| Re: Second "X-Files" pic moving toward production [message #237081] |
Mon, 16 July 2007 18:27  |
|
|
Originally posted by: mutefan
On Jul 16, 9:54 am, moviePig <pwall...@moviepig.com> wrote:
>
> Based on historical viewing-habits, I certainly qualify as an actual
> fan. And, though haven't made a concerted effort to 'move on'... I've
> felt it happen nevertheless.
I really agree with you on this one. It's way too late to be of
interest but too early for a revival. I couldn't explain why, it just
is. I posted regularly on the XF Usenet groups and am of the opinion
that three things killed the series potential way earlier than most
other gripers think: 1) The nullification of Nick Lea--which happened
way before he was overkilled; 2) The self-referential humor, which did
produce two of the series most brilliant episodes--Clyde Bruckman and
Jose Chung (may they rest in peace)--but which went riot in the autumn
of 1997; 3) The killing off of John Neville's character in the film
and then the Consortium.
In any event, XF stands alone as a series that unlike any of the Star
Treks or other cult shows shot itself first in one foot, then in the
other, then in the arm, the ear, the patella. It just slowly
destroyed every character of interest... A revival would have to
concentrate so microscopically on Mulder and Scully, I think that
accomplishment in itself would take at least twenty years.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Second "X-Files" pic moving toward production [message #237083 is a reply to message #237081] |
Mon, 16 July 2007 23:11  |
|
|
Originally posted by: Sean Carroll
mutefan@yahoo.com wrote:
> I really agree with you on this one. It's way too late to be of
> interest
Whose interest? I'm sure as hell interested.
Let the mainstream 'only watched the show for a couple of years because
it was popular' folks go watch something else. Those of us who always
loved and still love the show will not miss their 'support'.
> In any event, XF stands alone as a series that unlike any of the Star
> Treks or other cult shows shot itself first in one foot, then in the
> other, then in the arm, the ear, the patella. It just slowly
> destroyed every character of interest...
Whose interest is that again?
Funny how all these people always seem to know what CC 'did wrong' with
the show ... yet I don't see any of *them* making any groundbreaking TV
series that changed the medium forever and that still hold a special
place in the hearts of millions of devoted fans.
--
--Sean
http://spclsd223.livejournal.com/
Stacy: What are you hiding?
House: I'm gay. Oh, that's not what you meant. It does explain a lot,
though. No girlfriend, always with Wilson, obsession with sneakers ...
|
|
|
|
| Re: Second "X-Files" pic moving toward production [message #237085 is a reply to message #237083] |
Tue, 17 July 2007 13:40 |
|
|
Originally posted by: pv+usenet
Sean Carroll <seanc130@hotmail.com> writes:
> Let the mainstream 'only watched the show for a couple of years because
> it was popular' folks go watch something else.
The mainstream only watched the show for a few years because after
that, it became a total suckfest that only die-hards still watched, in the
vague hope that some of the magic might come back. Until they gave up
(right after the movie for me).
> Those of us who always
> loved and still love the show will not miss their 'support'.
We don't care what you think, you're the same jackass who hates good shows
because they happen to be on the air at the same time as one you like.
>> In any event, XF stands alone as a series that unlike any of the Star
>> Treks or other cult shows shot itself first in one foot, then in the
>> other, then in the arm, the ear, the patella. It just slowly
>> destroyed every character of interest...
I know this isn't your words, but I'm quoting it for truth. Sums up the
series perfectly.
> Funny how all these people always seem to know what CC 'did wrong' with
> the show ... yet I don't see any of *them* making any groundbreaking TV
> series that changed the medium forever and that still hold a special
> place in the hearts of millions of devoted fans.
"X-files" didn't change ANYTHING forever. It was a great show for a while,
but not in any way groundbreaking. *
--
* PV something like badgers--something like lizards--and something
like corkscrews.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Second "X-Files" pic moving toward production [message #237088 is a reply to message #237087] |
Tue, 17 July 2007 15:45 |
anim8rFSK
Messages: 215
Registered: July 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
In article <Xns99709393EE18EFredGarvin@66.250.146.128>,
"Fred Garvin, Male Prostitute" <nospam@whitehouse.gov> wrote:
> In message news:139pvp1qaibts93@news.supernews.com, PV sprach forth the
> following:
>
>> "X-files" didn't change ANYTHING forever. It was a great show for a
>> while, but not in any way groundbreaking.
>
> - First show to combine stand-alone episodes with long-running
> storylines.
Uh, well, no. Zorro did that in 1957. Wyatt Earp certainly did it.
- Feature film production values (OK, "Miami Vice" and a few
> others
> had this previously) and budgets.
> - One of the first shows produced in widescreen.
One episode so Carter could submit it for awards.
--
"No man ever notices a woman's shoes, unless they have boobs on them."
-- Mark Nobles
|
|
|
|
| Re: Second "X-Files" pic moving toward production [message #237089 is a reply to message #237088] |
Tue, 17 July 2007 16:17 |
|
|
Originally posted by: jayembee
Anim8rFSK <ANIM8Rfsk@cox.net> wrote:
> "Fred Garvin, Male Prostitute" <nospam@whitehouse.gov> wrote:
>
>>> "X-files" didn't change ANYTHING forever. It was a great show
>>> for a while, but not in any way groundbreaking.
>>
>> - First show to combine stand-alone episodes with long-running
>> storylines.
>
> Uh, well, no. Zorro did that in 1957. Wyatt Earp certainly did it.
Funny, I was thinking of exactly those same two shows. :-)
>> - One of the first shows produced in widescreen.
>
> One episode so Carter could submit it for awards.
No, he's right about that. That episode was the only one broadcast
in widescreen, but the show had been composing for widescreen for
at least a year before that.
