or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › HDTV › HDTV Programming › 'Nikita' on The CW HD
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

'Nikita' on The CW HD - Page 3

post #61 of 446
Totally irrevelant post, but watched Kick Ass the movie last night and spent the entire movie thinking that one of the characters(Katie) looked familiar. After the movie was over looked it up and it was Alex(aka Lyndsy Fonseca)
post #62 of 446
I always liked Maggie Q. This wasn't bad, considering it's on CW.
post #63 of 446
Quote:
Originally Posted by rebkell View Post

After the movie was over looked it up and it was Alex(aka Lyndsy Fonseca)

Interesting--I'd never have recognized the perky, sexy highschool girl Katie in disaffected, hostile Alex.
post #64 of 446
Quote:
Originally Posted by rebkell View Post

Totally irrevelant post, but watched Kick Ass the movie last night and spent the entire movie thinking that one of the characters(Katie) looked familiar. After the movie was over looked it up and it was Alex(aka Lyndsy Fonseca)

That's funny, because when I watched Kick-Ass I spent the movie trying to remember where I had seen her and it was from from How I Met Your Mother where she plays the future daughter.
post #65 of 446
Quote:
Originally Posted by HDTVChallenged View Post

They (Nikita and Alex) "got rid of somebody Division had been after for a long time."

Pay attention.

Huh. I completely glossed over that. In the very early scene where Alex wakes up in a Division facility and Michael is talking to her:
Alex: "Why? Why me?"
Michael: "Because you're a young, attractive white female with virtually no personal ties or paper trail. Now, those do exist, but they're, hard to come by. What really grabbed our attention, though, is how you managed to kill a criminal that we were about to take out."
(Alex bolts for the door, Michael grabs her).
Michael: "His name was Kyle, by the way, he was part of a smuggling ring." I thought he was a random, innocent janitor (wearing blue coveralls with a pin-on name tag reading "T. Tolchuck"); foolishly heroic, perhaps, but innocent. I suppose that if he was a dangerous criminal it makes his bold move of grabbing Alex's shotgun easier to understand, but it makes the fact that he didn't instantly turn and kill her armed accomplice less understandable. It does make me feel better about them killing him .

It make more sense now--Nikita knew exactly what they were looking for in recruits, created an attractive-to-Division backstory for Alex and dangled her in their faces. Of course, they still might not have taken the bait, but it's a much better gamble.
Alex: "I didn't kill no one. It was Ronnie!"
Michael: "Your boyfriend's body was found next to his apartment, dead from an overdose." If Nikita was her accomplice, whose body did they find?
post #66 of 446
Quote:
Originally Posted by ti-triodes View Post

I always liked Maggie Q. This wasn't bad, considering it's on CW.

Maggie Q disappointed me for a couple of reasons. First, Her performance wasn't as good as I had expected it to be. I thought she was much better in Live Free or Die Hard. Second, all those tattoos she had are real. The dinner plate one on her hip was a particular turn off. Still, I think the show shows some promise so I'll stick around, at least for awhile.
post #67 of 446
Quote:
Originally Posted by keenan View Post

Ah, see, I said I must have missed something, guess I spent all my mental energy looking at Maggie Q instead.

LOL ... I suspected as much.
post #68 of 446
Quote:
Originally Posted by michaeltscott View Post

Huh. I completely glossed over that. In the very early scene where Alex wakes up in a Division facility and Michael is talking to her:[indent]Alex: "Why? Why me?"
Michael: "Because you're a young, attractive white female with virtually no personal ties or paper trail. Now, those do exist, but they're, hard to come by. What really grabbed our attention, though, is how you managed to kill a criminal that we were about to take out."

Right ... that was it. I mis-remebered ... probably due to the second beer effect.
post #69 of 446
Finally watched this last night and the CW here in DC apparently butchered the audio. The surround channels were so loud I had to change the receiver to stereo only in order to hear the show (which we thought was good enough to keep watching BTW).

