Agree with everything you said, especially after having rewatched the episode earlier today. Also, thanks for podcasting. Despite what you might think, these solo podcasts can be just as enjoyable...
Really? Then everyone is FIRED! SOLO PODCASTS FROM NOW ON!
I've already upset one certain person this year! Don't let me be the reason for everyone's firings, haha!!
The question is can you do a 2 and a half hour podcast solo?I only watched the episode once, but yeah I had major issues with the same thing you and others did. I am happy the writers are giving Sarah Lancaster the chance to do the same work she did the first two years once again.Oh and yeah you're so right about Yvonne and her work. I really hope she gets a chance to be a big star either in film, or the right role in another tv show that uses all her strengths.Oh and Magnus please do finish Terriers don't take my strong affection for it to prevent you from finishing the story.I don't think you will, but I kind of would feel bad if that was the case, for 2 or 3 seconds anyway:)Jason
On episode 9 of Terriers as I write this.
I need to do a proper re-watch all the way through now that it is on Netflix. For someone who thinks the show as brilliant I have not seen any of it besides the Olivia Williams episode since the finale. I am a very bad fan of things I consider brilliant.That 9th episode was different, an off beat hour of the series, but I still really liked it from my memory.Jason
great podcast short and sweet to the point like i love them.But just one thing missing spoilers ;)Michel
Spoilers? You want spoilers?
Spoilers would be great almighty Magnus..........
The solo podcast wasn't bad at all, although I would have enjoyed any of those other guests too :) One other thing I really disliked about the whole Chuck running off thing was the fact that they threw in that extra scene in the back of the bar between Chuck and Sarah. It would have been different if Chuck had just assumed Sarah was going to go along with what Casey and Beckman said to do, and taken off. It doesn't improve the situation any, but it really just added to the ridiculousness of it all that Sarah specifically told him she agreed with him and that they would go ahead with the right plan together. Also, why would they even care what Casey and Beckman wanted to do? They aren't beholden to the CIA anymore and Casey basically works for them. If Chuck and Sarah agreed that their plan was better they should have just walked out there together and told Beckman and Casey that it's their problem, their family and therefore go with their plan.
Ooh LOVE TERRIERS!It has one of the most addictive opening into's EVER! Plus they always place them perfectly and they had one hell of a season. Ladies and Gentlemen without spoiling anything....watch season 1...that is how you start...build up and finish a season of television....you payoff most of what you set up! (cough, cough...Lost/Fringe)
You start by watching season 1 of a show that had 1 season?Ladies and gentlemen, TERRIERS isn't remotely as good as people make it out to seem. But it is definitely worth watching. If you don't expect the awesome show the nutjob hyperbole types profess it to be, then you will enjoy it a lot more.
I also love terriers. The dog, not the show. Never heard of the show before.On the subject of TV shows, I've been finding Person of Interest remarkably watchable. It's nothing earth shattering, but I'm finding that a solid cast, some decent writing and at least a passing nod to logic are enough to set it apart from the usual procedural nonsense. YMMV.Jim
I made it three episodes with POI. Yeah, it was interesting but I only have so much room for procedurals in my life.
In your opinion, Terriers isn't as remotely good as people like myself, and virtually every top television critic has stated it is.With or without any hyperbole the shows stands on it's own, from acting, to writing, to following through on the story arc from the first episode to it's last.From one nutjob to another, I am glad you watched it though.The hype over this week's Chuck episode is beginning to ramp up I read Sepinwall and now Mcgee both type it's praisesHave you seen the episode yet, or no?Enjoy it either way, and have a Merry Christmas with you and yours Magnus.Jason
"In your opinion, Terriers isn't as remotely good as people like myself, and virtually every top television critic has stated it is."B- show. Critics are prone to hyperbole when a show they like is dying. Just look at how quickly the critics who backed CHUCK in season 2 backed away from it in season 3.I think it is lazy writing to only introduce significant characters who end up part of the big conspiracy arc. TERRIERS, may be the worst culprit yet. I like to call it the "Vader made Threepio phenomenon." The world keeps shrinking and things stop feeling realistic.Not to mention that the resolution to the "big bad" was wholly idiotic, existing PURELY to give them something to play off of in the second season that will never happen. Any critic who calls this show great is a tosser.
