Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Deadline)   HBO picks up Damon Lindelof's adaptation of Tom Perrotta's The Leftovers as a series   (deadline.com ) divider line
    More: Cool, Damon Lindelof, Tom Perrotta, HBO, leftovers, Carlton Cuse, Justin Theroux, adaptations, Peter Berg  
•       •       •

1102 clicks; posted to Entertainment » on 17 Sep 2013 at 12:24 AM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



39 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-09-16 09:11:19 PM  
A more interesting theologically based story would be the  Lindelof/Kurtzman/Orci Trinity of pacts with Satan.
 
2013-09-16 09:45:04 PM  
Hmmmmm..this is very interesting, but they would have to have a resolution of some sort.
 
2013-09-16 10:47:18 PM  
Let me guess: This will have a convoluted plot that constantly introduces irrelevant plot points that oughta go off like Chekov's Gun later but never do, leaving you wondering what happened to them or why they were even introduced in the first place. And if you corner him, he'll respond with "Well, this [movie/tv show/episode] is not so much about answers as it is about asking questions."
 
2013-09-16 11:19:36 PM  
Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

*deep breath*

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaalt
 
2013-09-16 11:20:21 PM  
Initial reaction: Left Behind, but with boobs.

As a theology-based work it's kind of Lindelof's comfort zone, and since the novel's author is writer/producer maybe someone will have both an idea of where the story is going and the clout to make it go there.

Hm... after reading a little more, the author, Tom Perrotta, wrote the novel Election. I've not read it, but it was turned into a fantastic movie.
He also wrote Little Children, haven't read/seen book or movie, but Perotta was nominated for an Oscar. Diablo Cody being the exception, it's probably pretty good.

So can't write off Leftovers completely... then again, Prometheus... hm.

Should be a good test. I'll just wait until the series finale airs before deciding whether to watch any episodes. Lost (no pun intended) any trust in Lindelof.
 
2013-09-17 12:35:02 AM  
Damon Lindelof's adaptation of Tom Perrotta's The Leftovers

Screw that. Get Tyler Perry so it can be Tyler Perry's adaptation of Tyler Perry's The Leftovers starring Tyler Perry as Tyler Perry.
 
2013-09-17 12:43:31 AM  
Well, with a track record like Damon Lindelhof, if  you really, really want your project to suck ass, then by all means you should put him in charge of it....
 
2013-09-17 01:14:40 AM  
It has Eccleston, I'll at least give it a chance
 
2013-09-17 01:32:35 AM  

tallguywithglasseson: Initial reaction: Left Behind, but with boobs.

As a theology-based work it's kind of Lindelof's comfort zone, and since the novel's author is writer/producer maybe someone will have both an idea of where the story is going and the clout to make it go there.

Hm... after reading a little more, the author, Tom Perrotta, wrote the novel Election. I've not read it, but it was turned into a fantastic movie.
He also wrote Little Children, haven't read/seen book or movie, but Perotta was nominated for an Oscar. Diablo Cody being the exception, it's probably pretty good.

So can't write off Leftovers completely... then again, Prometheus... hm.

Should be a good test. I'll just wait until the series finale airs before deciding whether to watch any episodes. Lost (no pun intended) any trust in Lindelof.


I think that going the HBO route might give Lindelof the freedom to do something great. Between Prometheus and Star Trek into Darkness, he seems to have the ability. He just needs stakeholders intent on quality that will build their brand, rather than immediate shareholder cash-outs.
 
2013-09-17 01:37:09 AM  
I've been working on The Leftovers, but it has been a bit of a slog, honestly. For some reason it just hasn't grabbed me yet, and I like stories where fantastic things have farked up people's shiat. I also just finished up reading Spin by Robert Charles Wilson. Now THAT would make a fun miniseries following people dealing with weirdness in different ways.
 
2013-09-17 01:43:34 AM  

goatleggedfellow: Between Prometheus and Star Trek into Darkness, he seems to have the ability.


Ability to do what? ...completely crater two franchises?
 
2013-09-17 05:25:14 AM  

Ishkur: goatleggedfellow: Between Prometheus and Star Trek into Darkness, he seems to have the ability.

Ability to do what? ...completely crater two franchises?


It's not like hollywood is known for letting writers write the story on their own.
 
