comment #1

Ray DeRousse says ...

That ten-second spot cost $108M to air during the Super Bowl. Money well spent, obviously.

comment #2

Kerry Frey says ...

[Wells to Kerry Frey: Fixed, but you coulda fooled me!]

comment #3

Zach says ...

Hmm. A teaser for the trailer. I would have preferred that they tease the teaser first, then release the actual teaser, followed by the trailer. How else are we going to know what this thing is?

comment #4

dino velvet says ...

I liked the part where the superhero did the thing

comment #5

Rashad says ...

Looks no different than a tv show on Fox.

comment #6

Ray says ...

"I still maintain that Wheedon is a lightweight (i.e., moderately talented) clock-puncher and journeyman, "

TRANSLATION: I STILL MAINTAIN COMPLETE UNFAMILIARITY WITH THIS TELEVISION "WHEEDON" FELLOW TO THE POINT I INTENTIONALLY MISSPELL THIS INSIGNIFICANT NON-ENTITY'S NAME.

comment #7

Alexander says ...

Yawn.

(in Incredible Hulk voice, natch)

comment #8

Raising_Kaned says ...

"Wheedon is a lightweight (i.e., moderately talented) clock-puncher and journeyman, and nowhere near the realm of James Cameron or Bryan Singer even."

Based on what exactly, Jeff? Not saying that I don't ultimately agree with your assessment, but how are you reaching this conclusion? I know you're not a TV guy, so what specific projects by him have you actually watched?

The fact that you can't even spell his last name correctly doesn't exactly instill the utmost confidence in your discernment.

comment #9

Raising_Kaned says ...

Ray stole my thunder (like that "Thor" guy).

comment #10

wester says ...

Even if Jeff's right... (I'm not sure where I come down on this, his episodes of Buffy are cool, good, heartfelt, etc but that's in the context of the show which could get... repetitive)... even as a journeyman, he's one of the few people playing in this particular pool of fanboy bang boom bah that manages to eke out a genuine fucking point of view in his work. His scripts know how to navigate tone pretty well, draw laughter, have clear stakes, etc. Didn't he rewrite Jeff's beloved Captain America? The USO thing seemed particularly in Whedon's wheelhouse.

So a journeyman craftsman with a real point of view working in a derided, thought-to-be juvenile genre... someone call Cahiers du Cinema.

comment #11

Jesse Crall says ...

I saw the trailer for this during Haywire. Is Robert Downey Jr.'s clipped, arrogant vocal pattern getting on anyone else's nerves? I dug Iron Man and even blew off my prom to see it, but now Downey Jr. just seems cocky and mannered. Whatever. It'll probably be slick fun without much impact.

comment #12

Rashad says ...

I just have a feeling Scarlett will have an unnecessarily big role.

comment #13

LexG says ...

This is sort of related enough that it bears mentioning, but I'm sort of with Jeff in his "eh whatever" not really caring about the JOSS WHEDON LEGACY...

Having watched LUCK the other night (which is kinda boring and willfully perverse bordering on fascinating in its vague minimalism and fuck-you minutia-laden lethargy), I went to some TV FORUMS to see what others were saying, thinking people would notice the Mann trademarks all over the place; Instead, on TV FORUMS, the name Michael Mann is kind of a nonentity or MAYBE some guy who did Miami Vice 30 years ago, and instead they're all MILCH MILCH MILCH MILCH, TEAM MILCH, TRUST IN MILCH, PRAISE GOD DAVID MILCH. It really goes to show how close but how different the two mediums are-- I'm obsessed with visual storytelling and The Auteur Theory and the director as end-all, be-all... But in TV land there's this subculture of TV fans who are all about the SHOW RUNNER, the head writer, have this faith in guys who, to me, sound like journeyman TV scribes-- Sorkin, Chase, Simon, Kurt Sutter, Whedon, Abrams, Bochco, Milch, David E. Kelley.

