TV Shows renewed and cancelled. — Page 3

C3PX said:

I don't care a thing for it when played by Americans though, they have a weird way of making it less entertaining IMHO

It's interesting that you bring that up, C3PX - I was watching TV a few weeksa go, flipping channels, when I stumbled across 3 soccer (er ... football) games in a row.  One was a game being played in Europe with Spanish announcers, and it was quite exciting.  The next was a game being played in my own city (Chicago), with American announcers and it was boring as all hell.

Then the third channel was the exact same Chicago Fire game, the exact same shots, from the exact same feed.  The only difference was that the announcers were Mexican.  And the game was infinitely more interesting.

I'm not sure if this was just a coincidence, and for some reason I didn't compare the American and the European games at all at the time, but I think in this instance it was down to the American announcer, who was acting like he was talking about golf (i.e. the most boring "sport" to watch on TV in the history of the world, even if I do enjoy playing it quite a bit), while the Mexican announcer was very engaged and energetic.

I find that analogy pretty funny since most Americans I know would compare American football to the guy on the Harley and soccer to the guy on the Vespa.  Here, if you like soccer but not football, you're probably gay.  Or communist.  Or something.

skyjedi2005 said:

As for Whedon i heard Dollhouse was good so i bothered myself to watch the first 20 minutes of it and it was shit.

I saw some of it on youtube and was unimpressed.

ChainsawAsh said:

I find that analogy pretty funny since most Americans I know would compare American football to the guy on the Harley and soccer to the guy on the Vespa.  Here, if you like soccer but not football, you're probably gay.  Or communist.  Or something.

Soccer IS football. The other thing is American Football. Both are dumb. American football is basically rugby with a ton of protective gear.

C3PX said:

Vaderisnothayden said:

I'm sorry, but I think you're just not being clear with yourself about that post I felt was mocking. You may not have sat down and said "I am going to mock Vaderisnothayden", but the tone of the post was extremely mocking. And, having been mocked by you a number of times previously, I am sensitive to that.

 

For the record, I'd like to get into less rows with you, because I respect a lot you say. But you have to understand that you do sometimes make it difficult for me.

 

 

So what you are saying is that you biggest problems at this place come from when people misunderstand you, and when people misunderstand themselves. As you clearly understand my own posts better than I understand them myself. Whatever I type must be read through the eyes of Vaderisnohayden, any other take or spin on my posts, even my own, are clearly inaccurate. Just give me some time, I am clearly getting it.

There is no reason for us to get into rows at all. You've taken a hyperbolic post I have written with the sole intention of driving home a point, and you've regarded it as a personal attack. I can reassure you a million times it was not a personal attack, but it isn't going to convince you.

Of course you can't convince me, because the post has a blatantly mocking tone and starts with an insult. And by the end of your post it's become very cear that you're satirizing what you think my view is. It's pretty obvious from looking at the post that it's mocking. No amount of "explaining" from you is going to change that. If you don't want people to think you're mocking them then don't mock them. When I'm talking about people not understanding me, I'm not talking about mocking and insulting people and then claiming that I didn't really do it.

Vaderisnothayden said:

ChainsawAsh said:

I find that analogy pretty funny since most Americans I know would compare American football to the guy on the Harley and soccer to the guy on the Vespa.  Here, if you like soccer but not football, you're probably gay.  Or communist.  Or something.

Soccer IS football. The other thing is American Football. Both are dumb. American football is basically rugby with a ton of protective gear.

 

Uh ... yeah, I know.  That's why I called it "American football."  I didn't the second time because I assumed you'd figure out that I was talking about "American football."  For me, typing "American football" feels very, very strange, since for me and most Americans, there isn't any other kind of "football."  It's about as strange as hearing "soccer" referred to as "football," even though I know it technically is and we just stole the name.

lordjedi said:

Vaderisnothayden said:

lordjedi said:

Joss Whedon may not be the best writer in the world, but he can write some pretty funny stuff.  Most of what made Buffy and FireFly so good were the one liners and the action.  Hell, the single greatest episode of Buffy had almost no dialogue (Hush) with the second best episode being the musical (Once More, With Feeling).