2013-09-17 05:27:25 AM  

Mad_Radhu: I've been working on The Leftovers, but it has been a bit of a slog, honestly. For some reason it just hasn't grabbed me yet, and I like stories where fantastic things have farked up people's shiat. I also just finished up reading Spin by Robert Charles Wilson. Now THAT would make a fun miniseries following people dealing with weirdness in different ways.


Spin was great. The sequel, not so great. Wilson is a nice guy, I sent him an email years ago after I finished reading Spin, and he sent a lengthy reply in less than 48 hours.

The Leftovers...I agree. It's a slog that doesn't quite know where it's going and isn't brave enough to go where it needs to. Reminded me a bit of Red State, which should have ended in the actual Rapture, but Smith pussed out last minute.
 
2013-09-17 07:40:53 AM  
I gave Prometheus a second chance after hating it in the theater; I really should not have. It is a godawful incomprehensible mess. So how does this hack still find work? Are there idiots out there that as a result of horrible congenital mental retardation, think his work is good? Or does he just blow everyone and their dog?
 
2013-09-17 07:44:08 AM  
Milo Minderbinder: Or does he just blow everyone and their dog?

I mailed in the paperwork and waited the requisite six-to-eight weeks, but thus far remain unblown.

Therefore, I find myself in a somewhat contradictory position with regard to the phrase "Damon Lindelof sucks balls".
 
2013-09-17 08:14:11 AM  

Milo Minderbinder: I gave Prometheus a second chance after hating it in the theater; I really should not have. It is a godawful incomprehensible mess. So how does this hack still find work? Are there idiots out there that as a result of horrible congenital mental retardation, think his work is good? Or does he just blow everyone and their dog?


I've given it a second, third, and fourth chance. Each time hoping that somehow I was just overlooking the genius o the film. I wasn't. It's like Inception, big, beautiful, loud, vapid and incontinent.
 
2013-09-17 08:54:35 AM  

Ishkur: goatleggedfellow: Between Prometheus and Star Trek into Darkness, he seems to have the ability.

Ability to do what? ...completely crater two franchises?


By 'crater' do you mean digging two franchises that were essentially dead out of the grave and making a ton of money with the movies?

 Let's be totally honest here.. For all the crap Abrams and Lindelof (and their cohorts) get, the last THREE movies involving 'Aliens' were terrible wastes of time, and the Star Trek franchise was coming off 'Nemesis' and 'Enterprise' when the new crew/timeline was introduced.  While you might not like the movies, it is clear that people buying the tickets did and when it comes to the movie studios, that is what matters.

Also, one thing that is totally overlooked when it comes to Prometheus is that it was not a Lindelof story.  It was a rewrite of an existing script and Scott insisted that certain points remain, like the astronauts that created life on earth.  This was more than an outline a writer normally gets, there were certain parts that Scott insisted stay in the script.  While Lindelof gets most of the writing credit, I am not sure he is the one fully to blame for how bad that movie was.
 
2013-09-17 09:12:24 AM  

what_now: Hmmmmm..this is very interesting, but they would have to have a resolution of some sort.


I really can't imagine a Perrotta story that doesn't just kind of... end.
 
2013-09-17 09:31:04 AM  

bluenote13: Ishkur: goatleggedfellow: Between Prometheus and Star Trek into Darkness, he seems to have the ability.

Ability to do what? ...completely crater two franchises?

By 'crater' do you mean digging two franchises that were essentially dead out of the grave and making a ton of money with the movies?

 Let's be totally honest here.. For all the crap Abrams and Lindelof (and their cohorts) get, the last THREE movies involving 'Aliens' were terrible wastes of time, and the Star Trek franchise was coming off 'Nemesis' and 'Enterprise' when the new crew/timeline was introduced.  While you might not like the movies, it is clear that people buying the tickets did and when it comes to the movie studios, that is what matters.

Also, one thing that is totally overlooked when it comes to Prometheus is that it was not a Lindelof story.  It was a rewrite of an existing script and Scott insisted that certain points remain, like the astronauts that created life on earth.  This was more than an outline a writer normally gets, there were certain parts that Scott insisted stay in the script.  While Lindelof gets most of the writing credit, I am not sure he is the one fully to blame for how bad that movie was.


The Engineers seeding/modifying life on Earth is the very LEAST of the problems with Prometheus.
 
2013-09-17 09:31:07 AM  

bluenote13: By 'crater' do you mean digging two franchises that were essentially dead out of the grave and making a ton of money with the movies?


