Catch and Release (107)

[Commander Zelix]

If indeed, as you suggest, that there has been nothing original since Shakespeare then we are in the same amusement park. The difference is this (as I see it): I choose to voice my concern that the writers *might* go down a more obvious, cliche road, while you seem to suggest (to me) that you choose to accept whatever is put before you, regardless of the quality.

We won't discuss personal taste. I'm sure what you see as "not being a cliche", I view it as a cliche. I mention above how Stargate SG1 was pretty similar to Star Trek to me. For me, it's more about how I enjoy a movie or TV show. I think Alphas got good dialogues, good stories, good writers, fun episodes and Alphas combined many things together in an entertaining way.

I hate it when people start to have "rules" about how TV shows should be. They are often very ridiculous rules. There's no such rules. Probably because people have different tastes and the quality of a TV shows is very subjective. I've watched many Sci-fi TV series and movies. I feel there's something fresh about Alphas, at least up to now.

[Gollumpus]

We won't discuss personal taste. I'm sure what you see as "not being a cliche", I view it as a cliche. I mention above how Stargate SG1 was pretty similar to Star Trek to me. For me, it's more about how I enjoy a movie or TV show. I think Alphas got good dialogues, good stories, good writers, fun episodes and Alphas combined many things together in an entertaining way.

I hate it when people start to have "rules" about how TV shows should be. They are often very ridiculous rules. There's no such rules. Probably because people have different tastes and the quality of a TV shows is very subjective. I've watched many Sci-fi TV series and movies. I feel there's something fresh about Alphas, at least up to now.

I suspect that what I would view as not being cliche would not be seen as being cliche by you as well. We may even share a point of view of what might be cliche, in some (most?) circumstances.

Your Stargate/ Star Trek comparison is good as far as it goes, but to get a more accurate TV comparison you might indeed have to go back to the 50's TV westerns (or even earlier), such shows as "The Lone Ranger" where the hero (Kirk as Lone Ranger) comes to town just in time to remedy a situation, and then moves on by the end of the episode.

I see "Alphas" as being in the same, ancient tradition of storytelling which includes Harry Potter, the Arthurian legends and even earlier myths and sagas. There is at least one mentor who guides the hero(es) through various troubles until there is a conclusion. Sometimes the hero is perfect, sometimes the hero is flawed. Sometimes that conclusion is a happy ending, sometimes the guy screws up and things go south. The flawed hero, in the tragic tale is far more interesting (to me) than a perfect being who floats through life.

I believe we are in agreement about the qualities of this show. Where we differ (dare I say, "In my opinion"? ) is I hope the writers will not pursue certain story lines and I am willing to express this opinion prior to any given episode is aired. As I see it, we're walking the same path. I say, "I hope the writers don't send us down that fork in the road because the other one looks more interesting", before we get to that fork in the road. My assumption is that you would say, "Gee, I wish the writers hadn't sent us down that fork in the road", but only after we were sent down that path.

When, if ever (under your own rules as I see them), would you be able to express a negative view of this or any other series should there be reason for you to do so? If the writers of Alphas introduced a cliche (in your opinion of what is cliche) story line, something which is a season or series long arc, and it's boring you to no end, it is ruining everything which you enjoy about this show. Will you wait until that arc is resolved before saying anything about it? Or, will you at some earlier point, express a negative view of what is going on? And as soon as you express this negative view prior to the story's resolution, are you not guilty of the same negativism of which I have been accused?

Apropos to nothing in particular, your comments about how you enjoy a movie or TV show have reminded me a scene from "The Bill Chill":

Sam Weber: [Sam enters a room where Nick is up late watching TV] What's this?
Nick: I'm not sure.
Sam Weber: What's it about?
Nick: I don't know.
Sam Weber: [Sam shakes his head, pats Nick on the shoulder, then sits in a nearby chair] Who's that?
Nick: I think the guy in the hat did something terrible.
[shot of TV shows a man being thrown through the glass window of a door]
Sam Weber: Like what?
Nick: You're so analytical! Sometimes you just have to let art... flow... over you.
[Sam rolls his eyes]

I can't say I have "rules" about TV shows. Beyond preferences for high quality in my TV I can't say I've ever expressed an opinion on any rules, ridiculous or otherwise. I want shows I watch to *continue* to be well written, have great directors, actors, and quality production values. I say continue because the show would have had these parts in place from when I started watching, otherwise I wouldn't have gone back for another viewing.


regards,
G.

[Hyndara71]

Wow, I'm surprised! At least one episode I could enjoy. Summer Glau was a good choice and played very, very well. Maybe someone should tell TPTB that they could change their focus back from their ... uhm ... group and more about the Skylar-character and the way she is now going. Would be much more interesting.

