This was supposed to be a top 10 post, but I couldn’t limit this great character list to just 10! These are the top quirky characters as chosen by voters in last week’s poll. (Be sure to vote in this week’s poll here!) As an added bonus for this top 15 list (and as a thank you for all the actor retweets!), I’ve included links to actor twitter accounts!
Number 15: Parker from Leverage (played by Beth Riesgraf)
Continue reading Top 15 Quirky Characters on TV
This round of Monday Madness, it’s time to look at those crazy characters in the shows we love. Often, they’re on the sidelines – not the main character, their romantic interest, or the person in charge. They provide comic relief in otherwise serious shows, or are a main source of laughter in comedies. They can be indispensable, evil, or hopelessly inept. But they refuse to fade into the background, and the shows wouldn’t be the same without them.
This poll will be open for one week, and you can choose up to 10 of your favorite quirky characters. Be sure to spread the word so your favorites will make it into the top 10!
Even though there are 40 options on this list, I know there are many great characters I left out! As always, you can cast write-in ballots by leaving a comment. Want more of a say in what makes it onto the poll each week? Be sure to follow me on Twitter, since I usually ask for nominations for the next Monday Madness the weekend before the new poll.
Without further ado, here’s the poll for this week’s Monday Madness! Voting ends around 1AM April 16th.
Update: voting is over, but you can vote on this week’s poll here! Winners’ post here.
Who's your favorite quirky character? (Choose up to 10)
Total Voters: 6,353
Loading ...
Going from being a thief and a con man (as Despereaux on Psych) to being fooled by thieves and con men? No matter, I think it’s awesome that Cary Elwes is guest starring on the season 5 premiere of Leverage!
‘Leverage’ welcomes Cary Elwes | Inside TV | EW.com.
Leverage easily defeated Supernatural, but Rizzoli & Isles had the largest landslide victory of round one, sending New Girl off crying. Now the two champions face each other from opposite sides of the law.
Leverage teams up a former insurance investigator with four criminals who have specialized thieving, hacking, fighting, and grifting skills and together they help ordinary citizens by robbing the wealthy criminals, corrupt businessmen, and crooked politicians who ruined their lives.
Rizzoli & Isles follows Boston detective Jane Rizzoli (Angie Harmon) and medical examiner Maura Isles (Sasha Alexander), complete opposites and good friends who solve crimes and bust some of Boston’s most notorious criminals.
Which team do you want on your side? Leave your choice in the comments!
Update: Rizzoli & Isles won, vote for them here!
Leverage teams up a former insurance investigator with four criminals who have specialized thieving, hacking, fighting, and grifting skills and together they help ordinary citizens by robbing the wealthy criminals, corrupt businessmen, and crooked politicians who ruined their lives.
Supernatural stars Jensen Ackles and Jared Padalecki as Dean and Sam Winchester, two brothers who travel the country looking for their missing father and battling evil spirits along the way.
Which show gets your vote? Leave a comment below!
TV Breakroom is doing its own version of March Madness! And there’s a prize!
You will vote between two shows by leaving a comment with your choice on a bracket post (not on this post – though feel free to predict the winner here!). Every 6 days this month, I will close the comments, add up the totals, and set things up for the next stage of the bracket. I’ll link to all of the bracket posts here.
Every comment you leave throughout the month, whether to vote in the bracket or normal comments on other posts, will count as one entry toward a $15 Amazon gift card. Only one comment per post will count as an entry, and comments flagged as spam will be ignored. Contest begins on March 1, 2012 at 12:01 EST and ends March 31, 2012 at 11:59 EDT. Winner must provide email address and respond to winning notification within 3 days.
For a show to qualify, it had to air at least 5 new episodes between June 1, 2011 and February 29, 2012. It also has to be a US show (airing originally on a US broadcast or cable network, no matter where it was filmed), and I have to have seen at least 5 episodes of the show.
