On 05/15/2012 11:13 AM, turquoiseb wrote: > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Alex Stanley"<j_alexander_stanley@...> > wrote: >> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb<no_reply@> wrote: >>> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu<noozguru@> wrote: >>>> NBC will probably ruin it. JJ Abrams and Jon Favreau involved: >>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JwfCRAtkYEI >>> Looks terrible to me. I don't see why people invoke >>> J.J.Abrams' name as if it were holy. He specializes >>> in taking ideas that make no sense (or stealing them, >>> as he seems to have done with this one, which was >>> considered a cliche back in 1950s scifi, where it >>> first appeared) and turning them into TV series that >>> get people hooked on watching stuff that makes no sense. >>> >>> I mean, really. "Fringe?" "Lost?" "Alcatraz?" >>> >>> I'll pass. >> Somehow, his stuff has managed to mostly bypass my attention, >> with one major exception. I watched less than half an hour of >> the pilot episode of Fringe before shutting it off and never >> watching it again. But, I'm *totally* addicted to Person of >> Interest. > I actually had never noticed that Abrams had a hand in POI. > I never got past the first page for the series on the IMDB, > which credits Johnathon Nolan as the Creator and doesn't > mention Abrams until you dig WAY down in the credits. If > his name appears onscreen as Executive Producer, I never > noticed it. > > I wouldn't call myself addicted, but I've watched most > of it, too. I'm looking forward to the final episode > of the season next week because it guest stars one of my > favorite actresses from "Dollhouse," Amy Acker. I think > it's formulaic and many of the things I usually don't > like, but for some reason I keep watching it, possibly > because of Michael Emerson as Finch. > > In a way, the "tech" of "Person Of Interest" is fairly > believable. Such "machines" actually exist in the NSA > and the CIA and other agencies, parsing exabytes of > data for keywords and phrases they think are meaningful. > > The same is true for a series I watched because I really > liked Poppy Montgomery as a redhead :-), "Unforgettable." > There's no "tech" in this one, just a rare human trait > that actually exists. The character remembers everything > she ever sees or hears. Everything. That makes her an > interesting -- and effective -- police detective. Sadly, > I hear this one has been cancelled, so clearly not > everyone is as taken with redheads as I am. :-) > > I think the issue in question is Suspension Of Disbelief. > All fictional TV is...uh...fictional. You know that going > in. The only remaining questions are whether the story- > telling and the characters and the actors playing them > can suck you into the fiction. You "suspend disbelief" > by definition when you enjoy a work of fiction. > > But some pieces of fiction are easier to suspend disbelief > for than others. They have to follow "rules" to achieve > this. First, the plot and plot elements and tech have > to be internally consistent; you can't change the rules > of how this fictional universe works in midstream (like > "Lost" and "Fringe" are famous for doing). Second, they > have to strike enough of a resonance in the viewer to > make them *want* to suspend disbelief long enough to > enjoy the product as a work of fiction. > > Asking me to suspend disbelief when watching "Fringe" was > too much to ask. So was asking me to do the same for "Lost." > "Alcatraz?" Don't even go there. :-) > > As for "Revolution," I see it as an example of pandering > to a clearly profitable market -- those who believe in or > want to believe in apocalypses.
Or revolution. :-D > I would imagine that a > LOT of survivalist types will be watching it. But the > whole premise I saw in the trailer turns me off so much > that I don't think I can suffer through watching it, > even though I am a fan of pop culture and like to keep > up on what the pop is watching. The tech of the plot > premise just sucks. It's asking me to suspend disbelief > too much, and with (judging from the acting in the > trailer) too little payoff. Eric Kripke is also involved and I've enjoyed his work on "Supernatural." This last episode revealed what the "secret ingredient" in this year's "uber demon", a corporate head of a food and restaurant chain: high fructose corn syrup. So they were able to do some good comedy around what made customers of his products obese and in a stupor while at the same time attacking HFCS.
