ChainsawAsh said:It still made a shit-ton more than any other Trek movie ever has, so sequels are certainly guaranteed.
More's the pity. I was praying it would flop. I guess they can't all work out like Serenity.
C3PX said:Vaderisnothayden said:C3PX said:CompMovieGuy said:ChainsawAsh said:Final list:
- The Undiscovered Country
Oh, and one last thing - how the hell did those whales breathe once they were beamed into the Klingon ship?
- The Wrath of Khan
- The Final Frontier
- The Voyage Home
- The Motion Picture
- The Search for SpockNow that looks a list of someone who actually watched the movies and not someone who just follows the sheep and says "all the even movies and then all the odds" with TFF being the worst, cause it fucking wasnt even close
....and you summed up 4 perfectly, IT WASNT GREAT so people need to get off the notion that it was
Holy shit it is the opinion police! They've discovered I never really watched Star Trek and only look to other people for my opinion! Run for it!!!
I think it is fantastic you like FF so much. But how exactly does that make those of us who don't sheep?
For a guy who face palms a lot, you sure make me feel like face palming. You seem offended at the idea of people liking other Trek films more than FF. It isn't a matter of intelligence or of being right or wrong. It is a matter of opinion. If I liked the movies I do just because everyone else does, then that would make me a sheep. Just because I happen to like the films in close to the same order that a lot of people do, does not make me, or any one else in the same position, a sheep.
Baaaaaaaaa!
Seriously? I mean, really? All this baaaaa ing and face palming BS is making me feel like I am back in kindergarden. Now would you kindly pass the glue?
You don't think it's fun to go baaaaa when people start talking about sheep?
Also, on the topic of sheep, research demonstrates that the majority of people are actually being sheep the majority of the time. That's how humanity works. We're herd animals. People go along thinking they're thinking independently while actually following the signals and examples picked up from other members of the herd. And there's a whole lot of stuff people pick up and follow without being conscious of it. The nature of the beast. Thinking independently is a rather thankless pasttime that tends to earn the enmity of the herd. Because the herd prefers all herd members to play by the herd's rules, for smoother functioning of said herd.
ChainsawAsh said:Vaderisnothayden said:ChainsawAsh said:FanFiltration said:I don't think William Shatner did that bad of a job directing the actors.
This is true, however Shatner should never be allowed to direct himself in anything ever again. I can't remember which part it was precisely, but there was one moment during the film that made me laugh out loud because Shatner just overdid it so much. I know he's never been known for being a great actor by any means, .
You obviously aren't up to date with recognition he's received for Boston Legal. Won one Gloden Globe for Boston Legal and one Emmy. Nominated for three other Emmies for Boston Legal. Won another Emmy for playing the same character on The Practice. Nominated for Screen Actors' Guild award for Boston Legal.
Um ... I watch[ed] Boston Legal. I enjoyed it very much. And I don't think Shatner deserved any of those awards, as his performance as Denny Crane was just as overacted as anything else he's ever done. That's not to say I didn't love every second he was on screen - I just don't think his performance was award-worthy.
And just because someone wins awards for acting doesn't immediately mean they're a good actor, which is something that's a matter of opinion anyway. That's like attacking me for hating Million Dollar Baby because it won the Oscar for Best Picture.
--edit--
And I'm shocked that you defend Shatner's performance while saying Ricardo Montalban's is vomit-worthy. They both over-acted the shit out of their respective roles, but each was enthralling to watch in his own way. I would never have changed a thing about Montalban's performance as Khan, in Space Seed or Wrath of Khan. (I'll never understand how his hair went from black to blonde, but whatever - it's the Saavik eyebrow thing all over again.)
Firstly, I wasn't talking about whether Shatner's performance was good or not. You said he was never known for being a great actor by any means. This is a question of what he's known for, not how good I think he is. So I pointed out the acclaim he got for Boston Legal. Whether you think he deserved that acclaim is irrelevant to the question of whether or not he is known as a good actor. Clearly a good share of people think highly of his acting, so he is indeed known as a good actor. And our opinions on the matter are irrelevant to that question.