Jason, TERRIERS blows. Thank you for helping me to see just how much. Any douche who types such rambling idiocy can't possibly judge quality.
Oh, and the first half of season 3 had Operation Awesome, First Class, Nacho Sampler, Beard, Tic Tac, and Final Exam. All very good to great episodes. Critics are just idiots. It's why they are critics. They weren't good enough to become real writers.P.S.You call me full of it, and you are going to get the horns from this bull, dippy.
When will people learn...it does not matter what anyone thinks about anything...the only person that counts is yourself. Why this last poster cannot understand that, is....
YOU TALKING TO ME, DANA?!B A N N E D 4L I F E ! !
Chuck actually still gets a fair amount of good reviews from television critics.I loved season 3.The critics that did start hating on Chuck in season 3 would have done it no matter what direction it went in.
I mean... banned for life unless you donated. Then reinstated for life.
Does reinstated for life mean you can never leave?Jim
No just restating what you always tell commentators. You tell them that you do not need validation from a critic to judge whether you enjoy a tv show or not. You tell fans not to let what other critics or people say to highten their expectations and to judge an episode on purely their own expectations, you tell them other stuff too, etc. Basically Jason based on your advice should not need your, critics or my approval on his appreciation of terriers. That is all I meant, I said when will people learn because I am sure you have said these things many many times before.
TERRIERS is the worst show in the history of television and that is why it got cancelled.No one check it out.Dana, in the end, it doesn't matter what anyone says. People will like what they like. But if someone asks me for my opinion, as Jason did, and I give it, and he reacts like a 12-year old little girl, then I drop him in the spam folder. Buh-bye, tosser.
Cue him posting 1,200 messages about it that will end up in the spam folder, because he is so stable.
Another in the spam folder.
"Critics are just idiots. It's why they are critics. They weren't good enough to become real writers."I thought that the Zappa line about critics only applied to music, not also to TV shows... :)P.S. English is not my native language (that's got nothing to do with it, but I add it just in case...)
It should apply MORE to critics of writing.
I think the intense affection for Terriers kind of reminds me of something DR said in a podcast about Firefly.When a show has a short lifespan and didn't suck, its qualities are sometimes amplified. Not only can regular viewers do this, but critics can also.I'm probably not paraphrasing that correctly.If Chuck had been canceled after that second season, it would have been placed on a higher pedestal by critics and viewers alike than it will when it signs off on January 27th.
No doubt. Also, had FIREFLY gone on for a second season, you would have seen the "not as good as season 2" stuff happening. Viewer fatigue... passion fatigue, whatever you want to call it. And while TERRIERS has its moments, it's just not on the level of a better show like JUSTIFIED that have superior dialogue, acting, and actors. And I find JUSTIFIED suffers from very similar problems as TERRIERS (shrinking the world). But it works better on the other levels. And I consider that a B+ show.
Oh and I just looked at Metacritic for TERRIERS and it has an average score of 75. That's a C.Only Alan Sepinwall and Tom Gliatto ranked it higher than I did.JUSTIFIED is ranked at 81, or a B-. So, again, I ranked that higher than the average.CHUCK is ranked at 74, or a C. I would give it a 90 but then I am a total fanboy.
I would rank CHUCK with a B+I don't think it's a really great show with outstanding writing, but it's damn good and fun! I mean, other show maybe better written and executed, etc; but they don't make me as happy as Chuck usually does. This little show really surprised me, it has become one of my fav shows ever. I just hope the grand conspiracy this season makes some sense... :PS.
