# Almost Human



## Drucifer (Feb 12, 2009)

FOX *"ALMOST HUMAN"* Gears Up Sunday, November 17th.

SOURCE

FOX Show Description


----------



## The Merg (Jun 24, 2007)

That looks good!

- Merg


----------



## LOCODUDE (Aug 8, 2007)

Liking the look of this.....


----------



## tsmacro (Apr 28, 2005)

Fox pushes 'Almost Human' premiere back two weeks

Viewers who were awaiting Fox's "Almost Human" will have to wait a little longer.
The upcoming sci-fi thriller was originally schedule to premiere on Monday, Nov. 4. But now, Fox says, it will launch a two-night premiere event on Sunday Nov. 17 and Monday, Nov. 18

http://tv.msn.com/tv/article.aspx?news=835411&ocid=tv_outbrain&obref=obinsite


----------



## Maruuk (Dec 5, 2007)

Will definitely check this out. Looks more intelligent than the usual lowbrow network sci-fi crapola. And some nice effects.


----------



## Supramom2000 (Jun 21, 2007)

I have LOVED Michael Ealy since Sleeper Cell!! None of his shows have worked out. I hope this one does.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

Every time I see an ad for this show it reminds me of a show a watched in my childhood:

Holmes & Yoyo

Apparently it didn't do too well, perhaps Almost Human will do better.


----------



## armophob (Nov 13, 2006)

Doug Brott said:


> Holmes & Yoyo


Oh no, how do I unwatch that video? Now that is all I will see when I watch the remake Almost Human.


----------



## Maruuk (Dec 5, 2007)

Hey, all they need to do is transplant that awesome 70's soundtrack over to Almost Human and they've got a hit! wacka wacka wacka.......


----------



## yosoyellobo (Nov 1, 2006)

armophob said:


> Oh no, how do I unwatch that video? Now that is all I will see when I watch the remake Almost Human.


Thanks for the warning.


----------



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

Doug Brott said:


> Every time I see an ad for this show it reminds me of a show a watched in my childhood:
> 
> Holmes & Yoyo


Should have called it, "Shuck & Shull"


----------



## lugnutathome (Apr 13, 2009)

was this the show that had the Jon Shuck character saying "the bunko squad" as his catchphrase? Been torturing brain cells trying to figure out where that came from.

Don "amazed one would admit to remembering that show well enough to know the title" Bolton


Doug Brott said:


> Every time I see an ad for this show it reminds me of a show a watched in my childhood:
> 
> Holmes & Yoyo
> 
> Apparently it didn't do too well, perhaps Almost Human will do better.


----------



## TomCat (Aug 31, 2002)

tsmacro said:


> Fox pushes 'Almost Human' premiere back two weeks
> 
> Viewers who were awaiting Fox's "Almost Human" will have to wait a little longer.
> The upcoming sci-fi thriller was originally schedule to premiere on Monday, Nov. 4. But now, Fox says, it will launch a two-night premiere event on Sunday Nov. 17 and Monday, Nov. 18


The show looks good, but FOX looks like a bunch of bumblers that can't make a decision. They did the same thing to _Rake _and to _Enlisted_, for two more examples just from this fall. And the pattern goes back much further. They also have a hair-trigger for cancellation along with being tone-deaf to what shows to put on and which of those on to put out of their misery. NBC and ABC don't look that much worse by comparison; CBS is the only net that seems to have a handle on all of this.


----------



## Drucifer (Feb 12, 2009)

Caught the pilot episode last night and I liked it.

Just wonder how much of the future landscape they can keep producing before some exec starts complaining about its cost.


----------



## seern (Jan 13, 2007)

Have it in the 'can' and hope to watch either tonight or tomorrow.


----------



## yosoyellobo (Nov 1, 2006)

Watch yesterday and plan to watch tonight. Like what I have seen so far.


----------



## Drucifer (Feb 12, 2009)

A hell of a lot less highway scenes and cityscapes in the second episode.


----------



## TomCat (Aug 31, 2002)

I think going forward to 2048 might be a bit far, and puts a lot of pressure on the set dec budget. Those cars look like something from 2015, not 2048. I would have believed maybe 2034, but 2048 seems too far out there in _Blade Runner _territory to be doable on a TV drama.

The show itself seems a little robotic (no pun intended), and a little formulaic. FOX has had a number of shows that were second-season that were better and did not survive, including _The Chicago Code, Terra Nova_, _The FInder_, and _Alcatraz._ Admittedly, this is not second-season, but a severley-delayed fall season show. But FOX also proved, with _Prison Break_, fall season or second-season, that they can mount good shows that have healthy runs.

But the negatives here are not enough to torpedo this show, because there are a lot of positives. The casting is dead on; you could not probably find a better cast, although none of them have real impressive resumes, at least not quite yet.

The dialog is well done, and even a line like "Don't scan my testicles, not ever" actually works pretty well when written in this particular context and when part of a dialog between these two actors. The most-popular procedural currently is _NCIS_, and they would kill to have that sort of chemistry over there instead of their interactions being all forced and ******-chilling instead of humorous, which is what I think they are vainly shooting for.

But AH accomplishes that with ease, right off the bat, so kudos for that.

So the show has promise, and if they develop it correctly, a lot of promise.

I am still a little worried that it is really at heart still just a mediocre procedural, and the sci-fi aspect will not be enough to make up for that. I'm not sure if they know what they are shooting for; is it a procedural? Or is it a character-driven buddy show? I think it needs to strive 100% to be both; if it succeeds 80% on one goal and 60% on the other, that just might be enough. We need to see some real meat (I don't want to hear references here on the forum about how the sexbots already filled that request), and some real writing brilliance, and they already have the vehicle and the cast to carry that off, so the pressure now is on the writers. Time will tell.


----------



## Henry (Nov 15, 2007)

seern said:


> Have it in the 'can' and hope to watch either tonight or tomorrow.


Ditto.


