A Haven Community
Syfy (ended 2015)
My dear, this is Haven. There's never been any trouble here. - Vince

So, it's another alternate Haven, after we had last year's "Sarah." Nathan is still Nathan, and this time Duke and his family are police officers. Jennifer and Dwight are conveniently absent in both realities. I'm not sure I'd want to live in a reality without Gloria, but it's temporary so I'll bear up. And Dave and Vince are... whatever the heck they are.


Oooh, look--birds!
Nathan Wournos - a lovable doufus in any reality


So it was fun and all, but the problem is we had to get here through the contrivance of a truly unbelievable Trouble: wishes. Yes, the Haven producers and writers have been watching Once Upon a Time in Wonderland. Which means that they're probably a majority of the viewers that show has right now...


I'm not a genie - I'm just Troubled

Far be it from me to question the rationale of a show that has giant snow globes and dogs turning into human beings. But... wishes? Really? Wishes are the bane of Dungeon & Dragons dungeon masters, and TV writers everywhere (ask the OUaT in Wonderland writers). Toss in the Haven mythos as well, and you get several headaches. But here's one big one:

If Audrey and William created the Troubles, and they're immune to the Troubles, then how can Cliff the Genie wish that they never created the Troubles?

Essentially they the writers gave a Troubled person the power to rewrite the entire world. And if William is to be believed, he and Audrey had the power to give someone the power to rewrite the entire world. If William has that kind of power, why is he dinking around with a gun and breaking people's necks. If he no longer has that kind of power... why not?

With wishing, we've left the supernatural and the science fictional, and we've moved into the divine. And not just the divine, but the almost-omnipotent.

Speaking of William... was Colin Ferguson always this big a ham? The set decorators must hate him for all the scenery he's chewing through.



I'm so naughty...

He came across as kind of sympathetic in the first episodes. A disturbed stalker in "William." Now he's just being obnoxious and mean.

Lucas Bryant seemed to be having a ball, and Richard Donat and John Dunsworth got to raid the costume closet.



Fred from Scooby Doo called, Vince - he wants his ascot back.

There was also the odd decision to kill off the Teagues yet again. Vince died (offscreen) in last year's "Sarah," too. It's like the writers don't like Dave and Vince except when they have to espouse convenient expositional dialogue.



Ascots - not good protection against straight razors

Some of the other tropes were there as well.



Nathan gets a hot wife if Audrey doesn't enter his life? Check.

Were we supposed to know this woman? I don't remember a Marie. She didn't make much of an impression here.



Beefy Guest Troubled/plot contrivance gets introduced and then killed off? Check.

So while it's always fun to see "mirror mirror" universes where the actors get to play against type, this seemed kind of mediocre effort. There was some great byplay between Lucas Bryant and Eric Balfour during the murder investigation scene. Even if the actress playing Doreen the corpse couldn't hold her breath for five seconds. :(


The Joker drops by for a visit

Although that scene brought up some logic gaps, too. Let's assume for the moment that Duke told Audrey about the fiberglass on the fingernails off-camera. So... William killed Dave and Vince in their office. But he drags Doreen out to his fiberglass repair shop, and then drags her back into town. Just to send a message to two guys who don't know who he is, only confirming that Audrey is who she says she is. Does that make sense?

William also seems to be one of those villains who can appear anywhere and anytime. Is teleportation a power of his or is it just writer contrivance? It seemed like all of Haven is only two square blocks.

William killing Cliff seems kind of weird. So he kills Cliff, which breaks his power to maintain the wish-reality, sending Audrey and William back to the real reality, where... Cliff is still alive? But if he were alive, then he couldn't have died to break the wish-reality. There weren't two Cliffs--Cliff was just as immune to his Trouble as William and Audrey were.



Four minutes until the end of the episode? Sod this for a game of Soldiers - I'll just shoot the guy and hope for the best.

Also, if William was the one sending out the Grapes of Wrath last week, why didn't he threaten to use them to force Audrey to work for him? He could have said, "I'll drive everyone in town nuts unless you help." Would have saved him some of that legwork he complained that he hated.

