|
Lurdiak posted:The show got pretty loving bad in the end. It had its problems. Season 6 is a dour slog of a deconstruction of everything that made the prior seasons fun, and Season 7 is a pit of misused potential (no pun intended), but I enjoyed both a hell of a lot more than most shows I've watched in my life.
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2014 15:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 15:34 |
|
|
Well, on a personal level, I enjoyed the movie as a very goofy 90s comedy-horror and could not stand to watch the final season of the show.
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2014 15:42
|
|
|
May I ask why when it comes to Season 7 of Buffy? I definitely get that it's one of the weaker seasons of the show but there's still a lot I liked. The First was a very cost-effective villain that was still somehow threatening, unlike Glory who bored me, and while they were on the whole badly used I did like the idea of the potentials. I really liked how Sunnydale became more and more apocalyptic as the season went on until the heroes were basically the only people left in town. I really liked Principal Wood and the new Sunnydale High, especially when he traps Spike in a cage filled with crosses. I even liked Caleb a lot as an enforcer. I even liked Willow getting over Tara with an aggressive girl who was nothing like Tara. The only things I really couldn't stand were Faith (never liked her) and Andrew (annoying Whedon traits to the max!).
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2014 15:46
|
|
|
The tone, plot and characters were offputting and bad. It was no longer fun to watch and had very little in common with the sesaons I enjoyed. Only Brand Loyalty could have kept me invested, and it wasn't enough.
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2014 15:47
|
|
|
I can see where you're coming from. I really can.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2014 15:48
|
|
|
Lurdiak posted:Well, on a personal level, I enjoyed the movie as a very goofy 90s comedy-horror and could not stand to watch the final season of the show.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2014 15:49
|
|
|
Buffy should've ended at season 5.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2014 16:06
|
|
|
Lurdiak posted:The show got pretty loving bad in the end. Except for OMWF and the 'Evil Willow' arc the show could have ended at S5 (with the Glory stuff) and I feel it would have been better.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2014 16:22
|
|
|
Maybe it's just because I watched the series for the first time very recently but I think you guys are being unfair to the later seasons. There are plenty of good episodes and good moments throughout both, even if neither is as fun to watch as the earlier stuff.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2014 16:24
|
|
|
zoux posted:Buffy should've ended at season 5. WarLocke posted:other than the Adam cyborg thing being dumb as hell, that was S6 right? redbackground fucked around with this message at 16:30 on Jul 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2014 16:26
|
|
|
mind the walrus posted:Maybe it's just because I watched the series for the first time very recently but I think you guys are being unfair to the later seasons. There are plenty of good episodes and good moments throughout both, even if neither is as fun to watch as the earlier stuff. I haven't watched S6-7 in a few years, so I don't feel like I can comment on them (other than the Adam cyborg thing being dumb as hell, that was S6 right?) I just feel like the end of S5 is a great place to end the show. Buffy saves the world but dies doing it - and finally gets a release from having to be the Slayer.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2014 16:29
|
|
|
Bleeding Cool has a write up (with screencaps) of Gotham's pilot http://www.bleedingcool.com/2014/07...medium=facebook
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2014 17:18
|
|
|
Dark_Tzitzimine posted:Bleeding Cool has a write up (with screencaps) of Gotham's pilot [quote] And Bullock and Gordon aren’t the only cops in town. We have Renee Montoya and Crispus Allen from Major Crimes[/spoiler] Holy poo poo, this really was Gotham Central originally wasn't it? To be fair, the review makes it sound like the prequel to it, and I am actually excited for it again.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2014 17:48
|
|
|
The Montoya and Allen parts got beefed up to series regulars after the pilot.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2014 20:16
|
|
|
WarLocke posted:I just feel like the end of S5 is a great place to end the show. Buffy saves the world but dies doing it - and finally gets a release from having to be the Slayer. I'll actually go and be contrary here not because I think you're wrong but because this is a good place to air out the grievances I have with S5. I love the concept of S5's Big Bad, but in actuality Glory comes across as little more a Super-Slayer with mind-scramble powers due to budget (I know she's a god in a human body and can't access her powers, it's still a cop-out). The whole minions and "Knights of Order" or whatever threads feel like they're from an entirely different show and really don't gel with the Scooby gang at all. I like the idea that Buffy saves the world and sacrifices herself and it's all very wonderfully Christ-like and all that, but I really didn't dig the execution. That's not to say I think S5 is bad, I just think it's a lot more muddy than its reputation suggests. Meanwhile S7, for all its flaws, actually sees Buffy get the happiest ending possible for her. After S3 one of the big question for Buffy became "what the hell does a Slayer who isn't academic actually do to make ends meet in a capitalist society?", and after S5 the answer was a resounding and deeply depressing "she works her loving rear end off and barely gets by." S7 saw her finally start to see dividends pay for her efforts with her whole counselling gig at Sunnydale High, and by season's end saw her finally rewarded by truly becoming the Slayer of all Slayers. But instead of just sacrificing her life to be free she earns her reward by beating a primordial evil, proving herself a true Leader of armies, and shutting down the Hellmouth over Sunnydale once and for all. The last lines and shots of the show drive home that, while she may still be stuck with her responsibilities, she's transcended their barriers in every way possible and in doing so earned the right to travel wherever she wants and share her responsibility with every potential Slayer under the sun. It might not be as classic an ending, and has its faults, but it's definitely the ending she had earned instead of a generic "and then she died and went to Heaven." muscles like this? posted:The Montoya and Allen parts got beefed up to series regulars after the pilot. To be fair if they didn't include these characters someone at the WB was really really not doing their homework. I mean who the gently caress were they hoping to use instead? A bunch of Liv Dymore's like Constantine who come in from out of town and spend every episode weirded out by criminals with gimmicks?