----------



## lugnutathome (Apr 13, 2009)

OK the pilot just shot by. No way seemed like 45 minutes of programming nestled in 15 minutes of commercials. It was that engrossing to me. Second episode also seemed too short. Yeah one could pick out holes here and there and in some fashion it's a bit predictable but the interplay between the characters make this interesting and entertaining.

Don "we'll see what the network execs think eventually" Bolton


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

I'm recording it but I'm waiting to find out it won't be cancelled before I start watching.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

Actor Michael Ealy plays the psychologically dysfunctional cop's buddy role well. I liked him in "Common Law" on USA. It is that interaction that could make this show work, though if Fox has big ratings expectations they may have a problem.


----------



## lugnutathome (Apr 13, 2009)

THAT'S where he came from. . . Been wondering where I had seen him before. I actually liked that show and it was the again the relationship between the characters that made it work.

Don "probably makes this one doomed too" Bolton


phrelin said:


> Actor Michael Ealy plays the psychologically dysfunctional cop's buddy role well. I liked him in "Common Law" on USA. It is that interaction that could make this show work, though if Fox has big ratings expectations they may have a problem.


----------



## Galaxie6411 (Aug 26, 2007)

Love this show so I am sure it will get canned. I also liked Common law, glad to see both leads in other shows already, although the white guy was killed off White Collar after only a few eps. However they are doing the makeup on the synthetics, be it with CG or actual makeup, it looks good, in that they do not quite look human. I am kind of surprised Karl Urban is doing the show, I figured he was "too" big to be doing a new scifi show for a network.


----------



## TomCat (Aug 31, 2002)

According to IMDB he is a successful actor, but really not "too" big. His Star Trek role has been about his only big role, and that is certainly a door-opener, but I do not find it surprising that he would take the lead in a net drama. He's pretty good; I'm glad he did.

Michael Ealy actually has one more credit on IMDB than Karl Urban (36 vs 37) but of course nothing as big as Star Trek. I could not get into_ Common Law_, which I am surprised to see only ran 12 eps--I thought it had at least two or three seasons. But I have seen him in a number of other shows and always thought he was pretty good as well. I think he may have found the tone for Dorian pretty quickly, and I am pleased to see how well he is doing in this role.

It's a pretty great cast; Lilli Taylor is always good and is well-cast here, as is Minka Kelly. I don't like seeing Michael Irby as a professional foil (I'd rather see him as a good-guy hero), so I hope they find some _detente _or at least grudging respect for each other as the show goes along. He is sort of the Kevin Alejandro character from _Golden Boy _here, although the role is probably a lot smaller.

So far we have no family components, no love interests or triangles, no Lex Luthor-like running nemesis roles. Maybe that is why at this point the show feels a bit unlayered and more of a pure procedural. Hopefully they will have a long enough run to add those components as things go along.

The Sunday ep sampled well, and the Monday ep nearly tied DWTS, which just edged it into a strong 3rd place.


----------



## Maruuk (Dec 5, 2007)

Love sci-fi and was hopeful on this. But the flagrant yet weak Bladerunner ripoff vibe, the stupifyingly generic bad guys, the bland dialog and obvious, derivative robot gags just got to be too much. Minka Kelly is gorgeous, but she was the only character on FNL that couldn't act, and she still can't. Can't see this escaping the early hook.


----------



## Cholly (Mar 22, 2004)

Just to be picky -- I agree that 2048 is far fetched. Cars don't look that futuristic. Segway seems out of place. Weapons appear dated. The producers did fairly well with Fringe, but I think this is a work in progress. I'll continue to watch it, but expect improvement or the show is doomed to a short run.


----------



## yosoyellobo (Nov 1, 2006)

Cholly said:


> Just to be picky -- I agree that 2048 is far fetched. Cars don't look that futuristic. Segway seems out of place. Weapons appear dated. The producers did fairly well with Fringe, but I think this is a work in progress. I'll continue to watch it, but expect improvement or the show is doomed to a short run.


Actually 2048 looks like what I expected 1998 to look like back in 1958. Still looking forward to my flying car and trip to Mars for vacation.


----------



## amh84 (Apr 19, 2010)

I watched both episodes last night and also couldn't help but think that the costs would quickly get out of hand leading to the series getting canned. But I've come to accept that the shows I enjoy usually don't make it past the first or second season.


----------



## Maruuk (Dec 5, 2007)

Actually, the second ep wasn't half bad. Much better writing. The running gags between the partners started to pay off, the characters were working much better, much better crime premise. Though Minka Kelly still has just once expression: that simpy little perma-smile, even in the middle of a crisis.


----------



## seern (Jan 13, 2007)

Watched both episodes now and will continue to record the show, I liked it the way is flows.


----------



## yosoyellobo (Nov 1, 2006)

Maruuk said:


> Though Minka Kelly still has just once expression: that simpy little perma-smile, even in the middle of a crisis.


What more do you what.


----------



## TomCat (Aug 31, 2002)

Yeah, she can perma-smile all she wants if its directed towards me.

I would like to dial down into one narrow aspect of the show, which is the Skynet paranoia of computers taking over. We have had this fear, sometimes irrational, and lately not irrational at all, since the 50's when automation appeared in factories in a big way. I often joke to my friends "the machines have won", because there are often moments when it seems as if they have.

And it really is not a joke, more gallows humor. AH taps into that in a serious big way. The emotionless MX's represent that pretty handily. And the irony of the DRN model being "too human-like" and therefore replaced by cipher-like cyborgs is really biting social commentary on that whole subject.

So that may be a running theme that can be a touchstone for the series. I know that idea resonates with me pretty loudly, as I work in an industry that has recently bet on technology as their future and has cut a lot of jobs now done by computers and even robots (and left us Engineers to create and install and maintain those systems).They shouldn't hit us over the head with it, but the idea that the future can and will be both utopian and dystopian at the same time is something to run with, especially since much of that future is already here.


