[quote]WS4JB wrote:
Adam Baldwin is sure as shit bad ass, he’s the reason I gave the show Chuck a chance.
[/quote]
Agreed. He, and Yvonne Strahovski, are the main reasons to watch Chuck.
[quote]AngryVader wrote:
WS4JB wrote:
Adam Baldwin is sure as shit bad ass, he’s the reason I gave the show Chuck a chance.
Agreed. He, and Yvonne Strahovski, are the main reasons to watch Chuck. [/quote]
I sort of like Chuck. But I think that half the reason is because of Adam Baldwin. I would rather be watching him in Firefly/Serenity though.
[quote]Christine wrote:
Vicomte wrote:
Christine wrote:
Vicomte wrote:
I was just thinking about chipped Spike the other day, and how genius it was. He was still evil, but he had to grudgingly accept his old enemies. Living with Giles was classic odd couple comedy. ‘We’re out of weetabix.’
Exactly. He was still evil, he could still fight, but he could only fight demons (and Buffy when she came back all wrong).
And he was a perfect bad boy for Buffy to get involved with. Angel was too nice most of the time to be considered a real bad boy.
Well, until he went all evil n stuff. Hell, Angelus’s wisecracking evil may even trump Spike’s. Angelus was just a little bit deranged, which is nice. He had no connections to those outside of himself, where Spike obviously cared about Drusilla. I never liked Angel until I saw how eveil he could be, otherwise he comes off as a bit of a pussy, at least on Buffy.
Riley was always a pussy, though. Don’t ask me how a guy who’s part of a secret elite government demon-fighting force can be a pussy, but he pulled it off.
God, I sound like such a nerd.
Angel’s pussyness was the result of remorse over what he had done without a soul. Angelus as much more deranged… and fun… but no way could Angelus ever be with Buffy.
I have always wondered why Spike was the only one who made attempt at humanish connections. Was it because he was such a pansy in his former life? In the flashbacks, he is shown to be attempting to make those connections as well. Becoming evil couldn’t rid him of that basic desire?
Sometimes I liked Riley and sometimes I found him annoying. Although, I did like the Initiative and Maggie Walsh.[/quote]
I don’t think vampirism changes you completely, I think it just exacerbates your evil qualities and undermines your good ones. Spike raped babies, sure, but he was also still capable of love. Pre-vamp Angel wasn’t a very loving guy, unlike Spike, which explains why Angelus is such a monster. Also, Spike wasn’t nearly as evil when he first became a vamp. He was still quite human. It was only after he realized how being nice got you hurt that he became much more hardened. Basically after Angel hooked up with Dru. Again, it’s always about a girl. Then he got a taste of power, what with jacking up a slayer, and things were pretty much set.
I liked Adam as a villain. He was so cold.
[quote]Christine wrote:
AngryVader wrote:
WS4JB wrote:
Adam Baldwin is sure as shit bad ass, he’s the reason I gave the show Chuck a chance.
Agreed. He, and Yvonne Strahovski, are the main reasons to watch Chuck.
I would rather be watching him in Firefly/Serenity though.[/quote]
Wouldn’t we all?
[quote]AngryVader wrote:
WS4JB wrote:
Adam Baldwin is sure as shit bad ass, he’s the reason I gave the show Chuck a chance.
Agreed. He, and Yvonne Strahovski, are the main reasons to watch Chuck. [/quote]
And they’ve got Buster Bluth now too,
so, if im gonna give Firefly/Serenity a shot, im guessing i should watch the series first to get the best experience ?
[quote]WS4JB wrote:
so, if im gonna give Firefly/Serenity a shot, im guessing i should watch the series first to get the best experience ?[/quote]
Yes, yes, yes!! Series first.
But beware, you will love it and then be pissed off because it was cancelled.
[quote]Vicomte wrote:
Christine wrote:
AngryVader wrote:
WS4JB wrote:
Adam Baldwin is sure as shit bad ass, he’s the reason I gave the show Chuck a chance.
Agreed. He, and Yvonne Strahovski, are the main reasons to watch Chuck.
I would rather be watching him in Firefly/Serenity though.
Wouldn’t we all?[/quote]
Fox didn’t think so.
[quote]Christine wrote:
WS4JB wrote:
so, if im gonna give Firefly/Serenity a shot, im guessing i should watch the series first to get the best experience ?
Yes, yes, yes!! Series first.
But beware, you will love it and then be pissed off because it was cancelled.[/quote]
Seriously, it’s almost not worth the disappointment.
Almost.
Then again, you can get drunk and sing ‘The Hero of Canton’, which kinda balances things out.
