What Am I Watching This Fall?
Well, if you really have to know the intimate details of my viewing habits... Not really looking for a debate on why I should watch a particular show – that’s why we have debate forums.
Just some people seem to find this interesting. Maybe some day I’ll rig up a webcam so when you’re done watching TV, you can watch me watch TV. It involves a lot of me sitting and typing recaps, though.
(Note: this adds up to about 16 hours of TV watching a week, give or take.)
Monday: Heroes, of course! It’s interesting enough to keep me going, secure in the knowledge it’ll probably be cancelled quicker and more inappropriately than Night Stalker last year. It’s got Jeph Leob on it, Tim Kring as the guy in charge (Misfits of Science - whoo-hoo!), and it’s got the edginess and originality that Smallville had for… oh, about half a season. Studio 60, I’m kinda watching to see what da buzz is about, but I was never a West Wing fan and this one isn’t doing much for me either. Also a Tales From the Darkside mini-marathon through October. Otherwise it’s wait to January for 24.
Tuesday: House! Despite a few off characterizations this season is still rolling along pretty well. My curse this year is with the departure of UPN, our local affiliate switched over to Retro Television Network, in the evening, which means Tuesday is now Mission: Impossible night. One of my two favorite 60s American TV shows. Arrgh, another two hours of my life lost to the tube.
Wednesday: Missed the first episode of Jericho tried the second one, kinda liked it, kinda not. Will probably stick with it. Lost, have to follow along to get those hints of vague things that might be answers. Blade is gone for the season (and apparently cancelled permanently). Thanks, SpikeTV, for removing the one original show on your station I liked.
Thursday: The killer night for my schedule. Smallville and Supernatural, got to keep up. And RTN strikes again because my other favorite 60s show, Wild Wild West, is on for two hours.
Friday: Well, with the SciFi/USA biggies like Stargate and Monk gone, all I really have now is Doctor Who (2005) until that runs out after 13 weeks. Then back to the Stargates after the new year.
Saturday: Cartoon day! Legion of Super Heroes, Fantastic Four, and The Batman. Also the old school Doctor Who airs on our local PBS station, so have to watch that as well.
Sunday: Venture Brothers until that runs out in a week or so. The new remastered Star Trek is on at midnight if it’s an episode I particularly want to catch.
Things on my to-watch when I have spare time (ha!): tapes and DVDs of Planet of the Apes, Night Stalker, Firefly, and Friday the 13th: The Series.
-----
*shrug* So there you go. Enjoy whatever insights into my psyche that my viewing schedule mght give you.
Posted by Gislef, 10/03/2006 2:13pm
55 Comments
(Note: this adds up to about 16 hours of TV watching a week, give or take.)
Monday: Heroes, of course! It’s interesting enough to keep me going, secure in the knowledge it’ll probably be cancelled quicker and more inappropriately than Night Stalker last year. It’s got Jeph Leob on it, Tim Kring as the guy in charge (Misfits of Science - whoo-hoo!), and it’s got the edginess and originality that Smallville had for… oh, about half a season. Studio 60, I’m kinda watching to see what da buzz is about, but I was never a West Wing fan and this one isn’t doing much for me either. Also a Tales From the Darkside mini-marathon through October. Otherwise it’s wait to January for 24.
Tuesday: House! Despite a few off characterizations this season is still rolling along pretty well. My curse this year is with the departure of UPN, our local affiliate switched over to Retro Television Network, in the evening, which means Tuesday is now Mission: Impossible night. One of my two favorite 60s American TV shows. Arrgh, another two hours of my life lost to the tube.
Wednesday: Missed the first episode of Jericho tried the second one, kinda liked it, kinda not. Will probably stick with it. Lost, have to follow along to get those hints of vague things that might be answers. Blade is gone for the season (and apparently cancelled permanently). Thanks, SpikeTV, for removing the one original show on your station I liked.
Thursday: The killer night for my schedule. Smallville and Supernatural, got to keep up. And RTN strikes again because my other favorite 60s show, Wild Wild West, is on for two hours.
Friday: Well, with the SciFi/USA biggies like Stargate and Monk gone, all I really have now is Doctor Who (2005) until that runs out after 13 weeks. Then back to the Stargates after the new year.
Saturday: Cartoon day! Legion of Super Heroes, Fantastic Four, and The Batman. Also the old school Doctor Who airs on our local PBS station, so have to watch that as well.
Sunday: Venture Brothers until that runs out in a week or so. The new remastered Star Trek is on at midnight if it’s an episode I particularly want to catch.
Things on my to-watch when I have spare time (ha!): tapes and DVDs of Planet of the Apes, Night Stalker, Firefly, and Friday the 13th: The Series.
-----
*shrug* So there you go. Enjoy whatever insights into my psyche that my viewing schedule mght give you.
New Season - Old Rules
Not much to say, not a big blogger. But with the new season upon us, just a reiteration of a few basic rules and common-sense guidelines.
Sources
For episodes that haven't aired yet, please provide a verifiable source. That would be a reputable major fan site, or an official source. And reputable fan sites provide their sources anyway. If the site doesn't say what the source of the info is, I can't accept it. This policy helps to cut down on Internet rumors. Even the most reputable sites get it wrong occasionally. And I'd rather be 50% slower but 100% accurate, than 100% faster but only 50% accurate.
Format
Yeah, there's lot of guidelines here, but really formatting boils down to one thing: look at what's already done. Quote format, allusion set-up, TV & movie titles, names, line spacing, etc. Flip back an episode or two if there's nothing for that episode, you'll find something. If you can't figure out how to use the HTML, click on Edit and see the code.
Preview
Please check the Preview before hitting Submit. If the quote is all in bold, then there's something wrong with your HTML. Hit the Back button and check it. If there's only one word in the preview for your two-paragraph allusion, then you've got something in the wrong place. Hit Back and put it whre it needs to go.
Comments
The more detailed your Comments on edits and deletions, the more likely I'll accept. I don't really need Comments for new stuff, but if you're editing or changing or deleting, please say why. If you're changing something, say what you're changing. There's no easy way to see what you're changing by comparing it to the original.
And please, please put what you want to appear on screen in the Submission field, not the Comment field. That's another one of those things where I could accept it and try to explain in my response-Comments why it's wrong, but then most people won't see it.
Rejection Rate
I never look at anyone's rejection rate. It doesn't concern me, it doesn't bother me. If you're concerned about your rejection rate, read and follow the above and you won't have many problems.
I try not to reject based solely on formatting but if you submit a lot of stuff and it's all incorrectly formatted, I'll reject at least a few since too many people (understandably) don't read Comments on an approval. But (almost) everybody reads rejection Comments.
If you absolutely can't figure something out and have questions, PM me. But most of it you can figure out from above. If not...well, some stuff is going to get rejected. I've got rejections, everybody's got rejections, don't sweat it.
