X-files Update
Karen Kaiser
>
> X-Files Picks Up Mulder Arc
>
> TheX-Files creator Chris Carter told [19]Science Fiction Weekly that
> the next few episodes will deal with the ultimate fate of Agent Fox
> Mulder (David Duchovny). "As of last Sunday night's episode, Mulder
> returns," Carter said in an interview. "But to the shock and horror of
> Agent Scully [Gilian Anderson], he is not doing too well. In fact, the
> title of the episode is 'This Is Not Happening.' That takes us to a
> cliffhanger, which brings Mulder back for the rest of the episodes for
> the season."
>
> Carter added, "I'll tell you that all of the remaining episodes, which
> begin in April, take place in present time, so people should not be
> too overly concerned, or should not expect the worst when they see
> Sunday night's episode."
>
> Carter said it's been hard balancing the various old and new
> characters this season. "It's always difficult--even when you've got
> all of the elements, and you've got them all the time," he said. "This
> season, it was a different show in many ways with Mulder missing.
> We've sort of corrupted the dynamic. But bringing in someone like
> Robert Patrick [Agent John Doggett] actually created a new dynamic,
> which I think is great. Now, we're creating an even different dynamic
> for the show, with Mulder's return and the addition of Annabeth Gish
> as Agent Monica Reyes. So far our experiments have worked wonderfully.
> We continue to pay very careful attention to how these things are
> working, so that X-Files may go on to season nine, and we still
> maintain our ability to do what we have always hoped to do, which is
> feature films." (Read Carter's full interview in SFW next week.)
Shannara
Bottom line: Chris Carter is still in deep denial that
trying to remake the X-Files with new characters works. (Or
at least that's the face he shows to the press.) It doesn't.
Ratings were steadily dropping until there started being
Mulder eps again. It's time to hang it up, one-trick-pony
Carter. Ratings (and quality) were bad enough this season
even with Duchovny part-time. If Carter tries to do a ninth
season, when Duchovny is gone for good and Anderson is only
there part-time, he'll find the ratings at the bottom of the
pile.
-------------
Mulder's the stud, Doggie's the dud.
Laurie Haynes
Webmaster
Xemplary Fanfic
http://www.xemplary.com
IMTP Virtual Season 8
http://www.i-made-this.com
Check out my ebay auctions
Beat poets and old coins
http://members.ebay.com/aboutme/shannara1
Deborah
"Pål Are Nordal" <a_b...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:3A9AD33E...@bigfoot.com...
> I don't know about the quality of the current episodes in the US, but I
seriously doubt Chris Carter cam say anything negative without it having
considerable repercussions. From the neutrality of his tone, I'm
guessing he's bored silly. He's simply walking along because of the
> money, and the fact that FOX has him wrapped up in a whole bunch of
contracts.
There are a lot of us who are enjoying S8. The ones who don't are just more
vocal on the Internet.
Some of us would even like to see an S9 on TXF. I love the Doggett character
and would like to see more of his story.
Deb
O. Deus
Only if some serious changes are made. I don't miss Mulder but the
producers need to give Patrick a chanche to do more than just play the
stock mannequin and be an edgier charachter
--
"Hunt: Oh no, now I'm ever so lonely and my mission of restoring the
Commonwealth is nowhere closer to fullfillment. Hey Khan want to join my
crew and work with me towards rebuilding the once and mighty
Commonwealth while experiencing the joy of taking your orders from a
mental defective wearing mauve latex?
Khan: Fool.
Hunt: Wait stay with me, it'll just be the two of us and I just know
we can have great homoerotic chemistry together. KHAAAANNNNN!"
The Mild Annoyance of Khan
Laurie
>Deborah wrote:
>>
>> "Pål Are Nordal" <a_b...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
>> news:3A9AD33E...@bigfoot.com...
>>
>> > I don't know about the quality of the current episodes in the US, but I
>> seriously doubt Chris Carter cam say anything negative without it having
>> considerable repercussions. From the neutrality of his tone, I'm
>> guessing he's bored silly. He's simply walking along because of the
>> > money, and the fact that FOX has him wrapped up in a whole bunch of
>> contracts.
