|
Post by Metella on Oct 8, 2004 12:39:49 GMT -5
ok - yadda yadda yadda
Would someone please tell me, direct me to the site, whatever of what the root of this is all about? Remember me? No cable, don't read newspapers, don't visit any other sites but this one ...... What is WHO doing & WHERE?
|
|
|
Post by domenicaflor on Oct 8, 2004 12:47:20 GMT -5
Metella: Here's what I posted on the October 2004 new eps thread. I got it from another group, but I also saw it on the futon critic site and will try to get a hyperlink. D. ************** Looks like they are putting the fate of Miss E-N in the fans' voting hands...... Judging from the reactions on various fan boards, methinks the voters will choose to sink Bobby's blonde nemesis off the side of the reef...... D. *********************** BURBANK, Calif. -- October 6, 2004 -- In a network first, NBC's "Law & Order: Criminal Intent" (Sundays, 9-10 p.m. ET) original episode "Great Barrier" will give viewers the option to choose their favorite "killer" ending in an episode to be broadcast on Sunday, October 17 (9-10 p.m. ET). Two versions of the episode's ending have been shot, in which a female murderer (guest star Olivia D'Abo, "The Wonder Years") will either live or be killed -- based on the outcome of a vote conducted on www.nbc.com. On the night of October 17, one ending will be telecast to viewers in the Eastern time zone while the other will be telecast to those living in the Central, Mountain and Pacific time zones (including Alaska and Hawaii). Immediately following the episode, fans will be able to log on to www.nbc.com to view both endings and cast their vote, determining the fate of the character Nicole Wallace (D'Abo). Voting will be live through Wednesday, October 20. The most popular ending to "Great Barrier" will be revealed during the following week's Sunday, October 24 broadcast. The audience will be alerted at the beginning of that night's new episode that the people's final choice from the previous week's episode will be shown at the end of the hour. In the episode, Detectives Goren (Vincent D'Onofrio) and Eames (Kathryn Erbe) track a mysterious young diamond "swallower" (guest star Grace Shu) who is being manipulated by Nicole Wallace (D'Abo) ? Goren's murderous and chameleon-like nemesis. As Goren closes in on Wallace, he discovers a horrifying secret that may allow him to finally close the book on his lethal adversary. The fourth-year series stars D'Onofrio as Goren, an exceptionally bright and compassionate homicide investigator with well-honed instincts that are a match for his most devious criminal quarry. Likewise, his partner, Eames (Erbe), brings a no-nonsense and stylish edge to her work that meshes well with Goren. Jamey Sheridan and Courtney B. Vance also star. The drama is a production of Wolf Films in association with NBC Universal Television Studio. Dick Wolf, Rene Balcer, Fred Berner and Peter Jankowski are executive producers.
|
|
|
Post by MissAnnThropic on Oct 8, 2004 13:00:16 GMT -5
The scary thing about doing this is that, since it is going to get a lot of attention, quite a lot of it may be from people who have not watched either "Anti-Thesis" or "A Person of Interest," or many other episodes. Maybe even none at all. Not to be undemocratic, but should those people really be voting on the direction of this show? I don't even think that we regular viewers should be voting on the direction of the show, but opening the door to people who don't know the characters or premise of the show to vote on it seems pretty stupid to me. If the intent is to get a sense of what the fans want, isn't that reflected pretty well on the message boards? This just seems like sensationalistic garbage to me, and I thought this show was above that. So, I'll have to stick with Observer on this one. Miss Ann (Ann is fine, Trisha )
|
|
|
Post by NikkiGreen on Oct 8, 2004 14:04:49 GMT -5
I'll wait until I see the two different endings before I decide which way to vote. More than likely it'll be to keep Nicole. I think she makes things interesting for our heroes.
Looks like one of my sisters will be taping the 9:00EST airing of CI for me. ;D She gets three different NBC stations from her digital cable provider...2 with the 9:00EST feed and 1 with the 9:00PST feed.
|
|
|
Post by trisha on Oct 8, 2004 14:35:37 GMT -5
You make a valid argument, Ann. Nikki, I'm soooo jealous. I know it will be very difficult for me to get onto nbc's site to see the other ending, especially with my crappie dial up connection. Why can't they just air the episodes back to back? I hate you, NBC. But, you probably knew that already
|
|
|
Post by Sirenna on Oct 8, 2004 14:59:05 GMT -5
Now I'm thinking tempest-in-a-teacup.
Since they're (NBC) airing both endings anyway, the only difference for the viewers' pick will be that it will somehow seem more official and get a second showing.
