Jump to content
Forums forums
PRIMETIMER

Danielg342

Member
  • Content Count

    2.8k
  • Joined

Community Reputation

4.9k Excellent

Contact Methods

  1. Danielg342

    Orvillian Media: Wireless Telecommunications Facility

    I wonder too. I feel sorry for them both, and I hope they're at least cordial with each other. I'd hate to have two cast members have actual animosity towards each other- that's no fun.
  2. Danielg342

    Orvillian Media: Wireless Telecommunications Facility

    I imagine the networks are going to keep their highest profiting shows for as long as they provide a return, but I could see this happening. Instead of cancelling shows, networks will just pass them on to streaming services, which could have a number of benefits. First, shows will last longer as they're given a new life on the streamers, and second, networks may want to invest in more new shows. This would come about because I believe networks may raise their "cancelling standards" since now they have more options for getting rid of shows that don't return that nice of a profit, meaning they'll have to take on more new shows than they used to in order to fill their time. That said, while we may have benefits from this, I could also see this backfiring. Networks risk alienating a show's audience by "relegating" shows to streamers, since there will be a portion of the audience who will not follow the show to the new service, which could also impact a show's viability long term. For myself, unless I feel like a show is "can't miss television", if a show becomes unavailable to me then I'm just going to move on to another show. I might even make that decision even if I am a big fan of a show if- as I fear with The Orville- there's no way I can get access to the show (as Hulu is unavailable in Canada). I'm sure I'm not alone in this regard. Which makes me wonder if this new reality really is good for entertainment. People may not realize this but Seinfeld began as a poorly rated show that was only saved because an NBC executive fought for it. We all know what happened next, but it begs the question- if it debuted today, would networks give it the chance to break out? How many Seinfeld's will we miss out on because network execs don't have to be patient anymore? It's going to be murky waters for quite some time, it looks.
  3. Danielg342

    Orvillian Media: Wireless Telecommunications Facility

    CityTV also broadcast The Orville in Canada, at the same time FOX did. So I hope they continue to do so.
  4. Danielg342

    Orvillian Media: Wireless Telecommunications Facility

    My guess- and they may not be wrong about this- is that the thinking goes "streaming is the future of visual entertainment" so everybody and their dog is jumping at a chance to offer their own streaming service. It's similar to what is going on with the music industry, as they too happen to have 500 million different people providing streaming services of their own. Eventually, I figure either one of two things will happen: All these streaming services will either coalesce into two or three large providers that dominate the industry and become the go-to services that everyone pays for, or Someone will offer a "streaming package" with several different streaming providers available for one price- similar to cable TV or satellite packages we have now. Unfortunately, while we wait for the streamers to sort themselves out, we're stuck with our entertainment being offered by fifteen million different providers, and since competition is fierce, we'll be stuck with situations where, in order to watch our favourite shows, we'll need to shell out for different providers, because each one wants "exclusive" content to force audiences to them. I don't think all hope is lost, though. I do believe those in the entertainment business know that they can't achieve wide success without their products available to a wide audience, so I do believe that, until the streaming industry sorts itself out, studios are still going to keep their most productive shows on traditional broadcast TV. Advertisers know this too- as long as there is 500 million different content providers, their return on investment will be low on the streaming side of things, so until there's coalescence on the streaming front, they'll continue to push traditional TV as well. I realize this probably won't soothe the anger of us Orville fans upset that we've lost access to one of our favourite shows, but I'm choosing to see the silver lining. What happened to The Orville won't likely be the norm- for the time being, its situation will only come about for other shows if they're not performing well in the ratings. So don't fear a deluge of your favourites going to streaming services- unless they're not rated well that is. EDIT- For the record, I was able to find Game of Thrones and The Handmaid's Tale on iTunes. So The Orville S3 might end up there too, though not likely as soon as it's released.
  5. Danielg342

