Basic Action Super Heroes!

I liked the episode a lot. They basically didn't do the things I disliked in the pilot.

Focused on one villain who was interesting.
Added a backstory to the cape
The hero was dynamic and capable - not overwhelming but competent
They touched on all of the storylines (except Tarot) but focused on one

Great I've got it recorded, so I look forward to watching it.

Without getting spoiler-y for Mr. J's sake, I liked that it continued the comic book feel by (potentially) giving the cape an over-the-top history.

(BTW, Mr. J, I used Mr. Jupiter in a fight scene with my son yesterday. He fought Brimstone - created by someone else here - but things didn't go so well for our hero.)

I've been wanting to check it out, but haven't had the chance yet.

However, I read that this week's episode saw a major drop in viewers; the kind that leads to cancellation. If that keeps up, it likely won't be back for a second season, sad to say.

I agree that The Cape has almost no chance at surviving. My wife was sad watching it last night as she said, “They’re going to take this away from me.” And they will; it’s not a matter of “if,” but rather of “when.” And the show’s only “crime” is taking its genre seriously and appealing specifically to those fans. But those fans are a minority; as was noted in the other Cape thread, this show takes the comic book ambiance even more seriously than the best big-budget superhero movies by NOT worrying about whether every element is vaguely plausible.

But this speaks to a widespread problem in genre television today. Vaguely off-topic rant here.

Because of market demands, genre shows only have a few places they can survive: some basic cable networks and The CW. That’s about it. Otherwise, there is too much concern to make the show “palatable” to a so-called “mainstream” audience, which often ends up annoying or even outright offending the diehard fans of the genre.

Two additional examples, both from the most recent issue of Entertainment Weekly, the 2011 preview. The Game of Thrones series is discussed in there, but when it gets to magic, the producers note, “It’s not about unicorns and sorcerers. There’s magic, but it’s on the fringes.” Two pages later, discussing Starz’ new series Camelot, the producers note about Merlin, “He’s not the Merlin with a pointed hat and long beard, but a brutish, thuggish politician.” Did anyone think that maybe the ONLY people who really care about these two shows might WANT magic and sorcerers? Argh!

OK. Nerd rage back under control. Back on topic: The Cape is pretty awesome. I’m really, really enjoying it.

At the risk of opening up a can of worms and summoning a wall of nerd rage, I call the phenomenon the "Galactica Effect."

Galactica ostensibly became a popular show by twisting the original show's tropes into darker, grittier paths.

So, as is usual with small-minded TV executives, that's now the Big New Thing; take old concepts and "gritty" them up.

I'm not sure that's it, necessarily.

I, for one, didn't have an issue with that specific example, but then again, I wasn't all that attached to the original property.

Gritty isn't the problem to me. The desire to see morally ambiguous, psychologically broken people as protaganists because they are more "realistic" * me off more.

But again: off-topic.

if morally ambiguous, psychologically broken people made shows successful Firefly would still be on the air

dugfromthearth wrote:if morally ambiguous, psychologically broken people made shows successful Firefly would still be on the air

Good point, although in that particular situation, you have to take the network responsible into consideration...

Sorry for the topic drift. I've not actually had a chance to watch The Cape yet, since my schedule makes it hard to follow shows and I've given up watching TV, except for the DVD sets for shows when they come out.

dugfromthearth wrote:if morally ambiguous, psychologically broken people made shows successful Firefly would still be on the air

Fox kept moving it around, which was a major factor in it not lasting. Much like Space: Above and Beyond, not sticking to a specific schedule kind of prevented it from creating a significant audience

drkrash wrote:Two additional examples, both from the most recent issue of Entertainment Weekly, the 2011 preview. The Game of Thrones series is discussed in there, but when it gets to magic, the producers note, “It’s not about unicorns and sorcerers. There’s magic, but it’s on the fringes.” Two pages later, discussing Starz’ new series Camelot, the producers note about Merlin, “He’s not the Merlin with a pointed hat and long beard, but a brutish, thuggish politician.” Did anyone think that maybe the ONLY people who really care about these two shows might WANT magic and sorcerers? Argh!

Actually The Game of Thrones is based on the novels by George RR Martin, and they are not that stereotypical fantasy.

Merlin is really a British series from BBC; while the character doesn't look like a standard wizard there is a lot of magic and fantastical creatures.

B_A_J wrote:

drkrash wrote:Two additional examples, both from the most recent issue of Entertainment Weekly, the 2011 preview. The Game of Thrones series is discussed in there, but when it gets to magic, the producers note, “It’s not about unicorns and sorcerers. There’s magic, but it’s on the fringes.” Two pages later, discussing Starz’ new series Camelot, the producers note about Merlin, “He’s not the Merlin with a pointed hat and long beard, but a brutish, thuggish politician.” Did anyone think that maybe the ONLY people who really care about these two shows might WANT magic and sorcerers? Argh!

