We're a little more than a month away from the premiere of the new fall lineup by the four major networks. Honestly, this should excite me more than it depresses me. I was eyeing the respective websites of the big four and there were not many surprises. A lot of the "New" programming that has been posted are just rehashes or stale ideas. I could not even scroll half way down these pages without being bumrushed by; family sitcoms, crime dramas, and work place dramas.
It's just the same types of shows they've been airing for decades and there is not much of a chance that one of these will be a surprise twist on their genres like "Southland" or "Raising Hope". But there is a little bit of hope in this long list of recycled material. There are three shows that I'm looking forward to.
Dracula: Does there really need to be another adaption of Bram Stoker's classic story of Dracula? Hell no. Is it amazing that Jonathon Rhys Meyers is going to be playing him? Hell yeah. I haven't seen any footage from the show, but the screenshots look very promising. Now if we can only get tv shows about "The Wolfman" and "Frankenstein" and we would have a really good friday night.
Sleepy Hollow: I saw a commercial for this a couple weeks back and I have to say that it did intrigue me. This isn't the most anticipated show on this list, but it's sadly the only new show from "FOX" that even remotely interests me. All it is is a crime drama that involves the story of "Sleepy hollow", as well as taking place in the present day. I'm a sucker for crime dramas and I have always enjoyed "Sleepy Hollow". I just hope it turns out well.
Agents Of Shield: Do I even need to explain why I'm excited for this one? It's a tv version of "The Avengers". I get the chance to revisit this universe every week. For free? All I have to do is tune the channel to "ABC" once a week? Fair trade.
Wednesday, August 14, 2013
Tuesday, July 30, 2013
Emmy Nominations
The Emmy Nominations were announced a couple of weeks ago. I could give my thoughts on them, but everyone else and their mother has already done that by now. How about I talk about the fact that an internet based show has nominations? Sound good? Of course you can't respond, I'll be done writing by the time you read it.
"House Of Cards" was the smash hit of the beginning of they year that "Netflix" hoped it would be. It brought a sense of legitimacy to digital distribution that it desperately needed. This is a show that has gotten praise from both audiences and critics. I didn't start watching until a couple months after it came out. I still think that this happens to be one of the best dramas in the last decade. It is a well rounded show when it comes to; the director, the actors, and the writer. All aspects are simply perfect. It is no wonder why this has garnered multiple emmy nominations.
Usually, a show this well received wouldn't be expected to get award nominations, but this show is different. A lot of people were surprised that it got nominated. Not because these people didn't agree with the choice, but because it is not technically a television show. "House Of Cards" has never been broadcast over a television network, cable or not. The entire run of the show was shown over "Netflix" instant. The only other way to view it is to purchase the dvd/blu-ray boxset.
I honestly hope that this opens up a can of worms for digitally distributed media. There are a lot of shows that are made and distributed on the internet that are great pieces of work. Hopefully they can be recognized more now that shows don't need a broadcast run to be nominated for awards. Not only that, but I hope this will also hopefully show people that if you work hard and let your creativity flow, you will be rewarded for it.
"House Of Cards" was the smash hit of the beginning of they year that "Netflix" hoped it would be. It brought a sense of legitimacy to digital distribution that it desperately needed. This is a show that has gotten praise from both audiences and critics. I didn't start watching until a couple months after it came out. I still think that this happens to be one of the best dramas in the last decade. It is a well rounded show when it comes to; the director, the actors, and the writer. All aspects are simply perfect. It is no wonder why this has garnered multiple emmy nominations.
Usually, a show this well received wouldn't be expected to get award nominations, but this show is different. A lot of people were surprised that it got nominated. Not because these people didn't agree with the choice, but because it is not technically a television show. "House Of Cards" has never been broadcast over a television network, cable or not. The entire run of the show was shown over "Netflix" instant. The only other way to view it is to purchase the dvd/blu-ray boxset.
I honestly hope that this opens up a can of worms for digitally distributed media. There are a lot of shows that are made and distributed on the internet that are great pieces of work. Hopefully they can be recognized more now that shows don't need a broadcast run to be nominated for awards. Not only that, but I hope this will also hopefully show people that if you work hard and let your creativity flow, you will be rewarded for it.
Saturday, July 20, 2013
Worth The Cost?
I think we can all agree that entertainment isn't a necessity in life. It's more of a want, rather than a need. It is normally something that people use to wined down after a hard day of work, or just something to help fight off boredom. But do people treat it as a want or do they turn it into a need?
A lot of people now adays would probably admit that they wouldn't know what to do without internet or cable. Even though these are not things people need to live, most have integrated it into their every day lives. The problem with this is the fact that these services come at a high cost. Even the lowest of cable and satellite packages are quite expensive. Is the enjoyment entertainment worth the cost you pay to get it?
Even if you don't use cable and just rely on services such as ; "Netflix" or "Hulu" you need to pay two costs to use them. You need to pay a monthly internet bill, along with the bill for the services themselves. That doesn't include any overage charges you may receive from exceeding your internet limit. I'm not trying to dismiss these services or anyone that uses them. I enjoy streaming television shows on regular basis. I'm just not certain weather the ends justify the means.
Even if you want to go the alternative route, then you can still feel bogged down by the cost of it all. Watching television using an antenna isn't as simple as it used to be. Back in the day, you used to just be able to buy a cheap antenna, hook it up, and start watching. Now adays you have to get a converter box to even use an antenna. These cost somewhere from forty to fifty dollars, plus the cost on an antenna. If you don't live near broadcasting stations, then the cost is not worth the end result.
Even though I do enjoy being entertained, it does make me wonder if the cost is worth it all. But I try not to think about most of the time. Can my hard earned money go to a better place? Probably. Will me or anyone else stop spending money on entertainment? Probably not.
