198 replies to this topic

[Arjan Dirkse]

Another show I don't get: "Chuck."

What the hell is that about? He is a nerd, but somewhat good looking, athletic and attractive to girls, and yet he is also a super intelligent super spy, however his life sucks and he works a shitty job in in a best buy and he's a general loser, yet he's also Neo from the Matrix and a superhuman fighting machine who controls the fate of the civilized world.

[David Chapman]

Another show I don't get: "Chuck."

What the hell is that about? He is a nerd, but somewhat good looking, athletic and attractive to girls, and yet he is also a super intelligent super spy, however his life sucks and he works a shitty job in in a best buy and he's a general loser, yet he's also Neo from the Matrix and a superhuman fighting machine who controls the fate of the civilized world.

What I don't get about Chuck is how it got four or five seasons, while Jake 2.0 was cancelled after half a season despite being essentially the same show with better acting and writing.

[Rory Abel]

What I don't get about Chuck is how it got four or five seasons, while Jake 2.0 was cancelled after half a season despite being essentially the same show with better acting and writing.

But far more charm and a rather different concept when it first started. Plus it didn't air on a failing network.

[steveuk]

Another show I don't get: "Chuck."

What the hell is that about? He is a nerd, but somewhat good looking, athletic and attractive to girls, and yet he is also a super intelligent super spy, however his life sucks and he works a shitty job in in a best buy and he's a general loser, yet he's also Neo from the Matrix and a superhuman fighting machine who controls the fate of the civilized world.

He's a TV network nerd, no dress sense and scruffy hair, they wont take it any further than that for a lead character (see 'Big Bang Theory').

The premise was simply that he's an underachiever. He could do more, he has skills and strengths, but he hasn't done much with them, and then he's pushed into a situation full of danger, but also opportunity.

It's classic hero territory.

[Paul F]

But far more charm and a rather different concept when it first started. Plus it didn't air on a failing network.

NBC isn't a failing network?

The reason Chuck lasted five seasons is that it did reliably consistent viewers (until it was moved to Fridays) and NBC will take what it can get.

[steveuk]

'Sicily Unpacked'
http://www.bbc.co.uk...rammes/b019f8vm

Andrew Graham-Dixon and Giorgio Locatelli are... well drunk. The show was pretty good though.

[Rory Abel]

NBC isn't a failing network?

The reason Chuck lasted five seasons is that it did reliably consistent viewers (until it was moved to Fridays) and NBC will take what it can get.

Not in the way UPN was.

Yeah Chuck was saved by it's viewers, what, twice?

[Paul F]

Not in the way UPN was.

Yeah Chuck was saved by it's viewers, what, twice?

The second season was the big one, with the Subway campaign. It was in some worry at the end of Season 3, IIRC, but that was when the Jay Leno thing blew up and NBC had no other shows to put on.

[Carlos Mancilla II]

Desperate Housewives, finally was able to catch up.. It's still not the show it once was, but I'm glad it picked up for this last season a bit.. So far I'm really liking this season

[Chris D]

Watched the first episode of House of Lies. Seems promising, if only for the cast. I'll essentially watch anything that puts Kristen Bell back on TV on a regular basis. So I'll stick around for a few episodes.

Also been watching the first season of Shameless (the US version). I'm thoroughly entertained by it.

[John Brook]

Annie Hall. My Woody Allen binge-catchup of a lifetime continues... Absolutely wonderful. Screw Star Wars, it deserved the 1977 academy awards

[Carlos Mancilla II]

Just found out that Evan Peters from American Horror Story, played Todd on Kick-Ass.. Kinda cool, good to see him active

[stephanie familiar]

just watched Martha Marcy May Marlene. i really enjoyed it. Elizabeth Olsen was great, a very understated performance, and really, the whole approach to the film was understated. nothing was ever really in your face, and it worked. i saw a lot of people squabbling online about the ending, and though it was most definitely abrupt, or a "non-ending" as i've heard a few people call it, i thought it was perfectly non-hollywood. a superb ending for a movie that is all about one's psychology.

(and it's not nearly as much of a thriller as the trailer makes it out to be)





i love this you tube comment for the trailer:

very disturbing. i don't watch movies like this. they are of no good to anyone.

