Discussion in 'Science Fiction & Fantasy' started by Cain, Sep 15, 2008.
No, it's not.
I read the script for the original pilot, and it showed her being reprogrammed several times during the episode. But it also shows fragments, or echos, of the past remaining with her, even though she was wiped clean.
I could see a default personality in the fragments we got, and that default personality can only become stronger. A couple of characters notice something different about her, but in the pilot, they don't mention it. Any problems would lead to Echo being removed from the program.
I found it an enjoyable read, but making it work week after week could be a real chore. All I know is I'll be tuning in to see if it works.
From the beginning, I've thought the concept sounded like it would be hard to make work in a TV series. The concept doesn't sound that sound interesting. Maybe, they could figure it out and make a great show.
But, if they are having this much trouble in pre-production, then it sounds like they can't their heads around the concept either.
I'm not going to prejudge the show and say it will be crap without seeing it. I'll give it a chance. But, my expectations are pretty low.
it would work great as a mini-series of tv movies, but a weekly ongoing just won't work.
Well, I always look forward to seeing Joss' stuff on TV. And I confess, I was pickled tink to discover that Reed Diamond has made a place for himself in the cast. Man, I miss Journeyman.
^^^Part of Life on Mars is basically the Journeyman story, in the sense of mysterious time travel for occult reasons, with teases luring the hero in his search to find out why, why, why? I didn't care for that story myself, but maybe you did. I thought the characters and dialogue in Journeyman were much more lifelike than in Life on Mars, but that's me. Maybe you should check it out.
well there was a post by joss yesterday, i think, and he did say that the network bought something they thought was completely diff. you know when you're trying to explain something to someone and you think they get it but they actually think something completely different? that's what happened. it's like joss' idea was an orange, but the network thought they bought a grapefruit. so now joss has to turn his orange more like a grapefruit. he's said the pilot has been completely thrown out. was going to be 2nd ep, but not anymore. he's basically having to rework his idea because as he said, now he knows what the network was thinkingking it was getting. that's why they had to take a break. you think you're going one way, but then you find out you need to go another so you stop, back track and go a different way. wow, that's a lot of reworking. even the eps already shot will need to be redone. >_<
The network should just STFU. Fux has already botched more than enough genre shows with their interference.
The network is right on this one. You read some of Joss' comments it seems HE wanted to make the Adventures of Robo-ho, while the network expected Echo to develop in an actual character.
I can't say I'm surprised.
cough-Joe 90- cough
bout as original as whedons other shows i guess
It's hard to be surprised when your interpretation is so heavily based on your own preconceptions. Unless Joss has said something else since the big shakeup announcement about a week ago, which contained no such implications.
Incidentally, new trailer:
Yes, because Joss Whedon has never been known for his love of character-based drama... Oh wait... the other thing... he HAS been known for it, consistently, throughout his career.
Uh, actually, it did.
What he did in the past doesn't matter. Besides, Whedon isn't so much about the drama, as the big oomph COOL! shock scenes. And then writes some vague drama around and leading towards it; often to the point where he sacrifices character development, (character-)continuity, and the plot to get the big oomph moment onscreen.
The adventures of robo-ho, would basically be episode after episode of OOMPH scenes, without having to worry about writing the road to them; apart from: "Echo is rented, new personality uploaded."
Yes but it wouldn't because Joss doesn't really write episodic television in the way you're describing, so its highly unlikely he's about to start with this. Also, a scene can't have oomph unless it happens to characters the audience cares about, and the only way to make an audience care is with character development. I know that, and presumably you know that, so you can be damned sure that creator of four television shows and writer of numerous comic books Joss Whedon knows that.
Odd then, that he fails completely at this.
So Joss is a screen writing God of some kind and Fox execs are retarded. Time after time they apparently buy a product from Josh that turns out to go in a different direction that what they thought at first, and they (not his writing or production) are ultimately responsible for all of his failures. Everyone would love Joss and he'd make a billion dollars and have the highest ranked show on TV if Fox would just let people give him a chance.
