tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17517257.post7795323631752925221..comments2024-03-18T13:50:45.615-04:00Comments on What's Alan Watching?: Chuck: Schwartz and Fedak vs. the controversyAlan Sepinwallhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03388147774725646742noreply@blogger.comBlogger194125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17517257.post-18513521383047512192010-02-10T19:39:12.472-05:002010-02-10T19:39:12.472-05:00And now commenting on this post is done. Thanks fo...And now commenting on this post is done. Thanks for behaving like adults, those of you who did so. <br /><br />This is why we can't have nice things.Alan Sepinwallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03388147774725646742noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17517257.post-66046306548476123862010-02-10T19:13:37.949-05:002010-02-10T19:13:37.949-05:00Hey, Thanks Josh and Chris.
This is the only show...Hey, Thanks Josh and Chris.<br /><br />This is the only show that can take me out of my nose picking, catatonic stupor. <br /><br />And thank you McDonald's for giving us such nutritious, inexpensive treats. <br /><br /><br />And thank you Chuckie Cheese for providing children with meaningful hours of positive activities for their development. <br /><br />Oh, and thank you Subway for Saving the show while feeding Big mike his chicken teriyaki sandwich. <br /><br />Thank you, producers, for never insulting my intelligence and never too glaringly projecting your general disdain for humanity.<br /><br />OK...I'm going back into my mindless stupor again; I look forward to guffawing, staring blank-faced and confusedly, and screaming for joy for reasons I don't understand anymore after the show returns in a few weeks.<br /><br />Hopefully, in the future, we'll just have prison guards shoot us up with narcotics. I guess sometimes I confuse TV with free-thought and expression, and so I get too often reminded of my own crazy aspirations for freedom and creativity. So, I look forward to the day when the catatonic state of mind-drudgery is pure and untainted-- in other words, no interruptions by hot-shots with value-laden, idealistic projections, who think they have a right to move individuals on any other level than their bodily functions, and who think they can just follow these notions which are in accordance with their "individuality"... <br /><br />Oh, yes, and I'll never have to act in revulsion, then, and I'll be fully content.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17517257.post-55821519774861774852010-02-10T19:12:53.076-05:002010-02-10T19:12:53.076-05:00On re-re-read, no, Veritas was apparently serious,...On re-re-read, no, Veritas was apparently serious, and I retract the apology. Alan, could you whack this comment and my one immediately above it, if you get the chance?<br /><br />lablogna: mine has a first name...Baylinkhttp://baylink.pitas.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17517257.post-37862972560421720172010-02-10T18:53:18.351-05:002010-02-10T18:53:18.351-05:00Wow; Veritas: I apologize. The irony there was so...Wow; Veritas: I apologize. The irony there was so well down that I missed it, and didn't notice it until I read down past it again.<br /><br />Nice.Baylinkhttp://tr.im/btonicnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17517257.post-54969973781582789972010-02-10T18:51:39.762-05:002010-02-10T18:51:39.762-05:00> The show is no longer fun and lovable
"...> The show is no longer fun and lovable<br /><br />"to me."<br /><br />There. Fixed that for ya.<br /><br />Anyone here who *has made a living as a showrunner* is allowed to speak ex-cathedra.<br /><br />Everyone else, please remember that you're *stating your opinions*, and that it really is ok for other people to dis agree with you.<br /><br />I mean, Jesus, what is this? A religious argument? <br /><br />And yeah, Alan, I agree: while I wouldn't like you to turnoff Name/URL, you're welcome to turn off Anonymous, IMHO.Baylinkhttp://baylink.pitas.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17517257.post-69143565867109935012010-02-10T18:43:44.641-05:002010-02-10T18:43:44.641-05:00Nice interview. Glad they took the time to answe...Nice interview. Glad they took the time to answer questions. I can't wait to see how the rest of the season plays out.Dave Bhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14834116893427879780noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17517257.post-31033036174697836992010-02-10T18:32:24.495-05:002010-02-10T18:32:24.495-05:00Josh Schwartz and Chris Fedak you guys rock this i...Josh Schwartz and Chris Fedak you guys rock this is the only show that could stop me from playing a video game.Andy Moehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12116921303993099808noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17517257.post-35559263532415288392010-02-10T18:20:16.107-05:002010-02-10T18:20:16.107-05:00I just think poor Casey needs a good love interest...