early episode reviews

[gevmage]

I came over from Wil Wheaton's blog, so I started with eps 5 and 7, but now I'm going through some of the older episodes.

I watched episode 0001 earlier today. I don't really have any specific comments about that episode. I'm really impressed, though, by what they did with absolutely no set pieces. I think the set of that episode consisted of a single blank, white screen wall, a cube, and a few plastic chairs. It makes the later episodes I've seen look positively lush in comparison. The professionalism showed by the fact that this didn't stand out during the episode; I noticed the lack of set dressing because I was specifically looking, it wasn't distracting at all.

More later...

Craig Steffen (http://www.craigsteffen.net/blog/)

[crumbles]

More later...

Link to my blog for some random reason like we need to hear what you think about this show. Heaven forbid if we actually think for ourselves. (www.google.com)

Can't wait.... </sarcastic>

[gevmage]

[post deleted because it was feeding a troll]

[gevmage]

This a good episode overall. I can see things starting to click between Hahn and Diane.

Hey a couch--cool!

The media discussion was interesting, but it could have done quite well without the background music. That was a little distracting.

Diane: Yes! After the long (and informative) discussion, I really like that you ask the fundamental question, "why is this better than Tivo?".

The analysis of the photo printers was great. That's really the bottom line; what's the extended cost per photo?

The segment with the matted-in images of the products was much better this time. The camera was still so the images weren't "floating".

Very cool, and clearly continuing to go forward and get better.

[originx]

I came over from Wil Wheaton's blog, so I started with eps 5 and 7, but now I'm going through some of the older episodes.

I watched episode 0001 earlier today. I don't really have any specific comments about that episode. I'm really impressed, though, by what they did with absolutely no set pieces. I think the set of that episode consisted of a single blank, white screen wall, a cube, and a few plastic chairs. It makes the later episodes I've seen look positively lush in comparison. The professionalism showed by the fact that this didn't stand out during the episode; I noticed the lack of set dressing because I was specifically looking, it wasn't distracting at all.

More later...

Craig Steffen (http://www.craigsteffen.net/blog/)


So Wil Wheaton the dude from Star Trek: TNG is on this show?

Why didn't anyone say so?

[gevmage]

So Wil Wheaton the dude from Star Trek: TNG is on this show?

Why didn't anyone say so?

Well Will himself only announced recently (http://wilwheaton.typepad.com/wwdnbackup/2006/11/all_good_things.html) that he was on the show, after episode 7. I guess he wanted to have more than on example in the can before pushing it out to the viewers.

There are a few threads on these boards that make it clear that others here have known that he was on, and debating whether that was a good thing.

[gevmage]

[Huh. My review of episode 2 seems to have been eaten. Just the salient points then:]

Is that a travelling matte <laughter>? The floating image on the front of the cube was a little distracting here.

The driving contest was pretty funny, although it ran a little long.

I really really liked that segment overall. In the past two business trips that I've been on, I've driven in cabs where the driver used a Megellan of some sort. Your experience has prompted me to think about shopping for one.

[crumbles]

Let's see...maybe the hosts themselves suggested people log into the forums and post what they think of the show?Yes, they do want that, and I have no problem with that. You said: "More later" and then linked to your blog as if you were going to be doing a review of the episode on your blog, instead of discussing it in here. There's a difference.

It's called dialogue.Why is it when people post the definition of something, they think they've made this awesome point? Great dude, all you've shown is that you know how to look up a definition. That's so ****ing impressive. I'm flabbergasted. If only one day I too can look up words, I will be right up there on your level.

Again, posting a blog on your site as a review (which is what you were inferring) is not a two sided conversation. It's you saying what you think, and that's it. Posting an opinion on this forum waiting for others opinions, ideas, and speculations is a whole other idea.

But then again, you already posted the definition, so you knew that, right?

[gevmage]

[this post also deleted because it was feeding a troll]

[crumbles]

No I wasn't.Yes you were. Whether or not you actually see that's what you did, is a different issue.

Just like you do, at the end of your posts, you post a link to mattandthat.comYes, however, the difference between you and me is what I do is called a "signature." What you did was post a link to a site in your post. Here, let me slam you with one of your arguments:

"Signature:
Something added automatically to the end of a users post"

Ho ho, man, damn, I just totally slammed you. I posted a definition.

Look, it's not my problem you weren't smart enough to figure out how to add a signature to your posts. Technically what you did was against the REV3 TOS too. (but then again, they aren't accounting for really smart people like you...) So, don't blame someone else for your ignorance.

www.google.com (This is my signature, not a link to google.com)