A lot of people now adays would probably admit that they wouldn't know what to do without internet or cable. Even though these are not things people need to live, most have integrated it into their every day lives. The problem with this is the fact that these services come at a high cost. Even the lowest of cable and satellite packages are quite expensive. Is the enjoyment entertainment worth the cost you pay to get it?
Even if you don't use cable and just rely on services such as ; "Netflix" or "Hulu" you need to pay two costs to use them. You need to pay a monthly internet bill, along with the bill for the services themselves. That doesn't include any overage charges you may receive from exceeding your internet limit. I'm not trying to dismiss these services or anyone that uses them. I enjoy streaming television shows on regular basis. I'm just not certain weather the ends justify the means.
Even if you want to go the alternative route, then you can still feel bogged down by the cost of it all. Watching television using an antenna isn't as simple as it used to be. Back in the day, you used to just be able to buy a cheap antenna, hook it up, and start watching. Now adays you have to get a converter box to even use an antenna. These cost somewhere from forty to fifty dollars, plus the cost on an antenna. If you don't live near broadcasting stations, then the cost is not worth the end result.
Even though I do enjoy being entertained, it does make me wonder if the cost is worth it all. But I try not to think about most of the time. Can my hard earned money go to a better place? Probably. Will me or anyone else stop spending money on entertainment? Probably not.
Wednesday, June 26, 2013
The Killing Review
A few weeks ago the third season of the crime drama "The Killing" premiered on "AMC". I want to give my thoughts on the season so far, but first I want to talk about my experience with the first two seasons of the show. Let's begin.
In the beginning of 2011 I was intrigued by the advertisements for a new show called "The Killing". I've always been interested in crime dramas and I couldn't pass this one up. I remember watching the first few episode, then dropping shortly after. I enjoyed the high concept and David Fincher-esque execution, but I had other things going on in my life at the time couldn't find time to sit down and watch it. A year later, right before season two was about to premiere, I saw my chance to get back into it. Luckily for me, the entire first season was on "Netflix" by that point.
I streamed the entire first season over the course of a week. it had become almost like an addiction, trying to figure out who killed "Rosie Larsen". As I got more into the meat of the show I realized that the mystery wasn't the only enjoyable part. The well rounded characters in this show are so much fun to watch. Just seeing their interactions with one another could the show, even without the use of the murder mystery. This statement was tested during an episode which only contained those character interactions of which I speak.
Season 2 proved to be just as good. Both with the mystery and the character development. I was glued to my tv every Sunday night, waiting for the curtain to be pulled and the answers to be revealed. Little did I know, the answers that I got weren't going to be the ones that I wanted. When it came time for the final episode of the second season, I had high expectations. Anticipation was very high and I just couldn't wait for the conclusion. When it finally happened, my jaw literally dropped. I couldn't believe that anything could honestly be as bad as this episode. I had lost faith in the show and didn't think I would be watching it again.
A year later, ads for the third season began to run on tv. As the weeks went by I saw myself actually start to get excited about this. I'm not sure exactly why. It might have been because I had no other shows to follow or the hopes that this season could tie things up a bit better.
Just A few weeks ago, I got my answer. The new season had shown it's mug and it wasn't so ugly. I instantly found myself to be invested back into the characters and into the story. This might have been due to the slate more or less being wiped clean. The old case isn't discussed. Instead, a case from Sarah Lindon's past has come back to haunt her.
Enough has changed, yet enough has stayed the same. We follow the detectives around, as well as a group of homeless teens, and a pair of men on death row. I've found myself caring about all of these characters, even though my time has to be swiftly divided between all of them. I have to hand it to the writers, they've done a great job in getting back into the show. It feels good to see a show that is this fresh on tv. I would recommend it to everyone, even the episode I did not care for. The first two seasons of "The Killing" are available on "Netflix" and new episodes air every Sunday night on "AMC".
I streamed the entire first season over the course of a week. it had become almost like an addiction, trying to figure out who killed "Rosie Larsen". As I got more into the meat of the show I realized that the mystery wasn't the only enjoyable part. The well rounded characters in this show are so much fun to watch. Just seeing their interactions with one another could the show, even without the use of the murder mystery. This statement was tested during an episode which only contained those character interactions of which I speak.
Season 2 proved to be just as good. Both with the mystery and the character development. I was glued to my tv every Sunday night, waiting for the curtain to be pulled and the answers to be revealed. Little did I know, the answers that I got weren't going to be the ones that I wanted. When it came time for the final episode of the second season, I had high expectations. Anticipation was very high and I just couldn't wait for the conclusion. When it finally happened, my jaw literally dropped. I couldn't believe that anything could honestly be as bad as this episode. I had lost faith in the show and didn't think I would be watching it again.
A year later, ads for the third season began to run on tv. As the weeks went by I saw myself actually start to get excited about this. I'm not sure exactly why. It might have been because I had no other shows to follow or the hopes that this season could tie things up a bit better.
Enough has changed, yet enough has stayed the same. We follow the detectives around, as well as a group of homeless teens, and a pair of men on death row. I've found myself caring about all of these characters, even though my time has to be swiftly divided between all of them. I have to hand it to the writers, they've done a great job in getting back into the show. It feels good to see a show that is this fresh on tv. I would recommend it to everyone, even the episode I did not care for. The first two seasons of "The Killing" are available on "Netflix" and new episodes air every Sunday night on "AMC".
Sunday, June 23, 2013
You Are What You Watch
I just want to apologize to anyone that enjoys reading my blog. I recently got a job and haven't had the time to write much lately. I can't guarantee that I can keep up the same pace and schedule as I did before, but I will try to post as many of these as I can. Let's get started.
Like I said in the opening paragraph, I've been working a lot lately. This has changed my eating schedule and sometime even what I watch. I work a lot of late nights and that causes me to watch what's on. This got me thinking; does working effect what you watch on tv?
