What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

The Americans (1 Viewer)

30 minutes in and Keri Russell has taken it in 2 out of 3 holes. Nice. Hoping for the hat trick before the halfway point.
And BOOM! goes the Dynamite!
I feel like they worked hard to make that happen and I applaud their efforts. I'm guessing there was a writer early in the brainstorming meetings who said, "Here's an idea – let's base the whole pilot on Keri going for the hat trick." ...which was immediately locked in and then everything else was written around that brilliant core concept.
 
I wonder if all the glowing reviewers saw more than just the pilot. I thought it was meandering and flat alongside looking and sounding like crap a lot of the time. The trailer for the rest of the season looked to be a different look, so hopefully it was just a bad crew for the pilot. It has a lot of potential, and I really want to like it, but I just don't see how it earned a ton of good marks based just on the pilot.
Probably because you don't know what the #### you're talking about? :thumbup:
 
DVR'd and will watch this weekend. Glad to see it was worth recording. But will the wife enjoy it?

 
30 minutes in and Keri Russell has taken it in 2 out of 3 holes. Nice. Hoping for the hat trick before the halfway point.
And BOOM! goes the Dynamite!
I feel like they worked hard to make that happen and I applaud their efforts. I'm guessing there was a writer early in the brainstorming meetings who said, "Here's an idea – let's base the whole pilot on Keri going for the hat trick." ...which was immediately locked in and then everything else was written around that brilliant core concept.
Wait, seriously? When did basic cable turn into 1980's cinemax? (Not that it's necessarily a bad thing.)
 
I wonder if all the glowing reviewers saw more than just the pilot. I thought it was meandering and flat alongside looking and sounding like crap a lot of the time. The trailer for the rest of the season looked to be a different look, so hopefully it was just a bad crew for the pilot. It has a lot of potential, and I really want to like it, but I just don't see how it earned a ton of good marks based just on the pilot.
Probably because you don't know what the #### you're talking about? :thumbup:
Is that a statement or a question?
 
'badmojo1006 said:
'Frankbot said:
30 minutes in and Keri Russell has taken it in 2 out of 3 holes. Nice. Hoping for the hat trick before the halfway point.
And BOOM! goes the Dynamite!
Well we actually don't know if the rape scene was thirdput.It could have went, 1, 2, 2 for all we really know.But any way I enjoyed it enough for now to keep it in the rotation. And my god the dude from The Truman Show looks old
 
Keri Russell must've started at a young age. I can't believe she's only 36. Looks great either way.

 
Was definitely expecting more based on the previews and anticipation around here but it was good enough to see if it turns into this awesome thing we all seem to be expecting it to be.One seemingly minor gripe I have though is that it didn't really have an early 80's "feel" to it. The hair, the clothes, dialogue, just the general vibe felt more like modern day with an 80's soundtrack. The mom jeans and the new neighbor's hair were the only things remotely resembling that era. Contrast that with the look and feel of something like Argo, and it's night and day.

 
I like how 1960 keri russell looked exactly the same as 1982 keri russell
interesting. i actually thought one scene she looked old ... very wrinkled around the eyes. still, she's hot as hell.i'm going to watch again. i'm still not sure who the lucky ******* was in the first scene.
 
Tough crowd in here. Geez. That was an entertaining pilot. Wasn't beyond reproach which is typical of pilots in that they have a so much exposition to setup for the viewer/buyer.Russell and Rhys are terrific leads. Truman show guy has always been solid. Very promising.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I like how 1960 keri russell looked exactly the same as 1982 keri russell
interesting. i actually thought one scene she looked old ... very wrinkled around the eyes. still, she's hot as hell.i'm going to watch again. i'm still not sure who the lucky ******* was in the first scene.
Random nobody that works at the FBI. Knew enough to give her info on Timoschev. That's all I figured.
 
OK so heres what I liked:1. The music2. The premise3. The main characters costumes4. The discussion the two main characters had in the garage about defecting was intense5. The 80s mom jeansHeres where I am nitpicking:1. Why on Earth would he bring the FBI agent into the garage where the car was? Did he just wanna get caught at that point? That seemed a bit dumb2. There wasnt much suspense in this episode. They compared it to Homeland which I was on the edge of my seat almost every episode. Hopefully future episodes pick it up3. What do they tell their kids when they both go out all night?4. Was it cool to be a pedophile in the 80s or something? I cant imagine someone being so open and blatant about it.