>>
>> There are a lot of us who are enjoying S8. The ones who don't are just more
>> vocal on the Internet.
>> Some of us would even like to see an S9 on TXF. I love the Doggett character
>> and would like to see more of his story.
>
>Only if some serious changes are made. I don't miss Mulder but the
>producers need to give Patrick a chanche to do more than just play the
>stock mannequin and be an edgier charachter
You can have the ugly Dogshit (AKA Doggett). His insertion has
completely ruined the show, with the help of Chris Carter's and 1013's
bad writing. I sure hope FOX has enough sense to not renew the show.
The ratings for the Mulderless eps are bad enough. With no hope of
Mulder turning up in an ep, the ratings will be in the cellar.
ar...@adelphia.net
Thats right. We want shows with people that look good. Who cares if
David acted like he was bored the last two seasons as long as we can
just look at him. Acting or story be damned
Laurie
Truth is David blows everyone off the screen. He's a terrific actor
who is able to make a so-so script turn into a watchable episode. What
makes Doggett ugly is not just his looks, but his boring, bland
personality and annoying voice. Also, Robert Patrick just isn't much
of actor at all. He's not awful, just mediocre and that just isn't
good enough. Gillian has her moments and has the ability, but she's
been phoning in her performances (and admits it) for quite a while
awhile, now. That said, I would take Gillian's acting over that of
Annabeth Gish any day.
AMYSA
>You can have the ugly Dogshit (AKA Doggett). His insertion has
>completely ruined the show,
yeah...how dare he be ugly and ruin that pretty show.
i love the mulder devotees who never noticed when there were bad episodes
because they were too busy thinking about how dreamy duchovny is.
i like david and i like mulder, but if he doesn't want to do it, i certainly
don't want to watch him do it. you guys can cling to your "the ratings are in
the toilet" argument, but there are many of us out there who like dogget and
find him interesting in spite of the fact that his development has been
entirely too slow for a show that knew at the beginning of the season that this
might be the end.
besides...i'm not sure on what planet robert patrick is ugly, but i'm evidently
not living there.
amy
"they won't let me smoke inside, but you can pee in leo's closet..."--jed
bartlet
irishpolarbear
AMYSA <am...@aol.comasutra> wrote in message
news:20010228170537...@ng-cv1.aol.com...
> i love the mulder devotees who never noticed when there were bad episodes
> because they were too busy thinking about how dreamy duchovny is.
>
said wit). For me, that was one thing that made the show cool - it was such
a part of Fox's character, and he played it off Scully perfectly. Of course,
that may have just been the writing, or it could have been Duchovny's
influence, but it's still missing. Watch old eps - even the so called "bad"
eps had that.
Laurie
David Duchovny is able to rise above a mediocre script and his
frequent input obviously improved a lot of scripts. Patrick and
Anderson are unable to do that.
It may upset Robert Patrick fans to hear that the eps he is in have
been steadily sinking in the ratings, but it doesn't make it any less
true.
Duchovny's wit and intelligence brought a lot to the show. Yes, he's
very good looking, but he has a lot more going for him than just
looks. Robert Patrick has NOTHING going for him. He is no more than an
average talent and always will be.
recook77
> >
> >You can have the ugly Dogshit (AKA Doggett). His insertion has
> >completely ruined the show, with the help of Chris Carter's and 1013's
> >bad writing. I sure hope FOX has enough sense to not renew the show.
> >The ratings for the Mulderless eps are bad enough. With no hope of
> >Mulder turning up in an ep, the ratings will be in the cellar.
>
>
> Thats right. We want shows with people that look good. Who cares if
> David acted like he was bored the last two seasons as long as we can
> just look at him. Acting or story be damned
>
Truth to tell, I don't think Duchovny's the greatest actor on the planet.