The other thing is we will get to start a discussion thread on parallel universes. Heck, we've whiled away hours pulling details about Goren's past, off duty habits, taste in art, women, countries visited, number of years/months/days/ pre-major case - all pretty much out of our a***s! ;D
What bugs me about this is even though the endings are pre-written by good writers, including fan input must limit the choices from which the writers' pull ideas and, to me, checking with us before hand just dilutes the overall impact of the story. So yuck to this idea.
|
|
|
Post by Observer2 on Oct 8, 2004 17:30:26 GMT -5
Nick5oh,
Performance art. I never would have thought of it that way.
My understanding of the way television works was shaped by what happened to the Smothers Brothers Show; later by an awareness of the power of network execs to constrain the writers of dramatic series; by the kind of blind (to give them the benefit of the doubt) stupidity of what they did to Frank’s Place; and reinforced recently by their willingness to do anything to make a buck (or a few million bucks) – e.g., Fear Factor, For Love or Money, etc.
My paradigm for thinking about television writing has always been two-dimensional – writers/producers vs networks, always engaged in a careful tug-of-war to maintain as much creative freedom as possible within the constraints imposed by the profit-focused networks.
I’ve never thought of dramatic television as a medium with the potential to have an interactive relationship with the viewers – beyond the ratings system, which seems to me flawed and profit-focused, more a tool of the networks than of the writers.
I guess I was stuck in one way of thinking about it – even though we’ve seen evidence of an interactive element in Criminal Intent before. I think most of us are aware, as Trisha pointed out, that people connected with the show read the message boards. And I’ve noted, myself, things in Criminal Intent that seemed as though they were done as a response to the fans. Of course, I also wondered if I were just imagining things – but there seemed to be a lot of little things, more than I would expect from random chance. Still, I would never have recognized the possibility that this might be one of those things. I had definitely not made that kind of paradigm shift in my way of thinking about dramatic television.
Thanks for posting, Nick. You’ve made me think.
Performance art. I don’t know. Maybe something parallel, though slightly different because of the different medium. Anyway, it’s something to think about.
|
|
|
Post by trisha on Oct 8, 2004 19:31:59 GMT -5
Observer, I am soooo sorry. I just reread my post a page back and it comes off as very B***hy and dismissive. I didn't mean for it to. I wrote it in pieces because I kept getting side tracked, and I didn't proofread it because I had to hurry off line and get to class. I won't do that again. Sorry
|
|
|
Post by Observer2 on Oct 8, 2004 21:39:57 GMT -5
Trisha, No need for an apology, but thanks for the explanation. I had figured that you thought I was implying that you had said something you didn’t say, which can get almost anyone irritated. But I’m well aware of how things can end up sounding differently than we intend – especially in print, with no non-verbal clues to help out. I appreciate you letting me know that’s what it was.
|
|
|
Post by Patcat on Oct 8, 2004 23:32:42 GMT -5
I'm willing to give the creators the benefit of the doubt as long as Eames doesn't wake up from a nap and realize everything was a dream (g).
Patcat
|
|
|
Post by KATIE on Oct 9, 2004 0:35:30 GMT -5
Hi Im new here so Im not going to get too deep into this, I have enjoyed reading all of your valid posts on this subject. I would like to see Nichole come into play maybe two more times no more they have to catch this person out and deal with her once and for all. Writers can only get away with so much toing anf froing with storylines, otherwise they will back themselves Into a corner. Having said that I think Rene Is probobly ahead of everybody and knows exactly what he Is going to do with her, Its also good on the writer/ producers part to throw It to the media to cause discussion, they would know the fan base out here Im sure. But i ciuld be way off on all counts, I read that somebody will replace Goren when he leaves, I couldnt Imagine anybody replacing such talent that Vincent brings to the charactor. I read In the paper that they all signed a 4 year contract in late 2003, with a possible 5th ep If the show was still rating High. Is that still the case? Katie
|
|
|
Post by Sirenna on Oct 9, 2004 12:31:30 GMT -5
Why on Earth would you worry about that? The only way Nicole is going to get Goren to have sex with her is if she gets a *whole lot* of Rohypnol into him. See, now, I don't think she would spend the five bucks. It's much easier to use a heavy hand weight. But, please NBC, we don't need a poll on this. Katie and other newer members, post away as soon as you feel comfortable. Performance art or reality tv? I think calling this performance art is a stretch. Simply because our voting adds absolutely nothing creative to the endings. There's an interactive relationship between viewer and show and it is profit-driven. In the UK, government-subsidized BBC required viewers to buy a tv license. This meant no pesky commercials on BBC channels catering to business interests. But I wouldn't say it catered to public interests. Programming was constrained by party interests; so no anti-royal dissent, no overt political criticism in the programs, etc. This was so even as late as the 1980s! You'd see lots of programs on British colonial past glory though and, of course, lots of supportive programming on patronized arts and education like opera and ballet. (Now, there are silver linings in every cloud in this case it's Dr. Who.) But, anyhoo, ITV, a commercial station grew in opposition. Less high-brow but more diverse programming. More people watched and bought products based on the ads they saw there. I think viewers greatly affect not only what ideas or issues get on tv, but, also how they are presented and this has always been the case. I truly hope Balcer doesn't take the fan fic or message boards seriously in terms of how to write. A lot of it is CRAP. But in terms of what to write I'm glad that my spending a few bucks on P&G products because I'm the demographic that watches the show where the ad was placed, makes a difference. Otherwise I couldn't afford to participate in the arts.