Anyhoo, the logic gaps were a few too many for me to get into the episode entirely. I enjoyed the principals' performance: even Emily seemed to stand out - must be getting rid of the hair and nose ring. If we ignore the whole wish thing, it sounds... interesting that William and Audrey created the Troubles. As long as they don't later show they have the power to give someone the power to make wishes.

So overall, I'd give this a 7. Which is about average for me: I don't watch anything that averages less than that.

But that's just my opinion, I could be wrong. What do you think?
Comments (64)
Submit
Sort: Latest | Popular
Nov 18, 2013
I enjoyed this episode but weirdly it kind of felt...I was mildly confused during most of it. It seemed like a weird side trip to make sure everyone knew William and Audrey are connected (also, I suspect William is lying about both of them creating the Troubles, I sense it was all him and when he discovered during "William" he couldn't shock Audrey into her original sense, he decided he needed to blame her too in an effort to maybe get her team to abandon her...that joins my theory that William was an abusive ex of hers that Howard et al tried to protect her from since he seemed kind toward Audrey - abusers try to isolate their victims). Like "Sarah" last year, which I enjoyed more but was similarly confused by (that it kind of seemed like a long journey for Nathan to impregnate Sarah so that we could fully establish who James actually was...um, where is he and why is no one concerned?)
2
Reply
Flag
Nov 18, 2013
I thought it was a good episode reminiscent on the Buffy episode 'Normal Again'. This is starting to be the best season this show has produced.
Reply
Flag
Nov 17, 2013
I have to disagree with some parts of your review. Someone you love dies - the first thing you wish for is that it never happened. That is a believable and natural occurrence in real life. Cliff activated his family Trouble with his grief over his wife. I can suspend belief and go with the flow. I think Colin Ferguson is doing a great job as William going from good to evil. He sucked me in with helping Audrey in the barn, and his two cohorts are just as vicious as he is. The twist at the end with Audrey is great. I believe it was Agent Howard who said she created the Troubles and keeps coming back to resolve them. But it has also always been a theory of long time fans. If you find the show annoying, you should stop watching and reviewing it. Your irritation taints your reviews and is in turn annoying to those who read it.
3
Reply
Flag
Nov 17, 2013
I don't think I ever disputed that Cliff had good reason to make a wish. Only the fact that the writers have basically created a godlike being Trouble-power-wise.

Nor did I dispute that Audrey creating the Troubles is a reasonable twist. So what you're disagreeing with on these two points weren't t in my review.

I don't find the show annoying, but I find the current season has some serious... troubles. :) The argument that someone should abandon something good because it's having problems doesn't seem like a very reasonable one. If folks find my reviews annoying, they should stop watching and commenting on them.
Reply
Flag
Nov 17, 2013
You said "So it was fun and all, but the problem is we had to get here through the contrivance of a truly unbelievable Trouble: wishes." Then your review goes on with a recap that is annoying. Look at all the posts here. I am not the only one who feels that way. And yes, I will stop reading your recaps and alert others to do the same.
Reply
Flag
Nov 18, 2013
To be clear, the fact that Cliff happened to have a Trouble that exactly suited what happened to his wife is a standard part of the show. Yes, it's convenient from a plot standpoint and requires some suspension of disbelief, but we all understand the requirements of dramatic television. And that we don't see the undramatic "My wife died and I gained the power to make objects change colors" Trouble manifestations. :)

Where it becomes a contrivance is when Cliff manifests a Trouble so powerful that it can negate whatever or whoever it was who created the Troubles (the source of his own Trouble), and was so godlike that it can not only do that, but manipulate reality to give Clliff a "downside" of making sure that she lives to torment him with the fact that she's now married to another man. And all just to provide a reason to do a one-episode alternate-reality story.

Also, Cliff seems to still have his Trouble, at least to the point that killing him negates its reality alteration... somehow.