Here is the final match-up! The order in which shows would face each other was created by Random.org. Click the match-up to go to its bracket post and vote! Voting for this round ends around 1AM on March 31st, so get your votes in now!
Update – go here to see the winner!
Here are the 32 shows:
Hearing that Jim Caviezel was starring in this show was enough to make me try it out. The only thing I’ve seen him in before is The Count of Monte Cristo, but his performance helps make that one of my favorite movies. I haven’t seen Lost (tell me, should I add that to the list of shows I must try out? If so, why?), so Michael Emerson’s acting is new to me, and the “rest” of the cast is unfamiliar as well. (I’ll come back to the reason that’s in quotation marks.)
Person of Interest has an intriguing premise: After 9/11, the government had Harold Finch (Emerson) build a machine that could sift through all the data from cell phones, computers, and security cameras to predict future acts of terrorism. Finch found it could predict other premeditated violent crimes, but the government only was interested in crimes involving large numbers of people, so Finch built a back door into the system. The machine periodically sends him the social security number of a person who will be involved in a violent crime.
Finch hires John Reese (Caviezel), a presumed-dead ex-spy, to help him prevent these crimes before they happen. Their job is hampered by the fact that they don’t know whether the “person of interest” is the victim or the perpetrator, or when the crime will occur. A NYPD detective is also trying to track down Reese, though Reese is able to blackmail a dirty cop into helping keep her off his scent.
One of the drawbacks to the show is that I’ve mentioned the entire cast already. Both Finch and Reese are guarded characters who keep their pasts a secret and their emotions locked down 95% of the time. It fits who the characters are, but that makes it hard for the show to connect with its audience on an emotional level. Even though the individual missions tend to be highly emotional (teen girl hiding from her parents’ killer, war vet trying to do right by his dead buddy’s family, kidnapped child), they don’t compel viewers to watch the next episode.
Detective Carter, and the dirty cop Detective Fusco, are only minor characters, but don’t add much emotionally either way. I’m missing the camaraderie, passion, and humor of similar mission-based shows like Leverage and Burn Notice. There’s no funny sidekick or romantic interest (though the latest episode hints at the latter).
Yet in spite of these drawbacks, Person of Interest is still a great show. The episodes keep you guessing, and there have been some fun guest stars, such as Ruben Santiago-Hudson (Captain Montgomery from Castle) and Dan Hedaya (Rookie of the Year, Clueless). Because of the show’s emotional restraint, when the characters do show emotion, it’s vivid and poignant.
Person of Interest has recently been given a full season order, which is nice, since it will now be going up against not only The Office and Grey’s Anatomy, but Bones as well. And if you know me at all, you know what I’ll be watching Thursdays at 9.
Fall TV is about to start for 2011! Here are some things I’m anticipating about the shows I plan to watch, in the order of their season premiere dates.
September 13
“Ringer”
I’m hoping this show will be as in-depth and multi-layered as Veronica Mars. I don’t think the show will make me laugh, but as skilled as many of the cast are with dramatic moments, it may make me cry. Previews gave away maybe a little too much of the pilot, but with 3 seasons planned of twists and turns, I expect to be surprised quite often. It has stiff competition in its Tuesday 9PM slot, but I foresee an early renewal.
September 14
“Free Agents”
Previews show this to lean toward the bawdy type of workplace comedy I usually avoid, but I love Anthony Stewart Head’s acting, so I’ll probably give this show at least two episodes to prove itself to me. And since The Office has flourished with its UK to US transfer, I’d say the odds for renewal are slightly greater than 50/50.
September 19
“How I Met Your Mother”
A great cast and hilarious hijinks make a few off episodes bearable, and I’m pretty content with not having met the mother yet, since that means the show can continue longer. The twist of another wedding should add interest for long-time viewers and keep them watching.
“2 Broke Girls”
As the only half hour show in its time slot, and paired with the popular “HIMYM,” this show should do well by default. I’m not expecting much from it, just a few laughs, but I would love to be pleasantly surprised.