Still, XF wasn't the first show to do that (even FG,MP acknowledged
that when he said it was "one of the first"). BABYLON 5 had been
doing so -- at least with the live-action footage -- from the git-go,
as was ER.
That XF episode wasn't even the first to air in widescreen. Both
FEDS: THE WAR AGAINST CRIME and C16: F.B.I. aired in widescreen
quite a while before that XF episode.
-- jayembee
|
|
|
|
| Re: Second "X-Files" pic moving toward production [message #237090 is a reply to message #237087] |
Tue, 17 July 2007 18:11 |
|
|
Originally posted by: pv+usenet
"Fred Garvin, Male Prostitute" <nospam@whitehouse.gov> writes:
> - First show to combine stand-alone episodes with long-running
> storylines.
Um, say what? Serials have been doing stuff like that for generations now.
- Feature film production values (OK, "Miami Vice" and a few others
> had this previously) and budgets.
In other words, nothing groundbreaking. And X-files didn't have a
movie-grade production values or budgets anyway.
> - One of the first shows produced in widescreen.
I have no idea if this is true. Somehow I doubt it given the time. *
--
* PV something like badgers--something like lizards--and something
like corkscrews.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Second "X-Files" pic moving toward production [message #237092 is a reply to message #237085] |
Tue, 17 July 2007 19:50 |
trotsky
Messages: 37
Registered: February 2012
Karma: 0
|
Member |
|
|
PV wrote:
> Sean Carroll <seanc130@hotmail.com> writes:
>
>> Let the mainstream 'only watched the show for a couple of years because
>> it was popular' folks go watch something else.
>
>
> The mainstream only watched the show for a few years because after
> that, it became a total suckfest that only die-hards still watched, in the
> vague hope that some of the magic might come back. Until they gave up
> (right after the movie for me).
>
>
>> Those of us who always
>> loved and still love the show will not miss their 'support'.
>
>
> We don't care what you think, you're the same jackass who hates good shows
> because they happen to be on the air at the same time as one you like.
>
>
>>> In any event, XF stands alone as a series that unlike any of the Star
>>> Treks or other cult shows shot itself first in one foot, then in the
>>> other, then in the arm, the ear, the patella. It just slowly
>>> destroyed every character of interest...
>
>
> I know this isn't your words, but I'm quoting it for truth. Sums up the
> series perfectly.
>
>
>> Funny how all these people always seem to know what CC 'did wrong' with
>> the show ... yet I don't see any of *them* making any groundbreaking TV
>> series that changed the medium forever and that still hold a special
>> place in the hearts of millions of devoted fans.
>
>
> "X-files" didn't change ANYTHING forever. It was a great show for a while,
> but not in any way groundbreaking. *
At some point do you plan to tell us what the really groundbreaking
shows were, or are you just some stupid motherfucker waiting in the
weeds to tell other people how everything they like is shit?
|
|
|
|
| Re: Second "X-Files" pic moving toward production [message #237094 is a reply to message #237087] |
Tue, 17 July 2007 22:14 |
|
|
Originally posted by: Sean Carroll
Fred Garvin, Male Prostitute wrote:
> PV sprach forth the following:
>> "X-files" didn't change ANYTHING forever. It was a great show for a
>> while, but not in any way groundbreaking.
> - First show to combine stand-alone episodes with long-running
> storylines. - Feature film production values (OK, "Miami Vice" and a few
> others
> had this previously) and budgets.
> - One of the first shows produced in widescreen.
One of the first shows to mix the sci-fi and law enforcement genres.
One of the first shows to have open-ended resolutions, and purposely
leave unanswered questions.
OOTFS to be photographed and lit in a very distinctive, and now common,
way that takes great advantage of light and shadow in order to heighten
atmosphere.
OOTFS to prominently feature plotlines about forensic science, not to
mention have a young, attractive female who was a respected, skilled,
highly professional doctor performing autopsies.
OOTFS to feature big-budget action stunt scenes, like the submarine in
'End Game', that were previously typical of full-length movies.
OOTFS to broach philosophical considerations of the nature of reality
and standards of rational evidence in prime time.
OOTFS (though M*A*S*H, for one, was an obvious predecessor) to
experiment with mixing drama and humour, integrated into a coherent
single style of witty, intelligent dialogue.
OOTFS to deal extensively with the relation between legend and myth on
the one hand, and science on the other.
I could go on. But ssshhhh ... don't tell this ignorant PV fellow who's
pissed off because it was CC's show instead of his, and the last few
seasons didn't go the way HE wanted them to. Because to him, none of
that stuff above matters -- it just doesn't exist for him. The show
evolved and matured instead of remaining predictable and formulaic, and
I guess it was too much for him to handle.
So all of a sudden, through Magical Revisionist History, the complete
revolution in entertainment that XF was involved in, and that STILL can
be seen as a powerful influence on almost every drama today, just
disappears from the record. After all, who cares about all that creative
genius, convention-shattering, and damn fine entertainment that the show
gave us for years -- Dogit and Ray-ezzz SUKED!!, therefore no one cares
anymore.
Except for the millions of us who always have, still do, and always will
care, because the show touched our lives in a special and profound
manner. We're all just 'loozer die-hard fans'. The opinions of the
people who only watched from seasons 4 through 6, and never really had a
clue what was so great about it anyway -- and didn't grow up with it;
and didn't rush home at 21:00 every Friday/Sunday night for nine years,
eagerly waiting to see what would happen that week; and who moved on to
'Friends' and 'American Idol' when CC's vision ceased to coincide
exactly with their own -- their opinions are the only ones that matter.
[to PV]
Waaah waaah waaah, cry me a river. People like a show you don't. Imagine
the gall of people, not having the exact same taste as you!!