---
That's about it. Look forward to seeing your submissions!
Posted by Gislef, 08/20/2006 7:48pm
20 Comments
Sources
For episodes that haven't aired yet, please provide a verifiable source. That would be a reputable major fan site, or an official source. And reputable fan sites provide their sources anyway. If the site doesn't say what the source of the info is, I can't accept it. This policy helps to cut down on Internet rumors. Even the most reputable sites get it wrong occasionally. And I'd rather be 50% slower but 100% accurate, than 100% faster but only 50% accurate.
Format
Yeah, there's lot of guidelines here, but really formatting boils down to one thing: look at what's already done. Quote format, allusion set-up, TV & movie titles, names, line spacing, etc. Flip back an episode or two if there's nothing for that episode, you'll find something. If you can't figure out how to use the HTML, click on Edit and see the code.
Preview
Please check the Preview before hitting Submit. If the quote is all in bold, then there's something wrong with your HTML. Hit the Back button and check it. If there's only one word in the preview for your two-paragraph allusion, then you've got something in the wrong place. Hit Back and put it whre it needs to go.
Comments
The more detailed your Comments on edits and deletions, the more likely I'll accept. I don't really need Comments for new stuff, but if you're editing or changing or deleting, please say why. If you're changing something, say what you're changing. There's no easy way to see what you're changing by comparing it to the original.
And please, please put what you want to appear on screen in the Submission field, not the Comment field. That's another one of those things where I could accept it and try to explain in my response-Comments why it's wrong, but then most people won't see it.
Rejection Rate
I never look at anyone's rejection rate. It doesn't concern me, it doesn't bother me. If you're concerned about your rejection rate, read and follow the above and you won't have many problems.
I try not to reject based solely on formatting but if you submit a lot of stuff and it's all incorrectly formatted, I'll reject at least a few since too many people (understandably) don't read Comments on an approval. But (almost) everybody reads rejection Comments.
If you absolutely can't figure something out and have questions, PM me. But most of it you can figure out from above. If not...well, some stuff is going to get rejected. I've got rejections, everybody's got rejections, don't sweat it.
---
That's about it. Look forward to seeing your submissions!
Allusions and Notes and Trivia - Oh my!
Given the recent increase in submissions, seems like a good time to reiterate TV.com policy, what I understand to be Tv.com policy, and make sure it’s at the top of my blog so I can easily direct people there.
Sorry if it's long, but there's a lot to cover...
Number One - look at other entries on shows by the same editor. The best way to get something accepted is to see what editors have accepted before. Me or any other editor, look at what we've done in the past.
Number Two – the following applies to what I edit. Other editors may have different standards. I don’t argue with them about their stuff or tell them what to do, they grant me the same courtesy. See Number One above to figure out how they edit their submissions.
If you submit in the wrong category, I will reject and explain in Comments what the right category is. If you want to avoid a “bad mark” on your submission history, either check previous entries as above, or PM me first. I’m around.
As always, don’t use br or p HTML code. Don’t double-space between lines, either. It might look good in preview, but it messes things up when it gets approved.
Put your submission in the Submission box, not the Comments box. Readers won’t see anything you put in Comments, so putting an explanation there is useless. If it’s a new entry, “New Allusion/Note/Trivia” is sufficient as a Comment. If it’s a deletion or edit, explain in Comments and be very specific as to what you’re doing.
Remember to click on “More Allusions/Notes/Trivia.” Single-space after punctuation.
Base your submissions on your own viewing experience, rather then taking it from another site. We’ve seen most of those sites too, so if the material isn’t already here, we probably had a reason not to put it on. And if they get something wrong, us reposting it just perpetuates the error.
In my experience, initially the more you submit at one time, the more likely you are to put something in the wrong category, and the less comprehensive my explanation will be about why it’s being rejected. Making 50 submissions won’t impress me so take your time, focus on one episode, wait to see what I accept and reject, then move on to the next episode. Most people who read this are probably already familiar with my editorial “style,” so once we have a working relationship then is the time to submit more. Unfortunately, it’s the people who aren’t reading this who need to see it the most.
If I rejected once, submitting the same thing again isn't going to help you.
Show and movie titles are in italics. Episode titles are in quotation marks.
On to the specifics…
1) Allusions - An allusion is an indirect or passing reference to an existing form of media, be it to another TV program, a movie, a piece of music, or a book. Allusions are prevalent in television shows, and some shows, like The Family Guy, make exclusive use of this kind of humor. When submitting allusions, always credit the original media being referenced with as much detail as possible.
An allusion must be a reference. It also should be specific. Either the character should be specific (“This is something like Kafka’s Metamorphosis”!), it should be clear from context (a S.F. character who is a fan of Star Trek referencing a Star Trek quotation even if they don’t say “It’s from Star Trek”), or should be a pretty clear in-joke by the writers.
If you're not sure if it's an allusion, it isn't.
Format an allusion with a quote on the first line (following TV.com standards for quotes). Then hit Return or Enter on your keyboard. Then provide the explanation.
Believe it or not, some stuff predates an association with a particular show. If a show quotes a book but that quote also appeared in another TV show, the allusion is to the book (the “original media”), not the other show.
Be complete, and provide a bit of background on the reference. If a character says, “Just like that peanut farmer of a President,” you quoting the line and simply saying “Referencing Jimmy Carter” is not informative. Toss in a little background. No more then one paragraph or about 50 of your own words. Don’t cut-n-paste from other sites.
A show referring to something in its own history and previous episodes is not an Allusion – that’s simply internal continuity.
If they explain the allusion on screen and make a direct reference, then it’s not an allusion. Thus if a character on-screen explains about Jack the Ripper, and the plot is about Jack the Ripper, you don’t have to submit an allusion about Jack the Ripper.
Word definitions aren’t allusions, so please don't provide a definition of a word a character uses, no matter how obscure.
Allusions should...allude to something. A character named "Venus" does share a name with a planet and a Roman goddess and a statue. But if the character has nothing specific to do with any of these, and "Venus" is just...well, their name, you don't need to submit an allusion explaining Venus. Just because someone or something in a show shares a name with something historical doesn't mean the writers are trying to reference the latter.
Promotional materials aren’t part of the episode and thus shouldn’t be submitted as Allusions.
The writers “borrowing” a plot from another show isn’t an Allusion. If it was a plot on one show, it was probably a plot on a dozen others. So it’s not specific, either. If a character notes a similarity of their on-screen adventures to another show or book or movie, then it would be acceptable.
Allusions as noted are to media - books, TV, movies. You can find a lot of historical non-fiction stuff in books and TV and newspapers, though, and even Family Guy references historical events. So cultural and historical stuff is generally acceptable.
2) Trivia - Trivia is any small detail or goof that might not be known to people who view an episode. Trivia is attached at the episode level, not the show level. It should be specific to what aired in the episode and not deal with off-camera events, which should be submitted in the "notes" form. A car license-plate number is trivia, and a producer walking off the set is a note.
