--- In [email protected], "Alex Stanley" <j_alexander_stanley@...> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], turquoiseb <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], Bhairitu <noozguru@> wrote: > > > > > > NBC will probably ruin it. JJ Abrams and Jon Favreau involved: > > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JwfCRAtkYEI > > > > Looks terrible to me. I don't see why people invoke > > J.J.Abrams' name as if it were holy. He specializes > > in taking ideas that make no sense (or stealing them, > > as he seems to have done with this one, which was > > considered a cliche back in 1950s scifi, where it > > first appeared) and turning them into TV series that > > get people hooked on watching stuff that makes no sense. > > > > I mean, really. "Fringe?" "Lost?" "Alcatraz?" > > > > I'll pass. > > Somehow, his stuff has managed to mostly bypass my attention, > with one major exception. I watched less than half an hour of > the pilot episode of Fringe before shutting it off and never > watching it again. But, I'm *totally* addicted to Person of > Interest.
I actually had never noticed that Abrams had a hand in POI. I never got past the first page for the series on the IMDB, which credits Johnathon Nolan as the Creator and doesn't mention Abrams until you dig WAY down in the credits. If his name appears onscreen as Executive Producer, I never noticed it. I wouldn't call myself addicted, but I've watched most of it, too. I'm looking forward to the final episode of the season next week because it guest stars one of my favorite actresses from "Dollhouse," Amy Acker. I think it's formulaic and many of the things I usually don't like, but for some reason I keep watching it, possibly because of Michael Emerson as Finch. In a way, the "tech" of "Person Of Interest" is fairly believable. Such "machines" actually exist in the NSA and the CIA and other agencies, parsing exabytes of data for keywords and phrases they think are meaningful. The same is true for a series I watched because I really liked Poppy Montgomery as a redhead :-), "Unforgettable." There's no "tech" in this one, just a rare human trait that actually exists. The character remembers everything she ever sees or hears. Everything. That makes her an interesting -- and effective -- police detective. Sadly, I hear this one has been cancelled, so clearly not everyone is as taken with redheads as I am. :-) I think the issue in question is Suspension Of Disbelief. All fictional TV is...uh...fictional. You know that going in. The only remaining questions are whether the story- telling and the characters and the actors playing them can suck you into the fiction. You "suspend disbelief" by definition when you enjoy a work of fiction. But some pieces of fiction are easier to suspend disbelief for than others. They have to follow "rules" to achieve this. First, the plot and plot elements and tech have to be internally consistent; you can't change the rules of how this fictional universe works in midstream (like "Lost" and "Fringe" are famous for doing). Second, they have to strike enough of a resonance in the viewer to make them *want* to suspend disbelief long enough to enjoy the product as a work of fiction. Asking me to suspend disbelief when watching "Fringe" was too much to ask. So was asking me to do the same for "Lost." "Alcatraz?" Don't even go there. :-) As for "Revolution," I see it as an example of pandering to a clearly profitable market -- those who believe in or want to believe in apocalypses. I would imagine that a LOT of survivalist types will be watching it. But the whole premise I saw in the trailer turns me off so much that I don't think I can suffer through watching it, even though I am a fan of pop culture and like to keep up on what the pop is watching. The tech of the plot premise just sucks. It's asking me to suspend disbelief too much, and with (judging from the acting in the trailer) too little payoff.