“Castle”
I’m positive Beckett’s not dead, as the premise of this show would fall apart without her, but I hope the events of the final moments of last season will have far-reaching effects on this one. I am not looking forward to the new chief. The absence of station politics is one thing I enjoyed about the show, so rumors I’ve heard worry me. But it would take a lot more than that to make me stop watching this show. Hoping for some more Whedonverse guest stars and Firefly references this season.
September 20
“NCIS”
Can’t wait to hang out with the gang again. With the start of season nine, this show is the longest-running one I watch, and it’s stronger than ever. Starting out with emotional turmoil for DiNozzo sounds like a great way to begin the season.
“NCIS: Los Angeles”
Unlike its sister show, NCIS: LA is picking up right when the last season ended. The only thing I ask for season 3? Don’t get rid of Hetty. If I had one other wish, I’d love to see Nate back as a regular part of the team.
“The New Girl”
With two shows already competing for my Tuesday 9PM viewing, I wasn’t even going to look at this show, but with the other Deschanel sister not coming back until November, I probably will check out at least the pilot online. But with strong competition on every other broadcast channel, the ratings will probably be terrible enough to make a renewal unlikely. It’s one saving grace is that it’s the only comedy in its timeslot.
September 22
“The Big Bang Theory”
This show makes me laugh more than any other. And it’s one of those shows that while you know the two of the characters belong together, you don’t really care how many detours they take along the way, because it adds new dimensions to the show.
“Community”
I’m still mad at the networks for making this and the previous show compete. It’s a little sad to think that cast will be juniors this year, so the show is most likely halfway over. It was left up in the air whether Chevy Chase would return to the group, but if any of the main 7 characters had to go, I’d prefer him.
“The Office”
The show proved it could survive without Michael Scott at the end of last season, so I plan to keep watching. While not every episode tickles my funny bone, I love (some of) the characters enough to tuning into their workdays for as long as they’ll let me.
“Person of Interest”
An intriguing premise and Jim Caviezel are enough to put this show on my to-watch list for at least the first several episodes. With Bones starting late, this show has the potential to grab a few extra viewers. Most of my action shows tend to be summer ones, so I’m hoping this will be good. Need to know more before predicting renewal, though.
September 23
“Nikita”
The new season brings a twist to the dynamics of this show, with characters switching sides, but I’m confident Nikita will make it work. My one fear is Lyndsy Fonseca looking like a powder-puff villain next to Melinda Clarke. And the show has a month to establish some viewers before Chuck comes in to try and woo them away.
“Blue Bloods”
This show has a great cast and interesting episodes, but doesn’t have the compulsive watching quality many other crime dramas do. I hope the second season starts off with a bang and adds a layer of intrigue.
September 28
“Suburgatory”
Alan Tudyk is the only reason I’m checking this show out. The fact that it’s unlike most of the other shows I watch may help it stay on my list. But it’s kind of funny that the only Wednesday night shows I’m interested in air at the same time and pit Whedonverse actors against each other.
September 29
“How to Be a Gentleman”
I hated the first preview for this show, but the second was a little better, so I’ll still watch the pilot. I have my doubts about this one being a keeper, though.
October 2
“Homeland”
This will be the first Showtime TV show I’ve ever tried out. But with Damian Lewis (Life), Claire Danes, and Morena Baccarin (Firefly), how could I resist?
October 3
“House”
I’m curious who the show will bring in to replace Cuddy, and how House will get his job back. I almost feel like the show’s starting to wind down, which is a shame, but it’s had a good run. Of course, this next season could surprise me and pick up momentum again.
October 12
“Psych”
It’s been way too long of a hiatus for Shawn and Gus, so I’m really looking forward to the return of my favorite fake psychic, and the boatload of special episodes he brings with him.