<i>I just think poor Casey needs a good love interest. </i><br /><br />He does have a good love interest--his weapons! What woman (that we've seen, anyway) can hold a candle to his guns? :-)deznoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17517257.post-1304490874862177682010-02-10T18:20:03.926-05:002010-02-10T18:20:03.926-05:00I loved this show right up until the Chuck and Sar...I loved this show right up until the Chuck and Sarah relationship became a bigger MacGuffin than the Intersect.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17517257.post-5272410642401073692010-02-10T17:40:42.443-05:002010-02-10T17:40:42.443-05:00Love Chuck, Love the new season. You are absolutel...Love Chuck, Love the new season. You are absolutely right everyone is different because they have all evolved. Chuck is growing from a kicked out of college slacker into gungho hero. Ellie and Awesome have grown from hangout with the brother lovers into an old married couple. Morgan has grown into an assistant manger after having his dream job fall apart and has become distant from his best friend. Jeffster and the Buy More by contrast have not shown any growth contrasting them in a negative light. <br /><br />I have seen enough shows where people never change - House fro instance - and after awhile I get tired of the cranky, manipulative doctor who never grows up and I stop watching. Chuck the show and character are going through growing pains and while sometimes difficult and not as fun to watch it is realistic and hopefully worth the journey that we are on.<br /><br />So did Sarah seem horribly out of character when she went for Shaw - yes. Did it seem unrealistic Absolutely no. The guy she loves, that she goes way out on a limb for, turns her down and then falls for someone else. Sarah probably is just turning to someone less real - like Chuck - to someone colder because that is safe. And that seems like a choice that she would make.<br /><br />Is it a comfortable happy choice - no but it seems human. <br /><br />And Alan - you helped to save this show for us and now you are contacting the writers and going above and beyond to bring clarity and reason to this discussion and for all of that - you are very much appreciated! Thank you.marenamoohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01838377333807301033noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17517257.post-28410725243099797632010-02-10T17:02:59.158-05:002010-02-10T17:02:59.158-05:00Hadn't seen there was all the brouhaha (I tend...Hadn't seen there was all the brouhaha (I tend to post and run here), but I enjoyed this interview nonetheless.<br /><br />I just think poor Casey needs a good love interest. I'm trying to think if I've ever seen Adam Baldwin get any action, other than some gold-hearted whores on "Firefly"... That could be all sorts of fun seeing Chuck and Sarah react to a Casey in love.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17517257.post-71996945729154717342010-02-10T16:34:40.966-05:002010-02-10T16:34:40.966-05:00And for the last 48 hours, a lot of people - on bo...<i>And for the last 48 hours, a lot of people - on both sides of this particular issue, I should point out - have come in here and acted like bullies and assholes.</i><br /><br />Alan: I'd like to apologise if I've said anything to increase the toxicity. I know when I get passionate about things my manners can the first to go, but I really do appreciate the seriously smart and articulate folks who've even changed my mind. Well, shifted it a bit. ;)Craig Ranapiahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08923246310584658857noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17517257.post-28892937006008130232010-02-10T16:29:58.697-05:002010-02-10T16:29:58.697-05:00To then be dismissed so completely out of hand for...<i>To then be dismissed so completely out of hand for trying to articulate the crushing disappointment we feel at the wheels coming off of Chuck-- well, that right there is what is still continuing this thread 180 comments later.</i><br /><br />Oh, good lord, Zach. I am not <b>dismissing</b> anyone's opinion. I have never had a hard time swimming against the current of my readers' tastes, or in engaging in a debate when we disagree. (Check out everyone piling on me for last season's penultimate "Mad Men," for instance.) <br /><br />You want to debate? Debate. The "different strokes" line just meant that the show's decline is <b>not</b> an objective fact that can be proved or disproved, because not everyone sees it that way, and because it's a matter of taste. And there are an awful lot of people over the past few days who have been acting as if the decline is absolute and inarguable, and becoming indignant at the mere suggestion that someone might disagree with them. <br /><br />The tone of the last few days has been really upsetting, not because I can't deal with people disagreeing with me, or complaining about one of my favorite shows, but because I've worked very long and hard to make this blog one of the few places on the Internet where people can discuss TV in a way that's friendly and rational and low-key, even when there are debates about it. And for the last 48 hours, a lot of people - on both sides of this particular issue, I should point out - have come in here and acted like bullies and assholes.