Actually The Game of Thrones is based on the novels by George RR Martin, and they are not that stereotypical fantasy.

Merlin is really a British series from BBC; while the character doesn't look like a standard wizard there is a lot of magic and fantastical creatures.

Fair enough re: Thrones. But really: from the mainstream perspective, if it has medieval trappings and guys with swords, it's fantasy. I don't know how many people I've met who couldn't "get" LotR simply because of these trappings. I don't know the series and have little interest in it myself; any interest I might have had was lost when another statement from the producers ruined it for me: "It's like LotR, except the characters actually get horny." Fail.

drkrash wrote:

B_A_J wrote:

drkrash wrote:Two additional examples, both from the most recent issue of Entertainment Weekly, the 2011 preview. The Game of Thrones series is discussed in there, but when it gets to magic, the producers note, “It’s not about unicorns and sorcerers. There’s magic, but it’s on the fringes.” Two pages later, discussing Starz’ new series Camelot, the producers note about Merlin, “He’s not the Merlin with a pointed hat and long beard, but a brutish, thuggish politician.” Did anyone think that maybe the ONLY people who really care about these two shows might WANT magic and sorcerers? Argh!

Actually The Game of Thrones is based on the novels by George RR Martin, and they are not that stereotypical fantasy.

Merlin is really a British series from BBC; while the character doesn't look like a standard wizard there is a lot of magic and fantastical creatures.

Fair enough re: Thrones. But really: from the mainstream perspective, if it has medieval trappings and guys with swords, it's fantasy. I don't know how many people I've met who couldn't "get" LotR simply because of these trappings. I don't know the series and have little interest in it myself; any interest I might have had was lost when another statement from the producers ruined it for me: "It's like LotR, except the characters actually get horny." Fail.

LOL! Why is that a fail? I haven't read the R.R. Martin novels yet, but from what I know this is an accurate statement. I think it's fair to observe that LotR is somewhat "chaste" in its sensibilities. There's nothing wrong with that, but its somewhat true. R.R. Martin's work, from what I understand, involves a world of epic stories and heavy intrigue where sex and passion is part of (not all of) the drama.

A student of mine let me borrow a graphic novel, which was a short story that served as a prequel to the main series years ago. That short story was FANTASTIC. I've never had the time to follow-up on the books series, but fans of it seem to be very happy with the work that seems to be put into the HBO series. You might be cheating yourself out of a really good thing if you dismiss it out of hand, just because of a few silly comments made by producers.

Anyway, I have no stake in it and am not trying to convince you to see it or anything. I'm just sharing that I've heard good things all around (and from people I really respect). I'll check it out when it airs.

As for Battlestar Galactica - I was/am a fan of the original. I think the remake was wonderful and smart. I do agree that the entertainment industry latches on to trends and play them out to death, but I don't think that's what's going on with Game of Thrones.

Oh, and I guess I'm in the minority on the cape. I thought the first episode had too many plot holes and was too rushed. It would have been better as a mini-series that set-up the regular series, and more care needed to be taken to tell a tight story. I'm not fond of the actors (except for Keith David). I do, however, like the basic concept, and I do believe that the second episode was better than the first - MUCH better, actually - so I'm willing to stay on to see if it improves.

Just my .02 cents.

Best,

Dragonfly

That's fine. I know nothing of the novels, nor am I even interested in them personally. Let me explain why I pronounced a fail. It WASN'T about the quality of the mini-series. Maybe it's awesome. My point is in the comparison to LotR (which I hold in extremely high regard - and I realize others don't). By making the comparison between the two, but saying Thrones' characters "get horny," there is an inferrence on my part (and I don't think I'm wrong) that the producers think "horny characters = better and/or more realistic characters = better than LotR." And if I'm right, I can only denounce that attitude as utter fail.

Sorry. I LIKE chaste sensibilities. Despite the content in some of the gaming material I've published, I'm rather fond of chastity, in both fiction and especially RL. No offense intended for anyone who is an RR Martin fan.

Heh. Gotta love the topic drift.

I'm more or less with drkrash there, not being particularly interested in the GoT books and finding the quoted comment somewhat unappealing.

I'm sorry, but if the marketing execs feel they need to highlight the fact the characters engage in nookie to sell the show, it makes me feel they're compensating for lack in other areas, such as story or characterization. Wouldn't be the first time a good storyline gets buried under "ZOMG! You get to see boobz!"

It may very well be not the case for GoT, but I'm not holding my breath...