[Christian U]

very disturbing. i don't watch movies like this. they are of no good to anyone.

I know a few people who are like that. In fact, I know two who are German teachers (for God's sake!) who say they never read sad or disturbing books because they don't see a reason why they should.

Shouldn't be allowed to teach bloody literature to kids.

Anyway, I saw a trailer for this movie a while back, I'd forgotten about it. I'll have to remember to get it, it looks very good, and I love Sarah Paulson and John Hawke.

[stephanie familiar]

I know a few people who are like that. In fact, I know two who are German teachers (for God's sake!) who say they never read sad or disturbing books because they don't see a reason why they should.

i hear that from people i know all the time. i kind of get it, life is depressing and fucked up, so why make things worse by watching disturbing movies or reading sad books.. but if something isn't all sunshine and rainbows, that doesn't necessarily make it weird or wrong, which i also hear quite a bit.

Shouldn't be allowed to teach bloody literature to kids.

i guess those teachers frown upon teaching The Catcher in the Rye? or Wuthering Heights? or any number of books that are typically on syllabi?

Anyway, I saw a trailer for this movie a while back, I'd forgotten about it. I'll have to remember to get it, it looks very good, and I love Sarah Paulson and John Hawke.

Hawke was good, didn't play a huge role though, and didn't really get a chance to do too much with his character.

[Christian U]

i guess those teachers frown upon teaching The Catcher in the Rye? or Wuthering Heights? or any number of books that are typically on syllabi?

Yeah, I don't know how you're supposed to teach any literature if you don't get the whole point of it. I love this quote from Kafka:

I think we ought to read only the kind of books that wound or stab us. If the book we're reading doesn't wake us up with a blow to the head, what are we reading for? So that it will make us happy, as you write? Good Lord, we would be happy precisely if we had no books, and the kind of books that make us happy are the kind we could write ourselves if we had to. But we need books that affect us like a disaster, that grieve us deeply, like the death of someone we loved more than ourselves, like being banished into forests far from everyone, like a suicide. A book must be the axe for the frozen sea within us. That is my belief.”

[stephanie familiar]

Yeah, I don't know how you're supposed to teach any literature if you don't get the whole point of it. I love this quote from Kafka:

I think we ought to read only the kind of books that wound or stab us. If the book we're reading doesn't wake us up with a blow to the head, what are we reading for? So that it will make us happy, as you write? Good Lord, we would be happy precisely if we had no books, and the kind of books that make us happy are the kind we could write ourselves if we had to. But we need books that affect us like a disaster, that grieve us deeply, like the death of someone we loved more than ourselves, like being banished into forests far from everyone, like a suicide. A book must be the axe for the frozen sea within us. That is my belief.”

i don't agree with him.

[Nicholas Taggart]

I like Kafta but I also disagree with that. I read literature mostly for enjoyment.

[stephanie familiar]

I like Kafta but I also disagree with that. I read literature mostly for enjoyment.

i think one can get enjoyment out of something that is disturbing or sad, but he was most definitely being melodramatic, and there is nothing wrong with reading or watching something that makes you happy or uplifted.

[Will Carper]

The stuff I love is mostly stuff that fits Kafka's description--Blood Meridian, City of Glass, Beloved, 1984, Cuckoo's Nest, The Things They Carried, Oscar Wao... all fairly tragic books. I could list even more movies and comics.

However, I read a lot of superhero comics and with the exception of a few they're all pretty "safe," in that they don't shake up my world very often, apart from the occasional "edge of your seat read" which isn't quite the same thing (always). Enjoyment reads are fine, and kinda necessary if you're into the heavier stuff, as well. Though for me, I don't tend to get super affected by stuff that I know is fiction, unless there's a really disgusting image or something. Or a dog dies.

Also, while Kafka's using hyperbole, I don't think the kind of books he described can't also be enjoyed. I enjoyed Blood Meridian, not because its subject matter (massacres, basically) gave me joy, but because it so deftly accomplished what it set out to do. The same can be said for my enjoyment of David Lynch movies, which tend to set me on edge, or Martha Marcy May Marlene, which I thought was one of the best films of 2011.

Edited by Will Carper, 07 January 2012 - 10:31 AM.