    Orvillian Media: Wireless Telecommunications Facility

    The Orville averaged a 0.75 18-49 rating for FOX last season, which ranked it 12th out of 16 scripted shows on the network. For reference, shows #9-11 were all cancelled, with the next lowest rated renewal being The Resident at .94, almost two tenths higher than The Orville. The only scripted show FOX cancelled with ratings higher than The Resident was Star (#5, 1.06), apparently due to the show being expensive to produce (though that show also took a nosedive in the ratings, going from a premiere at 1.45, a second episode at 1.22 to a 17th episode netting a 0.89). That's the just the raw numbers for The Orville. If you take out the premiere on December 30, 2018 that drew a 1.52, it drew an average of .69, which would have placed it #13 (behind Lethal Weapon, which was cancelled). Furthermore, The Orville's penultimate four episodes ranged from 0.64 (Episode 2.11, "Lasting Impressions") to 0.60 (Episode 2.12, "Sanctuary"), with the finale getting a 0.67. In short, we got lucky The Orville got renewed, as so many other shows with those numbers would have been cancelled. So I firmly believe the "we want to be more ambitious" line is a smokescreen to cover for a move that was purely driven by poor ratings. If The Orville had kept its numbers from S1 (where, not counting outliers, hovered between 1.1 and 0.89), it's likely we'd still see it on FOX. I grant that it's possible that when FOX renewed The Orville they planned for it to be on their network schedule for 2019-20, and they probably wanted to preserve their working relationship with Seth, with the thinking Seth would look bad if he had a show cancelled after two seasons. ...but...numbers are numbers...and in business, it's always about the numbers. I just wish FOX were a bit more open about at least the possibility of moving the show off the network schedule. I get "PR" and all that, but I don't think audiences are stupid- they understand that networks are driven by ratings. Therefore, I think we would have understood if FOX had said they weren't sure if The Orville will return to the network schedule or if it'll move somewhere else, like Hulu. Announcing the renewal and then deciding much later to move the show to a streaming service (that many people don't have, and, in my case, can't have) feels like a slap in the face to us fans.
  6. Danielg342

    Orvillian Media: Wireless Telecommunications Facility

    I need to know too. We don't get Hulu in Canada.
  7. Danielg342

    The Chameleon: The Serial Killer that's a Changeling

    Based entirely on Episode 14.13, my reaction to the Chameleon is pretty simple- it's a nice idea but the execution was off. I mean, a serial killer who constantly changes his appearance would definitely be a worthy adversary for the BAU. He'd probably cause local authorities fits because his constantly changing appearances would mean authorities would all think they're investigating different people. It's very similar to the MO of Ted Bundy, who varied his schtick via his appearance and his ruse to fool authorities, many of whom didn't realize they were investigating the same person. There were just too many problems with his introduction. First, I would have preferred to have an actor who's higher profile than Michael Mosley. Nothing against Mosley as an actor- I do think he did a fine job as Lynch- but for CM's "final" criminal, the show really should have gone all out. Preferably I'd love an A-Lister, but I'd be fine with a big TV star. Personally, I think Simon Baker would have been a great choice. He practically played the character on The Mentalist and, by some metrics at least, was practically a villain on that show. He'd kill it as an actual villain. (I'll let you decide on the pun) Secondly, I would have preferred a signature that's less obvious. I get that the show is probably making some kind of allusion or character point with the face stealing, but, in real life, it would remove a lot of the Chameleon's elusiveness. It wouldn't take too long for someone- be it a reporter, a detective or even a layperson- to hear all these reports of women killed with their faces removed and not think it's the same person. People don't steal faces all that often. I would have done a criminal who steals items from his victims and uses them to craft his next persona. That would be much harder to figure out and would need someone of David Rossi's calibre to solve. I stress the part that it should be Rossi alone figuring it out because- one, this is Rossi's adversary and his story and two, Rossi's experience should make him the best profiler in the BAU. Period. It's about time he shows that. Finally- with the most obvious point- is that his first episode wasn't his "true" introduction. His story was told through flashbacks, via Rossi therapeutically talking to his current wife, Krystall, about a case that had bothered him. It was the same storytelling device that was used- to better effect- in Episode 12.02, "Sick Day". Thing is, "Sick Day" involved JJ being affected by an "impossible decision" where she could only save one child from a burning building. The UnSub got arrested and the case was otherwise resolved- there was really no story except explaining JJ's anguish and suspension from the team. "Chameleon", instead, was used to introduce a new character as well as provide a character arc for Rossi, intending to be a significant plot development for the entire show. A "game-changer", if you will. However, for a game-changer to really work, it's better when the audience experiences the moment when the character(s) do- doing it "after the fact" via flashbacks lessens the impact. The event feels like it's distant, so it lacks the "immediacy" that an "impact" moment should have. Furthermore, given that it's a moment that we, as an audience, never saw before, it feels like something that's been awkwardly shoehorned into the story. Given that we'd seen Rossi go on cases for weeks and years before we saw the Chameleon and Rossi wasn't seemingly any different on his cases, it feels weird to buy that, all of sudden, we have to buy that Rossi has had to deal with this formidable foe all this time. It's a classic case of what ails CM of recent vintage- the writers like taking shortcuts. Instead of actually doing the work to create effective "game-changing moments"- such as the effective build for "100", even if part of it might have been planned- the show rushes to the moment and expects us to feel it's impact. It's like the Maeve story- we never did join in Reid's feelings of loss because we never got a chance to meet Maeve and see Reid in love with her. We can't mourn someone we never knew. Same thing with the Chameleon- we can't feel the impact he delivered to Rossi because we weren't there when it happened. Hopefully, as the season progresses and we see more of the Chameleon he'll develop into a character we'll all remember. It just hasn't been a good start.
  8. Since I noticed that- somehow- the topic for S14E13, "The Chameleon", had been wiped out from these boards, I figured I would revive it- but, with a bit of a twist. Episode 14.13 introduced a new character, Everett Lynch, someone that BAU agent David Rossi dubbed "The Chameleon" because of his ability to change his appearance- as well as his lurid habit of cutting off his victim's faces and collecting them as "trophies". Reports have suggested that the hunt for Lynch will at least occupy a lot of time in the final 15th season, which will likely see Lynch get arrested in the finale. We're not yet sure if every episode will be about the hunt for Lynch or if it'll be a background event for most of the season, but, make no mistake, Lynch will be the show's final "Big Bad." Because I figure he'll be a character who will feature prominently in S15, I figure he deserves a thread where we can talk about him and his story, which would largely include discussing Episode 14.13. So, what have you Primetimers? Is The Chameleon a worthy adversary for the show's finale? Sound off below. EDIT- In case you were wondering, "changeling" is an intentional Star Trek reference because this show has hired so many former Trek actors in the past, like Jonathan Frakes ("Uncanny Valley") and Tim Russ ("To A Better Place").
  9. Danielg342