Dude, I was ten years old, glued in front of the TV, and watching every
moment of the very first time XF ever aired, on 10th Sep 1993. I didn't
miss a single first-run episode until 4 years later. It was the constant
backdrop to my life during the high school years and beyond.
And now you, this random wanker out of nowhere, has the balls to come
around years later, blabbering about how MY show sucked, and how no one
cares about it anymore?
XF didn't need these 'trendy' fans in the beginning. It was doing just
fine with that core group of devoted fans you think so little of. The
big mainstream audiences it pulled in later were merely icing on the
cake. If they couldn't pay attention for long before the next shiny
jingly trend caught their eye, that's their problem. XF doesn't and
never did need these people's approval to be the fantastic,
groundbreaking series it was. So by withholding that approval, do you
know how much effect you are having on anything? Let's go to the
Import-o-Meter ... Oh, I'm sorry! I'm afraid your opinion ranks exactly
zero.
I, for one, will be in the theatre at the very first showing of XF3, no
matter when it comes out. I will be drunk, stoned, and/or tripping. I
will be excited. I will jump up and down with joy at finally seeing my
favourite characters again after five (or six, as the case may be)
years. When I get home, I will immediately log on to ATXF and discuss it
with all the other people who did the same exact thing. And I am DAMN
PROUD OF IT!
I don't know what you will be doing, but I can guarantee you won't be
having anywhere NEAR as much fun as I will. And I can also guarantee you
that your considered opinion on how much XF sucked will NOT be a subject
that crosses my mind at any point.
--
--Sean
http://spclsd223.livejournal.com/
'Saying there appears to be clotting is like saying there's a traffic
jam up ahead. Is it a ten-car pile up, or just a really slow bus in the
center lane? And if it is a bus, is it a thrombotic bus or an embolic
bus? ... Think I pushed that metaphor too far.' --Dr Gregory House
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Second "X-Files" pic moving toward production [message #237096 is a reply to message #237094] |
Tue, 17 July 2007 22:27 |
|
|
Originally posted by: Derek Janssen
Sean Carroll wrote:
>>> "X-files" didn't change ANYTHING forever. It was a great show for a
>>> while, but not in any way groundbreaking.
>
> One of the first shows to mix the sci-fi and law enforcement genres.
>
> OOTFS to prominently feature plotlines about forensic science, not to
> mention have a young, attractive female who was a respected, skilled,
> highly professional doctor performing autopsies..
>
> OOTFS to broach philosophical considerations of the nature of reality
> and standards of rational evidence in prime time.
>
> OOTFS to deal extensively with the relation between legend and myth on
> the one hand, and science on the other.
(Although, on that last count, they were originally selling the series
as "It's kinda like Kolchak!", to the point that they restructured the
official 00's Kolchak "remake" as a shamless X-Plagiarism in all but
name...)
Derek Janssen (who stands by Darren McGavin's defense)
ejanss@comcast.net
|
|
|
|
| Re: Second "X-Files" pic moving toward production [message #237097 is a reply to message #237094] |
Tue, 17 July 2007 23:03 |
|
|
Originally posted by: jayembee
Sean Carroll <seanc130@hotmail.com> wrote:
> One of the first shows to mix the sci-fi and law enforcement genres.
FUTURE COP
HOLMES & YOYO
MANN & MACHINE
ALIEN NATION
> OOTFS to prominently feature plotlines about forensic science, not to
> mention have a young, attractive female who was a respected, skilled,
> highly professional doctor performing autopsies.
FOREVER KNIGHT
-- jayembee
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Second "X-Files" pic moving toward production [message #237099 is a reply to message #237096] |
Wed, 18 July 2007 06:30 |
trotsky
Messages: 37
Registered: February 2012
Karma: 0
|
Member |
|
|
Derek Janssen wrote:
> Sean Carroll wrote:
>
>>>> "X-files" didn't change ANYTHING forever. It was a great show for a
>>>> while, but not in any way groundbreaking.
>>
>>
>> One of the first shows to mix the sci-fi and law enforcement genres.
>>
>> OOTFS to prominently feature plotlines about forensic science, not to
>> mention have a young, attractive female who was a respected, skilled,
>> highly professional doctor performing autopsies..
>>
>> OOTFS to broach philosophical considerations of the nature of reality
>> and standards of rational evidence in prime time.
>>
>> OOTFS to deal extensively with the relation between legend and myth on
>> the one hand, and science on the other.
>
>
> (Although, on that last count, they were originally selling the series
> as "It's kinda like Kolchak!", to the point that they restructured the
> official 00's Kolchak "remake" as a shamless X-Plagiarism in all but
> name...)
Are you trying to say that "The Night Stalker" is in any way as good as
"The X-Files", Derek? Go ahead, complete the lie.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Second "X-Files" pic moving toward production [message #237103 is a reply to message #237094] |
Wed, 18 July 2007 10:54 |
|
|
Originally posted by: pv+usenet
Sean Carroll <seanc130@hotmail.com> writes:
> One of the first shows to mix the sci-fi and law enforcement genres.
Keep trying, and keep failing.
> One of the first shows to have open-ended resolutions, and purposely
> leave unanswered questions.
You say that like it's a good thing. And also untrue.
> OOTFS to be photographed and lit in a very distinctive, and now common,
> way that takes great advantage of light and shadow in order to heighten
> atmosphere.
Off by about 30 years. Playhouse 90, Alfred Hitchcock presents.
> OOTFS to prominently feature plotlines about forensic science, not to
> mention have a young, attractive female who was a respected, skilled,
> highly professional doctor performing autopsies.
Stop embarassing yourself.
> OOTFS to feature big-budget action stunt scenes, like the submarine in
> 'End Game', that were previously typical of full-length movies.
This is a completely bogus list. I can only guess that you don't know much
about the history of television.
> OOTFS to broach philosophical considerations of the nature of reality
> and standards of rational evidence in prime time.