<br /><br />I've deliberately allowed people to comment without having to create an ID of some kind because it made it easier for people to comment, and because everyone had shown that they were capable of following the rules and playing nice with others. This experience has led me to wonder if I should rethink how the commenting works. <br /><br />Because for this atmosphere to continue is simply unacceptable, regardless of anyone's opinion of "Chuck" or any other show.Alan Sepinwallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03388147774725646742noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17517257.post-55207349163387757342010-02-10T16:28:28.130-05:002010-02-10T16:28:28.130-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17517257.post-79244426976967984992010-02-10T16:12:51.534-05:002010-02-10T16:12:51.534-05:00But do you get that that is only your opinion? It ...<i>But do you get that that is only your opinion? It may be an opinion shared by many others, but it is not a universal truth.<br /><br />I, for example, disagree with you. It doesn't make either of us right. But it does emphasize that we are talking opinions.<br /><br />If everyone would just keep in mind, as Alan put it, "different strokes for different folks," then I think this whole three-day tempest would be a lot more civil--and, dare I say it, even productive.</i><br /><br /><br />I can empathize with a call for everyone to settle down and be friendly. I like friendly talk too.<br /><br />Friendly is not the same as productive. Stepford blogs are friendly, as far as they go. <br /><br />Many posters upthread have, for instance, identified wildly disjointed actions and reactions assigned to characters we all have affection for; also stupidly inconsistent attitudes, totally unecessary undermining of personality, insight, intelligence, consistency, integrity, all of the things that make up an interesting character. New characters dropped in and plot points assigned that are directionless, artificial, internally implausible from the standpoint of the people we have been shown these characters to be. For two years.<br /><br />I think the folks here who try to articulate the “RIP Chuck” position here would not so much take issue whether you agree or disagree about the meaning of sloppy writing when it appears in a series. <br /><br />Where people will get heated, is when an unbroken and increasing surfeit of this sloppy writing is suddenly ***not a problem***. When, for example, no way would “Heroes” for instance get cut the same kind of slack for the same disintegration. In fact, it wasn’t.<br /><br />And for Alan -- the owner, moderator, perpetrator ,and permanent denizen of this fine blog -- to just shake off the analyses of his commenters, commiserating on the death of a beloved series as “different strokes for different folks” – is pretty outrageous.<br /><br />We all come here to intelligently discuss ups and downs. Talk about what works and what doesn’t. To wonder aloud what on earth “X” director/ showrunner/writers are thinking.<br /><br />To then be dismissed so completely out of hand for trying to articulate the crushing disappointment we feel at the wheels coming off of Chuck-- well, that right there is what is still continuing this thread 180 comments later.Zach, yes that is my real name.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17517257.post-90363638344334180062010-02-10T15:55:22.065-05:002010-02-10T15:55:22.065-05:00>>@ Karen (likely a shill)<<
Is this ...>>@ Karen (likely a shill)<<<br /><br />Is this some kind of vast conspiracy theorist performance art? Everyone that disagrees with you isn't working for the man. <br /><br />Taking Sarah and Chuck off the table (because the "character issues" that people have with them lean in another direction and those people's issues seem to involve only those two characters for the most part): what's your problem with Ellie, Jeffster, Morgan or Awesome? What is different this season about any of those characters that had made them unappealing and shadows of their former selves?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17517257.post-45609401904816226532010-02-10T15:51:02.154-05:002010-02-10T15:51:02.154-05:00and I should clarify:
