Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Danger Zone!Follow

#1 Sep 14 2011 at 8:42 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Archer's back tomorrow Smiley: thumbsup

Three new episode teaser "run" before the real season starts in January

Edit: Ha-ha, meant to post this in the TV section. Oh, well.

Edited, Sep 14th 2011 9:48am by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#2 Sep 14 2011 at 8:57 AM Rating: Good
******
44,514 posts
It's revvin' up my engine.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#3 Sep 14 2011 at 8:57 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,320 posts
I'm not aware of this show. What network is it on?

____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#4 Sep 14 2011 at 9:09 AM Rating: Excellent
Official Shrubbery Waterer
*****
14,139 posts
This is the new incarnation of Frisky Dingo, right?

That show was pretty funny.
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
I managed to be both retarded and entertaining.

#5 Sep 14 2011 at 9:11 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Elinda wrote:
I'm not aware of this show. What network is it on?

FX

Season One is available on Netflix streaming if you have it. This is the start of Season Three.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#6 Sep 14 2011 at 10:44 AM Rating: Good
Scholar
***
2,580 posts
Should of titled the thread "lana.....Lana..............LAAAAAAAAAAAAANAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!1"

danger zone
____________________________
"What doesn't kill you can only make you stronger.............or cripple you for life." - Accari
#7 Sep 14 2011 at 2:48 PM Rating: Good
Sage
**
650 posts
Thought you were talking about Hollywood ruining more movies.
#8 Sep 14 2011 at 3:15 PM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,289 posts
xantav wrote:
Thought you were talking about Hollywood ruining more movies.

So wrong.
#9 Sep 14 2011 at 3:18 PM Rating: Excellent
That sounds terrible. Haven't the endless reports of how 3D isn't doing very well clued anyone in yet?
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#10 Sep 14 2011 at 3:20 PM Rating: Good
Official Shrubbery Waterer
*****
14,139 posts
Nadenu wrote:
xantav wrote:
Thought you were talking about Hollywood ruining more movies.

So wrong.

This is exactly how I felt when I heard they were remaking Star Trek. Then I saw the movie, and learned that my initial fears were completely founded, and totally inadequate to prepare me for the complete rape of a once-great franchise.

Just sayin', if you're a fan of the original Top Gun (and who isn't?), prepare for the worst.
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
I managed to be both retarded and entertaining.

#11 Sep 14 2011 at 3:21 PM Rating: Excellent
I thoroughly enjoyed the new start trek. They did a fantastic job.

I don't think they're changing top gun though, just putting in annoying 3D. Did I read that wrong?

Edited, Sep 14th 2011 4:22pm by Xsarus
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#12 Sep 14 2011 at 3:22 PM Rating: Excellent
****
6,470 posts
Demea wrote:
Just sayin', if you're a fan of the original Top Gun (and who isn't?)


I'm not, and for the same reason that I'm not a fan of Jerry McGuire. They're both chick flicks masquerading as guy movies.
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#13 Sep 14 2011 at 3:28 PM Rating: Good
*****
19,984 posts
I thought the new Star Trek was extremely well done, actually. I was dubious when going into it, but thoroughly enjoyed movie and am quite excited for the next one...

As for 3D, it can be good. Toy Story 3, for example, was amazing in 3D. And I heard good things about Avatar, though I didn't see it in theaters.

What it really comes down to is two things:

1. If a movie isn't designed, filmed, and created with 3D in mind, then it is going to SUCK in 3D. It needs to be properly handled from start to finish.
2. The movie still needs to be good.

Considering how few movies fulfill number 2, and even fewer that fulfill 1, it's not at all surprising that 3D isn't doing too hot.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#14 Sep 14 2011 at 3:29 PM Rating: Excellent
3D can be really cool and add to the movie, but yeah. what you said.
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#15 Sep 14 2011 at 3:35 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
12,018 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
And I heard good things about Avatar, though I didn't see it in theaters.


I didn't like Avatar in 3D. Maybe it was just me, but it didn't seem like the quality was there yet. It looked like one of those diorama things you'd make in grade school with paper and cardboard. Sure you could tell person was in front of tree was in front of jet, but each object still looked flat to me.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#16 Sep 14 2011 at 3:40 PM Rating: Decent
Official Shrubbery Waterer
*****
14,139 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
I thought the new Star Trek was extremely well done, actually. I was dubious when going into it, but thoroughly enjoyed movie and am quite excited for the next one...

