I'm with Kiba on this. There really oughta be someone asking for a "Nilly" on a link. It would make me laugh and cry and scream a girly fannish scream. It would also make me happy.

---

Kat, I'm pretty sure you'd want the pony already broken. Unless you're planning a second career in rodeo...

t /lame equestrian punnish pedantry.

---

Tim Minear:

It's interesting, and maybe after things air we can discuss, but the three I picked to go first were not at all the first three written or produced. I know, I know, you're all thinking "that damn FOX!, airing out of order!" It's me. Not them. I wanted what I thought were strong episodes that represented the tone up front. And there are some continuity things I was careful not to disturb. But if I'd aired strictly as written, she wouldn't have been in peril in the second episode, for instance. But, much as I like that episode (and the network loved it, so they wouldn't have minded it being 2nd and not 4th), I didn't feel it quite represented what the show was as well as say, Pre-Filer or even Old Wounds, which I am running 2nd.

Is the reshuffled episode order your preferred order even for the eventual DVD set or is it just the optimal order for the initial television run to hook viewers?

We did a table read yesterday with the cast for the network and studio bigs. Went great. And Alexis Denisof was a dear friend to come in and read the role of Web (has yet to be cast) for us at the read. He's a couple decades too young for the part, but he was superb and I'm so grateful for the favor. I sent him booze.

If Fox picks up the back nine (fingers crossed), would you consider introducing a reoccuring role for Alexis?

---

I keep reading reviews of The Inside where critics pan it for being needlessly gory.

And I'm thinking the appropriate metaphor is that it's like standing up on a table in a high school cafeteria and yelling, "FIGHT!"

Or maybe running into a diner and screaming, "Oh my god, a naked woman is go go dancing in a cage in the window of the Tru Value!"

I mean, we all have to look.

I was just thinking about the criticism, and I'm not sure if I don't get it because I know what the intent is or because I know those issues will be answered, but I can't say that I agree.

There's this thing about Rachel getting tied to the railroad tracks a lot, and yeah, that happens, but the cool thing is, with both hands tied behind her back she doesn't lose it. She's in control.

I just find the show as written so beautiful and funny, and terrifying, that I'm really confused by the critics. "It's like Silence of the Lambs and Seven. So you shouldn't watch it."

Huh?

I really do wish Jessica had seen the review DVDs, because maybe she could explain it to me. Maybe I'm blinded. I know my love for Minear didn't make me love Firefly, and my love for Minear didn't make me unwary of Wonderfalls, so I don't think I'm blinded by the love. I just think the critics are wrong, here. Or maybe it doesn't play the way it plays in my head when I read it.

I just love it so.

---

You will be vindicated, Allyson.

---

I remember watching an interview with John Cleese, where he was talking about the critical reception for the first series of Fawlty Towers, which was mixed at best.

The interview pops into my head when new shows come around (particularly ones I anticipate). His opinion was that critics should do sketch reviews of the first few eps, then a complete review around episode four or five.

That until then, there was simply not enough information in the critics hand to evaluate the overall quality of the piece. That leads to my own (not in any way unique) theory that most professional criticism has little to do with evaluation, and more to do with rationalization of an initial reaction.

Do reviews even have much influence outside production/fan/industry types? I am rather curious about that.

---

The critics liked Dawson's Creek, right? At least at first?

And I hear they're still fond of Lost. And they seem to Love Raymond, which is apparently the Everybody thing to do.

Completely personal conclusion not intended to start a flamewar: With the exception of perhaps Wonderfalls and Veronica Mars, critics? Not necessarily full of teh smart.

None of the reviews have said anything that discourages me from the show. I like horror movies. I own the DVDs of both Se7en and Silence of the Lambs, and watch them both quite regularly. Tim is a genius. Rachel Nichols is hot. Dead babies are totally feel-good (okay, not so much, but creepy much definitely).

My faith is unchanged, unaltered, undiscouraged. This show seems designed to be "Cable? We don't need no stinkin' cable. Network TV can be dark, edgy, scary, and good, and Fox+Tim are here to prove it."

There's gonna be a revolution, yeah, you know.

---

As I've said before, I'll give the show a shot, but I'm not sure that it's to my taste. I hope the character/plot stuff will overcome the ew-ness for me.(I prefer my violence/horror understated, and implied.) That's just me, mind you.

---

Not so nice review in today's Boston Globe: [link]

(may need to register)

---

The (negative) review in the Boston Globe hits on just about every single point that Allyson mentions: [link]

It sounds like Rebecca psychologically controlling the situation until someone can physically get her out (which is my take on what Allyson is describing - I admit I may be reading what she's saying wrong) is not being read as "strength" by a lot of critics.

I also think there's a "police procedural" burn-out factor at work here. Whether that tag is accurate or not, it's the one that Fox seems to be pushing.

I'll be very curious to hear Allyson's take on the execution of the show versus the scripts.

---