 
I like how 1960 keri russell looked exactly the same as 1982 keri russell
interesting. i actually thought one scene she looked old ... very wrinkled around the eyes. still, she's hot as hell.

i'm going to watch again. i'm still not sure who the lucky ******* was in the first scene.
When they flashed back to the fight and :eek: scene I thought.. wait.. I thought this was suppose to be 20 years prior... she looks older :confused: Then later, when they flashed back to the couples first meeting she looked younger.. Almost seemed like two different directors crated the scenes.. :shrug:

 
OK so heres what I liked:1. The music2. The premise3. The main characters costumes4. The discussion the two main characters had in the garage about defecting was intense5. The 80s mom jeansHeres where I am nitpicking:1. Why on Earth would he bring the FBI agent into the garage where the car was? Did he just wanna get caught at that point? That seemed a bit dumb2. There wasnt much suspense in this episode. They compared it to Homeland which I was on the edge of my seat almost every episode. Hopefully future episodes pick it up3. What do they tell their kids when they both go out all night?4. Was it cool to be a pedophile in the 80s or something? I cant imagine someone being so open and blatant about it.
Answer to #1, IMO was :yes: he wanted to get caught and get the $6 Million dollars the guy in the trunk was talking about.Answer to #4, IMO, sort of.. I recall being around my step dad and his friends in the 80's and the inside joke of "If she's old enough to bleed, she's old enough to breed" ... can you imagine someone saying that today around others :eek:
 
OK so heres what I liked:

1. The music

2. The premise

3. The main characters costumes

4. The discussion the two main characters had in the garage about defecting was intense

5. The 80s mom jeans

Heres where I am nitpicking:

1. Why on Earth would he bring the FBI agent into the garage where the car was? Did he just wanna get caught at that point? That seemed a bit dumb

2. There wasnt much suspense in this episode. They compared it to Homeland which I was on the edge of my seat almost every episode. Hopefully future episodes pick it up

3. What do they tell their kids when they both go out all night?

4. Was it cool to be a pedophile in the 80s or something? I cant imagine someone being so open and blatant about it.
Answer to #1, IMO was :yes: he wanted to get caught and get the $6 Million dollars the guy in the trunk was talking about.Answer to #4, IMO, sort of.. I recall being around my step dad and his friends in the 80's and the inside joke of "If she's old enough to bleed, she's old enough to breed" ... can you imagine someone saying that today around others :eek:
I haven't heard that since high school in the mid 1970's.
 
OK so heres what I liked:1. The music2. The premise3. The main characters costumes4. The discussion the two main characters had in the garage about defecting was intense5. The 80s mom jeansHeres where I am nitpicking:1. Why on Earth would he bring the FBI agent into the garage where the car was? Did he just wanna get caught at that point? That seemed a bit dumb2. There wasnt much suspense in this episode. They compared it to Homeland which I was on the edge of my seat almost every episode. Hopefully future episodes pick it up3. What do they tell their kids when they both go out all night?4. Was it cool to be a pedophile in the 80s or something? I cant imagine someone being so open and blatant about it.
Answer to #1, IMO was :yes: he wanted to get caught and get the $6 Million dollars the guy in the trunk was talking about.Answer to #4, IMO, sort of.. I recall being around my step dad and his friends in the 80's and the inside joke of "If she's old enough to bleed, she's old enough to breed" ... can you imagine someone saying that today around others :eek:
So I mean sure he could have changed his mind spur of the moment, but if he really wanted to get caught then why shut the trunk right as the FBI guy gets to the back of the car?And I know you didn't mean it literally but no, it was never "sort of" cool to be a pedophile. That whole storyline was weird and not realistic. Making a comment about a younger chick is pretty different from grabbing a girl's ### in the mall and hitting on some dude's 13 year old daughter right in front of him.
 