----------



## tsmacro (Apr 28, 2005)

Well I watched the first two eps just to see if it was going to worth keeping a timer set up for it. Well it was ok, I really liked the two main characters and their interaction, that part seems to work really well. As for the rest well I'm willing to see how it develops. I'll keep recording it, not sure when I'll get around to watching, it might be one of those that I let build up for a few eps and then watch them all back to back to get a better feel for it.


----------



## TomCat (Aug 31, 2002)

That's a good plan, most likely.

I am not sure why binge-watching seems so odd to me. It just never has suited me; the closest I ever came was 3 eps of _NYPD Blue_ in a row, probably 18 years ago. I finally got the entire 62 eps of _Breaking Bad _in the marathon last month, but I have only seen 13 of them so far. At this rate they will last until 2015 or beyond (assuming the DVR lasts that long). I also have moods; I'll watch _Justified _nearly every week, never getting more than two eps behind, and then I'll let the last 5 eps of a season pile up and not touch them for nearly a year. No idea why.

But binge watching, now that it is available due to marathons, DVRs with large HDDs, and entire seasons released at once on Netflix, should be normal. After all, who reads one chapter of a dozen books before reading the next chapter, which is analogous to how I watch TV? Nobody has 14 current books sitting there with bookmarkers half-way through.

We normally read one book all the way through before starting another. Some people actually eat that way; all the potatoes, all the vegetables, then the main entree. That is even crazier than how I watch TV.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

yosoyellobo said:


> Actually 2048 looks like what I expected 1998 to look like back in 1958. Still looking forward to my flying car and trip to Mars for vacation.


I wonder how many years Popular Science has spent predicting flying cars. Does PS still exist? Would you be able to text and fly at the same time? I guess you'd get a FUI if you drank while flying.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Briefly put: I like this show. Hope it does well. 

Rich


----------



## tsmacro (Apr 28, 2005)

Rich said:


> Briefly put: I like this show. Hope it does well.
> 
> Rich


After watching the first two, I'm encouraged and am hoping it does well also. There's definitely room for it to grow and I hope it does.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

TomCat said:


> That's a good plan, most likely.
> 
> I am not sure why binge-watching seems so odd to me. It just never has suited me; the closest I ever came was 3 eps of _NYPD Blue_ in a row, probably 18 years ago. I finally got the entire 62 eps of _Breaking Bad _in the marathon last month, but I have only seen 13 of them so far. At this rate they will last until 2015 or beyond (assuming the DVR lasts that long). I also have moods; I'll watch _Justified _nearly every week, never getting more than two eps behind, and then I'll let the last 5 eps of a season pile up and not touch them for nearly a year. No idea why.
> 
> ...


I happened to mention to my doctor several years ago that I was reading nine books currently. Turned out I had a pretty bad problem with caffeine, especially Pepsi One (or Pepsi 1, I dunno) which, while low on calories was loaded with caffeine and was the reason my mind was so active I couldn't sleep.

I'd much rather binge watch than wait for weeks and try to remember what happened way back then. I recently watched the complete _Breaking Bad_ series from start to finish. Didn't take that long and I never lost track of what was going on.

Rich


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

Rich said:


> I'd much rather binge watch than wait for weeks and try to remember what happened way back then. I recently watched the complete _Breaking Bad_ series from start to finish. Didn't take that long and I never lost track of what was going on.


I don't think I could do that. Without commercials that's something like 48 hours of video.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

phrelin said:


> I don't think I could do that. Without commercials that's something like 48 hours of video.


Been doing it since the middle '80s. Nothing new for us.

Rich


----------



## Maruuk (Dec 5, 2007)

We're doing the Breaking Bad marathon thing right now, but just 2-3 hours at a sitting. After that it gets to be overkill. These new D* drives sucked up every single ep during the finale marathon without breaking a sweat.

Tom, I agree, some of these new running gags between the partners that surfaced in ep 2 are kinda fun, the thing about kids and the testicle analysis and the Minka attraction gag. I swear they got new and much better writers after the pilot, something that is likely anyways, pilots are written way early in the game.

Still, I wish they had less of these idiotic Quinn Martin-style gunfights. They were lame in 1961!


----------



## CCarncross (Jul 19, 2005)

lugnutathome said:


> THAT'S where he came from. . . Been wondering where I had seen him before. I actually liked that show and it was the again the relationship between the characters that made it work.
> 
> Don "probably makes this one doomed too" Bolton


If you really want to see Micheal Ealy, try to find Sleeper Cell, that was a great Showtime series form a few years ago.


----------



## CCarncross (Jul 19, 2005)

"Just don't scan my balls again"


----------



## TXD16 (Oct 30, 2008)

Finally had a chance to watch the pilot and it somewhat struck me as a semi-futuristic "Walker, Texas Ranger," which (in addition to being one great pun) is a good thing. It's been added to my Series Link list.


----------



## Supramom2000 (Jun 21, 2007)

If you really want to see Micheal Ealy, try to find Sleeper Cell, that was a great Showtime series form a few years ago.


As I mentioned at the beginning of the thread!

Sent from my SCH-I535 using DBSTalk mobile app


----------



## Maruuk (Dec 5, 2007)

Right back to a real dud tonight. Science fiction must have at its core premise a science-related plot dynamic. Or it isn't science fiction. Tonight could have been literally any cop show from the last 40 years with a couple of tech gee-gaws tossed in for chuckles. But there was nothing "sci-fi" about the core plot. Old as the hills. And just as worn down.

The producers seem to think that all you have to do to recycle every old cop show plot successfully is stick a robot in for the human partner and put us in a poor man's Bladerunner set, complete with quasi-Vangelis score. Instant fresh and entertaining buddy pic. Bzzt. Wrong. The audience ain't that dumb. Quinn Martin wrote this plotline in 1959, and regurgitated it over and over ad nauseam across TV's blandest and least inspired era on blurry little black & white screens. I only hope they sent a royalty check to his estate.


