Heroes Season Two Resuming?

[Felon]

Easy. Xena started off as a serious character (a former villain of Hercules) who got silly later in the series.

At least we know Chuck is silly to begin with.

Watching Xena is like watching Anakin Skywalker doing a musical rendition of "Dancing in the Moonlight."

Certain episodes had a light tone. Others were as dark and tragic as anything on TV. There are episodes that deal with her past crimes, with her son being murdered, with demonic possession, with her avenging loved ones in cold blood, and with her daughter growing up to kill Christians for Rome.

Personally, I have much more respect for an ambitious show that sometimes falls short of its mark than I do for a mediocre one that's content to play by the numbers.

 

[Mr. Beef]

Hmm. OK, there are two possibilities here. Either A) you live in Los Angeles, Manhattan, or someplace else where professionally photogenic people blow the curve for "average-looking", or B) you have been successfully hoodwinked by the "Chuck" premise that the definition of an average-looking guy is "a really good-looking guy who doesn't know how to use hair product". Chuck's the male version of the Hollywood cliche about the nerdy girl who turns out to be a hottie once she lets down her hair and takes off her glasses.

Call me B then.

Zachary Levi could easily be a male model.

I don't think of someone on television like that unless they are a woman. So what, he's not a model, he just strikes me as a "common man" playing a role that most people that they are aiming this show towards can have empathy for.

That's a curious assertion to make considering that all it takes to debunk it is evidence of one slob holding down a job.

Have them hold down a job that deals with the public on a daily basis like Chuck's character and then we will talk. You can shove stinky, smelly and downright rank smelling people in the back of a place away from the public, but to hold down any kind of job in sales where you have to be face to face with people on a regular basis, people who stink will not get far on the ladder of success.

The question at hand is, how is he a nerd to begin with?

He's a nerd because that is what his backstory is, and how his character is written. Just like the main character in Dexter is written to be a Serial Killer Coroner.

 

[drothgery]

Hmm. OK, there are two possibilities here. Either A) you live in Los Angeles, Manhattan, or someplace else where professionally photogenic people blow the curve for "average-looking", or B) you have been successfully hoodwinked by the "Chuck" premise that the definition of an average-looking guy is "a really good-looking guy who doesn't know how to use hair product". Chuck's the male version of the Hollywood cliche about the nerdy girl who turns out to be a hottie once she lets down her hair and takes off her glasses.

Shockingly, people who are in a business where they are payed to look good tend to look good, and the not-quite-Tom-Brady types play 'average Joes'. In other news, most professional basketball players are tall.

 

[Mark]

You can shove stinky, smelly and downright rank smelling people in the back of a place away from the public, but to hold down any kind of job in sales where you have to be face to face with people on a regular basis, people who stink will not get far on the ladder of success.

Just how high up the ladder of success do you consider the character of Chuck? I had thought he held an entry level position at a retail establishment that required some limited knowledge of electronic products, no? Nothing wrong with the job, mind you, but not something anyone would consider a huge success. And there are plenty of people lacking in social skills and hygiene who hold positions like that and others that some would consider much more successful.

Your assertion has confounded me.

 

[Mistwell]

I pray to whatever entities of light or darkness will answer that Chuck be a casualty of the strike. Sometimes people have to be protected from their own judgment.

Whatever. Chuck is a good show. Many people like it, and it's ratings are fine. Sorry you don't like it, but your "protected from their own judgment" comment comes off as insulting to those of us who do like it.

 

[Ranger REG]

Personally, I have much more respect for an ambitious show that sometimes falls short of its mark than I do for a mediocre one that's content to play by the numbers.

Not looking for any ambition on Chuck any more than finding it in Two and a Half Men.

Besides, I can handle one lighthearted slapstick comedy, two if you count the psuedo-philosophical My Name is Earl (which he has gone off-the-track lately but hope he'll go back to his list ... and pursue Alyssa Milano).

 

[Ranger REG]

Whatever. Chuck is a good show. Many people like it, and it's ratings are fine. Sorry you don't like it, but your "protected from their own judgment" comment comes off as insulting to those of us who do like it.

I'm just glad he's not one of those antiquated Nielsen audience.