I'm done, this is too stupid to even comment on anymore. *
--
* PV something like badgers--something like lizards--and something
like corkscrews.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Second "X-Files" pic moving toward production [message #237104 is a reply to message #237099] |
Wed, 18 July 2007 10:57 |
|
|
Originally posted by: pv+usenet
trotsky <gmsingh@email.com> writes:
> Are you trying to say that "The Night Stalker" is in any way as good as
> "The X-Files", Derek? Go ahead, complete the lie.
Hard to say on the remake because it was hardly in the spirit of the
original and died quickly, but the original is an acknowledged influence on
the X-Files, and still a classic. The original Night Stalker is still shown
on television - we'll see how timeless the X-Files is when it's been on TV
for 30 years.
This is not to say that (for a while) that the X-Files wasn't a great
show - it was. But it's not the second coming of anything. *
--
* PV something like badgers--something like lizards--and something
like corkscrews.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Second "X-Files" pic moving toward production [message #237105 is a reply to message #237104] |
Wed, 18 July 2007 11:22 |
trotsky
Messages: 37
Registered: February 2012
Karma: 0
|
Member |
|
|
PV wrote:
> trotsky <gmsingh@email.com> writes:
>
>> Are you trying to say that "The Night Stalker" is in any way as good as
>> "The X-Files", Derek? Go ahead, complete the lie.
>
>
> Hard to say on the remake because it was hardly in the spirit of the
> original and died quickly, but the original is an acknowledged influence on
> the X-Files, and still a classic. The original Night Stalker is still shown
> on television - we'll see how timeless the X-Files is when it's been on TV
> for 30 years.
>
> This is not to say that (for a while) that the X-Files wasn't a great
> show - it was. But it's not the second coming of anything. *
....said the anonymouse.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Second "X-Files" pic moving toward production [message #237106 is a reply to message #237105] |
Wed, 18 July 2007 11:33 |
|
|
Originally posted by: pv+usenet
trotsky <gmsingh@email.com> writes:
>> This is not to say that (for a while) that the X-Files wasn't a great
>> show - it was. But it's not the second coming of anything. *
>
> ...said the anonymouse.
Um, what? You claim to be named "Trotsky". And my login is my actual
initials, and I make no secret of who I actually am. Try again bozo. *
--
* PV something like badgers--something like lizards--and something
like corkscrews.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Second "X-Files" pic moving toward production [message #237107 is a reply to message #237099] |
Wed, 18 July 2007 22:08 |
|
|
Originally posted by: Sean Carroll
trotsky wrote:
> Derek Janssen wrote:
>> Sean Carroll wrote:
>>> OOTFS to deal extensively with the relation between legend and myth
>>> on the one hand, and science on the other.
>> (Although, on that last count, they were originally selling the series
>> as "It's kinda like Kolchak!", to the point that they restructured the
>> official 00's Kolchak "remake" as a shamless X-Plagiarism in all but
>> name...)
> Are you trying to say that "The Night Stalker" is in any way as good as
> "The X-Files", Derek? Go ahead, complete the lie.
There's nothing wrong with Kolchak. It was one of the biggest influences
on CC that inspired him to make XF. (Right up there with 'Twin Peaks'
and 'Silence of the Lambs'.) But it wasn't the same thing as XF. There's
a big difference between a newspaper reporter, and a pair of FBI agents
with extensive technical-scientific training in psychology (Mulder) and
medicine (Scully). The latter idea is far more original, and also held
potential for a far greater number of terrific stories.
And, of course, Kolchak was never anywhere near as popular and
influential as XF.
--
--Sean
http://spclsd223.livejournal.com/
'I take [my coffee] black. The same way I take my brain-damaged
neurologists.' --Dr Gregory House
|
|
|
|
| Re: Second "X-Files" pic moving toward production [message #237109 is a reply to message #237107] |
Thu, 19 July 2007 08:26 |
trotsky
Messages: 37
Registered: February 2012
Karma: 0
|
Member |
|
|
Sean Carroll wrote:
> trotsky wrote:
>
>> Derek Janssen wrote:
>>
>>> Sean Carroll wrote:
>
>
>>>> OOTFS to deal extensively with the relation between legend and myth
>>>> on the one hand, and science on the other.
>
>
>>> (Although, on that last count, they were originally selling the
>>> series as "It's kinda like Kolchak!", to the point that they
>>> restructured the official 00's Kolchak "remake" as a shamless
>>> X-Plagiarism in all but name...)
>
>
>> Are you trying to say that "The Night Stalker" is in any way as good
>> as "The X-Files", Derek? Go ahead, complete the lie.
>
>
> There's nothing wrong with Kolchak. It was one of the biggest influences
> on CC that inspired him to make XF. (Right up there with 'Twin Peaks'
> and 'Silence of the Lambs'.) But it wasn't the same thing as XF. There's
> a big difference between a newspaper reporter, and a pair of FBI agents
> with extensive technical-scientific training in psychology (Mulder) and
> medicine (Scully). The latter idea is far more original, and also held
> potential for a far greater number of terrific stories.
>
> And, of course, Kolchak was never anywhere near as popular and
> influential as XF.
Or as good. I rented the first two episodes on DVD recently, and they
really weren't that good. I used to watch them on TV when I was five or
six, and liked them then. Unfortunately, what Derek is lying about here
is that since "The Night Stalker" was an influence on TXF, this somehow
lessens the quality of the show. Derek is just a troll and a gay asshole.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Second "X-Files" pic moving toward production [message #237110 is a reply to message #237104] |
Thu, 19 July 2007 14:30 |
|
|
Originally posted by: mutefan
On Jul 18, 10:57 am, pv+use...@pobox.com (PV) wrote:
> we'll see how timeless the X-Files is when it's been on TV
> for 30 years.