    S05.E07: Ace Chemicals

    I'm not exactly quite sure I understand what you mean by this question. For me, I had to tackle the problem of why Bruce would feel the need not to kill The Joker. I figure one way to do that is by making them erstwhile lovers, or at least friends. It would explain why Bruce would hesitate killing the one person logic tells him he should- because the two have a deep bond.
  10. Danielg342

    S05.E06: 13 Stitches

    As the kind of guy who'd seek out wine and drink from the glass? Yeah, I agree. As the kind of guy who would grab whatever alcohol was handy and chug right from the bottle? That's Bullock through and through. He drinks...no formalities.
  11. Danielg342

    Season 1 Discussion

    Keep in mind, though, when those episodes first aired over a decade ago, CM was the only show that used "profilers" (a job title that doesn't actually exist in the FBI) as well as "UnSub" as a term (an actual law enforcement term). Now, every show that seems to have even a little bit of a law enforcement bent uses those terms (even Whiskey freakin' Cavalier has a profiler), which could be why hearing the show use it now seems so awkward.
  12. Danielg342

    S02.E11: Lasting Impressions

    At least there will be a Season 3. 🙂
  13. Danielg342

    Gotham do-over thread

    The Real Reason Fans Hate the Last Season of Game of Thrones (Scientific American Blog Network) ^ So I found this on the Game of Thrones forum (I was there because I heard about the commotion about the finale, so I was curious) and I figure it could of interest on this forum as well since I think, in many ways, Gotham tried to emulate GoT, especially with its death count. I put it in this thread since it can tie into the topic of how Gotham could be redone, since I think the blog's premise- that "sociological storytelling" is better than "psychological storytelling"- fails when you look at a series like Gotham that attempted it but failed completely. What are those two divergent storytelling options? As far as I can tell, a "sociological" story is one where characters are forced to act in a certain way because of external pressures- in other words, they have "no choice" in the matter, and it's supposed to be designed so that we, the audience, would say "I'd do the same thing if I was in that situation". A "psychological" story, on the other hand, is one that is entirely or largely shaped by the actions of one or two sets of characters (however large or small they may be), the "good" set and the "evil" set. These stories are about how the characters' choices affect how the story plays out, with the story examining why those choices were made and the consequences of those actions. Unlike the sociological story, the psychological story allows us in the audience to say "I would have done things differently". It's a bit heady, but I think it's worth a read. Now, I'll also state, for the record, that I never watched GoT or read the books, but not because I wanted to be "hip" or something- I just never got around to it. So if I get some details about GoT wrong, feel free to correct me. Anyway, I want to state, right off the top, that I'm a firm believer that for any story to work there has to be characters we care about. None of their trials and tribulations are going to matter if we don't care about the person who's going through the struggles. So, characters matter. Even if they're just "reactive" characters, we want to care about those reactions. Secondly, I believe it's the goal of almost every creative writer to weave a story that is both sociological and psychological. A writer doesn't just want a character the audience roots for or against- they want a character for whom the audience thinks, "they had to do what they had to do". In other words, there's an illusion that the character is in complete control of how the story moves and ends but the reality is that the character is controlled by what happens, and how the character responds tells them how the story will progress. How it relates to GoT is that I believe- from what I understand of the series- that, while it may have been a show where characters simply reacted, it was still a show that built characters who we cared about how they were going to react. You cared about Daenerys, you cared about Cersei, you cared about Jon Snow, you cared about Arya...you cared about all the players. What was interesting about GoT was not what happened that sets things in motion- it was about watching about how the characters would respond to this new situation. It's like chess- one character or several characters make a move, so now you wait in anticipation for someone else to make their move in response. The series, really, only failed when the characters stopped acting in co-ordination with each other and started doing things because...well, the writer needs them to do it for the plot to work. In other words...lazy writing. Just like in many other series. How this relates to Gotham is that I believe- very firmly- that the show wanted to created a series that was like GoT- things happened and the characters now have to react to what happened. They wanted to create this world where it forces the characters to have to behave a certain way, because there is no choice for them to act in any other way. It worked in the first season because there was a commitment to building the ultimate tragedies of the characters. You have Jim, who so desperately wanted to believe in his naive fantasy that if he worked hard and "did things right" he can make Gotham City right again, only for the city to punch him metaphorically in the gut again and again. You had Harvey, who once believed in happy endings and heroism only to be so beaten down by the city that he just gave up trying to make to make things right because it was never going to happen. You had the criminal base- the Falcones and Maronis- who lived the lives of luxury but only did so by constantly looking over their shoulders. Then you had Bruce who lost his family and his only real protection from the "cruel, cruel world". Still, despite his suffering and his many desires to give in to its darkness, Bruce always clung on to hope, even if he had to deliver it himself, because if he didn't have hope, he'd have nothing left. Anyway, the seeds were there for a panoramic, GoT-style chess match between all the characters and their various struggles...but then the show forgot to continue building the characters and just decided to make them act randomly, telling us that the "darkness" of the city makes them act out the way that they do. Again, it's just lazy storytelling, and while I think Gotham was always successful creating this veneer of darkness- not just in the setting but in its story ideas like Hugo Strange and Bane- by the end of the series, I just wound up not caring about what was going to happen because the characters ceased being interesting. Yeah, things were dark and things were happening...but the characters stopped having meaning, so it all became meaningless. That's why I have to throw shade on the idea that merely sociological storytelling is ideal. Being panoramic can be a great goal and having a story that forces characters to act in certain ways can be interesting, but if the characters themselves are not interesting, why do I care about how they act?
  14. Danielg342