----------



## TomCat (Aug 31, 2002)

It did sort of seem like we were watching the guys climb 25 flights of stairs for the whole ep. And every single hostage situation on (every ep of) _Flashpoint _was handled more compellingly, and with added layers. This was just a straight hostage sitch. NBC has already proven how hanging your hat on just that might not be the best premise.

I kind of like the score, actually. It seems fresh to me.

Both leads are good but Michael Ealy seems to be a standout. He is really nailing that "almost-human" aspect of being a robot programmed that way. Sure, you need good writing for that, but ME seems to be bringing it home pretty skillfully.

I would cut them a break on originality; I think we recently had that discussion here anyway and the consensus was that originality is rare. After all, _Star Trek _(which came out before the TV and movie world had rehashed everything a million times) was mostly fistfights and running gun battles, and women being regarded primarily as sex objects. Granted, it was the vision, and the relationship between the three main characters that made it a classic, but the milieu they were in was pretty stale and derivative, even for an early stab at sci-fi.

I think AH has an actual opportunity to be a real iconic top-shelf show, like _X-Fil_es, or _BuffyTVS_, but so far they have not come even close to that level, although I really like the show and am probably all in unless it fades creatively.


----------



## Maruuk (Dec 5, 2007)

Agree on Ealy, he's doing a good job with what he's been handed. But couldn't disagree more about STOS. It was steeped in the classic 50's TV moral message premise which always elevated the silly fistfights with lizards and backlot trips to Hitlerville. Twilight Zone had it, even Outer Limits. The Big Message always shook out like a toy in a cereal box. The Kirk/Spock wrapup had it, Serling's VO had it, and even the Outer Limits VO guy delivered it. You always had to have a higher level meaning working all the time.

But not in shows like AH. The moral is...we killed the bad guys. Cut to 14 commercials. Cheapshot snark about testicles is not a higher level. What's next, the robot-doesn't-poop jokes? Inter-racial-inter-mechanical sex with Minka? Will she pop out Teddy Ruxpin 9 mos. later?


----------



## TomCat (Aug 31, 2002)

FIrst, this is a big net prime show, so it has fewer commercials than most shows on TV, and certainly not any more than any other big net prime show.

SInce it is 60 years later (not to mention the extra 35 years tacked on by AH) I'm not sure we need a moral to be entertained. _X-Files_ and _BuffyTVS did not_ have them, and they ran 13 years between the two of them. Tribbles were about as far from "higher-level" as you could get (still the worst ep because everyone was out of character), and lines like "I am not a merry man!" from STNG (as amusing as that was) weren't exactly Materpiece Theatre.

While I find your nod to the fact that 50's TV was somewhat curiously hamstrung by moral messages, something we forget, let's hold AH to the standards of today, not the day of our grandparents.

Is it at the level of _The Black List_, or _Scandal_, or _Justified_? Not hardly. Is it better than 80% of all shows on the air today? Absolutely.


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

Maruuk said:


> Agree on Ealy, he's doing a good job with what he's been handed. But couldn't disagree more about STOS. It was steeped in the classic 50's TV moral message premise which always elevated the silly fistfights with lizards and backlot trips to Hitlerville. Twilight Zone had it, even Outer Limits. The Big Message always shook out like a toy in a cereal box. The Kirk/Spock wrapup had it, Serling's VO had it, and even the Outer Limits VO guy delivered it. You always had to have a higher level meaning working all the time.
> 
> But not in shows like AH. The moral is...we killed the bad guys. Cut to 14 commercials. Cheapshot snark about testicles is not a higher level. What's next, the robot-doesn't-poop jokes? Inter-racial-inter-mechanical sex with Minka? Will she pop out Teddy Ruxpin 9 mos. later?


If you're looking for shows with a big moral message you're watching the wrong channel. If that's what you need and want you'll be best suited watching the Hallmark Channel.


----------



## Supramom2000 (Jun 21, 2007)

Now now! I love the Hallmark Channel!!  And I can watch it with my daughter, unlike on most mainstream channels. Even those on at 8:00.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

Heck it's been the place to see Catherine Bell in the "Good Witch" series of "movie" specials. That's almost must see TV.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Supramom2000 said:


> Now now! I love the Hallmark Channel!!  And I can watch it with my daughter, unlike on most mainstream channels. Even those on at 8:00.


We've been having problems with a lot of programming when our granddaughter is in the room. Have to look into Hallmark. She knows she's not allowed to say "those words", but it bothers me that she has to hear them here.

Rich


----------



## Maruuk (Dec 5, 2007)

MysteryMan said:


> If you're looking for shows with a big moral message you're watching the wrong channel. If that's what you need and want you'll be best suited watching the Hallmark Channel.


You couldn't be more off-base. "Breaking Bad", "Game of Thrones", "Boardwalk Empire", "House of Cards", all the most popular quality series on TV have powerful moral messages and grapple with issues of morality all the time. Why do you suppose we keep hearing Walter White repeat the Ozymandias poem over and over again? It's the moral underpinning for the entire show. I can hear Rod Serling, Alfred Hitchcock or the Outer Limits Voice recounting that very moral message poem at the end of one of their shows over 50 years ago.

Network pablum like AH simply doesn't bother because it's too much trouble. They give you white hats and black hats, and figure their audience of simpletons has enough trouble figuring out who's wearing which hat. Cop = Good. Kidnapper = Bad. Infantile cartoon lizard and duck sell insurance. The moral is: Broadcast networks continually pander to the lowest possible common denominator, and they bet their ad budgets that the concept of morality is far too "artsy" and "complicated" for the walking dead they assume their audience to be.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

Hmmm. I'm a little unclear about the grand moral message of Ozymandias other than "in the end we all die and the living move on without us while the memory of our having been here fades." In fact, "Almost Human" just dealt with that subject through an exploration of the meaning of death whether you are human or almost human. As Ealy commented:



> I think, for me, one of the things I like the most about Dorian is his sincerity. We've had some episodes where he's kind of come to this conclusion that there's an automatic protocol. When, for lack of a better term, the sh*t hits the fan, he has like an automatic protocol that takes over and he has to do things that are &#8230; he has to sacrifice himself in a lot ways. That's something I didn't see coming when I signed for the role.
> 
> It's been kind of interesting to watch that unfold. And at the same time his humanity and what he can learn from Kennex, it's just interesting to see somebody learn about friendship or learn about death from another human being. The themes of the show are defining what humanity is for us in this world.


