Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!
... if it had only been on HBO...
Thirith
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
I'm currently watching Kings (for the first time) and am enjoying it a lot, even though I already know that it's one of those doomed series that ended before their time had come. It's intelligently written, it's largely got good to great actors and it's the perfect series to fill the hole left by Battlestar Galactica when that one ended.
At the same time, though, it's a series that could have been better. While some of the actors are pitch perfect (e.g. McShane, Cox, Baker, Walker), some are mediocre at best (and next to their betters come across as downright bad at times). It also feels like a series that should've been on HBO (or at least the idealised HBO that never existed, that let Deadwood, Rome and Carnivale finish their stories). It should have been possible for them to use whatever language they deemed necessary; I'm not saying it should've been saturated with "cocksuckers", so to speak, but they should have been able to make use of it when it fits. The cast should've been more consistently good to great. The episodes shouldn't have been tied to the standard TV 'hour' length which is closer to 42 minutes. And chances are that an audience reared on series as the ones mentioned above would've been more willing to watch the series.
What other series are there that are good, but that weren't able to live up to their potential for one reason or another? That would've been perfect, if only the star had been a better actor? If only the production values had been higher? If only they didn't have to deliver 20+ episodes per season? If only they'd ended after the fifth season, because everything that followed just wasn't as good?
At the same time, though, it's a series that could have been better. While some of the actors are pitch perfect (e.g. McShane, Cox, Baker, Walker), some are mediocre at best (and next to their betters come across as downright bad at times). It also feels like a series that should've been on HBO (or at least the idealised HBO that never existed, that let Deadwood, Rome and Carnivale finish their stories). It should have been possible for them to use whatever language they deemed necessary; I'm not saying it should've been saturated with "cocksuckers", so to speak, but they should have been able to make use of it when it fits. The cast should've been more consistently good to great. The episodes shouldn't have been tied to the standard TV 'hour' length which is closer to 42 minutes. And chances are that an audience reared on series as the ones mentioned above would've been more willing to watch the series.
What other series are there that are good, but that weren't able to live up to their potential for one reason or another? That would've been perfect, if only the star had been a better actor? If only the production values had been higher? If only they didn't have to deliver 20+ episodes per season? If only they'd ended after the fifth season, because everything that followed just wasn't as good?
Thirith on
Posts
Galactica ended pretty poorly as well. This was due to the writers not having a clue how to end it. The result was an episode entirely devoted to explaining everything in one go, and a deus ex machina episode for closure.
I also thought lost ended pretty terribly, also heavily reliant on godly forces to work around it.
It was horrible trying to follow it. But it was a truly fantastic show.
It was going strong as one of ABC's highest rated shows...but they decided to give it a mid-season hiatus of 2 months.
When they brought it back, they put it on a different night at a different time and didn't make any commercials promoting the change.
Needless to say that it died a horrible death ratings-wise and what followed was probably one of th worst endings to a series one could imagine.
Still annnoyed.
Oh, I liked Happy Town, as well.
The US version was a prime example of why US remakes of excellent UK shows is almost universally a catastrophically bad idea. The ending... fucking hell.
Firefly on HBO would have been nice, but I think SciFi would have been a better fit. Sci-Fi as a genre has never really had much of a presence on the subscription channels. However, I think that, had HBO picked it up, Firefly had enough elements from other genres to bring non-sci-fi types into the mix. It wasn't a nerdy, jargony show like Star Trek and the general feel of the show was lighthearted and fun.
If TNT hadn't picked it up, I'd have added Southland to the list. I'm happy enough with just having new episodes, though.
It doesn't exist, but I always thought that a Planescape: Torment adaption on HBO could be spectacular. It'd at the very least have to be a mini series, but I think a 3 season run would be sufficient to develop the plot and characters adequately and tell the whole story.
which wasn't the premise or story at all
I have indeed found this surprising.
I mean the idea of a modern monarchy is pretty good, and the show is good, but it's not "what if America was a monarchy".
Ed & Larry : "Doesn't matter."
I recently was gifted a thing in Steam. If it was from you, thank you very much!
It was probably a bit too subtle and complex for them to advertise it to the automatic obvious audience. I mean, a modern era retelling of the story of David from the bible is an awesome idea but probably not something the fundies want to watch.
Borderlands 2 PA Xbox Metatag - Bazillion Guns
Kill this guy, don't kill him I love him, kill him he sucks, don't kill him though. Etc.
Two series instantly spring to mind.
The Unit. A series about a Delta Force team that examines their missions, as well as the impact their job has on their family. It was better than it had any right being while it was on CBS, and for the most part I love the show that was produced, but it just could've been so much better. When you've got David Mamet and Shawn Ryan (The Wire, The Shield)as executive producers (Mamet writing a large amount of the show, too), and the intense, gritty combat it just screams to have been made on cable.
The other show is Jericho. The premise held a lot of promise, but cheap sets, poor scripts and locations in southern California just took me out of the show.
