Not me.
Can't get tired of zombies. And honestly, the only reason the vampire genre seems overdone is the Twilight movies and the massive attention they get, because (mostly American) companies push it to the limit and shovel a shitload of money while girlies are screaming and fainting in the presence of Robert Pattinson. Whereas the movies really are an abomination of the genre, let alone the whole concept.
Here's a link to the pilot.I've never heard of it,and I guess that's because it was on CBS(not Fox),which I never watch.I'm definitely looking forward to this show. The foundation is great (comics, producer, network), let's hope they turn it into gold.
I'm nonetheless concerned that the show won't get further than the pilot. It would be the same thing as was with Babylon Fields, the zombie series with Ray Stevenson that was produced for FOX a couple of years ago.
Twilight isn't responsible.Sure it's overexposed,mainly because they are marketing it to the teen crowd,but just think about how many vamp movies and T.V. shows have come out this decade.Not me.
Well, you most certainly will be disappointed, that I can tell you know already. AMC is not HBO. They won't produce a show with blood and gore. Not just because they can't air it, but because (and in this point they are like HBO) their shows are perfectly designed and precisely executed, which in case of this zombie series would mean a lot of prosthetics, make-up etc. to make it look right. AMC is not "financially equipped" for something like that. At least not yet.
I've seen the pilot already, but thank you. Well, sorry, I was malinformed. Treasure it, because it doesn't happen very often.
Ehm, of course Twilight is responsible because of it being "overexposed". There have been hundreds of vampire movies and tv shows since Max Schrecks "Nosferatu" from 1921/22. Just think about the flood of vampire movies and series since the late 1960s. They just mostly never got the attention they get now because everyone wants to feed of the success of the Twilight films.
So, what is it exactly you wanted to see that has not been overdone. Oh yeah, crime investigation shows! No wait....done plenty of those....what about family sitcoms? Aaahh, done too many of those, too. Hmmm.... oh! I got something: mystery shows! Oh wait...a lot of those either.
Well, you most certainly will be disappointed, that I can tell you know already. AMC is not HBO. They won't produce a show with blood and gore. Not just because they can't air it, but because (and in this point they are like HBO) their shows are perfectly designed and precisely executed, which in case of this zombie series would mean a lot of prosthetics, make-up etc. to make it look right. AMC is not "financially equipped" for something like that. At least not yet.
Besides that, they explicitly stated, that it will not become a "zombie action show", but instead a character drama depicting the strive for survival of some human beings.
I've seen the pilot already, but thank you. Well, sorry, I was malinformed. Treasure it, because it doesn't happen very often.
But is there a reason you don't watch CBS or is it just plain "because"? Because, you know, that wouldn't make you more credible in my eyes, because CBS had and has some very good shows.
And what has it to do with you not knowing the show? The pilot was never even aired on CBS. That's as if I'd say "I don't know, that Shanghai is in China, because I've never been there." That's a pretty lame excuse for being not informed.
Ehm, of course Twilight is responsible because of it being "overexposed". There have been hundreds of vampire movies and tv shows since Max Schrecks "Nosferatu" from 1921/22. Just think about the flood of vampire movies and series since the late 1960s. They just mostly never got the attention they get now because everyone wants to feed of the success of the Twilight films.
So, what is it exactly you wanted to see that has not been overdone. Oh yeah, crime investigation shows! No wait....done plenty of those....what about family sitcoms? Aaahh, done too many of those, too. Hmmm.... oh! I got something: mystery shows! Oh wait...a lot of those either.
We're talking about the American TV and movie industry. There is hardly any topic that hasn't been overdone.
Well, Buffy and Anne Rice novels may have been what "popularized" the genre in the US, but certainly not where I live. Buffy has been aired here quite successfully, but it wasn't considered to be a serious boost for the vampire genre. (The emphasis lies on "serious".) "Bram Stoker's Dracula", "Interview with the Vampire" or "Blade" did that.
Well, if you're only looking for originality and ingenuity, you won't be happy very often in your "future tv life". I'm satisfied with a show, when it combines at least a couple of the things I want to see like nice storytelling with emotive, intelligent or exciting plots, appealing cinematography, dedicated actors and writers, good humor etc.
Sadly, it took Whedon several episodes to figure out how to properly use the potential of the show.