[aretood2]

I suspect that what I would view as not being cliche would not be seen as being cliche by you as well. We may even share a point of view of what might be cliche, in some (most?) circumstances.

Your Stargate/ Star Trek comparison is good as far as it goes, but to get a more accurate TV comparison you might indeed have to go back to the 50's TV westerns (or even earlier), such shows as "The Lone Ranger" where the hero (Kirk as Lone Ranger) comes to town just in time to remedy a situation, and then moves on by the end of the episode.

I see "Alphas" as being in the same, ancient tradition of storytelling which includes Harry Potter, the Arthurian legends and even earlier myths and sagas. There is at least one mentor who guides the hero(es) through various troubles until there is a conclusion. Sometimes the hero is perfect, sometimes the hero is flawed. Sometimes that conclusion is a happy ending, sometimes the guy screws up and things go south. The flawed hero, in the tragic tale is far more interesting (to me) than a perfect being who floats through life.

I believe we are in agreement about the qualities of this show. Where we differ (dare I say, "In my opinion"? ) is I hope the writers will not pursue certain story lines and I am willing to express this opinion prior to any given episode is aired. As I see it, we're walking the same path. I say, "I hope the writers don't send us down that fork in the road because the other one looks more interesting", before we get to that fork in the road. My assumption is that you would say, "Gee, I wish the writers hadn't sent us down that fork in the road", but only after we were sent down that path.

When, if ever (under your own rules as I see them), would you be able to express a negative view of this or any other series should there be reason for you to do so? If the writers of Alphas introduced a cliche (in your opinion of what is cliche) story line, something which is a season or series long arc, and it's boring you to no end, it is ruining everything which you enjoy about this show. Will you wait until that arc is resolved before saying anything about it? Or, will you at some earlier point, express a negative view of what is going on? And as soon as you express this negative view prior to the story's resolution, are you not guilty of the same negativism of which I have been accused?

Apropos to nothing in particular, your comments about how you enjoy a movie or TV show have reminded me a scene from "The Bill Chill":

Sam Weber: [Sam enters a room where Nick is up late watching TV] What's this?
Nick: I'm not sure.
Sam Weber: What's it about?
Nick: I don't know.
Sam Weber: [Sam shakes his head, pats Nick on the shoulder, then sits in a nearby chair] Who's that?
Nick: I think the guy in the hat did something terrible.
[shot of TV shows a man being thrown through the glass window of a door]
Sam Weber: Like what?
Nick: You're so analytical! Sometimes you just have to let art... flow... over you.
[Sam rolls his eyes]

I can't say I have "rules" about TV shows. Beyond preferences for high quality in my TV I can't say I've ever expressed an opinion on any rules, ridiculous or otherwise. I want shows I watch to *continue* to be well written, have great directors, actors, and quality production values. I say continue because the show would have had these parts in place from when I started watching, otherwise I wouldn't have gone back for another viewing.


regards,
G.

Hi there, I think it's all in how you put things into words. Exposition can really change what you are saying into something different. Perhaps the feelings some get is that you are stating things as if they were facts as opposed to opinions. I get that vibe. So if you ask me, don't worry about people thinking you're being pessimistic and such.

[Gollumpus]

Been away for a week or so, or I'd have given a response at some point sooner.

Yeah, saying things on the Internet can affect the reception of what is being "said". Sometimes things meant in jest are not recognized by people whom you have never met. I try to use smiley's whenever possible, or I remember to do so.

For me, anything I've written is an opinion. I'm not sure that anything I've said was stated as a "fact". In many cases I've gone through a process of outlining why I have the opinion I hold. I support my opinion with "facts" from any particular episode. Shown events are interpreted to shape an opinion (eg. Me: Gary is constantly being put at risk by the team. Evidence: Gary gets abandoned by other team members resulting in him getting beaten up, zapped by Anna, and arrested). If someone has a different opinion and can support it well enough then I am perfectly willing to alter my opinion. I don't carry a lot of ego when I'm posting on forums like these (perhaps some will disagree ).

Anyhoo, I was going to suggest that if anyone wanted to discuss anything on this topic then we could move to the general chat area or create a new thread so we can leave this poor episode in peace.

regards,
G.

[knowles2]

I see that, although Skylar's little girl's ability was different to her own so they might not be the same. I'm just saying that with Red Flag becoming more active and the government locking more people up in bimmington(sp) and now the NSA chasing Alphas who have useful abilities it might not be the best idea to have a child.

Not really, her girl powers were the same, inventing new stuff and being hyper intelligent, it just expressed mathematically rather than technologically. That could change as she grows up.


CATCH AND RELEASE was the best episode I have seen yet, Love the dragon flies robots. I would have actually like the the daughter and mother became a permanent members of the team or at least the team aces up there sleeves rather than have them drive into the sun set. .