When you get home at midnight most nights, it limits your choices on tv. Most nights I honestly just watch baseball highlights. It's colorful, fast paced, and allows to turn my brain off. After a few nights of doing this it made me wonder if other people do this. Are high ratings for shows that I don't like due to people just turning off their brains? Sometimes when I get home I don't always feel like following a story. I just want to be entertained. Have the networks known this the whole time?
Being tired could explain the lack of story telling by the networks. They could be catering to the very tired working Joes at the end of the day. But what about others shows, such as "Mad Men" or "Game Of Thrones"? They tell stories every week and have a large following. Who do they cater to? Actually, they cater to the same type of people. I don't always feel like turning my brain off. There are days when I want to escape into a great story to escape the stresses of work and life.
When I want to get into a story I've been watching "The Killing" on Sunday nights. Which I will give my review on as soon as I can. That shows that there is a place for story on tv. And I'm not always working, so I want to enjoy a well told story on my days off. What I'm saying is that I can understand turn off your brain entertainment a little better now, but still appreciate a good story now and again. I also fully believe that working for a living can effect what you watch. Just make sure not to work too much every body.
Like I said in the opening paragraph, I've been working a lot lately. This has changed my eating schedule and sometime even what I watch. I work a lot of late nights and that causes me to watch what's on. This got me thinking; does working effect what you watch on tv?
When you get home at midnight most nights, it limits your choices on tv. Most nights I honestly just watch baseball highlights. It's colorful, fast paced, and allows to turn my brain off. After a few nights of doing this it made me wonder if other people do this. Are high ratings for shows that I don't like due to people just turning off their brains? Sometimes when I get home I don't always feel like following a story. I just want to be entertained. Have the networks known this the whole time?
Being tired could explain the lack of story telling by the networks. They could be catering to the very tired working Joes at the end of the day. But what about others shows, such as "Mad Men" or "Game Of Thrones"? They tell stories every week and have a large following. Who do they cater to? Actually, they cater to the same type of people. I don't always feel like turning my brain off. There are days when I want to escape into a great story to escape the stresses of work and life.
When I want to get into a story I've been watching "The Killing" on Sunday nights. Which I will give my review on as soon as I can. That shows that there is a place for story on tv. And I'm not always working, so I want to enjoy a well told story on my days off. What I'm saying is that I can understand turn off your brain entertainment a little better now, but still appreciate a good story now and again. I also fully believe that working for a living can effect what you watch. Just make sure not to work too much every body.
Sunday, May 19, 2013
The Killing, Or Not The Killing
Last year I quickly became fascinated with the tv show "The Killing". I had streamed the entire first season in the matter of a week and watched the entire second season every Sunday night. I was very happy with the show and couldn't have wished for a better crime show to get into. That was, until the final episode of season two. I was simply shocked by what I witnessed that night. Sadly, it was not in the good way.
It baffles me that they could screw up a last episode that badly. I watched for 26 episodes, only to be slapped in the face at the last minute. I waited for two season for the identity of "Rosie Larson's" killer. Only to be disappointed with the answer. The one I got wasn't the one I wanted. it felt like something that belonged at the end of an episode of "Law & Order". Not the end of a story that took two years to tell.
At the time and point this episode aired, I had no idea that there was going to be another season. This seemed to be the end of the road. Talk of the show being canceled made that seem possible. At one point I heard that "Netflix" had picked the show up. This intrigued me because they have become the "HBO" of streaming services with their edgey programming style. That did not last for long. While watching the season three finale of "The Walking Dead" I saw a commercial for the third season of "The Killing".
I have seen a few more ads for it since then. They have given me some interest in the show again. It will be nice to rejoin the characters that I enjoyed to watch grow, but I don't want to get burned again. This is the crossroads that I'm at. I would love to watch the characters and actors that I love again, but at the same time I don't want to be disappointed with a simple answer to a complicated question. This might the risk that I'm willing to take. You'll find out if it was worth it, when I give my review of the season premiere at the beginning of next month.
It baffles me that they could screw up a last episode that badly. I watched for 26 episodes, only to be slapped in the face at the last minute. I waited for two season for the identity of "Rosie Larson's" killer. Only to be disappointed with the answer. The one I got wasn't the one I wanted. it felt like something that belonged at the end of an episode of "Law & Order". Not the end of a story that took two years to tell.
At the time and point this episode aired, I had no idea that there was going to be another season. This seemed to be the end of the road. Talk of the show being canceled made that seem possible. At one point I heard that "Netflix" had picked the show up. This intrigued me because they have become the "HBO" of streaming services with their edgey programming style. That did not last for long. While watching the season three finale of "The Walking Dead" I saw a commercial for the third season of "The Killing".
I have seen a few more ads for it since then. They have given me some interest in the show again. It will be nice to rejoin the characters that I enjoyed to watch grow, but I don't want to get burned again. This is the crossroads that I'm at. I would love to watch the characters and actors that I love again, but at the same time I don't want to be disappointed with a simple answer to a complicated question. This might the risk that I'm willing to take. You'll find out if it was worth it, when I give my review of the season premiere at the beginning of next month.
Wednesday, May 15, 2013
Tube Talk Recommends: Terminator Sarah Conor Chronicles
I recently realized that most of these recommendations that I do on Wednesdays have been cartoons made within the last decade. I don't regret recommending these, but I think I should put the cartoons on hold for a bit and get into more live action fair. Today I'm going to talk about "Terminator: Sarah Connor Chronicles". A show on the long list of shows that got canceled while they were still in their prime.
To be honest, I actually wasn't a fan of the show when it first started. When the commercials for it began to air, I had some interest in it. Yet when the time came to watch it, I didn't. The first episode that crossed my path was actually the season one finale. From then on I watched reruns starting from episode one that summer. It had exceeded my expectations just as much as the remake of "Knight Rider" had let them down that same year. I couldn't wait for season 2 to premiere. Little did I know it would be the shows last.