I’m putting Trivia first before Notes because it’s easier. If it deals with what you see on-screen and deals with the “reality” of the episode, it’s Trivia. Trivia can be “cross-platform” if the show is part of a franchise. Thus Stargate SG-1 Trivia that ties into Stargate: Atlantis is acceptable. Stuff across the various Star Trek series, ditto.
Trivia is not for plot points. Plot points aren’t small details, and the people who view an episode typically know them.
If you submit Trivia and you talk about actors or writers or background music choices or directing techniques...then you’ve strayed into Notes. None of that is on-screen. “On-screen” to me means the story and the setting and the “reality” of the episode itself. Characters don’t hear the background music or notice the lighting techniques.
Trivia should be significant or at least of some interest. Yep, this is highly subjective – that’s why us editors get paid the big bucks.
Do not submit “first appearance of”-type material unless it’s of huge significance. Any episode of any series features a first or last or hundredth of something – again, this would result in dozens of such entries per episode.
Internal continuity in general is expected and again, there are so many examples in shows these days that listing everyone would take dozens of entries. However, if the continuity is obscure and “trivial,” it may be accepted.
Trivia isn’t for pet theories or what used to (vaguely) be called Analysis over at TVTome. These categories are for facts, not opinions. Discuss it on the forums.
As confirmed by missribs, Trivia submissions aren’t for back-and-forth discussion. If you disagree with an existing entry, Edit it or mark it for Deletion, and explain in Comments what you’re doing. Keep in mind that entries were scrutinized carefully before being accepted, so your odds of winning an “argument” are pretty slim. But it happens.
3) Notes - Notes are off-camera tidbits about an episode. They should contain off-camera events that deal with a show's production. They should not deal with on-camera events or trivia.
Premieres, finales, etc., are stated in the episode lists and don't need to be submitted. As yo might notice, I'm a big fan of avoiding redundancy.
If it’s not Trivia as above, then it’s probably production-related and we’re into Notes.
Plot points aren’t Notes, either. Plot points go in the Recap. If there’s not a Recap, write one!
In general do not submit “best known as” Notes for guest stars. Everybody is “best known” for something, somewhere – we could have one of these for every guest star in an episode. Folks can click on the cast links at the top of the page if they want this info. If there’s some kind of direct in-joke to an actor’s previous role, then it would be a Note, yes.
Do not submit “similar to something on another show” Notes. There have been tens of thousands of episodes of different series in TV history – I assure you if it’s been done once, it’s been a dozen times somewhere. And then we’d have to provide dozens of such entries per episode.
DVD commentary is fair game but please write in your own words rather then cut-n-paste. Ditto cut scenes and such.
-----
Hope that all helps.
Posted by Gislef, 02/03/2006 8:22am
26 Comments
Number One - look at other entries on shows by the same editor. The best way to get something accepted is to see what editors have accepted before. Me or any other editor, look at what we've done in the past.
Number Two – the following applies to what I edit. Other editors may have different standards. I don’t argue with them about their stuff or tell them what to do, they grant me the same courtesy. See Number One above to figure out how they edit their submissions.
If you submit in the wrong category, I will reject and explain in Comments what the right category is. If you want to avoid a “bad mark” on your submission history, either check previous entries as above, or PM me first. I’m around.
As always, don’t use br or p HTML code. Don’t double-space between lines, either. It might look good in preview, but it messes things up when it gets approved.
Put your submission in the Submission box, not the Comments box. Readers won’t see anything you put in Comments, so putting an explanation there is useless. If it’s a new entry, “New Allusion/Note/Trivia” is sufficient as a Comment. If it’s a deletion or edit, explain in Comments and be very specific as to what you’re doing.
Remember to click on “More Allusions/Notes/Trivia.” Single-space after punctuation.
Base your submissions on your own viewing experience, rather then taking it from another site. We’ve seen most of those sites too, so if the material isn’t already here, we probably had a reason not to put it on. And if they get something wrong, us reposting it just perpetuates the error.
In my experience, initially the more you submit at one time, the more likely you are to put something in the wrong category, and the less comprehensive my explanation will be about why it’s being rejected. Making 50 submissions won’t impress me so take your time, focus on one episode, wait to see what I accept and reject, then move on to the next episode. Most people who read this are probably already familiar with my editorial “style,” so once we have a working relationship then is the time to submit more. Unfortunately, it’s the people who aren’t reading this who need to see it the most.
If I rejected once, submitting the same thing again isn't going to help you.
Show and movie titles are in italics. Episode titles are in quotation marks.
On to the specifics…
1) Allusions - An allusion is an indirect or passing reference to an existing form of media, be it to another TV program, a movie, a piece of music, or a book. Allusions are prevalent in television shows, and some shows, like The Family Guy, make exclusive use of this kind of humor. When submitting allusions, always credit the original media being referenced with as much detail as possible.
An allusion must be a reference. It also should be specific. Either the character should be specific (“This is something like Kafka’s Metamorphosis”!), it should be clear from context (a S.F. character who is a fan of Star Trek referencing a Star Trek quotation even if they don’t say “It’s from Star Trek”), or should be a pretty clear in-joke by the writers.
If you're not sure if it's an allusion, it isn't.
Format an allusion with a quote on the first line (following TV.com standards for quotes). Then hit Return or Enter on your keyboard. Then provide the explanation.
Believe it or not, some stuff predates an association with a particular show. If a show quotes a book but that quote also appeared in another TV show, the allusion is to the book (the “original media”), not the other show.
Be complete, and provide a bit of background on the reference. If a character says, “Just like that peanut farmer of a President,” you quoting the line and simply saying “Referencing Jimmy Carter” is not informative. Toss in a little background. No more then one paragraph or about 50 of your own words. Don’t cut-n-paste from other sites.
A show referring to something in its own history and previous episodes is not an Allusion – that’s simply internal continuity.
If they explain the allusion on screen and make a direct reference, then it’s not an allusion. Thus if a character on-screen explains about Jack the Ripper, and the plot is about Jack the Ripper, you don’t have to submit an allusion about Jack the Ripper.
Word definitions aren’t allusions, so please don't provide a definition of a word a character uses, no matter how obscure.
Allusions should...allude to something. A character named "Venus" does share a name with a planet and a Roman goddess and a statue. But if the character has nothing specific to do with any of these, and "Venus" is just...well, their name, you don't need to submit an allusion explaining Venus. Just because someone or something in a show shares a name with something historical doesn't mean the writers are trying to reference the latter.
Promotional materials aren’t part of the episode and thus shouldn’t be submitted as Allusions.
The writers “borrowing” a plot from another show isn’t an Allusion. If it was a plot on one show, it was probably a plot on a dozen others. So it’s not specific, either. If a character notes a similarity of their on-screen adventures to another show or book or movie, then it would be acceptable.