October 21
“Chuck”
Back for a truncated 5th season, it’s nice that the show will have the chance to say goodbye. I’m looking forward to a hilarious season with Morgan’s new role.
“Grimm”
I love the idea of this show. But with cult favorites Supernatual and Fringe vying for the same slot with a month-long lead, the ratings will likely be terrible. (Whose bright idea was it to stack three speculative shows against each other?) The reviews for the pilot haven’t been great. No big-name actors or even geek favorites. And Friday nights are usually the death slot. The plus side is that it’s created by some guys responsible for much of Angel, and has a great lead-in show with Chuck. Since I didn’t catch up on Supernatural and Fringe this summer like I wanted to, I’ll definitely be watching this. I just hope the studio will focus on day+7 and online views when deciding how long to let it run.
October 23
“Once Upon a Time”
I’ve watched the preview for this show more than any other. I just hope it lives up to the beauty and intrigue that glimpse conveyed, and there are enough twists and turns to spawn multiple seasons.
November 3
“Bones”
Having caught up on this show, I’m excited to be finally watching it in “real” time, without spoilers to mess up my expectations. I’m hoping the baby mania won’t overtake the show, but I trust that it will be an awesome season.
November also brings the return of split season shows like Covert Affairs, Burn Notice, and Leverage.
Immediately following Spike’s short visit, Anya enters the world of Buffy the Vampire Slayer. This was only my second time watching “The Wish,” so it was neat to see all of the hints at future episodes. The two that really stuck out to me were Vampire Willow’s “Bored now” and the fact that Buffy was in Cleveland, which we’ll later find out has a Hellmouth of its own.
But the episode begins typically enough, with Buffy fighting a demon (who reminds me a bit of Davy Jones in Pirates of the Caribbean), assisted by Willow and Xander. The three are still dealing with the fallout from “Lovers Walk.”
Buffy:Â No luck reaching Cordelia?
Xander:Â I’ve left a few messages. Sixty… Seventy… But you know what really bugs me? Okay, we kissed. It was a mistake. But I know that was positively the last time we were ever gonna kiss.
Willow:Â Darn tootin’!
Xander:Â And they burst in, rescuing us, without even knocking? I mean, this is really all their fault.
Buffy:Â Your logic does not resemble our Earth logic.
Xander:Â Mine is much more advanced.
Oz needs time to think things through, but Cordelia is cutting up and burning photos and trying to pretend Xander doesn’t exist. Her old friends aren’t welcoming her back, and Cordy soon comes to the conclusion that Buffy being in town is what started the downward trend in her life. The new girl in school is the one bright spot in her week.
Cordelia:Â Go ahead. Dazzle me with your oh-so-brilliant insults. Just join the club.
Anya:Â Hardly. Uh, actually, I’ve been looking for you. Ever since we met this morning, I was, like, thank God there’s one other person in this town who actually reads W.
Cordelia:Â But Harmony…
Anya:Â Oh, she follows me around. If that girl had an original thought, her head would explode.
But Anya is really the vengeance demon Anyanka, so when Cordelia wishes Buffy had never come to Sunnydale, Anyanka grants her wish. Cordy is immediately transported into an alternate reality where vampires rule the town. Willow and Xander are both vampires and the Master’s top henchmen; Giles, Oz, and a few others drive around trying to save who they can; and Angel lives chained up and tortured. After Willow and Xander kill Cordelia, it’s up to Giles to figure out what’s going on.
I’m always surprised when I read about people not liking Anya, because I love her! Emma Caulfield does an amazing job playing Anya’s hilarious facets – her cheerful literalness, her fear of bunnies, her delight in money – but adds depth to her character whether the moment is humorous or somber. I’m looking forward to Emma’s new project, “Ripped” as well as her upcoming guest appearance in Leverage. I also just caught up on her mockumentary web series, Bandwagon. It’s finishing up its second season (Oops, which is now it’s first season. The years-ago “first season” is now the movie – which makes sense, with the time gap.) , which boasts the addition of Yvette Nicole Brown (Shirley on Community), and I plan to do a full post on it soon.