Well, Buffy and Anne Rice novels may have been what "popularized" the genre in the US, but certainly not where I live. Buffy has been aired here quite successfully, but it wasn't considered to be a serious boost for the vampire genre. (The emphasis lies on "serious".) "Bram Stoker's Dracula", "Interview with the Vampire" or "Blade" did that.
Besides, I don't believe that the screaming teenagers that made at least half of the success of Twilight have been watching Buffy ten years ago or reading Anne Rice novels. What brings me again to the point that Twilight is the movie that's responsible the impression, that the vampire genre is overdone. Because if you look at how successful and how unnervingly omnipresent it is compared to other, much better and more classically themed vampire movies and shows of the last two or three years, you can only come to that conclusion. That's doesn't mean that Twilight isn't also exploiting the popularity of vampire themes in general.
And I know that there's only one Twilight film so far. I said films, because the second one will be released in January 2010, the third in 2011, and both of them will get the same hype and be at least as successful as the first one.
Well, if you're only looking for originality and ingenuity, you won't be happy very often in your "future tv life". I'm satisfied with a show, when it combines at least a couple of the things I want to see like nice storytelling with emotive, intelligent or exciting plots, appealing cinematography, dedicated actors and writers, good humor etc.
Dollhouse for example may have been quite original, but that was about it. The storytelling was too slow at first, with almost no bonding to any of the characters and sometimes lousy build-up. Design, music, cinematography... anything that demanded craftsmanship or production and art awareness was sometimes poorly done. I always hoped, that after the great "Serenity" Joss Whedon had managed to overcome "Buffy - The Vampire Slayer", but seeing Dollhouse I was reminded time and time again of Buffy. Props that obviously looked like plastic, poor paint-jobs, bad make-up, uninspired camerawork, cheap special effects like at some county fair. Most of that improved in the course of the first season, but there is still much to be done. But at least it was original.
But if you're into originality, you may check out "United States of Tara", "Flash Forward", "Human Target", "Rubicon", "Caprica", "Bored To Death"... all of them are young or upcoming shows.
I have no problem with that.
I know of the things you cited and you are right that they most certainly left their mark on the show. The quarrel about "Epitaph One" for example or the late recastings are for the largest part the networks fault. I didn't quite understand anyway, why Whedon didn't try to land Dollhouse with a pay tv broadcaster like HBO, Showtime or Starz. But he maybe still had a contract with FOX. But there are things that are definitely Whedons fault. For example, he reshot most of the pilot. But almost everyone, who saw the first version of the pilot, stated afterwards, that the first version was the better one. On top of that did Whedon rewrite much of the first half of the season, too, as far as I know.
Well, I wouldn't give up on the truly original part quite yet as long as there are people like Bryan Fuller out there. I mean, look at what he did over the last years (Wonderfalls, Dead Like Me, Pushing Daisies). Whether one likes his shows or not, they most definitely are inventive and original.
I have no problem with that.
I know of the things you cited and you are right that they most certainly left their mark on the show. The quarrel about "Epitaph One" for example or the late recastings are for the largest part the networks fault. I didn't quite understand anyway, why Whedon didn't try to land Dollhouse with a pay tv broadcaster like HBO, Showtime or Starz. But he maybe still had a contract with FOX. But there are things that are definitely Whedons fault. For example, he reshot most of the pilot. But almost everyone, who saw the first version of the pilot, stated afterwards, that the first version was the better one. On top of that did Whedon rewrite much of the first half of the season, too, as far as I know.
About the weakest link: Personally I think that Fran Kranz is the weakest link on the show when it comes to the actors, not Dushku. His character, Topher, is unhopefully overacted.
Well, I wouldn't give up on the truly original part quite yet as long as there are people like Bryan Fuller out there. I mean, look at what he did over the last years (Wonderfalls, Dead Like Me, Pushing Daisies). Whether one likes his shows or not, they most definitely are inventive and original.
And I'm sorry to here that the ending of BSG left a bad taste in your mouth. I don't know, why you mean that exactly, but hopefully not because you though it was too awful. I think the ending was quite good. Could have been better, but they had opened so many cans and had to tie up so many loose ends, some things had to become questionable, I guess.
), but it had a good balance of action and character development, IMO.