Allusions as noted are to media - books, TV, movies. You can find a lot of historical non-fiction stuff in books and TV and newspapers, though, and even Family Guy references historical events. So cultural and historical stuff is generally acceptable.
2) Trivia - Trivia is any small detail or goof that might not be known to people who view an episode. Trivia is attached at the episode level, not the show level. It should be specific to what aired in the episode and not deal with off-camera events, which should be submitted in the "notes" form. A car license-plate number is trivia, and a producer walking off the set is a note.
I’m putting Trivia first before Notes because it’s easier. If it deals with what you see on-screen and deals with the “reality” of the episode, it’s Trivia. Trivia can be “cross-platform” if the show is part of a franchise. Thus Stargate SG-1 Trivia that ties into Stargate: Atlantis is acceptable. Stuff across the various Star Trek series, ditto.
Trivia is not for plot points. Plot points aren’t small details, and the people who view an episode typically know them.
If you submit Trivia and you talk about actors or writers or background music choices or directing techniques...then you’ve strayed into Notes. None of that is on-screen. “On-screen” to me means the story and the setting and the “reality” of the episode itself. Characters don’t hear the background music or notice the lighting techniques.
Trivia should be significant or at least of some interest. Yep, this is highly subjective – that’s why us editors get paid the big bucks.
Do not submit “first appearance of”-type material unless it’s of huge significance. Any episode of any series features a first or last or hundredth of something – again, this would result in dozens of such entries per episode.
Internal continuity in general is expected and again, there are so many examples in shows these days that listing everyone would take dozens of entries. However, if the continuity is obscure and “trivial,” it may be accepted.
Trivia isn’t for pet theories or what used to (vaguely) be called Analysis over at TVTome. These categories are for facts, not opinions. Discuss it on the forums.
As confirmed by missribs, Trivia submissions aren’t for back-and-forth discussion. If you disagree with an existing entry, Edit it or mark it for Deletion, and explain in Comments what you’re doing. Keep in mind that entries were scrutinized carefully before being accepted, so your odds of winning an “argument” are pretty slim. But it happens.
3) Notes - Notes are off-camera tidbits about an episode. They should contain off-camera events that deal with a show's production. They should not deal with on-camera events or trivia.
Premieres, finales, etc., are stated in the episode lists and don't need to be submitted. As yo might notice, I'm a big fan of avoiding redundancy.
If it’s not Trivia as above, then it’s probably production-related and we’re into Notes.
Plot points aren’t Notes, either. Plot points go in the Recap. If there’s not a Recap, write one!
In general do not submit “best known as” Notes for guest stars. Everybody is “best known” for something, somewhere – we could have one of these for every guest star in an episode. Folks can click on the cast links at the top of the page if they want this info. If there’s some kind of direct in-joke to an actor’s previous role, then it would be a Note, yes.
Do not submit “similar to something on another show” Notes. There have been tens of thousands of episodes of different series in TV history – I assure you if it’s been done once, it’s been a dozen times somewhere. And then we’d have to provide dozens of such entries per episode.
DVD commentary is fair game but please write in your own words rather then cut-n-paste. Ditto cut scenes and such.
-----
Hope that all helps.
For Editors - Show Forums
Okay, just to be clear, and hopefully get the news out to a wider audience, here's how it works if you're an editor.
If you're not an editor, us forum moderators won't take lock/pin requests on show forums from you. Contact the show editor to forward your request to us.
Hopefully this will all go away in a few weeks and you can pin & lock stuff yourselves. We'll see...
1) If you are an editor and want a thread on your show forum locked and/or pinned, use the moderation report pulldown. Report the first post in the thread. Use Strong, put in you're the editor, and ask us to pin and/or lock the first thread. We'll do it.
2) Exception - if you want to lock/pin your own thread, PM us. Currently you can't report your own threads.
3) At this time we can't unlock threads that are locked. Lock stuff with care.
4) If you are locking stuff on your forum for administrative purposes, as opposed to for TV.com forum/policy violations, we will re-mark it as Moderator Discretion - the person who created the first thread will not be penalized or have a mark on their permanent history.
5) If you don't want the thread there, or it shouldn't be there, mark it for deletion. Don't lock it.
6) Report violations of policy normally.
-----
Using the moderation system rather then PMing is the most reliable and expedient way to get your forum(s) moderated. Using the moderation system means that your request is going to all the moderators, with a better chance of someone acting on it quickly. Also, while the PM system has had its ups and downs, the moderation system has had occasional 1-to-2 minute bouts of blank-screening where you just have to keep trying, but to the best of my knowledge it has never gone down.
Hope that all helps.
Posted by Gislef, 01/02/2006 10:18pm
17 Comments
If you're not an editor, us forum moderators won't take lock/pin requests on show forums from you. Contact the show editor to forward your request to us.
Hopefully this will all go away in a few weeks and you can pin & lock stuff yourselves. We'll see...
1) If you are an editor and want a thread on your show forum locked and/or pinned, use the moderation report pulldown. Report the first post in the thread. Use Strong, put in you're the editor, and ask us to pin and/or lock the first thread. We'll do it.
2) Exception - if you want to lock/pin your own thread, PM us. Currently you can't report your own threads.
3) At this time we can't unlock threads that are locked. Lock stuff with care.
4) If you are locking stuff on your forum for administrative purposes, as opposed to for TV.com forum/policy violations, we will re-mark it as Moderator Discretion - the person who created the first thread will not be penalized or have a mark on their permanent history.
5) If you don't want the thread there, or it shouldn't be there, mark it for deletion. Don't lock it.
6) Report violations of policy normally.
-----
Using the moderation system rather then PMing is the most reliable and expedient way to get your forum(s) moderated. Using the moderation system means that your request is going to all the moderators, with a better chance of someone acting on it quickly. Also, while the PM system has had its ups and downs, the moderation system has had occasional 1-to-2 minute bouts of blank-screening where you just have to keep trying, but to the best of my knowledge it has never gone down.
Hope that all helps.
How Does Forum Moderation Work?
Since there have been some recent questions about this, and I'm not sure it's been explained in full anywhere else...
Forum Moderation at TV.com works in three stages:
1) The editor has primary control, although he has to abide by the Terms of Use and TV.com's forum policy, same as everyone else. There is currently no hands-on way for editors to handle those forums, but they can request that moderators (see #3) pin and lock threads for them and if appropriate, their requests are honored. On average there are probably 5 such requests a day.
2) The editor and the forum users can report threads that they believe violate TV.com's forum policy, using the pulldown tool at the lower right of each thread.
3) These reports go to a central queue which a volunteer team of 4 moderators have access to, although staff can look in as well. Reports are essentially randomly assigned and the moderator who fields the case determines if the report requires action. Such action can involve doing nothing, deleting the post (which replaces it with an automated message), deleting the entire thread, locking the thread, suspending the user, or giving a full report of all violations to TV.com staff and letting them determine if a ban is necessary.