In fact, IMO Gillian Anderson has more ability than he does. Though she's
obviously outgrown the show, she was terrific in the last 2 X-Files
episodes. I've said this before, but I'll say it again: if she plays her
cards right, Gillian Anderson could have a fruitful career as a character
actress.
--
"If you don't like the effects, don't produce the cause."
George Clinton
Laurie
Duchovny is a very good actor and he is the one getting the leading
roles away from XF. Anderson's only significant leading role outside
XF was House of Mirth. Reviews were very mixed on her performance. I
do think she did a good job as Scully for many years, but it's been
quite a while since she shined. She woke up a little for Sunday's ep,
though.
Gharlane of Eddore
recook77 <reco...@you-spam-you-die.ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> Truth to tell, I don't think Duchovny's the greatest actor on the
> planet. In fact, IMO Gillian Anderson has more ability than he does.
> Though she's obviously outgrown the show, she was terrific in the
> last 2 X-Files episodes. I've said this before, but I'll say it
> again: if she plays her cards right, Gillian Anderson could have
> a fruitful career as a character actress.
>
With what she's been getting paid per episode of XF for the last
few years, why would she *need* to be concerned about a career
as anything? At this point, her only worry should be finding
an honest, competent financial advisor/portfolio manager.
IAPW
irishpolarbear <irishpo...@att.net> wrote:
>One thing I really miss is Mulder's sardonic wit (and David's delivery of
>said wit). For me, that was one thing that made the show cool - it was such
>a part of Fox's character, and he played it off Scully perfectly. Of course,
>that may have just been the writing, or it could have been Duchovny's
>influence, but it's still missing. Watch old eps - even the so called "bad"
>eps had that.
I've noticed several times where they try to put jokes in for
Patrick, but he is so dreary it's hard to tell he's trying to
joke.
------------------------------------------------
"Britney is very sexy but she has very strong
principles and religious views. She is a
great ambassador for virginity."
Church of England talking about Britney Spears
Laurie
True, she's making big bucks, now, but she could use a better manager
to come up with the kind of contracts Duchovny has been getting for
XF. Chris Carter is making noises that FOX, seeing the ratings boost
this season for the eps with Mulder, will likely approach Duchovny
about making some appearances (my guess is they will offer him big
bucks to just appear in a few sweeps episodes).
recook77
news:0c7r9tk75qhtic3e4...@4ax.com...(snip)
> >>
> >
> >Truth to tell, I don't think Duchovny's the greatest actor on the planet.
> >In fact, IMO Gillian Anderson has more ability than he does. Though
she's
> >obviously outgrown the show, she was terrific in the last 2 X-Files
> >episodes. I've said this before, but I'll say it again: if she plays her
> >cards right, Gillian Anderson could have a fruitful career as a character
> >actress.
>
> Duchovny is a very good actor and he is the one getting the leading
> roles away from XF.
Trouble is, the leading roles do not a box-office star make. "Playing God"
and "Return to Me" were both flops.
Anderson's only significant leading role outside
> XF was House of Mirth. Reviews were very mixed on her performance.
The reviews I read all raved about her performance. For a while, people
were saying that she deserved an Oscar nomination.
She didn't have a lot of professional experience before the X-Files, but
she's really grown, IMO.
I can't see her as a leading lady, but that's OK.
AMYSA
>Duchovny's wit and intelligence brought a lot to the show. Yes, he's
>very good looking, but he has a lot more going for him than just
>looks. Robert Patrick has NOTHING going for him. He is no more than an
>average talent and always will be.
sure.
amy
"wait. wait...i wanna see this."--josh
AMYSA
>One thing I really miss is Mulder's sardonic wit (and David's delivery of
>said wit). For me, that was one thing that made the show cool - it was such
>a part of Fox's character, and he played it off Scully perfectly.
i absolutely agree with you. i miss mulder. i *like* mulder and there are
certain episodes of XF that i could watch over and over without getting sick of
them. but, there were some clunkers that were just boring and bad in spite of
anything either cast member did. these people seem to forget that and,
apparently, the best thing they can come up with to support their "mulder
good/dogget bad" argument is that robert patrick is ugly and...something else
i've forgotten. the ratings things keeps coming up, but i couldn't care any
less about that. the ratings rise and fall and rise and fall *every* season.
find the site with the ratings for every episode...i've never noticed it to be
steady. the network, the producers, the actors, the critics and the dogget
haters can use them to support whatever argument they want to. however, i
highly doubt that any great amount of the drops has had to do with patrick's
physical appearance.
