NBC picks up "Wonder Woman" pilot
David
NBC Picks Up David E. Kelley's 'Wonder Woman', Michael Patrick King's
Drama
By NELLIE ANDREEVA
Wonder Woman will fly this pilot season after all. New NBC
entertainment president Bob Greenblatt capped a day of high-profile
pilot pickups with a surprise order to David E. Kelley's Wonder Woman
reboot. Additionally, he formally greenlighted another hourlong
project from an A-list showrunner, Michael Patrick King's Mann's
World. Both shows hail from Warner Bros. TV. Meanwhile, the commitment
to the J.J. Abrams/WBTV-produced drama Odd Jobs starring Michael
Emerson and Michael O'Quinn, whose script came in very late, is being
rolled to next season when it will be applied to the same or new Bad
Robot project. And Greenblatt has passed on the Josh Schwartz/WBTV
supernatural drama Ghost Angeles starring Rachel Bilson.
WBTV took Kelley's Wonder Woman spec out to the networks in the first
week of January. At the time, NBC was the most interested but, with
Greenblatt still on the sidelines, the network couldn't commit to the
type of license fee that the studio was seeking in order to do the
show Kelley had envisioned, and WBTV decided to shelve the project.
With Greenblatt now firmly taking the reins and Kelley just delivering
one of the most promising new series for NBC this season, Harry's Law,
NBC stepped up to greenlight Wonder Woman. The project is described as
a reinvention of the iconic D.C. comic in which Wonder Woman -- aka
Diana Prince -- is a vigilante crime fighter in L.A. but also a
successful corporate executive and a modern woman trying to balance
all of the elements of her extraordinary life.
Mann's World, which King will also direct, is a one hour drama
following the complicated life of Allan Mann, a celebrity hair stylist
in glamorous Los Angeles as he navigates the complexities of his
business, his family life, and his goal to stay relevant in a world
that moves quickly. The project is already casting.
The orders for Wonder Woman and Mann's World come hours after
Greenblatt greenlighted musical pilot Smash, based on an idea by and
executive produced by Steven Spielberg.
syvyn11
> http://www.deadline.com/2011/01/nbc-picks-up-david-e-kelleys-wonder-w...
CEO by day, Superheroine by night? I want this to work, but.....
BOMB!
rwgibson13
> http://www.deadline.com/2011/01/nbc-picks-up-david-e-kelleys-wonder-w...
> to the J.J. Abrams/WBTV-produced drama Odd Jobs starring Michael
> Emerson and Michael O'Quinn, whose script came in very late, is being
> rolled to next season when it will be applied to the same or new Bad
> Robot project.
Yeah, I figured that production was in trouble when we'd gone so long
without hearing there was an actual script finished. Doesn't bode
well, unfortunately.
RWG (still sounds like they're unsure of how to best use these two
guys)
KalElFan
renew The Event NBC may become my favorite network.
Too bad we can't get Comcast up here in Canada. :-)
William Baldwin
> following the complicated life of Allan Mann, a celebrity hair
> stylist in glamorous Los Angeles as he navigates the complexities
> of his business, his family life, and his goal to stay relevant in
> a world that moves quickly. The project is already casting.
Well, Keith Olbermann is available.
Arthur Lipscomb
Yeah, I was excited until I read the reworked premise. I know fighting
Nazis is too much to ask for but a CEO in LA?!?
cloud dreamer
> http://www.deadline.com/2011/01/nbc-picks-up-david-e-kelleys-wonder-woman-michael-patrick-kings-drama/
>
> NBC Picks Up David E. Kelley's 'Wonder Woman', Michael Patrick King's
> Drama
> By NELLIE ANDREEVA
>
> Wonder Woman will fly this pilot season after all.
Okay, time for a death pool.
I give it three weeks.
;]
--
We must change the way we live
Or the climate will do it for us
Obveeus
"David" <diml...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Wonder Woman will fly this pilot season after all. New NBC
> entertainment president Bob Greenblatt capped a day of high-profile
> pilot pickups with a surprise order to David E. Kelley's Wonder Woman
> reboot.
Any chance this show has will be based upon the lead character. She better
be at least 5 foot 10 inches tall.
> WBTV took Kelley's Wonder Woman spec out to the networks in the first
> week of January. At the time, NBC was the most interested but, with
> Greenblatt still on the sidelines, the network couldn't commit to the
> type of license fee that the studio was seeking in order to do the
> show Kelley had envisioned,
Translation for David: the new owners have money to spend.
> and WBTV decided to shelve the project.
> With Greenblatt now firmly taking the reins and Kelley just delivering
> one of the most promising new series for NBC this season, Harry's Law,
What about Harry's Law makes it 'one of the most promising new series'?
> NBC stepped up to greenlight Wonder Woman. The project is described as
> a reinvention of the iconic D.C. comic in which Wonder Woman -- aka
> Diana Prince -- is a vigilante crime fighter in L.A. but also a
> successful corporate executive and a modern woman trying to balance
> all of the elements of her extraordinary life.
I like the idea of corporate executive better than the idea of 'bottom rung
of society' which is the other theme that the superhero shows go for.
> Mann's World, which King will also direct, is a one hour drama
> following the complicated life of Allan Mann, a celebrity hair stylist
> in glamorous Los Angeles as he navigates the complexities of his
> business, his family life, and his goal to stay relevant in a world
> that moves quickly. The project is already casting.
There is nothing worse for a hair stylist than losing relevance in the
world. This show sounds like next season's 'Lone Star'.
Anim8rFSK
Arthur Lipscomb <art...@alum.calberkeley.org> wrote:
Is anybody else thinking "SuperPresident"?
--
"Please, I can't die, I've never kissed an Asian woman!"
Shego on "Shat My Dad Says"
KalElFan
news:ihe1b1$f2i$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
[the source wrote]:
>>> NBC stepped up to greenlight Wonder Woman. The project is
>>> described as a reinvention of the iconic D.C. comic in which
>>> Wonder Woman -- aka Diana Prince -- is a vigilante crime
>>> fighter in L.A. but also a successful corporate executive and
>>> a modern woman trying to balance all of the elements of her
>>> extraordinary life.
[...]
>> CEO by day, Superheroine by night? I want this to work, but.....
>> BOMB!
>
> Yeah, I was excited until I read the reworked premise. I know
> fighting Nazis is too much to ask for but a CEO in LA?!?
It's a great premise, though I'm hoping the "vigilante" part is just
biographical/factual -- i.e., in the sense she isn't an authorized
law enforcement officer and therefore by definition acts as a
vigilante. A bit of a Dirty Harriet streak with the bad guys may
work well. It depends on the characterization they're going for
but I think that might be the best way to go. I just don't want
it to extend to "Is she a heroine or is she a villainess?" She
might scare or rough up villains a bit, but not kill or beat the
crap out of them while they're in her custody.
As far as humor, and I think there must be humor, the key will
be to protect the WW character from camp or becoming too
much what we laugh at. The success of these kinds of shows
is based on our ability to suspend disbelief and buy into the
character. There are exceptions like a Mel Brooks treatment,
and a Kelley show isn't that but it is "odd" or "off" typically.
So Kelley may be able to push the envelope a bit on this part
of it. The WW fish out of water element also provides some
protection. It's going to be a fine line and it'll be interesting
to see where they draw it.
I think the West Coast, L.A. setting is perfect. It provides lots
of creative scope and I think it's inherently appealing to TV
viewers. So many series have got away from it, CSI in Vegas
and NY and Miami, Hawaii the setting in the case of a few
other shows, fictional cities for many DC or other superhero
characters and so on. I suggested the Supergirl spinoff, had
they done one, be set in the L.A. area where she'd be going
to college.
Speaking of, if successful this series could become the nexus
for future DC Universe incarnations, including the very long
talked about Justice League movie. I think they should treat
this series as its own NEW incarnation or universe, i.e., not
a spinoff of Smallville or set in the Batman Begins universe.
That will give them the flexibility to have other heroes in
guest spots later in the series, with a possible eye to a JLA
movie. So it would be interesting to see the next Clark Kent
for example, and the next Bruce Wayne.
The potential for this series is huge, by today's television and
NBC standards. Have the hype for it build the way I think it
can, and 20M+ viewers for the premiere is not beyond reach.
Ian J. Ball
> On 22/01/2011 12:30 AM, David wrote:
>
>
> > NBC Picks Up David E. Kelley's 'Wonder Woman', Michael Patrick King's
> > Drama
> > By NELLIE ANDREEVA
>
> > Wonder Woman will fly this pilot season after all.
>
> Okay, time for a death pool.
>
> I give it three weeks.
>
> ;]
I've got you beat - I bet it doesn't make it *past* the pilot stage
(i.e. no series "pick-up").
shawn
>
>"David" <diml...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Wonder Woman will fly this pilot season after all. New NBC
>> entertainment president Bob Greenblatt capped a day of high-profile
>> pilot pickups with a surprise order to David E. Kelley's Wonder Woman
>> reboot.
>
>Any chance this show has will be based upon the lead character. She better
>be at least 5 foot 10 inches tall.
I guess Kristin Chenoweth is out of the running. ;)
>> WBTV took Kelley's Wonder Woman spec out to the networks in the first
>> week of January. At the time, NBC was the most interested but, with
>> Greenblatt still on the sidelines, the network couldn't commit to the
>> type of license fee that the studio was seeking in order to do the
>> show Kelley had envisioned,
>
>Translation for David: the new owners have money to spend.
I take it as they really want to see the new guy succeed and are
willing to do what it takes to insure that happens. With GE had
decided they didn't trust the people in charge of the network with a
blank check. Whether the new guy will succeed or not remains to be
seen. The only project I had really been looking forward to was the
pairing of O'Quinn and Emerson project.
>> and WBTV decided to shelve the project.
>> With Greenblatt now firmly taking the reins and Kelley just delivering
>> one of the most promising new series for NBC this season, Harry's Law,
>
>What about Harry's Law makes it 'one of the most promising new series'?
I guess it got the best ratings of shows that just started this year
on NBC?
>
>> NBC stepped up to greenlight Wonder Woman. The project is described as
>> a reinvention of the iconic D.C. comic in which Wonder Woman -- aka
>> Diana Prince -- is a vigilante crime fighter in L.A. but also a
>> successful corporate executive and a modern woman trying to balance
>> all of the elements of her extraordinary life.
>
>I like the idea of corporate executive better than the idea of 'bottom rung
>of society' which is the other theme that the superhero shows go for.
The problem is that a corporate executive is likely to have a long
work day that's planned out far in advance which really wouldn't offer
much opportunity to fight crime. At least Bruce Wayne had the
advantage of being the owner of Wayne Enterprises and able to be
involved as much or as little as he wanted.
>> Mann's World, which King will also direct, is a one hour drama
>> following the complicated life of Allan Mann, a celebrity hair stylist
>> in glamorous Los Angeles as he navigates the complexities of his
>> business, his family life, and his goal to stay relevant in a world
>> that moves quickly. The project is already casting.
>
>There is nothing worse for a hair stylist than losing relevance in the
>world. This show sounds like next season's 'Lone Star'.
There always has to be one. The question is will it win over the
critics the way that "Lone Star" seemed to have before it was
canceled.
Zeb Carter
One problem I see - now that Comcast has acquired GE/NBC/Universal, I
would expect quite a few changes in projects.
Something that needs to happen is the complete removal of Bonnie Hammer
and her crew from anything but daytime quiz shows. She wrecked the Sci
Fi (SyFy) Channel and given the chance I am sure she would wreck
projects like the WW one mentioned.
Hunter
-----
Well,The modern incarnation of Lex Luthor is a CEO so.....
------>Hunter
"No man in the wrong can stand up against
a fellow that's in the right and keeps on acomin'."
-----William J. McDonald
Captain, Texas Rangers from 1891 to 1907
Adam H. Kerman
>NBC Picks Up David E. Kelley's 'Wonder Woman', Michael Patrick King's Drama
>By NELLIE ANDREEVA
>Wonder Woman will fly this pilot season after all. New NBC
>entertainment president Bob Greenblatt capped a day of high-profile
>pilot pickups with a surprise order to David E. Kelley's Wonder Woman
>reboot. . . .
