Still loving the show (sorry Martin!) Silly, goofy fun. The title is completely off the mark, but it's fun. One thing, too. I have to give star Valley credit. He's my age, and, knowing the toils I go through to stay in shape, I can appreciate all that fighting, running, and jumping he does each week. They need to slow those fight scenes down though: more hyperactive camera work! Oh, interesting factoid: Valley has a degree in mathematics from West Point. Pretty cool...
----- Original Message ----- From: "B Smith" <daikaij...@yahoo.com> To: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2010 2:09:56 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern Subject: [scifinoir2] Re: Human Target writers completely miss mark He was a hoot in Guy Ritchie's film Snatch and he was a pretty capable villain in that debacle of film Sahara. It's a terrible movie but it's beautiful in HD and one of my guilty pleasures. --- In scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com , Keith Johnson <keithbjohn...@...> wrote: > > Yeah, my wife and I had a great time on last night's show, which was as silly > as ever. Chance isn't really a human target so much as he is a bodyguard. He > doesn't actually *become* or *replace* the real targets. Hence, i wish they'd > never used the name "Human Target" for this show. I am greatly looking > forward to James' appearance next week. I was a huge fan of his from > "Jericho". Brother can act, and I'd never really noticed him before that. He > deserves more work. > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "B Smith" <daikaij...@...> > To: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2010 10:31:11 AM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern > Subject: [scifinoir2] Re: Human Target writers completely miss mark > > > > > > > Ditto. I'm enjoying the series for what it is. > > Next week's episode looks good. Lennie James(Robert Hawkins from Jericho) is > a former Chance associate/protege trying to kill his current assignment. > > --- In scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com , Keith Johnson <KeithBJohnson@> wrote: > > > > I think this is another case of having to separate the product from the > > name. It's like the comic in name only (or so I'm hearing). I understand > > later comics really delve into the Target's psyche, and are much more > > complex. The TV series is just a thrill ride. Frankly, i acknowledge that > > the Target's methods aren't all that sophisticated: he seems to have to > > wing it way too much and too often to be as good as he's supposed to be. > > Yet still, I like the show as a fun brain-on-hold time waster. Again, I > > tell myself all the time it's not the same as the comic. I have to do the > > same for the Mission Impossible movies. I wish people would in such cases > > just stop trying to capitalize on the names of a product and just put out > > something different with a different name. > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Martin Baxter" <martinbaxter7@> > > To: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com > > Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2010 12:33:27 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern > > Subject: Re: [scifinoir2] Human Target writers completely miss mark > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sadly, I wish I could disagree with any of what was written. I've stopped > > watc`hing "Human Target", because viewing the second and third eps reminded > > me painfully of the Peter Milligan run on the comic, which genuinely > > twisted my brain in its brackets, and could easily have been taken as a > > template for the series. I saw a couple of hints that made me think that > > they might take the path as described, but they didn't. > > > > > > On Tue, Mar 9, 2010 at 10:46 PM, Kelwyn < ravenadal@ > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://www.californiachronicle.com/articles/yb/142258028 > > > > 'Human Target' writers completely miss mark > > > > Maybe part of the reason that "Human Target," which returns Wednesday on > > Fox, doesn't appeal to me is that Christopher Chance has chosen a path > > "Burn Notice's" Michael Westen rejected _ being smart muscle for hire. > > Or maybe the show is a disappointment because it's possible to see almost > > every "twist" coming a mile away. > > > > It's not even just the plots that are predictable; it's the entire feel of > > the series. Every single scene, every action beat, every cheesy line of > > dialogue is recycled from some other action movie or adventure franchise. > > In Wednesday's episode, Chance (Mark Valley) heads for a remote bar owned > > by an old flame. I predicted that she would be really hot and that at some > > point, she'd slap him. Guess what? She was really hot, and at one point she > > slapped him. > > > > What is it with TV writers today? I get the feeling, not just from "Human > > Target," that there is a large subset of writers for whom throwing out > > pop-culture references represents the bulk of their creative achievement. > > And that they expect congratulations and praise for that. > > > > I get that for many TV writers (and executives), having seen every > > big-budget studio movie since "Star Wars," having read a lot of comic books > > and having obsessed over iconic TV shows represent important parts of their > > aesthetic education. But is that all you've got? > > > > Even if some of the iconic TV shows and movies of the past few decades were > > themselves recycling age-old storytelling elements _ "Star Wars" is Joseph > > Campbell with Wookiees and robots _ those TV shows and movies had their own > > variation on the story to tell, and they used memorable characters to do > > it. > > > > "Fringe" (which returns April 1) sometimes feels like a pastiche of sci-fi > > and horror movie tropes in search of a coherent mythology (or what you > > could call "something to say"). But the show sometimes rises above its > > inconsistencies _ once in a while, it rises well above them and achieves > > something almost poetic. > > > > Besides, whenever John Noble (as Dr. Walter Bishop) opens his mouth, it's > > easy to forget that the show at times can seem like an overheated mishmash > > of "The X-Files" and Michael Crichton's oeuvre. > > > > It's not just one-hour shows that serve up leftovers and pretend they're > > gourmet cuisine. "Community" doesn't quite work for me because the show > > proudly and loudly celebrates every single pop-culture reference that it > > throws at the audience. > > > > Yes, "Community," I saw and loved "The Breakfast Club" too. And yes, it can > > be funny that Abed (Danny Pudi) sees every moment in his life through the > > prism of movies and TV shows. But still, there isn't much more to > > "Community" than that. > > > > That isn't the case with "Chuck," in which the constant pop-culture > > references are a fun side dish, not necessarily the main course, or with > > "Parks and Recreation," which also returned Thursday. > > > > Even if Thursday's episode was a pretty standard outing, this unmissable > > NBC comedy is slowly building the characters' relationships with care and > > satisfying subtlety. At this point, "Parks and Recreation" can put almost > > any combination of characters together and get pleasing results, though the > > pairings of Leslie and Ron or Andy and April produce the most consistently > > funny results. > > > > "Human Target," on the other hand, so underemploys its cast that it nearly > > amounts to a crime against filmed entertainment. Too often, Chi McBride and > > Jackie Earle Haley are shunted to the side, uttering lines that would make > > a beginning screenwriter blush (or should). > > > > It's not that I demand that "Human Target" have the complexity of "Burn > > Notice" at its best. But "Human Target" doesn't even appear to be trying > > all that hard to be mediocre. When all you're really expecting is a > > moderately fun, moderately exciting slice of escapism and the whole > > enterprise still falls flatter than the lamest big-budget movie sequel, you > > could call that missing the target. > > > > ___ > > > > Maureen Ryan: moryan@ > > > > ___ > > > > (c) 2010, Chicago Tribune. > > > > Visit the Chicago Tribune on the Internet at http://www.chicagotribune.com/ > > >
