|
Not really. Bad shows like this air every year they are just mostly ignored or forgotten by the internet, it's just now Community geeks are jumping all over themselves over it.
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 09:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 22:01 |
|
|
Oh I agree about there being tons of bad shows quickly forgotten every year but there's just something about the particular ZEITGEIST of bad of this year's crop that MR. EGYPT and CAPTAIN COOK and MINDJACKER captured. For example, THE MYSTERIES OF LAURA is probably going to be a bad show, but it doesn't fit into the same kind of "wait is this a bad show or a parody of bad shows" that all these others do. VDay posted:So either Harmon or someone at Community got a peak at NBC's list of upcoming shows and spoofed it, right? Because the idea that they came up with their cheesy awful fakes by themselves and then were one-upped (one-downed?) by NBC's actual, real programming is kind of mind-boggling.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 10:32
|
|
|
The latest episode of Nathan for You is one of the funniest things i've seen in a while. When he starts spitting wildly, that was a real big laugh. And the fact that his plan for the car wash actually seemed to work pretty well in the end (at least for that one day) was really amusing. The real awkward little moments at the end are always funny too but the car wash one really was the height of cringeworthy brilliance.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 10:47
|
|
|
I think that spitting was real
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 11:19
|
|
|
Metropolis posted:It will probably be like the family scenes in Homeland that have nothing to do with CIA/terrorist stuff except most of the time instead of sometimes
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 11:39
|
|
|
What is this show called, what channel will it be on, and what day and time will it air? E: Never heard of the WGN channel
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 13:32
|
|
|
WGN is out of Chicago. It's "the" Chicago channel. WGN America is what it's called nationally. Basically it was always the Cubs network and now they are getting into original programming.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 13:35
|
|
|
Fooz posted:Edit: The manhattan project had one extremely dramatic event that occurred during its operations, I wonder how they'll portray it. It's drama gold, really. I assume you're talking about "Tickling the dragon's tail," but both those incidents actually happened after the bombs were dropped on Japan. While dramatic, sure, they were not as important as the other stuff that happened. You've got your story of secrecy and security, but you'd also got a spy/intrigue angle where the soviets were trying to get info (and they ultimately did), you've got an almost unheard of amalgamation of genius-level physicists and mathematicians (poo poo, they had Feynman doing essentially grunt work) who, despite the tales, knew exactly what was going on. You hear tales of people questioning whether the bomb would "ignite the atmosphere" or other stuff, but these guys were smarter than that. At the trinity test, you had Feynman reasoning that the intense UV would be blocked by a truck's windshield, so he could watch the device's effects (save the initial flash) without wearing the super dark glasses. You had Fermi, who knew the distance to the device and the average air pressure in the area take some leaves or grass from the ground, throw it in the air, see how much it was displaced by the shockwave, and get a pretty solid estimate of the device's total yield. And yeah, you had basically a gigantic (and I mean gigantic) pile of granite used to filter the fissionable uranium before they developed the centrifugal method. It's a cool story any way you look at it. ashpanash fucked around with this message at 14:38 on Jul 23, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 13:48
|
|
|
I think anyone who thinks NBC only just started making shows as comically bad as the Community parodies is forgetting Dr. Facehands
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 14:31
|
|
|
Bown posted:I think anyone who thinks NBC only just started making shows as comically bad as the Community parodies is forgetting Dr. Facehands Holy poo poo I hadn't seen this. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 14:57
|
|
|
FactsAreUseless posted:What's the problem? One of the most interesting things about the Manhattan Project is that the government created three artificial towns, moved a ton of people and their families there, lied to most of them about what they were doing, and swore the rest to secrecy. That's without getting into figures like Fermi, Szilard, and obviously Oppenheimer. Family life and personal drama is a lot more interesting than watching them figure out the mechanics behind the bombs or produce plutonium. Rabbit Hill posted:What is this show called, what channel will it be on, and what day and time will it air? The show is called "Manhattan" ( though all the promo materials call it "Manh(A)ttan") and it premieres next week on WGN. While the setting and subject matter sounds interesting, the trailer for the show is not great. It looked to me like Melrose Place set in the desert. I'll probably still give it a shot, though.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 15:00
|
|
|
Cardboard Box A posted:So with this, Taxi Brooklyn, Food Fighters, and Working the Engles, can we say that NBC programming has now surpassed the Community Finale? Food Fighters is just a silly name though. There's nothing really crazy about the concept.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 15:16
|
|
|