Buffy had more to it than one-liners and action. Firefly not so much. A whole lot of bland characterization, with the show expecting you to love these characters while pushing how cool the show supposedly is. But all that was way better than Serenity. At least in the case of Serenity  shit WAS unpopular -Serenity flopped at the box office, to my great delight.

But the problem is that Joss fans push the view that Joss IS in fact The Best Writer In The World. And they think his writing was the best on tv. I guess they never saw Oz or The Wire. Or the whole load of other shows that had better writing. Factors other than writing made Buffy the quality show it was. But Firefly didn't have anything to save it from the shallowness that Joss's work often falls into. Almost a cynical shallowness. That show DID get cancelled, something which I'm happy about. And Angel got cancelled too, which thrilled me even more. There was one good season of Angel, the first season, and then the quality dropped out and it got worse every season after that. The final season made the Star Wars prequels look good by comparison. It was like nobody was making an effort and by the end it looked to me amost like Joss was deliberately fucking it all up, kind of reminiscent of the prequels actually. I have Whedon issues as much as I have Lucas issues.

From what I and many others can figure, FireFly got canceled simply because Fox didn't really want it.  That became obvious when the first episode, which wasn't the first episode, aired.  Instead of introducing all the characters during a two hour pilot, we were treated to a one hour episode that assumed you already knew who everyone was.  Even I was a bit confused after seeing a preview of the pilot at Comic-Con.  So it's no wonder it got canceled.  Serenity was the way it was because it was pretty much a one off deal that had to cram about a seasons worth of story into 2 hours.  I actually liked Serenity aside from the fact that Joss seemed on the verge of slaughtering the crew by the end of the movie.

With Angel, according to some anyway, it was doing quite well when the plug was suddenly pulled.  That's probably why the final season looked like crap to you.  The plugged got pulled right in the middle, so of course they gave up trying.  They were pretty much trying to wrap it all up by the end of the season.  Most of what happened between season 1 and 5, to me, was Joss trying to write around what was going on in peoples lives.  Kind of like when Seth Green left Buffy, unexpectedly, and then wanted to come back.  I also think Joss had way to much on his plate at this time (he was doing Buffy, Angel, trying to finish Fray, and I believe FireFly was in the early stages as well).

Like I said, Buffy was good until after season 5 (the acting, writing, and the stories).  The musical is pretty much the one gem that came out of season 6.  Other than that, they had her fighting a god and a pretty stupid god at that.  She had more trouble with demons in 5 seasons than she had with a god in one.  Yes, the last two seasons of Buffy were pretty horrible from all standpoints.

I think his writing can be pretty good and funny in context and with the right deliveries (probably why I liked FireFly so much).  The only issue I have with Whedon is that he uses the same actors in everything he does.  It isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it ends up looking like a reunion of characters.  I saw a bit of Dollhouse and immediately went "Hey, it's Fred from Angel!"  I have no idea what character she plays on Dollhouse.

Vaderisnothayden said:

If you care about art, it's perfectly reasonable to wish the money and time and resources were going into making quality stuff rather than crap. And if you feel that way you're going to wish the bad shows would get cancelled and replaced with good shows. Not that I expect the bad shows to all get cancelled and replaced with good stuff, but every one that is is a door open for a chance at making a quality show.

And who exactly are you to say what's a good show and what's not?  Personally, I can't stand Lost, which is why I don't watch it.  But wishing it gets canceled?  I don't think it's immoral, but it's lame.  Talk about wasting time.  It almost sounds like your idea of "quality stuff" is the exact opposite of what everyone wants.  The only show I've ever wished would get canceled was Friends, but that had more to do with the actors becoming arrogant and the show becoming really really lame than anything else.  Hell, they spent several episodes on Joey not asking Rachel to marry him.  But it got ratings, so it continued.  I notice that none of them, aside from Matthew Perry, have been in anything really phenominal since it got canceled.

From what I and many others can figure, FireFly got canceled simply because Fox didn't really want it.  That became obvious when the first episode, which wasn't the first episode, aired.  Instead of introducing all the characters during a two hour pilot, we were treated to a one hour episode that assumed you already knew who everyone was.  Even I was a bit confused after seeing a preview of the pilot at Comic-Con.  So it's no wonder it got canceled.