So, all of you who theorized that Comcast couldn't possibly run a last-place
television network any worse than its present management will now humble
yourselves before the viewing audience.
Who the fuck wants Kelley's Wonder Woman? With an adaptation, I want to
see the comic book adapted with no hint of the producer's fingerprints
whatsoever.
Kelley will set it in a Boston law firm filled with his vision of hot
women, skinnier than what the rest of men wants. There will be
endless dialogue featuring political and social justice arguments.
The magic lasso won't just force truth telling but preaching.
Adam H. Kerman
>One problem I see - now that Comcast has acquired GE/NBC/Universal, I
>would expect quite a few changes in projects.
Comcast bought GE? I must have missed this on the news.
rwgibson13
> >http://www.deadline.com/2011/01/nbc-picks-up-david-e-kelleys-wonder-w...
> >NBC Picks Up David E. Kelley's 'Wonder Woman', Michael Patrick King's Drama
> >By NELLIE ANDREEVA
> >Wonder Woman will fly this pilot season after all. New NBC
> >entertainment president Bob Greenblatt capped a day of high-profile
> >pilot pickups with a surprise order to David E. Kelley's Wonder Woman
> >reboot. . . .
>
> So, all of you who theorized that Comcast couldn't possibly run a last-place
> television network any worse than its present management will now humble
> yourselves before the viewing audience.
Desperate times call for desperate measures.
> Who the fuck wants Kelley's Wonder Woman? With an adaptation, I want to
> see the comic book adapted with no hint of the producer's fingerprints
> whatsoever.
>
> Kelley will set it in a Boston law firm filled with his vision of hot
> women, skinnier than what the rest of men wants. There will be
> endless dialogue featuring political and social justice arguments.
>
> The magic lasso won't just force truth telling but preaching.
I wanna see how he manages to get her into a courtroom at the end of
every episode.
RWG (how long until he "reboots" the character again to make Diana
Prince a civil rights lawyer? :-)
David
<art...@alum.calberkeley.org> wrote:
It'll have to at least have a strong pilot. They'll have to make a
presentation at Comic Con because it'll be taken as as a bad sign if
they don't. And if it gets killed at Comic Con the whole internet will
be abuzz about it and it'll be dead before it premieres.
David
>"David" <diml...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> WBTV took Kelley's Wonder Woman spec out to the networks in the first
>> week of January. At the time, NBC was the most interested but, with
>> Greenblatt still on the sidelines, the network couldn't commit to the
>> type of license fee that the studio was seeking in order to do the
>> show Kelley had envisioned,
>
>Translation for David: the new owners have money to spend.
The reason turns out to be exactly what they said it would be. You
included the reason in the short snippet. And yet you're still seeing
some hidden meaning somewhere between the lines of that very clear,
concise sentence. Fascinating!
Mason Barge
>
>The project is described as
>a reinvention of the iconic D.C. comic in which Wonder Woman -- aka
>Diana Prince -- is a vigilante crime fighter in L.A. but also a
>successful corporate executive and a modern woman trying to balance
>all of the elements of her extraordinary life.
I'm not watching any show where the main character is named "Diane
Prince". Does she work at Windsor Enterprises?
It sounds dreadful.
>Mann's World, which King will also direct, is a one hour drama
>following the complicated life of Allan Mann, a celebrity hair stylist
>in glamorous Los Angeles as he navigates the complexities of his
>business, his family life, and his goal to stay relevant in a world
>that moves quickly. The project is already casting.
That could be good.
Obveeus
I was thinking 'Wonder Whitehouse'.
Obveeus
"shawn" <nanof...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:e6slj6lbgiojgfit2...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 22 Jan 2011 08:54:42 -0500, "Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"David" <diml...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> Wonder Woman will fly this pilot season after all. New NBC
>>> entertainment president Bob Greenblatt capped a day of high-profile
>>> pilot pickups with a surprise order to David E. Kelley's Wonder Woman
>>> reboot.
>>
>>Any chance this show has will be based upon the lead character. She
>>better
>>be at least 5 foot 10 inches tall.
>
> I guess Kristin Chenoweth is out of the running. ;)
Yes, as are such ill-suited contenders as: Elisha Dushku, Morena Baccarin,
and Summer Glau.
They need someone more like Leelee Sobieski, Jaime King, Tricia Helfer, or
maybe go out on a limb and pick someone without an established resume but
that at least looks the part.
>>Translation for David: the new owners have money to spend.
>
> I take it as they really want to see the new guy succeed and are
> willing to do what it takes to insure that happens. With GE had
> decided they didn't trust the people in charge of the network with a
> blank check. Whether the new guy will succeed or not remains to be
> seen. The only project I had really been looking forward to was the
> pairing of O'Quinn and Emerson project.
The way I see it: the new ownership cannot possibly make NBC worse than it
currently is.
>>> and WBTV decided to shelve the project.
>>> With Greenblatt now firmly taking the reins and Kelley just delivering
>>> one of the most promising new series for NBC this season, Harry's Law,
>>
>>What about Harry's Law makes it 'one of the most promising new series'?
>
> I guess it got the best ratings of shows that just started this year
> on NBC?
You might be on to something there. harry's law is better than Perfect
Couples.
>>I like the idea of corporate executive better than the idea of 'bottom
>>rung
>>of society' which is the other theme that the superhero shows go for.
>
> The problem is that a corporate executive is likely to have a long
> work day that's planned out far in advance which really wouldn't offer
> much opportunity to fight crime.
Maybe, but at least an exectutive might meet real criminals by day rather
than purse snatchers, hookers, and such. I guess that they could always go
with the tired out theme of 'news reporter' as a method for a fairly lowly
person to also cross paths with elite criminals on a regular basis.
> At least Bruce Wayne had the
> advantage of being the owner of Wayne Enterprises and able to be
> involved as much or as little as he wanted.
We will have to see what 'corporate executive' pans out as. It might be
just a high class consulting job or something that doesn't have set hours.
Obveeus
"David" <diml...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:rstlj6tv4vcjsf9id...@4ax.com...
Kinda sad if the fate of the show rests with extremist comic book geeks.
ravenlynne
Oh well, it was a nice idea.
--
Currently Reading: Falling Free by Lois McMaster Bujold
Arthur Lipscomb
> "Arthur Lipscomb" wrote in message
> news:ihe1b1$f2i$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
> [the source wrote]:
>>>> NBC stepped up to greenlight Wonder Woman. The project is
>>>> described as a reinvention of the iconic D.C. comic in which
>>>> Wonder Woman -- aka Diana Prince -- is a vigilante crime
>>>> fighter in L.A. but also a successful corporate executive and
>>>> a modern woman trying to balance all of the elements of her
>>>> extraordinary life.
>
> [...]
>
>>> CEO by day, Superheroine by night? I want this to work, but.....
>>> BOMB!
>>
>> Yeah, I was excited until I read the reworked premise. I know
>> fighting Nazis is too much to ask for but a CEO in LA?!?
>
> It's a great premise, though I'm hoping the "vigilante" part is just
> biographical/factual -- i.e., in the sense she isn't an authorized
> law enforcement officer and therefore by definition acts as a
> vigilante.
I was watching "Young Justice" Friday night and when one of the young
heroes was complaining about not being taken seriously, I was thinking,
kid, there's no *right* to put on a mask and fight crime; you're nothing
more than a vigilante. Join the police force if you want to fight crime.
A bit of a Dirty Harriet streak with the bad guys may
> work well. It depends on the characterization they're going for
> but I think that might be the best way to go. I just don't want
> it to extend to "Is she a heroine or is she a villainess?" She
> might scare or rough up villains a bit, but not kill or beat the
> crap out of them while they're in her custody.
>
> As far as humor, and I think there must be humor, the key will
> be to protect the WW character from camp or becoming too
> much what we laugh at. The success of these kinds of shows
> is based on our ability to suspend disbelief and buy into the
> character. There are exceptions like a Mel Brooks treatment,
> and a Kelley show isn't that but it is "odd" or "off" typically.
> So Kelley may be able to push the envelope a bit on this part
> of it. The WW fish out of water element also provides some
> protection. It's going to be a fine line and it'll be interesting
> to see where they draw it.
>
> I think the West Coast, L.A. setting is perfect. It provides lots
> of creative scope and I think it's inherently appealing to TV
> viewers.
When 99.9% (or is it 99.8%) of TV shows are set in the same city it
looses some of it's appeal...
Not that there's anything wrong with L.A. but how can you know if
another city is appealing if shows are almost never set in them?
So many series have got away from it, CSI in Vegas
> and NY and Miami, Hawaii the setting in the case of a few
> other shows, fictional cities for many DC or other superhero
> characters and so on.
Good. Why *shouldn't* a show be set in a city other than L.A.? What
makes L.A. the default standard of quality?
I suggested the Supergirl spinoff, had
> they done one, be set in the L.A. area where she'd be going
> to college.
I'd love to see a Supergirl spinoff set in any city.
>
> Speaking of, if successful this series could become the nexus
> for future DC Universe incarnations, including the very long
> talked about Justice League movie.
At this point I just want the movie no matter what universe they set it in.
I think they should treat
> this series as its own NEW incarnation or universe, i.e., not
> a spinoff of Smallville or set in the Batman Begins universe.
> That will give them the flexibility to have other heroes in
> guest spots later in the series, with a possible eye to a JLA
> movie. So it would be interesting to see the next Clark Kent
> for example, and the next Bruce Wayne.
>
> The potential for this series is huge, by today's television and
> NBC standards. Have the hype for it build the way I think it
> can, and 20M+ viewers for the premiere is not beyond reach.
Hopefully it will be a hit. I just hope it's not another Bionic Woman.
David
>"David" <diml...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:rstlj6tv4vcjsf9id...@4ax.com...
>> It'll have to at least have a strong pilot. They'll have to make a
>> presentation at Comic Con because it'll be taken as as a bad sign if
>> they don't. And if it gets killed at Comic Con the whole internet will
>> be abuzz about it and it'll be dead before it premieres.
>
>Kinda sad if the fate of the show rests with extremist comic book geeks.
If you take on the task of doing a genre show that's the challenge you
face, but the benefits are you'll likely have the most high-profile
pilot. Every entertainment site, as well as "Access Hollywood" and the
like will report on its Comic Con reception.
Anim8rFSK
<9a0b4bf3-9971-4fe5...@n10g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
rwgibson13 <rwgib...@gmail.com> wrote:
Oooo, ooo! Make her work for JAG! Cast Catherine Bell!
Anim8rFSK
"Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> "shawn" <nanof...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:e6slj6lbgiojgfit2...@4ax.com...
> > On Sat, 22 Jan 2011 08:54:42 -0500, "Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>"David" <diml...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>> Wonder Woman will fly this pilot season after all. New NBC
> >>> entertainment president Bob Greenblatt capped a day of high-profile
> >>> pilot pickups with a surprise order to David E. Kelley's Wonder Woman
> >>> reboot.
> >>
> >>Any chance this show has will be based upon the lead character. She
> >>better
> >>be at least 5 foot 10 inches tall.
> >
> > I guess Kristin Chenoweth is out of the running. ;)
>
> Yes, as are such ill-suited contenders as: Elisha Dushku, Morena Baccarin,
> and Summer Glau.
>
> They need someone more like Leelee Sobieski, Jaime King
Jaime King??? The last time I saw her, she looked like those pictures
of starving children from dusty countries, only not so funny.
Pete B
shawn
Given that none of them have joined the police force it suggests that
the police force isn't interested in super powered police. That leaves
only the super powered heroes (vigilantes) to take on the super
villains. The only group that I can think of that is officially
sanctioned is in the Marvel universe with Shield but even they only
have a few super heroes working with them.
>Not that there's anything wrong with L.A. but how can you know if
>another city is appealing if shows are almost never set in them?
But it's cheaper to just set the show in LA since they will likely
film it in the area. Though it would be funny if they set the show in
LA and film it in Vancouver.
>Good. Why *shouldn't* a show be set in a city other than L.A.? What
>makes L.A. the default standard of quality?
Absolutely nothing. They do it because it's cheaper for them and it's
a city they know.
>I suggested the Supergirl spinoff, had
>> they done one, be set in the L.A. area where she'd be going
>> to college.
>
>I'd love to see a Supergirl spinoff set in any city.
Podunk, Iowa?