"Sarah Connor Chronicles" in between the second and third films in the series, which is where the quality was as well. It wasn't as mind blowingly amazing as the second film, but not even close to as poor as the third. It did what it wanted to do very well, yet still couldn't touch the status of "Terminator 2". Believe me, that is a lot harder than it sounds.
The show got you a lot closer to the characters than you were able to in the films. "John" and "Sarah Connor" had a whole new dimension added to them. They shared the screen a lot more than in the films and they felt more like a mother and son. Not to mention that the terminators were great in this show. "Summer Glau" is my favorite terminator of all time and "Garret Dillahunt" is easily my second favorite.
I could go on and on about my love for this show, but I will spare you a ten page blog post. I can not recall a single thing that I don't like about this show. It was well written, well acted, plotted out with a stroke of genius. I don't know why you're still here reading this. "Terminator: Sarah Connor Chronicles" is now available on "Netflix" instant. Go watch, now!
To be honest, I actually wasn't a fan of the show when it first started. When the commercials for it began to air, I had some interest in it. Yet when the time came to watch it, I didn't. The first episode that crossed my path was actually the season one finale. From then on I watched reruns starting from episode one that summer. It had exceeded my expectations just as much as the remake of "Knight Rider" had let them down that same year. I couldn't wait for season 2 to premiere. Little did I know it would be the shows last.
"Sarah Connor Chronicles" in between the second and third films in the series, which is where the quality was as well. It wasn't as mind blowingly amazing as the second film, but not even close to as poor as the third. It did what it wanted to do very well, yet still couldn't touch the status of "Terminator 2". Believe me, that is a lot harder than it sounds.
The show got you a lot closer to the characters than you were able to in the films. "John" and "Sarah Connor" had a whole new dimension added to them. They shared the screen a lot more than in the films and they felt more like a mother and son. Not to mention that the terminators were great in this show. "Summer Glau" is my favorite terminator of all time and "Garret Dillahunt" is easily my second favorite.
I could go on and on about my love for this show, but I will spare you a ten page blog post. I can not recall a single thing that I don't like about this show. It was well written, well acted, plotted out with a stroke of genius. I don't know why you're still here reading this. "Terminator: Sarah Connor Chronicles" is now available on "Netflix" instant. Go watch, now!
Monday, May 13, 2013
Renew That Cancellation
Last week was the time of the year when television channels, big and small, decide what they are bringing back for next season and what is getting the boot. Today I'm going over a few of the big networks, to give my opinion on their decisions this past week. Let's get started!
CW: I truly do miss the "WB" and "UPN" being two separate channels, but I shouldn't dwell on the past. One of the shows they decided to keep this year was "Arrow". This does not come as a surprise. We are living in an era where superheroes are the it thing. Nothing else is really notable for the "CW", unless you like vampires, assassins, or fairy tales. In that case you will be please with the "CW" fall line up.
FOX: I honestly haven't watched fox for sometime now, except for a rerun of "The Simpsons" every now and again. All of their renewals are for shows that they just won't let die. The most interesting news to come from them this week has to do with both a cancellation and a renewal that have some relation. They canceled the "Kiefer Southerland" drama, push. Only to bring back "24" out of the dead for another season. I don't think it's fair to toy with the man. Taking away something new to force him to do something old.
NBC: I was going to give "NBC" a well deserved pat on the back. They decided to keep character based shows "Parenthood" and "Parks and recreation". They also decided to can crap like "Whitney" and "Smash". Things were looking up until I logged onto the internet last night. They are retiring "Jay Leno", again. Only to give "Jimmy Fallon" the "Tonight Show" and letting "Seth Meyers" take over the late night spot. This didn't work four years ago. Why would it work now?
CBS: They decided on keeping a bunch stuff I don't watch and cancel a few things I don't watch or care about. That's actually not true. They did cancel the last two remaining "CSI" shows. I have to give them some props for finally letting them die. That doesn't make up for all of their horrible sitcoms though.
ABC: I didn't have much to say about "ABC". They made some good moves. They got rid of some junk and kept some shows that people actually like. I don't tune in to this channel much, so I don't really care about either. But then, they pulled me in. The first footage for "Agents Of S.H.I.E.L.D." was released this past week and I know for a fact that I will be watching this every week.
TNT: On Friday, I found out that "TNT" canceled "Southland". I could get worked up about it and go on a rampage like every other fan of the show is doing online, but I won't. It was a great show, one of my favorites in fact. I hope it gets picked up by another network. If not, then I still have five fantastic seasons to watch over and over again.
CW: I truly do miss the "WB" and "UPN" being two separate channels, but I shouldn't dwell on the past. One of the shows they decided to keep this year was "Arrow". This does not come as a surprise. We are living in an era where superheroes are the it thing. Nothing else is really notable for the "CW", unless you like vampires, assassins, or fairy tales. In that case you will be please with the "CW" fall line up.
FOX: I honestly haven't watched fox for sometime now, except for a rerun of "The Simpsons" every now and again. All of their renewals are for shows that they just won't let die. The most interesting news to come from them this week has to do with both a cancellation and a renewal that have some relation. They canceled the "Kiefer Southerland" drama, push. Only to bring back "24" out of the dead for another season. I don't think it's fair to toy with the man. Taking away something new to force him to do something old.
NBC: I was going to give "NBC" a well deserved pat on the back. They decided to keep character based shows "Parenthood" and "Parks and recreation". They also decided to can crap like "Whitney" and "Smash". Things were looking up until I logged onto the internet last night. They are retiring "Jay Leno", again. Only to give "Jimmy Fallon" the "Tonight Show" and letting "Seth Meyers" take over the late night spot. This didn't work four years ago. Why would it work now?
CBS: They decided on keeping a bunch stuff I don't watch and cancel a few things I don't watch or care about. That's actually not true. They did cancel the last two remaining "CSI" shows. I have to give them some props for finally letting them die. That doesn't make up for all of their horrible sitcoms though.