IMO, by any reasonable definition, that would be a "contrivance."
Reply
Flag
Nov 17, 2013
The wish and the unbelievable level of power involved was a contrivance, yes. The reason Cliff acquired it was not.
Reply
Flag
Nov 17, 2013
Ok, I know no one was buying my theories in in the comments on "William", but I did say that William was a big fat liar. And, I did say that William would try to convince Audrey that she is evil so that she would willingly go be with him because she thinks she belongs to him - kind of appears that is happening now. Just saying...
2
Reply
Flag
Nov 16, 2013
It was a good episode. But the reason why I like Haven is that there are very few bad episodes. The only real gripe I have now is and I hope that I am wrong about this. But, if Audrey kills William this all ends. Now the guardians and Vince thought that if Audrey killed Nathan that that would end the troubles. However they are not thinking in the long term. Audrey is just the second most recent personality. William said it himself that the person who Audrey/Lexi/Lucy was, initially loved him. So it would seem to me that he instead of Nathan being the one that she has to kill. If they are say the Ying Yang of the town, she can heal and help and he can induce and hurt. Then if she kills William then that ends the troubles.

Overall good episode. It was interesting but it felt like previous alternate reality episodes that they have done.
2
Reply
Flag
Dec 09, 2013
I think you may have something here. Also since killing William will most likely kill herself, no troubles and no way to revive them.

I approve.
Reply
Flag
Nov 16, 2013
Can it be that Audrey and William created the concept of the Troubles only they didn't give an specific Trouble to each family but just the fact of having the Trouble ? . The Trouble each family triggers depends on their history . And now after saying the word Trouble for the fifth time in three sentences I finish my review .
2
Reply
Flag
Nov 16, 2013
I think that's what happened. Otherwise William would have known that Cliff had the wish power.

And I've mentioned a few times that it would make sense that they should keep a historical record of Troubles revealed. But in this case it would make sense because a) Cliff's family did everything in their power not to use their Trouble, and b) if they did use it, no one would know because it altered reality so nobody remembered what things were like before.
1
Reply
Flag
Nov 20, 2013
I think there is a historical record of the troubles. There's a family tree in the credits. IMO there are trouble family trees in that room where Vince and Dave keep all the info locked up.

Haven is like a dysfunctional family. Everyone knows what's going on. They just pretend everything is normal. Maybe because they're ashamed of their troubles. Maybe because you're living under the constant threat of your trouble being activated.

It's pretty typical behaviour if you think about it.
1
Reply
Flag
Nov 16, 2013
Okay, everyone important knows now that Lexi is Audrey, so can we please, please, PLEASE get rid of that damn nose ring?
1
Reply
Flag
Nov 16, 2013
They did, didn't they?
1
Reply
Flag
Nov 17, 2013
Yes, I posted that before I finished watching the episode. It just irritated me so much that I had to stop and post. Every time I see that piercing I think I'm ordering a sandwich at Subway.
Reply
Flag
Nov 16, 2013
I thought this was one of the best episodes of the season. I'm totally digging Colin Ferguson as a bad guy. He did totally kill every season he was in. He looks to be really enjoying this role and hamming it up as much as possible.
The TOW was just meh in my opinion. All it did was give more screen time to William (which is never a bad thing) to sprinkle in some more backstory. I'm definitely loving the mysterious past of him and Audrey creating the troubles.
Lucas Bryant was pretty good as Doctor Douche last night. It was nice to see him get to use some of his comedy skills. Emily Rose was on point as usual. Over the last couple of years, she's really grown into her role as Audrey and is now just owning it. It did suck that we had no Jennifer and no Dwight though. But Colin Ferguson was easily the MVP of the episode.
3
Reply
Flag
Nov 16, 2013
Well, that's the wonderful thing about opinions: everyone has a different one. :)

I really don't like William at this point. He comes across as vicious and Joker-ish in this episode for no reason. The writers could still bring it home, and I'm sure Colin enjoys the role. But I don't think ham is the best thing for a villain on Haven.
2
Reply
Flag
Nov 20, 2013
I disagree. He's the perfect villain for Haven. He reminds me of the god Loki. Always causing trouble, but with playful glee. I think the writers and actors used the same reference.
2
Reply
Flag
Nov 22, 2013
But he does show that really deep cold evil at times. That's what I really love about William. Yes he seems to be just causing trouble for the fun of it but there's times when he can just make your blood run cold. I really hope we see more of the true evil side of him coming up...
2
Reply
Flag
Nov 20, 2013
Except Loki is a comic book villain. Despite the superpowers, Haven isn't a comic book show.

