A couple months ago Fox premiered a new show, Touch, starring Kiefer Sutherland. The basic premise of the show is that Kiefer is a single dad (wife died in the Towers on 9/11) and he has an autistic son. His son can see the patterns of the world, lives intertwined and crossing, as a series of numbers. Using those numbers he gets his dad (Kiefer) to help some situations come together the way they were meant to.
The first episode was good. As a wanna-be writer I can see how difficult it would be to make the various situations all come together in a way that works and still relate to the numbers that Jake (the son) gives Kiefer. I liked the first episode,it was well crafted, but was a bit worried about how well it would translate to a regular series.
The regular series (months after the first episode appeared) finally aired. We watched the second episode (the first being a rerun of the premiere from months ago) the other night.
It's still a well crafted show. It takes alot of work to make those divergent people all cross paths in the way needed and still provide motivation for why/how they get to where they are. Like the premiere, some of the connections feel forced, but it still comes across decently.
The show has potential, but not if it ends up being the same thing over and over. But I don't see what can be added to keep the show fresh.
It has some comparasions to Alcatraz. That show has the same plot ('63 returns to present day, must stop them) but there's some mysteries throughout and most of the episodes end up answering part of the questions or adding a new question. So it keeps the repeat premise fresh.
Touch needs that, but I can't see where/how it will come from. And any potential aspect added will only come across as forced. Which won't help the show at all.
Also, Kiefer is annoying. He says the same things over and over and over. Big negative.
Thursday, March 29, 2012
Wednesday, March 28, 2012
The Sad Part Of TV Watching
What is the sad part? It's the time when all your shows are on hiatus. You've just watched a bunch of season finales and now have nothing but repeats to look forward to.
Months and months of repeats.
Yeah, occasionally you'll find the rare show that starts at this time of year and is decent. But that's rare.
I'm not a big tv watcher. For years would barely have it on. The most work it would get would be football Sundays. But recently, we (my girlfriend and I) have found some shows we actually enjoy. We'll DVR 'em and watch when we get a chance.
And as of last night, all our shows are on hiatus until the new season starts this fall. Now this does't include "fall back" shows, shows that we'll put on and watch but don't care if watch in order or on time. These are shows that will put on and watch if there's nothing else on.
What do we like for shows? Here's a quick run-down:
The Walking Dead
Alcatraz
Person Of Interest
Grimm
Lost Girl
The River
Touch (This is one of the rare shows that starts this time of year. First two episodes have been okay, but not sure if this will end up making the cut. The premise is quirky and I'll go into more depth on it in another post.)
The fall-back shows:
Storage Wars
Any of the housing shows (House Hunters, Property Virgins, etc..) on HGTV
Tosh.0
Duck Dynasty
The girlfriend also watchs Sons Of Anarchy, but because it was so far along in seasons, I won't be watching it unless we start getting it a season at a time. She also watched Dexter as well.
I'm hoping to be able to get ahold of A Game Of Thrones and watch the first season soon.
If you haven't been able to tell, we're not into the "one and done" kind of shows, the periodicals like CSI, NCIS, Law & Order, etc...
And we especially don't get into sitcoms.
We like the fantasy/action/adventure shows. We like shows that have depth. We like shows that are quirky. Basically the shows that not that many other people do.
Aside from Touch, which just started, only one of our shows is guranteed to be coming back next season: The Walking Dead.
We're both big fans of Firefly. Which of course only lasted one season. We keep hoping one of our favorite shows will become the next Lost or Buffy, lasting for awhile. It kind of sucks knowing we only have one show to look forward to next season. Can only hope we'll have more.
So this time of the year is now doubly sad for us.
Months and months of repeats.
Yeah, occasionally you'll find the rare show that starts at this time of year and is decent. But that's rare.
I'm not a big tv watcher. For years would barely have it on. The most work it would get would be football Sundays. But recently, we (my girlfriend and I) have found some shows we actually enjoy. We'll DVR 'em and watch when we get a chance.
And as of last night, all our shows are on hiatus until the new season starts this fall. Now this does't include "fall back" shows, shows that we'll put on and watch but don't care if watch in order or on time. These are shows that will put on and watch if there's nothing else on.