I'd hate to estimate, but these days there are very loosely 50-60 reported posts a day. That can of course vary wildly depending on holidays, weekdays vs. weekends, etc.
-----
A third-party system such as TV.com's has two main advantages while still allowing editors to be personally involved, direct discussion, create threads of interest, etc.
A) As a third party, the moderators are unbiased and objective.
B) A small moderation staff insures greater consistency then having 100+ editors, each with their own approach.
Hope that helps.
Posted by Gislef, 11/23/2005 7:30pm
57 Comments
Forum Moderation at TV.com works in three stages:
1) The editor has primary control, although he has to abide by the Terms of Use and TV.com's forum policy, same as everyone else. There is currently no hands-on way for editors to handle those forums, but they can request that moderators (see #3) pin and lock threads for them and if appropriate, their requests are honored. On average there are probably 5 such requests a day.
2) The editor and the forum users can report threads that they believe violate TV.com's forum policy, using the pulldown tool at the lower right of each thread.
3) These reports go to a central queue which a volunteer team of 4 moderators have access to, although staff can look in as well. Reports are essentially randomly assigned and the moderator who fields the case determines if the report requires action. Such action can involve doing nothing, deleting the post (which replaces it with an automated message), deleting the entire thread, locking the thread, suspending the user, or giving a full report of all violations to TV.com staff and letting them determine if a ban is necessary.
I'd hate to estimate, but these days there are very loosely 50-60 reported posts a day. That can of course vary wildly depending on holidays, weekdays vs. weekends, etc.
-----
A third-party system such as TV.com's has two main advantages while still allowing editors to be personally involved, direct discussion, create threads of interest, etc.
A) As a third party, the moderators are unbiased and objective.
B) A small moderation staff insures greater consistency then having 100+ editors, each with their own approach.
Hope that helps.
My Recent Reviews
7.1
Good
|
Masters of Horror Deer Woman Avg Score: 7.87 Total Ratings: 138 Total Reviews: 10 |
What Landis seems to be doing here is a near-parody of an episode of the old Kolchak: The Night Stalker series. You've got the hardened investigator, you've got the quirky humor, you've got the strange series of serial killings, the bad monster suit, you've got the Native American theme (Night Stalker did two of them), you've got the quirky side characters, and you've got the open-ended conclusion.
I've never really overcome Benben's image as a schmuck from "Dream On," but he does an okay job here as the hardened cop beset by tragedy. Like Kolchak he's a skeptic that has to eventually face the conclusion something unnatural is occuring.
What's fun are the weird side characters. You've got Dana the morgue attendant, Einhorn the vaguely sympathetic boss, Fuches the jerk ("Shut up, Fuches!"), Bill the morgue assistant ("Why didn't you say hello to me?"), and the convenient "expert" (the casino manager) who just happens to provide our hero with the explanation.
The weredeer outfit looks about as realistic as the monsters in a Kolchak episode.
The humor is a bit overdone in spots, but that was typical in Kolchak, too, although without the fantasy sequences.
While Koclhak had its share of monsters that just disappeared at the end, as others have noted here the monster is a bit too ill-defined. There's no way to kill it, it doesn't have any real motive to kill, and basically it just goes away at the end. It's like Landis forgot to write the last ten minutes of the episode and just decided, "Heck with it, I'll have Faraday run her over with a car and shoot her, and she'll go away." The ending is pretty weak: it's surprising they didn't go with an ending of her showing up somewhere else and luring another man to her death. That would have least indicated the eternal cycle was continuing.
So overall I'd give it decent marks for humor, creepiness, and mild nudity. Can't go wrong with that.
Report Abuse
Posted Mar 22, 2008
I've never really overcome Benben's image as a schmuck from "Dream On," but he does an okay job here as the hardened cop beset by tragedy. Like Kolchak he's a skeptic that has to eventually face the conclusion something unnatural is occuring.
What's fun are the weird side characters. You've got Dana the morgue attendant, Einhorn the vaguely sympathetic boss, Fuches the jerk ("Shut up, Fuches!"), Bill the morgue assistant ("Why didn't you say hello to me?"), and the convenient "expert" (the casino manager) who just happens to provide our hero with the explanation.
The weredeer outfit looks about as realistic as the monsters in a Kolchak episode.
The humor is a bit overdone in spots, but that was typical in Kolchak, too, although without the fantasy sequences.
While Koclhak had its share of monsters that just disappeared at the end, as others have noted here the monster is a bit too ill-defined. There's no way to kill it, it doesn't have any real motive to kill, and basically it just goes away at the end. It's like Landis forgot to write the last ten minutes of the episode and just decided, "Heck with it, I'll have Faraday run her over with a car and shoot her, and she'll go away." The ending is pretty weak: it's surprising they didn't go with an ending of her showing up somewhere else and luring another man to her death. That would have least indicated the eternal cycle was continuing.
So overall I'd give it decent marks for humor, creepiness, and mild nudity. Can't go wrong with that.
8.1
Great
|
Star Trek That Which Survives Avg Score: 7.51 Total Ratings: 68 Total Reviews: 2 |
This episode tends to be one of the "average" third season episode in that most despised of seasons. The idea of some indestructible woman running around causing every cell in your body to rupture (ouch!), who is intimately familiar with you, and can appear anytime and anywhere, is suitably creepy. Lee Meriwether actually has the acting chops to handle the role of a computer programmed with the conscience of its Commander. Although the Kalandrans (who we'll never hear of again) sound like a pretty nasty bunch. Losira too, since she programmed the outpost computer to kill anybody who wasn't a Kalandran. She was compassionate enough for her duplicate to hesitate in killing... but not to program the thing to brutally kill people in the first place. Okay...
You'd think there'd be a more efficient way to kill intruders, though. Like "Spectre of the Gun," aliens need to come up with quicker ways to kill the outsiders.
The secondary crewmen are actually mildly interesting here, which is rare in the third season. D'Amato is played by 60s stalwart Arthur Batanides, and his line about not being frightened of geological phenomena is kind of amusing. The doomed Watkins actually gets a moment to try and bluff the Losira program: wish he'd succeeded. And Rahda (the show's first vaguely Indian crewmember) gets to be the one to figure out what really happened to the planet (even if it's kind of "duh"). Dr. M'Benga doesn't make much of his second appearance on the show but at least he gets to do something.
Sulu gets short shrift: Kirk gives him a hard time at least twice: comparing him to Chekov, Ouch! again.
Kirk and McCoy don't have much to do (and McCoy seems rather facetious). But watching Leonard Nimoy and James Doohan bounce off each other is pretty funny. Spock doesn't seem to have learned much from his failed captaincy in "The Galileo Seven." He gives Rahda a hard time for not knowing the precise time, and seems more concerned with his head then where what happened to the Enterprise.