ABC: I didn't have much to say about "ABC". They made some good moves. They got rid of some junk and kept some shows that people actually like. I don't tune in to this channel much, so I don't really care about either. But then, they pulled me in. The first footage for "Agents Of S.H.I.E.L.D." was released this past week and I know for a fact that I will be watching this every week.
TNT: On Friday, I found out that "TNT" canceled "Southland". I could get worked up about it and go on a rampage like every other fan of the show is doing online, but I won't. It was a great show, one of my favorites in fact. I hope it gets picked up by another network. If not, then I still have five fantastic seasons to watch over and over again.
Wednesday, May 8, 2013
Tube Talk Recommends: Justic League and Justice League Unlimited
(This week the world lost a very talented and imaginative individual. Special effects artist, Ray Harryhausen, died this past week at the age of 92. My thoughts and prayers go out to his family.)
Over the past couple of weeks I have been watching a lot of content on "Netflix". This is due to "Cartoon Network" and their recent contributions to the streaming service. They have added a surplus of cartoons to "Netflix instant". Essentially, my entire child and more can be viewed with the click of a button. This has cause me a little more time using this service than usual, which is what they probably counted on. What I'm watching the most happens to be both: "Justice League" and Justice League Unlimited".
The former was broadcast from 2001-2004 and the ladder aired from 2004-2006. They both similar to each other in many ways, yet still have several differences between them. "Justice league Unlimited" is technically the sequel series to "Justice League". This can be seen by the two sharing: producers, voice actors, and both have a very comparable sense of humor. The main difference between them are: the cast lists, and series structure. "Justice League" has a very unique way of telling their stories. Every episode in the series is told over the course of two or three episodes.
The same can't be said for "Justice League Unlimited". Every story in this series is a stand alone episode. This is to focus on the countless amount of heroes featured across many different stories. Unlike the "Justice League" show that came before this one, which had a small cast of only seven super heroes. That is why the second series is the only one that bares the name unlimited. It is referring to the number of heroes that are featured through the course of the show.
If this would be your first viewing or even your 100th of these great shows, I would recommend watching them as soon as you can. They are filled with great stories, hilarious jokes, thrilling action, and more super heroes than you can count. Both cartoons can be found and streamed instantly on "Netflix" right now.
Over the past couple of weeks I have been watching a lot of content on "Netflix". This is due to "Cartoon Network" and their recent contributions to the streaming service. They have added a surplus of cartoons to "Netflix instant". Essentially, my entire child and more can be viewed with the click of a button. This has cause me a little more time using this service than usual, which is what they probably counted on. What I'm watching the most happens to be both: "Justice League" and Justice League Unlimited".
The former was broadcast from 2001-2004 and the ladder aired from 2004-2006. They both similar to each other in many ways, yet still have several differences between them. "Justice league Unlimited" is technically the sequel series to "Justice League". This can be seen by the two sharing: producers, voice actors, and both have a very comparable sense of humor. The main difference between them are: the cast lists, and series structure. "Justice League" has a very unique way of telling their stories. Every episode in the series is told over the course of two or three episodes.
The same can't be said for "Justice League Unlimited". Every story in this series is a stand alone episode. This is to focus on the countless amount of heroes featured across many different stories. Unlike the "Justice League" show that came before this one, which had a small cast of only seven super heroes. That is why the second series is the only one that bares the name unlimited. It is referring to the number of heroes that are featured through the course of the show.
If this would be your first viewing or even your 100th of these great shows, I would recommend watching them as soon as you can. They are filled with great stories, hilarious jokes, thrilling action, and more super heroes than you can count. Both cartoons can be found and streamed instantly on "Netflix" right now.
Monday, May 6, 2013
Death Of The American Sitcom
I grew up watching "Nick At Nite" before going to bed. This may seem like a simple thing, maybe even uneventful. But those are some memories that I still Cherish to this day. I would enjoy a block of classic sitcoms that included: "Happy Days", "I Love Lucy", and "Laverne and Shirley". That time has now passed. The network does not show these sitcoms anymore. They have update to more recent shows, such as: "Friends" and "That 70's show". There hasn't been a sitcom, like the classic ones I've listed above, in sometime. I feel that there never will be again.
The era of the classic sitcom is gone and it does not seem to be coming back anytime soon. There are still funny sitcoms and ones that are trying to do things in a new way, but they are not the same as the ones I grew up watching. There is no way to capture that magic again or to make a sitcom as memorable as the classic ones are. The world is constantly moving forward and there is no way to move backwards. Any attempts just look foolish.
Sitcoms seem to be moving in two different directions at the moment. The first way is moving forward with single camera comedies. These are shows that do not involve a studio audience and are filmed with only the use of a single camera. They are also use sets that look more realistic than the classic sitcoms used. The second way is the moving back with the three camera comedy. These are shows that use a three camera system, film in front of live audience, (Or rather a laugh track), and use sets that don't look anymore than just a studio set.
In my opinion, the first method seems to be the only logical one to use nowadays. Laugh tracks feels patronizing in this day and age. By going with the old methods of constructing a sitcom, you are just trying to recapture the old days. The golden age of television, if you will. This doesn't make any sense to me. These shows may not even gain popularity and if they do, then they won't be memorable years from now. Do you honestly think that audiences will look back at "The Big Bang Theory" with fondness in sixty years, like they do with "I Love Lucy"?
I still enjoy watching the classics to this day, but I don't think they can be made today. For all I know I could be wrong. A funny, imaginative, and heartwarming show could pop up out of no where tomorrow. At this point and time the classic American sitcom is gone from the air waves, but not forgotten.