Anyone else have this issue? Trying to determine whether or not to send an email to the station.
post #70 of 446
Quote:
Originally Posted by larrimore View Post

Finally watched this last night and the CW here in DC apparently butchered the audio. The surround channels were so loud I had to change the receiver to stereo only in order to hear the show (which we thought was good enough to keep watching BTW).

Anyone else have this issue? Trying to determine whether or not to send an email to the station.

Thanks for the reminder about the audio issues, I had forgotten about them when I posted earlier. There were lip synch problems throughout the Pilot episode, which I watched via Cox OKC. If The CW doesn't clean that up soon, I'll be moving on.
post #71 of 446
Audio was fine for me from WGN on Thursday; they were showing baseball Friday so the Hellcats/Nikita encores were last night, audio seemed fine there as well.
post #72 of 446
Audio seemed fine in the San Francisco market, KBCW.
post #73 of 446
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwsat View Post

Thanks for the reminder about the audio issues, I had forgotten about them when I posted earlier. There were lip synch problems throughout the Pilot episode, which I watched via Cox OKC. If The CW doesn't clean that up soon, I'll be moving on.

I seem to always have lip-sync issues with our local CW, but it wasn't real noticeable in the Pilot episode, I've seen some(many) that drove me nutty, nearly .25 seconds. I used to actually record Reaper and then remux it with about a 250 ms offset and then it would be about right, but it's one of those things that will take me completely out of a show. But like I said the Pilot was just slightly out of sync, less than or around 1/10 of a second, so it wasn't horrendous.
post #74 of 446
Finally saw the premiere and while the storyline is relatively mined out by now, Maggie Q will keep me watching. Not only is she ridiculously gorgeous, she's also got the presence and acting chops the role requires unlike, say, Piper Perabo in 'Covert Affairs' (sad, just sad). One of the things that made 'Alias' so good (at least the first 2 seasons) was Jennifer Garner sold those fight scenes - she looked scared when she was supposed to be, angry when she had to be, vulnerable when she needed to be, and sexy when she wanted to be. And she looked really great dispatching some evildoer in a pair of red stilettos. Looks like this show will be darker in tone as well, as I had hoped (loved the Cleaner and his wicked curved knives). I'm in, for awhile at least.

And, for some reason, her former handler/lover Michael reminds me of what the love child of Joshua Jackson (Peter in Fringe) and Brian Austin Green might look like.
post #75 of 446
Quote:
Originally Posted by archiguy View Post

And, for some reason, her former handler/lover Michael reminds me of what the love child of Joshua Jackson (Peter in Fringe) and Brian Austin Green might look like.

He played Dr. Ray Barnett in four or five of the final seasons of ER. Though I was a big fan of the show who watched its entire run, I had a hard time placing him--his attempt at steely-eyed intensity threw me off .
post #76 of 446
Sorry to be a nay-sayer, but I watched 15 minutes and then deleted it, along with my "series recording".

Didn't care for the lighting, David Caruso style pseudo-whispering and facial tics on the male actors, etc., corny "CSI: Miami" dialog (one of the reasons I don't watch that show either), and other assorted turn-offs.

Sorry. Mainstream network channel commercial-sponsored dramas that get my prized viewing hours are (or were) few and far between, and CW provides none of them. Target demographics issue I guess.
post #77 of 446
Quote:
Originally Posted by cstmstyle View Post

Looking forward to checking this out as Supernatural is currently the only show on the CW worth watching IMO.

That would be correct.
post #78 of 446
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSperber View Post

Didn't care for the lighting, David Caruso style pseudo-whispering and facial tics on the male actors, etc., corny "CSI: Miami" dialog (one of the reasons I don't watch that show either), and other assorted turn-offs.

I don't particularly care for Caruso (as an actor) or his show either, but neither of them came to mind while watching Nikki. The writing could stand to be a bit tighter, but that's true of a lot of shows, IMO.
post #79 of 446
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwsat View Post

Maggie Q disappointed me for a couple of reasons. First, Her performance wasn't as good as I had expected it to be. I thought she was much better in Live Free or Die Hard. Second, all those tattoos she had are real. The dinner plate one on her hip was a particular turn off. Still, I think the show shows some promise so I'll stick around, at least for awhile.