It’s neat getting to see the changes in the characters in this episode, all of them still being themselves, but under far different circumstances. Vampire Willow brings out the mad-with-power side of her character, which we’ve seen glimpses of before, but Vampire Xander doesn’t seem to have kept much of his old personality. Giles lacks confidence, Buffy’s jaded, and Angel’s hanging onto the last thread of hope. It’s also pretty interesting watching who kills who in the final battle.
This is the first episode many people saw of Firefly, and it provides a great introduction to the show, perhaps even a better one than the lengthy, morally ambiguous pilot. The narrative opening gives viewers a concise overview of the setting, and only one conversation (Book talking to Mal) sticks out as thinly veiled exposition.
The bar fight encapsulates many of the elements that comprise the show – the Western motif, the hint of Chinese influence, futurist technology, and a lost war. In fact, that scene provides a much clearer emotional picture of the war’s effects on Mal and Zoe than the long war scene in the pilot does.
I absolutely love Jayne in this episode. From declining to join in the brawl (but eventually doing so) to grousing about jumping onto a moving train, to his reactions to Simon doping him – all of it’s priceless.
Niska emerges as a very creepy villain, and you just know that not completing his job is going to going to come back to haunt the crew. And the “two by two, hands of blue” make their first appearance.
Zoë: Sir, is there some information, we might maybe be lacking, as to why there’s an entire fedsquad sitting on this train?
Mal: It doesn’t concern us.
Zoë: It kinda concerns me.
Mal: I mean they’re not protecting the goods. If they were, they wouldn’t be letting people past ’em.
Zoë: You don’t think that changes the situation a bit?
Mal: I surely do. Makes it more fun.
Zoë: Sir, I think you have a problem with your brain being missing.
Mal: Come on. We stick to the plan, we get the goods, we’re back on Serenity before the train even reaches Paradiso, only now we do it under the noses of twenty trained Alliance feds and that makes them look all manner of stupid. Hell, this job, I would pull for free.
Zoë: Then can I have your share?
Mal: No.
Zoë: If you die can I have your share?
Mal: Yes.
Mal comes across as far more humorous than dark in this episode. He also is more clearly a thief with a heart of gold, in line with shows like Leverage. Far more likable that his character in the pilot. In the pilot, other characters make reference to what sort of man Mal is, but it this episode, we get to see the man he is.
Warehouse 13 briefly flitted by my radar when it first began airing, but the premise didn’t capture me and I didn’t recognize the actors. Over the years I heard mostly good things about it, so when an acquaintance recommended it, I got the first disc from Netflix to try it out.
The pilot was a little slow (being a double-length premier at 90 minutes long) but interesting. The two main characters had a Bones- and Castle-like opposites attract chemistry, and I loved their new boss’s penchant for retro gadgets and milk and cookies. The show’s focus on supernatural objects rather than supernatural beings helped it stand apart from other speculative shows.
Eddie McClintock and Joanne Kelly play U.S. Secret Service agents Pete Lattimer and Myka Bering, who are ordered to the mysterious Warehouse 13 after saving the President. The warehouse is managed by the eccentric Artie Nielsen, played by Saul Rubinek, who I know best from the pilot of Leverage (I’ve seen the pilot so many times I can quote just about every line). He tells them the warehouse stores items with unique or mysterious qualities, and their new job is to collect them.
The second episode runs a little tighter, and guest stars Tricia Helfer (best known for Battlestar Galactica, but she was also in several episodes of Burn Notice) as an FBI agent reluctant to share information with a team who can’t even explain their reason for being there. It was about halfway through this episode that I knew I would keep watching this show. And as the opening credits ran for episode three, I knew I loved Warehouse 13.