Put Mr. Ferguson in a show like Arrow, where Seth Gabel is doing much the same thing as The Count (he'll be on tomorrow night), no problem. I'm not criticizing the actor for playing the part as written: it's the writing that I have a concern about.
Reply
Flag
Dec 09, 2013
I think you're reaching. There is huge difference between William and the Count especially because the Count has no down times or motives, he is a rehash of the riddler without his crippling backstory.

Yes William has moments of ludicracy, but he always comes back to the seriousness of what he wants. I find his singular focus entertaining and wish we could have an episode from his point of view as a direct parallel to Audrey's.
Flag
Nov 20, 2013
If the Norse stories portray him with "playful glee," then that would mean the comic book version follows the traditional mythology. Since that is what Loki currently is in the comics, and has been for a while.

When he was first introduced, not so much.
Flag
Nov 20, 2013
I have to reply to your previous comment since you just replied to yourself.

Loki is widely referred to as the god of mischief and a trickster in Norse mythology, Norse religion, and historical texts.

The Norse tales are detailed and explore the emotions and motivations of the gods. There are still people following the Norse religion and traditions today. That's where my thoughts of William came from. I haven't seen the movies or read the comics. But a brief google search shows that Marvel's characterization of Loki doesn't follow the traditional mythology.

Here's another reference if anyone else is interested. But it probably deserves a separate discussion. I think there's one on IMDB already.

http://norse-mythology.org/gods-and-creatures/the-aesir-gods-and-goddesses/loki/

Flag
Nov 20, 2013
Yes, I know the origins of the Norse god Loki. But how do you know he does things with "playful glee"? That's a characterization from the comics, not the Norse tales (unless you read an awful lot into them). Those tales are typically straightforward and not necessarily that much into the emotions of the characters. :)
Flag
Nov 20, 2013
No. Loki is a Norse god predating comic books and movies. I'm not referring to the character played in the comics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loki

"is handsome and fair of face, but has an evil disposition and is very changeable of mood. He excelled all men in the art of cunning, and he always cheats. He was continually involving the Aesir in great difficulties and he often helped them out again by guile."

Historians have also found connections between Loki and the mythology of the Trickster in Native American mythology. That little piece of info is particularly relevant to Haven's history.
Flag
Nov 17, 2013
But he really displayed that cold calculated evil when he needed to. And the viciousness was perfect I thought. Isn't the Joker one of the best bad guys in all of the comic world? I'm not a comic guy so that's a serious question.
1
Reply
Flag
Dec 09, 2013
The Joker is only as amazing as the writer who tells his story. But he definitely has the potential to be one of the best bad guys in the comic world. Unlike William though he is dealing with a severe level of insanity.

I think William is just of singular purpose. He does not care what happens to the people in Haven because they are as beneath him as ants are to us. I think his humorous and over the top moments are more a way to get a particular reaction of out Audrey then his true nature.
1
Reply
Flag
Nov 20, 2013
The Joker is certainly a good comic book bad guy as a hammy vaudevillian comic of sorts turned vicious killer. But Haven isn't the comic world.
Reply
Flag
Nov 16, 2013
Meant to say "He did totally kill every scene he was in."
2
Reply
Flag
Nov 16, 2013
Going to have to have some disagreements here.

1) what is wrong is with a wishing trouble? It's actually something that we had in various forms in the past. Is time traveling troubles all that different? How about the Groundhog Day trouble we had? It's not that far off.

We also had people who practically made their wishes come true, like the woman who could alter reality by drawing it.

2) I really fail to see the problem with him having the ability to erase what Audrey and William supposably did?
We don't know how they did it. I mean the possibilities are endless. They could have used something beyond their control or external to them. Making the analysis I did last week to greek mythology, just because Prometheus gave humans the gift of fire doesn't mean he himself can actually create fire.

In fact it wouldn't be surprise me if that is the origin of the troubles in the first place. In many sci-if\fantasy\superhero stuff, the powers that people get are essentially something they wish for even subconciously. Which is what Audrey thought she was doing in the beginning.

3) Did Cliff survive the remaking of Haven? I assumed the gunshot he had is the same one William gave him in the alternate timeline.