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2014 20:39
|
|
|
Maybe they coulda shown they did more research and had Probson, Azeveda, Procjnow etc show up.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2014 20:49
|
|
redbackground posted:The movie is surprisingly easy-breezy, and game actors like Donald Sutherland and PeeWee certainly help. Also, I love the ending with that one guy blaming Young Republicans on the carnage. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oTESG_wKhwk
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2014 20:50
|
|
|
NBC has cast Angélica Celaya as the previously announced Zed for Constantine. She's kind of a nobody, previously doing a couple of guest spots on American TV and telenovelas else.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2014 02:55
|
|
|
TV Guide had a tiny thing about AoS:TV Guide posted:Anything on the new season of Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.? — Denise
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 02:30
|
|
|
Er, it's obviously not Gambit, but that sounds like Gambit. I'm guessing it's just a new character?
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 02:49
|
|
|
SaintFu posted:TV Guide had a tiny thing about AoS: 
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 02:50
|
|
|
Hakkesshu posted:Er, it's obviously not Gambit, but that sounds like Gambit. I'm guessing it's just a new character? It's Han Solo and about 60 comic book characters based off that exact archetype for the past 40 years.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 02:51
|
|
|
My eyes won't stop rolling at that blurb and I don't know why.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 02:51
|
|
|
mind the walrus posted:My eyes won't stop rolling at that blurb and I don't know why. It's basically a cold reading, is why. That description is SO vague that it may as well be "there will be a guest star this season who ISN'T a villain!".
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 03:03
|
|
|
They're obviously heavily hinting Gambit but that seems unlikely to happen.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 03:06
|
|
|
Aphrodite posted:They're obviously heavily hinting Gambit but that seems unlikely to happen. They cannot use Gambit. They cannot use any X-men. It is not unlikely, it is currently impossible.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 03:13
|
|
|
ToastyPotato posted:They cannot use Gambit. They cannot use any X-men. It is not unlikely, it is currently impossible. I thought Marvel could do whatever they wanted on TV, just that they couldn't use any of those characters in a film? Scott Free is DC, right?
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 03:14
|
|
|
Klungar posted:I thought Marvel could do whatever they wanted on TV, just that they couldn't use any of those characters in a film? Only for animation
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 03:15
|
|
|
They could put Gambit in AoS as a cartoon element like Roger Rabbit or DJ Scat Cat
greatn fucked around with this message at 03:24 on Jul 16, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 03:18
|
|
|
No, they have the TV rights. They just need Fox's permission to use them.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 03:20
|
|
|
I'd love to see how a shambling turd of a show like AoS would attempt to explain Gambit as something other than a mutant. Even though the solution is fairly simple (he's an Inhuman, they dance around the mutant issue by wondering how the hell someone could have spontaneous powers, etc.) I know they'd still find a way to gently caress it up.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 03:27
|
|
|
Aphrodite posted:No, they have the TV rights. They just need Fox's permission to use them. Accept that they have repeatedly stated that AoS is part of their cinematic universe, adding characters that they could never use in a movie would be pretty silly, at least when the character is fairly popular and is going to appear in a very big movie sequel in a couple of years. And if they need Fox's permission, then they don't actually have the rights. Owning the rights means they wouldn't need permission.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 03:28
|
|
|
ToastyPotato posted:Accept that they have repeatedly stated that AoS is part of their cinematic universe, adding characters that they could never use in a movie would be pretty silly, at least when the character is fairly popular and is going to appear in a very big movie sequel in a couple of years. And if they need Fox's permission, then they don't actually have the rights. Owning the rights means they wouldn't need permission. No, Marvel did not license the TV rights to Fox. Therefore they still own them. However obviously this was not lost on Fox. They requested (and got) a catch that Marvel cannot create a competing live action property without their permission. Marvel didn't think it applied to TV which led to the whole Mutant X thing. If Marvel didn't have the TV rights, Fox could make a live action TV show. They can't though, because Marvel has them even if they're effectively useless.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 03:34
|
|
|
I don't even think it sounds particularly like Gambit other than the fact that you could make a pun on the "wild card" thing. Gambit isn't some masterful escape artist, nor is he all that big on the whole "personal gain" thing. He's more of a thrillseeker and daredevil (...heh) instead of a mercenary.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 03:35
|
|
|
It's Jim Steranko, you guys. There wouldn't even be an Agents of SHIELD show if not for his contributions, and he was an escape artist and a roguish type.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 03:37
|
|
|
There's a lot of characters I could imagine it being but none of them are very exciting or well-known. Certainly not something worth teasing fans over.
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 03:37
|
|
|
Lurdiak posted:There's a lot of characters I could imagine it being but none of them are very exciting or well-known. Certainly not something worth teasing fans over. Have you seen how deep into the reject bin Marvel has to go to find characters they're comfortable letting AoS use? It's definitely something not very exciting or well-known. Big Bad Voodoo Lou posted:It's Jim Steranko, you guys. There wouldn't even be an Agents of SHIELD show if not for his contributions, and he was an escape artist and a roguish type. Would unironically tune in for this.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 03:45
|
|
|
Clay Quartermain?
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 03:49
|
|
|
Big Bad Voodoo Lou posted:It's Jim Steranko, you guys. There wouldn't even be an Agents of SHIELD show if not for his contributions, and he was an escape artist and a roguish type. I want this to be true and have him enter every scene on the Nick Fury rocket cycle
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 03:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 15:34 |
|
|
Dacap posted:I want this to be true and have him enter every scene on the Nick Fury rocket cycle His introduction could be punching an evil businessman named Robert Kane in the face.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 04:04
|
|