• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Reposado

  • Rank
    it was a semi-true story
  • Birthday 08/24/1985

Contact Methods

  • ICQ

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Savannah GA/Portland ME

Recent Profile Visitors

3,818 profile views
  1. at the same time, this selection of characters is not in the same stratosphere of heroes season 1 personally, i liked lito and kala the most with capheus behind them. and wolf gang can just leave the show at any time
  2. i accidentally watched episode 8 first. i knew what the general concept was and id heard that it doesnt make sense at first so i didnt really notice. i actually was thinking that it wasnt confusing at all........maybe 35 mins in it got to a part where it just seemed like this shouldnt happen so early and then i looked at what episode i was watching. so i went back and watched the first 3.i might have preferred 8 as a starting point. it's.....decent. i like how they weave in completely different types of stories and the cinemtography is fantastic. the contrast between the different location is far and away the best part of the show. i can't say that the characters are all that compelling though and i think it will certainly be hard pressed to make 8 interesting storylines feel complete. the one thing that kinda bugs me is the characters for the most part are just totally cool with their ability and dont question it at all
  3. "damn gina" i wonder how long they were sitting on that one
  4. yeah, that was wierd as was rosa laughing at the tom selleck bit. the whole rose/boyle plotline was not great
  5. you can do the same thing with the office. i dont dislike the first season of that but starting with the second gives you much more of a feel of what the show will be like. and the second and third seasons of both are very much worth watching
  6. its hamhanded in the same way. by using a "this is why character x is a good person" moments. similar to peralta, not that i dont like several seasons of parks. the first season was terrible then it got much better. but the thing that i like least about it is exactly the same thing i like least about brooklyn(which again i do like) and its the same thing that you dont like about how they treat peralta. tonally, if not topically. tangent what i think both shows do well is the characters that the show doesnt feel it needs to make you root for. second leads like holt and ron swanson that stand on their own without making you feel like your being manipulated. or smaller role characters, on brooklyn so so far terry, santiago, hitchcock and scully, boyle, rose. sometimes these characters switched around in parks and they may at some point do that in brooklyn too. but for parks early april and andy, sometimes tom, jerry. (and where parks goes downhill for me is when andy and april made that switch, from funny characters to characters the show felt compelled to get you to like and ship, bleh) its kinda like both shows want you to like everyone. (and to some extent create workplaces where everyone likes each other) this is all as opposed to the office which felt comfortable with having characters that could entertain you without having you like them. toby, angela, meredith, creed. and in many ways michael. and dwight above all. by being neutral about dwight, when people eventually started liking him, it was more real. by letting good/bad characters like michael and dwight grow, I at least became much more invested in them than i will ever be about leslie knope or peralta. but this is certainly true. that side of parks doesnt rub against everyone the wrong way. and if so, brooklyn probably wont either
  7. Its not consistently emphasizing it but when it does, it overemphasizes it. Goes for cheap emotion. Maybe i wouldn't have noticed it all if I wasn't so tired of parks doing things with similar technique(though not relating to homosexuality/ tolerance)
  8. yeah. i think it was at its most pronounced in the pilot, and i might not have noticed in subsequent episodes if it hadn't jumped out at my so much then. it struck me as hamhanded in the way that praks and rec often is but perhaps even more so. its not a major plot point. its just that it's overemphasized
  9. With datepalm on this one. It doesn't happen in every episode, but I notice sometimes and its eye rolling. <br /> <br /> Thought about it strongly after the pilot but decided that the shows strengths are enough to mostly ignore. But I do think they're doing exactly what dp said
  10. i though she just got her makeup done by whoever does anne hathaway theismann was clearly not up for comedy, but "who does kevin james play?" was excellent
  11. yes. i sorta agree. she can be the worst but she has her moments. when you go that big, you re going to have big misses. me too, although not consciously until you just said it. i really liked her at the beginning but lately, something was off. i think they are trying to force it. i dont think its as true of holt, at least not yet. i think it may have slid in that direction with holt, but they havent gotten there yet
  12. It was the last episode of the original order which is why it had a season finaleish vibe
  13. I hated everything terry this week. Too over the top and struck me as very hacky. The cold open was even more terrible. Was more than made up for by everything Giles.
  14. She can be really hit or miss for me. Sorta like Schmidt from new girl. Good moments but a lot of botches. To be expected from the biggest member of the cast