The biggest issue I have with the flick revolves around time-traveling Future Spock, which:

a) Allows them to ret-con out the entirety of the history of the franchise and the characters that came before the movie.

b) Doesn't make logical sense, since traveling backwards in time and changing the course of history would lead to an alternate future which would preclude the need to travel backwards in time, and therefore negate New Future Spock from ever doing it. Furthermore, by altering the past, Future Spock would cease to exist in the "past," which precludes the awkward meeting between Future Spock and New Spock.

Other than that, J.J. Abrams is less than stellar writer/director, similar in many ways to Michael Bay, and should probably stick to TV rather than movies.
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
I managed to be both retarded and entertaining.

#17 Sep 14 2011 at 3:42 PM Rating: Excellent
They needed to ret-con the old series. beyond that it's simply a multiple universe theory of time travel. /shrug

They could have just called it a re-imagining, but I think that this way works better.
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#18 Sep 14 2011 at 3:44 PM Rating: Good
****
7,821 posts
Somwhere, Neph is gyrating furiously.
____________________________
People don't like to be meddled with. We tell them what to do, what to think, don't run, don't walk. We're in their homes and in their heads and we haven't the right. We're meddlesome. ~River Tam

Sedao
#19 Sep 14 2011 at 3:56 PM Rating: Decent
*****
10,754 posts
Shaking his head in disbelief. Sweet sassy molassy, you people are dorks.
____________________________
I will go to the animal shelter and get you a kitty-cat. I will let you fall in love with that kitty-cat. And then, on some dark, cold night, I will steal away into your home, and PUNCH YOU IN THE FACE.

#20 Sep 14 2011 at 4:27 PM Rating: Excellent
****
6,470 posts
Demea wrote:
[quote=idiggory, King of Bards]Other than that, J.J. Abrams is less than stellar writer/director, similar in many ways to Michael Bay, and should probably stick to TV rather than movies.


I rather enjoyed Super 8.

Star Trek was solid popcorn fare for me. But I'm about as far from a trekkie as you can get.
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#21 Sep 14 2011 at 4:31 PM Rating: Excellent
******
44,514 posts
Eske Esquire wrote:
But I'm about as far from a trekkie as you can get.
Storm Trooper?
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#22 Sep 14 2011 at 4:39 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,966 posts
Well, since we're being dorks:

Demea wrote:
The biggest issue I have with the flick revolves around time-traveling Future Spock, which:

a) Allows them to ret-con out the entirety of the history of the franchise and the characters that came before the movie.

b) Doesn't make logical sense, since traveling backwards in time and changing the course of history would lead to an alternate future which would preclude the need to travel backwards in time, and therefore negate New Future Spock from ever doing it. Furthermore, by altering the past, Future Spock would cease to exist in the "past," which precludes the awkward meeting between Future Spock and New Spock.


Those two didn't bother me at all. For me, it was the gaping plot holes, moronic and lacking villain motivation, horrible use of the "shake cam" and fast cuts, ridiculous and inconsistent sets, along with god knows what else, which made it just a **** poor film. It's just hard to list off the ways they screwed up this film since as soon as you assemble one you think of another.


It was just an incredibly poorly made film. Bad plot. Bad writing. Bad plot. Bad sets. Bad plot. Bad effects. Did I mention it had a really really bad plot?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#23 Sep 14 2011 at 5:02 PM Rating: Default
Keeper of the Shroud
*****
13,178 posts
Demea wrote:
Nadenu wrote:
xantav wrote:
Thought you were talking about Hollywood ruining more movies.

So wrong.

This is exactly how I felt when I heard they were remaking Star Trek. Then I saw the movie, and learned that my initial fears were completely founded, and totally inadequate to prepare me for the complete rape of a once-great franchise.

Just sayin', if you're a fan of the original Top Gun (and who isn't?), prepare for the worst.


As a scifi action movie I rather liked the new Star Trek, as a Star Trek movie I wanted to track down that guy that made Lost and punch him in the face. If they had used different character/place/race names and called the movie something else it wouldn't have made nearly as much money as it did, but I also wouldn't want to punch anyone in the face after watching it. Now, I just pretend that it's not actually a Star Trek movie and the violent urges aren't as bothersome.
#24 Sep 14 2011 at 5:22 PM Rating: Good
****
6,470 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Eske Esquire wrote:
But I'm about as far from a trekkie as you can get.
Storm Trooper?