At only three episodes in, it’s hard to compare it to shows I’ve watched for years, but I’d put it on par with Alphas, a fellow SyFy show I’ve recently fallen in love with. Definitely better than my experience so far with Supernatural and Suits, though not as amazing as Veronica Mars and Bones. I love the steampunk feel and the sibling-like bickering between the partners, and in many ways so far the show seems like a weird mishmash of Bones and Angel (minus David Boreanaz).
But Netflix isn’t going to cut it, not if I’m going to be rewatching episodes with a friend. So I just bought myself season one.
I recently watched a new episode of Leverage (“The Grave Danger Job”), and it started out with the scene pictured above – Hardison waking up in a coffin. Then the opening credits rolled, and the next scene had the dreaded words at the bottom: Two Weeks Earlier.
A lot of shows use this technique at one time or another, giving audiences a glimpse of the climax to hook them into watching the episode. Even the entire premise of How I Met Your Mother is based on this – the beginning scenes in many episodes are set in 2030, and the narrator in every episode is 2030 Ted.
For some reason, most of the time TV shows are structured this way, it really annoys me. I’m the type of person who doesn’t look at the last few pages of a book ahead of time, tries to watch movie sequels in the correct order, and puts off reading book two in a series until I’ve read book one. I feel these flash forward clips steal the thunder from the climax, and my interest drops away, both when they let me know that the next scene is however many days in the past, and when they return to the climax moment in the regular narrative.
Yet I didn’t mind when they showed a clip of Hardison in the coffin on a preview for “The Grave Danger Job.” So it wasn’t the spoiler itself that bugged me. Maybe I was bothered because it felt like the show was cheating to drum up more suspense, when it actually cheapened what would have been a great dramatic moment.
The only time I remember actually enjoying a flash forward beginning was on an episode of NCIS: Los Angeles. It showed one of the main team members getting shot, and it was only later revealed after the event replayed during the climax that the whole thing had been a con. So they weren’t only conning the bad guys, they were conning the audience too. I thought it was brilliant.
A recent study showed that people enjoyed reading a short story more if they’d been given spoilers about the ending or the climatic twist. People who love reading the end of a book praised the findings, thinking they finally had justification for their method of reading.
I disagree. Sure, they got more pleasure out of reading the story, but that was because the tension was gone. The suspense had vanished. Suspense is what keeps readers’ attention through a whole novel. Suspense keeps people glued to their seats in a movie theater. Suspense keeps viewers tuning into most TV shows each week.
Knowing the end and/or the dramatic twists of a story (whether told through print or film) also ruins any element of surprise. You can only watch something for the first time once. Why would you ruin that first time experience with spoilers and knowing the end? I would love to somehow remove a few of my favorite TV shows from my mind to be able to again experience the wonder and awe and surprise of watching them for the first time.
Not that rewatching a show is bad, just a different experience. When you rewatch a show, you have the knowledge of how everything will work out in the back of your mind, which does remove some of the tension. But you’ll have forgotten little details that will surprise you along the way, and hints of future twists will pop out at you.
So I think that’s part of the reason I don’t generally like episodes that begin in the middle of the action, then back up to the beginning of the story. The writers are trying to mix second viewing elements into my first viewing, and I don’t want them messing up the only time I’ll watch the episode for the first time.
Do you like previews of what’s to come later in the story? Or do you prefer letting things unfold chronologically?
For a different twist, and since this is a weekend post, I thought I’d try something fun. BuddyTV just followed me on Twitter, so I stopped by their site and tried out a few of their TV show personality quizzes. I thought I’d share the results here.
No surprise here, though I think I might be more of a Ted if this was more of an internal personality test with less lifestyle questions.
Yay – I love Hardison!
I got Jane the first time, but I think Maura’s a better fit.
I do see quite a few similarities in our childhoods.
Don’t think this is really me, but I love the show!
Hmm, I usually get Zoe on these.
But – she’s not coming back next season!
Not who I was expecting to get.
I’m so glad they didn’t cancel this show!