Now I think the writing of this show so far is more than a bit derivative. But if they replaced the images of live actors with cartoon characters being voiced-over by the actors and moved the show to Sunday, I'm sure that Fox would not be getting so much criticism.

You have to begin with the fact that much of what News Corp subsidiaries do aims at the "least sophisticated" among us. Here's from the Fox corporate page (_*emphasis*_ added):



> Just over two decades ago, the Fox Broadcasting Company began with a single late-night series and a goal to diversify American television by providing a previously unimaginable fourth major TV network. Today, as FOX celebrates a quarter century in the business, it is the nation's most popular programming network among its target audience of Adults 18-49 (having won eight consecutive seasons in the demo - an industry record), _*and has consistently ranked No. 1 among Adults 18-34 and Teens*_, the next generation of 18-to-49-year-olds.


I sometimes forget that. My grumbling about them moving "Bones" to make room for "Almost Human" is really a waste of typeface as "Bones" is one of their strongest programs among the 50+ audience. We of that older audience simply don't exist for Fox.

So I can't expect that the showrunner of "Almost Human" will care whether I may have seen the same plot 78 times in the past 10 years and 780 times in my lifetime. A 16-year-old person does not have that background to become so jaded.

So when "a little bit robotic" human Det.John Kennex and "almost human" robot Dorian interact philosophically about death midst a bloody action picture... well, I have to recognize that this show won't exist on Fox if it doesn't have a high rating among 16-year-old boys. Unfortunately for the writers, it does not appear they are watching in droves.


----------



## Drucifer (Feb 12, 2009)

Rich said:


> I wonder how many years Popular Science has spent predicting flying cars. Does PS still exist? Would you be able to text and fly at the same time? I guess you'd get a FUI if you drank while flying.
> 
> Rich


The only thing preventing flying auto today is the knowledge that human will be flying 'em. We need to wait for when autopilot will be able to do everything.

BTW, there was a flying auto on the news the other day.


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

Maruuk said:


> You couldn't be more off-base. "Breaking Bad", "Game of Thrones", "Boardwalk Empire", "House of Cards", all the most popular quality series on TV have powerful moral messages and grapple with issues of morality all the time. Why do you suppose we keep hearing Walter White repeat the Ozymandias poem over and over again? It's the moral underpinning for the entire show. I can hear Rod Serling, Alfred Hitchcock or the Outer Limits Voice recounting that very moral message poem at the end of one of their shows over 50 years ago.
> 
> Network pablum like AH simply doesn't bother because it's too much trouble. They give you white hats and black hats, and figure their audience of simpletons has enough trouble figuring out who's wearing which hat. Cop = Good. Kidnapper = Bad. Infantile cartoon lizard and duck sell insurance. The moral is: Broadcast networks continually pander to the lowest possible common denominator, and they bet their ad budgets that the concept of morality is far too "artsy" and "complicated" for the walking dead they assume their audience to be.


Almost Human is about a anti hero (one who lacks traditional heroic qualities like altruism, idealism, nobility, fortitude, and "moral" goodness). Given that one can see why delivering a big moral message isn't high on the writer's list. Television is a part of the entertainment business. It serves a vast audience with different tastes. Not everyone in that vast audience is expecting a big moral message. They simply want to be entertained. Almost Human isn't for everyone. But neither are Breaking Bad, Game of Thrones, Boardwalk Empire, and House of Cards. Hence the saying "One man's candy can be another man's poison". The real moral is: If you simply want entertainment turn on your TV. If you always want and need a big moral message attend a church service.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Drucifer said:


> _*The only thing preventing flying auto today is the knowledge that human will be flying 'em.*_ We need to wait for when autopilot will be able to do everything.
> 
> BTW, there was a flying auto on the news the other day.


That's what always scared me about them. I know a lot of people that shouldn't be driving a land based car, never mind a flying car.

Rich


----------



## longrider (Apr 21, 2007)

Leaving the driver discussion out of it, I dont see it as being practical unless/until we develop some kind of antigravity technology. As long as we depend on aerodynamic lift the minimum speed of fixed wing or the downdraft of rotary wing will make it impractical for mass use.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

longrider said:


> Leaving the driver discussion out of it, I dont see it as being practical unless/until we develop some kind of antigravity technology. As long as we depend on aerodynamic lift the minimum speed of fixed wing or the downdraft of rotary wing will make it impractical for mass use.


Yeah, I always thought braking would be a huge problem. Bad enough on boats and ships.

Rich


----------



## TomCat (Aug 31, 2002)

phrelin said:


> ...I sometimes forget that. My grumbling about them moving "Bones" to make room for "Almost Human" is really a waste of typeface as "Bones" is one of their strongest programs among the 50+ audience. We of that older audience simply don't exist for Fox...


I don't think you can single out FOX as being a delivery service that wants to maximize profits. Networks that don't obey the same rules do that at their peril. The fact that CBS skews older is not because CBS is shooting for old viewers. While CBS is very good at being the top network they are having a dilemma with what median age watches, and they wish it were lower, but about all they can do is wish. _Elementary _would never be on another network; not because the other nets would not have it, they would kill for it, but because that sort of show goes directly to CBS first. Producers woo the networks first who they assume will give them the longest-running chance at being on the air.