Prometheus made some money, not a ton.  STID lost money on theatrical release.  Before the "but box office, how does math work" stuff, look up the budgets, the box office gross and apply the following:  Budget + (Domestic *.5 + Foreign *.3)= box office net.  Add prints and advertising and Prometheus is a bit over break even if it even gets there, STID is tens of millions in the red.

Prometheus:
130 - (64 + 83) = 17 in the black.  Advertising and prints were well over 17 million, so that is in the red.

STID:
190 - (114+ 71) = 5 million in the red.  Advertising and prints adds tens of millions to that cost.
 
2013-09-17 09:47:47 AM  

mjbok: bluenote13: By 'crater' do you mean digging two franchises that were essentially dead out of the grave and making a ton of money with the movies?

Prometheus made some money, not a ton.  STID lost money on theatrical release.  Before the "but box office, how does math work" stuff, look up the budgets, the box office gross and apply the following:  Budget + (Domestic *.5 + Foreign *.3)= box office net.  Add prints and advertising and Prometheus is a bit over break even if it even gets there, STID is tens of millions in the red.

Prometheus:
130 - (64 + 83) = 17 in the black.  Advertising and prints were well over 17 million, so that is in the red.

STID:
190 - (114+ 71) = 5 million in the red.  Advertising and prints adds tens of millions to that cost.


Can I ask where you get your numbers that domestic should only count for half?  Is that due to the nature of how the agreements work with the movie theaters?

Based on that math, the first Star Trek made 16 million if you don't factor in advertising, which would probably put it in the red after.  I am not sure the math works that the studio would greenlight a budget 40 million more on a movie that lost money the first time around.
 
2013-09-17 09:56:06 AM  

bluenote13: Can I ask where you get your numbers that domestic should only count for half? Is that due to the nature of how the agreements work with the movie theaters?

Based on that math, the first Star Trek made 16 million if you don't factor in advertising, which would probably put it in the red after. I am not sure the math works that the studio would greenlight a budget 40 million more on a movie that lost money the first time around.


There was an article on here a couple months back that explained it.  It used to be that the BO was front loaded percentage wise (first few weeks studio got nearly all and then in went down week to week), but it was changed due to theaters going under in the 90's.  The 30% figure is on the high end, and I've seen it be anywhere from 15 up to 30, but I use 30 because it's an easier metric with less arguing.

Regarding your second part, the first Star Trek (reboot) got a nice chunk of cash from Nokia (I believe) for product placement, plus DVD, etc. sales push it into the black.  Of course with Hollywood accounting nothing ever "makes" money, but I try to approach it from a real world perspective.
 
2013-09-17 09:57:37 AM  

bluenote13: By 'crater' do you mean digging two franchises that were essentially dead out of the grave and making a ton of money with the movies?

Despite

the writing, not because of it.

I have no problem with the JJ Treks. I'm well aware that the Star Trek:TNG crew were finished and something had to be done to revitalize the franchise and for the most part everything was well executed. It's a little lazy to go back to the Kirk/Spock well since they have such a huge universe to play in but they're trying to get non-Trekkies and even they've heard of Kirk and Spock so I get that. The cast is great (Simon Pegg is a little too comic relief-y as Scotty but whatever) and the sets are beautiful (the parts you can see through he lens flair).

So as a lifetime Trekkie, I say it's all fine with me. Just get some competent farking writers.

I have no real opinion on Prometheus. The Alien franchise was even deader than Trek and although the writing was half assed in Prometheus as well, I don't care as much.
 
2013-09-17 09:59:58 AM  

mjbok: bluenote13: By 'crater' do you mean digging two franchises that were essentially dead out of the grave and making a ton of money with the movies?

Prometheus made some money, not a ton.  STID lost money on theatrical release.  Before the "but box office, how does math work" stuff, look up the budgets, the box office gross and apply the following:  Budget + (Domestic *.5 + Foreign *.3)= box office net.  Add prints and advertising and Prometheus is a bit over break even if it even gets there, STID is tens of millions in the red.

Prometheus:
130 - (64 + 83) = 17 in the black.  Advertising and prints were well over 17 million, so that is in the red.

STID:
190 - (114+ 71) = 5 million in the red.  Advertising and prints adds tens of millions to that cost.


