People watched the new Battlestar Galactica for four years,.
Four minutes for me. Between that and wrestling, I took SyFy off my channel list.
People watched the new Battlestar Galactica for four years,.
That's interesting, what don't you like about Bane?(Though I thought three was.....considerably less good than the others, but mostly because Bane.)
Ooh, I didn't even know he's been involved in other shows! Any recommendations?BSG greatness may be partially due to Bear McCreary's greatness. He's absolutely my favorite composers right now, and I might start watching a show just because I read he's the guy behind the soundtrack.
Speaking of Lost, a friend and I have a running joke that Sayid is Batman. He's an emotionally tortured tech guy badass!If you didn't like "Arrow", but liked "Lost" or "JJA Trek", then there is no point in further conversation.
I disagree. Forget "using enough comic source material to keep the nerds in check." It will never be enough, and/or it will be the wrong source material.My point was: Make a good movie.
If you think about it, I'm actually agreeing with you that targeting comic nerds is a bad idea.
Make a good movie. Use enough of the comic source materials to keep the nerds in check. Make a GOOD movie.
Several good movies have been made. You're actually a good example of what I'm talking about. You seem to have a certain criteria for what you would consider "a good movie," and anything that doesn't strictly adhere to that criteria is "a bad movie." So why bother trying to put enough source material to satisfy someone like you when it won't be enough and/or the wrong material? It's a waste of money for studios. Instead, they should be putting money in to movies that will appeal to a larger audience. Adding in all the extra source material is probably going to make people not want to see a movie. Why would someone want to see a movie if they have to go read a bunch of comics just to know what is going on?Simple. Made a good movie.
Google tells me that Green Arrow didn't show up in Smallville until season six. It took, what? Another four seasons for Green Arrow to get his own series? And really, from what I saw, it wasn't very good. In any case, Smallville went on for 10 seasons. That's a pretty good run. It shouldn't be a surprise that some of those seasons weren't all great. It happen. Over the course of 10 seasons there is bound to be new writers coming in, new ideas being thrown around, actors moving on to do other things, etc. The fact that they were able to make 10 seasons shows that they had a good product for a good amount of time. That being said, I didn't watch Smallville either. Never had the time to watch it. i saw a few episodes. Some were good. Some where not.What was the number 1 pick-me-up for Smallville? Green Arrow showing up and telling Clark Kent to get off his ass and start doing something.
Why is wanting to keep the show in Smallville a problem? I think it would be odd to have the show moved to some other location and still call it Smallville.Number 1 problem with the show: demand for static "We're not leaving Smallville, even though Clark Kent has about 15 different motivations to do so. This is where the show is set, and we're not leaving."
Actually, I didn't like lost. I saw a few episodes, but never got into it. Abraham's Star Trek movies would have been good if I could have seen them. Too much lens flare made it a pain in the ass to watch. That aside, the movies were good. they were entertaining. Best of all, they weren't some stupid re-make of the same movies that have already been made.If you didn't like "Arrow", but liked "Lost" or "JJA Trek", then there is no point in further conversation.
Into Dorkness was a bit of a remake of the Wrath of Khan.Best of all, they weren't some stupid re-make of the same movies that have already been made.
True, and it was the weaker of the Abraham movies. Still, it had enough differences that it wasn't the same thing.Into Dorkness was a bit of a remake of the Wrath of Khan.
Simple. Made a good movie.