OK so heres what I liked:1. The music2. The premise3. The main characters costumes4. The discussion the two main characters had in the garage about defecting was intense5. The 80s mom jeansHeres where I am nitpicking:1. Why on Earth would he bring the FBI agent into the garage where the car was? Did he just wanna get caught at that point? That seemed a bit dumb2. There wasnt much suspense in this episode. They compared it to Homeland which I was on the edge of my seat almost every episode. Hopefully future episodes pick it up3. What do they tell their kids when they both go out all night?4. Was it cool to be a pedophile in the 80s or something? I cant imagine someone being so open and blatant about it.
Answer to #1, IMO was :yes: he wanted to get caught and get the $6 Million dollars the guy in the trunk was talking about.Answer to #4, IMO, sort of.. I recall being around my step dad and his friends in the 80's and the inside joke of "If she's old enough to bleed, she's old enough to breed" ... can you imagine someone saying that today around others :eek:
So I mean sure he could have changed his mind spur of the moment, but if he really wanted to get caught then why shut the trunk right as the FBI guy gets to the back of the car?And I know you didn't mean it literally but no, it was never "sort of" cool to be a pedophile. That whole storyline was weird and not realistic. Making a comment about a younger chick is pretty different from grabbing a girl's ### in the mall and hitting on some dude's 13 year old daughter right in front of him.
yea, my bad it wasn't "cool".. But the way people looked at older guy's with younger girls back in the 70's and 80's compared to today is different.. during that part we have no idea how old the girl was.. All we had was him saying "just tell them you are sleeping over at a friends house". she could have been 18 and living at home still for all we know.As for his hitting on the girl.. He didn't know she was 13.. The point of that whole story line started when the girl was getting in the car and the Dad said " wasn't it just yesterday she was wearing sweaters with cute animals on it?".. Meaning she looked older then what she was.. when the dad stepped in and said she was only 13, the guy was challenging the father to do something about it.. Which he did later. :thumbup:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
My wife recorded this show, and I kind half watched it. While she didn't care for it, I think I will re-watch the pilot and give the show a chance.

The music was great, but I have to take issue with using Phil Collins In the Air Tonight. That song belongs to Miami Vice. :)

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I might be staing the obvious here, but they had the husband take the agent into the garage just because it was more of a 'close call' than having the agent wait in the kitchen, plus it set up the last scene where the agent wants to sneak back in later to snoop around and see why the husband slammed the trunk shut so fast.

For the pedo: They want the husband to be a 'good' badguy anti-hero type. I mean, he's a Russian spy, we should be rooting against him - but he's a family man first (puts his kids before his job, whereas the mom is the opposite), he seems sympathetic (or at least adaptable) to America, and to top it off they just needed a blatantly obvious bad guy (the pedo) for him to go all bad### on. If he'd crossed paths with someone who stole his parking space the message is totally different.

Point is, I don't think either scene is worth over analyzing as anything more than something they threw in there to help advance the plot and establish character - which I'm totally fine with.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I might be staing the obvious here, but they had the husband take the agent into the garage just because it was more of a 'close call' than having the agent wait in the kitchen, plus it set up the last scene where the agent wants to sneak back in later to snoop around and see why the husband slammed the trunk shut so fast.

For the pedo: They want the husband to be a 'good' badguy anti-hero type. I mean, he's a Russian spy, we should be rooting against him - but he's a family man first (puts his kids before his job, whereas the mom is the opposite), he seems sympathetic (or at least adaptable) to America, and to top it off they just needed a blatantly obvious bad guy (the pedo) for him to go all bad### on. If he'd crossed paths with someone who stole his parking space the message is totally different.

Point is, I don't think either scene is worth over analyzing as anything more than something they threw in there to help advance the plot and establish character - which I'm totally fine with.
Good points by you and Snogger. I guess I was just taking the scene at face value instead of realizing that what they were doing was also establishing a clear disconnect between Dad the spy and Dad the dad. He could have broken that dude's face in half right there in the mall but then his daughter would probably wonder how her dad learned these bad-### skills. Portrays him as a very calculating dude to be able to back down despite all the obvious rage he was feeling.Of course, he did get to unleash hell on the pedo later on which was probably very cathartic!

 
I might be staing the obvious here, but they had the husband take the agent into the garage just because it was more of a 'close call' than having the agent wait in the kitchen, plus it set up the last scene where the agent wants to sneak back in later to snoop around and see why the husband slammed the trunk shut so fast.

For the pedo: They want the husband to be a 'good' badguy anti-hero type. I mean, he's a Russian spy, we should be rooting against him - but he's a family man first (puts his kids before his job, whereas the mom is the opposite), he seems sympathetic (or at least adaptable) to America, and to top it off they just needed a blatantly obvious bad guy (the pedo) for him to go all bad### on. If he'd crossed paths with someone who stole his parking space the message is totally different.