Laurie
While "Playing God" was indeed a box-office failure, "Return to Me"
was a box-office success and made a profit for MGM. No, it wasn't a
blockbuster, but it wasn't that type of film. Duchovny just finished
making "Evolution" a sci-fi comedy directed by Ivan Reitman
(Ghostbusters), that is predicted to be a summer blockbuster. It also
stars Julianne Moore (Hannibal), Sean William Scott (Dude, Where's My
Car) and Orlando Jones.
Reviews were very mixed on House of Mirth. Some reviewers panned it
and others raved and said it was worthy of an Oscar nomination.
Apparently, it was not, since it didn't get one. No, the X-Files was
pretty much Anderson's first acting job. I think she has talent and
with the right leading man to play off, she can do well. But she
doesn't seem to have the self-confidence to branch out.
But both Anderson and Duchovny have done well financially, thanks to
the X-Files, and have the ability to pick and choose what roles they
want.
AMYSA
>Duchovny is a very good actor and he is the one getting the leading
>roles away from XF.
wow. did you actually pull that information out of your ass or do you really
think that's true? duchovny is a good actor, but you should run over to the
imdb and check your figures. duchovny's done, not counting the XF movie, three
films since the show went on the air. one of which isn't released, one of which
sucked and was panned by everyone including the *actors* and one that was a
cute little romantic comedy ensemble that turned a small profit.
anderson's done four films, two of which were pretty awful and of which she
only had small roles (but, you'll notice with a little web searching, she was
generally praised), one was a larger role in an ensemble that's pretty much the
equivalent of david's romantic comedy with less money and one was "house of
mirth". the latter, you seem to be under the impression, she got only mixed
reviews on. that's...weird. the negative reviews were few and far between and
pretty much overshadowed by the critics awards and nominations it and her
recieved.
IAPW
AMYSA <am...@aol.comasutra> wrote:
>duchovny is a good actor, but you should run over to the
>imdb and check your figures. duchovny's done, not counting the XF movie, three
>films since the show went on the air. one of which isn't released, one of which
>sucked and was panned by everyone including the *actors* and one that was a
>cute little romantic comedy ensemble that turned a small profit.
Roger Ebert had a very high opinion of Duchovny in Playing God. He wrote,
"He has the psychic weight to be a leading man and an action hero, even
though his earlier TV and film roles might not have revealed it. And he
also has a certain detachment, a way of standing above the action, that
stars such as Clint Eastwood and Robert Mitchum have." Of course you
might not count Ebert as someone. Not that there's anything wrong with
that.
Laurie
Ah, but the fact is that the rating with Doggett are much lower than
with Mulder. Yep, some eps even with Mulder were so badly written
nothing could rescue them. But a good actor can rise above a mediocre
script. Duchovny can do that. Patrick cannot. It is Patrick's complete
lack of charisma and lack of anything but average ability -- combined
with sorry-ass writing, that has driven down the ratings of the
Mulderless eps. You may not care anything about ratings, but the facts
are the facts. Viewers don't want Doggett, they want Mulder. Ratings
are what determines if a series lives or dies.
Laurie
Anderson has had some supporting roles in movies away from XF and only
one leading role -- in a film that barely made it to the big screen
and when it did, only showed at a relative handful of theaters. That
is a fact. Reviews were mixed on HoM. That is a fact. Some reviewers l
loved it, some hated it. If you saw it and loved, it, that's fine,
you're entitled to your opinion. Me, I haven't seen it and have no
desire to see it.
recook77
> On Wed, 28 Feb 2001 22:00:24 -0500, "recook77"
> <reco...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> >Laurie <shannaras...@xemplary.com> wrote in message
> >news:0c7r9tk75qhtic3e4...@4ax.com...