    All Episodes Talk: S.W.A.T.

    My track is more about creating a scenario where the episode actually makes the viewer ask the question- "who really are the bad guys?" They did this very well with the dynamic between Hondo and his dad, and even Hondo and Leroy, Darryl's father. Both Hondo Sr. and Leroy distrust institutions because they believe that it won't serve minority interests, while Hondo Jr. believes that law and order is necessary for justice and thus he has to work to make sure minorities get proper justice. Simply put, they're not perspectives that are wrong- they're just different. Hondo Sr. lived through an era where racism was not just legal but encouraged (as he was likely a young adult when the Civil Rights Act passed in 1965), while Leroy is in jail, believing "the system" wronged him. Hondo Jr., meanwhile, grew up with a mother who was always positive and during a time where there are hints that actual progress can be made with race relations. Now, we can sit here and poke holes in both sides' arguments, but that's not the point- the point is that the show has done a wonderful job portraying two balanced perspectives on justice that force the viewer to at least look at both sides and see that there are no easy answers. This is what the Emancipators could have- and should have- done. Whereas the struggles between Hondo Jr./Sr./Leroy deal mainly with the institutionalized oppression of the black community of Los Angeles, the Emancipators had a chance to highlight the institutionalized oppression of the entire lower class, especially those who are working but can't make ends meet. Their entire track was arguing that politicians often make decisions that severely impact the lower classes because the politicians don't understand how their decisions can really affect people. To the Emancipators, a politician sees a closed daycare as just another daycare- not a closure that now forces a mother to have to drive a longer distance, one that perhaps is too long that the gas money alone means they can no longer afford daycare. It's the human element that was missing from the Emancipators' story, which is something that could have truly brought it to life. To me, I envisioned a story where there are people going out on to the streets madly declaring their love for the Emancipators- the poor would definitely see them as heroes, not as villains, which would have complicated the investigation immensely. There would be people doing their best to make sure SWAT failed, and that alone could have provided some intriguing complications for the team to work through. Failing that, even if we had just learned that Cinque has his parents thrown in jail because of some wonky law (for example, a very technical reading of the "Three Strikes Rule" that real life California has come under scrutiny for), that would have been enough. Villains- like heroes- should have a reason for doing what they are doing other than "they're evil". It makes the story real and more dynamic, and you want to care about the villain as much as you care about the hero. Otherwise, why view the struggle?
  15. Danielg342

    All Episodes Talk: S.W.A.T.

    I do appreciate that the show didn't just have the politicians each shot one by one with the last one being saved at the last minute. I thought they'd go that route, especially after introducing the controller's daughter. I would have liked them to roll out a civilian at their trials to put a face to the claims. Having an angry mother complain to the condemned politician, "your budget cuts meant I couldn't afford daycare" makes it that much more real.
×