Dano
"Pete B" <xxxh@_xsomeething.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.27a54189c...@news.usenetserver.com...
The perfect choice is Sarah...of course she'd quit halfway through the first
season.
A Watcher
> http://www.deadline.com/2011/01/nbc-picks-up-david-e-kelleys-wonder-woman-michael-patrick-kings-drama/
>
> Drama
> By NELLIE ANDREEVA
>
Why?
This show won't make it to mid-season.
Dimensional Traveler
> "David"<diml...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> and WBTV decided to shelve the project.
>> With Greenblatt now firmly taking the reins and Kelley just delivering
>> one of the most promising new series for NBC this season, Harry's Law,
>
> What about Harry's Law makes it 'one of the most promising new series'?
>
--
"There's something that doesn't make sense. Let's go and poke it with a
stick."
Dimensional Traveler
So we should start recording ourselves booing now to play at Comic Con?
David
<dtr...@sonic.net> wrote:
>On 1/22/2011 7:33 AM, David wrote:
>> It'll have to at least have a strong pilot. They'll have to make a
>> presentation at Comic Con because it'll be taken as as a bad sign if
>> they don't. And if it gets killed at Comic Con the whole internet will
>> be abuzz about it and it'll be dead before it premieres.
>
>So we should start recording ourselves booing now to play at Comic Con?
I'm shocked, SHOCKED to see usenet prejudging something. Oh my, I
think I'm getting the vapors!
Professor Bubba
<nanof...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >I was watching "Young Justice" Friday night and when one of the young
> >heroes was complaining about not being taken seriously, I was thinking,
> >kid, there's no *right* to put on a mask and fight crime; you're nothing
> >more than a vigilante. Join the police force if you want to fight crime.
>
> Given that none of them have joined the police force
Dick Grayson did, once, in Bl�dhaven. It didn't last.
Jim G.
Obveeus sent the following on 1/22/2011 10:32 AM:
Comic-Con isn't just extremist comic book geeks anymore.
--
Jim G.
Waukesha, WI
Jim G.
rwgibson13 sent the following on 1/21/2011 10:02 PM:
> On Jan 21, 10:00 pm, David<dimla...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> http://www.deadline.com/2011/01/nbc-picks-up-david-e-kelleys-wonder-w...
>> to the J.J. Abrams/WBTV-produced drama Odd Jobs starring Michael
>> Emerson and Michael O'Quinn, whose script came in very late, is being
>> rolled to next season when it will be applied to the same or new Bad
>> Robot project.
>
> without hearing there was an actual script finished. Doesn't bode
> well, unfortunately.
I have a sneaking suspicion that they want to distance themselves from
the LOST frustration a bit more, and figure that a lot of people might
be done (more or less) being bitter after the additional 12 months.
Jim G.
Ian J. Ball sent the following on 1/22/2011 8:40 AM:
> On Jan 22, 4:19 am, cloud dreamer<S...@Resources.now> wrote:
>> On 22/01/2011 12:30 AM, David wrote:
>>
>>> http://www.deadline.com/2011/01/nbc-picks-up-david-e-kelleys-wonder-w...
>>
>>> NBC Picks Up David E. Kelley's 'Wonder Woman', Michael Patrick King's
>>> Drama
>>> By NELLIE ANDREEVA
>>
>>
>>
>> I give it three weeks.
>>
>> ;]
>
> I've got you beat - I bet it doesn't make it *past* the pilot stage
> (i.e. no series "pick-up").
Keep in mind that this is NBC you're talking about.
Jim G.
David sent the following on 1/21/2011 10:00 PM:
> http://www.deadline.com/2011/01/nbc-picks-up-david-e-kelleys-wonder-woman-michael-patrick-kings-drama/
>
> NBC Picks Up David E. Kelley's 'Wonder Woman', Michael Patrick King's
> Drama
> By NELLIE ANDREEVA
[Snip]
> a reinvention of the iconic D.C. comic in which Wonder Woman -- aka
> Diana Prince -- is a vigilante crime fighter in L.A. but also a
> successful corporate executive and a modern woman trying to balance
> all of the elements of her extraordinary life.
What, the Lifetime Channel was all booked up? :)
rwgibson13
If so, that's exactly the WRONG thing to do. Not even the most
disgruntled LOST fan thinks that these two guys had anything
whatesover to do with any problems the show might've had.
All the extra time does is to guarantee that John Q Public won't
remember who the hell they are if and when the pilot does get made.
We're not talking about Tom Cruise here. They have hard enough time
getting work as it is. Emerson is in a Parenthood episode and
O'Quinn's in a Lifetime movie coming up at the end of this month.
That's it, so far as exposure is concerned.
And if the JJ Abrams stuff that do get made in the meantime tank? No
way this one makes it to series IMO.
Unless, of course, NBC has even worse crap coming along in the
pipeline than they do now :-)
RWG (no, the longer this gets delayed, the less of a chance that we'll
ever even see a pilot)
grinningdemon
To be fair, neither did Bludhaven.
Obveeus
"Jim G." <jimg...@geemail.com> wrote:
No, but it also isn't representative of 'regular TV watchers'. Wonder Woman
at Comic Con is going to be faced with an audience, 10% of which will claim
the show sucks because it doesn't have an invisible plane and 20% of which
will claim the show sucks because it doesn't have a 'virgin girl pining over
her boss forever' plotline and another 20% of which will claim that the show
sucks because they would rather have another season of The Event.
Tom
wrote:
> On 1/21/2011 8:02 PM, syvyn11 wrote:
>
>
>
> >>http://www.deadline.com/2011/01/nbc-picks-up-david-e-kelleys-wonder-w...
>
> >> NBC Picks Up David E. Kelley's 'Wonder Woman', Michael Patrick King's
> >> Drama
> >> By NELLIE ANDREEVA
>
> >> entertainment president Bob Greenblatt capped a day of high-profile
> >> reboot. Additionally, he formally greenlighted another hourlong
> >> project from an A-list showrunner, Michael Patrick King's Mann's
> >> to the J.J. Abrams/WBTV-produced drama Odd Jobs starring Michael
> >> Emerson and Michael O'Quinn, whose script came in very late, is being
> >> rolled to next season when it will be applied to the same or new Bad
> >> supernatural drama Ghost Angeles starring Rachel Bilson.
>
> >> WBTV took Kelley's Wonder Woman spec out to the networks in the first
> >> week of January. At the time, NBC was the most interested but, with
> >> Greenblatt still on the sidelines, the network couldn't commit to the
> >> type of license fee that the studio was seeking in order to do the
> >> With Greenblatt now firmly taking the reins and Kelley just delivering
> >> one of the most promising new series for NBC this season, Harry's Law,
> >> Diana Prince -- is a vigilante crime fighter in L.A. but also a
> >> successful corporate executive and a modern woman trying to balance
> >> all of the elements of her extraordinary life.
>
> >> following the complicated life of Allan Mann, a celebrity hair stylist
> >> in glamorous Los Angeles as he navigates the complexities of his
> >> business, his family life, and his goal to stay relevant in a world
> >> that moves quickly. The project is already casting.
>
> >> Greenblatt greenlighted musical pilot Smash, based on an idea by and
> >> executive produced by Steven Spielberg.
>
> > CEO by day, Superheroine by night? I want this to work, but.....
> > BOMB!
>
> Yeah, I was excited until I read the reworked premise. I know fighting
> Nazis is too much to ask for but a CEO in LA?!?
That's Power Girl, not Wonder Woman.
I wish these knuckleheads would read some comics before thinking they
know anything about them or the characters.
Tom
David
>"Jim G." <jimg...@geemail.com> wrote:
>
>> Obveeus sent the following on 1/22/2011 10:32 AM:
>>> "David"<diml...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>> It'll have to at least have a strong pilot. They'll have to make a
>>>> presentation at Comic Con because it'll be taken as as a bad sign if
>>>> they don't. And if it gets killed at Comic Con the whole internet will
>>>> be abuzz about it and it'll be dead before it premieres.
>>>
>>> Kinda sad if the fate of the show rests with extremist comic book geeks.
>>
>> Comic-Con isn't just extremist comic book geeks anymore.
>
>No, but it also isn't representative of 'regular TV watchers'.
But "regular TV watchers" (at least those networks want to attract)
are internet-savvy. And bad publicity from Comic-Con is going to
spread everywhere online.
David
>I wish these knuckleheads would read some comics before thinking they
>know anything about them or the characters.
This isn't the '70s when comic book creators had no say. I'm sure DC
will be heavily involved.
Obveeus
Yes...that is why I said that it would be 'kinda sad if the fate of the show
rests with extremist comic book geeks'.
shawn
It also gives them a chance to find other permanent work in the
meantime. It's a bad idea to put the show off another year unless the
script is just that bad that it can be reworked into something
workable in the next month.
>And if the JJ Abrams stuff that do get made in the meantime tank? No
>way this one makes it to series IMO.
>
>Unless, of course, NBC has even worse crap coming along in the
>pipeline than they do now :-)
They probably do.
>RWG (no, the longer this gets delayed, the less of a chance that we'll
>ever even see a pilot)
Sadly true.
David
>"David" <diml...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:mnrmj6td4u6vdkbbg...@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 22 Jan 2011 18:46:59 -0500, "Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>>"Jim G." <jimg...@geemail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Obveeus sent the following on 1/22/2011 10:32 AM:
>>>>> Kinda sad if the fate of the show rests with extremist comic book
>>>>> geeks.
>>>>
>>>> Comic-Con isn't just extremist comic book geeks anymore.
>>>
>>>No, but it also isn't representative of 'regular TV watchers'.
>>
>> But "regular TV watchers" (at least those networks want to attract)
>> are internet-savvy. And bad publicity from Comic-Con is going to
>> spread everywhere online.
>
>Yes...that is why I said that it would be 'kinda sad if the fate of the show
>rests with extremist comic book geeks'.
I don't think they're extremists. Here, or example, are their reviews
of this year's new shows. It's the same mixed bag you'd see from
professional critics, though with a more genre/"Lost" fan perspective
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/blogs/live-feed/comic-con-fan-reviews-rundown-54110
And Comic-Con is barely about comic books anymore. A high percentage
of it isn't even about sci-fi/fantasy.
rwgibson13
Damn. You were doing so well until you got to the last twenty words or
so.
RWG (I'm cynical about comic book geeks - I was one - but not THAT
cynical :-)
Dan Dassow
> Something that needs to happen is the complete removal of Bonnie Hammer
> and her crew from anything but daytime quiz shows.
Zeb, what do you have against daytime quiz show? ;-b
Dan Dassow
rwgibson13
What's really sad is that who knows how many other things they turned
down not knowing when they'd have to be available to film a pilot for
a script that took so long to get written. I keep going back to
O'Quinn's response to Jimmy Kimmel when he asked him if he was the
"good Terry or the evil Terry."
TO: "I'm the out-of-work Terry." He seems to be a pretty grounded
kinda guy, unlike a lot of actors.
And to think some of the responses I've read from "fans" about the
Lifetime movie gig, which basically amounted to "WTF is he doing
slumming in a Lifetime movie?" The man needs to work, just like the
rest of us. After a lifetime of character spot work, he knows to take
what's offered because you never know if you'll get more. That's just
the nature of the biz for a middle-aged TV actor, no matter how
talented.
> >And if the JJ Abrams stuff that do get made in the meantime tank? No
> >way this one makes it to series IMO.
>
> >Unless, of course, NBC has even worse crap coming along in the
> >pipeline than they do now :-)
>
> They probably do.
No doubt. But a year is a long time...the new guys in charge can't be
any worse at juding talent than the ones that got kicked out.
> >RWG (no, the longer this gets delayed, the less of a chance that we'll
> >ever even see a pilot)
>
> Sadly true
RWG (maybe I'm overreacting, but after the cancellation of "Terriers,"
I'm just pretty depressed at the state of TV in general these days)
Obveeus
"David" <diml...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 22 Jan 2011 19:05:01 -0500, "Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>>"David" <diml...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>> are internet-savvy. And bad publicity from Comic-Con is going to
>>> spread everywhere online.
>>
>>Yes...that is why I said that it would be 'kinda sad if the fate of the
>>show
>>rests with extremist comic book geeks'.
>
> I don't think they're extremists.