Point is, I don't think either scene is worth over analyzing as anything more than something they threw in there to help advance the plot and establish character - which I'm totally fine with.
:goodposting: The only thing I'd nitpick is when they go to Agent Beeman's house to meet him for the first time he is so blase about stating he works for the FBI in counter intelligence. That doesn't seem like a job where you just openly talk about it, let alone to someone you just met. I realize that is also like the critiques above where it was put in to move the story, but I had to roll my eyes at that a little bit.

Overall, I'd give it a 4/5. I'll definitely keep watching.

 
I might be staing the obvious here, but they had the husband take the agent into the garage just because it was more of a 'close call' than having the agent wait in the kitchen, plus it set up the last scene where the agent wants to sneak back in later to snoop around and see why the husband slammed the trunk shut so fast.

For the pedo: They want the husband to be a 'good' badguy anti-hero type. I mean, he's a Russian spy, we should be rooting against him - but he's a family man first (puts his kids before his job, whereas the mom is the opposite), he seems sympathetic (or at least adaptable) to America, and to top it off they just needed a blatantly obvious bad guy (the pedo) for him to go all bad### on. If he'd crossed paths with someone who stole his parking space the message is totally different.

Point is, I don't think either scene is worth over analyzing as anything more than something they threw in there to help advance the plot and establish character - which I'm totally fine with.
:goodposting: The only thing I'd nitpick is when they go to Agent Beeman's house to meet him for the first time he is so blase about stating he works for the FBI in counter intelligence. That doesn't seem like a job where you just openly talk about it, let alone to someone you just met. I realize that is also like the critiques above where it was put in to move the story, but I had to roll my eyes at that a little bit.

Overall, I'd give it a 4/5. I'll definitely keep watching.
I know a guy who is an agent with the FBI, and he tells people he works for the FBI when asked. He says the only time he doesn't tell the truth about his job is when he is working a case undercover. His mom and dad are longtime friend's with my parents. Our families grew up together. CIA agents are more likely to be vague about what they do when asked.
 
I might be staing the obvious here, but they had the husband take the agent into the garage just because it was more of a 'close call' than having the agent wait in the kitchen, plus it set up the last scene where the agent wants to sneak back in later to snoop around and see why the husband slammed the trunk shut so fast.

For the pedo: They want the husband to be a 'good' badguy anti-hero type. I mean, he's a Russian spy, we should be rooting against him - but he's a family man first (puts his kids before his job, whereas the mom is the opposite), he seems sympathetic (or at least adaptable) to America, and to top it off they just needed a blatantly obvious bad guy (the pedo) for him to go all bad### on. If he'd crossed paths with someone who stole his parking space the message is totally different.

Point is, I don't think either scene is worth over analyzing as anything more than something they threw in there to help advance the plot and establish character - which I'm totally fine with.
:goodposting: The only thing I'd nitpick is when they go to Agent Beeman's house to meet him for the first time he is so blase about stating he works for the FBI in counter intelligence. That doesn't seem like a job where you just openly talk about it, let alone to someone you just met. I realize that is also like the critiques above where it was put in to move the story, but I had to roll my eyes at that a little bit.

Overall, I'd give it a 4/5. I'll definitely keep watching.
I know a guy who is an agent with the FBI, and he tells people he works for the FBI when asked. He says the only time he doesn't tell the truth about his job is when he is working a case undercover. His mom and dad are longtime friend's with my parents. Our families grew up together. CIA agents are more likely to be vague about what they do when asked.
Touche.Does your friend openly talk about what division, especially if it were a highly sensitive one? Say you're in the FBI, fine, but to say "Hi, nice to meet you. By the way I hunt Russian spies" in the middle of the Cold War seemed out of place. That was more my point. Oh well, move along, nothing to see here ;)

 
Tough crowd in here. Geez. That was an entertaining pilot. Wasn't beyond reproach which is typical of pilots in that they have a so much exposition to setup for the viewer/buyer.Russell and Rhys are terrific leads. Truman show guy has always been solid. Very promising.
:goodposting: Great pilot. I didn't hear much about it before hand or read any reviews, so my expectations weren't set impossibly high. It's an FX drama with Graham Yost and some talented leads, so I expected it'd be pretty good. They had to rush a few things because it's a pilot, but I'd bet they settle in nicely going forward. It remains to be seen if this becomes a truly great show, but it seems like it'll be solid at worst.
 