The era of the classic sitcom is gone and it does not seem to be coming back anytime soon. There are still funny sitcoms and ones that are trying to do things in a new way, but they are not the same as the ones I grew up watching. There is no way to capture that magic again or to make a sitcom as memorable as the classic ones are. The world is constantly moving forward and there is no way to move backwards. Any attempts just look foolish.
Sitcoms seem to be moving in two different directions at the moment. The first way is moving forward with single camera comedies. These are shows that do not involve a studio audience and are filmed with only the use of a single camera. They are also use sets that look more realistic than the classic sitcoms used. The second way is the moving back with the three camera comedy. These are shows that use a three camera system, film in front of live audience, (Or rather a laugh track), and use sets that don't look anymore than just a studio set.
In my opinion, the first method seems to be the only logical one to use nowadays. Laugh tracks feels patronizing in this day and age. By going with the old methods of constructing a sitcom, you are just trying to recapture the old days. The golden age of television, if you will. This doesn't make any sense to me. These shows may not even gain popularity and if they do, then they won't be memorable years from now. Do you honestly think that audiences will look back at "The Big Bang Theory" with fondness in sixty years, like they do with "I Love Lucy"?
I still enjoy watching the classics to this day, but I don't think they can be made today. For all I know I could be wrong. A funny, imaginative, and heartwarming show could pop up out of no where tomorrow. At this point and time the classic American sitcom is gone from the air waves, but not forgotten.
Wednesday, May 1, 2013
Tube Talk Recommends: Robotomy
Three years ago "Cartoon Network" had a smash hit with the premiere of "Adventure Time". Later that same year they tried out a couple of other buddy themed cartoons. One of them was the equally popular "Regular Show" and the other one was the quickly forgotten "Robotomy". The ladder only lasted a single season of ten episodes. "Adventure Time" and "Regular Show" have each had over one hundred episodes each. Even "Chowder" had forty nine episodes to it's name. Did "Robotomy" deserve to be cancelled this quickly?
"Robotomy" was a show about two robots (Blastus on the left and Thrasher on the right) trying to make it through high school. The setting was an alien planet that was inhabited completely by robots. This race of robots were constantly at war with an unknown enemy. Every character has a violent side of their personality because of the war time setting. No one can blame them since they were always being trained for war at their local high school.
When I watch this show it reminds me of a couple other cartoons that I enjoy watching. The first one is obviously "Regular Show" and the other one is "Futurama". It shares the buddy/slacker aspect of "Regular Show", but shares the comedic style and futuristic setting as "Futurama". That is one of the reasons why i think it got cancelled so quickly. The humor, character designs, world, and story lines feel a little too mature for the audience it was trying to target. The main characters get killed/destroyed about half a dozen time within the first episode. The entire cast has that done to them dozens of time throughout the series.
There doesn't seem to much of a mystery to why "Regular Show" and "Robotomy" didn't. "Regular Show" is a lot less centered around violence and has a cast of animal themed characters that a parent can a approve of. It's not a surprise that parents wouldn't want their children to watch a show featuring spiky, violent, robots in a war time setting. This might of led to the cancellation in my opinion. There also might not have been room for three buddy themed cartoons on the line up.
I think this show would be enjoyable for a teenager or even an adult. The ladder would get the references in the show a bit better. If you're a fan of cartoons like "Futurama" or cartoons centered around physical comedy, then this show might be for you. I know that I enjoy this unique look at a futuristic robot society. I would've liked to see another season or two to see where it went. You can stream the one and only season now on "Netflix".
"Robotomy" was a show about two robots (Blastus on the left and Thrasher on the right) trying to make it through high school. The setting was an alien planet that was inhabited completely by robots. This race of robots were constantly at war with an unknown enemy. Every character has a violent side of their personality because of the war time setting. No one can blame them since they were always being trained for war at their local high school.
When I watch this show it reminds me of a couple other cartoons that I enjoy watching. The first one is obviously "Regular Show" and the other one is "Futurama". It shares the buddy/slacker aspect of "Regular Show", but shares the comedic style and futuristic setting as "Futurama". That is one of the reasons why i think it got cancelled so quickly. The humor, character designs, world, and story lines feel a little too mature for the audience it was trying to target. The main characters get killed/destroyed about half a dozen time within the first episode. The entire cast has that done to them dozens of time throughout the series.
There doesn't seem to much of a mystery to why "Regular Show" and "Robotomy" didn't. "Regular Show" is a lot less centered around violence and has a cast of animal themed characters that a parent can a approve of. It's not a surprise that parents wouldn't want their children to watch a show featuring spiky, violent, robots in a war time setting. This might of led to the cancellation in my opinion. There also might not have been room for three buddy themed cartoons on the line up.
I think this show would be enjoyable for a teenager or even an adult. The ladder would get the references in the show a bit better. If you're a fan of cartoons like "Futurama" or cartoons centered around physical comedy, then this show might be for you. I know that I enjoy this unique look at a futuristic robot society. I would've liked to see another season or two to see where it went. You can stream the one and only season now on "Netflix".
Monday, April 29, 2013
Censors**p
A couple of weeks ago I was watching "Pulp Fiction" on cable. My first viewing of this movie was on cable. The last few times that "I've watched it have been on DVD, but I didn't think much of it.That is until one of the characters started cursing. it trough me off when I hear silence instead of the curse word I had heard when I would watch the DVD version. It's almost like I had forgotten the censorship of words on television. This made me give some thought about it.
I honestly don't understand the reason behind censoring certain words on television in this day and age. I can wrap my head around the reason why people began to do this. When television was invented people were more strict when it came to the media. Parents were upset at the fact that women in comic books were drawn with curves. This was surely a different time. There was no rating system for any content at that time. There was no way for inappropriate content to be shown to only certain age groups. It was just shuned away instead.