Very true. I watched Little Green Men Tuesday night. Hadn't seen it
for a while. I wonder if the show's innate pretentiousness--which was
extremely fashionable in the most pretentious decade in history--will
remain either 1) perceived as pretentious (and therefore
fashionable?)--with future generations. Future generations may not
think as highly of themselves. 2) Perceived as even, merely,
intelligent. The very fact Chris Carter had to have it all, a kind of
McMansion of television series, might make it just an oddity.
> This is not to say that (for a while) that the X-Files wasn't a great
> show - it was. But it's not the second coming of anything. *
Here I disagree with you insofar as it de-Star-Treked (or de Baby
Boomed) television. In that respect, it was the second coming of
television. I never watched an episode of the Gen Y clones that came
in its wake, but XF certainly was their mold.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Second "X-Files" pic moving toward production [message #237117 is a reply to message #237113] |
Mon, 23 July 2007 07:19 |
trotsky
Messages: 37
Registered: February 2012
Karma: 0
|
Member |
|
|
BigOleBadAssBob wrote:
>>> - First show to combine stand-alone episodes with long-running
>>> storylines.
>>
>>
>> Uh, well, no. Zorro did that in 1957. Wyatt Earp certainly did it.
>
>
> Yeah.
>
> Doctor Who, The Fugitive, etc etc.
What was the story arc in Dr. Who? I'm kind of curious.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Second "X-Files" pic moving toward production [message #237118 is a reply to message #237116] |
Mon, 23 July 2007 10:12 |
moviePig
Messages: 17
Registered: February 2012
Karma: 0
|
Junior Member |
|
|
On Jul 23, 7:18 am, trotsky <gmsi...@email.com> wrote:
> BigOleBadAssBob wrote:
>>> - First show to combine stand-alone episodes with long-running
>>> storylines.
>
>> uhhh..... no, not really. I could name any number of shows that have
>> done that.
>
> Please do.
Obviously, every series has carryover elements by definition... even
if it's only like the 'I Remember Mama' family's quest to survive
childhood. 'The Fugitive' certainly had a spanning story... but it
was admittedly more a situation/ambience than an unfolding narrative.
Fwiw, 'Dallas' made an early and somewhat controversial choice to rely
on 'to-be-continued' episodes rather than standalones ...which has of
course now become the rule.
Maybe 'X-Files's innovation was the running of multiple simultaneous
arcs of any/every appropriate individual length ...a kind of verite
(ironically, for a fantasy show). The story editor probably had a
wall-sized pert-chart...
--
- - - - - - - -
YOUR taste at work...
http://www.moviepig.com
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Second "X-Files" pic moving toward production [message #237121 is a reply to message #237120] |
Mon, 23 July 2007 13:31 |
moviePig
Messages: 17
Registered: February 2012
Karma: 0
|
Junior Member |
|
|
On Jul 23, 12:50 pm, "Victor Velazquez" <victhr...@notnow.com> wrote:
> "PV" <pv+use...@pobox.com> wrote in message
>
> news:13a9jd3bo3ace8f@news.supernews.com...
>
>> BigOleBadAssBob <tarbcccvagcsc...@hvotmail.com> writes:
>>> uhhh..... no, not really. I could name any number of shows that have
>>> done that.
>
>> Give it up, the fanboys are never going to stop. It's not good enough that
>> the show had some quality seasons, it has to have changed the world too.
>
> Well, for those "fanboys," it did.
>
> Why they assume that must be true for the rest of us is an exercise best
> left to someone with a lot of time on their hands.
Too much hubris coming out here. For anyone attuned to sci-fi
thrillers, 'X-Files' was a kickass tv series... maybe not as
groundbreaking as, e.g., 'Star Trek', but on a very short list
nevertheless.
--
- - - - - - - -
YOUR taste at work...
http://www.moviepig.com
|
|
|
|
| Re: Second "X-Files" pic moving toward production [message #237122 is a reply to message #237117] |
Mon, 23 July 2007 18:46 |
tutu
Messages: 111
Registered: April 2013
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 11:19:20 GMT, trotsky wrote:
> BigOleBadAssBob wrote:
[snip]
>> Yeah.
>>
>> Doctor Who, The Fugitive, etc etc.
>
> What was the story arc in Dr. Who? I'm kind of curious.
The Key To Time arc that ran through a whole seasons worth of episodes.
--
"Imagination is more important than knowledge. Knowledge is limited.
Imagination encircles the world." - Einstein
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Second "X-Files" pic moving toward production [message #237125 is a reply to message #237121] |
Mon, 23 July 2007 21:40 |
trotsky
Messages: 37
Registered: February 2012
Karma: 0
|
Member |
|
|
moviePig wrote:
> On Jul 23, 12:50 pm, "Victor Velazquez" <victhr...@notnow.com> wrote:
>
>> "PV" <pv+use...@pobox.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:13a9jd3bo3ace8f@news.supernews.com...
>>
>>
>>> BigOleBadAssBob <tarbcccvagcsc...@hvotmail.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> uhhh..... no, not really. I could name any number of shows that have
>>>> done that.
>>
>>> Give it up, the fanboys are never going to stop. It's not good enough that
>>> the show had some quality seasons, it has to have changed the world too.
>>
>> Well, for those "fanboys," it did.
>>
>> Why they assume that must be true for the rest of us is an exercise best
>> left to someone with a lot of time on their hands.
>
>
> Too much hubris coming out here. For anyone attuned to sci-fi
> thrillers, 'X-Files' was a kickass tv series... maybe not as
> groundbreaking as, e.g., 'Star Trek', but on a very short list
> nevertheless.