|
|
|
Post by Techguy on Oct 9, 2004 14:16:53 GMT -5
Well, now this is the first I've heard about CI giving viewers a say in what happens to Nicole. I've said before that I'm ambivalent about whether or not I want her to return--and still am. And now I'm equally ambivalent about being given an opportunity to impact any decision about whether to continue or terminate the character and the accompanying storyline.
Correct me if I'm wrong, because I know next to nothing about how network TV decisions are made. Maybe I should add it to the list of things I don't ever want to see being made, the others being sausage and legislation as the old joke goes. But I digress.
What I'm getting at is, I would think that everyone involved with CI--including the writers, actors, etc., would have to be aware of the possibility of the series going off in different directions, depending on the outcome of the poll/vote on Nicole. And I would think that would be especially true for Vincent D'Onofrio because his interpretation of where Det. Goren is headed will most certainly be affected by whatever happens to Nicole in "Great Barrier."
My ambivalence about all this is, I'm not quite sure it's such a good thing to leave it up to viewers to decide how this saga will unfold. So I'll just have to wait until I see the episode before I decide if it was a good idea, and whether I will vote and how. I do admit to a bit of curiosity about this grand "experiment," and also wonder what version of the ending I'll be seeing.
One thing for sure--I WILL BE WATCHING. And maybe that's the whole point of it all--to get people to watch and talk about it before and after the broadcast?
|
|
|
Post by Observer2 on Oct 9, 2004 19:44:55 GMT -5
Performance art or reality tv? I think calling this performance art is a stretch. Simply because our voting adds absolutely nothing creative to the endings. Actually, as I’m getting used to the concept, I’m thinking more along the lines of what Techguy said. The voting will determine which of two possible paths gets followed, which may have an impact on Goren’s character development (and possibly on that of other characters, as well, either directly or through interaction with Goren). It may also influence future story lines and how *they* impact on character development. It’s also possible that feedback from the fans has already had some influence – in fact, may have sparked the potential for this decision point... so while it’s not real-time interactive, there may be a sense in which it is parallel to performance art – with a touch of audience participation, the need to “improvise” a bit as the characters engage with the new situation... It is a strange concept for television viewers, but not necessarily for actors – and perhaps not for some writers. As I recall, before he became a television writer and producer, Balcer was a journalist. The concept of shifting the direction and flow of a story in response to the way live humans are reacting in the moment may be less foreign to him than to many writers who started out writing fiction. Maybe there’s something about that interactive, dynamic response that’s appealing to some writers, as it is to actors who enjoy doing improv. Perhaps, as Nick suggested, it could be a way for the writers to “give themselves a challenge,” to keep things interesting. Of course, as Nick also pointed out, what they’re offering is a choice between two potentials – both of which they have most likely worked out as reasonable outcomes for the episode, and consider valid potential paths to follow – not something they would consider out of character or ‘out of left field.’<br> It all still seems a little strange to me as something to be applied to television... but I’m beginning to see ways that it might be interesting from their point of view.
|
|
|
Post by Observer2 on Oct 9, 2004 20:14:28 GMT -5
I'll wait until I see the two different endings before I decide which way to vote... ...Looks like one of my sisters will be taping the 9:00EST airing of CI for me. ;D Like Trisha, I’m jealous! That’s one thing that still bothers me about all this – how selective the setup is. Only people with computers capable of playing the ending – including the audio – will get to see and hear the ending that wasn’t shown in their area. Of course, that doesn’t mean other fans won’t vote, based on their attitude towards Nicole in general, and in some cases on descriptions of the alternate ending posted on boards such as this one. But it does mean that a whole lot of us won’t get to see the alternate ending before voting. And in the area where the ending that aired is the one that wins the vote, we’ll never see the other ending at all -- much less be able to tape it. I can understand a certain amount of focus on the more highly educated, professional and upper class fans – this is a show geared especially towards people who like shows that make them think, and in the more educated classes people have an easier time developing a taste for that kind of entertainment. Still, some of the rest of us have managed, anyway. But sadly, not all of us have state of the art computers. I would have liked it better if the alternate version had been shown on television somehow – perhaps in a Saturday evening time slot (though that would be outside their voting time frame), or on late night TV, or on USA (though that would leave out the Canadians) – something. Computers are almost as ubiquitous as televisions now... but computers you can watch a television show on are not.
|
|