Did you see those comments about how stupid a writer would have to be to
claim that Wonder Woman fought Nazis? That is exactly the stuff I was
talking about because there will be people hating on the new version for
non-sensual reasons exactly like that.
Obveeus
"rwgibson13" <rwgib...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Jan 22, 5:46 pm, "Obveeus" <Obve...@aol.com> wrote:
>>...and another 20% of which will claim that the show
>> sucks because they would rather have another season of The Event
>
>Damn. You were doing so well until you got to the last twenty words or
>so.
Unfortunately, there are people that refuse to watch new shows, badmouth new
shows, etc... for no other reason than that it took the place of a previous
show that they liked.
>RWG (I'm cynical about comic book geeks - I was one - but not THAT
>cynical :-)
Someone must like The Event...and I have a hunch that those someones are
much more likely to show up at Comic Con than 'regular people'.
rwgibson13
Oh, no doubt.
RWG (but I don't think you could find that many of 'em who would
prefer...uh..."The Event" over Wonder Woman)
David
Whose comments? You mean people here? Oh I can definitely believe that
people here would complain about the show not having her invisible
jet. But I don't find your Comic-Con cliches believable. Plenty of TV
shows and movies have been well-received, and if anything they're more
receptive and open to enjoying themselves, having travelled a long way
and gone through big crowds, long lines and overpriced food and hotel
rooms to be there.
rwgibson13
> On Sat, 22 Jan 2011 20:57:03 -0500, "Obveeus" <Obve...@aol.com> wrote:
> >"David" <dimla...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> On Sat, 22 Jan 2011 19:05:01 -0500, "Obveeus" <Obve...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>>Yes...that is why I said that it would be 'kinda sad if the fate of the
> >>>show
> >>>rests with extremist comic book geeks'.
>
> >> I don't think they're extremists.
>
> >Did you see those comments about how stupid a writer would have to be to
> >claim that Wonder Woman fought Nazis? That is exactly the stuff I was
> >talking about because there will be people hating on the new version for
> >non-sensual reasons exactly like that.
>
> Whose comments? You mean people here? Oh I can definitely believe that
> people here would complain about the show not having her invisible
> jet. But I don't find your Comic-Con cliches believable. Plenty of TV
> shows and movies have been well-received, and if anything they're more
> receptive and open to enjoying themselves, having travelled a long way
> and gone through big crowds, long lines and overpriced food and hotel
> rooms to be there.
Pretty much. But more importantly, ComicCon still draws less than
300,000 people total, last I checked. They may have a major influence
on a comic book launch. But a major network (yes, even NBC) TV
series?
My feeling is that the TV producers show up there mainly because:
It's fun.
They love the adoring crowds.
Thieir expense accounts cover it.
RWG (and they don't have to stay more than one day if they don't
wanna :-)
David
<rwgib...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Jan 22, 8:43 pm, David <dimla...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Whose comments? You mean people here? Oh I can definitely believe that
>> people here would complain about the show not having her invisible
>> jet. But I don't find your Comic-Con cliches believable. Plenty of TV
>> shows and movies have been well-received, and if anything they're more
>> receptive and open to enjoying themselves, having travelled a long way
>> and gone through big crowds, long lines and overpriced food and hotel
>> rooms to be there.
>
>Pretty much. But more importantly, ComicCon still draws less than
>300,000 people total, last I checked. They may have a major influence
>on a comic book launch. But a major network (yes, even NBC) TV
>series?
It's not 300,000 tourists, though. It's people who want to be the
first to see things and then talk about them. And every media outlet
sends someone as well. It's like another press tour event but with
word-of-mouth cachet.
Dimensional Traveler
Dimensional Traveler
> On Jan 22, 8:43 pm, David<dimla...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 22 Jan 2011 20:57:03 -0500, "Obveeus"<Obve...@aol.com> wrote:
>>> "David"<dimla...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 22 Jan 2011 19:05:01 -0500, "Obveeus"<Obve...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>> Yes...that is why I said that it would be 'kinda sad if the fate of the
>>>>> show
>>>>> rests with extremist comic book geeks'.
>>
>>>> I don't think they're extremists.
>>
>>> Did you see those comments about how stupid a writer would have to be to
>>> claim that Wonder Woman fought Nazis? That is exactly the stuff I was
>>> talking about because there will be people hating on the new version for
>>> non-sensual reasons exactly like that.
>>
>> Whose comments? You mean people here? Oh I can definitely believe that
>> people here would complain about the show not having her invisible
>> jet. But I don't find your Comic-Con cliches believable. Plenty of TV
>> shows and movies have been well-received, and if anything they're more
>> receptive and open to enjoying themselves, having travelled a long way
>> and gone through big crowds, long lines and overpriced food and hotel
>> rooms to be there.
>
> Pretty much. But more importantly, ComicCon still draws less than
> 300,000 people total, last I checked. They may have a major influence
> on a comic book launch. But a major network (yes, even NBC) TV
> series?
>
Its becoming like another Television Critics Association convention or
Up Fronts, only for the public instead of industry insiders and
professional critics.
rwgibson13
Oh, I get that. Literally. Been there, done that. Stood in the
lines. It generates buzz...
RWG (but make or break a TV series?)
Obveeus
"Dimensional Traveler" <dtr...@sonic.net> wrote:
> Comic Con has been influencing major networks for a couple of years now.
> Its becoming like another Television Critics Association convention or Up
> Fronts, only for the public instead of industry insiders and professional
> critics.
David certainly views the Comic Con attendees the same way as he views
professional TV critics.
David
I honestly can't tell if you're makin' fun.
Obveeus
Some people's opinions are not more relevant than others...except, of
course, mine.
Side note: I was just looking at Rottentomatoes list of films opening this
past weekend. 6 films are listed on the front page and 5 of the 6 have
critical ('professional' film reviewers) praise scores coming in in the 70%+
range. Only 'No Strings Attached' is scoring poorly, with a 51%. If, you
bypass the critics and look at the user's scores - suddenly 'No Strings
Attached' outscores 4 of those other 5 films (and only loses to the highest
scorer by a single point). No doubt, if you could poll the real public
instead of the limited version of public that would take time to evaluate a
film on Rottentomatoes, the skew would push even more in favor of 'No
Strings Attached'.
People need to take a more critical look at 'critical praise' from the
critics.
David
>
>"David" <diml...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 23 Jan 2011 07:41:58 -0500, "Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Dimensional Traveler" <dtr...@sonic.net> wrote:
>>>> Comic Con has been influencing major networks for a couple of years now.
>>>> Its becoming like another Television Critics Association convention or
>>>> Up
>>>> Fronts, only for the public instead of industry insiders and
>>>> professional
>>>> critics.
>>>
>>>David certainly views the Comic Con attendees the same way as he views
>>>professional TV critics.
>>
>> I honestly can't tell if you're makin' fun.
>
>Some people's opinions are not more relevant than others...except, of
>course, mine.
The Comic-Con is a great equilizer. All you need is to 1) cultivate a
sizeable readership for your blog or twitter feed and 2) be one of the
people to see "Wonder Woman" early.
>Side note: I was just looking at Rottentomatoes list of films opening this
>past weekend. 6 films are listed on the front page and 5 of the 6 have
>critical ('professional' film reviewers) praise scores coming in in the 70%+
>range. Only 'No Strings Attached' is scoring poorly, with a 51%. If, you
>bypass the critics and look at the user's scores - suddenly 'No Strings
>Attached' outscores 4 of those other 5 films (and only loses to the highest
>scorer by a single point). No doubt, if you could poll the real public
>instead of the limited version of public that would take time to evaluate a
>film on Rottentomatoes, the skew would push even more in favor of 'No
>Strings Attached'.
As you pointed out, there are a lot of problems here. It's skewed
towards people who would participate in a rottentomatoes poll. And 5
of those 6 movies are only playing in limited release while 3 of them
I've never even heard of, so you're going to have results skewed to
people who live in NY or LA and go to art films. The movies are also
not being compared head-to-head and people have different expectations
from them. And "No Strings Attached" just opened, so at this point
it's only been seen by people who really wanted to see it and so were
more inclined to like it.
Obveeus
"David" <diml...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 23 Jan 2011 10:24:48 -0500, "Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com> wrote:
>>Some people's opinions are not more relevant than others...except, of
>>course, mine.
>
> The Comic-Con is a great equilizer. All you need is to 1) cultivate a
> sizeable readership for your blog or twitter feed and 2) be one of the
> people to see "Wonder Woman" early.
Results of any consensus are going to be skewed by the 'people that would go
to Comic Con factor.
>>Side note: I was just looking at Rottentomatoes list of films opening
>>this
>>past weekend. 6 films are listed on the front page and 5 of the 6 have
>>critical ('professional' film reviewers) praise scores coming in in the
>>70%+
>>range. Only 'No Strings Attached' is scoring poorly, with a 51%. If, you
>>bypass the critics and look at the user's scores - suddenly 'No Strings
>>Attached' outscores 4 of those other 5 films (and only loses to the
>>highest
>>scorer by a single point). No doubt, if you could poll the real public
>>instead of the limited version of public that would take time to evaluate
>>a
>>film on Rottentomatoes, the skew would push even more in favor of 'No
>>Strings Attached'.
>
> As you pointed out, there are a lot of problems here. It's skewed
> towards people who would participate in a rottentomatoes poll.
I sense that you are already missing the real point: that the professional
critics are the ones who's opinion is most skewed away from the mainstream.
Those professional critics are the ones that graded 'No Strings Attached' as
being the worst of the 6 films.
> And 5
> of those 6 movies are only playing in limited release while 3 of them
> I've never even heard of, so you're going to have results skewed to
> people who live in NY or LA and go to art films.
True...allowing people in NYC or LA to determine quality is as bad as
leaving the decision up to Comic Con goers. either way, there is going to
be a very narrowed viewpoint.
> The movies are also
> not being compared head-to-head and people have different expectations
> from them. And "No Strings Attached" just opened, so at this point
> it's only been seen by people who really wanted to see it and so were
> more inclined to like it.
That is true of all the 6 films that are opening this weekend.
David
>"David" <diml...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 23 Jan 2011 10:24:48 -0500, "Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>Some people's opinions are not more relevant than others...except, of
>>>course, mine.
>>
>> The Comic-Con is a great equilizer. All you need is to 1) cultivate a
>> sizeable readership for your blog or twitter feed and 2) be one of the
>> people to see "Wonder Woman" early.
>
>Results of any consensus are going to be skewed by the 'people that would go
>to Comic Con factor.
It's "skewed" in that they're a highly receptive audience with a
passion for sci-fi, which is exactly whose word-of-mouth would mean
most if you're into same.
>>>Side note: I was just looking at Rottentomatoes list of films opening
>>>this
>>>past weekend. 6 films are listed on the front page and 5 of the 6 have
>>>critical ('professional' film reviewers) praise scores coming in in the
>>>70%+
>>>range. Only 'No Strings Attached' is scoring poorly, with a 51%. If, you
>>>bypass the critics and look at the user's scores - suddenly 'No Strings
>>>Attached' outscores 4 of those other 5 films (and only loses to the
>>>highest
>>>scorer by a single point). No doubt, if you could poll the real public
>>>instead of the limited version of public that would take time to evaluate
>>>a
>>>film on Rottentomatoes, the skew would push even more in favor of 'No
>>>Strings Attached'.
>>
>> As you pointed out, there are a lot of problems here. It's skewed
>> towards people who would participate in a rottentomatoes poll.
>
>I sense that you are already missing the real point: that the professional
>critics are the ones who's opinion is most skewed away from the mainstream.
>Those professional critics are the ones that graded 'No Strings Attached' as
>being the worst of the 6 films.
Ratings for a movie that opened two days ago aren't mainstream because
people who saw it on opening weekend are mostly people who really
wanted to see it. And even in a month or so when the ratings plateau
there'll still be a major skew because people are unlikely to go see a
movie that they won't think they'll enjoy. Half the people who saw
"Little Fockers," "Yogi Bear" and "Season of the Witch" liked it. That
strikes me more as people knowing their personal tastes and going to
see what they'll like rather than a fair representation of moviegoers
going to see a movie and half of them liking it.