Both climaxes are pretty climactic: Doohan milks the drama and last-minute save for all its worth, and its glad to see 23rd century tools still jam. Although this part doesn't make sense: okay, what's jettisoning the access tube going to do? If it's going to stop the ship's destruction, then why don't they just do it and not send Scotty in, in the first place? If it isn't, what difference does it make whether they jettison Scotty or not. And yes, the Enterprise gets to exceed its top speed yet again.
The climax on the planet is equally creepy although more because of the implied threat of a painful death. The landing party seems reluctant to actually _touch_ the Losiras. And there's a kind of "Well, we're going to starve anyway, so let's go into the Cave O'Doom and... die?"
Still, I generally give this a high rating based on Meriwether's performance, the generally creepy ambiance, the secondary crew getting a chance to shine this late in the game. It's enough to overcome the plotholes.
Report Abuse
Posted Mar 18, 2008
You'd think there'd be a more efficient way to kill intruders, though. Like "Spectre of the Gun," aliens need to come up with quicker ways to kill the outsiders.
The secondary crewmen are actually mildly interesting here, which is rare in the third season. D'Amato is played by 60s stalwart Arthur Batanides, and his line about not being frightened of geological phenomena is kind of amusing. The doomed Watkins actually gets a moment to try and bluff the Losira program: wish he'd succeeded. And Rahda (the show's first vaguely Indian crewmember) gets to be the one to figure out what really happened to the planet (even if it's kind of "duh"). Dr. M'Benga doesn't make much of his second appearance on the show but at least he gets to do something.
Sulu gets short shrift: Kirk gives him a hard time at least twice: comparing him to Chekov, Ouch! again.
Kirk and McCoy don't have much to do (and McCoy seems rather facetious). But watching Leonard Nimoy and James Doohan bounce off each other is pretty funny. Spock doesn't seem to have learned much from his failed captaincy in "The Galileo Seven." He gives Rahda a hard time for not knowing the precise time, and seems more concerned with his head then where what happened to the Enterprise.
Both climaxes are pretty climactic: Doohan milks the drama and last-minute save for all its worth, and its glad to see 23rd century tools still jam. Although this part doesn't make sense: okay, what's jettisoning the access tube going to do? If it's going to stop the ship's destruction, then why don't they just do it and not send Scotty in, in the first place? If it isn't, what difference does it make whether they jettison Scotty or not. And yes, the Enterprise gets to exceed its top speed yet again.
The climax on the planet is equally creepy although more because of the implied threat of a painful death. The landing party seems reluctant to actually _touch_ the Losiras. And there's a kind of "Well, we're going to starve anyway, so let's go into the Cave O'Doom and... die?"
Still, I generally give this a high rating based on Meriwether's performance, the generally creepy ambiance, the secondary crew getting a chance to shine this late in the game. It's enough to overcome the plotholes.
6.0
Fair
|
Star Trek Let That Be Your Last Battlefield Avg Score: 7.80 Total Ratings: 82 Total Reviews: 5 |
Yes, this is the "let's explore racism" episode. And the "let's hit you over the head with racism" angle not withstanding, it makes some other good points on the nature of revolution (as noted, Bele seems to have survived his followers quite neatly) and authority (Lokai having a nasty fascist/political streak).
Performance-wise, Lou Antonio is the better of the two guest stars, both preaching to the crew his litany of hatred, and playing the hot-headed rebel who is also a political self-serving manipulator. Gorshin, unfortunately, comes across as the Riddler. His performance is almost mime-like at times (especially near the end), and other times he's the sneering megalomaniac villain. Still, he gives a good performance as someone who thinks he's from a superior race forced to consort with these "lesser" humans and a Vulcan.
The costume design does them no favors, though, especially Antonio in his skintight white tights and codpiece. Ugh.
The main problem is that the Enterprise crew is pretty much passive through all of this. Shatner gets some overly dramatic speeches, and Nimoy seems more emotionless then ever. DeForest Kelley seems to get out while the getting is good: maybe they thought his presence as a Southerner might strike a little too close to home about racism?
Also maybe it's the fact that even without their hatred, Bele and Lokai are pretty unsympathetic figures. Even before they were torn by the absurdly large 50,000 years of hatred (does such a huge number add anything to the episode?), they were pretty unlikeable jerks. Maybe if they were a law officer and an escaped slave wanted for murder who were gradually twisted into hatred, over a couple of 100 years, rather than a major political officer and the head of the revolutionary underground, they might come across more sympathetic.
As is often the case in the third season, they seem to spend a lot of time saving planets from disaster (see also The Cloud-Minders) and the 2008 remastery teams wastes an opportunity to show the Enterprise actually... doing something above Ariannus. The upgrade of Cheron's surface is nice, though.
Jud Taylor's direction is... odd, to say the least. As has been noted elsewhere, he seems to have been inspired by Gorshin's presence to do 60s Batman-style flourishes like tilted camera angles and zoom ins and outs on Red Alert signals. He never did a Batman episode, though, but his style here is unique compared to his other third-season Trek episodes. He also makes pointless self-destruct sequence suitably suspenseful. (And he remains gainfully employed at least through 2004.)
It's not that the racism angle is that heavy-handed for 60s allegory: in fact, as noted the Enterprise series reused the basic plot decades later. It just has a few too many contrivances. The crew here know all about the legendary semi-mythical Cheron, the two visitors have whatever convenient powers they need, Kirk lets them wander all over the ship, and then they just get off the ship and go ahead and kill each other. It might be some weird argument for the Prime Directive ("They want to kill each other, fine!"), but it still seems odd to just let two advanced beings leave the ship and hunt each other through the ruins (as chilling an image as that might be).
So B for effort, F for subtlety.
Report Abuse
Posted Jan 21, 2008
Performance-wise, Lou Antonio is the better of the two guest stars, both preaching to the crew his litany of hatred, and playing the hot-headed rebel who is also a political self-serving manipulator. Gorshin, unfortunately, comes across as the Riddler. His performance is almost mime-like at times (especially near the end), and other times he's the sneering megalomaniac villain. Still, he gives a good performance as someone who thinks he's from a superior race forced to consort with these "lesser" humans and a Vulcan.
The costume design does them no favors, though, especially Antonio in his skintight white tights and codpiece. Ugh.
The main problem is that the Enterprise crew is pretty much passive through all of this. Shatner gets some overly dramatic speeches, and Nimoy seems more emotionless then ever. DeForest Kelley seems to get out while the getting is good: maybe they thought his presence as a Southerner might strike a little too close to home about racism?
Also maybe it's the fact that even without their hatred, Bele and Lokai are pretty unsympathetic figures. Even before they were torn by the absurdly large 50,000 years of hatred (does such a huge number add anything to the episode?), they were pretty unlikeable jerks. Maybe if they were a law officer and an escaped slave wanted for murder who were gradually twisted into hatred, over a couple of 100 years, rather than a major political officer and the head of the revolutionary underground, they might come across more sympathetic.