Why am I supposed to automatically assume that it's Fox's problem? Because he said so in a commentary? Perhaps Whedon misrepresents himself or his work at times or can't deliver what hepromises? Perhaps he's a bit naive and doesn't really understand the business side of television very well even after all these years?
If Fox is so stupid and shitty and Joss so smart and great, why aren't other networks lining up to get him? Why does he keep working for a company that keeps "fucking him over"? To 100% believe Whedon is pretty unrealistic, I don't believe 100% of much of anything anyone says. There is always a middle truth.
I don't think anyone's taking that extreme a view......
What I got from his statement was: Joss had an idea. Fox had a different idea. Once the discrepancy was discovered---far earlier and thus more correctably than it was with Firefly---Joss set to work bringing his product more in line with what Fox wanted, because hey, better to tell a variation on your intended story than not to tell it at all. He never said the new direction was inferior or more simplistic, merely different.
Of course, as any writer could tell you, approaching an idea from a previously unconsidered direction often opens up story options you never would have considered otherwise. So it's certainly not a bad thing, especially this early in the process. It's simply inconvenient and expensive.
Exactly. And I'd say that the reason a lot of people side with Joss, which seems to bug people for some reason, is because he is a writer who has made television programmes that people like. People like them a lot - that is fact. The Fox people are executives who probably have a pretty good idea what makes money and what doesn't, but they aren't creative people.
Now, I know the argument that always gets used in these discussions is "Well, it is a business, so they have a point." They do, from a business point of view, but only from that. In a perfect world ratings wouldn't matter and people who enjoy Joss's writing, undiluted, wouldn't have to give a toss how many people watch his shows, as long as they still could.
The execs might be right this time, and Joss doesn't seem too bothered either way, but it certainly seems reasonable and natural for people who already enjoy his writing to side with the guy who's idea the show was rather than the people who come along later and try to make money with it.
It's natural, but certainly not objective when discussing the reality of why or why not a show would be changed or cancelled.
I'd point out that even the most popular of Whedon's shows never garnered more than a few million viewers, barely registering in the Nielson ratings. Decent for a WB show or something, but hardly a widespread fan base.
I've got no problems with people who enjoy his work or wish he would have a better chance to create what they want him to, but this argument reminds me of one I have with people about why the last generation of Chevy Camaro was discontinued. Never tell a Camaro lover why they cancelled it, they won't believe anything you tell them. The fit and finish, the ride position, the poor visibility and ingress/egress, the redneck stereotype, the more everyday friendliness of the Mustang. None of it is true from their POV, and therefore everyone else just "doesn't get it" and they'll get irate if you try to tell them different. People who like Whedon tend to be the same, everyone else doesn't "get it", and the only things stopping the entire world from loving everything he does just as much as they do is some cryptic shit about him not being "given a chance". He's had his chance, just as much as anyone else has had their chance, even moreso. He just doesn't seem to produce, and if this latest project falls through he'll probably be writing comics and touching up other people's screenplays for the rest of his life.
Well, I see your point about ratings, and to be honest its kind of a shame isn't it? I mean, I know you don't like his writing, that's fair enough, not everyone will, sadly, but the problem comes down to when people say that his stuff doesn't get the ratings because its crap, which is, to be honest, a stupid argument.
I won't say "you don't get it" because most of the people who post here but don't like Whedon probably do "get it" but just don't like that kind of writing, and you know, fair enough, we don't have the same tastes.
His fans get cross when people cite audience figures as a way to belittle something they didn't like. "Ha, no-one watched Firefly so it was rubbish." Well, no, it wasn't, you'll find thousands of people, some of them quite well-versed in television criticism who'll disagree, but because it got low audience figures its clearly shit. Now, considering we're on a board celebrating a show that limped along in the ratings and was considered a failure when it was cancelled doesn't that seem like a strange double standard?
Essentially, all I'm saying is, maybe Whedon's stuff really is too niche for a big network like Fox, not enough people like it, not enough ever will, I'm willing to accept that, but don't cite its comparative failure with the public as a measure of its quality.
Separate names with a comma.