426

(50 replies, posted in Off Topic)

In business, there's the concept that activities have an opportunity cost; by doing plan A, you don't just spend time and money on that, you also implicitly and irrevocably lose the opportunity to try plans B to Z instead, because time is not recoverable, and the world moves on.

I look at unengaging shows (or books, or anything requiring serious time commitment on my part) in the same way; if I spend 50 hours sitting through seasons one and two of Everybody Loves Shark Jumping until I get to what my friends think are the good bits, those are 50 hours I didn't spend, and can no longer spend, watching The Curiolanus Chronicles instead. (Which, according to my neighbour's decorator, definitely gets good once the Plugbots turn up.)

427

(14 replies, posted in Off Topic)

I got bored with it, and I was watching it on a night flight while wide awake with nothing else to do. And I can be quite hard to bore when you're waving around the bouncy ladies and the steampunk Nazis.

428

(50 replies, posted in Off Topic)

I'm old enough to be completely with Teague on this. Episode One of any show is the sales pitch to the audience for the rest of it, and needs to be built accordingly.

As with any sales pitch, it needs to grab my attention, then deliver the whole pitch before it loses my attention. That pitch needs to amount to "stick with us, it'll be worth it."

I'm not remotely interested in listening to any show warming up or finding its voice over the course of some indeterminate number of episodes; life's too frigging short, and the writers and producers should have done that already before throwing the monkeys in front of the cameras.

Several of the shows mentioned above have the advantage of having been left on the air long enough to find a voice that we can now talk about, but that's with hindsight. Plenty of other shows remain uninvolving, and I don't think it's my job to pay out a load of attention rope to a show just in case it finally grabs hold of it.

Now, this doesn't always work out: FlashForward's pilot had a bunch of momentum, and then stalled for most of the rest of the season before blowing up the gear box in a panic at the end; Heroes had a stonking beginning, and only really turned to mush in season three.

I've repeatedly heard the claim that it can take a show three seasons to get really good, and the 'evidence' for this is Star Trek: the Next Generation, which does, indeed, have a truly horrible pilot.  (So horrible, that my girlfriend and I literally gave up on it partway through, and didn't see the rest of it until years later, after catching a few season three episodes re-engaged us with the show.) However, I think this claim is as spurious as the claim that it takes Microsoft three goes to make any product good (based on Windows 3.0 being the first non-terrible version).

ST:TNG might have convinced Rick Berman that he deserved three seasons of our attention to get his acts together with DS9 and Voyager and Enterprise, all of which underwent significant changes during their respective seasons three, but that was just a cheap excuse for not being ready at the start, and he was less able to get away with each time as we had more alternatives to just sticking with it.

If you're producing a new show, you need to grab my attention and win it with Episode One, don't just expect that I'll donate literally days of my life to you on the off-chance that you might get your act together once you've learned how to write what you want to say.

429

(1,649 replies, posted in Off Topic)

Creepy nightmarish cartoon. Also, Betty Boop. But I repeat myself.

430

(2 replies, posted in Off Topic)

Trey wrote:

And oh, the flames.   Flames in my head.

If that isn't a t-shirt and/or Photoshop opportunity, I don't know what is.

431

(1,649 replies, posted in Off Topic)

432

(55 replies, posted in Episodes)

Dorkman is the comma.

433

(55 replies, posted in Episodes)

Phi wrote:

Wasn't the plane flying from the Austrian Alps to New York? I'm still trying to figure out how Greenland got between them. http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=jfk-inn

Maybe he was flying some weird ETOPS route involving the mandatory scaring of polar bears.

434

(12 replies, posted in Off Topic)

Maggot1300 wrote:
Eddie wrote:

I'll be there as always.s

cool, would be good to catch up with a few people for a beer or two.  should be doing LA, comic con and then onto vegas so not sure what state i'll be in

Drunken? rimshot

435

(55 replies, posted in Episodes)

Perhaps I misunderstand, but can this not be rephrased as: any scene that does not advance the plot or affect characters is redundant? That it might be an action scene is then beside the point. It just means that, in such cases, you've watched 20 minutes of CGI shoe-leathering that could be replaced with: "and then, we drove across town to here without being killed by the flying sharks with frickin' lasers on their heads. So, what's up with you?"

436

(1,649 replies, posted in Off Topic)

Amusing, but doesn't take the potential of the plot device nearly far enough, IMHO.

If I can condense this into "the closing scene of the movie should have been the opening scene", and I think I can, then the obvious answer is Surrogates.

438

(56 replies, posted in Off Topic)

Jeffery Harrell wrote:

All you people who didn't say "Bugatti Veyron" have brought the wrong car.

One of these appeared in my rear-view mirror the other month:

Bugatti Veyron

When I saw it, with this polished-metal-and-cream paintjob, I thought I was being followed by a huge kitchen appliance. I kept expecting toast to pop out of somewhere.

439

(42 replies, posted in Episodes)

Matt Vayda wrote:

Did things just get weird?

Well, it seems like there is a bunch of unexpected Scottish-actor fans here, at least. Which is nice.

440

(207 replies, posted in Off Topic)

Whut? Is Eddie looking at the previous page?

Surely

ShadowDuelist wrote:

A direction of movement opposite the vector of gravity

is Up?

Since I apparently pooped when I wasn't quite on the pot, I pass my turn/cleaning duties to Eddie.

441

(207 replies, posted in Off Topic)

Shout at the Devil?

If so,

Sixth note sun god Scottish farm grave attacker.

442

(207 replies, posted in Off Topic)

Which, by a curious feat of retro-temporal planning, is a hint for mine. Sort of.

443

(207 replies, posted in Off Topic)

Hoop Dreams?

444

(38 replies, posted in Off Topic)

Pff, like a Star Destroyer is a raise on the Tardis. tongue

445

(38 replies, posted in Off Topic)

Cavalierly interpreting 'plane' as 'vehicle that can fly', I'd have this:

Idris

446

(207 replies, posted in Off Topic)

Sleeping Around?

If so,

The Stand-in for Paul Newman's Vacuum Pump

Well, you could start here, I guess. It appears to be the successor to the old list of movie cliches that used to circulate on rec.arts.movies, back when Usenet actually worked.

448

(1,649 replies, posted in Off Topic)

How uncanny is my valley?

449

(42 replies, posted in Episodes)

My wife and I saw Wanted a few months ago, and thought it was good-looking, car-crashy stupid, with a capital duh, that we'll probably never see again. She liked some of the Elfman.

When Jolie scoops McAvoy up with the car, we both said "oops, two broken ankles."

At the end, we both said "so, why where they paying attention to the loom, again?"

BTW, in the podcast, did anyone say Wanted 2: Electric Boogaloom?  Just checking.

Also, after a comment from Trey, I suggest the default title for any even-stupider sequel to a stupid movie follow this pattern: Wanted 2: Bag of Hammers.

450

(26 replies, posted in Episodes)

Staying on the off-topic...