Try as I may, and I like Sons of Anarchy as much of the next guy or Justified or Breaking Bad or whatever, I can't really jizz over some workaday TV writer like he's some Anointed Genius on par with the Movie Godz. Part of it is just how movies are so visual and kinetic, and how TV is this serialized character-based longform COMMITMENT -- have I really spent FOUR FUCKING YEARS watching Jackson Teller working up to taking over from Clay Morrow? It's that weird combination of take-it-for-granted long-term commitment, combined with the "in your home, watch it on the couch" mundanity of the TV experience, I don't know, I can't be like OH FUCK YEAH JOSS WHEDON, remember the MUSICAL EPISODE OF BUFFY or WHERE SHE FINDS THE DEAD BODY, wow THAT'S ON PAR WITH 2001 AND APOCALYPSE NOW!

I'm sure in its own medium it's well done, and sometimes TV can be transcendant -- The Wire, The Shield, The Sopranos -- but we're talking about a dude who made a camp series about teen vampires that was like 125 in the ratings when it was on the air 10 years ago. Or like any of the above mentioned names, he's had a sometimes you win, sometimes you lose journeyman career cranking out scripts all over the place; Like HILL STREET BLUES (Milch) was some top-notch shit... in 1981, but to get stoked for basically a WRITER instead of the REAL FILMMAKER (directors), I just can't relate.

comment #14

Raising_Kaned says ...

"and how TV is this serialized character-based longform COMMITMENT"

You pretty much nailed it, Lex. And inherent in that distinction is the sense that, on a week-to-week basis shit isn't really (I mean, really) hit the fan because everyone wants to come back next episode/season/whatever and collect another paycheck

I know the regulars here that watch a lot more television than I do are going to be throwing a ton of counterexamples at me, but I don't really care. Take a look at the way The Sopranos ends (not a bad conclusion by TV standards) and compare it to something, like, say To Live and Die in L.A. -- you will never, EVER see a fuck-you ending like that on a serial program unless everyone involved knows the show is done for good, NEVER coming back, etc.

comment #15

Gabe@ThePlaylist says ...

Well, for the nerds, Whedon also wrote some of the comics. He gets the language of these things better than any director thus far. They couldn't have picked a bigger nerd to make this movie, probably. I have no idea if this means the film's good or not. I do know that it's got enough of a chance to be ok that I'm not going to shit on it and misspell the director's name and toss around some bullshit cynicism because I am genuinely out of my depth.

The worst trait of all film writers, spotlighted by this post: the refusal to admit you have a blind spot. I'm not going to be a Whedon cheerleader - I've never seen a single episode of Buffy, Angel, Firefly, or whatever else he's done, but I thought the "Serenity" movie was... capable enough. Workable fantasy sci-fi with a bit of wit and ingenuity. Giving him a blockbuster... sure, whatever. Not really cause for cynicism.

But, no, it's gotta be "all superheroes are dumb (I loved Captain America but LET'S NOT DISCUSS THIS)" and "Joss Whedon's a non-entity (which one is he?" and "Arbitrary comparisons (because even Bryan Singer and James Cameron are the same, apparently)."

comment #16

Raising_Kaned says ...

^And even then, it's still a complete rarity (because it seems like most television writers don't want to offend the audience that's stuck with a character for however many seasons).

For more examples of how a good story arc should be capped at 6-10 hours (anything ranging from a trilogy to a miniseries), just look at X-Files and Lost -- two extremely critically-acclaimed shows. Went out with a whimper, not a bang, and that's because the nature of the medium is to keep you coming back for that next hit ("hey kids, you'll never believe this, but Jack Bauer is STILL alive!").

Whereas most filmmakers only have about 2 hours to work with (and aside from these blockbuster tentpoles, there's rarely the assumption going in that we're ever going to see these specific characters again), and that allows filmmakers the freedom to express a real point-of-view in their work as opposed to the often-transparent mechanics of just keeping the narrative churning.

comment #17

Myles says ...

The storytelling is off the charts better in TV nowadays. Sadly, I don't think the mediums are really even close at the moment. It's in the golden age of TV and a really bad times for movies overall.

Movies have gotten so expensive, and so hard to get people off their butts to go see, that the studios are doubling down on crap like Battleship. I'm not sure how it gets better, but as a movie lover, I hope it does.

comment #18

Storm Serge says ...