Crossposting from the DivisionPost fucked around with this message at 15:39 on Jul 23, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 15:24
|
|
|
DivisionPost posted:Crossposting from the HBO thread: Anthony Hopkins is set for the HBO adaptation of Westworld, aka the next thread we'll all be bitching about. Well here's yer problem... quote:the J.J. Abrams-produced series Hurrrr lens flares ahahahahah lmao
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 15:25
|
|
|
MrAristocrates posted:Holy poo poo I hadn't seen this. And that's not even the only bad Jekyll and Hyde show NBC has made in the last decade. The previous one starred Christian Slater. zoux posted:Well here's yer problem... It's also being worked on by Jonah Nolan aka Chris Nolan's brother aka the Person Of Interest guy and his wife. hcreight fucked around with this message at 15:35 on Jul 23, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 15:29
|
|
|
I know that there is no more contentious issue in TVIV than Corey Stoll's wig but apparently the whole point of putting him in one is so that they could take it away later for a dramatic change, per the producers.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 15:33
|
|
|
hcreight posted:And that's not even the only bad Jekyll and Hyde show NBC has made in the last decade. My Own Worst Enemy? That wasn't really Jekyll and Hyde so much as it was it was a spy show where the guy didn't know he was a spy because of some bio implant in his brain. And it wasn't bad at all. Nothing great about it but it was kind of fun.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 15:34
|
|
|
FX didn't order Charlie Kaufman's pilot to series. What the gently caress FX
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 15:35
|
|
|
Deadpool posted:My Own Worst Enemy? That wasn't really Jekyll and Hyde so much as it was it was a spy show where the guy didn't know he was a spy because of some bio implant in his brain. And it wasn't bad at all. Nothing great about it but it was kind of fun. And from what I remember of it, the spy persona was an rear end in a top hat and would do things to gently caress with the other persona's normal life. Not as straight a Jekyll and Hyde adaptation as Do No Harm apparently is, but I would consider it one nonetheless. I didn't like it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 15:38
|
|
|
DivisionPost posted:Crossposting from the I am unreasonably excited about this.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 15:58
|
|
|
I actually seem to remember My Own Worst Enemy was not bad at all.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 16:34
|
|
|
FactsAreUseless posted:What's the problem? One of the most interesting things about the Manhattan Project is that the government created three artificial towns, moved a ton of people and their families there, lied to most of them about what they were doing, and swore the rest to secrecy. That's without getting into figures like Fermi, Szilard, and obviously Oppenheimer. Family life and personal drama is a lot more interesting than watching them figure out the mechanics behind the bombs or produce plutonium. The Adventures of Richard Feynman action-comedy hour would be pretty entertaining.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 16:36
|
|
|
precision posted:I actually seem to remember My Own Worst Enemy was not bad at all. I remember liking it quite a bit, and that it ended with a big cliffhanger.  It also had Alfre Woodard and I think James Cromwell and they're both great.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 16:44
|
|
|
zoux posted:Hurrrr lens flares ahahahahah lmao I'm sorry, but: http://www.theguardian.com/film/2013/oct/03/star-trek-into-darkness-jj-abrams-lens-flare A lovely director posted:"This is how stupid it was," said Abrams. "I actually had to use Industrial Light & Magic to remove lens flare in a couple of shots, which is, I know, moronic. But I think admitting you're an addict is the first step towards recovery." The video at that link lists over 800 lens flares in the horrible Star Trek movie that came out a few years ago. JJ Abrams being a lovely director who uses too much lens flare isn't just an internet meme, its the stone cold truth.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 16:53
|
|
|
And a billion internet posters smugly patting themselves on the back for pointing out lensflares and making the same tired jokes over and over sucks and that is also the stone cold truth.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 16:56
|
|
|
Redditors being Redditors doesn't take away from the fact that JJ Abrams is the M Night Shyamalan of the 2010s--all hype, no substance.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 17:02
|
|
|
Okey dokey.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 17:03
|
|
|
zoux posted:And a billion internet posters smugly patting themselves on the back for pointing out lensflares and making the same tired jokes over and over sucks and that is also the stone cold truth. Don't worry, I'm sure when the new Star Wars movie comes out the basement rapist review guys will make up a whole bunch of new talking points about how JJ Abrams is objectively terrible and we'll long for the days of simple "...lens flare  " jokes instead of people regurgitating ad hominems and film theory they know nothing about and acting like they were the ones who made it up themselves.I'm really not looking forward to the next "define this character without using their job or appearance  ", "shot reverse shot ", or "I have no idea what rough cuts of a movie are even for but the video review guy said that them not being happy with it was a bad thing so eat poo poo Lucas "
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 17:07
|
|
|