[quote]Christine wrote:
Vicomte wrote:
Christine wrote:
AngryVader wrote:
WS4JB wrote:
Adam Baldwin is sure as shit bad ass, he’s the reason I gave the show Chuck a chance.
Agreed. He, and Yvonne Strahovski, are the main reasons to watch Chuck.
I would rather be watching him in Firefly/Serenity though.
Wouldn’t we all?
Fox didn’t think so.[/quote]
Fox, unfortunately, is developing a really bad habit of getting it wrong over and over and canceling good shows.
I just got done watching all 3 seasons of Arrested Development in a 2 week span, so ive got practice in being really angry with Fox.
Isnt it amazing that it took the same jackhole canceling Arrested Development,Firefly, and Family Guy before they realized he had no idea what the hell he was doing.
Im going over to Hulu to start hunting down Firefly.
I used to Adam Baldwin in suits, in Firefly he looks like he could bust some skulls, with or without the strength of the Higher Powers flowing through his veins.
“Guess which word you probably shouldnt have said there”
Just finished the full hour and a half pilot of Firefly.
Damn good stuff.
Last night’s ep was actually pretty good. Some of the dialogue was awkward, which is new for Whedon, and Eliza seems to be unable to act vulnerable.
But it’s improvement.
[quote]Vicomte wrote:
Last night’s ep was actually pretty good. Some of the dialogue was awkward, which is new for Whedon, and Eliza seems to be unable to act vulnerable.
But it’s improvement.[/quote]
Good to know. I DVR’ed it, but I haven’t watched it yet. I’ll watch it now based on your recommendation.
It doesn’t surprise me Eliza has a limited range as an actress though.
[quote]AngryVader wrote:
Vicomte wrote:
Last night’s ep was actually pretty good. Some of the dialogue was awkward, which is new for Whedon, and Eliza seems to be unable to act vulnerable.
But it’s improvement.
Good to know. I DVR’ed it, but I haven’t watched it yet. I’ll watch it now based on your recommendation.
It doesn’t surprise me Eliza has a limited range as an actress though.[/quote]
She’s obviously gorgeous, and she plays the ‘tough girl’ really well, but she seems unable to naturally play sweet or vulnerable. I think she leans in the opposite direction in real life, which makes sense.
Whenever she’s trying to be weak or timid, instead of watching the character, I feel like I’m watching someone acting. It just doesn’t come naturally to her.
[quote]Vicomte wrote:
AngryVader wrote:
Vicomte wrote:
Last night’s ep was actually pretty good. Some of the dialogue was awkward, which is new for Whedon, and Eliza seems to be unable to act vulnerable.
But it’s improvement.
Good to know. I DVR’ed it, but I haven’t watched it yet. I’ll watch it now based on your recommendation.
It doesn’t surprise me Eliza has a limited range as an actress though.
She’s obviously gorgeous, and she plays the ‘tough girl’ really well, but she seems unable to naturally play sweet or vulnerable. I think she leans in the opposite direction in real life, which makes sense.
Whenever she’s trying to be weak or timid, instead of watching the character, I feel like I’m watching someone acting. It just doesn’t come naturally to her.[/quote]
It makes sense. She’s said that she prefers to play ‘bad girls’ as it’s easy to act that way. I’ve also seen her refer to herself in interviews as a tomboy and she attributes that to having three older brothers.
[quote]AngryVader wrote:
Vicomte wrote:
AngryVader wrote:
Vicomte wrote:
Last night’s ep was actually pretty good. Some of the dialogue was awkward, which is new for Whedon, and Eliza seems to be unable to act vulnerable.
But it’s improvement.
Good to know. I DVR’ed it, but I haven’t watched it yet. I’ll watch it now based on your recommendation.
It doesn’t surprise me Eliza has a limited range as an actress though.
She’s obviously gorgeous, and she plays the ‘tough girl’ really well, but she seems unable to naturally play sweet or vulnerable. I think she leans in the opposite direction in real life, which makes sense.
Whenever she’s trying to be weak or timid, instead of watching the character, I feel like I’m watching someone acting. It just doesn’t come naturally to her.
It makes sense. She’s said that she prefers to play ‘bad girls’ as it’s easy to act that way. I’ve also seen her refer to herself in interviews as a tomboy and she attributes that to having three older brothers.
[/quote]
It must suck to be Eliza Dushku’s older brother.
I’m so glad I don’t have a sister.
Vic, it does, it makes it easier when you coach football at her high school though, one time I made a kid start running laps, and he could stop when i had decided I was no longer angry at him for what he had said about my little sister.
It was a matter or respect.
Have an older sister, but luckily she looks like my dad in a wig.
[quote]WS4JB wrote:
Have an older sister, but luckily she looks like my dad in a wig.[/quote]
She single?