Agreed about the tats. It must be a generational thing. I'm at the age where I think they're stupid, but it seems like every one under 30 is covered with them.

It's gonna be a bitch when they want to remove those things!
post #80 of 446
Quote:
Originally Posted by ti-triodes View Post

Agreed about the tats. It must be a generational thing. I'm at the age where I think they're stupid, but it seems like every one under 30 is covered with them.

It's gonna be a bitch when they want to remove those things!

I don't think that they going to want to. It's becoming a societal norm. We'll have high placed businessmen and politicians at every level with visible tats.
post #81 of 446
And to me they are idiots and my respect for them drops sharply...
post #82 of 446
Imho, the tat says 'Sorry, I'm not very interesting on my own, maybe this tat will make me interesting to you".

I've never seen a tattoo that made me happy the person had got it.


TerryB
post #83 of 446
The attitudes of many if not most young people (teens and twenties) toward tats are largely different. Lots of kids get "ink"--I think eventually it'll be as common as the use of makeup by women. (It's strange how much a cultural norm that is. I once saw a morning talk show where Christie Brinkley was sharing her cosmetic tips with the audience and they were all asked to come wearing no makeup--it was shocking . I could hardly recognize the host of the show without her face paint).
post #84 of 446
Quote:
Originally Posted by michaeltscott View Post

....--I think eventually it'll be as common as the use of makeup by women.....

I can see an opportunity for plastic surgeons to get in the game, offering a tat' tuneup. Fresh ink, added colors, sag realignment, etc.
post #85 of 446
We enjoyed the premiere and will stick around and see how this pans out.
post #86 of 446
Quote:
Originally Posted by michaeltscott View Post

The attitudes of many if not most young people (teens and twenties) toward tats are largely different. Lots of kids get "ink"--I think eventually it'll be as common as the use of makeup by women. ).

Well it's like any other "rebellious" fad. "Hip/Cool/Different" rapidly morphs into "gotta do it to fit in with the crowd." See also: "Goth" fad.

These days it's probably more radical to go tat (and piercing) free.
post #87 of 446
Quote:
Originally Posted by HDTVChallenged View Post

Well it's like any other "rebellious" fad. "Hip/Cool/Different" rapidly morphs into "gotta do it to fit in with the crowd." See also: "Goth" fad.

These days it's probably more radical to go tat (and piercing) free.

Goth and multiple piercings in weird places were on the unattractive fringe--they were/are in-your-face rebellious fads. I truly think that ink is mainstream and becoming moreso every day. Only time will tell.
post #88 of 446
I agree that one's attitude toward tattoos is often a generational thing, or as we might put it, a matter of judgment. I was strongly influenced by a guy who I once worked for who got a tattoo when he was a teenage sailor during WW-II. He has regretted it every day of his adult life. He looked into having it removed by laser but never got it done.

I, too, compared Maggie Q's performance in the Nikita pilot episode to the work Piper Parabo has done in Covert Affairs. I have enjoyed Parabo's performances as a novice CIA agent. She has done a remarkable job of striking a balance between vulnerability and resourcefulness. I was far less impressed by Maggie Q's work in the Nikita pilot and it was for more reasons that her tattoos. The show is new, though, so maybe she will grow on me.
post #89 of 446
Quote:
Originally Posted by michaeltscott View Post

Goth and multiple piercings in weird places were on the unattractive fringe--they were/are in-your-face rebellious fads.

For the first 2 or 5 guy/gals that thought it up, maybe. For the vast legion of followers, not really ... it is/was just another way to "fit in with the crowd."
post #90 of 446
Guess I'm one of the few that likes a little ink on women. It's not for everyone, but it's also not a turn-off for me.

I guess it comes down to the tattoo itself. I didn't like the tat that Sibon (sp?) had on her neck on AI, but liked the sleave that the cute girl from 2 seasons ago had.

I also don't like the tats on that chick that Jesse James cheated on with, but think they look good on Pink. And "tramp stamps" are a no-no.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: HDTV Programming
AVS › AVS Forum › HDTV › HDTV Programming › 'Nikita' on The CW HD