I don't see any numbers for DVD sales, broadcast rights, etc.  While it might not apply to big budget movies, there are movies that make up for disappointing theater releases with DVD sales.  Kevin Smith movies, 'Serenity' and most famously "Office Space" are ones that come to mind immediately that did/do pretty bad at the theater (or in Smith's case make about 30 million every time) but make most of their money in DVD sales.  Office Space made about 12 million at the theater and the best number I could find was that it has sold 6 million dvd's.  Even at $5 per that is 30 million.
 
2013-09-17 10:16:42 AM  

bluenote13: Office Space made about 12 million at the theater and the best number I could find was that it has sold 6 million dvd's.  Even at $5 per that is 30 million.


I have an Office Space t-shiat and bought the soundtrack (damn it feels good to be a gangsta) so I contributed. There's actually a shiatload of Office Space merchandise but I have no idea what goes to whom when they sell crap but some of it has to go to the studio. Kevin Smith obviously has a lot of crap that he sells. Low budget + cult following + lots of merchandise = a good business model.
 
2013-09-17 10:38:40 AM  

mjbok: bluenote13: By 'crater' do you mean digging two franchises that were essentially dead out of the grave and making a ton of money with the movies?

Prometheus made some money, not a ton.  STID lost money on theatrical release.  Before the "but box office, how does math work" stuff, look up the budgets, the box office gross and apply the following:  Budget + (Domestic *.5 + Foreign *.3)= box office net.  Add prints and advertising and Prometheus is a bit over break even if it even gets there, STID is tens of millions in the red.

Prometheus:
130 - (64 + 83) = 17 in the black.  Advertising and prints were well over 17 million, so that is in the red.

STID:
190 - (114+ 71) = 5 million in the red.  Advertising and prints adds tens of millions to that cost.


What is the cost of prints these days? With stories about how drive ins are threatened by lack of 35 mm prints for new movies, it seems like these days they just load the 4k file on to the distribution server and call it a day. Even with storage and bandwidth costs, that has to be way less than what they used to pay for making thousands of prints and shipping them across the country.
 
2013-09-17 10:48:31 AM  

Milo Minderbinder: I gave Prometheus a second chance after hating it in the theater; I really should not have. It is a godawful incomprehensible mess. So how does this hack still find work? Are there idiots out there that as a result of horrible congenital mental retardation, think his work is good? Or does he just blow everyone and their dog?


No, idiots are the one who blame Lindelof for what Ridley Scott did.
 
2013-09-17 10:51:28 AM  

log_jammin: Ishkur: goatleggedfellow: Between Prometheus and Star Trek into Darkness, he seems to have the ability.

Ability to do what? ...completely crater two franchises?

It's not like hollywood is known for letting writers write the story on their own.


Once you get to a certain level you get to call the shots. Definitely two selections one shouldn't be using to showcase writing talent in either case.
 
2013-09-17 10:59:27 AM  

peterthx: Milo Minderbinder: I gave Prometheus a second chance after hating it in the theater; I really should not have. It is a godawful incomprehensible mess. So how does this hack still find work? Are there idiots out there that as a result of horrible congenital mental retardation, think his work is good? Or does he just blow everyone and their dog?

No, idiots are the one who blame Lindelof for what Ridley Scott did.


Ridley Scott had astronauts go "I'm going to pet it and hug it and name it George!" when they encounter hissing space cobras while investigating an ancient alien faclity after they find a former inhabitant dead under mysterious circumstances?
 
2013-09-17 11:34:47 AM  

peterthx: Milo Minderbinder: I gave Prometheus a second chance after hating it in the theater; I really should not have. It is a godawful incomprehensible mess. So how does this hack still find work? Are there idiots out there that as a result of horrible congenital mental retardation, think his work is good? Or does he just blow everyone and their dog?

No, idiots are the one who blame Lindelof for what Ridley Scott did.


They're probably basing their impression based on Lindelof 's previous shiatty work. Oh, and the fact that he was the screenwriter, at least one of them. Now if Scott had some adverse effect on the screenplay that isn't listed in the credits, people aren't "idiots" for not knowing that.
 
2013-09-17 12:18:46 PM  

Mugato: peterthx: Milo Minderbinder: I gave Prometheus a second chance after hating it in the theater; I really should not have. It is a godawful incomprehensible mess. So how does this hack still find work? Are there idiots out there that as a result of horrible congenital mental retardation, think his work is good? Or does he just blow everyone and their dog?