4) At least give them some credit, didn't you ask previously why isn't one trouble activating another person's trouble? William blowing people up essentially triggered Cliff...

Leaving that aside, here are my issues with the episode:

5) Alternate reality episodes are sometimes nice as kind of "what the heck, this could be fun" if they aren't been dragged to death (ahem... Farscape...)
The thing is though, we want to see how stuff would be different.
But... The geezers are the still the geezers and Nathan and Duke were pretty much the same. Sorry, just replacing their jobs doesn't mean much.
Duke is a detective of sorts in the original timeline as he always knows what's what and Nathan does want to help people...
We saw very little of the minor characters and heck, we didn't even get to see any of previously killed characters which is half the fun.

I personally was hoping to at least see how the priest was in a reality with no troubles at all.

So nothing really happened and it was boring. This opprotunity was a huge waste.

6) I agree with William in general being a terrible character. His plans really make no sense, last week he made all the fuss about a box he already had...
This week? The random murders made no sense what so ever. What is the point of killing someone for not giving you information? It's not like they are a threat to him.
The whole point was to show he doesn't care about people but it was just dumb. Add to the fact that if he thought killing Cliff would solve it, why didn't he do it after 30 seconds?

7) Leaving aside how dumb it is that Audrey wants to kill the only person with information about her past and the troubles (and possibly how remove them forever), let's say for crying out loud that she wants to do it - and she clearly partially want to do it so Nathan and Duke won't find out she caused the troubles - Then why bring them along?!?!?!?
I mean... No, I possibly think of an analogy of how stupid that is.

And if William told her that in some reincarnation of hers she loved him, why for the love of anything doesn't anyone suggests that she kills him to end the trouble and kill two birds with one gun.
Nathan shooting him was so stupid and was obviously meant just to give us the shock factor they have some connection.

8) Sadly, the main reason this show progressed from the boring trouble of the week to an actual mystery thrill is the mystery. When they just start shredding it, they show really loses its touch.
More+
1
Reply
Flag
Nov 16, 2013
For instance, near-omnipotence works for Q on Star Trek because a) he's a jerk and uses it to torment people, and b) he secretly likes humanity (and the Enterprise crews) so he doesn't want to torment them too much. He also seems to be following some kind of edict that has been touched upon in various episodes.

Otherwise you'd wonder, "Well, if Q is so powerful, why doesn't he just snap his fingers and turn humanity into toads?"

It doesn't work on Once Upon a Time in Wonderland because nobody there seems able to make a competent wish. When Alice was forced to make a wish to save the Knave in "The Serpent," why doesn't she just strip Jafar of his powers forever and forever, amen, when Jafar's is what is putting the Knave being in trouble?
2
Reply
Flag
Nov 20, 2013
I wondered that too - why does Alice nt simply wish that Jafar can NEVER get access to another genie... I mean the guy he took the last genie bottle from was smart enough to wish that jafar could not hurt him - ok the snake woman still could - but at least he had enough brains to stop jafar.. Come on Alice - seriously..

As to Haven - this episode was a bit weird - it gave us a snippet of info about Audrey/William and I enjoyed seeing Nathan as a bit of an idiot. Always Love Duke - he is truly becoming the best person amongst them - but dont get what they were actually trying to achieve with this episode - we are getting down to the last few episodes - and i am assuming this is the end as we have not been told of a renewal - so why waste an episode to tell us nothing. And for the love of god - why do Vince/Dave have all this info locked up and not just simply share it and fix everything - there has to be a record of when the troubles began
More +
1
Reply
Flag
Nov 16, 2013
A wishing Trouble is basically several levels of magnitude above anything we've seen. It borders on... well, omnipotence. Yes, there's a downside, but even that downside has almost infinite power. I'm not comfortable with any show that gives a character infinite power, even if it's a power they can't control.

There may be an infinite number of ways Audrey and William created the Troubles. But rather than write a review trying to cover all those possibilities (which would be really boring :) ), you go with a version of Occam's Razor. I laid that out in my review.

Audrey said that William shot Cliff "again." It struck me as unnecessary: why not just say he died when William shot him the first time and leave it at that?