Vin Diesel.


...minecraft extraordinaire.
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#25 Sep 14 2011 at 5:27 PM Rating: Good
Official Shrubbery Waterer
*****
14,139 posts
gbaji wrote:
For me, it was the gaping plot holes, moronic and lacking villain motivation, horrible use of the "shake cam" and fast cuts, ridiculous and inconsistent sets, along with god knows what else, which made it just a **** poor film.

Just like Michael Bay movies.

You forgot to mention the grotesque overuse of the lens flare.
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
I managed to be both retarded and entertaining.

#26 Sep 14 2011 at 5:46 PM Rating: Good
Prodigal Son
******
20,049 posts
Sir Xsarus wrote:
I thoroughly enjoyed the new start trek. They did a fantastic job.

I don't think they're changing top gun though, just putting in annoying 3D. Did I read that wrong?


That is correct. They're taking an old analog film movie and reprocessing it with 3D. The alternative would be to film a new version, in hi-def digital 3D, with Taylor Lautner in the lead role, Shia LaBoef as his plucky-but-ultimately-doomed sidekick and Robert Pattinson as the brooding, obnoxious foil.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#27 Sep 14 2011 at 7:23 PM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,289 posts
Demea wrote:


You forgot to mention the grotesque overuse of the lens flare.

OMG yes, this! Drove me INSANE.
#28 Sep 14 2011 at 8:47 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,966 posts
Demea wrote:
gbaji wrote:
For me, it was the gaping plot holes, moronic and lacking villain motivation, horrible use of the "shake cam" and fast cuts, ridiculous and inconsistent sets, along with god knows what else, which made it just a **** poor film.

Just like Michael Bay movies.

You forgot to mention the grotesque overuse of the lens flare.


Honestly? The constant shaking and vomitous action scenes were so annoying that I didn't even get to the point of noticing the lens flare. I've read about them, but at the time I was more like "Crap! What am I supposed to be looking at? Oh. Another scene. Close up. No. Far away. Nope. Explosions. Wait. There's someone's face and some dialog. Would you please f'ing hold the **** camera steady on something for more than half a second!!!". It was already so distracting and obnoxious that lens flare just kinda got lost in the battle for trying to figure out what the **** I was looking at.


But yeah: Lens flare goes into the "god knows what else" in the list of just horrible things about that film.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#29 Sep 14 2011 at 11:36 PM Rating: Good
I don't know what it is about J.J. Abrams & his love of lens flares, but it's god **** annoying.

Super 8 was a pretty good movie, but the lens flares were ridiculous.

The Escapist said it best.
____________________________
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin


#30 Sep 15 2011 at 7:31 AM Rating: Good
****
6,470 posts
Lens flare isn't something that really affects my movie viewing experience much. I hadn't been aware that Abrams used it a lot until people started saying it, actually. Still, it just kind of seems like a stylistic choice to me, not much of a detraction.

Shaky cam, on the other hand, annoys me. Especially when it's done to cover up less-than-stellar choreography.

Edited, Sep 15th 2011 9:32am by Eske
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#31 Sep 15 2011 at 7:38 AM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,049 posts
How about Greengrass's nausea-inducing Bourne Supremacy? I have a rather strong constitution yet some of the scenes gave me headaches.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#32 Sep 15 2011 at 8:03 AM Rating: Good
****
6,470 posts
Debalic wrote:
How about Greengrass's nausea-inducing Bourne Supremacy? I have a rather strong constitution yet some of the scenes gave me headaches.


Yup, that might be one of the best examples. Shaky-cam fight scenes abound.
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#33 Sep 15 2011 at 8:45 AM Rating: Good
*****
19,984 posts
Demea wrote:
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
I thought the new Star Trek was extremely well done, actually. I was dubious when going into it, but thoroughly enjoyed movie and am quite excited for the next one...