It is objectively true, ther...and I should clarify:<br />It is objectively true, therefore, that the characters are less appealing than formerly-- if one truly liked them before -- and if they are truly totally different (which I've showed is objectively true). <br /><br />So, we must then just be liking different TV shows (Season 1 and some of 2, versus season 3)... <br />In that case, enjoy your new series. <br />And I'm really sorry I told you to buzz off; that was rude. I'll buzz off now. <br /><br />Take care.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17517257.post-52827737658377123272010-02-10T15:45:34.642-05:002010-02-10T15:45:34.642-05:00@ Karen (likely a shill)
Karen, you don't foo...@ Karen (likely a shill)<br /><br />Karen, you don't fool me with your sophistry. It is not an opinion. It is an objective truth that the characters are grossly different. It deals with how they fit into the scheme of the episodes. The Buymore and the "real" Chuck has become ancillary to the the development of Chuck as a spy and the Romantic contrivances of late. <br />It is objectively true that when a character's element is subverted in importance, that that character no longer is as integral to the integrity of the show's originality and creative processes. <br /><br />You are a sophist and a shill likely and NO fan of "Chuck". So buzz off sister, and go earn your MBA or marketing MA from Columbia already; you care not for truth, beauty, nor creativity. <br />And Uh oh, surely the press secretary will drop this comment down the memory hole. <br /><br />P.S.<br />My computer is going into the river's depth with the TV, and that's where my memory of all of you and this experience will go.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17517257.post-13484233391390260612010-02-10T15:35:06.509-05:002010-02-10T15:35:06.509-05:00Yes, many characters have been destroyed because o...<i>Yes, many characters have been destroyed because of crass, phony writing. The characters have become automatons with the sole purpose of moving the plot towards a realm that is incongruent with the former show.<br /><br />Ellie, Morgan, Jefster, Awesome, Casey, Sarah, CHUCK... they are all drastically different and unappealing. </i><br /><br />But do you get that that is only your opinion? It may be an opinion shared by many others, but it is not a universal truth.<br /><br />I, for example, disagree with you. It doesn't make either of us right. But it does emphasize that we are talking opinions.<br /><br />If everyone would just keep in mind, as Alan put it, "different strokes for different folks," then I think this whole three-day tempest would be a lot more civil--and, dare I say it, even productive.<br /><br />But no one, on either side of the debate, appreciates being told: "NO! You're WRONG! How can you not SEE how WRONG you are!" <br /><br />And that's the note that a lot of the comments--again, on both sides of the debate--have sounded, and I think this is what has many of us stunned. Because that's just not a tone of discourse that Alan has hosted before.Karenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01288100796201737845noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17517257.post-83980677118659049952010-02-10T15:26:32.843-05:002010-02-10T15:26:32.843-05:00@amysussane:
Yes, many characters have been destr...@amysussane:<br /><br />Yes, many characters have been destroyed because of crass, phony writing. The characters have become automatons with the sole purpose of moving the plot towards a realm that is incongruent with the former show. <br /><br />Ellie, Morgan, Jefster, Awesome, Casey, Sarah, CHUCK... they are all drastically different and unappealing. <br /><br />Now, granted the show has to evolve. But the cast members were taken out of their element, and obstructed from having what could have been a more natural evolution in regards to their relationships to Chuck. How did this happen? <br />I agree with the guy ZachYesThatIsMyRealName, when he says some death gripping tentacles from above has been sucking the life from the show... That's all there is to it. The show is no longer fun and lovable because the writers are denied their original creative impulses and reason. Every single character is just bazaar right now; like they have been mind-controlled by general Beckman's/NBC's staff. <br /><br /><br />This is definitely the last time I watch a TV show; the artistic process is too corrupt and unnatural. My TV is likely going into a goddamn river.<br /><br />Goddamn phony Chuck fans!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17517257.post-28196254183233425442010-02-10T15:26:31.295-05:002010-02-10T15:26:31.295-05:00Anonymous@3:06 PM:
I know Alan has already addres...Anonymous@3:06 PM:<br /><br />I know Alan has already addressed this waaaay up thread, but "any & every criticism of this show derided as the rantings of 'crazy shippers.'"? Redlining the hyperbole and over-broad generalisations a bit, isn't it?<br /><br />I can only speak for myself, but I read Josh Schwartz saying loud and clear that "shipper" is a term he finds distasteful and won't apply to anyone, period. Nor have I found any evidence that Alan uses the term in snide put-downs of people who have the gall to disagree with him.Craig Ranapiahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08923246310584658857noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17517257.post-8316889885600568532010-02-10T15:11:31.622-05:002010-02-10T15:11:31.622-05:00Zach,
I think people can criticize a show, a revi...Zach,<br /><br />I think people can criticize a show, a review of a show, a post about a show, etc. and still maintain a civil and respectful tone. I love reading the Sepinwall Blog comments because they are often insightful and always (until now) civil.<br /><br />It is somewhat depressing to read a blog that gets nasty. If I wanted to do that (and sometimes I do) I go elsewhere.<br /><br />I cannot control this change in tone, but I can express my displeasure in its occurrence.Kristanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17517257.post-6380846799917854762010-02-10T15:06:21.180-05:002010-02-10T15:06:21.180-05:00I'm sick & tired of any & every critic...I'm sick & tired of any & every criticism of this show derided as the rantings of "crazy shippers." I take offense mostly because I have been very critical of this show when I felt it was warranted, and I am MOST DEFINITELY NOT a shipper; if anything, I am an anti-shipper--I think it's weak & formulaic in the first place to NECESSARILY have the 2 primary leads romantically connected. There, I said it.<br /><br />Dismissing complaints about the show by branding the messengers is weaker than the writing from this episode. It's also a convenient way to not address the awful inconsistencies we watched, especially during the last quarter of this ep.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17517257.post-51460570613548392252010-02-10T15:05:25.205-05:002010-02-10T15:05:25.205-05:00>>Yes that is exactly what the hell I am tal...>>Yes that is exactly what the hell I am talking about. The outside world intruded and our usual commenters have panicked. Like yourself. OMGTHEYARETRACKINGMUDONTHECARPET ANDEXPRESSINGEMOTION!!<<<br /><br />Not really, but okay. <br /><br />Based on the above, I'll ask again: what are you talking about? I mean, is that your point? Because there's a difference between panicking and asking WTF is going on when a show that generally gets a third of that action over several days has a conversation explosion in just a couple of hours that rivals the usual "Mad Men" thread. <br /><br />Karen did a better job of summing up why the crazy is so puzzling than I ever will because I'm mostly baffled by the anger and flouncing and gnashing of teeth.<br /><br />>>What the hell I am talking about is that all actual criticism of Chuck has been abandoned, set off limits<<<br /><br />No it hasn't, but okay. I've never really noticed anyone on this blog post that they outright hate something that has happened on "Chuck" or that they think an episode is terrible, but there's always been a nice mix of opinions on the show here and every episode isn't received by every poster in the same way. Plenty of people were meh on this one. I thought it was average, adequate, nothing special, but nothing offensive. Organizing boycotts and telling the people who post here that they're opinions mean nothing and if they want the real scoop on how people feel/what they *should* be feeling they should go visit another board is, at best weird, at worst really obnoxious. If the NBC people know better than the folks here then by all means, stay over there. <br /><br />Still wondering how Ellie's character was totally assassinated...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17517257.post-13501894194527619962010-02-10T14:44:32.882-05:002010-02-10T14:44:32.882-05:00I love the fact that the characters are evolving -...I love the fact that the characters are evolving -- that used to be the number one annoyance of other shows I watched. It got boring. Not with "Chuck," and that's a good thing. Second, I'm totally on board with Chuck's angst over his relationships, his job, his team, his abilities. I think the chemistry between the three leads is great and even though we're in year 3 and the writers could get lazy, those relationships keep changing. I don't advocate boycotting unless you're done, and if you've seen the junk that passes for TV these days, "Chuck" is heads and shoulders above the competition. Speaking as a former "House" fan, I know whereof I speak. Third, isn't anticipation and angst part of the fun? It is for me -- and last season's finale had me rolling on the carpet -- "you rang?" says Casey, and I just about died laughing right there. Give the show a chance, and have a little faith.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com