The fact that the Coens are involved is a huge deal for my perception of that show.
I'm legitimately very excited for it.
The Coens aren't involved. They get a producer credit for licensing their source material.
The Coens are involved. They wrote three episodes. Or is that not involved enough for you?
I read they weren't involved at all, besides being named producers, they wanted nothing to do with it. Obviously they were not against it being made into a tv show, but they didn't help.
Here's one source of that. http://grantland.com/features/fargo-fx- ... on-review/
Here's further confirmation the Coen's were not involved at all.
IMDB, if that's the source of their involvement, is wrong.
I stand corrected, and you're right- IMDb has them listed as having written three of the episodes.
But my point still stands (and that article points out that they were involved in hiring decisions). They signed off on the show. They probably wouldn't sign off on crap.
The fact that the Coens are involved is a huge deal for my perception of that show.
I'm legitimately very excited for it.
The Coens aren't involved. They get a producer credit for licensing their source material.
The Coens are involved. They wrote three episodes. Or is that not involved enough for you?
I read they weren't involved at all, besides being named producers, they wanted nothing to do with it. Obviously they were not against it being made into a tv show, but they didn't help.
Here's one source of that. http://grantland.com/features/fargo-fx- ... on-review/
Here's further confirmation the Coen's were not involved at all.
IMDB, if that's the source of their involvement, is wrong.
I stand corrected, and you're right- IMDb has them listed as having written three of the episodes.
But my point still stands (and that article points out that they were involved in hiring decisions). They signed off on the show. They probably wouldn't sign off on crap.
Yeah- it started strong. I anticipate a real winner.
cardinalkarp wrote:Not to break up the Hannibal discussion, but for those that have watched House of Cards does it get better after the first couple episodes because I wasn't really impressed.
back a page or 3 they suggest it gets worse.
I watched the first season of House of Cards. I felt it was pretty good. But I stopped watching about 4-5 episodes into season 2. It got too dark and too predictable.
It started to fall apart for me when he became Vice President because that story was not believable, IMO. The previous VP didn't do squat but somehow Underwood is still in the middle of everything as VP? OK. Tell me why people just don't ignore him like the previous VP. They should have fast forwarded to his presidential campaign. Now that might have been interesting.
The only storyline left that held my interest was the question of whether the press would ever expose him. When they threw a not very believable twist into that, that was the final nail in the coffin for me. There were other things that were not believable, either, too many. The show stopped being drama and just felt like an exercise in "how scummy and sociopathic can we possibly portray Washington?" If that was their goal, then they absolutely succeeded. But if that is all its going to be about, I don't need to watch the last 10 episodes to have that idea pounded into me every scene. I get it. I get it.
ghostrunner wrote:That was the best episode of Mad Men in a long time. I'll never tire of watching people giving Pete [expletive] and him flying off the handle.
Don coming clean to Sally gives me some hope that the Don Draper Humiliation Tour might finally be ending.
I expect approximately 00.000% agreement. But I like Bob's Burgers better than 'Archer'. It's less consistent, but also less repetitive with devices and speed and dynamics. Tina Belcher is incredible.