Mann is in serious need of a change. That cantered shot of the hood ornament at the beginning? Eff that. Let's talk about digital cameras capturing action: They can't. Who gives a shit the depth of field they offer for night shots. Mann is verging on self-parody.

comment #19

Gabe@ThePlaylist says ...

Well, you guys are resurrecting the whole "TV is becoming like movies!" and "Movies are becoming like TV!" meme. Everything has become serialized programming. We've compartmentalized our entertainment, because now they can become collectibles to the point where we keep them on an IPod and travel with them. All entertainment is now tchotchkes, and everyone's in a rush to make another one that can add to a matching pair.

I cannot wait for the "24" movie in 2014, and the "Avengers" TV show in 2019. And by that I mean STOP IT, PLEASE.

For the record, Downey's contract ends after Iron Man 3. If they're really going to continue this collective sequential storytelling thing, the awesome decision would be to kill Tony Stark.

comment #20

Hallick says ...

Didn't "The Shield" basically START out with one of those "To Live and Die In L.A." fuck-yous to the audience for a beginning?

And films are just as rare with those holy shit moments as TV shows are. The fact that you reached back to a movie made 27 years ago for your example ain't exactly a slam dunk arguement either.

comment #21

Gabe@ThePlaylist says ...

Oh, and it's the "golden age" of television? Is that why "Wife Swap" is still on? Is that why "Keeping up with the Kardashians" usually triples (or more!) the ratings of everyone's beloved "Mad Men"? Is that because, somehow, laugh tracks still exist?

Very lax standards for a golden age. Silver, I'll buy it. But NBC, with it's long, storied history, just brought "Fear Factor" back to avoid slipping below fucking TELEMUNDO in the ratings.

comment #22

Gabe@ThePlaylist says ...

Apologies for being so chatty, but glad someone brought it up: THE SHIELD was fucking DYNAMITE. The rare show that started awesome, and just got more excellent. I hate when "Shield Movie" rumors crop up out of nowhere, for people DESPERATE to know what Vic Mackey's up to. One of those rare cases where movies are 100% unfit for such material.

comment #23

Raising_Kaned says ...

"And films are just as rare with those holy shit moments as TV shows are. The fact that you reached back to a movie made 27 years ago for your example ain't exactly a slam dunk arguement either."

Fine. Then here's my Blake Griffin moment: The Skin I Live In, Enter the Void, Inglourious Basterds, Che, No Country For Old Men over the past 5 years.

Your ball.

"And films are just as rare with those holy shit moments as TV shows are. The fact that you reached back to a movie made 27 years ago for your example ain't exactly a slam dunk arguement either."

Fine. Then here's my Blake Griffin moment: The Skin I Live In, Enter the Void, Inglourious Basterds, Che, No Country For Old Men over the past 5 years.

Your ball.

comment #24

Raising_Kaned says ...

Looks like I double-dribbled. You're in the bonus.

comment #25

THE MovieBob says ...

TV is universally overrated these days, on the writing front, because TV was able to more-quickly adapt to the way the masses are preferring to absord their entertainment in the age of Tivo, iTunes and instant fan-reaction tweeting/facebooking etc. Ooooh, what's that, you say?? Some basic-cabel drama has a more complex narrative-arc than an individual movie?? WOW! That's amazing! It's like they have a full season of shows to stretch it out over, and the ability to radically rework parts that aren't working before the story has concluded!

Incidentally, this is partially why Marvel's "scheme" for Avengers and beyond is so damn effective: They're waaaay ahead of curve on the "franchise movies as serialized-entertainment" thing that's going to pay off dynamite as VOD/downloads stuff becomes the main post-theatrical way people watch movies.

Yeah, for film buffs who aren't also comic fans the whole shared-universe continuity thing can be weird and off-putting ("why does it matter that 'Thor' explains Red Skull's magic blue-laser stuff," "do I really need to know that Captain America's super-steroids were the same stuff they shot the bad guy full of in 'Hulk," etc) but that they've got six movies and counting that can feed off (and into) one-another's audience and profits is a killer investment.

comment #26

Gaydos says ...