I think you're overlooking one important aspect, and that was it's
elements of horror were more well done than most movies, and,
egads--they probably wouldn't have garnered more than a PG-13!
|
|
|
|
| Re: Second "X-Files" pic moving toward production [message #237126 is a reply to message #237122] |
Mon, 23 July 2007 21:44 |
trotsky
Messages: 37
Registered: February 2012
Karma: 0
|
Member |
|
|
Ian Galbraith wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 11:19:20 GMT, trotsky wrote:
>
>
>> BigOleBadAssBob wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>
>>> Yeah.
>>>
>>> Doctor Who, The Fugitive, etc etc.
>>
>> What was the story arc in Dr. Who? I'm kind of curious.
>
>
> The Key To Time arc that ran through a whole seasons worth of episodes.
With X-Files we're talking story arcs that ran through nine seasons.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Second "X-Files" pic moving toward production [message #237127 is a reply to message #237125] |
Mon, 23 July 2007 23:05 |
moviePig
Messages: 17
Registered: February 2012
Karma: 0
|
Junior Member |
|
|
On Jul 23, 9:40 pm, trotsky <gmsi...@email.com> wrote:
> moviePig wrote:
>> On Jul 23, 12:50 pm, "Victor Velazquez" <victhr...@notnow.com> wrote:
>
>>> "PV" <pv+use...@pobox.com> wrote in message
>
>>> news:13a9jd3bo3ace8f@news.supernews.com...
>
>>>> BigOleBadAssBob <tarbcccvagcsc...@hvotmail.com> writes:
>
>>>> >uhhh..... no, not really. I could name any number of shows that have
>>>> >done that.
>
>>>> Give it up, the fanboys are never going to stop. It's not good enough that
>>>> the show had some quality seasons, it has to have changed the world too.
>
>>> Well, for those "fanboys," it did.
>
>>> Why they assume that must be true for the rest of us is an exercise best
>>> left to someone with a lot of time on their hands.
>
>> Too much hubris coming out here. For anyone attuned to sci-fi
>> thrillers, 'X-Files' was a kickass tv series... maybe not as
>> groundbreaking as, e.g., 'Star Trek', but on a very short list
>> nevertheless.
>
> I think you're overlooking one important aspect, and that was it's
> elements of horror were more well done than most movies, and,
> egads--they probably wouldn't have garnered more than a PG-13!
An appropriate correction ...except, of course, for implying that
those well-done horror elements couldn't all have been further
enhanced with a little 'R'-tistry...
--
- - - - - - - -
YOUR taste at work...
http://www.moviepig.com
|
|
|
|
| Re: Second "X-Files" pic moving toward production [message #237130 is a reply to message #237127] |
Tue, 24 July 2007 06:38 |
trotsky
Messages: 37
Registered: February 2012
Karma: 0
|
Member |
|
|
moviePig wrote:
> On Jul 23, 9:40 pm, trotsky <gmsi...@email.com> wrote:
>
>> moviePig wrote:
>>
>>> On Jul 23, 12:50 pm, "Victor Velazquez" <victhr...@notnow.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> "PV" <pv+use...@pobox.com> wrote in message
>>
>>>> news:13a9jd3bo3ace8f@news.supernews.com...
>>
>>>> >BigOleBadAssBob <tarbcccvagcsc...@hvotmail.com> writes:
>>
>>>> >>uhhh..... no, not really. I could name any number of shows that have
>>>> >>done that.
>>
>>>> >Give it up, the fanboys are never going to stop. It's not good enough that
>>>> >the show had some quality seasons, it has to have changed the world too.
>>
>>>> Well, for those "fanboys," it did.
>>
>>>> Why they assume that must be true for the rest of us is an exercise best
>>>> left to someone with a lot of time on their hands.
>>
>>> Too much hubris coming out here. For anyone attuned to sci-fi
>>> thrillers, 'X-Files' was a kickass tv series... maybe not as
>>> groundbreaking as, e.g., 'Star Trek', but on a very short list
>>> nevertheless.
>>
>> I think you're overlooking one important aspect, and that was it's
>> elements of horror were more well done than most movies, and,
>> egads--they probably wouldn't have garnered more than a PG-13!
>
>
> An appropriate correction ...except, of course, for implying that
> those well-done horror elements couldn't all have been further
> enhanced with a little 'R'-tistry...
Sure, and I'm sure you have some examples, too.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Second "X-Files" pic moving toward production [message #237132 is a reply to message #237130] |
Tue, 24 July 2007 09:31 |
moviePig
Messages: 17
Registered: February 2012
Karma: 0
|
Junior Member |
|
|
On Jul 24, 6:38 am, trotsky <gmsi...@email.com> wrote:
> moviePig wrote:
>> On Jul 23, 9:40 pm, trotsky <gmsi...@email.com> wrote:
>
>>> moviePig wrote:
>
>>>> On Jul 23, 12:50 pm, "Victor Velazquez" <victhr...@notnow.com> wrote:
>
>>>> >"PV" <pv+use...@pobox.com> wrote in message
>
>>>> >news:13a9jd3bo3ace8f@news.supernews.com...
>
>>>> >>BigOleBadAssBob <tarbcccvagcsc...@hvotmail.com> writes:
>
>>>> >>>uhhh..... no, not really. I could name any number of shows that have
>>>> >>>done that.
>
>>>> >>Give it up, the fanboys are never going to stop. It's not good enough that
>>>> >>the show had some quality seasons, it has to have changed the world too.
>
>>>> >Well, for those "fanboys," it did.
>
>>>> >Why they assume that must be true for the rest of us is an exercise best
>>>> >left to someone with a lot of time on their hands.
>
>>>> Too much hubris coming out here. For anyone attuned to sci-fi
>>>> thrillers, 'X-Files' was a kickass tv series... maybe not as
>>>> groundbreaking as, e.g., 'Star Trek', but on a very short list
>>>> nevertheless.