I might be staing the obvious here, but they had the husband take the agent into the garage just because it was more of a 'close call' than having the agent wait in the kitchen, plus it set up the last scene where the agent wants to sneak back in later to snoop around and see why the husband slammed the trunk shut so fast.

For the pedo: They want the husband to be a 'good' badguy anti-hero type. I mean, he's a Russian spy, we should be rooting against him - but he's a family man first (puts his kids before his job, whereas the mom is the opposite), he seems sympathetic (or at least adaptable) to America, and to top it off they just needed a blatantly obvious bad guy (the pedo) for him to go all bad### on. If he'd crossed paths with someone who stole his parking space the message is totally different.

Point is, I don't think either scene is worth over analyzing as anything more than something they threw in there to help advance the plot and establish character - which I'm totally fine with.
Excellent points. Sometimes we nitpick scenes in shows like this to death but with something like that you just have to step back and take at shallow character growth.
 
Pilot didn't dump a crapton of action like a lot of pilots try to these days which I respect. I will watch again but the hook isn't sunk deep.

 
This was barely a "meh". A lot of goofy and unnecessary plot contrivances.And it is almost laughable at poorly done the costuming and hair is for a show set in 1981. If you're going to make a period-piece don't do it half-###.

 
This was barely a "meh". A lot of goofy and unnecessary plot contrivances.And it is almost laughable at poorly done the costuming and hair is for a show set in 1981. If you're going to make a period-piece don't do it half-###.
It started out strong (after the chase) with the high pants and the music. I think an extra had some big hair, but then it really mostly ignored the 80s. Making a Cold War suspenseful show was easy when we were in it. That's why CW reboots are destined to fail (WarGames, Red Dawn) unless they're handled very skillfully. A huge portion of the audience won't remember the time period and need to be fully immersed in it, not just with style but with the oppressive gloom of Russia hanging everywhere. Plus it needs more hot Rusdian chicks with accents.
 
This was barely a "meh". A lot of goofy and unnecessary plot contrivances.And it is almost laughable at poorly done the costuming and hair is for a show set in 1981. If you're going to make a period-piece don't do it half-###.
Look on the bright side, you'll have that much more time to devote to figuring out who will be this year's Ultimate Fighter.
 
The relative lack of a truly authentic 80's feel didn't bother me. I kind of liked that about it.I think going too far on the 80's stuff could distract from the storytelling. A story set in a 1960's advertising agency? Yeah, the period props are very much part of the story and certainly add to it.1980's just look dated cinematically and it's kind of hard to take things seriously when they bring a 1980's feel to it. With a suspenseful spy thriller, I think it could be distracting. Particularly, we're talking about a "cold" war that never amounted to anything. Throw in too many goofy looking props from a goofy era, and it might be hard to get people to take seriously enough. People wont' feel like they are "there" at all. I think it kind of helped that it had a current day feel to it.The 1980's didn't scream "1980's" to the people in it. It does to a 2013 crowd. The best way to help the audience really feel like part of the story might be to tone down the 1980's feel.If they tell good stories, I'm not too worried about every little detail of the era.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The relative lack of a truly authentic 80's feel didn't bother me. I kind of liked that about it.I think going too far on the 80's stuff could distract from the storytelling. A story set in a 1960's advertising agency? Yeah, the period props are very much part of the story and certainly add to it.1980's just look dated cinematically and it's kind of hard to take things seriously when they bring a 1980's feel to it. With a suspenseful spy thriller, I think it could be distracting. Particularly, we're talking about a "cold" war that never amounted to anything. Throw in too many goofy looking props from a goofy era, and it might be hard to get people to take seriously enough. People wont' feel like they are "there" at all. I think it kind of helped that it had a current day feel to it.The 1980's didn't scream "1980's" to the people in it. It does to a 2013 crowd. The best way to help the audience really feel like part of the story might be to tone down the 1980's feel.If they tell good stories, I'm not too worried about every little detail of the era.
Why would it be goofy? Could be anything from $1 gas prices to microwaves. That's part of filmmaking skill, to set the scene. This isn't a spy thriller on it's own, it's a Cold War spy thirller set in the 80s in America. The America in the show should look and feel like the 80s. :shrug:
 