> >> On Wed, 28 Feb 2001 19:44:35 -0500, "recook77"
> >> <reco...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
(snip)
> >>
> >> roles away from XF.
> >
> >Trouble is, the leading roles do not a box-office star make. "Playing
God"
> >and "Return to Me" were both flops.
> >
> >Anderson's only significant leading role outside
> >> XF was House of Mirth. Reviews were very mixed on her performance.
> >
> >The reviews I read all raved about her performance. For a while, people
> >were saying that she deserved an Oscar nomination.
> >
> >She didn't have a lot of professional experience before the X-Files, but
> >she's really grown, IMO.
> >
> >I can't see her as a leading lady, but that's OK.
>
> While "Playing God" was indeed a box-office failure, "Return to Me"
> was a box-office success and made a profit for MGM. No, it wasn't a
> blockbuster, but it wasn't that type of film. Duchovny just finished
> making "Evolution" a sci-fi comedy directed by Ivan Reitman
> (Ghostbusters), that is predicted to be a summer blockbuster. It also
> stars Julianne Moore (Hannibal), Sean William Scott (Dude, Where's My
> Car) and Orlando Jones.
>
shouldn't limit himself to leading roles, IMO, but should instead pick roles
where he shows that he can carry a movie.
> Reviews were very mixed on House of Mirth. Some reviewers panned it
> and others raved and said it was worthy of an Oscar nomination.
The reviews I read all praised Anderson's performance.
> Apparently, it was not, since it didn't get one. No, the X-Files was
> pretty much Anderson's first acting job. I think she has talent and
> with the right leading man to play off, she can do well. But she
> doesn't seem to have the self-confidence to branch out.
I suspect that is indeed the case. She's had a couple of roles in
lesser-known films, but those were supporting roles or ensemble pieces.
> But both Anderson and Duchovny have done well financially, thanks to
> the X-Files, and have the ability to pick and choose what roles they
> want.
>
>
AMYSA
>Roger Ebert had a very high opinion of Duchovny in Playing God.
oh, lord. did he really?
> Of course you
>might not count Ebert as someone. Not that there's anything wrong with
>that.
actually, i don't. i used to, but that's long gone. he has interesting things
to say from time to time and i enjoy watching/reading him when it seems like he
genuinely loves or hates a film...but, he's been suffering from "soundbite
disease" for a long time.
AMYSA
>Anderson has had some supporting roles in movies away from XF and only
>one leading role -- in a film that barely made it to the big screen
>and when it did, only showed at a relative handful of theaters.
you overestimate the importance of being a lead in a film as well as show your
lack of understanding about why the small release of "house of mirth" has
nothing to do with anything. but, that's not surprising, because judging from
my other post you responded to, you didn't actually read what i was saying
about the nielsens either.
>That
>is a fact. Reviews were mixed on HoM. That is a fact.
okay.
IAPW
AMYSA <am...@aol.comasutra> wrote:
>lk...@my-deja.com said:
>>AMYSA <am...@aol.comasutra> wrote:
>>>duchovny's done, not counting the XF movie, three
>>>sucked and was panned by everyone including the *actors* and one that
>>>was a cute little romantic comedy ensemble that turned a small profit.
>oh, lord. did he really?
ammmayasasa, the reason why I mention this fact is because you wrote that
one of the films was "was panned by everyone including the
*actors*". Since you mentioned 3 films
made by Duchovny and the natural reading of the statement was that you
were describing a mutually exclusive disjunct of movies then given the
movies that Duchovny made
since the show went on the air and an application of Russell's Theory of
Description and an application of Logic 101 it followed that the film
that "was panned by everyone including the *actors*" was Playing God. Now
you described the film "was panned by everyone including the
*actors*". Hence by a second application of
Russell's Theory of Description it follows you said of the film that it
"was panned by everyone including the *actors*". Now given what Ebert
said the film was quite clearly not panned by him. Hence it follows by
logic 101 that your statement that the film "was panned by everyone
including the *actors*" was wrong. Thank you for admitting what you said
was wrong.