I think it got cancelled because the characters don't make a real connection and there isn't enough heart in it. I can catch an episod of a show long after the characters have been introduced and still get interested. If Firefly had been a good enough show it would have been more popular despite being aired out of order.

Serenity was the way it was because it was pretty much a one off deal that had to cram about a seasons worth of story into 2 hours.  I actually liked Serenity aside from the fact that Joss seemed on the verge of slaughtering the crew by the end of the movie.

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.

With Angel, according to some anyway, it was doing quite well when the plug was suddenly pulled.  That's probably why the final season looked like crap to you. 

No, the final season was crap from the beginning.

Like I said, Buffy was good until after season 5 (the acting, writing, and the stories).  The musical is pretty much the one gem that came out of season 6.  Other than that, they had her fighting a god and a pretty stupid god at that.  She had more trouble with demons in 5 seasons than she had with a god in one.  Yes, the last two seasons of Buffy were pretty horrible from all standpoints.

Season 6 was better than season 5 and had a lot of good stuff in it. Season 7 is where the trouble starts, particularly about episode 8 onwards.

And who exactly are you to say what's a good show and what's not?

I'm tired of this sort of question. I don't consider it valid.

But wishing it gets canceled?  I don't think it's immoral, but it's lame.  Talk about wasting time.

Since when did I say I wasted time wishing it'd get cancelled? It takes no time to wish that. But if choose to post some view that it should get cancelled, that is hardly a waste of time. It's expression of opinion and feelings, always worth doing. Nothing lame about that.

It almost sounds like your idea of "quality stuff" is the exact opposite of what everyone wants.

You have no evidence to base that on.

Gaffer Tape said:

 Firefly is one of them.  One of my favorite shows, so I don't appreciate the bashing toward it.  ^_~

Well I'm sorry if it bothers you. But I believe firmly that people are entitled to bash things and that there's nothing personal towards fans in it.

I wouldn't wipe my arse with that comic. Not good enough to be used as toilet paper. It's to Buffy what the SE and PT are to Star Wars.

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?

skyjedi2005 said:

I still think only the first season of heroes was any good and the show should have been cancelled after its second half season.  Never mind the rediculous season 3 that might as well have been crafted by JJ Abrams and his writers.

Seasons? What are you talking about. Heroes was an awesome 22 episode miniseries that ended when they killed Sylar and Peter blew up. It was great.

(puts fingers in ears and runs away)

TheBoost said:

Heroes was an awesome 22 episode miniseries that ended when they killed Sylar and Peter blew up. It was great.

(puts fingers in ears and runs away)

I approve of this post.  Exactly my feelings on the matter.

Reminds me of the last 4 panels of this xkcd webcomic.  Which I also agree with.

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?

C3PX said:

V, are you really from parts of the world that spell ass a-r-s-e? I always had you pegged as an American, but of course it is always hard to tell on the internets.

Personally, I never found much of Buffy to be all that great to boot. Friend of mine was always really into it though. There have been occasional episodes I'd have the pleasure of seeing that I found to be downright fantastic, but all in all, nothing special IMHO. Firefly on the other hand, I felt was brilliant. Of the existing episodes, they were kind of hit or miss, but it really had a lot going for it. The fact that it was cancelled is truely ashame, I think it could have made it really great.

I don't think a very good argument can be made for it being canceled because it lacked heart or the ability to connect with the characters. The bottom line is I used to watch Fox quite a lot. I only had seven channels at the time this show was on, and Fox was one of them. Yet somehow I never saw a single commercial for this show (because there really were none to speak of) and I didn't even know of its existence until well after it was canceled. Interestingly, I have many friends who really like Firefly as well, yet not a single one of them ever knew about the show while it was on. The only thing I ever saw of Firefly prior to the DVD release, was a black and white ad in a TV Guide. And from that, I assumed it was some unwatchable bull like Andromeda and didn't give it a second thought.

Had I known about it then, I would certainly have been watching every week.

 

Buffy had heart and soul. Firefly didn't. It lacked emotional depth. It was all about trying to be cool and flip and posing at being clever and it got too caught up in doing that to bother with meaningful feeling. I don't doubt that that played a part in its lack of success.

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.