Obveeus
"David" <diml...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 23 Jan 2011 11:03:59 -0500, "Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>>"David" <diml...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> On Sun, 23 Jan 2011 10:24:48 -0500, "Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>Some people's opinions are not more relevant than others...except, of
>>>>course, mine.
>>>
>>> The Comic-Con is a great equilizer. All you need is to 1) cultivate a
>>> sizeable readership for your blog or twitter feed and 2) be one of the
>>> people to see "Wonder Woman" early.
>>
>>Results of any consensus are going to be skewed by the 'people that would
>>go
>>to Comic Con factor.
>
> It's "skewed" in that they're a highly receptive audience with a
> passion for sci-fi, which is exactly whose word-of-mouth would mean
> most if you're into same.
These aren't mainstream sci-fi fans, though. These are 'extremists'...the
kind of people that would declare Wonder Woman a failure because it showed
her fighting a Nazi (or didn't show her fighting a Nazi as the case may be).
The show isn't going to be judged on its merits if the judging group is a
bunch of people that want it to comply with the comic book or with the
earlier TV show.
> Ratings for a movie that opened two days ago aren't mainstream because
> people who saw it on opening weekend are mostly people who really
> wanted to see it. And even in a month or so when the ratings plateau
> there'll still be a major skew because people are unlikely to go see a
> movie that they won't think they'll enjoy.
...and again, all 6 movies are in their opening weekend so the same should
apply to all six of them. Oddly, though, the professional reviewers are
quite out of sink with those 'regular movie goers'. people rushed out to
see several of those critically praised films and found them quite
unenjoyable. Meanwhile, the critics tried their best to play down the
quality of 'No Strings Attached', but the public liked it anyway. In fact,
the public liked it even though the professional critics's opinion almost
certainly effected the general public's scoring (normal people tend to grade
things the same way they think people want to see them graded).
> Half the people who saw
> "Little Fockers," "Yogi Bear" and "Season of the Witch" liked it. That
> strikes me more as people knowing their personal tastes and going to
> see what they'll like rather than a fair representation of moviegoers
> going to see a movie and half of them liking it.
By critic definition: any movie that makes lots of money must suck compared
with a movie that doesn't make money. Same critic eye you seem to give for
NBC sitcoms when compared to the mainstream CBS/ABC sitcoms. NBC stuff is
better because fewer people are watching, right?
rwgibson13
> "David" <dimla...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Sun, 23 Jan 2011 11:03:59 -0500, "Obveeus" <Obve...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >>"David" <dimla...@yahoo.com> wrote:
The cynic in me wants to chalk much of this down to the "regular movie
goers" wanting to see either Natalie Portman or Kushner "nearly nekkid
and making out" for half the film, whereas the film critics get/have
to see this kind of thing almost every week in every other foriegn
film they are "forced" to see as part of their job.
With different actors, of course. That kind of film is nothing new to
most of the critics, whereas to an American audience, it may well be.
For grins and giggles, check out the rottentomatoes.com entry for
"Transformers 2."
RWG (I think that might be THE largest differential between "critics
score" and "viewers score" in recent history :-)
David
>"David" <diml...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 23 Jan 2011 11:03:59 -0500, "Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>Results of any consensus are going to be skewed by the 'people that would
>>>go
>>>to Comic Con factor.
>>
>> It's "skewed" in that they're a highly receptive audience with a
>> passion for sci-fi, which is exactly whose word-of-mouth would mean
>> most if you're into same.
>
>These aren't mainstream sci-fi fans, though.
No, but they're the ones who have sway over the rest of sci-fi fans.
If you want an opinion of something you go to the person who's most
passionate about the subject.
>These are 'extremists'...the
>kind of people that would declare Wonder Woman a failure because it showed
>her fighting a Nazi (or didn't show her fighting a Nazi as the case may be).
And I disagree with that stereotyping. I realize you're thinking of
nerd cliches but that's people who don't need to do anything more than
go online to express their opinion who are likely to horridly
nit-pick. People who had to go cross-country and are happy to be there
and excited to be the first to see and review something aren't going
to grumble over minute details. And you can see that in the reviews I
linked to upthread.
>> Ratings for a movie that opened two days ago aren't mainstream because
>> people who saw it on opening weekend are mostly people who really
>> wanted to see it. And even in a month or so when the ratings plateau
>> there'll still be a major skew because people are unlikely to go see a
>> movie that they won't think they'll enjoy.
>
>...and again, all 6 movies are in their opening weekend so the same should
>apply to all six of them.
Of the movies you're talking about, "The Way Back" was playing in 650
theaters, "Company Men" in 106, "The Housemaid" in 2, and I can't find
information about the other two at boxofficemojo, though IMDB has
"Johnny Mad Dog" playing locally at something called the Anthology
Film Archives in Manhattan while "Mumbai Diaries" isn't playing
anywhere in New York. Meanwhile, having just opened, "No Strings
Attached" was seen mostly by people who like romantic comedies or
really loved the trailer and so were more likely to like it.
Trying to draw any conclusions based on audiences' internet voting
presents a myriad of problems.
>Oddly, though, the professional reviewers are
>quite out of sink with those 'regular movie goers'. people rushed out to
>see several of those critically praised films and found them quite
>unenjoyable.
I don't see what you mean. "The Housemaid" was much more liked by the
critics. "Johnny Mad Dog" was liked by audiences but 16% less. The
other three were also liked, 11%, 10% and 3% less than critics. And if
you look at critically acclaimed movies that have been playing for
awhile and thus could propagate across all types of audiences, "True
Grit" is very liked and -6% from critics while "King's Speech," "Black
Swan" and "The Fighter" are all well liked and tied between critics
and audiences.
Now my question is how the hell did "The Way Back" get 12,000 ratings,
"Company Men" 14,000, "Johnny Mad Dog" 6,300 and "The Housemaid" 578?
For comparison, "No Strings Attached" got 667 ratings. This whole
internet voting thing is highly questionable and ridiculously fishy.
>Meanwhile, the critics tried their best to play down the
>quality of 'No Strings Attached', but the public liked it anyway.
So far only the "public" that really wanted to see "No Strings
Attached" has seen it.
>> Half the people who saw
>> "Little Fockers," "Yogi Bear" and "Season of the Witch" liked it. That
>> strikes me more as people knowing their personal tastes and going to
>> see what they'll like rather than a fair representation of moviegoers
>> going to see a movie and half of them liking it.
>
>By critic definition: any movie that makes lots of money must suck compared
>with a movie that doesn't make money.
You're stereotyping again. I wouldn't listen to highbrow critics who
only like art films, but most critics give high marks to all types of
movies.
Jim G.
Obveeus sent the following on 1/22/2011 5:46 PM:
>>> It'll have to at least have a strong pilot. They'll have to make a
>>>> presentation at Comic Con because it'll be taken as as a bad sign if
>>>> they don't. And if it gets killed at Comic Con the whole internet will
>>>> be abuzz about it and it'll be dead before it premieres.
>>>
>>> Kinda sad if the fate of the show rests with extremist comic book geeks.
>>
>> Comic-Con isn't just extremist comic book geeks anymore.
>
> No, but it also isn't representative of 'regular TV watchers'.
But it *is* representative of "regular TV watchers who have even the
slightest interest in watching this thing under any circumstances."
> Wonder Woman
> at Comic Con is going to be faced with an audience, 10% of which will claim
> the show sucks because it doesn't have an invisible plane and 20% of which
> will claim the show sucks because it doesn't have a 'virgin girl pining over
> her boss forever' plotline and another 20% of which will claim that the show
> sucks because they would rather have another season of The Event.
Heh. All true, but irrelevant, because none of it makes them any
different from the limited potential audience that *isn't* at Comic-Con.
This is clearly gonna be a niche show, and the niche is perfectly
represented by Comic-Con attendees.
--
Jim G.
Waukesha, WI
Jim G.
rwgibson13 sent the following on 1/22/2011 4:38 PM:
> On Jan 22, 4:19 pm, "Jim G."<jimgy...@geemail.com> wrote:
>> rwgibson13 sent the following on 1/21/2011 10:02 PM:
>>
>>> On Jan 21, 10:00 pm, David<dimla...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> Meanwhile, the commitment
>>>> to the J.J. Abrams/WBTV-produced drama Odd Jobs starring Michael
>>>> Emerson and Michael O'Quinn, whose script came in very late, is being
>>>> rolled to next season when it will be applied to the same or new Bad
>>>> Robot project.
>>
>>> Yeah, I figured that production was in trouble when we'd gone so long
>>> without hearing there was an actual script finished. Doesn't bode
>>> well, unfortunately.
>>
>> I have a sneaking suspicion that they want to distance themselves from
>> the LOST frustration a bit more, and figure that a lot of people might
>> be done (more or less) being bitter after the additional 12 months.
>
> disgruntled LOST fan thinks that these two guys had anything
> whatesover to do with any problems the show might've had.
True, but my suggestion is that it's not about them; it's about J.J.
Many fans are reluctant to trust him and any of his "we have a plan"
show teams at this point in time. A perfect example is the fact that I'm
seeing far more concern over the game plan for FRINGE now than I ever
did before LOST gave us its disaster of a "finale."
> All the extra time does is to guarantee that John Q Public won't
> remember who the hell they are if and when the pilot does get made.
> We're not talking about Tom Cruise here. They have hard enough time
> getting work as it is. Emerson is in a Parenthood episode and
> O'Quinn's in a Lifetime movie coming up at the end of this month.
> That's it, so far as exposure is concerned.
I'm guessing that the network's concern about being caught in a J.J.
backlash is far greater than their concern about providing steady work
for O'Quinn and Emerson.
> And if the JJ Abrams stuff that do get made in the meantime tank? No
> way this one makes it to series IMO.
UNDERCOVERS probably didn't help the cause, either. Suddenly J.J. is
looking human. Or, more accurately, suddenly the sycophants have stepped
away from the Kool-Aid.
> Unless, of course, NBC has even worse crap coming along in the
> pipeline than they do now :-)
This is NBC; crap would be a step up.
> RWG (no, the longer this gets delayed, the less of a chance that we'll
> ever even see a pilot)
You raise some valid points, but my suspicion remains. I just think
that, when it comes to a year's delay, the risk of people forgetting who
O'Quinn and Emerson are is far less than the risk of pushing another new
J.J. show when fans are a bit miffed with Dead Robot at the moment.
In a year, people might very well be even more nostalgic for the two
actors, and they'll be a year more forgiving of J.J. and the island's
butt plug. But for now, when you consider the quick trigger on
UNDERCOVERS and the numbers for FRINGE, it's easy to see why the suits
might be thinking that J.J.'s not their best bet at the moment.
rwgibson13
Everything I've read about this show screams "episodic," ala CSI, L&O
or NCIS or Burn Notice. Different kettle of fish, altogether. Or
should be, if they're thinking smart.
> > All the extra time does is to guarantee that John Q Public won't
> > remember who the hell they are if and when the pilot does get made.
> > We're not talking about Tom Cruise here. They have hard enough time
> > getting work as it is. Emerson is in a Parenthood episode and
> > O'Quinn's in a Lifetime movie coming up at the end of this month.
> > That's it, so far as exposure is concerned.
>
> I'm guessing that the network's concern about being caught in a J.J.
> backlash is far greater than their concern about providing steady work
> for O'Quinn and Emerson.
Naw, the script was just late. Nothing to do with the network. The
producers screwed up. Again, no good spin on this so far as I can
tell. I'm not familiar with the people writing this thing, but it just
doesn't take four months to get a good script written, even for a bad
concept. Trust me on this one. The fact that the script was late
means that there's a problem with the concept, the producers, or a
hiccup between Bad Robot and Emerson and O'Quinn. NBC has nothing to
do with this particular problem.
> > And if the JJ Abrams stuff that do get made in the meantime tank? No
> > way this one makes it to series IMO.
>
> UNDERCOVERS probably didn't help the cause, either. Suddenly J.J. is
> looking human. Or, more accurately, suddenly the sycophants have stepped
> away from the Kool-Aid.
>
> > Unless, of course, NBC has even worse crap coming along in the
> > pipeline than they do now :-)
>
> This is NBC; crap would be a step up.