>> Of course you might not count Ebert as someone. Not that there's
>> anything wrong with that.
>
>actually, i don't.
ammmnnnayasasasa, I asked my logic 101 teacher, and he told me Ebert
really was someone, and it would be absurd to suggest otherwise.
Shannara
>laurie said:
>
>>Anderson has had some supporting roles in movies away from XF and only
>>one leading role -- in a film that barely made it to the big screen
>>and when it did, only showed at a relative handful of theaters.
>
>you overestimate the importance of being a lead in a film as well as show your
>lack of understanding about why the small release of "house of mirth" has
>nothing to do with anything. but, that's not surprising, because judging from
>my other post you responded to, you didn't actually read what i was saying
>about the nielsens either.
>
LOL! Leading roles and wide release may not mean anything to you,
personally, but it means a lot in Hollywood if someone wants to be
successful.
irishpolarbear
AMYSA <am...@aol.comasutra> wrote:
> >>>duchovny's done, not counting the XF movie, three
> >>>one of which isn't released, one of which
> >>>sucked and was panned by everyone including the *actors* and one that
> >>>was a cute little romantic comedy ensemble that turned a small profit.
> >>Roger Ebert had a very high opinion of Duchovny in Playing God.
IAPW said in response:
<snippage> ...given what Ebert said the film was quite clearly not panned
by him. Hence it follows by
> logic 101 that your statement that the film "was panned by everyone
> including the *actors*" was wrong. Thank you for admitting what you said
> was wrong.
>
Reread what Ebert was quoted as saying in AMYSA's post - she said Ebert
praised Duchovny's performance, not the film itself. There is a difference!
IAPW
>praised Duchovny's performance, not the film itself. There is a
>difference!
Actually Ebert gave it 3 stars, and he recommends any movie which he gives
3 stars too. So he didn't it pan which contradicts the view that it was
panned by everyone.
AMYSA
>LOL! Leading roles and wide release may not mean anything to you,
>personally, but it means a lot in Hollywood if someone wants to be
>successful.
whatever helps you sleep at night.
now run along to the store...the new entertainment weekly hits the stands
today!!!!
AMYSA
>ammmayasasa, the reason why I mention this fact is because you wrote that
>one of the films was "was panned by everyone including the
>*actors*".
yeah. i did write that. was that in question?
>Thank you for admitting what you said
>was wrong.
um...okay.
Shannara
>laurie said:
>
>>LOL! Leading roles and wide release may not mean anything to you,
>>personally, but it means a lot in Hollywood if someone wants to be
>>successful.
>
>whatever helps you sleep at night.
>
Why, does it keep you awake at night, upset because Duchovny is having
so much success outside XF? ;) Why does it bother you that he's
successful? Though Gillian is struggling to get beyond XF, I think she
will succeed eventually, once she has more time to do so. In the
meantime, she's not hurting financially (neither of them are).
AMYSA
>Why, does it keep you awake at night, upset because Duchovny is having
>so much success outside XF? ;) Why does it bother you that he's
>successful?
it doesn't. i'm pretty sure i've said more than once that i *like* david. i
thought "return to me" was a cute movie.
>Though Gillian is struggling to get beyond XF,
not really.
Karen Kaiser
circling the bowl people stopped watching. They may not want to trust that
Carter has gotten off this paranoid my government is out to get me kick.
Shannara
wrote:
Fact: Episodes with just Patrick and Anderson had mediocre ratings
that kept dropping. No doubt, they would have been much worse if
Anderson had not been in them. But when Duchovny came back -- even
though they've just been cameos so far -- the ratings shot up. So, if
FOX is foolish enough to go for a Season 9, focusing on Patrick's and
Gish's characters (Anderson would be part-time, Duchovny would be
gone), there seems little doubt the bottom would fall out of the
ratings.