I'm not saying that quality skews to older audiences all the time, just usually. Imagine a pitch to FOX for the show _The Good Wife. _Never happen. As writers get better, they also get older, and write about issues that appeal to older folks. ABC tries harder than CBS to get the younger viewers, but in a sort of lame, flailing manner. Who over 39 would ever be interested in _Super Fun Night_, even if it were even marginally good? As it turns out, those under 39 are not there either.

There are also good reasons why the over 18-39 demo does not wash for selling commercial time. One of the biggest is that those over 39 are smarter about buying habits and are not so easily seduced when Samsung makes a commercial about its latest phone that is actually a complete fantasy, a sort of thing which happens daily. Another reason is that when folks get ratings books in the mail they are too busy to fill them out and give them to their kids, who then fill them out with what kids watch. You can't get more unscientifically skewed than that.

Over-39 folks actually watch more TV. They are less-likely to DVR or skip commercials. But the impact just isn't there regarding number of views of a product's commercial (according to skewed ratings reports) translating into a like number of purchases.

So yeah, they don't exist. Neither do viewers who watch DVR-ed content more than 7 days later.

So every day, the 1950's business model of a captive audience watching commercials gets ever more absurd, and ever more out of touch. It's a failing business model, but there really isn't all that much to replace it just yet. Give it another 5-10 years, but the ratings system is essentially dead in the water.


----------



## yosoyellobo (Nov 1, 2006)

You would think that the rating system would be fully automatic by now.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

TomCat said:


> So every day, the 1950's business model of a captive audience watching commercials gets ever more absurd, and ever more out of touch. It's a failing business model, but there really isn't all that much to replace it just yet. Give it another 5-10 years, but the ratings system is essentially dead in the water.


I agree completely. It's no surprise that the Nielsen people have moved heavily into measuring on line activity. I have said over the years here and elsewhere that the broadcast network model makes no sense. It's not 1958.

First, comparatively few households watch the broadcast networks OTA from the local broadcast channel. The local affiliated broadcast channel model makes no economic sense at all. And even in a heavily populated DMA, the actual number of broadcast channels that would be economically viable without a network affiliation would be surprisingly small IMHO.

Second, the local channels seem to be a net-zero-sum game at best for the networks themselves. The networks could gain substantially as cable channels with a Monday - Thursday five hour "prime time + late night" competition that started at 5 pm EST recycling three times, again IMHO.



yosoyellobo said:


> You would think that the rating system would be fully automatic by now.


The problem is how to determine who is watching in the household, always the weak link in the rating system. To me it's unbelievable that any advertiser would try to target an age demo based on the Niesen ratings. Nonetheless, the Nielsen's still determine a lot of ad sales which is why I find it interesting to see what numbers appear in the ratings.

In the end, the 1958 model was based upon a belief that a the household of a family of 2 adults and 2.3 children would predictably after eating dinner together watch nighttime TV together with "the kids" going to bed at 9 pm or, in special cases, 10 pm.

Today, you can watch the ads on broadcast network TV for smart phones, tablets, and smart TV's, devices which effectively have turned the 1958 broadcast network TV model into the model of limitations for the 16-29 demo. Who in his or her right mind would watch video entertainment at a time that is convenient for the corporate network programmer?

Regardless of your age, if you like "NCIS", it makes no sense to watch 43± minutes of "NCIS" every Tuesday at 8 pm. And many of us in the 50+ crowd discovered that beginning with VCR's we could when we had time watch that 43± minutes in about 46 minutes of real time instead of 60 minutes?

Which comes back to "Almost Human" and Fox. Thinking about what allows "The CW" to continue, I could see "AH" games and other products aimed at the 14-24 male demo which, along with Fox getting $2 a month from 100 million American homes and some ad sales, would make this show a desirable "product" to own.


----------



## Maruuk (Dec 5, 2007)

I like how AH has little Amazon drones flitting around all over the place!


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

Maruuk said:


> I like how AH has little Amazon drones flitting around all over the place!


 !rolling


----------



## TomCat (Aug 31, 2002)

+1!

If Amazon was smart (and who's smarter?) they would buy product placement logos on them.


----------



## Reaper (Jul 31, 2008)

I like Almost Human, mostly because of the two lead actors and the fine, fine, fine Minka Kelly. It's good, light entertainment.


----------



## TomCat (Aug 31, 2002)

She is kinda hard to beat.

Lets get her out in the field.


----------



## Maruuk (Dec 5, 2007)

The babes in fellow sci-fi series "Black Mirror" give her a run for her money. And they put out on-screen.


----------



## TomCat (Aug 31, 2002)

OK, well tonight's in-car conversation was the best ever (the "Ken doll" dialog). I am starting to see this as becoming the iconic calling-card of the series. Keep it up. I also got my wish for miss perma-smile to get some field time. Who looks better in tight black jeans?


----------



## Maruuk (Dec 5, 2007)

The medium character/actress was terrific. She delivered and saved the show. The clone stuff was beyond trite.

I admit I was kind of in love along with everybody else with Minka when she surfaced on Friday Night Lights. But after a bunch of seasons where the goalpost had a better range of expressions and emotions, she turned into a Kendra Doll. There's just nobody home. And she's missing her chest plate.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

Megan Ferguson, the actress who played Maya the medium psychic (as opposed to a “petite psychic” on her good days), gave a great performance, and I don't believe I thought that because of the otherwise dearth of acting skills on this show. Or maybe it's just the absence of writing skills.

Last night the 20-something male nerds who write this show - even if they aren't 20-something male nerds they are emotionally about 16 - clumsily transformed the Captain Sandra Maldonado character (played by the talented Lili Taylor who really struggles to make the dialogue work) from a self-assured professional police supervisor to a woman in need of some kind of male validation which was then offered up as a weird complement I guess to create a possible alternative relationship.

And yet I find this show entertaining and if they were to add Ferguson as a regular and give whoever wrote her dialogue a lead writer position it could actually become a decent show.

Apparently this was filmed as the 8th episode though they aired it as #5.