>
> > RWG (no, the longer this gets delayed, the less of a chance that we'll
> > ever even see a pilot)
>
> You raise some valid points, but my suspicion remains. I just think
> that, when it comes to a year's delay, the risk of people forgetting who
> O'Quinn and Emerson are is far less than the risk of pushing another new
> J.J. show when fans are a bit miffed with Dead Robot at the moment.
No offense, but you're living in lala land with this paragraph. The
"fans" have absolutely NOTHING to do with this. It's strictly an
industry problem. The network execs don't read Usenet, nor do they
pay attention to fan reaction when deciding on projects. The ratings
are all that matter.
The DO pay attention to people like JJ Abrams, though, so that I can
buy. They'll definitely be looking at Alcatraz when it hits. For the
sake of this project, I hope it works out, because I want to see these
two guys work together again.
RWG (but, at this point, it's looking less and less likely :-(
Jim G.
"KalElFan" <kale...@yanospamhoo.com> sent the following on Sat, 22 Jan
2011 09:32:08 -0500:
> I think the West Coast, L.A. setting is perfect.
I think that Washington, DC is ideal for Diana Prince. Any era DC.
Zeb Carter
I'm have nothing against them per se. Just that I think BH and crew
aren't qualified for much more than that. She is on record for saying
she doesn't like science fiction (I am guessing hard sci fi and not the
horror shows which were poorly done to start with).
Obveeus
"rwgibson13" <rwgib...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Jan 23, 12:03 pm, "Obveeus" <Obve...@aol.com> wrote:
>> ...and again, all 6 movies are in their opening weekend so the same
>> should
>> apply to all six of them. Oddly, though, the professional reviewers are
>> quite out of sink with those 'regular movie goers'. people rushed out to
>> see several of those critically praised films and found them quite
>> unenjoyable. Meanwhile, the critics tried their best to play down the
>> quality of 'No Strings Attached', but the public liked it anyway.
>
>The cynic in me wants to chalk much of this down to the "regular movie
>goers" wanting to see either Natalie Portman or Kushner "nearly nekkid
>and making out" for half the film, whereas the film critics get/have
>to see this kind of thing almost every week in every other foriegn
>film they are "forced" to see as part of their job.
The cynic in me thinks that those professional critics would have graded 'No
Strings Attached' higher if it had given them the nudity that all those
foreign films actually give them.
The cynic in me thinks that those professional critics would have graded 'No
Strings Attached' higher if it had been in a foreign language with
subtitles.
>With different actors, of course. That kind of film is nothing new to
>most of the critics, whereas to an American audience, it may well be.
'No Strings Attached' is typical movie romance stuff for the American
audience. Nothing new for the average American to see.
>For grins and giggles, check out the rottentomatoes.com entry for
>"Transformers 2."
>
>RWG (I think that might be THE largest differential between "critics
>score" and "viewers score" in recent history :-)
Check out the Twilight movie and Fast and Furious from that same year. The
reviewers were trying extra hard to get people to stay away from the
theater.
Obveeus
> On Sun, 23 Jan 2011 13:03:20 -0500, "Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>>"David" <diml...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 23 Jan 2011 11:03:59 -0500, "Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>>>>Results of any consensus are going to be skewed by the 'people that
>>>>would
>>>>go
>>>>to Comic Con factor.
>>>
>>> It's "skewed" in that they're a highly receptive audience with a
>>> passion for sci-fi, which is exactly whose word-of-mouth would mean
>>> most if you're into same.
>>
>>These aren't mainstream sci-fi fans, though.
>
> No, but they're the ones who have sway over the rest of sci-fi fans.
Which is exactly the problem. The success or failure of Wonder Woman should
not hinge on some Comic Con idiots that are in a rage over the
'inaccuracies' of the pilot.
> If you want an opinion of something you go to the person who's most
> passionate about the subject.
Sure...and that is why you get highly biased and inaccurate info much of the
time. Those 'experts' are biased by issues that have nothing to do with the
program they are reviewing. If Wonder Woman's outfit is the wrong color from
the comic book verion 60 years ago, it doesn't make it *bad*.
>>> Ratings for a movie that opened two days ago aren't mainstream because
>>> people who saw it on opening weekend are mostly people who really
>>> wanted to see it. And even in a month or so when the ratings plateau
>>> there'll still be a major skew because people are unlikely to go see a
>>> movie that they won't think they'll enjoy.
>>
>>...and again, all 6 movies are in their opening weekend so the same should
>>apply to all six of them.
>
> Of the movies you're talking about, "The Way Back" was playing in 650
> theaters, "Company Men" in 106, "The Housemaid" in 2, and I can't find
> information about the other two at boxofficemojo, though IMDB has
> "Johnny Mad Dog" playing locally at something called the Anthology
> Film Archives in Manhattan while "Mumbai Diaries" isn't playing
> anywhere in New York. Meanwhile, having just opened, "No Strings
> Attached" was seen mostly by people who like romantic comedies or
> really loved the trailer and so were more likely to like it.
Why are you still ignoring the difference between the 'professional critic'
scores and the 'average human' scores which was the subject under
discussion? Company Men has reviews from 30 professional critics. No
Strings Attached has reviews from 32 professional critics. There is
virtually no difference there. Now, as for 'normal people' seeing the
films, sure, No Strings Attached has many more normal people seeing it, but
how would that change your claim that people most likely to enjoy the film
are the first to go see it? The same is true of those other films in their
opening weekend as well.
>>Oddly, though, the professional reviewers are
>>quite out of sink with those 'regular movie goers'. people rushed out to
>>see several of those critically praised films and found them quite
>>unenjoyable.
>
> I don't see what you mean. "The Housemaid" was much more liked by the
> critics. "Johnny Mad Dog" was liked by audiences but 16% less. The
> other three were also liked, 11%, 10% and 3% less than critics.
So, we agree that the critics claimed every one of those film opening was
better than the general public (the ones most likely to enjoy it because
they rushed out to see it on opening wekeend)? That seems to support that
the critics are out of touch. Meanwhile, the critics were off 20% the other
way on No String Attached. Is anyone surprised that the critics overly
mocked the 'big budget' film and overly praised the 'small budget' films?
How else could these reviewers convince their followers that they were
smarter and more worthy of attention?
> And if
> you look at critically acclaimed movies that have been playing for
> awhile and thus could propagate across all types of audiences, "True
> Grit" is very liked and -6% from critics while "King's Speech," "Black
> Swan" and "The Fighter" are all well liked and tied between critics
> and audiences.
...and the longer a film is out, the more likely that followup reviews will
comply with what other people already said: nature of humans.
> Now my question is how the hell did "The Way Back" get 12,000 ratings,
> "Company Men" 14,000, "Johnny Mad Dog" 6,300 and "The Housemaid" 578?
> For comparison, "No Strings Attached" got 667 ratings. This whole
> internet voting thing is highly questionable and ridiculously fishy.
As it is fishy that 'professional reviewers' will always lean towards an
'artsy fartsy' film being better than a popular film. All one needs to do
to achieve critical praise is throw in some wafting smoke, bland colors,
subtitles, illnesses, naked ugly people, stars working for scale, or a
subset of those at least.
shawn
wrote:
Was it science fiction she hated or was it sci-fi in space that she
hated? I'm not sure any more exactly what it was that she hated but I
know that I don't care for all of the junk reality shows that SyFy has
on the air now.
Dimensional Traveler
>
> In a year, people might very well be even more nostalgic for the two
> actors, and they'll be a year more forgiving of J.J. and the island's
> butt plug.
One should never be forgiving of a giant butt plug.
Obveeus
"Jim G." <jimg...@geemail.com> wrote:
>
> Obveeus sent the following on 1/22/2011 5:46 PM:
>> "Jim G."<jimg...@geemail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Comic-Con isn't just extremist comic book geeks anymore.
>>
>> No, but it also isn't representative of 'regular TV watchers'.
>
> But it *is* representative of "regular TV watchers who have even the
> slightest interest in watching this thing under any circumstances."
You have a point with respect to older TV viewers. Just the name 'Wonder
Woman' is going to make most people look for something else to watch becasue
they will be judging the show based upon memory of the earlier incarnation.
That is one of the risks these remake take. However, the younger viewers
that haven't been pre-biased by the previous incarnation of the show are
likely still open/interested in a TV series called 'Wonder Woman'. Those
younger viewers won't start souring until they hear from some Comic Con
reviewer that the new show sucks...and little will they know that the
'sucks' part is based upon her outfit not matching the original comic book.
> Heh. All true, but irrelevant, because none of it makes them any different
> from the limited potential audience that *isn't* at Comic-Con. This is
> clearly gonna be a niche show, and the niche is perfectly represented by
> Comic-Con attendees.
NBC better hope that their latest and greatest re-tread idea has a wider net
than the attendees of Comic Con. They don't need another sub 2.0 demo show.
Lilith
wrote:
I hope you're not counting wrestling as a reality show.
--
Lilith
Mamac
Of course he's not. Wrestling's a "reality" show -- one of the first
ever. That is to say, it's one of those shows like Survivor that they
market as being "reality" and "unscripted", and that is often presented
as a contest of some sort, but that of course is manipulated or outright
rigged behind-the-scenes anyway.
grinningdemon
wrote:
>
>"KalElFan" <kale...@yanospamhoo.com> sent the following on Sat, 22 Jan
>2011 09:32:08 -0500:
>> I think the West Coast, L.A. setting is perfect.
>
>I think that Washington, DC is ideal for Diana Prince. Any era DC.
It's David E. Kelley so you can lay odds it's going to be set in
Boston.
That said, I prefer she stick to fictional cities...part of the
strength of the DCU and its characters is that it is far more
fantasy-based...I say embrace that...but I still think this show will
be crap.
Anim8rFSK
shawn <nanof...@gmail.com> wrote:
Science fiction. Remember she rejected shows for being 'too science
fictiony'
--
"Please, I can't die, I've never kissed an Asian woman!"
Shego on "Shat My Dad Says"
Lilith
wrote:
They should have given her the Discovery Channel to play with.
--
Lilith
Duggy
> On Sun, 23 Jan 2011 14:03:36 -0600, Jim G. <jimgy...@geemail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >"KalElFan" <kalel...@yanospamhoo.com> sent the following on Sat, 22 Jan
> >2011 09:32:08 -0500:
> >> I think the West Coast, L.A. setting is perfect.
>
> >I think that Washington, DC is ideal for Diana Prince. Any era DC.
>
> It's David E. Kelley so you can lay odds it's going to be set in
> Boston.
Yeah, like Chicago Hope.
===
= DUG.
===
Pat O'Neill
Or the current Harry's Law--set in Cleveland
Duggy
> On Jan 24, 4:32 am, Duggy <Paul.Dug...@jcu.edu.au> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jan 24, 3:45 pm, grinningdemon <grinningde...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Sun, 23 Jan 2011 14:03:36 -0600, Jim G. <jimgy...@geemail.com>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > >"KalElFan" <kalel...@yanospamhoo.com> sent the following on Sat, 22 Jan
> > > >2011 09:32:08 -0500:
> > > >> I think the West Coast, L.A. setting is perfect.
>
> > > >I think that Washington, DC is ideal for Diana Prince. Any era DC.
>
> > > It's David E. Kelley so you can lay odds it's going to be set in
> > > Boston.
> > Yeah, like Chicago Hope.
If Harry's Law is set in Cleveland it isn't set in Boston like Ally
McBeal. The Practice, Boston Public, Boston Legal and Chicago Hope.
===
= DUG.
===
Obveeus
David
>"David" <diml...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:ifsoj6hvuike04hgl...@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 23 Jan 2011 13:03:20 -0500, "Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>These aren't mainstream sci-fi fans, though.
>>
>> No, but they're the ones who have sway over the rest of sci-fi fans.
>
>Which is exactly the problem. The success or failure of Wonder Woman should
>not hinge on some Comic Con idiots that are in a rage over the
>'inaccuracies' of the pilot.
Which, again, won't happen, as Comic-Con attendees don't get in a
"rage." People don't go to Comic Con to complain anymore than people
go to Disneyland to complain. People take such vacations because they
know they're both likely to and are prepared to enjoy themselves. It's
the perfect place to premiere anything genre-related to an audience
ready to embrace it.