As is often the case in the third season, they seem to spend a lot of time saving planets from disaster (see also The Cloud-Minders) and the 2008 remastery teams wastes an opportunity to show the Enterprise actually... doing something above Ariannus. The upgrade of Cheron's surface is nice, though.
Jud Taylor's direction is... odd, to say the least. As has been noted elsewhere, he seems to have been inspired by Gorshin's presence to do 60s Batman-style flourishes like tilted camera angles and zoom ins and outs on Red Alert signals. He never did a Batman episode, though, but his style here is unique compared to his other third-season Trek episodes. He also makes pointless self-destruct sequence suitably suspenseful. (And he remains gainfully employed at least through 2004.)
It's not that the racism angle is that heavy-handed for 60s allegory: in fact, as noted the Enterprise series reused the basic plot decades later. It just has a few too many contrivances. The crew here know all about the legendary semi-mythical Cheron, the two visitors have whatever convenient powers they need, Kirk lets them wander all over the ship, and then they just get off the ship and go ahead and kill each other. It might be some weird argument for the Prime Directive ("They want to kill each other, fine!"), but it still seems odd to just let two advanced beings leave the ship and hunt each other through the ruins (as chilling an image as that might be).
So B for effort, F for subtlety.
6.4
Fair
|
Star Trek Wink of an Eye Avg Score: 7.62 Total Ratings: 80 Total Reviews: 3 |
Unfortunately Wink of an Eye embodies all that is... average about Season 3. It's not a particularly original s.f. idea, since H.G. Wells invented the concept and Wild Wild West used it a year or so previously (and several shows have used it since). In WWW the baroque science concepts kind of allow for it, but in the "harder" s.f. Trek setting, it's just silly.
It's also very representative of Season 3 because the focus is on Kirk and Spock. Compton might have been an interesting character, a Bailey or Styles from the first season, but instead he's some schmuck we've never seen of, disappears before we even find out about him, and shows up only to briefly ignore the captain then come to his aid and die.
So it's the Kirk & Spock show. Kirk gets the girl and Spock plays detective. McCoy gets to whip up a cure in about an hour that has defied the best efforts of the Scalosian scientists over decades, but he doesn't have much to say.
Jason Evers is his dependable stolid "Hey, it's that guy, what's-his-face!" 60s actor. So the show really rests on the shoulders of Kathie Browne, Darren McGavin's wife and another one of those "Hey, it's that woman, what's-her-face!" actresses of the 60s. She gives a great in-depth performance here, and her "At least allow me the dignity..." speech is oddly touching. She varies between puckish, ruthless, and sympathetic, and her reaction when Kirk "adjusts" is well done as well.
Unfortunately despite Mrs. Browne's assets (and William Ware Theiss' costume design), the episode doesn't really overcome the bad karma of the goofy concept. It's watchable, but just barely.
Report Abuse
Posted Aug 20, 2007
It's also very representative of Season 3 because the focus is on Kirk and Spock. Compton might have been an interesting character, a Bailey or Styles from the first season, but instead he's some schmuck we've never seen of, disappears before we even find out about him, and shows up only to briefly ignore the captain then come to his aid and die.
So it's the Kirk & Spock show. Kirk gets the girl and Spock plays detective. McCoy gets to whip up a cure in about an hour that has defied the best efforts of the Scalosian scientists over decades, but he doesn't have much to say.
Jason Evers is his dependable stolid "Hey, it's that guy, what's-his-face!" 60s actor. So the show really rests on the shoulders of Kathie Browne, Darren McGavin's wife and another one of those "Hey, it's that woman, what's-her-face!" actresses of the 60s. She gives a great in-depth performance here, and her "At least allow me the dignity..." speech is oddly touching. She varies between puckish, ruthless, and sympathetic, and her reaction when Kirk "adjusts" is well done as well.
Unfortunately despite Mrs. Browne's assets (and William Ware Theiss' costume design), the episode doesn't really overcome the bad karma of the goofy concept. It's watchable, but just barely.
1.0
Abysmal
|
Star Trek Spock's Brain Avg Score: 6.08 Total Ratings: 97 Total Reviews: 6 Users who agree: 1 |
(to borrow a line from another S.F. show's icon...)
Caught this on the remastered run and if anything it's even worse then I remember. First up is the bad bad music cues. They beam Spock's body down to the planet, Kirk looks at in, zoom in on Spock's blank face, and... bombastic horror/music sting loud enough to rattle the windows. Cripes, the Horta didn't get this kind of musical buildup. Later when Kirk and the guys fight the Morg guards the music is equally blaring, and again there's an inexplicable cut to Spock's blank face for a "reaction" shot. Here's a hint, guys: there's no point doing reaction shots if the people you show don't have any reactions.
I read Blish's short story adaptation and thankfully he omitted the whole remote-control windup Spock (which is noisier than the Tin Man from Oz: oil the joints, guys!). There looks like there are 10 buttons on the controller, and they keep hitting button number 1, so maybe they were rating this episode. One imagines Chapel helping McCoy perfect the mechanism.
There's also a goofy cut to Sulu giving a supplemental log reading where he says... well, nothing we don't know already. The syndication cut even removes his finishing line about Chekov camped out on the planet.
And of course at the end there's another god-like piece of technology that we'll never hear about again. Scotty even says he'd like a crack at it: why doesn't he or McCoy or the other 420+ crew just use it once each and dictate everything they know down. Then the Federation could be doing removals every week. Then again, we might get more episodes like this. Thankfully we were spared "Picard's Brain" in TNG. Although that's another bad thing about this episode: the title sounds like a bad 50s B-Movie. Also, if you're in the mood have a drinking game and take a shot every time they say "brain." Thankfully, you'll be passed out by the end of the episode.
And there's cringeworthy moments like Kirk throwing himself on his knees to Kara to beg her for a chance to visit Spock. Ugh. And the unflattering torture belts. And the weird directorial touches like a camera shot through the helmet onto Kirk's face, or the dramatic frenzied-eye closeups of McCoy during the operation. Nobody does frenzied eyes like DeForest Kelley, check out "City on the Edge..." for another good example.
Overall this definitely is a bad episode. All you can do is assume that everyone responsible for it knew it was a joke and wanted to pass that on the audience. Unfortunately, they seem a bit too sober-faced and you get the impression they really thought they had a winner on their hands. Oh well.
Report Abuse
Posted Jun 18, 2007
Caught this on the remastered run and if anything it's even worse then I remember. First up is the bad bad music cues. They beam Spock's body down to the planet, Kirk looks at in, zoom in on Spock's blank face, and... bombastic horror/music sting loud enough to rattle the windows. Cripes, the Horta didn't get this kind of musical buildup. Later when Kirk and the guys fight the Morg guards the music is equally blaring, and again there's an inexplicable cut to Spock's blank face for a "reaction" shot. Here's a hint, guys: there's no point doing reaction shots if the people you show don't have any reactions.