Secondly, now that you bring it up, he was good in the role. And no it is not anything like Montalban's excruciating performance. Not everything that's labeled "overacting" is the same thing. Shatner's performance works and is appropriate for the sort of show Boston Legal is. Whereas Montalban's performance was incredibly annoying and makes it impossible to respect the story in the slightest. Shatner's performance isn't just heavy-handed hamming -it's a textured complex performance with subtle elements and with depth and humanity. Montalban's performance is just loud smug hamming beating the audience over the head. Massive difference.
And finally, I'm rather insulted that you seem to feel the need to explain to me the rather elementary principle that awards don't mean a great actor. I gave you no reason to assume I was thinking that way. I merely responded to a claim that Shatner was not KNOWN as a good actor by pointing out the acclaim he's received. So please try to get my meaning right before you assume I'm an idiot.
FanFiltration said:Vaderisnothayden said:I don't know how anybody can sit through Ricardo Montalban's performance as Khan without feeling the need to vomit. It's easily on the level of Palpatine in the later part of ROTS.
Knife in the heart! He was an actor of his time. It was just so clasic how he did it. His performance could just take me back to so many great T.V. villains, that Montalban's Khan became a combination of them all. For me, that made him become that much more of a powerful foe for Kirk. Ricardo Montalban just had that X factor. I can't put my finger on what it was, but it worked for me.
"Great tv villains" that maybe would be best forgotten?
skyjedi2005 said:If you were unaware he is supposed to be channeling the character of Ahab from Hermann Melville's Moby Dick. Much like Patrick Stewart does in star trek first contact.
You know they are referencing actual literature in these films. like William Shakepeare's plays. Dante's inferno, Paradise lost by milton. hermann melvilles moby dick, a tale of two cities by dickens and so forth.
No amount of channeling Ahab justifies obscene painful hamming like that. The same character was also annoying as hell (and full of the same sort of hamming) back in the original episode he first appeared in. Patrick Stewart actually played Ahab once and thankfully he didn't do it like that.
Nor does referencing literature make up for all around bad film-making. Saavik was good in Wrath and Spock was good and his death was well done, but otherwise the film was badly made and sometimes damn near unwatchable. I'll never uderstand the love the film gets, nor why some people seem to be able to bear Khan and not regurgitate their last meal while watching his antics.
I don't know how anybody can sit through Ricardo Montalban's performance as Khan without feeling the need to vomit. It's easily on the level of Palpatine in the later part of ROTS.
ChainsawAsh said:FanFiltration said:I don't think William Shatner did that bad of a job directing the actors.
This is true, however Shatner should never be allowed to direct himself in anything ever again. I can't remember which part it was precisely, but there was one moment during the film that made me laugh out loud because Shatner just overdid it so much. I know he's never been known for being a great actor by any means, .
You obviously aren't up to date with recognition he's received for Boston Legal. Won one Golden Globe for Boston Legal and one Emmy. Nominated for three other Emmies for Boston Legal. Won another Emmy for playing the same character on The Practice. Nominated for Screen Actors' Guild award for Boston Legal.
skyjedi2005 said:In my opinion despite its flaws the motion picture feels like the cerebral star trek i like.
I think it is the best of the original six films despite its slow pace. It basically was trying to be another 2001.
That's part of the problem. 2001 is a severely overrated movie. I find The Motion Sickness pretty much unwatchable, and Wrath of Khan not much better.
CompMovieGuy said:I know Im coming off as a fanboy for V, but let me stress that actually Im not
I think out of the original 6, there are two movies that are CLEARLY (to me anyway) in a class of their own....which is VI and II
These are by far the best of the pack, and when it comes to the other four the debate begins with me because while those two are on a different level the other four are almost on the same level, thus why I dont get when people say IV is the greatest original ST movie, and people do say that....makes me roll my eyes
V doesnt even come close to VI and II, none of the others do....and when I look at the other four its HARD for me to actually rank them cause they all have their own problems and their own love/hate moments.
