Unwatchable


For the camerawork. Specifically, the alley chase and the fight inside the truck.

What is it with the shaky-cam?? I have found that bad camera work seems to go with bad writing, etc.

Does anyone remember a cop series Detroit 1-8-7? They too made bad use of the shaky-cam. I watched part of one episode, and never went back. The series ended with only 18 episodes. Which may be 15 more than this one will get.


What is interesting is that Hawaii 5-O did an extended parkour chase sequence, sometimes with cameras actually on the people doing the jumps. Far more watchable than this show. Entertaining, too.

reply

I think its great...there is mo pleasing some people!!! ?

reply

Especially those who want it to be just another retread of the original.

reply

Frankly, I would have preferred they just create something new, borrowing a little from the original MacGyver. But if they're going to use the name MacGyver and tell us its MacGyver, they have to stay true to the original character, which they didn't do.

reply


Just because some compare it to the original doesn't necessarily mean they want them to be isomorphic. Just consider '85 to be canon, along with a few structural changes to episodes (I'd still like to have a standalone opening gambit for each episode)

There are plenty of rules & regulations which prospective script and|or book authors have to deal with for Star Trek and James Bond, yet they manage to be quite imaginative and have had considerably more material & time to conflict with each other. Granted, you'll find an occasional nonsensical elements such as "squaring the circle" in a Star Trek novel, but that's a problem with an editor who didn't thoroughly scrub a manuscript because they didn't rein in a maverick author.

reply

Personally I find it the most watchable thing on Friday nights! And one of the most watchable things on network television.


I've been told by someone who's seen his movies that the camera work inside the truck (at least) is a hallmark of the guy who directed it.

reply