The biggest issue I have with the flick revolves around time-traveling Future Spock, which:

a) Allows them to ret-con out the entirety of the history of the franchise and the characters that came before the movie.

b) Doesn't make logical sense, since traveling backwards in time and changing the course of history would lead to an alternate future which would preclude the need to travel backwards in time, and therefore negate New Future Spock from ever doing it. Furthermore, by altering the past, Future Spock would cease to exist in the "past," which precludes the awkward meeting between Future Spock and New Spock.

Other than that, J.J. Abrams is less than stellar writer/director, similar in many ways to Michael Bay, and should probably stick to TV rather than movies.


First, the time travel part. There are no holes in it, where that is concerned. It's a standard example of branching time theory. They say it outright in the movie--this is a case of either branching time theory or standard parallel universe theory. They don't "change" time at all. Meaning that the universe that Spock and Nero were from is still continuing its course without them. Their act of time travel either:

1. Created a new time dimension causing the timeline to split where they arrived, so that they are completely separate from the original universe from then on. (branching time)

2. Traveled to a parallel universe that is such that it's timeline was the same until they arrived and altered it. (parallel universe theory).

As for the "retcons." For one, it can't be a retcon if they make it firmly clear that this is an alternate storyline. The "universe" that star trek took place in is not the same one as the movie (minus the few scenes that take place in the universe before time travel took place).

Also, I thought their nods to the original were both pretty good, actually. Old Spock's comments about his father, for instance. His lines from the original. The tribbles in the cage on the planet Kirk is stranded on. Etc.

And only one character was removed from the movie's history--George Kirk dies rather than lives. That's pretty much it. I'll grant that they shouldn't have made Kirk seem like an only child, but this is the only character who is removed from the plot by the time travel.

Realistically, also, the movie would have been way worse if they were just doing a remake or something of one of the movies. For one, most of the movies sucked. Not all, but most.

More importantly, it cuts down the number of options for the writers a TON, because they need to be sure everything lines up properly for the extended history of the series.

Most importantly? This system let them construct a situation that allowed Kirk to (without reprimand) avoid all of the boring confab talk that the original had. No one wants to watch some old guys debate what to do about nero for half an hour. That was fine for the TV show, but not for an action movie. The only way to do that was to introduce a villain such that he was threatening enough that Kirk could avoid having to deal with the bureaucracy. And the only way to do THAT was to introduce a new timeline, because such an enemy wouldn't have fit into the existing one well.

Edited, Sep 15th 2011 10:53am by idiggory
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#34 Sep 15 2011 at 1:22 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
To pull my thread back for a second (you can argue about Star Trek in a minute, dorks), I was reading an article about FX and their development of shows like Archer, Always Sunny, Wilfred, Louis, etc.

In a nutshell, it goes "We're going to pay you shit (by TV standards) but let you pretty much do whatever in the fuck you want. If it becomes a hit, we'll renegotiate from there..."
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#35 Sep 15 2011 at 1:26 PM Rating: Excellent
Sage
**
650 posts
Eske Esquire wrote:
Lens flare isn't something that really affects my movie viewing experience much. I hadn't been aware that Abrams used it a lot until people started saying it, actually. Still, it just kind of seems like a stylistic choice to me, not much of a detraction.

Shaky cam, on the other hand, annoys me. Especially when it's done to cover up less-than-stellar choreography.

Edited, Sep 15th 2011 9:32am by Eske


Actually learning about filmmaking and camera work, lens flare has always been a mistake that could cost you your job. It was the sign of an amateur and not an effect serious filmmakers wanted. But all the trends that have become "style" in the past decade strike me as just a way for people to excuse their mistakes. (lens flare, shakey-cam, poorly framed shots, whip pans)
#36 Sep 15 2011 at 2:11 PM Rating: Excellent
****
6,470 posts
xantav wrote:
Eske Esquire wrote:
Lens flare isn't something that really affects my movie viewing experience much. I hadn't been aware that Abrams used it a lot until people started saying it, actually. Still, it just kind of seems like a stylistic choice to me, not much of a detraction.

Shaky cam, on the other hand, annoys me. Especially when it's done to cover up less-than-stellar choreography.