>> Of the movies you're talking about, "The Way Back" was playing in 650
>> theaters, "Company Men" in 106, "The Housemaid" in 2, and I can't find
>> information about the other two at boxofficemojo, though IMDB has
>> "Johnny Mad Dog" playing locally at something called the Anthology
>> Film Archives in Manhattan while "Mumbai Diaries" isn't playing
>> anywhere in New York. Meanwhile, having just opened, "No Strings
>> Attached" was seen mostly by people who like romantic comedies or
>> really loved the trailer and so were more likely to like it.
>
>Why are you still ignoring the difference between the 'professional critic'
>scores and the 'average human' scores which was the subject under
>discussion?
They aren't "average human" scores by a definition that would be
useful here, only "average human" in that they're unpaid
professionals. Now "True Grit," "King's Speech," "Black Swan" and "The
Fighter" have scores better reflecting "average humans" (meaning the
general populace has gotten to see them) and guess what? The critics
and general audiences agree.
But you're never going to get a true accurate score. Even when "No
Strings Attached" has been playing on TNT for five years people who
know they won't like it will have been unlikely to see it. So online
scores of "average humans" is useless.
>Company Men has reviews from 30 professional critics. No
>Strings Attached has reviews from 32 professional critics. There is
>virtually no difference there. Now, as for 'normal people' seeing the
>films, sure, No Strings Attached has many more normal people seeing it, but
>how would that change your claim that people most likely to enjoy the film
>are the first to go see it? The same is true of those other films in their
>opening weekend as well.
I never said it wasn't. That's why I'm dismissive of movies playing in
few theaters that people had to go out of their way to see. I think
this whole online scoring thing (even assuming it's legit) has a ton
of problems.
>>>Oddly, though, the professional reviewers are
>>>quite out of sink with those 'regular movie goers'. people rushed out to
>>>see several of those critically praised films and found them quite
>>>unenjoyable.
>>
>> I don't see what you mean. "The Housemaid" was much more liked by the
>> critics. "Johnny Mad Dog" was liked by audiences but 16% less. The
>> other three were also liked, 11%, 10% and 3% less than critics.
>
>So, we agree that the critics claimed every one of those film opening was
>better than the general public (the ones most likely to enjoy it because
>they rushed out to see it on opening wekeend)?
That's true in the case of the independent movies (at least the
smaller ones, possibly not "The Way Back"), not in the case of "No
Strings Attached," as every critic saw it but only the average people
who really wanted to see it have seen it. So you're comparing apples
and oranges.
>That seems to support that
>the critics are out of touch. Meanwhile, the critics were off 20% the other
>way on No String Attached. Is anyone surprised that the critics overly
>mocked the 'big budget' film and overly praised the 'small budget' films?
That isn't what happened. 1 out 2 critics liked it and it got a
perfectly fine above-average score of 5.5.
>How else could these reviewers convince their followers that they were
>smarter and more worthy of attention?
More stereotyping nonsense. Critics who are out of touch with the
mainstream wouldn't be able to keep their newspaper and entertainment
website jobs, and such critics (like the guy who hated "Toy Story 3")
get ganged up on by other professionals.
>> And if
>> you look at critically acclaimed movies that have been playing for
>> awhile and thus could propagate across all types of audiences, "True
>> Grit" is very liked and -6% from critics while "King's Speech," "Black
>> Swan" and "The Fighter" are all well liked and tied between critics
>> and audiences.
>
>...and the longer a film is out, the more likely that followup reviews will
>comply with what other people already said: nature of humans.
The trend is always of a movie starting high and then plateauing
somewhere lower. But like I said you're never going to get a true
measurement in voluntary, online voting.
>> Now my question is how the hell did "The Way Back" get 12,000 ratings,
>> "Company Men" 14,000, "Johnny Mad Dog" 6,300 and "The Housemaid" 578?
>> For comparison, "No Strings Attached" got 667 ratings. This whole
>> internet voting thing is highly questionable and ridiculously fishy.
>
>As it is fishy that 'professional reviewers' will always lean towards an
>'artsy fartsy' film being better than a popular film. All one needs to do
>to achieve critical praise is throw in some wafting smoke, bland colors,
>subtitles, illnesses, naked ugly people, stars working for scale, or a
>subset of those at least.
So long as they're happy just to have a blog no one reads, though I'm
guessing those critics don't get selected for inclusion at
rottentomatoes.
Obveeus
"David" <diml...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 23 Jan 2011 17:53:20 -0500, "Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com> wrote:
>>Which is exactly the problem. The success or failure of Wonder Woman
>>should
>>not hinge on some Comic Con idiots that are in a rage over the
>>'inaccuracies' of the pilot.
>
> Which, again, won't happen, as Comic-Con attendees don't get in a
> "rage." People don't go to Comic Con to complain anymore than people
> go to Disneyland to complain. People take such vacations because they
> know they're both likely to and are prepared to enjoy themselves. It's
> the perfect place to premiere anything genre-related to an audience
> ready to embrace it.
When people go to Disneyland or to a rock concert they inevitably claim they
had a wonderful time regardless of the truth because they have so much
invested in the event. Comic Con is a bit different, though. People will
undoubtledly say they had a great time at the event, but that has nothing to
do with what they will say about a specific booth/show that they are
specifically prompted to review.
Think of it like this: if I told you that there was going to be a new Star
Trek series, what do you think the response would be from the Star Trek
newsgroup? Before any producer or director or writer is named...before any
cast is given...before any premise is revealed...before any ship name is
revealed...before any point in time for the series setting is mentioned...I
guarantee you that there are a half dozen or so regulars and most prolific
posters to the Star trek newsgroup that would already be bashing the new
series as garbage.
Regardless of people's love for sci-fi or love for fantasy or whatever
melding of the two will exist in a TV series, the entire genre is still
niche for TV and there are tons of lovers of that genre that actually love
to hate most everything that it offers. Those people are the Comic Con
attendees in spades. They will show up in Wonder Woman costumes wielding
golden lassos and rready to gripe about the TV character's foot wear being
wrong before they even sign in and get their attendee badge.
> But you're never going to get a true accurate score. Even when "No
> Strings Attached" has been playing on TNT for five years people who
> know they won't like it will have been unlikely to see it. So online
> scores of "average humans" is useless.
You seem to be straying away from any useful point here. I fully grant you
that people that will never see the movie aren't reflected in the user
ratings, but SO WHAT? We aren't talking about people that do not watch
movies. We are talking about professional critics and their tastes vs. the
tastes of people that do go to see movies. The professional critics
consistently rate small cost artsy films as being 'better' than mainstream
movies that the majority of the public would actually enjoy. It is
reflected in the awards shows, just as it is reflected in those critic's
reviews. You may want to give a blanket pass to those entities and bow at
their feet in regard to their superior ability to tell what quality is, but
a truly wise person knows to take everything they say (or award) with a
grain of salt because quite a bit of what they deem as great is actually
nothing more than tedious self aggrandizing.
>>So, we agree that the critics claimed every one of those film opening was
>>better than the general public (the ones most likely to enjoy it because
>>they rushed out to see it on opening wekeend)?
>
> That's true in the case of the independent movies (at least the
> smaller ones, possibly not "The Way Back"), not in the case of "No
> Strings Attached," as every critic saw it but only the average people
> who really wanted to see it have seen it. So you're comparing apples
> and oranges.
Why do you keep claiming that only people that wanted to see 'No Strings
Attached' saw it, but that the same wouldn't be true of all other movies
when they open?
>>That seems to support that
>>the critics are out of touch. Meanwhile, the critics were off 20% the
>>other
>>way on No String Attached. Is anyone surprised that the critics overly
>>mocked the 'big budget' film and overly praised the 'small budget' films?
>
> That isn't what happened. 1 out 2 critics liked it and it got a
> perfectly fine above-average score of 5.5.
'No Strings Attached' has 33 critic reviews listed. These are 'professional
critics' as theyu are being paid by newspapers/TV/etc... to review films.
They gave the film a 52% rating. 52% is bad for a film...especially for a
film that won the weekend box office.
>>How else could these reviewers convince their followers that they were
>>smarter and more worthy of attention?
>
> More stereotyping nonsense. Critics who are out of touch with the
> mainstream wouldn't be able to keep their newspaper and entertainment
> website jobs,
What percentage of the population do you think actually follows the
recommendations of the reviews in the newspaper? Do you think there are
people lining up to NOT see the latest Twilight film because the newspaper
said it sucked? Do you think that people are lining up to see the latest
'fantastic film from Armenia' because the reviewer said it was good? Those
people have a fairly niche following. Most people that read the reviews at
all (and no, most people don't read them at all), know to take those reviews
under consideration only in so much as they have learned the taste of the
reviewer.
> and such critics (like the guy who hated "Toy Story 3")
> get ganged up on by other professionals.
...and the myriad of wannabee internet reviewers largely try to emulate the
tastes of the professional critics when offering up their own ideas. If the
first 10 critics had pointed out that Toy Story 3 was nothing more than the
same regurgitated story with an extra heap of sappiness this time around,
they next 300 reviews would likely have followed suit.
Adam H. Kerman
>On Jan 24, 4:32 am, Duggy <Paul.Dug...@jcu.edu.au> wrote:
>>On Jan 24, 3:45 pm, grinningdemon <grinningde...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
>>>It's David E. Kelley so you can lay odds it's going to be set in
>>>Boston.
>>Yeah, like Chicago Hope.
>Or the current Harry's Law--set in Cleveland
Cincinnati
David
>"David" <diml...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 23 Jan 2011 17:53:20 -0500, "Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>Which is exactly the problem. The success or failure of Wonder Woman
>>>should
>>>not hinge on some Comic Con idiots that are in a rage over the
>>>'inaccuracies' of the pilot.
>>
>> Which, again, won't happen, as Comic-Con attendees don't get in a
>> "rage." People don't go to Comic Con to complain anymore than people
>> go to Disneyland to complain. People take such vacations because they
>> know they're both likely to and are prepared to enjoy themselves. It's
>> the perfect place to premiere anything genre-related to an audience
>> ready to embrace it.
>
>When people go to Disneyland or to a rock concert they inevitably claim they
>had a wonderful time regardless of the truth because they have so much
>invested in the event. Comic Con is a bit different, though. People will
>undoubtledly say they had a great time at the event, but that has nothing to
>do with what they will say about a specific booth/show that they are
>specifically prompted to review.
They would be excited to see the pilot, meet the cast, ask the
producers questions, take photos with the real or even fake Wonder
Woman and just be at Comic Con in general, and would be more likely to
say they enjoyed it than if they were just watching it at home at the
same time as millions of other people. It's the perfect opportunity
for NBC to take advantage of, and they and other networks and studios
do, every year.
>Think of it like this: if I told you that there was going to be a new Star
>Trek series, what do you think the response would be from the Star Trek
>newsgroup? Before any producer or director or writer is named...before any
>cast is given...before any premise is revealed...before any ship name is
>revealed...before any point in time for the series setting is mentioned...I
>guarantee you that there are a half dozen or so regulars and most prolific
>posters to the Star trek newsgroup that would already be bashing the new
>series as garbage.
You keep confusing internet geeks with Comic Con goers. Getting on the
internet to complain is effortless. When you spend your vacation to go
somewhere and spend a lot of money you're doing it to enjoy yourself.
>> But you're never going to get a true accurate score. Even when "No
>> Strings Attached" has been playing on TNT for five years people who
>> know they won't like it will have been unlikely to see it. So online
>> scores of "average humans" is useless.
>
>You seem to be straying away from any useful point here. I fully grant you
>that people that will never see the movie aren't reflected in the user
>ratings, but SO WHAT? We aren't talking about people that do not watch
>movies. We are talking about professional critics and their tastes vs. the
>tastes of people that do go to see movies.
You can't draw any conclusions from internet voting vs. a random
assortment of critics. It'd be like comparing Nielsen ratings for
"Chuck" to ratings drawn from "Chuck" fans who went to a
ratings-measuring website.
>The professional critics
>consistently rate small cost artsy films as being 'better' than mainstream
>movies that the majority of the public would actually enjoy. It is
>reflected in the awards shows, just as it is reflected in those critic's
>reviews.
It isn't true for artsy films/awards contenders that had a chance to
play for awhile ("True Grit," "The Fighter," "Black Swan," "King's
Speech"). Heck, it isn't even true for movies you keep pointing to
that just opened.