 

[Felon]

He's a nerd because that is what his backstory is, and how his character is written. Just like the main character in Dexter is written to be a Serial Killer Coroner.

See, Dexter actually exhibits the traits of a serial killer. If one were to ask, I can explain why I find Dexter a believable serial killer. At this point, I don't know if you're being coy with me or honestly don't understand the question I posed. From the comment "he's a nerd because that's what his backstory is", I have to infer that you accept that he's a nerd not because of any nerdy traits he's been assigned through the virtues of good characterization, but simply because the premise says he's a nerd and that's good enough for you. No need for the writers to actually sell it.

Shockingly, people who are in a business where they are payed to look good tend to look good, and the not-quite-Tom-Brady types play 'average Joes'. In other news, most professional basketball players are tall.

Props on the well-delivered sarcasm, but I contend that there are movies and TV shows out there that don't cop out in casting. Masi Oka is a very convincing nerd.

Whatever. Chuck is a good show. Many people like it, and it's ratings are fine. Sorry you don't like it, but your "protected from their own judgment" comment comes off as insulting to those of us who do like it.

Well, if you're going to "whatever" me, I'm gonna have to "whatever" right back at ya. Believe me, I'm suffering the slings and arrows of snippyness more than anyone here.

Seriously, pick up the gauntlet or don't. If anyone feels like articulating an opinion on its redeeming qualities beyond something passive like "whatever, it's a good show", I'll bend a knee and hear you out fair and square. Or not, your call. Most people's brains have interconnected right and left hemispheres, which allows likes and dislikes to be explained if one really wants to; portraying as unquantifiable beyond "it's funny" or "I like it" is just slacking. Personally, I am of the school of thought that if you're in a discussion forum and someone asks you to explain your position, you may certainly exercise the prerogative to bunt or not to swing at at all, but at the same time realize that's a form of forfeiture. Why should I call it a tie? (OK, there are too many metaphors in this paragraph, but you should still be able to parse my meaning).

Besides, I can handle one lighthearted slapstick comedy, two if you count the psuedo-philosophical My Name is Earl (which he has gone off-the-track lately but hope he'll go back to his list ... and pursue Alyssa Milano).

Very good example. My Name is Earl is light slapstick that isn't "by the numbers". Clever premise, and good execution, though I agree with the off-the-track-lately assertion.

 

[LightPhoenix]

Very good example. My Name is Earl is light slapstick that isn't "by the numbers". Clever premise, and good execution, though I agree with the off-the-track-lately assertion.

That's a massive understatement.

The first season was gold. Then they tried putting in all these recurring storylines (I hestitate to call them true arcs) and suddenly it was like there was no life to the show. The beauty of the first season was how random it was, and trying to bring order to that was a big mistake.

 

[Mistwell]

Well, if you're going to "whatever" me, I'm gonna have to "whatever" right back at ya. Believe me, I'm suffering the slings and arrows of snippyness more than anyone here.

Seriously, pick up the gauntlet or don't. If anyone feels like articulating an opinion on its redeeming qualities beyond something passive like "whatever, it's a good show", I'll bend a knee and hear you out fair and square. Or not, your call. Most people's brains have interconnected right and left hemispheres, which allows likes and dislikes to be explained if one really wants to; portraying as unquantifiable beyond "it's funny" or "I like it" is just slacking. Personally, I am of the school of thought that if you're in a discussion forum and someone asks you to explain your position, you may certainly exercise the prerogative to bunt or not to swing at at all, but at the same time realize that's a form of forfeiture. Why should I call it a tie? (OK, there are too many metaphors in this paragraph, but you should still be able to parse my meaning).

You never asked me my opinion. And I don't see how attempting to persuade you that it is a good show would be a useful task. I don't have any problem at all with you not liking the show. I just have a problem with you implying that anyone who disagrees with your opinion is dumb. And while you didn't use the word dumb, that seemed to be your intent with that "saved from their own judgment" comment. It was unnecessary. You should be able to handle someone liking something you don't like without feeling the need to drag others down and "do battle" over a TV show (which is what is implied by your "pick up the gauntlet" comment). If you feel the need to behave like that, why not take it to the politics forum of CircvsMaximvs?