I read Blish's short story adaptation and thankfully he omitted the whole remote-control windup Spock (which is noisier than the Tin Man from Oz: oil the joints, guys!). There looks like there are 10 buttons on the controller, and they keep hitting button number 1, so maybe they were rating this episode. One imagines Chapel helping McCoy perfect the mechanism.
There's also a goofy cut to Sulu giving a supplemental log reading where he says... well, nothing we don't know already. The syndication cut even removes his finishing line about Chekov camped out on the planet.
And of course at the end there's another god-like piece of technology that we'll never hear about again. Scotty even says he'd like a crack at it: why doesn't he or McCoy or the other 420+ crew just use it once each and dictate everything they know down. Then the Federation could be doing removals every week. Then again, we might get more episodes like this. Thankfully we were spared "Picard's Brain" in TNG. Although that's another bad thing about this episode: the title sounds like a bad 50s B-Movie. Also, if you're in the mood have a drinking game and take a shot every time they say "brain." Thankfully, you'll be passed out by the end of the episode.
And there's cringeworthy moments like Kirk throwing himself on his knees to Kara to beg her for a chance to visit Spock. Ugh. And the unflattering torture belts. And the weird directorial touches like a camera shot through the helmet onto Kirk's face, or the dramatic frenzied-eye closeups of McCoy during the operation. Nobody does frenzied eyes like DeForest Kelley, check out "City on the Edge..." for another good example.
Overall this definitely is a bad episode. All you can do is assume that everyone responsible for it knew it was a joke and wanted to pass that on the audience. Unfortunately, they seem a bit too sober-faced and you get the impression they really thought they had a winner on their hands. Oh well.
Gislef
Last online May 13, 2008 8:35 am PT
Member since Apr 23, 2005
Profile views: 23962 (+ 37 new)
Last online May 13, 2008 8:35 am PT
Member since Apr 23, 2005
Profile views: 23962 (+ 37 new)
| Send Message | |
| Report Abuse | |
Stats
Level: 72 Completion: 43.15%
Rank: Happy Little Tree
Forum Posts: 14,438
Gislef's Shows Breakdown:
Action/Adventure 57: 33.9%
Science-Fiction 42: 25%
Drama 28: 16.7%
Animation 20: 11.9%
Other 21: 12.5%
Rank: Happy Little Tree
Forum Posts: 14,438
|
Submissions Accepted: 30,817 Pending: 10 Denied: 438 Total: 31,265 |
Reviews Shows: 1 Episodes: 79 People: 0 Total: 80 |
Science-Fiction 42: 25%
Drama 28: 16.7%
Animation 20: 11.9%
Other 21: 12.5%
Editor - Shows (94):
7 Days, Adventure Inc, Barbary Coast, Batman Beyond, Batman Gotham Knights, Birds of Prey, Brimstone, Cavemen, Challenge of the SuperFriends, Columbo, David Cassidy - Man Undercover, Eli Stone, Fantastic Four (2006), Firefly, Forever Knight, Friday the 13th: The Series, Gargoyles, Good vs Evil, Herman's Head, Highlander, Highlander: The Raven, House, Invincible Iron Man, Jake 2.0, Joan of Arcadia, John Doe, Jonny Quest (1986), Justice League Unlimited, Kolchak: The Night Stalker, Land of the Giants, Legion of Super Heroes, Matrix, Misfits of Science, Mission: Impossible, Mission: Impossible (1988), Monk, Monsters, Mortal Kombat: Conquest, Mutant X, New Amsterdam, Nightmares & Dreamscapes: From the Stories of Stephen King, Night Stalker, Night Visions, Outlaws (1986), Planet of the Apes, Police Squad!, Probe, Pushing Daisies, Reaper, Sable, Samurai Jack, She Spies, Smallville, Special Unit 2, Stargate: Infinity, Stargate SG-1, Star Trek, Star Trek: The Animated Series, Star Trek: The Next Generation, Stephen King's Kingdom Hospital, Stingray, Supernatural, Tales from the Darkside, Tenspeed & Brownshoe, The Adventures of Brisco County, Jr., The Chronicle, The Dead Zone, The Fantastic Four, The Herculoids, The Immortal, The Invisible Man, The Man From Atlantis, The Master, The Real Adventures of Jonny Quest, The Secret Adventures of Jules Verne, The Six Million Dollar Man, The Superman/Aquaman Hour of Adventure, The Time Tunnel, The Twilight Zone, The Twilight Zone (1985), The Twilight Zone (2002), The Venture Brothers, The War Next Door, The Wild Wild West, The Zeta Project, The Zoo Gang, Titus, Tracker, Tremors, Tripping the Rift, War of the Worlds, Wildfire (1986), Wildside, X-Men: Evolution Trusted Contributor - Shows (2):
Charmed, The Tick (1994) Editor - People (13):
ABBA, Chris Britto, Christopher Lee, Christopher Lloyd, Diane Keaton, Jacqueline McKenzie, James Pistocchi, James Tolkan, Jeremy Northam, John Glover, Leigh Whannell, Michael Seater, Olesya Rulin Trusted Contributor - People (2):
Joe Mantegna, Kyle Gallner
About Me
Favorite Shows Include:
7 Days, Adventure Inc, The Adventures of Brisco County, Jr., Angel, Barbary Coast
Friends
Tracked Blogs
|
Edward_Nigma Done with school...and moving across the country?! Monday, May 12, 2008 | 4 comments |
|
|
nilla_chelle01 The Doctor is Still In...audio form Friday, May 9, 2008 | 1 comment |
|
|
grailwolf GGL026 - TV Speculation and Welcome Rowan Tuesday, April 29, 2008 | 6 comments |
|
|
Teivan GameSpot on the Wii Thursday, March 13, 2008 | 9 comments |
|
|
GeorgeFergus Sci-Fi Sounds Quiz Saturday, December 29, 2007 | 10 comments |
|
|
smushmeg This has been one of those weeks ... Wednesday, December 5, 2007 | 6 comments |
|
|
snide Network Friday, November 30, 2007 | 4 comments |
|
|
emaldalani New shows!!!! Tuesday, September 11, 2007 | 5 comments |
|
|
missribs Giglio (no, not 'gigolo'...) Monday, July 23, 2007 | 20 comments |
|
|
cooncesean Looking for Beta Users! Tuesday, April 17, 2007 | 17 comments |
|
Friends' Videos
Pretend like you are riding the subway in NY
Super uneventful subway ride.
Aug 23, 2006 by missribs | 473 Views
Print
Email
Comment
Tag
Digg this

