We live in a very different time now. I don't understand who we're keeping these things away from anymore. Who is going to be offended by the foul language of "Pulp Fiction"? Children? If so, then why would you be showing them such a violent film in the first place. Some adults find using these words to be offensive, but there is no reason they would be watching this either. I can't think of a single person that would gasp at the sound of "Samuel L Jackson" dropping an "F Bomb", yet at the same time be alright with watching a man's head explode.
There are certain channels that do let it all out. "HBO", "Starz", and "Showtime" can show whatever they want without any censors touching there content. Is this because these are extra channels? Channels that not everyone needs, but can be bought for an extra price. But can't you say the same about thing about most cable channels? Yet they do not have the privileges that the movies channels do.
I simply want to know who we're protecting when we censor curse words. I feel that their aren't many people to protect anymore. Maybe I'm wrong and there are people out there who prefer their content censored for them. For now I'll just enjoy the content that television has provided me. Censored or not.
I honestly don't understand the reason behind censoring certain words on television in this day and age. I can wrap my head around the reason why people began to do this. When television was invented people were more strict when it came to the media. Parents were upset at the fact that women in comic books were drawn with curves. This was surely a different time. There was no rating system for any content at that time. There was no way for inappropriate content to be shown to only certain age groups. It was just shuned away instead.
We live in a very different time now. I don't understand who we're keeping these things away from anymore. Who is going to be offended by the foul language of "Pulp Fiction"? Children? If so, then why would you be showing them such a violent film in the first place. Some adults find using these words to be offensive, but there is no reason they would be watching this either. I can't think of a single person that would gasp at the sound of "Samuel L Jackson" dropping an "F Bomb", yet at the same time be alright with watching a man's head explode.
There are certain channels that do let it all out. "HBO", "Starz", and "Showtime" can show whatever they want without any censors touching there content. Is this because these are extra channels? Channels that not everyone needs, but can be bought for an extra price. But can't you say the same about thing about most cable channels? Yet they do not have the privileges that the movies channels do.
I simply want to know who we're protecting when we censor curse words. I feel that their aren't many people to protect anymore. Maybe I'm wrong and there are people out there who prefer their content censored for them. For now I'll just enjoy the content that television has provided me. Censored or not.
Saturday, April 27, 2013
Tube Talk Recommends: Luther
It's no secret that "BBC America" has become more popular over the years. The credit of this channel's success goes to a few different shows that are widely popular around the world today. Arguably, the most popular of the bunch is "Doctor Who", which would be followed by "Sherlock" and "Top Gear" respectively. I'm not writing this to recommend those shows. That would be redundant, since those shows are already popular. Today I'm recommending my personal favorite "BBC" show, "Luther".
I stumbled on to "Luther" last year when I was looking around "Netflix" out of bored'em. I had heard of the name before, but I had no idea what the show was about. That's when I decided to just jump into the show, blind. Not knowing what to expect, I was completely surprised with what I saw. "This was not just any crime show", i thought to myself. "Luther" was and still is like nothing I've ever seen before.
"I can not recall ever seeing a pilot for a television show this well made. I don't think I have ever been invested into within the first 20 minutes of a show before." This is what running through my mind while watching the first episode of this revolutionary crime drama. There are only a handful of shows that I can hold up to this level. I'm not sure what I can describe about the show without giving anything away. It might be best to go in blind like I did. All you need to know is that the show is about the title character "John Luther", who has a very complicated life that gets involved with his career as a detective.
In my opinion the buzz around this show should be larger then it is now. Up to this point it has only had brief glimpses in the spotlight with a couple of "Golden Globe" nominations and one win. The first two seasons of "Luther" can be found for stream on "Netflix". The third season is expected at the fourth quarter of this year.
I stumbled on to "Luther" last year when I was looking around "Netflix" out of bored'em. I had heard of the name before, but I had no idea what the show was about. That's when I decided to just jump into the show, blind. Not knowing what to expect, I was completely surprised with what I saw. "This was not just any crime show", i thought to myself. "Luther" was and still is like nothing I've ever seen before.
"I can not recall ever seeing a pilot for a television show this well made. I don't think I have ever been invested into within the first 20 minutes of a show before." This is what running through my mind while watching the first episode of this revolutionary crime drama. There are only a handful of shows that I can hold up to this level. I'm not sure what I can describe about the show without giving anything away. It might be best to go in blind like I did. All you need to know is that the show is about the title character "John Luther", who has a very complicated life that gets involved with his career as a detective.
In my opinion the buzz around this show should be larger then it is now. Up to this point it has only had brief glimpses in the spotlight with a couple of "Golden Globe" nominations and one win. The first two seasons of "Luther" can be found for stream on "Netflix". The third season is expected at the fourth quarter of this year.
Monday, April 22, 2013
Streamin' In The U.S.A.
Last week I talked about the difference between network and cable dramas. In that blog post I had mentioned the low ratings, yet large of those cable shows. This may seem like a contradiction, but it actually isn't. This is due to the fact that a sizable number of people don't watch television, but still enjoy watching certain cable programs. This is where the popular and convenient choice of streaming comes in.
There are many websites and platforms where people can easily stream television shows and movies from. For some people this is a replacement a cable box or a satellite dish. Those people are tired of the old methods. They don't want to wait for a certain time every week to watch a show they enjoy. They want the power to watch it at anytime and with the help of smart phones/tablets, in any place.
The convenience and availability of streaming can be great. A lot of people enjoy the fact that they can watch an entire series at their own pace. No matter how quickly or slowly they want to watch their shows. For example: My family and I watched the entire first season of "American Horror Story" in a week. Streaming also helps people avoid the hurt of cancellation. What's the point of getting into a new show if it will be cancelled before the first season ends? Most shows gain a strong following before they're streamed, which helps avoid the fear of a show cancellation.
There are a lot of positive things about streaming, but I feel like there are just as many negatives. With more people turning away from traditional television, shows can be cancelled quicker because of even lower ratings. If you don't watch it when it airs, then how will it even reach "netflix" or "hulu"? In some cases it won't. Television shows can't grow without someone watching.