No, idiots are the one who blame Lindelof for what Ridley Scott did.

They're probably basing their impression based on Lindelof 's previous shiatty work. Oh, and the fact that he was the screenwriter, at least one of them. Now if Scott had some adverse effect on the screenplay that isn't listed in the credits, people aren't "idiots" for not knowing that.


No, but in a significant number of movies the director makes changes on the fly to scene blocking, language and structure, especially on a movie where he (Scott) has a certain idea of what he wants the scene to portray.  Directors don't always get listed as screenwriters due to the nature of how the individual guilds works but I would bet Scott had as much influence over the script as Lindelof did.
 
2013-09-17 12:20:27 PM  

peterthx: Milo Minderbinder: I gave Prometheus a second chance after hating it in the theater; I really should not have. It is a godawful incomprehensible mess. So how does this hack still find work? Are there idiots out there that as a result of horrible congenital mental retardation, think his work is good? Or does he just blow everyone and their dog?

No, idiots are the one who blame Lindelof for what Ridley Scott did.


Call me crazy, but when the screenplay sucks more than your mom during Fleet Week, I blame the writer. Then I blame Scott for ever returning Lindelof's phone call.
 
2013-09-17 12:29:33 PM  

bluenote13: No, but in a significant number of movies the director makes changes on the fly to scene blocking, language and structure, especially on a movie where he (Scott) has a certain idea of what he wants the scene to portray.  Directors don't always get listed as screenwriters due to the nature of how the individual guilds works but I would bet Scott had as much influence over the script as Lindelof did.


Yes, I know how that works. But someone isn't an "idiot" for not assuming that. It's funny how people blame whoever they want for a movie sucking. Like Lucas merely wrote the story for Indy 4. He didn't write the screenplay and he certainly didn't direct it. But they blame him for everything that they didn't like, from the flying monkeys to the gophers to Shia LeBouef. Lindelof has written enough crap for people to just assume that he's responsible for the screenplay, since his name is on it.
 
2013-09-17 01:30:33 PM  
I never said anyone was an idiot.

My comments about Prometheus came from the production details on various sites, which include comments that Scot insisted that certain story points remain in the script when Lindelof came in to rewrite the original screenplay.

As far as Indy 4, much like your comments with Lindelof, Lucas' name has been all over terrible scripts so I have no problem blaming him for Indy 4.  But I think Trey Parker and Matt Stone handled that particular issue in a much better way.

My point from the beginning has been that Lindelof gets a bad wrap for Promethus and the ST movies, but it is not like he took franchises with recent history that was good and ruined them.  Much like Zach Snyder and Man of Steel, it had been 30 years since a good Superman movie but yet he gets shiat on for Man of Steel.  Lindelof took ST, which could be argued hadn't had a good movie or show since DS9 ended in 1999, and made it a profitable entitiy again.  And the "Aliens" series had gone longer without a good movie, Aliens 3 in 1992.  He was part of both series in a way that will keep them alive for years to come (maybe not Aleins but Star Trek for sure)

Is there some bad stuff in his history, sure, but find a writer in Hollywood who has written for TV and movies and I bet the all have stuff like that on their resume.

On a related note, I thought Sleep Hollow was just crazy enough to be interesting.  Clearly they are not going for 'this could possibly happen' and instead are going for the rare 'fark it, turn up the crazy to 11'  storytelling method.  It also takes some balls to kill off the two most recognizable actors on your show in the first hour.
 
2013-09-17 01:39:53 PM  

bluenote13: Lindelof took ST, which could be argued hadn't had a good movie or show since DS9 ended in 1999, and made it a profitable entitiy again.  And the "Aliens" series had gone longer without a good movie, Aliens 3 in 1992.  He was part of both series in a way that will keep them alive for years to come (maybe not Aleins but Star Trek for sure)


As I said, they did revitalize the Trek franchise but not because of the writing. Get Manny Coto, who wrote the best DS9 and even made the last season of Enterprise cool. But JJ has to hire the same 3 hacks to write all his stuff.
 
2013-09-17 01:44:23 PM  
Huge LOST fan here. What *still* pisses me off, over three years after the show ended, is that Lindelof and Cuse set up a great story and then completely went off the rails focusing on the one character that every LOST fan I know wanted to die a horrible, violent, messy death: Jack. Lindelof was quoted as saying that his favorite character was Jack because he got to be everything that the nebbish dork Lindelof wasn't: tall, handsome, heroic, gets the girl in the end.