I was going to make a comment but then I saw this was a "delivery system vs art form" discussion and decided i better stay out.

However...Joss Whedon does not have a "point of view," at least not in the sense that Bergman, Fellini, Antonioni, Kieslowski had a point of view.

If I continue I will have to drag out Scripture about "putting away childish things" and I don't want to do that.

comment #27

Barnes78 says ...

Even if the stories about Matthew Weiner are accurate, what he's crafting with MAD MEN is starting to hover on the sublime. The commitment to that show has paid off in spades. It's likely a different gift, but it's a gift all the same that's in the same league as someone like Michael Mann.

comment #28

Raising_Kaned says ...

"However...Joss Whedon does not have a "point of view," at least not in the sense that Bergman, Fellini, Antonioni, Kieslowski had a point of view."

I agree, but I think we've reached a tipping point as a culture, where, not only the public or the studios -- but most film buffs (and probably even a lot of "critics") -- would say "and thank God for that!" to your above statement.

comment #29

Rashad says ...

Luck was really good, and that's without knowing what the hell anything they were saying meant.

comment #30

Kakihara says ...

Bob: Avengers is still frickin' overpriced, though. And even if it makes money, it'll end up subsidizing losses on John Carter.

comment #31

Chinaski1 says ...

This most recent season of Breaking Bad was better than any movie released in 2011.

comment #32

LexG says ...

But it's not really THE SAME THING.

It's like dudes who say THE BOOK WAS SO MUCH BETTER.

Like, yes, a novel can afford more characterization and depth and richness that provokes one's imagination, and a TV show can afford you 13 GODDAMN HOURS to spend with Walter White, so, as MovieBob says above, NO SHIT, that seems like a richer experience than 93 minutes with Bucky Larson... or even Owen in Midnight in Paris.

But movies aren't about this slow-burn characterization where you're TV FRIENDS with WALT and RAYLAN and TONY and SWEARENGEN and NIED STARK and JACK BAUER and DON DRAPER for four, five, six, seven goddamn years of your life. Movies are visual, emotional, all-encompassing 2-hour sensory experiences... TV with its square framing and now serialized narratives can't capture what movies deliver VISCERALLY and VISUALLY...

I'm sure THE SHADOW or AMOS AND ANDY were both a fuck of a good radio program way back when, but that doesn't make them inherently superior to Citizen Kane.

comment #33

Edward Havens says ...

It's an effin' superhero movie. The fact that hacks like Jon Favreau and Joe Johnston can make them shows how little talent one needs to make one of these. Get a guy like Branagh behind the camera and HOLY SH!T, you've got yourself a true Shakespearean work of art, but that's a once in a lifetime situation.

The wife loves the Whedonverse, so I've watched every episode of Buffy and Angel and Firefly and Dollhouse. Whedon isn't the world's greatest storyteller, but the episodes of Buffy that he wrote and directed really were the best episodes of those respective shows. And with Zak Penn getting the script to where it needed to be to be a greenlight film, The Avenger should end up being a lot better than Iron Man 2, somewhat better than either Hulk movie, a bit better than Captain America and Iron Man, and almost as good as Thor.

But seriously, it's an effin' superhero movie. Let's not pretend it's anything more than what it is.

comment #34

LexG says ...

I don't really watch much Whedon shit, so can anyone confirm: People say he always shows chicks' feet. Is that true?

comment #35

Jesse Crall says ...

LexG is right; It took me about 3 episodes to get into Mad Men, which translates to 2 hours. A movie has to hook you by minute 15, ideally even sooner. Besides, much of television's more recent success stems from DVD viewing experiences, through which, like a film, you can immerse yourself in a show. If one episode is slow, you can immediately watch the net one and catch some action. Even The Sopranos was pretty slow-building on a week to week basis, but if you watched 3 episodes a day you were bound to see somebody get whacked.

comment #36

LexG says ...

The last 10 minutes of The Sopranos IS the single best thing in the history of television.

Runner up is that episode of THE WIRE that opens with McNulty drunk driving in his CAVALIER and driving that fucker right into a bridge under pass, stepping out hammered, figuring out the trajectory, then crashing it again just for the hell of it. Then he goes to a diner and fucks the waitress.