The time to try to expand the leading cast was in the first or second
season, not after seven years of a show with just two leads with an
engaging chemistry that kept viewers coming back for more.
For a side-by-side comparison of Season 7 and Season 8 ratings, go to
http://www.turning-pages.com/xf/ratings.html
To see the ratings just for this season, go to www.thefutoncritic.com
Maureen Goldman
> Fact: Episodes with just Patrick and Anderson had mediocre ratings
> that kept dropping. No doubt, they would have been much worse if
> Anderson had not been in them. But when Duchovny came back -- even
> though they've just been cameos so far -- the ratings shot up. So, if
> FOX is foolish enough to go for a Season 9, focusing on Patrick's and
> Gish's characters (Anderson would be part-time, Duchovny would be
> gone), there seems little doubt the bottom would fall out of the
> ratings.
It isn't just the absence of Duchovny that has changed the show. Every
episode has become a dark horror episode featuring gobs of gore and
mutilations (especially of the face). And now the possible new agent
has a specialty in satanic ritual. Sometimes it feels as though the
writers get together and say "Hey, y'know what would be REALLY
disgusting? Like how about this guy who gets into people's bodies by
crawling up their butts in washrooms? And then he scoops them out from
the inside? Yeah... and how about this guy who swallowed sick people
whole, and then he pukes them up? And, okay, we gotta have some axe
murders with plenty of close-ups of people's heads afterwards, only
maybe they're doing it to themselves."
Also, they've been rewriting the previous season. It turns out that
all last year Scully was trying to get pregnant and Mulder had a
terminal disease. And... don't get me started about that pregnancy.
Shannara
True! The writing has been horrendous. The writers are burned out
creatively. The show was terrific for seven years, but it's time to
let it go. Hopefully, the writers could come up with some really good
ideas once every couple of years for a movie.
Suzanne Lanoue
to the loyal fans. But I think X-Files has always been gross and gruesome
(except maybe last season when they had some lighter episodes). They are
just allowed to more gory now as TV continues to push the envelope on
things like that.
You see very grisly things on shows like CSI and NYPD Blue, among others,
so it's not like something like the X-Files is going to stay the same.
I do agree that continuing without Gillian Anderson seems pointless. I
really like Patrick but that's because he and Anderson work well together.
Why not just make another X-Files spinoff with him and dump the original
show, if they can't get Scully or Mulder to stay?
Corwin2
>Duchovny's wit and intelligence brought a lot to the show. Yes, he's
>very good looking, but he has a lot more going for him than just
>looks.
I gather you are talking about 7 years of on the job training.
He finally becomes a half decent actor (as long as the part is
tailor written for his lackluster, er, uniquely individual skills) and
then he bails.
(Although I actually liked the genie episode he wrote? )
;-)
Shannara
Nah, Duchovny was moving up into bigger movie roles when he got the
job on the X-Files. Right before he took the job, he made a movie with
Brad Pitt, called Kalifornia. It didn't do well at the box office, but
got good reviews. Some have speculated that it didn't do as well
because it came out about the same time as Natural Born Killers,
though Kalifornia is much better. Sure, Duchovny's grown as an actor
-- one would expect him to. He's also coming into his own as a writer
and director. He wrote The Unnatural (the alien baseball player) and
Hollywood A.D. which takes a good poke at Hollywood.
You may not like him, but the truth is that he's getting good movie
offers for leading roles. Next up is "Evolution," a sci-fi comedy due
out June 8 and directed by Ivan Reitman, best known for Ghostbusters.
Dan Lanciani
| (Although I actually liked the genie episode he wrote? )
I liked that one as well, but it seemed that everyone was doing a genie
episode at the time, e.g., Charmed, Poltergeist: The Legacy, and Xena. And
most of the genies generally wanted to be human. And nobody ever made DWIM
wishes...
Dan Lanciani
ddl@danlan.*com
Shannara
Vince Gilligan wrote that ep -- Je Souhaite ("I Wish"). Don't watch
the other shows you mentioned.