Is that Justified rating for the entire series? Most people/critics seem to rank the latest season higher than earlier ones.As for Chuck, a lot of critics just stopped reviewing it entirely, so that "C" is among people who bothered to write about it.
Well, it really doesn't matter if the scores are updated or not. After all, my main point is that TERRIERS deserves the B- I gave it and that it didn't get rave reviews from "EVERY CRITIC ON THE PLANET" as the fanboys now in the spam folder suggested.Making them liars.
Thank you for being the first person online to note the absolutely ridiculous resolution of the "mystery" in Terriers. This is a show I might have checked out if it made it to a second season, but there is no way I would recommend someone watch the 13 episode season as if it were some kind of standalone masterpiece. It was an average (maybe just above average) buddy detective show, with some nice dramatic moments.SpyTV
I don't know what massive drug some were smoking when they bestowed on TERRIERS the honor of "standalone masterpiece."The only thing I can imagine is that they didn't think about what the ending meant. They were just so glad to see some kind of resolution. But you have to turn your brain off the second it ends for it to be satisfying. Not to mention how every beat requires that the good and bad guys be at every spot at the most perfect moment for everything to flow like it does. And every case somehow forwarded the grander arc even though there is no reason why things should fall in line so perfectly. This wasn't a mysterious island where the forces of heaven and hell waged a war for control and thereby were able to exact supernatural control over time and space.This was just a private detective show that had some good characters and actors and sometimes nailed an episode.
I think with the exception of Business Trip Season 5 has been good so far.Bearded bandit and Frosted Tips being the best of the season.This episode was a good one.I agree that the whole thing about Chuck going off on his own would have made sense in season 1 and 2 but not now.Despite that a good episode with a lot of good moments in it. Yvonne AKA Sarah Walker is angry when she's beautiful.I'm very much looking forward to seeing the Christmas episode and then the one with Tim Dekay and Cheryl Ladd.
good podcast, Magnus. off topic now. i saw your RT of Mediasavant's youtube link of the Chuck crew. am wondering where the heck is Josh Schwartz?Could you shed some light on how he has slowly disappeared as the co-showrunner? thanks!Awesome's abs
I can't shed any light on it other than to say that Josh is busy with more than just one show.
In the video, I thought Chris said Josh wanted to be there but then Chris said something that sounded like "hospital". It's not clear.Yeah, Josh has three shows and the newest one probably gets the most attention.
Josh just had a baby I think, maybe that's what Chris meant by "hospital"...Sasha
Apparently Josh was at the hospital.Spoiler.
When the show started, Josh was the experienced showrunner and Chris Fedak had never been involved in a TV series at that level. It would be natural that as time went on and Chris gained more experience, that Schwartz would get less involved.Similar thing happened with Lost and JJ Abrams involvement. It happens a lot when you have EP's that are juggling multiple projects.Allow me to recommend a book I read years ago that was very revealing about the world of showrunners. It's called "Showrunners: A Season Inside the Billion-Dollar, Death-Defying, Madcap World of Television's Real Stars" by David Wild
I wonder if Chris Fedak will do what Josh Schwartz has done and will develop and make other shows.I hope this isn't the end of the road for Chris Fedak and that he does make other shows after Chuck.I've been reading about how Josh Scwartz has 3 shows currently in development but nothing about Chris Fedak.
Yes, Chris Fedak will go off to make more shows. However, they are different types of show runners. Chris is the head writer. He is the dude who sits in the writers room. He sits in the editors room. He is on set etc. Josh is more of a come in and out kind of guy. He is off doing classic producing work. So, will Fedak go and create another show from scratch like with CHUCK or do what Schwartz does and buy up scripts and put together talent?We shall see.
I really like Fedak's work. Didn't like season 4 at all, but the rest was great for me, especially season 3 and 2. Season 5 is looking good so far.S.
No flaming, baiting, trolling, expletives, or racism allowed. And NO DISCUSSIONS of the actor's personal lives ever.