McNulty is more awesome than every AVENGER combined.

comment #37

Markj74 says ...

Well both Firefly and Serenity were excellent, miles better than JJ Abrams TV and film work. The Avengers has looked pretty underwhelming so far, but we've only seen 30 seconds of just-shot footage. I'm sure it will be better than Thor, Captain America etc. (The 1.85:1 decision is still madness though).

comment #38

DeafEars says ...

"This most recent season of Breaking Bad was better than any movie released in 2011."

I think BREAKING BAD is the Great American Novel of our time, and I haven't even seen the most recent season.

comment #39

LexG says ...

LOOK AT HER

JOHANSSON being all TWO DECADES younger than EVERYONE HERE, but being FAMOUS AND IN MOVIES.

How does that not MURDER YOUR INNARDS?

LIFE SUCKS BALLS. NOTHING IS WORTHY except BEING FAMOUS... When I should've been getting my SAG CARD, WILD LIFE and REPO MAN were in theaters... Now it's TWENTY SEVEN YEARS LATER, DOWNEY IS OUR KING, and I'm like eight years younger than him but I sure as FUCK wasn't acting in movies in 1990.

FUCK IT ALL, you will NEVER BE FAMOUS or an ARTIST

comment #40

moorish says ...

THIS. And yet more of THIS.

"Runner up is that episode of THE WIRE that opens with McNulty drunk driving in his CAVALIER and driving that fucker right into a bridge under pass, stepping out hammered, figuring out the trajectory, then crashing it again just for the hell of it. Then he goes to a diner and fucks the waitress.

McNulty is more awesome than every AVENGER combined."

LexG FTW.

comment #41

Mgmax, le Corbeau says ...

At the risk of making Jeff's explode, you know what would be totally awesome? A movie written by someone with an instinctive feel for slick, likable, grownup characters like Joss Whedon, being directed by someone with an instinctive feel for expansive, visual storytelling.

Like Steven Spielberg.

comment #42

arispil says ...

The ending of The Sopranos is a HUGE fuck you (and awesome). Not sure how you could claim otherwise.

comment #43

Redbeard says ...

"Oh, and it's the "golden age" of television? Is that why "Wife Swap" is still on? Is that why "Keeping up with the Kardashians" usually triples (or more!) the ratings of everyone's beloved "Mad Men"? Is that because, somehow, laugh tracks still exist?"

What, because no bad films were made during the golden age of Hollywood?

And hasn't lowest-common-denominator stuff always sold more?

comment #44

Redbeard says ...

"I don't really watch much Whedon shit, so can anyone confirm: People say he always shows chicks' feet. Is that true?"

I wouldn't say always, no. But in Firefly/Serenity, Summer Glau is barefoot most of the time, nad there are quite a few shots of said bare feet. And she was only 18 or so at the time - so right up your alley.

comment #45

Redbeard says ...

" And with Zak Penn getting the script to where it needed to be to be a greenlight film, The Avenger should end up being a lot better than Iron Man 2, "

Penn's script was tossed. Whedon started over, and gets sole script credit.

comment #46

Krillian says ...

1. Since Serenity is the only movie Joss Whedon has directed, Jeff has nothing real to base his dismissiveness on other than getting up the ire of his readers, a chunk of whom will rush to Whedon's defense. Hooray, page-hits! Happy to oblige.

2. As a writer, Whedon's big-screen work has mostly been animation, like the original Toy Story.

3. Movies and TV are different. ("What's that on the floor? It's my jaw!")

4. Firefly is one of my favorite shows ever, and it may be becuz it only lasted 16 episodes . Maybe if it had gone four of five seasons it would have started to suck. And it's not gritty. Not everything has to be gritty to be good.

5. James Cameron was behind Dark Angel, Bryan Singer was behind House. Those hacks.

comment #47

wester says ...