>
>>> I think you're overlooking one important aspect, and that was it's
>>> elements of horror were more well done than most movies, and,
>>> egads--they probably wouldn't have garnered more than a PG-13!
>
>> An appropriate correction ...except, of course, for implying that
>> those well-done horror elements couldn't all have been further
>> enhanced with a little 'R'-tistry...
>
> Sure, and I'm sure you have some examples, too.
Not in my hip pocket, strangely. But here's the opening of the first
episode I just googled randomly from a nice site
(xfiles.wearehere.net):
"When a partially eaten homeless man is discovered in the New
Jersey Woods, Mulder links it to an old X-files of a similar incident
back in 1947 when a motorist was attacked while changing a flat tire.
Police found him dead with his arm gnawed off and later shot and
killed a half man, half beast creature they tracked to a cave. Mulder
believes it could be the mythical Jersey Devil and begins to
investigate. ..."
Seems clear to me that script *should* be punctuated with shots above
the PG-13 threshold (even without wallowing in latex gore and
violence)... not to mention an epithet or two...
--
- - - - - - - -
YOUR taste at work...
http://www.moviepig.com
|
|
|
|
| Re: Second "X-Files" pic moving toward production [message #237133 is a reply to message #237132] |
Tue, 24 July 2007 09:51 |
trotsky
Messages: 37
Registered: February 2012
Karma: 0
|
Member |
|
|
moviePig wrote:
> On Jul 24, 6:38 am, trotsky <gmsi...@email.com> wrote:
>
>> moviePig wrote:
>>
>>> On Jul 23, 9:40 pm, trotsky <gmsi...@email.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> moviePig wrote:
>>
>>>> >On Jul 23, 12:50 pm, "Victor Velazquez" <victhr...@notnow.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> >>"PV" <pv+use...@pobox.com> wrote in message
>>
>>>> >>news:13a9jd3bo3ace8f@news.supernews.com...
>>
>>>> >>>BigOleBadAssBob <tarbcccvagcsc...@hvotmail.com> writes:
>>
>>>> >>>>uhhh..... no, not really. I could name any number of shows that have
>>>> >>>>done that.
>>
>>>> >>>Give it up, the fanboys are never going to stop. It's not good enough that
>>>> >>>the show had some quality seasons, it has to have changed the world too.
>>
>>>> >>Well, for those "fanboys," it did.
>>
>>>> >>Why they assume that must be true for the rest of us is an exercise best
>>>> >>left to someone with a lot of time on their hands.
>>
>>>> >Too much hubris coming out here. For anyone attuned to sci-fi
>>>> >thrillers, 'X-Files' was a kickass tv series... maybe not as
>>>> >groundbreaking as, e.g., 'Star Trek', but on a very short list
>>>> >nevertheless.
>>
>>>> I think you're overlooking one important aspect, and that was it's
>>>> elements of horror were more well done than most movies, and,
>>>> egads--they probably wouldn't have garnered more than a PG-13!
>>
>>> An appropriate correction ...except, of course, for implying that
>>> those well-done horror elements couldn't all have been further
>>> enhanced with a little 'R'-tistry...
>>
>> Sure, and I'm sure you have some examples, too.
>
>
> Not in my hip pocket, strangely. But here's the opening of the first
> episode I just googled randomly from a nice site
> (xfiles.wearehere.net):
>
> "When a partially eaten homeless man is discovered in the New
> Jersey Woods, Mulder links it to an old X-files of a similar incident
> back in 1947 when a motorist was attacked while changing a flat tire.
> Police found him dead with his arm gnawed off and later shot and
> killed a half man, half beast creature they tracked to a cave. Mulder
> believes it could be the mythical Jersey Devil and begins to
> investigate. ..."
>
> Seems clear to me that script *should* be punctuated with shots above
> the PG-13 threshold (even without wallowing in latex gore and
> violence)... not to mention an epithet or two...
Well, that's certainly been the norm since the days of grindhouse films,
but, the question remains what is actually the most effective, being
explicit, or being suggestive and letting your imagination do the rest.
If you look at the tricks directors use, especially foley work to make
it *sound* like something horrendous is happening, I think you'll find
it can be quite clever and effective. I think gore has to be done
creatively, too, because to just be as explicit as possible is a turn
off to most viewers. I'm mostly open minded about such things, but some
stuff just sounds too disgusting to take a look at. To wit:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0410332/
BTW, have you read any Michael Slade yet?
|
|
|
|
| Re: Second "X-Files" pic moving toward production [message #237135 is a reply to message #237133] |
Tue, 24 July 2007 11:06 |
moviePig
Messages: 17
Registered: February 2012
Karma: 0
|
Junior Member |
|
|
On Jul 24, 9:51 am, trotsky <gmsi...@email.com> wrote:
> moviePig wrote:
>> On Jul 24, 6:38 am, trotsky <gmsi...@email.com> wrote:
>
>>> moviePig wrote:
>
>>>> On Jul 23, 9:40 pm, trotsky <gmsi...@email.com> wrote:
>
>>>> >moviePig wrote:
>
>>>> >>On Jul 23, 12:50 pm, "Victor Velazquez" <victhr...@notnow.com> wrote:
>
>>>> >>>"PV" <pv+use...@pobox.com> wrote in message
>
>>>> >>>news:13a9jd3bo3ace8f@news.supernews.com...
>
>>>> >>>>BigOleBadAssBob <tarbcccvagcsc...@hvotmail.com> writes:
>
>>>> >>>>>uhhh..... no, not really. I could name any number of shows that have
>>>> >>>>>done that.
>
>>>> >>>>Give it up, the fanboys are never going to stop. It's not good enough that
>>>> >>>>the show had some quality seasons, it has to have changed the world too.
>
>>>> >>>Well, for those "fanboys," it did.
