictory. Disliking Firefly and recognizing that something is way below the standard of Firefly are not mutually exclusive.

TheBoost said:

Vaderisnothayden said:

TheBoost said:

Vaderisnothayden said:

Serenity was an insult to Firefly, all around low in quality and shallow. Plus they killed off the best character after giving him hardly any screen time. And Mal Reynolds was at his most annoying. Plus they focused on River, a totally unbearable character.

I'm curious. If you don't care for Whedon, and hate two of the main characters in Firefly, and seem to really like the background comic releif character who never did much of importance, how can the movie be an insult to a show you clearly didn't like?

 

How are my feelings about Firefly relevant to the question of whether Serenity was an insult to Firefly?  It either is or isn't an insult to it. My feelings are beside the point. As it is, it was most definitely an insult. It dropped and minimized what little good the show had and maximized its bad stuff.

Btw, you're getting into the habit of needling me with questions that seem designed to imply my thinking makes no sense. Sometimes I ignore it. But it's getting annoying. The above question was entirely unnecessary.

and seem to really like the background comic releif character who never did much of importance

How the fuck was Book a comic relief character?

 

I seriously doubt whether an entertainment property can actually be an 'insult' to another entertainment property, but if it is possible, I doubt even more strongly whether than insult is an objective fact. I found the film to be of extremly high quality and containing much more depth than the show.

I beg your pardon a thousandfold. I assumed you meant the funny pilot. I'll continue the statement though that Shephard Book never did much that was important either. Whatever he brought to the plot was in a supporting role, his mysterious background was never addressed and served mainly as the real main characters moral compass. He served the same role in the film.

And if I have some sinister pattern, it's asking questions when someone else makes a point I'd like clarification on. I think the question was as necessary as any other question talking about movies, because I'm still confused how you can be insulted by changes in a show you never liked in the first place.

"I hated Terminator, and I can't beleive they spit on it with the shameful T2! Blasphemy!"

EDIT: C3PX beat me to a lot of this.

I seriously doubt whether an entertainment property can actually be an 'insult' to another entertainment property

We are not just dealing wth entetainment properties. We are talking about art. And a follow-up work that lowers the standard and fucks up the stuff can definitely be an insult to the previous work. Just like the prequels were an insult to the OT.

I doubt even more strongly whether than insult is an objective fact.

Then you probably belong to the "everything about art is subjective" school of thought. I don't.

I found the film to be of extremly high quality and containing much more depth than the show.

Well god only knows how you came to that conclusion.

I beg your pardon a thousandfold. I assumed you meant the funny pilot. I'll continue the statement though that Shephard Book never did much that was important either. Whatever he brought to the plot was in a supporting role, his mysterious background was never addressed and served mainly as the real main characters moral compass. He served the same role in the film.

Ron Glass was by far the best actor on the show. The intelligent thing to do would be to use that, rather than to focus on a lot of inferior acting from Nathan Fillion and Summer Glau.

And if I have some sinister pattern, it's asking questions when someone else makes a point I'd like clarification on. I think the question was as necessary as any other question talking about movies, because I'm still confused how you can be insulted by changes in a show you never liked in the first place.

When did I say I was insulted by Serenity? I said Serenity was an insult to Firefly, not to me. Though you could say that any case of passing off crap as quality art is an insult to of all us.

And it was totally unecessary to ask the question you asked. All that needed to be understood was that I thought Serenity did not live up to the standard of Firefly, and that stuff was obvious from my original post. It was not necessary to understand anything else. Picking on the issue and questioning me about it was pestering me about something that did not need explaining. And if you did find my thinking (that Serenity was an insult to Firefly) hard to understand (and I don't see why it should be) then so what, it was not important. So what if I chose to see something as insult to Firefly while disliking Firefly. How in god's name was it important how I managed to do that? Picking unnecessarily at my psychology like that certainly looks a little like it's intended to imply that my thinking is bullshit -and perhaps my whole mentality too. Which is generally what it seems to me that some people here think of me generally.

Look, I don't like being unfriendly to people, but you need to understand that some people on this site have made things very difficult and unpleasant for me here over the months. After all that, it shouldn't be impossible to understand why I should be short on patience with stuff that looks like more of the same.

Gaffer Tape said:

Okay, okay.  I was kinda waiting for this answer too, but I think I get it now.  Let me see if I can get an analogy together, one that I'll understand.  Okay. 