Gaydos: having a point of view does not mean you are a Bergman. I don't know why you would equate those two. That's weird. Whedon has a very distinct POV he brings to his work. It's not, uhh, nearly as deep or powerful as you might find in a Bergman film, but it's plain to see (hint: he likes to equate supergirls and feminism)

And I find anyone who goes on about how great even the greatest of TV shows are these days is more tolerant of leaden pacing than I am. Most TV shows take so fucking long to get to their payoffs, it is just about intolerable. Personally, I think the best TV show in this so-called golden age is the British version of The Office, because it did what it had to do, did it with brevity, and then got the fuck out of there. It was funny AND it meant something, and it didn't crawl up its own ass and die which most of these shows do after blowing their wad on their pilot.

comment #48

Ray says ...

Dammit I hate being buried here in a thread that'll disappear, but I have to add: TV is not MOVIES is not BOOKS.

Duh.

BUT the big difference here, and what Lex and Co. ignore, is that TV has EVOLVED to embrace the freedom of the medium, whereas FILM has DEEVOLVED to become, what? Damned if I know.

TV (thanks to HBO, who really made it work first) figured out that gee, it has ALL THESE HOURS available, why not use them? Why not embrace the ability to tell long-form stories, and WRITE those stories, rather than just miniature 60-minute movies? Rather than be a WEAK IMITATION OF FILM, why not be something else?

Not better. Just the best it can be in its own medium.

I love great TV. I used to HATE TV, precisely because they failed to use the medium to its fullest.

That's why I still love people like Michael Bay, even if I hate the shit they make. Why? BECAUSE HE UNDERSTANDS HE'S MAKING A ****MOVIE****. Something that demands to be seen in a theater, on a big screen, and taken seriously as something that's not absorbed over ten months on a fucking IPOD.

Every time we get another movie about gay cowboys eating pudding, I want to stab myself in the eye, for you could put that shit on TV. I don't want that from film.

comment #49

Raising_Kaned says ...

Any specific examples of deevolution of cinema there, Ray, or are you just throwing that theory out there willy-nilly? I don't think movies on the whole are any better or worse than they were 10 years ago...50 years ago.

So I guess in film staying more-or-less the same, you could make a decent argument that television has "gained ground" (in a similar way to how third-world countries "gain ground" on the U.S. et al. every day).

Here's what I love about film, though: it's all about showmanship, all about intensity. If you don't capture my attention in the first 10-15 minutes, you've pretty much completely failed as a filmmaker, regardless of how good the rest of the flick is (the same goes double for the last 15-20 minutes). Whereas with books and novels, it's more of a "building" process -- which is cool, except when it doesn't work.

When someone recommends something in one of those mediums, but warns that it's "kinda slow" until Season 4/page 350, that's pretty close to a guarantee that I won't be fucking with it.

comment #50

Raising_Kaned says ...

In other words, going to a movie theater is like visiting a brothel and -- for a fee -- picking out a stranger to have passionate sex with that you'll likely never see again, whereas watching a season of TV is akin to sitting down and "working out your feelings" with a long-term girlfriend and assuring her that you'll be right here for her at the same time the next day/week/etc for a follow-up to "see where you're at."

One for the dirty, quick high, please. :)

comment #51

Rashad says ...

Serenity blew

comment #52

Chinaski1 says ...

"but warns that it's "kinda slow" until Season 4/page 350"

You know people that stick with a television show for four seasons that aren't that great? You need to get a better class of friends.

Breaking Bad was never slow. Neither was The Shield. Or Justified. Some people find Mad Men "slow, but awesome". I just think it's awesome.

Expand. You can watch both, you know.

comment #53

wester says ...

Mad Men is a mildly involving adult soap opera with a high wardrobe budget.

comment #54

Chinaski1 says ...

"Mad Men is a mildly involving adult soap opera with a high wardrobe budget."

That certainly is one opinion. Hardly a majority though.

comment #55

wester says ...

Yep. And Transformers movies make a lot of money. The majority is daft most of the time.

But, of course, I also think outside a few sporadic episodes, the Sopranos didn't really have all that much left in the tank after the first season (love the ending, though!) and most people seem to disagree with me there too. I wish I liked it as much, but it felt sisyphean after the 2nd season. C'est la vie.