...of SCIENCE! posted:people regurgitating ad hominems and film theory they know nothing about and acting like they were the ones who made it up themselves. poo poo you just owned all those opinion-having people for not wasting their parents' money on film school.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 17:18
|
|
|
Everyone knows you're not allowed to criticise something unless you can do it yourself and that people who use that defence are totally right all the time.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 18:25
|
|
|
The only great thing about Star Wars was the nostalgia. I remember the prequels being great because of nostalgia. It's the same reason that children in the 70's thought their Star Wars was great. The truth is that they're not all that good. Remember Return of The Jedi and its deus ex machina of an ending, and its plot being the exact same as A New Hope? A New Hope was good, The Empire Strikes Back was brilliant. But the entire series is not as infallible as their fans built it up to be. star wars christmas special Are the prequels full of plotholes? Sure. But are they entertaining? Absolutely. Jar Jar was great comic relief to the suspense of Qui Gon Jinn's death. The Pod Racing scene produced one of the greatest Chuck E. Cheese's video games known to man. Considering that J.J. Abrams made the only successful and decent Star Trek movies in Star Trek's history of bad movies, I have no doubt that these upcoming Star Wars movies will be successful.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 18:31
|
|
|
Jar Jar is great comic relief? Now I've seen everything.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 18:35
|
|
|
Bown posted:Everyone knows you're not allowed to criticise something unless you can do it yourself and that people who use that defence are totally right all the time. Except he's even more off base since the RLM guys DO make their own stuff.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 18:36
|
|
|
I know that entire post is a blatant troll but Into Darkness is not "decent." That movie is awful.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 18:36
|
|
|
Ravane posted:Considering that J.J. Abrams made the only successful and decent Star Trek movies in Star Trek's history of bad movies, I have no doubt that these upcoming Star Wars movies will be successful. Then what do you call Wrath of Khan, Voyage Home, Undiscovered Country, and First Contact?
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 18:36
|
|
|
MrAristocrates posted:I know that entire post is a blatant troll but Into Darkness is not "decent." That movie is awful. Yeah but every other Star Trek movie is super awful. Ravane posted:The only great thing about Star Wars was the nostalgia. You used Deus Ex Machina wrong. I can't remember if your gimmick includes using terms like that wrong, or if it's a genuine mistake. There's too many to keep track of lately. Aphrodite fucked around with this message at 18:47 on Jul 23, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 18:44
|
|
|
bobkatt013 posted:Then what do you call Wrath of Khan, Voyage Home, Undiscovered Country, and First Contact? I don't deny that there aren't undiscovered classics like the ones you have listed, but considering that they have not made it into mainstream fame like the original Star Wars and the new Star Trek films, they're considered unsuccessful in my opinion. I've never even heard of those movies. MrAristocrates posted:I know that entire post is a blatant troll but Into Darkness is not "decent." That movie is awful. Into Darkness is a wonderful entrance into the Star Trek universe for the casual viewer. It's also a powerful sequel to the original Star Trek. Your bias because of your attachment to these old movies once again reinforces the blinding nature of nostalgia. Watch these movies with a blank slate, unaffected by the knowledge of previous Star Trek history and you shall find yourself watching a great science-fiction/action movie. Aphrodite posted:You used Deus Ex Machina wrong. Are you suggesting that a group of primitive tribal bears is completely capable of beating an overpowered military, who has already baited a small platoon of armed rebels into a trap. They used rocks to fight off the stormtroopers. If it were a Pyrrhic victory, I would not call it a deus ex machina. But they won because they had to win. They had no tactics, they had no weapons, they didn't even have enough people. They won with just magic. Ravane fucked around with this message at 18:50 on Jul 23, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 18:45
|
|
|
I... what?
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 18:48
|
|
|
Ravane posted:I don't deny that there aren't undiscovered classics like the ones you have listed, but considering that they have not made it into mainstream fame like the original Star Wars and the new Star Trek films, they're considered unsuccessful in my opinion. I've never even heard of those movies. Haha Khan has not made it to mainstream fame. Its also due to these films that there was another series. The attachment to the original films in Into Darkness they ripped off wholesale sections of it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 18:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 22:01 |
|
|
Ravane posted:Into Darkness is a wonderful entrance into the Star Trek universe for the casual viewer. It's also a powerful sequel to the original Star Trek. Your bias because of your attachment to these old movies once again reinforces the blinding nature of nostalgia. Watch these movies with a blank slate, unaffected by the knowledge of previous Star Trek history and you shall find yourself watching a great science-fiction/action movie. I've seen very little of any of the shows, and none of the old movies. Into Darkness just sucks.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 18:51
|
|