Nevermind.  I can't think of one that fits exactly.  But I do think I get what you're saying.  Even if I didn't like something, maybe I could objectively assess spinoff material as being as good or not good in comparison to it.

Um, let's see.  To go to C3PX's analogy, I've never seen The Matrix either.  I've seen no Matrices.  But let's say, for example, that you, C3PX, didn't like the first movie but considered it relatively well-made and can understand why other people would like it.  It's just not your thing, and you found it meh subpar at best and only saw it because some friends forced you to.  Then you happened to catch a glimpse of the sequels, and, even though you didn't even like the first movie, you can tell that those sequels were just utter dogshit in comparison and are amazed that anybody with a braincell could like it.  Obviously you're not a Matrix authority and shouldn't necessarily be crashing Matrix tea parties to explain why certain movies suck.  But it is your opinion.

So I guess I can see where this is coming from.  Now can everybody be happy?  ^_^

You've basically got it right. Firefly is overrated severely as far as I'm concerned and distinctly lacking, but it is not the worst of trash. But Serenity is as far as I'm concerned a prequel-level mess. Also, having seen all Firefly episodes and Serenity too, I think I'm entitled to an opinion on them.

skyjedi2005 said:

With all his hatred of Joss Whedon's work.  I wonder what VINH thinks of Whedon's take on the X-men in the comics he did.

I think it was called Astonishing X-men or something like that.

I would like to also hear his thoughts on the Buffy movie Whedon now claims he had nothing to do with and distanced himself from.  You know the one that had an actress that was not SMG. Had pee wee herman as a zombie and that dillan guy from 90210,lol.

If he hated Summer Glau in serenity what did he think of her in Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles.

Let us hear the vehement rant on how much of a poser she was as a terminator,lol.

I saw a bit of Glau in the Terminator show. I wasn't impressed. I've never liked Galu's work in any of the multiple roles I've seen her in.

The original Buffy movie is a bit of innocent fluff. I don't take it seriously as part of Buffy. I'm not much concerned with it either way.

I've never read Joss's work in the X-Men comics, but I can only imagine how he might have screwed them up.

Vaderisnothayden said:

I doubt even more strongly whether than insult is an objective fact.

Then you probably belong to the "everything about art is subjective" school of thought. I don't.

I found the film to be of extremly high quality and containing much more depth than the show.

Well god only knows how you came to that conclusion.

I beg your pardon a thousandfold. I assumed you meant the funny pilot. I'll continue the statement though that Shephard Book never did much that was important either. Whatever he brought to the plot was in a supporting role, his mysterious background was never addressed and served mainly as the real main characters moral compass. He served the same role in the film.

Ron Glass was by far the best actor on the show. The intelligent thing to do would be to use that, rather than to focus on a lot of inferior acting from Nathan Fillion and Summer Glau.

 

 

And it was totally unecessary to ask the question you asked. All that needed to be understood was that I thought Serenity did not live up to the standard of Firefly, and that stuff was obvious from my original post. It was not necessary to understand anything else. Picking on the issue and questioning me about it was pestering me about something that did not need explaining. And if you did find my thinking (that Serenity was an insult to Firefly) hard to understand (and I don't see why it should be) then so what, it was not important. So what if I chose to see something as insult to Firefly while disliking Firefly. How in god's name was it important how I managed to do that? Picking unnecessarily at my psychology like that certainly looks a little like it's intended to imply that my thinking is bullshit -and perhaps my whole mentality too. Which is generally what it seems to me that some people here think of me generally.

It's interesting that you seem to be of the opinion that all art is objective, and your opinion is the objective truth.

We could each write lengthy essays on the strengths and weaknesses of "Firefly" and "Serenity." I thought both were great, with "Serenity" being the better product. That is my opinion I'm willing to defend, but it is apparently wrong, because your completely objective view is that they both are bad but Serenity is insultingly worse.

If Glass was the best actor on the show (debatable), he was still a minor, supporting character. Christopher Lee can act the pants off anyone else in the PT, but Dooku isnt the focus of the show.

VINH, I think everyone keeps challenging you this way is because you keep acting as if your opinion is gospel and anyone that disagrees with you is an idiot, which makes you look like a dick.

And all art is subjective - I really don't see how anyone could think otherwise.

ChainsawAsh said:

And all art is subjective - I really don't see how anyone could think otherwise.