Mad Men isn't bad (see: mildly involving) and there's definitely a reason it's inspired so much passion.

comment #56

Chinaski1 says ...

"Yep. And Transformers movies make a lot of money. The majority is daft most of the time. "

The minority isn't much better. And anyway, it's a bad comparison that you made. I really don't think it's the same types of people, with the same tastes, that are watching Transformers and Mad Men. I'd say the people that watch Mad Men don't watch, or at least end up not liking, shit like Transformers.

Mad Men isn't watched by the majority, it's just enjoyed by the majority that give it a chance.

comment #57

wester says ...

No, you're absolutely right and I came back to clarify that exact point. The TV comparison with Transformers would be something like 2 and a half men or whatever. I think Mad Men would be more like, oh, The King's Speech in terms of movies. In that, it's fine enough doing what it does.

comment #58

wester says ...

It's just so middlebrow.

comment #59

LexG says ...

Mad Men's kind of a chick show, isn't it?

comment #60

Chinaski1 says ...

It's definitely not middlebrow.

Lex,

Nope. Don't know where you got that idea from.

comment #61

Raising_Kaned says ...

I don't really have any friends. Doesn't anybody else get sick and tired of pretending to be interested in shit they're not really interested in?

As for Mad Men, I've admittedly only watched one episode, but "middlebrow," King's Speech-esque, chick-flicky? Sounds about right. I'm a film guy, so you need to hook me fast -- no dilly-dallying around "building characters" or laying plot foundations" for 4 seasons later or any of that other horseshit. Keep up the intensity, or face the almighty wrath of the "off" button.

More like Mad Meh.

comment #62

Redbeard says ...

"That certainly is one opinion. Hardly a majority though."

The majority has never even seen the show.

comment #63

Chinaski1 says ...

Raising Kaned,

I thought you were better than that. In the end, you're missing out. Again, I don't understand why it has to be one or the other. I see plenty of films and also keep up with four or five television shows at a time.

Currently (when they're airing) I watch Breaking Bad, Mad Men, Justified, Community, Parks and Rec, Eastbound and Down, and Dexter. Dexter has really sucked lately but overall it's been great. Now I'll be adding Luck to that small list.

comment #64

property in gurgaon says ...

Gangaur Realtech is a professionally managed organisation specializing in real estate services where integrated services are provided by professionals to its clients seeking increased value by owning, occupying or investing in real estate.

Residential property in gurgaon

Residential plots in gurgaon

bestech grand spa

bestech ananda

comment #65

free score says ...

A teaser for a trailer is an interesting take.... could end up being a neat production though. We'll see.

comment #66

commenting63 says ...

Thanks for taking the time to discuss this, I feel strongly about it and love learning more on this topic. If possible, as you gain expertise, would you mind updating your blog with more information? It is extremely helpful for me.home design ideas

comment #67

Snel afvallen in een week says ...

Interesting approach to promote a film. Really cool, 'cause it makes me real curious about what's coming:)

comment #68

flem says ...

It's really impressive... Money well spent.
russiske damer

comment #69

Bauchmuskeltraining says ...

I just have a feeling Scarlett will have an unnecessarily big role.

comment #70

klik hier afvallen in een week says ...

Can't wait to see this movie next week, I am a big fan of iron man myself!

comment #71

Drond2 says ...

And even then, it's still a complete rarity (because it seems like most television writers don't want to offend the audience that's stuck with a character for however many seasons).

For more examples of how a good story arc should be capped at 6-10 hours (anything ranging from a trilogy to a miniseries), just look at X-Files and Lost -- two extremely critically-acclaimed shows. Went out with a whimper, not a bang, and that's because the nature of the medium is to keep you coming back for that next hit ("hey kids, you'll never believe this, but Jack Bauer is STILL alive!"). house design brisbane . Films Rapidshare Whereas most filmmakers only have about 2 hours to work with (and aside from these blockbuster tentpoles, there's rarely the assumption going in that we're ever going to see these specific characters again), and that allows filmmakers the freedom to express a real point-of-view in their work as opposed to the often-transparent mechanics of just keeping the narrative churning.