The relative lack of a truly authentic 80's feel didn't bother me. I kind of liked that about it.I think going too far on the 80's stuff could distract from the storytelling. A story set in a 1960's advertising agency? Yeah, the period props are very much part of the story and certainly add to it.1980's just look dated cinematically and it's kind of hard to take things seriously when they bring a 1980's feel to it. With a suspenseful spy thriller, I think it could be distracting. Particularly, we're talking about a "cold" war that never amounted to anything. Throw in too many goofy looking props from a goofy era, and it might be hard to get people to take seriously enough. People wont' feel like they are "there" at all. I think it kind of helped that it had a current day feel to it.The 1980's didn't scream "1980's" to the people in it. It does to a 2013 crowd. The best way to help the audience really feel like part of the story might be to tone down the 1980's feel.If they tell good stories, I'm not too worried about every little detail of the era.
Why would it be goofy? Could be anything from $1 gas prices to microwaves. That's part of filmmaking skill, to set the scene. This isn't a spy thriller on it's own, it's a Cold War spy thirller set in the 80s in America. The America in the show should look and feel like the 80s. :shrug:
I'm not saying it shouldn't feel like the 80's. I'm just saying I'm fine with it being a relatively toned down 80's feel. I don't think it's terribly important.Plus, it's only been one episode. I'd imagine the 80's stuff will be ramped up soon enough.
 
The relative lack of a truly authentic 80's feel didn't bother me. I kind of liked that about it.I think going too far on the 80's stuff could distract from the storytelling. A story set in a 1960's advertising agency? Yeah, the period props are very much part of the story and certainly add to it.1980's just look dated cinematically and it's kind of hard to take things seriously when they bring a 1980's feel to it. With a suspenseful spy thriller, I think it could be distracting. Particularly, we're talking about a "cold" war that never amounted to anything. Throw in too many goofy looking props from a goofy era, and it might be hard to get people to take seriously enough. People wont' feel like they are "there" at all. I think it kind of helped that it had a current day feel to it.The 1980's didn't scream "1980's" to the people in it. It does to a 2013 crowd. The best way to help the audience really feel like part of the story might be to tone down the 1980's feel.If they tell good stories, I'm not too worried about every little detail of the era.
Why would it be goofy? Could be anything from $1 gas prices to microwaves. That's part of filmmaking skill, to set the scene. This isn't a spy thriller on it's own, it's a Cold War spy thirller set in the 80s in America. The America in the show should look and feel like the 80s. :shrug:
I'm not saying it shouldn't feel like the 80's. I'm just saying I'm fine with it being a relatively toned down 80's feel. I don't think it's terribly important.Plus, it's only been one episode. I'd imagine the 80's stuff will be ramped up soon enough.
I thought it had enough of a feel. To be honest, a lot of the buildings and architecture in cities now is still from the 80's and older. So other than the cars and some of the clothing styles, we're not going to see much change. Which if the story goes well, should not even be noticed. Too much 80s stuff begins to make it a gimmick which is why shows like "That 80's Show" failed. That 70's Show combined the style of the 70's with actual storylines that fit with people who lived the era. That 80's show went out of its way to say "hey look we're in the 80's! see my collar up and my white jacket to go with it?" I didn't get any feel of that from the first episode of Americans and I am very happy with that.
 
I remember the time period vividly and thought they did a great job with set design, and hair & makeup. The show takes place in '81 . . . the decade as most people think of it—with its new-wave looks, synth-based pop, pastel everywhere—didn't truly shift into its own until around '82 - '84. 1980 & 1981 still looked very much like the late 70s.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Seems odd to me that so many are picking it apart.
Mad Sweeney is kind of an odd individual.
I am very discerning about TV. That's my profession. If I get bored watching a show, I start thinking too much about it. The more I am looking forward to a show, the higher the expectations, the harder I am going to be on it. This show was one of my top tier expectations. Plus, although I am critical of it, I did not hate it nor do I think it was bad. Just poorly executed. I stated that the previews for the rest of the season look different than the pilot (which are very often doen completely differently than the rest of the show). If a show is good enough to me that I don't care or think about it technically, then I easily overlook flaws (like the Following, for example).
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top