The problem is that "like" or "don't like" are extremely broad
categories. If you look at average ratings in most case they're close
"Company Men" - critics 6.8, audiences 6.6
"Way Back" - critics 6.8, audiences 7.2
"Johnny Mad Dog" - critics 7.7, audiences 6.8
"Mumbai Diaries" - critics 7.2, audiences 6.8
"The Housemaid" - critics 6.4, audiences 6.2
And the last one demonstrates the huge problem with like/don't like as
if you're only looking at that you'll see a 28% discrepancy, while the
actual difference in averages is a .2!
You can also see a pattern that the more theaters a movie plays/the
longer it's out the more the audiences agree with critics. And lastly
this year's awards frontrunner is "The Social Network," which isn't
considered an art film.
>You may want to give a blanket pass to those entities and bow at
>their feet in regard to their superior ability to tell what quality is, but
>a truly wise person knows to take everything they say (or award) with a
>grain of salt because quite a bit of what they deem as great is actually
>nothing more than tedious self aggrandizing.
Your problem is you start off from a place of critic-hatred and
therefore have a false premise. I don't "critic-worship," but since
critics see every movie while audiences only see what they like I
realize that that puts critics in a better position to determine
what's best. And I don't give any individual critic increased
importance, but when there's a near-consensus of every critic I
consider that the movie deserves it, even if I can't personally see
what's great about it. It's far from exclusive to "highbrow" movies
either: "The Hangover" - liked by 4 out of 5 critics.
>>>So, we agree that the critics claimed every one of those film opening was
>>>better than the general public (the ones most likely to enjoy it because
>>>they rushed out to see it on opening wekeend)?
>>
>> That's true in the case of the independent movies (at least the
>> smaller ones, possibly not "The Way Back"), not in the case of "No
>> Strings Attached," as every critic saw it but only the average people
>> who really wanted to see it have seen it. So you're comparing apples
>> and oranges.
>
>Why do you keep claiming that only people that wanted to see 'No Strings
>Attached' saw it, but that the same wouldn't be true of all other movies
>when they open?
I don't claim that. Never did.
>'No Strings Attached' has 33 critic reviews listed. These are 'professional
>critics' as theyu are being paid by newspapers/TV/etc... to review films.
>They gave the film a 52% rating. 52% is bad for a film...especially for a
>film that won the weekend box office.
You only think that because rottentomatoes emphasizes liked/not liked
by putting the numbers in huge type, even though it's hugely broad and
in fact the average rating is much more informative. And a 5.5 is
good.
>>>How else could these reviewers convince their followers that they were
>>>smarter and more worthy of attention?
>>
>> More stereotyping nonsense. Critics who are out of touch with the
>> mainstream wouldn't be able to keep their newspaper and entertainment
>> website jobs,
>
>What percentage of the population do you think actually follows the
>recommendations of the reviews in the newspaper? Do you think there are
>people lining up to NOT see the latest Twilight film because the newspaper
>said it sucked? Do you think that people are lining up to see the latest
>'fantastic film from Armenia' because the reviewer said it was good? Those
>people have a fairly niche following. Most people that read the reviews at
>all (and no, most people don't read them at all), know to take those reviews
>under consideration only in so much as they have learned the taste of the
>reviewer.
So you think newspapers keep employing critics because they don't
matter? Do you think newspapers keep around other opinion columns
that, at best, no one cares about, and at worst are going to hate on
whatever is popular this week and upset people? By this reasoning the
New York Post should carry a full contingent of liberal editorials.
And if newspaper critics either don't matter or are out of touch with
the general public why do they make up the majority of the critics at
rottentomatoes?
Pat O'Neill
That was my point--like Chicago Hope, it's Kelley series not set in
Boston. The Ally, Practice, Public, Legal quartet were all set in
Boston because they all took place in the same "universe".
Obveeus
"David" <diml...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> So you think newspapers keep employing critics because they don't
> matter?
You seem intent on being disingenuous with this topic. I'll bow out now.
David
I'm sorry, was I not simply repeating what you were saying here?
>What percentage of the population do you think actually follows the
>recommendations of the reviews in the newspaper? Do you think there are
>people lining up to NOT see the latest Twilight film because the newspaper
>said it sucked? Do you think that people are lining up to see the latest
>'fantastic film from Armenia' because the reviewer said it was good? Those
>people have a fairly niche following. Most people that read the reviews at
>all (and no, most people don't read them at all), know to take those reviews
>under consideration only in so much as they have learned the taste of the
>reviewer.
That does sound like one long paragraph about how critics don't
matter, aside from one sentence fragment in the end about people with
like-minded tastes. Which seems like not a good reason to keep a
critic employed, especially if you're meant to be representative of
the general populace and are going to get worked up because critics
hate what most people are going to love.
Mamac
> You can also see a pattern that the more theaters a movie plays/the
> longer it's out the more the audiences agree with critics. And lastly
> this year's awards frontrunner is "The Social Network," which isn't
> considered an art film.
But it is a snoozefest; all talk and no action or SFX.
> Your problem is you start off from a place of critic-hatred and
> therefore have a false premise. I don't "critic-worship," but since
> critics see every movie while audiences only see what they like I
> realize that that puts critics in a better position to determine
> what's best.
Not really. If critics see *every* movie, even ones that are not the
kind they'd watch for recreation, they will dislike the latter because
they were bored by them.
So a film is seen by a) normal people who like that type of film and b)
critics who like that type of film and c) critics who don't like that
type of film. The latter drags the critics' average ratings down for
films that are popular.
If the population of critics is biased in favor of people who like arty
films, that further skews the critics' ratings of movies.
Now, if we had genre-specific critics, so a romantic comedy lover
reviewed just romantic comedies, a sci-fi lover just sci-fi flicks, and
so on, this would get rid of both sources of bias (since the arty-lovers
would review just the arty films).
And a bad rating for, say, a sci-fi film would mean "this is an attempt
at a sci-fi film that a sci-fi aficionado is likely to find
disappointing", rather than "this is a sci-fi film so most people will
hate it".
And the former is the better determination of the quality of the film.
> So you think newspapers keep employing critics because they don't
> matter? Do you think newspapers keep around other opinion columns
> that, at best, no one cares about, and at worst are going to hate on
> whatever is popular this week and upset people? By this reasoning the
> New York Post should carry a full contingent of liberal editorials.
Consider that a reviewer column could be successful not because people
by and large agreed with the critic, but because *they found the reviews
entertaining to read*. And of course a snarky panning is often far, far
more entertaining to read than a heap of glowing praise.
Jim G.
rwgibson13 sent the following on 1/23/2011 2:03 PM:
> On Jan 23, 1:16 pm, "Jim G."<jimgy...@geemail.com> wrote:
>> rwgibson13 sent the following on 1/22/2011 4:38 PM:
>
>>> On Jan 22, 4:19 pm, "Jim G."<jimgy...@geemail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> I have a sneaking suspicion that they want to distance themselves from
>>>> the LOST frustration a bit more, and figure that a lot of people might
>>>> be done (more or less) being bitter after the additional 12 months.
>>
>>> If so, that's exactly the WRONG thing to do. Not even the most
>>> disgruntled LOST fan thinks that these two guys had anything
>>> whatesover to do with any problems the show might've had.
>>
>> True, but my suggestion is that it's not about them; it's about J.J.
>> Many fans are reluctant to trust him and any of his "we have a plan"
>> show teams at this point in time. A perfect example is the fact that I'm
>> seeing far more concern over the game plan for FRINGE now than I ever
>> did before LOST gave us its disaster of a "finale."
>
> Everything I've read about this show screams "episodic," ala CSI, L&O
> or NCIS or Burn Notice. Different kettle of fish, altogether. Or
> should be, if they're thinking smart.
Yes, that would make a big difference.
>>> All the extra time does is to guarantee that John Q Public won't
>>> remember who the hell they are if and when the pilot does get made.
>>> We're not talking about Tom Cruise here. They have hard enough time
>>> getting work as it is. Emerson is in a Parenthood episode and
>>> O'Quinn's in a Lifetime movie coming up at the end of this month.
>>> That's it, so far as exposure is concerned.
>>
>> I'm guessing that the network's concern about being caught in a J.J.
>> backlash is far greater than their concern about providing steady work
>> for O'Quinn and Emerson.
>
> Naw, the script was just late. Nothing to do with the network. The
> producers screwed up.
Was there any official explanation for *why* the script was late? (Yeah,
I realize it could just be spin even if it exists, but it's worth asking.)
> Again, no good spin on this so far as I can
> tell. I'm not familiar with the people writing this thing, but it just
> doesn't take four months to get a good script written, even for a bad
> concept. Trust me on this one. The fact that the script was late
> means that there's a problem with the concept, the producers, or a
> hiccup between Bad Robot and Emerson and O'Quinn. NBC has nothing to
> do with this particular problem.
>
>>> And if the JJ Abrams stuff that do get made in the meantime tank? No
>>> way this one makes it to series IMO.
>>
>> UNDERCOVERS probably didn't help the cause, either. Suddenly J.J. is
>> looking human. Or, more accurately, suddenly the sycophants have stepped
>> away from the Kool-Aid.
>>
>>> Unless, of course, NBC has even worse crap coming along in the
>>> pipeline than they do now :-)
>>
>> This is NBC; crap would be a step up.
>>
>>> RWG (no, the longer this gets delayed, the less of a chance that we'll
>>> ever even see a pilot)
>>
>> You raise some valid points, but my suspicion remains. I just think
>> that, when it comes to a year's delay, the risk of people forgetting who
>> O'Quinn and Emerson are is far less than the risk of pushing another new
>> J.J. show when fans are a bit miffed with Dead Robot at the moment.
>
> No offense, but you're living in lala land with this paragraph. The
> "fans" have absolutely NOTHING to do with this.
How do you know this? From your first response in this thread, it was
pretty obvious that you weren't aware of everything that had led up to
the announcement of the late script.
Beyond that, you may be right in this one instance, but it certainly
would not be true to state universally that the potential audience--or
lack thereof--is never a consideration when a potential producer is
getting ready to cut a check. And while I haven't read any specifics
about any problems with this show, I would expect the usual spin if and
when the network or the Bad Robot people get around to explaining things
to us.
> It's strictly an
> industry problem. The network execs don't read Usenet, nor do they
> pay attention to fan reaction when deciding on projects. The ratings
> are all that matter.
Are you suggesting that they're unaware that many fans were unhappy with
the ending of LOST? Are you suggesting that fan reaction and ratings are
mutually exclusive?
> The DO pay attention to people like JJ Abrams, though, so that I can
> buy. They'll definitely be looking at Alcatraz when it hits. For the
> sake of this project, I hope it works out, because I want to see these
> two guys work together again.
>
> RWG (but, at this point, it's looking less and less likely :-(
From J.J.'s side of the equation, it might just be that he had to put
it on the back burner because he just didn't have time for everything.
Isn't he also involved with the next Trek outing by now, as well? Only
so many hours in a day, and all that. And with the other television
shows further along in development and the Trek movie being a much
larger financial consideration, I can see why *this* project was the one
that paid the price.
Jim G.
Dimensional Traveler sent the following on 1/23/2011 12:10 AM:
> On 1/22/2011 2:19 PM, Jim G. wrote:
>>
>> rwgibson13 sent the following on 1/21/2011 10:02 PM:
>>> On Jan 21, 10:00 pm, David<dimla...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> http://www.deadline.com/2011/01/nbc-picks-up-david-e-kelleys-wonder-w...
>>> Meanwhile, the commitment
>>>> to the J.J. Abrams/WBTV-produced drama Odd Jobs starring Michael
>>>> Emerson and Michael O'Quinn, whose script came in very late, is being
>>>> rolled to next season when it will be applied to the same or new Bad
>>>> Robot project.
>>>
>>> Yeah, I figured that production was in trouble when we'd gone so long
>>> without hearing there was an actual script finished. Doesn't bode
>>> well, unfortunately.
>>
>> I have a sneaking suspicion that they want to distance themselves from
>> the LOST frustration a bit more, and figure that a lot of people might
>> be done (more or less) being bitter after the additional 12 months.
>>
:) Oh, no. Wait. Make that :(
A Watcher
Are the reality shows really reality?