>
>>>> >>>Why they assume that must be true for the rest of us is an exercise best
>>>> >>>left to someone with a lot of time on their hands.
>
>>>> >>Too much hubris coming out here. For anyone attuned to sci-fi
>>>> >>thrillers, 'X-Files' was a kickass tv series... maybe not as
>>>> >>groundbreaking as, e.g., 'Star Trek', but on a very short list
>>>> >>nevertheless.
>
>>>> >I think you're overlooking one important aspect, and that was it's
>>>> >elements of horror were more well done than most movies, and,
>>>> >egads--they probably wouldn't have garnered more than a PG-13!
>
>>>> An appropriate correction ...except, of course, for implying that
>>>> those well-done horror elements couldn't all have been further
>>>> enhanced with a little 'R'-tistry...
>
>>> Sure, and I'm sure you have some examples, too.
>
>> Not in my hip pocket, strangely. But here's the opening of the first
>> episode I just googled randomly from a nice site
>> (xfiles.wearehere.net):
>
>> "When a partially eaten homeless man is discovered in the New
>> Jersey Woods, Mulder links it to an old X-files of a similar incident
>> back in 1947 when a motorist was attacked while changing a flat tire.
>> Police found him dead with his arm gnawed off and later shot and
>> killed a half man, half beast creature they tracked to a cave. Mulder
>> believes it could be the mythical Jersey Devil and begins to
>> investigate. ..."
>
>> Seems clear to me that script *should* be punctuated with shots above
>> the PG-13 threshold (even without wallowing in latex gore and
>> violence)... not to mention an epithet or two...
>
> Well, that's certainly been the norm since the days of grindhouse films,
> but, the question remains what is actually the most effective, being
> explicit, or being suggestive and letting your imagination do the rest.
> If you look at the tricks directors use, especially foley work to make
> it *sound* like something horrendous is happening, I think you'll find
> it can be quite clever and effective. I think gore has to be done
> creatively, too, because to just be as explicit as possible is a turn
> off to most viewers. I'm mostly open minded about such things, but some
> stuff just sounds too disgusting to take a look at. To wit:
>
> http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0410332/
(I'd have to watch anything that's potentially iconic... but that
one's not available... which may be as good an indicator as any...)
I'm not claiming that gore is the (or even *an*) answer... and I
certainly agree that the goal is overall intensity, which explicit
gore and violence can frequently deflect. But, re 'X-Files' and PG-13
ceilings... if a skillful horror-director maximizes intensity (whether
by adding or subtracting), the censors will do their thing. I.e.,
regardless of what you show, on tv you can't make it too "scary".
Yes, I know 'X-Files' pushed that envelope adroitly... but, of course,
they could never ignore it...
> BTW, have you read any Michael Slade yet?
I read 'Headhunter' ...and it was too procedural for my tastes. (I
recently read an Ed McBain with the same complaint, and it was under
half 'Headhunter's length.) I know Slade is fabulously popular with
aficionados, but not for me at present.
Meanwhile, for a fun, non-stupid, horror (vampire) novel, you might
check out Charlie Huston's little paperback 'Already Dead'. (At
worst, it's in all ways a minor investment...)
--
- - - - - - - -
YOUR taste at work...
http://www.moviepig.com
|
|
|
|
| Re: Second "X-Files" pic moving toward production [message #237136 is a reply to message #237135] |
Tue, 24 July 2007 22:15 |
trotsky
Messages: 37
Registered: February 2012
Karma: 0
|
Member |
|
|
moviePig wrote:
> On Jul 24, 9:51 am, trotsky <gmsi...@email.com> wrote:
>
>> moviePig wrote:
>>> Seems clear to me that script *should* be punctuated with shots above
>>> the PG-13 threshold (even without wallowing in latex gore and
>>> violence)... not to mention an epithet or two...
>>
>> Well, that's certainly been the norm since the days of grindhouse films,
>> but, the question remains what is actually the most effective, being
>> explicit, or being suggestive and letting your imagination do the rest.
>> If you look at the tricks directors use, especially foley work to make
>> it *sound* like something horrendous is happening, I think you'll find
>> it can be quite clever and effective. I think gore has to be done
>> creatively, too, because to just be as explicit as possible is a turn
>> off to most viewers. I'm mostly open minded about such things, but some
>> stuff just sounds too disgusting to take a look at. To wit:
>>
>> http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0410332/
>
>
> (I'd have to watch anything that's potentially iconic... but that
> one's not available... which may be as good an indicator as any...)
There's a copy up on ebay at the moment.
> I'm not claiming that gore is the (or even *an*) answer... and I
> certainly agree that the goal is overall intensity, which explicit
> gore and violence can frequently deflect. But, re 'X-Files' and PG-13
> ceilings... if a skillful horror-director maximizes intensity (whether
> by adding or subtracting), the censors will do their thing. I.e.,
> regardless of what you show, on tv you can't make it too "scary".
> Yes, I know 'X-Files' pushed that envelope adroitly... but, of course,
> they could never ignore it...
Again, I would like an example of something that's been done better in
movies than X-Files. In particular this one:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0751137/
>> BTW, have you read any Michael Slade yet?
>
>
> I read 'Headhunter' ...and it was too procedural for my tastes.
Right--a thread about X-Files and a complaint about something being "too
procedural". What other possible critiques were there on the dart board
you threw at?
(I
> recently read an Ed McBain with the same complaint, and it was under
> half 'Headhunter's length.) I know Slade is fabulously popular with
> aficionados, but not for me at present.
> Meanwhile, for a fun, non-stupid, horror (vampire) novel, you might
> check out Charlie Huston's little paperback 'Already Dead'. (At
> worst, it's in all ways a minor investment...)
I'll look for it.
|
|
|
|
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