I disagree, although not by much.

There are objective observations to be made about art. There is craft and skill that can be measured and discussed. Films contain symbolism that can be hackneyed, cliche, obstuse, or elegant. Poetry contains meter and rhythm, and going with or breaking from them causes a specific effect. Some comicbook artists cant draw hands. Without these observations, all discussion on art becomes variations of "But that's just my opinion" repeated ad nauseum.

I agree mostly with your sentiment, that making blanket statements about art is very tricky given art's nature,  but I would phrase it: Art cannot be all objective.

TheBoost said:

If Glass was the best actor on the show (debatable), he was still a minor, supporting character. Christopher Lee can act the pants off anyone else in the PT, but Dooku isnt the focus of the show.

I would debate Christopher Lee being able to act the pants off anyone else in the PT. I find his acting overrated. Liam Neeson is a far superior actor.

Glass was the best actor on the show, therefore the intelligent thing to do would be to give him more screen time, not keep in him in the background and then, come the movie, give him hardly any screen time and then kill him off.

ChainsawAsh said:

VINH, I think everyone keeps challenging you this way is because you keep acting as if your opinion is gospel and anyone that disagrees with you is an idiot, which makes you look like a dick.

And all art is subjective - I really don't see how anyone could think otherwise.

People don't like me because I believe in my opinions? Because we're all supposed to have no confidence in our opinions? Or hypocritically pretend we have no confidence in our opinions, just to avoid offending anyone? I have no problem with people having confidence in their opinions, but I do take offense at anybody acting like it's wrong for me to have confidence in mine.

As it stands, a lot of people here act like they think their opinions are god's truth, so I don't see why I should get stick for being confident in my opinions.

I do not act like people who disagree with me are idiots, unless they give me some sort of trouble, in which case I may lose patience. However, some posters act like I'M an idiot, and quite without provocation too.

I don't think the trouble I get is because I supposedly act like my opinion is gospel and act like other people are idiots. Because I have posted stuff that had nothing to do with putting my opinion versus the opinions of anybody else here and I still got rotten treatment. I once started a thread to point out a fault in the prequels. My aim was to encourage everyone to enjoy themselves having a little fun at the expense of the prequels. People lined up to mock me and one poster in particular got highly insulting. My crime? To dare to think differently from them. I know why I get shit. It's because I dare to confidently express opinions that are based on different thinking from the majority's. People who think differently are supposed to be all timid and doubtful about it and maybe apologize. Intolerance for difference is one of humanity's defining traits, as is dislike of that which a person does not understand.

If somebody feels I'm a dick (as you put it), whether for being confident in my views or being confident in thinking that differs from the majority or based on some bizarre misconception that I treat people like idiots without provocation, that feeling they have that I'm a dick is based on their misunderstanding of me, their misunderstanding of someone who thinks differently from them, and it should not be held against me. 

ChainsawAsh said:

And all art is subjective - I really don't see how anyone could think otherwise.

Art is far from being all subjective, but I'm not going to debate about it, because such debates tend to prove especially pointless.

C3PX said:

ChainsawAsh said:

VINH, I think everyone keeps challenging you this way is because you keep acting as if your opinion is gospel and anyone that disagrees with you is an idiot, which makes you look like a dick.

And all art is subjective - I really don't see how anyone could think otherwise.

 

Nail. Head. BAM! On all points, including art being subjective (though I agree with TheBoost, it is a more indepth conversation than just that).

Ok, maybe we should discuss how you often like act like you think you're more intelligent than anyone else and sometimes treat those who disagree with you like they're idiots. If you go pointing fingers you can expect your own faults to be pointed out. And that stuff has bugged me a lot, despite the good points you often make.

Vaderisnothayden said:

TheBoost said:

If Glass was the best actor on the show (debatable), he was still a minor, supporting character. Christopher Lee can act the pants off anyone else in the PT, but Dooku isnt the focus of the show.

Glass was the best actor on the show, therefore the intelligent thing to do would be to give him more screen time, not keep in him in the background and then, come the movie, give him hardly any screen time and then kill him off.

 

Because shows about aging priests wandering around space making obscure refrences to their possibly shady past, but otherwise being generally fatherly and pleasent make for such high ratings and hit movies. Who likes rogueish space captains, hunted fugitives, or sassy hot women? We could see the adventures of Book strolling around and giving people kindly advice!