Actually, what I said before is that I'd like to see a Trouble that activated defensively to counter the Trouble that activated it. If someone had manifested their cold Trouble to deal with Doreen's new volcano Trouble, that was what I meant. That's not what happened with Cliff and William.

I think the lack of a budget for guest stars and the fact they were trying to cram the whole William/Audrey/origins of the Troubles thing in hamstrung any attempt they did or didn't want to make to show us all the alternatives. If nothing else, couldn't they get Christian Camaro to show up as a deputy?

I don't think he knew that killing Cliff would solve things. But he was going to be captured, he still had the gun, shooting Cliff was the only thing he could do.
More +
Reply
Flag
Nov 16, 2013
That sort of depends on what exactly his trouble was. Can he really wish for "anything"? Going with the obvious Buffy analogy here, the wishing demons had some abilities but not true omnipotence.

As for that last part... Umm... That kind of makes things even worse. If William is afraid of being captured, doesn't that mean that he can in fact be captured, so why would they want to just randomly kill him?
1
Reply
Flag
Nov 16, 2013
Well, he literally rewrote the world and its histories going back to the origins of the Troubles, including everyone's memories of it. That's not true omnipotence, but it seems close enough for casual conversation. :)

I'd agree that Nathan shooting William was out of character regardless. As well as why he did it. But Nathan in the real world (who shot William) didn't know that William was worried that he could be captured in the alternate reality.

Or, um, something like that...
Reply
Flag
Nov 16, 2013
Giself, you reviews are starting to become a real nuisance in my Haven experience. A buzzkill basically.
First of all: Everyone who watches this show knows that suspension of disbelief is one of the key elements to being able to enjoy it. It's a SyFy show, for gods sake. It's not a critically acclaimed AMC drama.
You are taking your reviews way too seriously and sucking the heart and all of the fun out of it. If you dislike Haven so much (your reviews strongly imply that you do) then why on earth are you reviewing it? The Vampire Diaries is a show that also requires a lighthearted approach and it's lately filled with tons of contrivances (it's CW - a teen network) but Price Peterson still manages to find the heart in it and his reviews are fun and never expect the show to be something that it isn't.
Also, you can't possibly expect me to believe that you give it a 7/10 after bashing nearly everything about the episode!? Now that's some square logic! Based on this review, I can't imagine you'd give it anything higher then a 4/10. Also, saying that you don't watch anything that averages less than 7? Now there's a contrivance!
More+
9
Reply
Flag
Nov 16, 2013
Maybe I'm crazy, but I love reading episode reviews with the opposite opinion as mine. @Llostris is also covering Haven if that's more your speed, but if not, you could always write a post yourself! I've been doing so for Homeland this season, because there's always a few more angles I want to discuss in between Tim Surette's weekly reviews.
1
Reply
Flag
Nov 17, 2013
No you're not crazy. I'm a big fan of constructive criticism as well. My issue wasn't so much about the criticism, it was about the approach and execution of what is supposed to be "episode recaps". In my experience recaps have always been a fun way to unwind and have a laugh. That's why I brought up Price's recaps.
Yeah I guess I'll stick to reading Llostris reviews. Thanks :-) I just thought that recaps would be a really fun read especially in the case of Haven. This is a missed opportunity.
P.S. I watch Homeland too and I didn't know anyone else was reviewing it here. I'll definitely give yours a read.
Reply
Flag
Nov 17, 2013
I'm also a big fan of constructive criticism. But that's a somewhat misunderstood term, right up there with "suspension of disbelief."

My reviews are not intended to be constructive criticism, beyond the obvious. They are me speaking as a fan, saying what I do and don't like about the show. An extended version of a thumbs up or thumbs down, or 1-10 rating, or a Nielsen rating, if you like.

a) Constructive criticism is great in the classroom, or in focus groups. But it's a feedback process. I'm not so egotistical as to think the Haven writers and producers are reading my reviews. :)

b) Constructive criticism has to be timely. They've already finished filming the fourth season as I wrote my review. Nothing I could say at this point would be of use to them.

c) My reviews feature constructive criticism anyway, but like I said it's obvious. If I say I like Lucas Bryant being humorous, or that Colin Ferguson is chewing up the scenery, or that giving someone a near-omnipotent wish Trouble is a bad idea, that's the constructive criticism. Give Lucas Bryant more humor to do. Don't let Colin Ferguson chew up the scenery. Never make a Troubled person borderline omnipotent.
More +
Reply
Flag
Nov 17, 2013
In fairness, it's difficult to tell if you're very clear on what "constructive criticism" and "suspension of disbelief" means, because you've neither defined what you consider them to mean, or explained why I'm wrong when I've given the definition I understand them to mean.

