|
Post by BlazeHedgehod on Oct 13, 2005 19:49:44 GMT -5
Not really, they only have shitty shows like Lost and That's so Raven (along with three other shows that should have been cancelled long ago. BANNED! Also, I know That's So Raven is one of Disney Channel's highest rated shows if not, the highest rated show. I just caught that bit about Lost. Saying it's shitty is puts you up for a penalty of death, Squiggles. Dreamcast sold around 10 million world-wide before it's death. Citing sales figures like that is meaningless in the face of the future the PSP has ahead of it. Public opinion of the handheld is slipping, and Apple is kicking it's ass in two of it's "Alternative" markets. 5 million sales or not, it's not exactly "out of the woods" yet.
|
|
|
Post by Jolly Joes on Oct 13, 2005 19:54:17 GMT -5
I wonder which handheld will win the holiday season. Well the PSP has GTA: Liberty City Stories coming up this holiday and the UMDs movies/shows still sell well. Though Nintendo is releasing those special NDS bundles(Nintendogs and Mario Kart). But who knows, maybe GBA Micro will be the suprising holiday hit.
|
|
sanius
Active Member
Posts: 301
|
Post by sanius on Oct 13, 2005 20:04:33 GMT -5
I'm surprised to see you say that. I thought you didn't really watch tv I don't watch lost, doesn't it come on NBC? i'll i'm watching on that is surface and my name is earl.
|
|
|
Post by BlazeHedgehod on Oct 13, 2005 20:08:30 GMT -5
I don't normally watch TV. But Lost... Lost has grabbed me in regions of my body most TV doesn't. I tried to resist it's charms for nearly an entire season, but I caught last season's finale (and the season recap before Season 2 started) and now I'm a devout addict.
Every Wednesday night, I'm there, man. ABC at 8pm. I stick around and watch Invasion, too, although that's not nearly as interesting as Lost.
|
|
sanius
Active Member
Posts: 301
|
Post by sanius on Oct 13, 2005 20:09:31 GMT -5
Oh, ABC. I'm afraid to watch it now since I didn't watch the first season. And I don't like to bother with DVD's
edit: Wasn't the first and second season shown this year? I wonder if after the second season is over, they will postpone showing the third one and show the first and second season again. Because I thought the show was just about like, people freaking out and finding food. Not giant monsters and like, tribes.
|
|
|
Post by BlazeHedgehod on Oct 13, 2005 20:21:56 GMT -5
Actually, it's kind of easy to sum up Lost's plot. It's like... untying a knot, when you're watching it. It's all wrapped around itself, but slowly you loosen it and once you do, it's easy to understand.
|
|
|
Post by Squiggles the Chao on Oct 13, 2005 20:38:16 GMT -5
There was an interesting article from a blog that I agree with, which begins to explain why Lost sucks.
I wholeheartedly agree with this. If you want to make a show like LOST, get HBO to sign it. They'll give you like, 3 seasons to tell your story and then you're done. That's a much better system. As it stands, LOST is standard network TV junk.
|
|
|
Post by Mr. T on Oct 13, 2005 20:58:18 GMT -5
Haha, I remember when Squiggles told me I was wrong when I said that Lost sucked.
|
|
|
Post by BlazeHedgehod on Oct 13, 2005 21:00:46 GMT -5
There was an interesting article from a blog that I agree with, which begins to explain why Lost sucks. I wholeheartedly agree with this. If you want to make a show like LOST, get HBO to sign it. They'll give you like, 3 seasons to tell your story and then you're done. That's a much better system. As it stands, LOST is standard network TV junk. The flashbacks are boring? It's called Character Development. You know, getting to know these people and their lives before the plane crash? Finding out who they are, what they do, and why they're here? For example. Sawyer. He's a convict. He killed Jack's dad. Besides that, he seems like a nice enough guy - just a smartass. Jack is a doctor. His beside mannor sucks. Hurley is like one of us. Overweight, nerdy, even speaks the same catch phrases we do. He's my favorite character. Charlie was in a Rockband called Drive Shaft. Like most rockers, he's fallen from grace into a world of drugs and sex. Jin is part of a Korean Mafia. He doesn't speak a word of english but his wife does; but his Wife was too afraid to tell him for fear he might hurt her. Michael has a son, Walt, who's life he tried desperately to be a part of, but an injury and his wife made sure he wasn't. After his wife died, he finally got to take care of Walt, who, typically doesn't want anything to do with his father. We never would've known half of this if not for the Flashbacks showing us. Just because a show's method of storytelling isn't your cup of tea does not mean it's a bad formula. I'd hardly call the tension artificial - both the flashbacks and the present-tense are full of a tension all their own, and the back-and-forth between the two is what keeps you hooked. Just as the tension builds up in one, it switches to the other.
