Author Topic: JJ Abrams' Undercovers  (Read 11443 times)

Online Emperorjones

  • Honorary Wakandan
  • *****
  • Posts: 7458
    • View Profile
Re: JJ Abrams' Undercovers
« Reply #60 on: November 07, 2010, 03:55:09 pm »
To be fair, I never watched Chuck enough to gauge the chemistry. To each his own I guess, I think the Blooms worked well together. I think the chemistry grew over time. It seemed like Boris was a little awkward in the pilot but they pulled it off pretty well throughout the show. And I liked the sexy playfulness.

GMR was more than cute IMO, but once again, to each his own.

Offline KIP LEWIS

  • Honorary Wakandan
  • *****
  • Posts: 5873
    • View Profile
Re: JJ Abrams' Undercovers
« Reply #61 on: November 08, 2010, 03:46:55 am »
<<GMR was more than cute IMO, but once again, to each his own. >>

We probably have similiar view of her; I just tend to use "cute" inseat of "hot' or similar terms.  (Of course, I tend to like the "cute" actresses over the "beautiful".)

Offline moor

  • Honorary Wakandan
  • *****
  • Posts: 1134
    • View Profile
Re: JJ Abrams' Undercovers
« Reply #62 on: November 08, 2010, 06:12:10 am »
<<the attractiveness and chemistry of its leads.>>

Funny, several times people have said that, but I never felt any heat between the two.  Yeah, she is cute and sexy, and I guess he us too, but together, they didn't really click to me.  I mean I believe they were in love, but they didn't have a tenth of chemistry that Chuck and Sarah have.


Don't forget Chuck had 2 seasons to get that chemistry going... Watch the first season again, and tell me it wasn't shaky...

I don't disagree that Undercovers was meh... the writers seemed to be phoning it in, but it's apples to oranges in comparing show's cancelled in mid-season, and those that get the chance to at least finish up a full order.

Offline Vic Vega

  • Honorary Wakandan
  • *****
  • Posts: 4140
    • View Profile
Re: JJ Abrams' Undercovers
« Reply #63 on: November 08, 2010, 07:15:51 am »
The show was pulling about 5 million viewers per episode so it wasn't completely horrible ratings wise, though I'm not sure about if they were getting the right demographics in terms of younger viewers though.

I do agree with the piece that RH posted. Though I think race played a part in the show not catching on, I also think there were some conceptual problems with the show. In a way, they were trying to be 'ahead' of their time by going backward, reviving the episodic TV shows of the 80s and 90s to some extent. Perhaps the creators were anticipating that people had grown tired of the arc heavy shows of the last decade.

I think there is some of that fatigue but I don't know how prevalent it is, and I think a lot of people still expect arc based storytelling. Undercovers didn't do this, plus it was decidedly light, in an era where people still like edgier programming. It just didn't find a good mix between the light and the dark, and it was on the wrong network  (despite NBC's support). With its numbers, it would be gangbusters on basic cable.

Undercovers wasn't edge of your seat, must see TV. It didn't do enough to hook in people, or string them along, or give them a feeling that if they invested their time, it would lead to a big payoff. As I've said before, the villains-though they generally improved from show to show-weren't compelling enough either.

It's a real shame because the leads had great chemistry and it was nice seeing two black people in love with each while also saving the world. I wouldn't mind seeing someone take this approach and apply it, with some changes of course, to Storm and T'Challa.

I'm definitely going to miss Gugu.

I think that was it exactly. The show was too episodic.

No arcs, no big bad, no reason to tune in week after week.

Since if you missed one episode of say, Alias or Chuck you'd have to struggle to catch up.

I think that "Can't miss a single episode" quality is what keeps viewers interest now.

Chuck has arcs, big bads and those fan-pleasing cameos/guest apperances every other episode.

PS: I really shouldn't compare Chuck and Undercovers. The central relationships are utterly different. The first season of Chuck has that "will they or won't they tension" that TV fans seem to love. The Blooms start out married.

There's also a geek wish fufillment think going on between Chuck and Sarah. Chuck's this alleged geek who is with a woman that should be clearly out of his league(so was his ex Jordana Brewster come to think of it, but that's just pat of the wish fufillment).

On the other hand you have to figure Boris character's (given what we know about him-suave dude of mystery) entire life as an agent was a parade of women as hot as GMR.

Of couse he ended up with a looker. How could he not? He's a superspy. They get all the hot women.
« Last Edit: November 08, 2010, 07:34:07 am by Vic Vega »

Online Emperorjones

  • Honorary Wakandan
  • *****
  • Posts: 7458
    • View Profile
Re: JJ Abrams' Undercovers
« Reply #64 on: November 08, 2010, 02:44:45 pm »
^
I concur.

Offline Rockscissorspaper

  • Honorary Wakandan
  • *****
  • Posts: 1214
    • View Profile
Re: JJ Abrams' Undercovers
« Reply #65 on: November 08, 2010, 04:18:19 pm »
Heh. A buddy of mine had beef with the show because "they are too pretty" (snicker) ::)
HEY KIDS, (BUY MY) COMICS!! https://www.mythworldemedia.com/comics

Offline masigl4179

  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 274
    • View Profile
Re: JJ Abrams' Undercovers
« Reply #66 on: November 11, 2010, 02:24:52 pm »
Look I agree that the show had some problems but that's no reason to cancel it. I remember Hart to Hart and I actually liked that this show reminded me off it. I watched 24 and let's face it Jack Bauer was a terrorist but I don't see why every spy show has to be that dark. What I liked about the show was how worldly and well traveled the lead black characters were. I found myself tuning in just to see where they going from Week to week. Overall much better than Tyler Perry's shows. I know at the end of the day it comes down to ratings but I wish it could go on to another network like USA

Offline Kristopher

  • Honorary Wakandan
  • *****
  • Posts: 1229
    • View Profile
Re: JJ Abrams' Undercovers
« Reply #67 on: November 12, 2010, 07:42:16 am »
Look I agree that the show had some problems but that's no reason to cancel it. I remember Hart to Hart and I actually liked that this show reminded me off it. I watched 24 and let's face it Jack Bauer was a terrorist but I don't see why every spy show has to be that dark. What I liked about the show was how worldly and well traveled the lead black characters were. I found myself tuning in just to see where they going from Week to week. Overall much better than Tyler Perry's shows. I know at the end of the day it comes down to ratings but I wish it could go on to another network like USA

Do you think moving to USA would mean better ratings? If so, why?

Offline BmoreAkuma

  • Honorary Wakandan
  • *****
  • Posts: 2235
    • View Profile
Re: JJ Abrams' Undercovers
« Reply #68 on: November 12, 2010, 10:08:53 am »
Do you think moving to USA would mean better ratings? If so, why?
I don't think that this show would do as "well" on the USA network. The show would be viewed as "Mike and Fiona married adventures" 
With these choices, I felt that the American black man only needed to choose which one to get eaten by; the liberal fox or the conservative wolf because both of them will eat him.