Edited, Sep 15th 2011 9:32am by Eske


Actually learning about filmmaking and camera work, lens flare has always been a mistake that could cost you your job. It was the sign of an amateur and not an effect serious filmmakers wanted. But all the trends that have become "style" in the past decade strike me as just a way for people to excuse their mistakes. (lens flare, shakey-cam, poorly framed shots, whip pans)


Right, but if it's being used deliberately for effect, it's a bit different, isn't it? At that point, it just becomes a stylistic choice. I mean, you could definitely still take issue with it, but it's inclusion wasn't an oversight.
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#37 Sep 15 2011 at 2:12 PM Rating: Good
*****
15,822 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Archer's back tomorrow Smiley: thumbsup


Do you want ants? Because that's how you get ants!
____________________________
"I have lost my way
But I hear a tale
About a heaven in Alberta
Where they've got all **** for a basement"

#38 Sep 15 2011 at 2:14 PM Rating: Excellent
******
44,514 posts
Jophiel wrote:
In a nutshell, it goes "We're going to pay you shit (by TV standards) but let you pretty much do whatever in the fuck you want. If it becomes a hit, we'll renegotiate from there..."
Doesn't sound like a bad idea.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#39 Sep 15 2011 at 2:33 PM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,320 posts
I just sent the hubby off on a big jetplane, so I'm stocking up on stuff to watch. Apparently I can watch two (2) episodes of Archer on DishOnline. So, that's something.

I thought the first reject off Survivor Island last night was a good pick. She seemed like a hair-flipping douche.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#40 Sep 16 2011 at 7:27 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,320 posts
Turns out Archer was preceded by a new episode of Sunny in Philly. This is one of my son's favorite shows. So we had tv bonding hour together last night.

Archer was good for some laughs. Smiley: smile
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#41 Sep 16 2011 at 7:53 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
I'd check out the first two seasons. Good times.

Fat Mac carrying a garbage bag full of chimichangas around with him was pretty funny.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#42 Sep 16 2011 at 8:04 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,320 posts
Jophiel wrote:
I'd check out the first two seasons. Good times.

Fat Mac carrying a garbage bag full of chimichangas around with him was pretty funny.

Yeah. I liked the dead hooker left in the hallway (cuz it's what she would have wanted).
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#43 Sep 16 2011 at 8:21 AM Rating: Excellent
*****
19,984 posts
Eske Esquire wrote:
xantav wrote:
Eske Esquire wrote:
Lens flare isn't something that really affects my movie viewing experience much. I hadn't been aware that Abrams used it a lot until people started saying it, actually. Still, it just kind of seems like a stylistic choice to me, not much of a detraction.

Shaky cam, on the other hand, annoys me. Especially when it's done to cover up less-than-stellar choreography.

Edited, Sep 15th 2011 9:32am by Eske


Actually learning about filmmaking and camera work, lens flare has always been a mistake that could cost you your job. It was the sign of an amateur and not an effect serious filmmakers wanted. But all the trends that have become "style" in the past decade strike me as just a way for people to excuse their mistakes. (lens flare, shakey-cam, poorly framed shots, whip pans)


Right, but if it's being used deliberately for effect, it's a bit different, isn't it? At that point, it just becomes a stylistic choice. I mean, you could definitely still take issue with it, but it's inclusion wasn't an oversight.


Some of the scenes that show lens flare HAVE to have had it added in digitally. It's not a mistake that it's there, it was a specific style choice. And I think it worked extremely well.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#44 Sep 16 2011 at 8:46 AM Rating: Good
****
6,470 posts
Jophiel wrote:
I'd check out the first two seasons. Good times.

Fat Mac carrying a garbage bag full of chimichangas around with him was pretty funny.


Haven't seen the episode yet, but Fat Mac looks hilarious.

I loved his explanation for it. It was something like "Well in every other sitcom, the characters inexplicably get better looking as the show goes on. I figured, we're always in a bar and we don't take care of ourselves, so we should get fat."

Apparently he tried to get everyone in on it. Not surprisingly, they weren't keen on the idea.
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#45 Sep 16 2011 at 9:57 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
It had it's good lines. Neither episode was a showcase of its best but I season openers usually aren't. I think the reason for the three-episode run of Archer is just to bridge from Season Two's ending into a more "normal" Season Three in January.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#46 Sep 16 2011 at 2:55 PM Rating: Excellent
Sage
**
650 posts
Pretty good episode of Archer, but I couldn't help but hearing Brock Samson in every line that other guy said. And does anybody else think he is really Archer's father?
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 39 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (39)