----------



## Maruuk (Dec 5, 2007)

Great point about Lili Taylor. Give her a weakness, sure, but not a cliche where she just longs to be a frickin beauty queen. That's a cheap shot and demeaning to the character, plus it gives her no character arc to follow other than "Gosh, that handsome detective thought I looked cute!" This isn't 1960 and "Mad Men" or "The Apartment" where a woman's sole purpose is to please a man. It's supposed to be the FUTURE fer cripesake. That trivializes her character and makes her shallow. Bad move.


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

Maruuk said:


> Great point about Lili Taylor. Give her a weakness, sure, but not a cliche where she just longs to be a frickin beauty queen. That's a cheap shot and demeaning to the character, plus it gives her no character arc to follow other than "Gosh, that handsome detective thought I looked cute!" This isn't 1960 and "Mad Men" or "The Apartment" where a woman's sole purpose is to please a man. It's supposed to be the FUTURE fer cripesake. That trivializes her character and makes her shallow. Bad move.


Life's a circle. Maybe in this future society has abandoned political correctness and prefers men being men and women being women.


----------



## Maruuk (Dec 5, 2007)

Hey, as a man, I'd LOVE to go back to 1960 and play some grabass. Where's the doc and his DeLorean??


----------



## RASCAL01 (Aug 2, 2006)

Maruuk said:


> The medium character/actress was terrific. She delivered and saved the show. The clone stuff was beyond trite.
> 
> I admit I was kind of in love along with everybody else with Minka when she surfaced on Friday Night Lights. But after a bunch of seasons where the goalpost had a better range of expressions and emotions, she turned into a Kendra Doll. There's just nobody home. And she's missing her chest plate.


I could not find the chest plate either....other then that I've been enjoying the show.


----------



## TomCat (Aug 31, 2002)

phrelin said:


> Megan Ferguson, the actress who played Maya the medium psychic (as opposed to a "petite psychic" on her good days), gave a great performance, and I don't believe I thought that because of the otherwise dearth of acting skills on this show....if they were to add Ferguson as a regular and give whoever wrote her dialogue a lead writer position it could actually become a decent show...


I'm glad you mentioned her; she really knocked it out of the park. Where have I seen her? Maybe _Boardwalk Empire_. That girl can really act, and her personality makes her much more appealing than perma-smile, by a perma-mile. Her persona reminds me of Azura Skye.

Don't get me wrong, I'm sure an evening with MK would be pretty great, but once you get the sex out of the way, who is there to talk to? With the other girl, every minute would be interesting. She's a diamond in the rough.


----------



## Herdfan (Mar 18, 2006)

phrelin said:


> Hmmm. I'm a little unclear about the grand moral message of Ozymandias other than "in the end we all die and the living move on without us while the memory of our having been here fades." In fact, "Almost Human" just dealt with that subject through an exploration of the meaning of death whether you are human or almost human. As Ealy commented:
> 
> Now I think the writing of this show so far is more than a bit derivative. But if they replaced the images of live actors with cartoon characters being voiced-over by the actors and moved the show to Sunday, I'm sure that Fox would not be getting so much criticism.
> 
> ...


Bones has lost something for us. Not sure what, but it is not the same. Maybe it is the baby. Babies tend to kill shows.

Do like AH though. Probably never would have found it, but my daughter wanted to watch it since it has Karl Urban whom she loves as Bones from Star Trek.

Didn't really catch that until I typed it. One Bones (Urban) booted another Bones out of its timeslot.


----------



## TomCat (Aug 31, 2002)

Herdfan said:


> Bones has lost something for us. Not sure what, but it is not the same. Maybe it is the baby. Babies tend to kill shows.
> 
> Do like AH though. Probably never would have found it, but my daughter wanted to watch it since it has Karl Urban whom she loves as Bones from Star Trek.
> 
> Didn't really catch that until I typed it. One Bones (Urban) booted another Bones out of its timeslot.


Neat coincidence.

While we have now opened up that subject, I had to stop watching _Bones _a couple years ago. Once 30 eps are piled up on the HDD, the handwriting is on the wall.

I thought it started out strong; the chicks were hot, the whole "I don't know what that means" persona was really interesting, but they lost that somewhere along the way, or at least didn't write to it anymore. It also won me over to David Boreanaz, who I think was surprisingly terrific after his boring work on _BuffyTVS _(I never _could _see what she saw in him). The first year, the only character I didn't like was Hodgins, but they fixed that by changing his gruff character into a much more pleasing version in season two, and he became my favorite character. The addition of Saroyan also helped, she really floats my boat.

But, downhill from there, I think turning lovable Zack into a psychopath was a HUGE blunder, and the writing got so dippy for Angela that I began to really not like her at all, and then it devolved for the rest. The snappy dialog was all gone, too.Now its just a joke; they've "Moonlighted" the sexual tension out of the lead character's relationship, and there are only dregs of creativity left anywhere. They also wasted every guest star, including Ryan O'Neal and Billy Gibbons.

But here is where I think it really went wrong. Some shows are procedurals, and some are character-based and dialog-based, and some have all of that. Bones has always been a pure procedural that never gave the audience the satisfaction of solving the case. Sure, they solved the cases, but it was more of an afterthought, and we seldom understood the motivation of the protagonist or even were allowed to care. It always ended like "what happened. Is it over?"

So it was a show masquerading as a procedural, and never delivering on that identity. They made up for that with great characters and great dialog, but the dialog got crummy and the decline in writing made you hate the characters, and they have nothing left, except a loyal audience that is habituated into watching.