Its a hard choice after the first two but this is how I see it
VI TUC
II TWoK
(noticeable gap)
V TFF (the one movie thats a mixed bag)
IV TVH (for the fun factor, storyline was shit)
III TSFS (Lloyd saved this movie or else it would be last)
TMP (I hate to have to do it but its just HARD to actually say "hey I think Im gonna watch TMP tonight" cause I know after hour one Im gonna be bored out of my mind since it just drags on)
But like you said, its all opinion
While you're considering people sheepy, don't you realize that worshipping II (like you do) is the majority view? Wouldn't that be a little sheepy? You seem to think people are sheep for having majority views, but thinking II is one of the best is probably the most majority view of all.
II is seriously overrated. I'd say it's the second-worst original crew film.
C3PX said:CompMovieGuy said:ChainsawAsh said:Final list:
- The Undiscovered Country
Oh, and one last thing - how the hell did those whales breathe once they were beamed into the Klingon ship?
- The Wrath of Khan
- The Final Frontier
- The Voyage Home
- The Motion Picture
- The Search for SpockNow that looks a list of someone who actually watched the movies and not someone who just follows the sheep and says "all the even movies and then all the odds" with TFF being the worst, cause it fucking wasnt even close
....and you summed up 4 perfectly, IT WASNT GREAT so people need to get off the notion that it was
Holy shit it is the opinion police! They've discovered I never really watched Star Trek and only look to other people for my opinion! Run for it!!!
I think it is fantastic you like FF so much. But how exactly does that make those of us who don't sheep?
For a guy who face palms a lot, you sure make me feel like face palming. You seem offended at the idea of people liking other Trek films more than FF. It isn't a matter of intelligence or of being right or wrong. It is a matter of opinion. If I liked the movies I do just because everyone else does, then that would make me a sheep. Just because I happen to like the films in close to the same order that a lot of people do, does not make me, or any one else in the same position, a sheep.
Baaaaaaaaa!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 wasn't impressed with Catrall as Valeris. Alley was good as Saavik. Curtis was ok as Saaavik, but I'm not keen on recasting characters.
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.
The worst two classic Trek films were the first one (The Motion Sickness) and the Wrath of Khan. Khan himself must be one of the most annoying characters in screen science fiction. Give me Jar Jar any day over that. Easily as bad as Hayden's Anakin.
Undiscovered Country was by far the best film with the original crew. Final Frontier is ok. In some ways at least it's better than the two films that immediately preceded it. But I think Undiscovered Country is the only genuinely good original crew film.
Generations is to an extent an original crew film. In some ways it's good and in some ways it's a major letdown. I'm not thrilled about any of the Next Generation films, but they're all watchable. I agree with C3PX that the Borg Queen was a dumb idea. She was also a bloody annoying character.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
lordjedi said:Ziz said:Vaderisnothayden said:Ziz said:Sluggo said:Also, Speilberg needs to grow a pair. If George ever comes up with another alien idea, Steven needs to stop it dead in it's tracks.
Ironic, since there's stories about Lucas having to reign Spielberg in on "Raiders"
GL: "OK, Steven, you said you were just going to kill 'a couple of Germans in this scene."
SS: "Nazis. I'm killing Nazis. I like Germans."
GL: "Fine. How many is 'a couple'?"
SS: "1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6....10 guys. That's 'a couple'."
GL: "That's a dozen!"
SS: "George, I'm making a really big movie here."
GL: "Yes, I realize that, Steven, but there's a difference between a simple murder and a cult massacre!"
Are those actual real quotes? Did Spielberg actually get overenthusiastic about killing off Nazis?
Taken from "Skywalking - the Life and Films of George Lucas". I have an original copy from the mid 80's. Don't know if subsequent releases were edited or changed in any way.
Wow! I'll have to take a look at my copy. It's as if Lucas couldn't stand the thought of a bunch of Nazi's getting killed.
You're only allowed to kill droid troopers.