Originally Posted by NetworkTV
I'll cut the kid some slack - he's a kid, but based on his actions and cut and dry attitude he showed earlier, I do doubt someone in his shoes would do what he did.
How many kids in midst of wars manage to keep quiet and hide even as their friends get hauled off by the enemy? How many kids learned to cope with potential bombing raids by hunkering down in shelters or "ducking and covering" under their school desks? Kids learn the score very quickly - often more so than adults.
Again, though, if it were only him breaking ranks that way and being a spoiler, I'd be fine with it. Further, if dear old dad had simply run out from cover and grabbed his son during the mission instead of yelling out to him like he's greeting him at the airport, I'd be fine with it. The list continues of simple script adjustments that would have made these elements into simple mistakes instead of completely absurd examples of lack of judgement.
No, I won't.
This show is, in part, created by one of the industry's best minds and written by people who are supposed to be professionals. These are people who earn far more money than I ever will to do so.
They haven't earned a break because the creators haven't earned their pay. If knew my child were failing school only because he didn't do his homework, I wouldn't cut him any slack. These guys aren't doing their homework.
I want to like this show. I love SciFi and am giving it the best shot I can. My hope is the show will tighten up in the next couple of episodes as everyone hopefully got into the rhythm of it. Right now, that's what keeps me on board: the potential. There's a lot here. The problem is, it keeps getting dumped out by silliness. It's like they can't understand that you're supposed to hang onto the pin and throw the grenade.
I'll take cliches and recycled plots. What is unacceptable is poor execution. When I watch one of those cheesy Syfy channel movies, I know it's going to be dreadful. That's specifically why they make them. They know people will tune in just to see how stupid it is. When you put a name on it like Spielberg, though, people expect more. Much more. This is a guy who can work around problems with production, low budgets, kids, animals and location issues. Even when he's not the director, he's able to get his vision across. He can't blame George Lucas for bad writing here.
No slack here. Cable series have proved you can have good writing and quality character development, even on a budget.
NetworkTV, my hat's off to you for the response I likely deserved. Although I generally just get tired of too much nitpicking on these shows (really ANY shows, unless they just continually get more and more ridiculous with it), I'm forced to agree with essentially everything
you said in your reply to me. I, too, expect MORE from anything with Spielberg's name attached to it (one reason I was sorely disappointed Tom Cruise starred in "War of the Worlds," lol -- AND that Dakota Fanning's character seemed to be WAY over-acting in the scenes in the car on the freeway, when she kept screaming hysterically -- and I was a DF fan from the FIRST MOMENT I saw her in Spielberg's "Taken," still one of the best Sci-Fi TV Miniseries I think there's ever been, largely due to her, and her acting in it).
And I just a few days ago, on the "A" review of Entertainment Weekly's Lisa Schwarzbaum (she doesn't give MANY "A" reviews), Spielberg & Abrams' "Super 8," and YES, it really WAS "everything we EXPECT" from talent such as Spielberg, Abarams, and yet another Fanning, this time, younger sister Elle, among others.
I'm still letting that stuff "slide," but it DOES cause me to rank "Falling Skies" as a "B," rather than an "A" at this point, and I wholeheartedly agree with you that the majority of the stupid things that are annoying many of us could have/should have EASILY been changed to produce a better, more satisfying show. At least they haven't butchered any REAL history yet... I still remember EXACTLY WHERE I was sitting in a theater in July of 1996, enjoying "Independence Day," when the Judd Hirsch character ramble off a line about the Roswell crash happening "sometime in the 1950s." Whether whatever happened near Roswell, NM, was an "alien incident" or a "weather balloon," everyone who knows anything about science fiction, science fact, history and conspiracy theories knows it happened in July, 1947 (July 11, 1947, to be precise, if I'm not wrong). At any rate, the whole movie soured for me at that point. I sat there fuming for the rest of the film, so I can sort of RELATE to where you're coming from, NetworkTV (I had a similar reaction in yet ANOTHER Will Smith film, "The Wild Wild West," when at the end they had President Grant FOUNDING "the Secret Service" and making him and his partner Agents 1 and 2. My guess is a good percentage of folks who saw that film STILL believe THAT fake history.
WHY put DELIBERATELY WRONG, easily verifiable FACTS in a movie or TV show???
If "Falling Skies" does ANY of that, I'm out, lol.
Oh, I forgot to add... I didn't see the preview, either... In my case I was watching it a bit "DVR-delayed," and my with My Sunday nights being pretty full, my DVR goes right from one show to another, so it gets cut off just about at... "Next week on--" No issue for me, and I still don't consider someone posting something from a preview a spoiler, since it WAS aired and available to everyone (I didn't even bother to look at the link posted above -- I'll wait until it airs).