I thought Hart Hanson just lost it, or maybe was a one-note wonder who shot his load in the first two seasons, but then came _The Finder _from him which proved that to not be the case._ The Finder _was ten times the show that Bones had devolved into by then. I still don't get it.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

That and the absolute worst product placement ads I think I've ever seen.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Maruuk (Dec 5, 2007)

TomCat said:


> I'm glad you mentioned her; she really knocked it out of the park. Where have I seen her? Maybe _Boardwalk Empire_. That girl can really act, and her personality makes her much more appealing than perma-smile, by a perma-mile. Her persona reminds me of Azura Skye.
> 
> Don't get me wrong, I'm sure an evening with MK would be pretty great, but once you get the sex out of the way, who is there to talk to? With the other girl, every minute would be interesting. She's a diamond in the rough.


I always thought Luna Lovegood was the sexiest girl in Harry Potter cuz after you muggle her, she's still cool to hang out with.


----------



## Herdfan (Mar 18, 2006)

TomCat said:


> Don't get me wrong, I'm sure an evening with MK would be pretty great,


Plus she dated Derek Jeter. Given his history who knows what she might be carrying. So yes she's hot, but I'll pass.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

Various sites are reporting that Almost Human has been cancelled.


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

dpeters11 said:


> Various sites are reporting that Almost Human has been cancelled.


Entertainment Weekly reported Almost Human has been cancelled by FOX.


----------



## Drucifer (Feb 12, 2009)

Futon Critic, my go site for television scheduling, have it being cancel.



> LOS ANGELES (thefutoncritic.com) -- FOX has opted to pull the plug on its freshman drama "Almost Human," Deadline.com reports.
> The news comes despite the newcomer being the network's number two drama this season in adults 18-49, ahead of such renewed entries as "The Following," "Bones" and "Glee" in Live + Same Day numbers:


READ MORE


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

Typical Fox and scifi stuff. #2 drama in the right demographic and they still cancel it.


----------



## joshjr (Aug 2, 2008)

lparsons21 said:


> Typical Fox and scifi stuff. #2 drama in the right demographic and they still cancel it.


Fox is famous for it. I about killed them when they cancelled Chicago Code and Alcatraz. Both were very good especially Chicago Code and they were let go after 1 season. I recorded the Almost Human episodes but eventually deleted them off. I am glad I did too if the show is being cancelled.


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

Why delete them if the show is going to be cancelled? It was still a good show and it didn't have an interweaved story line that would really irritate when you hit the last episode.

I enjoyed it while we had it and am sorry to see it go. I'll add it to the every growing list of shows I liked that got cancelled after a season or less.


----------



## longrider (Apr 21, 2007)

As usual, I like it so it gets cancelled... I have to wonder if the reason so many sci-fi type shows are short lived is the cost of production. I know SyFy came right out and said that about Eureka, ratings were great but it cost too much to make. 

I also dont understand the "wait until it is a hit" thinking. I have had many shows that I really enjoyed only make it a year or two. Even a heavily serialized show (which this is not) can be written in way each season is self contained. Helix is a good example of that, The Arctic Biosystems story line is finished and had it not been renewed all it would have is a couple tweaks to the Ilaria Corp story to wrap it up.


----------



## Racer88 (Sep 13, 2006)

If you feel this is (yet another) bonehead move by those in charge of what's on your TV then please voice your support
https://www.change.org/petitions/syfy-save-almost-human


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

lparsons21 said:


> Why delete them if the show is going to be cancelled? It was still a good show and it didn't have an interweaved story line that would really irritate when you hit the last episode.
> 
> I enjoyed it while we had it and am sorry to see it go. I'll add it to the every growing list of shows I liked that got cancelled after a season or less.


Good thing to, as it was aired out of order. It's happened with shows that it's more important for, still remember the mess CBS made of American Gothic.


----------



## Herdfan (Mar 18, 2006)

My daughter was ticked off about this. It was one of 2 "family" shows we all watched together.

I wonder if someone else will pick it up.


----------



## armophob (Nov 13, 2006)

Are there any episodes "in the can", or can I delete the link?


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

I deleted it. I believe it was a 13 episode order, and all have aired.


----------



## TomCat (Aug 31, 2002)

dpeters11 said:


> Good thing to, as it was aired out of order. It's happened with shows that it's more important for, still remember the mess CBS made of American Gothic.


There are many of us who believe that if _Firefly _would have aired in the correct order, that it would have survived longer. FOX made the choice not to, and it was confusing.

But there are a lot of things that go into a decision to support vs cut and run:

ratings
how it holds the audience from its leadin
how it holds its audience after
the 18-34 demo
social media
sponsor friendliness
production cost
whether the production house is owned by the same network
how well the producers get along with the network, and standards and practices
how many eps it is from being able to reach a sweet syndication deal
how much will it cost to retain the actors past the first contract
what is available to replace it
whether there is a slot where it would be competitive against certain other shows
critical acclaim

And I have probably missed a few, but they all enter in to the decision. And pretty much in that order. But if you look closely it all boils down to how much money it can make.

So it seems a little oversimplified to bash a network for making an informed decision, especially by people who are uninformed as to all of those factors listed here. Bottom line, we don't really know why a show gets cancelled or saved, and in their position most of us would make the same business decisions.

Remember, _American Idol _would have never aired at all had not Rupert Murdoch's daughter liked the British version.


----------



## armophob (Nov 13, 2006)

Good I need the room. I kind of saw it coming with the conflicting budget. They tried to look like the future, but just did not spend enough to pull it off.



dpeters11 said:


> I deleted it. I believe it was a 13 episode order, and all have aired.


----------



## TomCat (Aug 31, 2002)

Especially the cars. You really can't expect to bolt a couple of window brackets onto a 2013 Charger and expect that alone to evoke 2048.


----------



## Reaper (Jul 31, 2008)

Too bad that Almost Human was cancelled. Though it was weak in a lot of areas, I liked the two lead actors and thought, all in all, the show was good, airy fun.


----------



## djlong (Jul 8, 2002)

It had strengths to build upon. But shows these days don't really get a chance to "find their legs".


----------



## armophob (Nov 13, 2006)

"Sweep the legs Fox!!"


djlong said:


> It had strengths to build upon. But shows these days don't really get a chance to "find their legs".


----------