It never existed and theres no reason to talk about it
because it never existed, which means my heart could have never been broken by an awesome show being screwed over and murdered by network politics
Problem, though, was that it ended exactly as the writers wanted it to. They got the schedule and the run-time they wanted, they had (at the end) little producer meddling, and they had, as I understand, the freedom to do with it as they wanted, along with a good budget and some pretty talented actors.
If it were moved to HBO, the only difference would be that we saw Kate's boobies every episode.
...
Okay, yeah, it should've moved to HBO.
Maddie: "I am not!"
Riley: "You're a marsupial!"
Maddie: "I am a placental mammal!"
HBO also seems to have access to more talented directors than network television. For example in The Wire, a few episodes were directed by Agnieszka Holland, who made a film I really appreciate named Olivier Olivier.
Don't have any evidence other than who the crap watches Starz? I think it would have done better literally anywhere else.
Supernatural is still on, but I think it would benefit from swearing and boobies. I've seen Jim Beaver curse, sir, and it is glorious.
The biggest problem with how Kings was handled (and I've said this in several threads now) was that they ignored the one market that would have lapped it up - the Christian community. Remember, Kings was a modernization of the story of Saul and David, yet there was no specific outreach done to push the show on these merits.
Funny thing is, I read an interview with the creators where they said that they pitched the show to HBO, but the network was only interested in it if they changed it to an Entourage clone about a bunch of young actors trying to break into Hollywood, with the catering plot in the background (in other words, completely missing the fucking point of the show).
Say what you will about Starz treatment of the show and its short lifespan, but in this case, it would have probably been worse if it was on HBO.
Yessssss.
The amount of sex and violence you can get away with on standard network television is as much as necessary for any show that isn't explicitly about graphic sex and violence. Heroes routinely showed people chopped in half. Fringe has folks explode. You can see people fucking like rabbits as long as you don't actually show a boob. And recall all the myriad ways Jack Bauer caused pain-slash-suffering-slash-agony on 24.
Pretty much the only thing you can't do on network television is say "fuck" or "shit". Which gets in the way of some shows, sure, but not all that often.
The reason King's made-for-TV adaptations are generally weak has to do with budget and talent, not the inability to show someone stabbed through the face in gratuitous slow-mo.
Now, there are shows that need the freedom to incorporate elements that are a no-go for networks. Sex and the City and Californication, for example, need explicit language and sex in order to make the comedy work; the shows are specifically dependent on complete what-the-fuck graphic depictions and descriptions. Dexter needs the freedom to show graphic violence in order to get us into Dexter's world. Sopranos needed the freedom to say "fuck" all the time, because a realistic portrayal of that mob culture includes judicious use of profanity.
But mostly, when a show would "benefit" from being on HBO or Showtime, it's not because they need boobies and intestines, it's because they need the 13, 60-minute episode format and the bigger budget the shows command. And those things could be realized on network television, they just aren't because... well, because they aren't.
Maddie: "I am not!"
Riley: "You're a marsupial!"
Maddie: "I am a placental mammal!"
"Fruit."
"Fruit!"
"Motherfruiter."
"Fruitin' A."
Im pretty sure I read that the show was canceled because it was designed as a vehicle for the actors, and after 2 seasons they started getting actual roles. Mainly, whats his name is now on Parks and Rec and whats her name is now on Glee.
Im not sure how much ratings played a role since who has Starz anyway. I watched all of Party Down through Netflix (actually I watch all my Starz programing through Netflix, maybe Starz should just start making shows for Netflix).
On a sidenote, have they made any other shows? They seem to do quite well.
Hopeless Gamer
Likewise, when it comes to some of the harsher brutalities of human existence, network television still plays it safe. Not purely in terms of the actual visual depiction, but also in the implications. This is things such as rape, child abuse/sexuality. A program on a major network will often use these things purely as a major dramatic event or plot point, leaving a disconnect from the actual occurrence. Law and Order SVU is a perfect example. A show revolving around these two things, yet it is played from a safe distance.
I remember in season 3 of The Wire, a character named Cutty had just left prison and while trying to get involved in the game again he approached a gangster to get set up. In the background of the alley they were conversing in there was a group of people, a few guys and a girl. The girl was on her knees, and though you couldn't quite make out more than silhouettes it was obvious what was going on. It left you wondering who this person is, what's going on. It left you disturbed beyond just the visuals and idea, it was that you knew you wouldn't get any answers.
There's almost always a satisfaction guaranteed type of feeling from the majority of network television.
It destroys any attempt at quality when every 5 minutes you tell the audience they are unfit to live without the new brand of deoderant.
HBO's main advantage is that its stuff is made to be seen without comercials.
Really, this has gotten worse over the last twenty years or so. I own the entire series run of Star Trek: TNG on DVD, and as the show goes on, you go from episode lengths being around 51-52 minutes in the first season (1987-88) to being 43-44 minutes in the final season (1993-1994) which is barely longer than what you see with today's TV.
Feel free to add me on whatever network, it's always more fun to play with people than alone
They showed a preview of the 1st episode of Camelot, and can confirm Eva Green boob, along with other boob of lesser, yet still very high quality.
It was a fantastic show, but really, who watches ABC Family?