Even worse than that, the big mysteries that they teased for years (what is the Smoke Monster? why are the numbers important? what are the whispers heard in the forest? how can polar bears live on a tropical island? etc.), they had answered those in things like podcasts or the spinoffs like The Lost Experience alternative-reality game, which us junkies knew about, but they then went and provided really lame explanations for the casual viewers who only watched the show and didn't get in to five hour online discussions about the importance of this or that.

They also sidelined potentially interesting characters like Alvar Hanso and the DeGroots in favor of.....freakin' Ilana. And the way they sidelined Walt was horrible, so what if the actor went through puberty during the show, they could have worked around that. So, he ends up just as a plot point to show how pathetic Locke is? Grrrrrr...............

/Bitter, still
//I really like Bates Motel though, there's that
///Please don't fark that up, Cuse
 
2013-09-17 02:00:23 PM  

Henry Holland: Huge LOST fan here. What *still* pisses me off, over three years after the show ended, is that Lindelof and Cuse set up a great story and then completely went off the rails focusing on the one character that every LOST fan I know wanted to die a horrible, violent, messy death: Jack. Lindelof was quoted as saying that his favorite character was Jack because he got to be everything that the nebbish dork Lindelof wasn't: tall, handsome, heroic, gets the girl in the end.

Even worse than that, the big mysteries that they teased for years (what is the Smoke Monster? why are the numbers important? what are the whispers heard in the forest? how can polar bears live on a tropical island? etc.), they had answered those in things like podcasts or the spinoffs like The Lost Experience alternative-reality game, which us junkies knew about, but they then went and provided really lame explanations for the casual viewers who only watched the show and didn't get in to five hour online discussions about the importance of this or that.

They also sidelined potentially interesting characters like Alvar Hanso and the DeGroots in favor of.....freakin' Ilana. And the way they sidelined Walt was horrible, so what if the actor went through puberty during the show, they could have worked around that. So, he ends up just as a plot point to show how pathetic Locke is? Grrrrrr...............

/Bitter, still
//I really like Bates Motel though, there's that
///Please don't fark that up, Cuse


There was a LOT to complain about Lost and I will be the first in line with questions, but some of that has to be attributed to the writer's strike farking up season 2 or 3 (not sure which one) and the fact ABC stretched a 5 yr show to 6 and wanted 7 or more.  It gets back to one of my main complaints with serial shows like Heroes, Prison Break, etc.  The writers have great ideas for a show - for one season.  They all write as if they will get 13 or 22 episodes and that is all.  There is no thought to 'what happens if the network gives me a second season'.

I think the Lost plan was 5 years and done.  They had a set path of what they were going to do and got derailed.  Yes that is on them for not resetting when they had the chance but there are other factors.  It is one of the reasons shows like Mad Men, BB, SoA, Justified are so good.  They are focused on telling the story in 13 episodes, there is no room for junk that is not plot important (long tern at least).  Also, the cable shows seem to set in to a 7 years and out model due to costs.  Initial actor contracts on cable shows are usually 3 -4 years and can take one renegotiation.  That second contract renegotiation on a popular show with a big cast would kill cable shows.  Not to mention the creators are typically ready to move on to something else since they are so involved in the day to day stuff on the show, unlike a lot of network shows where the EP is there in name only.

I would much rather see shows that try new things and get a full 13 episodes to tell a story than another procedural that gets 22.  Split the season up in to fall/spring and reset the networks with new shows each side.  The shows would be better off being tighter stories for 13 than have 10-11 good episodes a year and 10 fluff ones.
 
2013-09-17 02:07:11 PM  

Henry Holland: And the way they sidelined Walt was horrible, so what if the actor went through puberty during the show, they could have worked around that.


They could have actually made it one of the mysteries.  Walt disappears at the end of a season, shows up 5 episodes into the next and he's grown a year (in a matter of days).  It's another island mystery.
 
2013-09-17 02:11:22 PM  

mjbok: Henry Holland: And the way they sidelined Walt was horrible, so what if the actor went through puberty during the show, they could have worked around that.

They could have actually made it one of the mysteries.  Walt disappears at the end of a season, shows up 5 episodes into the next and he's grown a year (in a matter of days).  It's another island mystery.


Why not, they didn't explain anything else.
 
Displayed 39 of 39 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report