What do we like for shows? Here's a quick run-down:
The Walking Dead
Alcatraz
Person Of Interest
Grimm
Lost Girl
The River
Touch (This is one of the rare shows that starts this time of year. First two episodes have been okay, but not sure if this will end up making the cut. The premise is quirky and I'll go into more depth on it in another post.)
The fall-back shows:
Storage Wars
Any of the housing shows (House Hunters, Property Virgins, etc..) on HGTV
Tosh.0
Duck Dynasty
The girlfriend also watchs Sons Of Anarchy, but because it was so far along in seasons, I won't be watching it unless we start getting it a season at a time. She also watched Dexter as well.
I'm hoping to be able to get ahold of A Game Of Thrones and watch the first season soon.
If you haven't been able to tell, we're not into the "one and done" kind of shows, the periodicals like CSI, NCIS, Law & Order, etc...
And we especially don't get into sitcoms.
We like the fantasy/action/adventure shows. We like shows that have depth. We like shows that are quirky. Basically the shows that not that many other people do.
Aside from Touch, which just started, only one of our shows is guranteed to be coming back next season: The Walking Dead.
We're both big fans of Firefly. Which of course only lasted one season. We keep hoping one of our favorite shows will become the next Lost or Buffy, lasting for awhile. It kind of sucks knowing we only have one show to look forward to next season. Can only hope we'll have more.
So this time of the year is now doubly sad for us.
Tuesday, March 20, 2012
Manning Should Have Been A Titan
People are talking about the Titans and 49ers as being the losers in the Manning sweepstakes, and they are, but it's not like they would have been huge winners if had gotten Manning.
The 49ers would be in the same boat as the Broncos, but not as badly. They wouldn't have been able to keep Alex Smith, and it looks like he's pissed at them for even looking at Manning and leaving anyways. But at least they had a back-up in place already, Colin Kaepernick. And their team was the closest to reaching the Super Bowl. Manning could have been the piece to put them over the bar.
Now they have to find a starting QB because the run at Manning will cost them Alex Smith.
The ones that would have gotten an almost equal cost vs gain ratio from signing Manning (and losing) are the Titans.
Signing Manning would have led to the release of Hasselbeck, and an 85% Manning is a slight upgrade to Hasselbeck. Jake Locker? He's not the starter to begin with and the Coach could always say "use it as an Aaron Rodgers situation". Rodgers sat behidn Favre for a couple of years before exploding onto the scene as a starter. Don't think Locker wouldn't have wanted to learn from Manning before pulling a Rodgers?
Now, the Locker situation still exists, but he's behind Hasselbeck again. Hasselbeck isn't going anywhere. Tennessee is a perfect situation for him, even if they did go after Manning.
For Manning, the better options would have been:
1- 49ers
2- Titans
3- Broncos
If he wanted to go to a team that would have the best shot at getting to the super bowl.
The 49ers would be in the same boat as the Broncos, but not as badly. They wouldn't have been able to keep Alex Smith, and it looks like he's pissed at them for even looking at Manning and leaving anyways. But at least they had a back-up in place already, Colin Kaepernick. And their team was the closest to reaching the Super Bowl. Manning could have been the piece to put them over the bar.
Now they have to find a starting QB because the run at Manning will cost them Alex Smith.
The ones that would have gotten an almost equal cost vs gain ratio from signing Manning (and losing) are the Titans.
Signing Manning would have led to the release of Hasselbeck, and an 85% Manning is a slight upgrade to Hasselbeck. Jake Locker? He's not the starter to begin with and the Coach could always say "use it as an Aaron Rodgers situation". Rodgers sat behidn Favre for a couple of years before exploding onto the scene as a starter. Don't think Locker wouldn't have wanted to learn from Manning before pulling a Rodgers?
Now, the Locker situation still exists, but he's behind Hasselbeck again. Hasselbeck isn't going anywhere. Tennessee is a perfect situation for him, even if they did go after Manning.
For Manning, the better options would have been:
1- 49ers
2- Titans
3- Broncos
If he wanted to go to a team that would have the best shot at getting to the super bowl.
The Losers In The Manning Sweepstake? The Broncos
But wait, how can that be? They signed Manning.
Sure, but at what gain versus what cost?
The gain? A 4 time MVP/Pro Bowl quarterback who has been on a steady decline (look up the stats, they back this up) and is coming off of 4 neck surgeries. His old team let him go because they weren't sure he'd be able to play at the level he had before, play a full season or even play at all.