When I define what they mean so we can determine if we're sharing common ground, you seem to think I'm trying to insult you.
Flag
Nov 17, 2013
I am capable of giving constructive criticism as you seem to consider it: these reviews are not the place to do it beyond a very straightforward level, which is what I do, for the reasons I noted. If you disagree with that, say why.

Since I've filled out Nielsen ratings books with what I watch, likes and dislikes, which generate Nielsen ratings, they most certainly do have something to do with indicating whether you like a show or not.

I have given plenty of episodes of shows I watch ratings of less than 6. But shows in general, the ones I watch are what I consider a 7. I'm not sure what you mean by a double-standard in this context. I am rating what I think of the show, not other TV critics.
Flag
Nov 17, 2013
Ok now you're just insulting my intelligence. I am very clear on what both "constructive criticism" and "suspension of disbelief" terms mean.
You're the one who admittedly didn't know the difference between the words "nephew" and "uncle" so I don't understand why you are being be so arrogant towards me.
A Nielsen rating has absolutely nothing to do with "a 1-10 rating from a fan point of view".
My issue is that your reviews come across as words from a person who is insulting the show that they are writing about and the fact that you are implying that you refuse to give the episode a lower score then 7 because everything you watch is at least a 7 in your point of view. Since you're watching both Haven and Once Upon a Time in Wonderland, that is a clear double-standard as neither of these two shows rank as great television amongst TV critics.
This is the last words that I will say on this thread and on this subject. You got what you wanted. I get it! I will no longer be reading your reviews. Not only are you incapable of giving constructive criticism, you're incapable of giving a sincere reply to a comment from a fellow TV.com user and Haven fan.

"If my reviews are so compelling that someone has to read them even though they're buzzkill, I'd take that as a great compliment to my writing skills. :)"

Wow...take it however you like Giself. This is a fan community that is supposed to be about people connecting through mutual interests in television shows and not about insulting another person just for the sake of creating an argument.
More +
1
Flag
Nov 17, 2013
My recaps are in the recap section of the episode pages. I'm doing... well, reviews.
1
Reply
Flag
Nov 17, 2013
More precisely, I should say I do reviews for shows where there is a need for them. If someone is already doing them before I started, yep, there's no need.

But I also write for a number of current obscure shows where there's not a need for reviews because... nobody watches the shows or is around to read the reviews. :(
1
Flag
Nov 17, 2013
A recap, as tv.com considers the term, is a factual straightforward telling of the episode from beginning of the end. My recap for Haven is here.

I use photo captures to emphasize parts of my review, but my reviews are not a point-by-point presentation or examination of everything that happens in the episode.

Some folks do that kind of recapping. Here's one example.

Some folks, and I suspect some staff members, use the terms interchangeably. But to me at least, there is a considerable difference.

So yes, I do both reviews and recaps of Haven, but they are two different things. On all shows I edit, I do recaps. I only do reviews for the shows where someone else isn't already doing a review.

Hope that clarifies things.
1
Flag
Nov 17, 2013
I'm confused. So do you do both recaps and reviews for Haven? Usually your reviews have episode captures with words written in them, so that's why I thought they were "recaps".
Flag
Nov 16, 2013
I've said it before and I'll say it again: the solution to a reviewer who irritates you is the same solution to a show that irritates you. WALK AWAY. You're like a dog eating its own vomit. You just make yourself sick again. And it's not any fun for the rest of us to watch that either.
2
Reply
Flag
Nov 16, 2013
If my reviews are so compelling that someone has to read them even though they're buzzkill, I'd take that as a great compliment to my writing skills. :)
Reply
Flag
Nov 16, 2013
A 10 review is easy. :) "Everything was perfect." That's it, we can go home.