|
|
|
Post by Squiggles the Chao on Oct 13, 2005 21:12:39 GMT -5
Yes, but, read those descriptions again. Those are hardly well-developed or original characters, and I'm certainly not inclined to be endeared to them. The problem is not the little details of the characters, but the fact that the writers can't think of ANY OTHER WAY except flashbacks to reveal them.
|
|
sanius
Active Member
Posts: 301
|
Post by sanius on Oct 13, 2005 21:17:59 GMT -5
The show sounds rather exciting to me.
|
|
|
Post by BlazeHedgehod on Oct 13, 2005 21:27:58 GMT -5
Yes, but, read those descriptions again. Those are hardly well-developed or original characters, and I'm certainly not inclined to be endeared to them. The problem is not the little details of the characters, but the fact that the writers can't think of ANY OTHER WAY except flashbacks to reveal them. I consider it a fresh spin on old ideas. What, would you rather one of the survivors be a two headed midget? That's pretty original. Or maybe, instead of a convict who's actually a nice guy, we'd get a convict who's really evil and is going to kill everyone. Wait, that's not original either. Damned if you do, damned if you don't, I guess! How about your next door neighbor? Is his (her?) personality fresh, original, and unique? I bet it's not. People are people. People are cliche. Just because somebody's personality is like another person's does not automatically make it a bad thing. If you want to catch up on LOST, read this.
|
|
|
Post by Joshi on Oct 13, 2005 21:56:29 GMT -5
"The problem is not the little details of the characters, but the fact that the writers can't think of ANY OTHER WAY except flashbacks to reveal them."
So you'd rather the series had started before anything at all actually happens?
|
|
|
Post by stackeith on Oct 13, 2005 21:59:40 GMT -5
So you'd rather the series had started before anything at all actually happens? It's also possible for characters to reveal things about themselves through conversations with other characters.
|
|
|
Post by BlazeHedgehod on Oct 13, 2005 22:21:59 GMT -5
So you'd rather the series had started before anything at all actually happens? It's also possible for characters to reveal things about themselves through conversations with other characters. But why is that better than flashbacks? It's still taking time out from a story to describe a character's motivation. Flashbacks are actually more engrossing in this aspect, rather than look at a person as he tells his story, we experience the memories first hand.
|
|
Seph
Behind The Logo Team
Luigi and Marth for the win.
Posts: 3,390
|
Post by Seph on Oct 13, 2005 22:32:50 GMT -5
In any case, consdering that Squiggles is a fan of Tarantino, I don't think he has much of a problem with things out of cronological order.
Also, that blog said that it was more the timing of the flashbacks than the actual flashbacks themselves. At least, that's what I'm reading into it.
|
|
|
Post by Squiggles the Chao on Oct 13, 2005 22:37:51 GMT -5
Yeah, Tarantino does it well. I even thought Big O handled it mostly OK (not perfect). The problem with the using mostly flashbacks is that there's no character development per se, because most everything has already happened. The characters don't change, you just learn new things about them.
Also, I don't think anyone addressed my point that the characters themselves are unoriginal and poorly thought-out. It doesn't matter how they develop, since they're not worth watching the flashbacks for.
|
|
|
Post by stackeith on Oct 13, 2005 22:42:20 GMT -5
It's also possible for characters to reveal things about themselves through conversations with other characters. But why is that better than flashbacks? It's still taking time out from a story to describe a character's motivation. Flashbacks are actually more engrossing in this aspect, rather than look at a person as he tells his story, we experience the memories first hand. But flashbacks aren't very creative and are generally a lazy way to show character development.
|
|
|
Post by Joshi on Oct 13, 2005 22:44:41 GMT -5
Having people just talk about it isn't that creative, either, and is actually more lazy, though.
|
|
|
Post by stackeith on Oct 13, 2005 22:59:09 GMT -5
I disagree.
|
|