Sure, an 85% Manning is better then Tebow or Brady Quinn (who is no longer with the team). So would think it would end up being a gain right?
No. And this is the same thing that affected the other teams in the Manning hunt.
They get Manning, it's all in and have to hope he plays at 85% and manages to stay healthy. They lose Manning, they've undermined their organization. They even get Manning and they have to trade/cut some valuable players. Well, it depends on if you think Tebow is valuable.
I'll get to the Titans (who would have made out the best by getting Manning but also make out the best out of the losers), 49ers and Miami later. For now let's look at the Broncos.
If you have Manning as your starter, you can't have Tebow as your backup. It just doesn't work. Two wildly different styles. For Tebow to be effective, you have to scheme around his strengths. And those aren't the same as Manning.
The Broncos would have been better with Brady Quinn as the back-up, but he's gone now. And they'll have to trade Tebow (I wouldn't expect Tebow to go somewhere as the back-up. He'll either be the starter, Miami, or a pure situational player, Patriots).
Manning goes down, for all we know it could be just one hit that knocks him out of the game for good, and who do you have behind him? No one.
Even if the Broncos draft a 1st round QB, which they absolutely should no matter what, would you really want to throw the QB into the deep end if Manning goes down?
The Broncos have to pray that Manning stays healthy and plays at an 85% level.
I don't think it'll be worth the 90 million they'll have to pay. I think the results for the Broncos will be the same as if they still had Tebow under center.
By the way, I hope the Patriots pick up Tebow and use him as Belichek originally wanted: situational player. How dangerous would the offense be with Brady at the helm, Gronkowski/Hernandez/Welker receiving and Woodhead/Tebow in the backfield?
Will Tebow go out and catch? Run like a fullback? Take the snap and pass? Will he pass short or will he pass deep? Play him as a Tight End sometimes, as a fullback other times (like they did with Hernandez some last year) and a wildcat QB. And unlike most wildcats, can have him line-up as running back, Brady take the snap and hand off.
That's not a scary offense that will give defenses nightmares?
Sure, but at what gain versus what cost?
The gain? A 4 time MVP/Pro Bowl quarterback who has been on a steady decline (look up the stats, they back this up) and is coming off of 4 neck surgeries. His old team let him go because they weren't sure he'd be able to play at the level he had before, play a full season or even play at all.
Sure, an 85% Manning is better then Tebow or Brady Quinn (who is no longer with the team). So would think it would end up being a gain right?
No. And this is the same thing that affected the other teams in the Manning hunt.
They get Manning, it's all in and have to hope he plays at 85% and manages to stay healthy. They lose Manning, they've undermined their organization. They even get Manning and they have to trade/cut some valuable players. Well, it depends on if you think Tebow is valuable.
I'll get to the Titans (who would have made out the best by getting Manning but also make out the best out of the losers), 49ers and Miami later. For now let's look at the Broncos.
If you have Manning as your starter, you can't have Tebow as your backup. It just doesn't work. Two wildly different styles. For Tebow to be effective, you have to scheme around his strengths. And those aren't the same as Manning.
The Broncos would have been better with Brady Quinn as the back-up, but he's gone now. And they'll have to trade Tebow (I wouldn't expect Tebow to go somewhere as the back-up. He'll either be the starter, Miami, or a pure situational player, Patriots).
Manning goes down, for all we know it could be just one hit that knocks him out of the game for good, and who do you have behind him? No one.
Even if the Broncos draft a 1st round QB, which they absolutely should no matter what, would you really want to throw the QB into the deep end if Manning goes down?
The Broncos have to pray that Manning stays healthy and plays at an 85% level.
I don't think it'll be worth the 90 million they'll have to pay. I think the results for the Broncos will be the same as if they still had Tebow under center.
By the way, I hope the Patriots pick up Tebow and use him as Belichek originally wanted: situational player. How dangerous would the offense be with Brady at the helm, Gronkowski/Hernandez/Welker receiving and Woodhead/Tebow in the backfield?
Will Tebow go out and catch? Run like a fullback? Take the snap and pass? Will he pass short or will he pass deep? Play him as a Tight End sometimes, as a fullback other times (like they did with Hernandez some last year) and a wildcat QB. And unlike most wildcats, can have him line-up as running back, Brady take the snap and hand off.
That's not a scary offense that will give defenses nightmares?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)