Hmm – think the description should be a bit more gender-neutral.
I had a sneaking suspicion that I’d end up with this result.
Yeah, this was a pretty easy guess too – but an awesome result!
This was a no-brainer too.
I’m definitely more of a season 1-3 Willow.
Just the character I would have picked.
This show arrived at the perfect time. I was looking for something new to watch in December 2008, and most shows were on hiatus. While other networks filled the month with repeats and Christmas specials, TNT made the bold move of debuting Leverage.
The pilot, “The Nigerian Job,” sets up the premise for the show (spoilers for the episode follow). Nathan Ford, a former insurance investigator whose life is in shambles, is hired to oversee three crooks while they retrieve stolen property. Alec Hardison (a gifted hacker), Eliot Spencer (an expert fighter), and Parker (a master thief) have one MO – they always work alone. But since the money’s good, they agree to do this one job. Nate is able to combine their skills and keep them on track to complete the mission.
When the man who hired them double-crosses them, they decide to work together and take him down. To do so, they’ll need a fresh face, so Nate brings in Sophie Devereaux, a grifter he pursued as an investigator for years. They manage to take down the bad guy, and even though the payoff is huge none of them want to retire. They work exceptionally well as a team, so the four crooks ask Nate to lead them.
Sophie: You pick the jobs.
Nate: My job is helping people. I help find bad guys.
Sophie: Then go find some bad guys. Bad guys have money.
The rest is history.
What really makes this show work is the chemistry between the team members. Despite all their differences, they work so well together that I was rooting for them to stay together from the start. The show doesn’t sugarcoat the rough patches as the criminals begin to focus on helping people instead the money and Nate grows more comfortable with coloring outside the lines. All of them are dysfunctional in some way (except possibly for Hardison, who seems to be the most normal of the bunch) and they all have secrets. They bicker and fight but always come through for each other.
The only main cast member I was familiar with was Christian Kane (Eliot), who played Lindsey McDonald on Angel (I’d watched the first season that fall), but I don’t remember that as being something that pushed me toward watching Leverage. I read something online about it, thought it sounded intriguing, and watched the pilot. From then on, I was hooked. I even bought the first season through Amazon Video on Demand so I could share the show with my family.
If you like con artist/caper movies like Ocean’s 11 and The Italian Job, you’ll love this show. While it’s a little more altruistic than, say, Burn Notice, the sentimental moments don’t overpower the smart dialogue and fun cons.
What is one of your favorite cons from this show (or another caper show/movie)?
It was only recently that I’d even heard of the show Supernatural. It popped up a few times on TV blogs and articles, and I gathered that it had a strong fan base. Without probing too deeply (trying to avoid spoilers!), I learned that two brothers, trained by their dad after the death of their mom, hunt all sorts of supernatural baddies.
The pilot introduces the Winchester brothers, Dean and Sam (played by Jared Padalecki, who I knew as Dean from Gilmore Girls, which made things a bit confusing). The entire episode was quite creepy, something I wasn’t expecting. Most of the speculative shows I watch involve vampires or superheroes, and fighting them means physical battles. As such, they tend to be more scary/suspenseful than creepy, but Supernatural’s pilot ranks right up there with the handful of episodes that were creepy (Buffy the Vampire Slayer’s “Hush” and Angel’s “Room w/a Vu” come to mind).
The pilot featured Life and Fairly Legal’s Sarah Shahi. The acting and effects were above par, and it contained enough of a hook to make me want to watch the second episode. The only thing that didn’t ring true was Dean’s comment to Sam that they made a great team. Their teamwork wasn’t impressive at all in this episode – they seemed to just stumble onto things individually. (A bunch of shows come to mind that have much better teamwork in the pilot episode that ultimately brings the characters together to form the show – Leverage, Bones, White Collar, Burn Notice . . .) But I’m guessing this improves with future episodes. I’m looking forward to what a regular episode will bring.