Pointing out flaws and making it clear what those flaws are for a review is what takes up space.
2
Reply
Flag
Nov 17, 2013
You completely missed my point.
Reply
Flag
Nov 17, 2013
And you missed mine in my review. So where does that leave us?
Reply
Flag
Nov 16, 2013
Also, don't confuse the amount of time I devote to an issue with how much weight it has on my score. It's easy to say, "Lucas Bryant has great comedic timing" or words to that effect. It takes more wordage to explain why the wish thing is flawed. But they may both play an equal part in my final rating.

Also, if you look at my last nine reviews, you'll see that I go pretty easy on the plot holes. But this one had... well, a lot, IMO.

And as always, IMO is what a review is. If people liked the episode more than a 7, great! Hopefully they'll do me the same courtesy for only liking it up to a 7.
Reply
Flag
Nov 17, 2013
My issue is not that you didn't give it higher then a 7 but that you refused to give it lower then a 7 - and you clearly wanted to but "refused" based on the contrivance that you don't watch anything that's lower then a 7. Read my comment again. Plus you know this isn't the first time I've had an issue with your review. Remember back when you wouldn't know what happened in the episode because you were worrying more about making your review all about sarcastic one-liners. Or recently when you missed a crucial part about the episode and then didn't know what NEPHEW means?
Reply
Flag
Nov 17, 2013
I gave it a review of 7 based on the fact that on a 1 to 10, I would rate it a 7.

I already noted the part about my mislabeling them as "nephew" several times. None of which changed the point of my review as far as bringing in _any_ relative of the Rev and not having them have issues with the people who shot him dead.

I never "worry" about making sarcastic one-liners. :)
Reply
Flag
Nov 17, 2013
But when I'm reading the review it doesn't come across like that. You clearly state that you don't watch anything below a 7 and that's the reason why you won't give it a lower score.
And the worry thing? Well obviously I don't think you literally sit there worrying and stressing about how to insert a sarcastic one-liner at every opportunity. It's a figure of speech.
1
Flag
Nov 16, 2013
Nobody is forced to read my reviews. It is pretty clear who the author is, right?

"Suspension of disbelief" is not an open license for writers to do whatever they want. It's something they set up, and something they earn. A Troubled power that can literally rewrite the entire world via "wishing" goes beyond anything they've established on the show. The fact that in 10 episodes this year that I've reviewed (and really the 39 before that), that this is the first time I have commented on something breaking my suspension of disbelief should tell you how hard it is for a show to do that.

I expect the show to be what the writers and producers want the show to be. They apparently want it to be deep and profound and have some internal logic. With lighthearted moments. I judge it on their terms as best I can. I noted the lighthearted bits of this episode several times in complimentary terms.

If anyone can find an interview where the creative staff says that they don't want the show to be taken seriously, I will review it as such.
Reply
Flag
Nov 17, 2013
Well it's nice to see you're handling this in such a mature manner. Also, you're not supposed to refer to me as an "author". I haven't written any books. I'm a TV.com user. At best, I am a "commentator" on this thread. This is another reason why I have issues with your reviewing - you can't tell the difference between certain words. Since you are being so big about this whole issue, I guess I will do you the honor of no longer be reading your recaps.
Reply
Flag
Nov 17, 2013
Umm, I was referring to myself as the author. Since I authored the review, and was saying it should be clear that I'm the person who authored the review.

"Nobody is forced to read my reviews. It is pretty clear who the author is, right?"
Reply
Flag
Nov 17, 2013
Oh ok. My bad. That's not how I understood it. I really misunderstood that part. I thought that you didn't want to name ME as the person who you are addressing in that paragraph so you referred to ME as "the author". That is completely my bad and I apologise.
Flag
Nov 16, 2013
I disagree. Saying issues about suspension of disbelief is basically giving writers a free pass which is flat out dumb.

Yeah, a show like the vampire diaries has enough holes in its mythologies you could drive entire plantes through. But it also has other things that can compesnate for that.

Haven is not the same. It's big compensation is the mystery thriller and when they that makes absolutely no sense, the whole show goes down the drain. See Lost.

To me, this season started off rather well, but is seriously declining since they started the whole evil William plot.
1
Reply
Flag
Follow this Show
Members
5,591