disqusibgsxfe2lr--disqus
Data
disqusibgsxfe2lr--disqus

I was always a real huge fan of the mythology stuff and respected the series (and Carter, for that matter) all the more for it, despite how befuddled it got towards the end. Nevertheless, I always felt like the conspicary was sort of the glue that held the whole thing together and for the most part - especially in its

Light hearted? Next stop: Musical episode.

That's nice.

Please, stop talking to those people.

That must be snark. Right? Right?

I think it can. And not to repeat myself: But just because it was a straight adaption from something that happened in the comics doesn't make it automatically was well executed in the tv show. I don't get how that is always used an argument in favor of that silly, campy scene from last episode.

I never saw Rick as the moral center of the show - I'm not even sure this show ever had one. The closest to come to that was probably Hershel. But Rick? I always saw him slightly unhinged, sometimes on the verge to insanity, but for the most part just a totalitarian leader (starting at the end of season two) who makes

What would that end-game even look like? I imagine everyone in America/in the world ends up dead and the zombies take over completely. Or maybe a meteor? I call meteor.

Which is basically what I was talking about: Everyone has his or her own vision of what such an adaption might look like because everyone who read the novel was seeing it through his or her own eyes. So did the director and writer of said adaption. Only in this case it's not a single person who's putting his vision on

A book is not ruined by an adaption, not matter how little you agree with the director's choices about what to include and what not. How does it influence your reading enjoyment? I always find it deeply unsettling if people can't differentiate between a book and a movie and usually feel the need to praise the book

You're right, it is worth supporting, especially because (and I'm sure you're right in that regard, as well) he's certainly not making a lot profit with it (if any at all). It's just: I'm already reluctant to pay 2,49 € for a single episode if Amazon charges me for it - I did that once for an episode of Justified and

So, do you guys feel like the 3 bucks per episode is a fair deal? I get where C.K. is coming from - and it's certainly a laudible attempt at staying connected to the audience's demands - and I think it works wonders for his stand-up material. But continuing this model for a tv show? A part of me can't help but feel a

I don't know. Since its move to Friday's its not been doing great but considerably stable, around the numbers Fringe used to pull in that slot - which kept it alive for at least two more seasons.

But is it even possible not to hear him?

I saw a couple of them but either I didn't get it or the show was, in fact, really just 'meh'.

Was she considered for the part or why did you suggest her?

Of course you're right: They always renews their freshman dramas no matter the ratings. I wrote in another post here that I believe this has something to do with the fact that their pilots are usually very expensive and by "stretching" that budget (no idea if the terminology is correct here) over two seasons they may

And that makes the scene… what… masterful?

Colony is certainly a show, but 'fun' wouldn't be the first adjective to pop into my head when trying to describe that show. Bland would be more like it.

Stupid, sexy Dancy.