For some this might be a positive. There are people that don't like any of the shows airing on the channels. Several companies out there understand this fact. "Netflix" and "Amazon" have already created shows that are only available through their services. The majority of viewers have stated that these are quality programs they are putting out. Does this mean that traditional networks will have to adapt to these ways? Can the internet take over as the main source for home media? Only time will tell.
There are many websites and platforms where people can easily stream television shows and movies from. For some people this is a replacement a cable box or a satellite dish. Those people are tired of the old methods. They don't want to wait for a certain time every week to watch a show they enjoy. They want the power to watch it at anytime and with the help of smart phones/tablets, in any place.
The convenience and availability of streaming can be great. A lot of people enjoy the fact that they can watch an entire series at their own pace. No matter how quickly or slowly they want to watch their shows. For example: My family and I watched the entire first season of "American Horror Story" in a week. Streaming also helps people avoid the hurt of cancellation. What's the point of getting into a new show if it will be cancelled before the first season ends? Most shows gain a strong following before they're streamed, which helps avoid the fear of a show cancellation.
There are a lot of positive things about streaming, but I feel like there are just as many negatives. With more people turning away from traditional television, shows can be cancelled quicker because of even lower ratings. If you don't watch it when it airs, then how will it even reach "netflix" or "hulu"? In some cases it won't. Television shows can't grow without someone watching.
For some this might be a positive. There are people that don't like any of the shows airing on the channels. Several companies out there understand this fact. "Netflix" and "Amazon" have already created shows that are only available through their services. The majority of viewers have stated that these are quality programs they are putting out. Does this mean that traditional networks will have to adapt to these ways? Can the internet take over as the main source for home media? Only time will tell.
Wednesday, April 17, 2013
Tube Talk Recommends: Chowder
Welcome to "Tube Talk Recommends". Every Wednesday I will suggest a television show that is under rated, unknown, or simply forgotten. Every suggestion is available to stream right now. Let's get started.
Nowadays "Adventure Time" and "regular Show" are the talk of the town by "Cartoon Network" viewers. That is not hard to understand when one watches these shows for one's self. They are witty and completely original. Not so long ago there was a cartoon that was just as witty and original as these two are now. Some or even most may have forgotten about "Chowder".
"Chowder" Premiered all the way back in the distant year of 2007. It aired for three strong seasons, which spanned over 49 episodes. The show starred a colorful cast of characters. Each with their own food inspired name. This includes the title character, Chowder. The premise of the cartoon revolved around Chowder learning how to become a chef from his boss and teacher, Mung Daal.
When I first saw this show, I thought it was great and I still do to this day. I have never seen another show like it and I'm convinced that I never will. The jokes and characters alike were quirky and unreal at times. Each character had their own personality and comedy style. I never grew tired of them and they stayed fresh even through the final episode.
There is not a person out there that should pass this cartoon up. Especially one with such imagination and style. It will have you laughing for hours. The first season of "Chowder" is now available for stream on "Netflix".
Nowadays "Adventure Time" and "regular Show" are the talk of the town by "Cartoon Network" viewers. That is not hard to understand when one watches these shows for one's self. They are witty and completely original. Not so long ago there was a cartoon that was just as witty and original as these two are now. Some or even most may have forgotten about "Chowder".
"Chowder" Premiered all the way back in the distant year of 2007. It aired for three strong seasons, which spanned over 49 episodes. The show starred a colorful cast of characters. Each with their own food inspired name. This includes the title character, Chowder. The premise of the cartoon revolved around Chowder learning how to become a chef from his boss and teacher, Mung Daal.
When I first saw this show, I thought it was great and I still do to this day. I have never seen another show like it and I'm convinced that I never will. The jokes and characters alike were quirky and unreal at times. Each character had their own personality and comedy style. I never grew tired of them and they stayed fresh even through the final episode.
There is not a person out there that should pass this cartoon up. Especially one with such imagination and style. It will have you laughing for hours. The first season of "Chowder" is now available for stream on "Netflix".
Monday, April 15, 2013
Batle Of The TV Dramas
For decades the big four (ABC, CBS, NBC, fox) have captivated audiences and promptly kept their attention. Men and women have spent many hours standing around the theoretical water cooler. They speak of the latest episode of a Television drama that they saw the night before. Perhaps an episode of CSI, Law & Order, or even the newest episode of Bones. This is the era of network dramas or shall I say it was?
The truth is I should be speaking in past tense. The networks no longer have the hold on audiences that they once did. We are now in the are of the cable drama. I think last year's "Emmy Award" nominations made that apparent. For the first time there weren't any network dramas in the "Best Drama" category. Every serious contender belonged to an established cable channel.
Award voters aren't the only ones who have turned their backs on the networks. Strong fan following have also the former powerhouses for something else. You can see this at any convention you were to go to. People dressing up as characters from shows like: "The Walking Dead", "Game Of Thrones", or the extremely popular "Doctor Who". Sure, "Once Upon A Time has it's own strong fan base, but that is only one of many network dramas that are on the air today.
If, you were to simply compare the ratings, then it would seem that the networks were still on top. "MadMen" only gets a fraction of the viewers that shows on major networks do, but there is more to it than that. Even though "Madmen"s rating seem low in comparison, they still have the worlds attention. People still discuss it, parody it, and stream it more than they do with network shows. That is the difference between network and cable television at the moment. Cable gets people excited and they get people talking.
It doesn't have to be like this. The big four can get the audiences and voters back. They just have to do something that is very hard for them. They have to change. People want to hear stories and follow characters. The networks tell situation not stories. Audiences don't want to watch a repetitive crime drama with nothing new to say. They want something new and refreshing. All people want is a story that they can follow. Not the same situation re-shown every week. Until the networks realize that, they won't be seeing that "Emmy" nomination anytime soon.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)