Smart intelligently written TV seems to be dying, in favor of cheap to produce reality and game shows. The Angel finale was on TNT this morning. It certainly was good TV.
Disagree. It was barely alive before, and now is starting to come into its own, just not on broadcast tv as much. Before, in the ages of Buffy, it was sort of like a little single-celled organism floating in proto goo. It evolved into a frog and jumped over to FX, Showtime, HBO, and maybe USA and that fringe is the only place it can survive. Natural selection and what not. Frogs that have tried to survive in that proto goo (Firefly, Veronica Mars, etc.) have all been destroyed by bolts of malicious lightning.Gunnyman said:Smart intelligently written TV seems to be dying, in favor of cheap to produce reality and game shows. The Angel finale was on TNT this morning. It certainly was good TV.
And fired all the writers, then hired a high school intern to write it.unicorngoddess said:Didn't you hear the news? CBS picked up Angel and renamed it to Moonlight.![]()
Thunder stolen.anom said:Reaper has a kind of Buffy/Angel vibe, albeit more outright comedic.
No I couldn't. Buffy was extremely tongue in cheek.stellie93 said:I think Buffy and Firefly, as farfetched as the premise is, are done in the real world. They're serious in their way, although funny too. Daisies and Reaper are so tongue-in-cheek--I think after a few episodes they'll get old. You could imagine being a student in Buffy's school and having a normal life except for that whole hell mouth thing.![]()
Oh yes, I miss those shows!NJChris said:How come there is nothing like these shows on? Why can't anyone else but Joss Whedon write like this?
I was watching some episode of Angel yesterday and it just reminded me of this big hole in my tv watching...
I wish I could agree, but... I was a MAJOR Buffy/Angel fan, but deleted Reaper halfway through the first episode, to my mind it was just too sophomoric.bdowell said:I definitely would put Reaper into the same genre/mode as Buffy (and have in comments about the show). It is very good and is (in my opinion) a worth successor to Buffy and Firefly and such.
How well do you remember season 1 (or the pilot episode) of Buffy? It was incredibly sophomoric too.BobB said:I wish I could agree, but... I was a MAJOR Buffy/Angel fan, but deleted Reaper halfway through the first episode, to my mind it was just too sophomoric.
Pushing Daisies, on the other hand, had a great first episode, but it felt much more like a self-contained mini-movie than a sustainable series. Fingers crossed that the writers find a way to keep it interesting without becoming cloying.
Still waiting for the return of Battlestar Galactica.
Take a show like Ghost Whisperer, cast it with someone who has the boobie-appeal or whatever, then the TV people think that whole genre is popular and want to copy it.marksman said:A: Buffy / Angel / Firefly
Q: Shows you couldn't pay me to watch for 2000, Alex.
I suspect one reason is most people didn't like them. They had their niche audiences, but never big drawers. That is why I wonder about all these super-natural shows on the schedule this year... I think most of them are going to fail simply because that is not a mainstream taste. Studios and Networks saw Heroes from last year and decided that is sign enough that these dork shows were in high demand... yet the demand is essentially where it has always been.. Fringe and Niche.
Heroes happens to appeal to a broader, non-sci-fi watching audience as well.
I am on record as not being a fan of the supernatural shows for the most part. Personally I think they are a cop-out when it comes to writing. I like a little more realism in a drama and perhaps something more grounded. Characters and writing make the show, but the sci-fi and supernatural backdrops always allow the writers and producers to take short-cuts whenever they feel like, since the story is not grounded in reality. The story can essentially be made up out of whole cloth with little accountability other than fans complaining something made up does not fit in with something previously made up.
I just know in a general sense those types of shows have NEVER been the biggest audience grabbers when it comes to television. Irregardless of my personal preferences.
Thanks for the catch on the made up word.JLucPicard said:Take a show like Ghost Whisperer, cast it with someone who has the boobie-appeal or whatever, then the TV people think that whole genre is popular and want to copy it.
I was right there with you up until your last line (except that I'd leave Firefly out of your first line). "Irregardless" is not a word, and happens to be one of my grammatical pet-peeves.
I'm curious what scripted dramas you watch that you feel meet this high standard of realism.marksman said:I am on record as not being a fan of the supernatural shows for the most part. Personally I think they are a cop-out when it comes to writing. I like a little more realism in a drama and perhaps something more grounded. Characters and writing make the show, but the sci-fi and supernatural backdrops always allow the writers and producers to take short-cuts whenever they feel like, since the story is not grounded in reality. The story can essentially be made up out of whole cloth with little accountability other than fans complaining something made up does not fit in with something previously made up.