PepSinger

First, I want to thank everyone here for naming something I picked up on subconsciously. I didn’t watch a lot original programming on USA. I mainly watched SVU reruns. However, even I could tell something’s been different for the past three years, and it’s totally the “characters welcome” disappearing, which is unfortunate. Second, I don’t watch a lot of new TV, either. If we are talking about recent series, the last new show that I still watch is This Is Us. (I still watch Grey’s Anatomy). I’m starting to get into New Amsterdam. Other than that, most new shows I watch are actually limited series (Big Little Lies, The Red Line, True Detective, etc...). I’d be perfectly happy watching BV 90210, Felicity, Charmed, ER, Dawson’s Creek, and maybe some other shows I’m forgetting for the rest of my life.

“WHERE ARE PROVENZA AND FLYNN?!”

Honestly, even though I’m not crazy about Erica as an actor, she did her fair share of promotion during the show. She’s entitled to a break. I also find it odd how the show hasn’t really had a mainstream media surgence since Hulu started streaming it in the fall of 2016.

I wonder if Andy’s friends and boyfriend are in any way related to The Family Stone?

I knew what that link was gonna be before I even clicked on it.

Fear as in the Reese Witherspoon movie?

I’m glad the actors seem to be a lot more willing to engage with fans nowadays — especially Tom and Kristin. I remember pretty much after season 4 the actors stopped doing any sort of commentary or interviews.

Yep. In the second episode, he agreed to pay her tuition, but he refused to pay her room and board because she would’ve been living at home had she gone to Stanford. Therefore, she had to take out loans. Now, dad’s bullshit at the beginning of season four is another matter. ETA: Found the transcript Dad: Ok....well, I think we should talk about how you're going to do that. I mean, practically. If you'd attended Stanford, I was prepared to pay for your tuition. Which I'm still prepared to do. Felicity: (surprised) What? Dad: But I -- I want to be fair. If you'd stayed at home, room and board wouldn't have been an additional expense, so....I think you should be responsible for that. You think that's fair? Since her dad is the one paying the tuition, I don’t think you have to rework that for a reboot. My issue is that I loved the original so much that I don’t know if I could love a reboot as much.

To be fair to Felicity, in season two during her therapy sessions, she discovers the real reason she decided to go to New York, which was to get away from her overbearing, controlling parents. Also, I think her parents were going to pay for Stanford; she didn’t get a full ride.

I was going to wait until I finished reading the thread, but I saw this and actually laughed out loud. I was thinking the same thing! Was he pissed? Is he having second thoughts? Does he feel relief? Does he feel like dancing? Is he plotting to kill Contacts? I have no fucking clue because the actor CANNOT ACT!

I certainly hope so.

Now, this is based off a comment I saw in the Marvel thread re: The Dark Knight and The Winter Soldier. My unpopular opinion is that while I love these movies, I hate it that when they are praised, one of the things said is that “it isn’t too comic booky.” For me, it’s odd to praise something for not being what it is. I’ve just never really understood that.

To clarify, I believe the majority of that $75 million came on the back end, meaning that it wasn’t a part of the production budget.

No, they are not. If you need CGI to help tell your story, there’s nothing wrong with that. By no means am I anywhere near contradicting myself. You are asking superhero films to minimize themselves because they dare to use the special effects available to them; IMO, that’s wrong and unfair. for the record, I don’t think CGI is “extra” when it comes to these movies. I believe it’s necessary.

Why does everyone forget Chris Messina?!?!

I think my issue is that you are asking some thing (a film) to be something that it isn't. A film has every right take advantage of the medium it is without being subjected to the scrutiny of what can be set on stage. I think you are saying that if something cannot be told without any special effects, then the script isn't that good. IMO, you are asking film to be stage, and that's not fair. Why should someone who has developed something for film be subjected to theatre scrutiny? IMO, that doesn't make sense. You are asking film to not take advantage of all it capabilities, and I disagree with that because there are certain things that are just meant to be on film. If CGI is important to tell the story to its fullest capacity, then the story should be on film. Also, I disagree on the Nolan trilogy on stage, but that's just me. Honestly, I just don't have any interest in seeing comic book stories on the stage. Maybe one day I'll change my mind. Finally, and I hope this isn't taking the discussion too off the rails here, but I have seen theatre fully take advantage of having huge budgets. Film isn't the only medium that can have "special effects." I have seen plenty of theatre shows where you can *clearly* see the money on the stage, as a good friend of mine said, and it can enhance or distract from the story. I like it when film embraces being film and stage embraces being stage; that has a lot of range.

You're comparing apples to oranges. It's a false equivalence, IMO. You are automatically saying that Shakespeare is better than any of these movies with "spectacle," since Shakespeare doesn't need a "$300 million budget" and as a theatre student, I don't even believe that's true. Shakespeare isn't the be all, end all of quality. The reason Marvel/DC movies require a large budget is because of the special effects. That doesn't mean the movie makers are making up for something lacking in the script. It just means that they need the special effects to add to their storytelling.

Thrilled with Greg Germann and Chris Carmack being promoted to series regulars. Jake Borelli? Not so much. Glasses is a terrible character.

I stand by my opinion. Not to mention her final voiceover acknowledges the darkness in humans. Again, I stand by my opinion. If anything, the lesson she’s supposed to learn is that there *is darkness in humans* and that they aren’t “just and good” like in the story her mother told her. She had to fight Ares because he wasn’t just going to go into that gentle night after she said she wouldn’t join him in his vision.

My unpopular opinion is that I don’t think the third act of Wonder Woman is a mess. Yes, I see Zach Synder’s influence in it, but just because it’s a CGI fest, which is the main complaint I have heard about it, doesn’t make it necessary bad.

When was everything about Chris Pine? I’d like to return to it.

Florals? For spring? Groundbreaking.

Oh, so “serious actors” can’t be in comic book movies? I honestly thought we were done with this attitude around the time of The Dark Knight. Guess not. Scarlett and Robert are Academy Award nominees (so is Mark Ruffalo). Brie Larson is an OSCAR WINNER. Their acting is what elevates these movies and is a huge part of what makes them work. With all due respect, this says more about your mindset than it does about their talent. As an actor, I despise the term “serious actor.” If you are doing your job well and committing to it, then you are a serious actor, genre be damned.

I’ve honestly never seen anything like this in my lifetime, so sure, why not by next weekend?

What’s the probability of this movie hitting $2 billion?