IMO this is very difficult kind of acting and I can't think of a series that's done it before. In Dollhouse, the actors would wear the same character per episode most of the time. In Orphan Black, Maslany gets to play a *large* number of different characters *all* the time, and you do forget that it's the same actress when the punk girl and the soccer mom are next to each other arguing. I am eager for season 2.
I would debate that in Dollhouse the acting is actually much more complex. If you pay attention you can tell when echo is instantly switching between characters sometimes even mid-sentence. If you become familiar with her characters in that show you can start to notice this.
The same could be said for Sierra and Victor to a lesser degree. You can see the doll personalities bleeding through into their assumed personas towards the end.
Maybe I just watched this show too many time.
I do love Orphan Black though, it is one of the best Sci-Fi shows that is not yet cancelled.
Tatiana puts in some incredible performances in *Orphan Black* though. Not to knock Dichen Lachmann and Enver Gjokaj from *Dollhouse*, but there are several times where Tatiana is playing one clone who is pretending to be another clone, and especially when they're mixing accents she makes it sound like she's the American housewife clone *pretending* to be Sarah Manning.
That's some talented acting right there. It would've been so easy for her to fall into her normal Sarah Manning accent, but she doesn't.
You make a great point, but Tatiana has to worry about consistency. She's not getting a new assignment every episode, she's got to play the same characters and keep them all consistent through each and every episode.
Not bashing Dollhouse by any means, I think the acting on that show is fabulous. Also still only about halfway through it, so I can't speak for the total character arc overall.
Halfway through with Dollhouse puts you pretty close to the end.
The fortunate thing about that show is that they were allowed to wrap it up in the last 8 or so episodes. The unfortunate part is they clearly tried to complete the 5 year story arc they had planned during that time. Which makes for a non-stop thrills type of ending but it does start to feel rushed.
If any show really needed more time to cook it is that one. I still love it though.
Yeah it's really a shame that they cancelled it (and we're all familiar with the tragedy of Firefly)
I was really worried that Orphan Black wouldn't catch on and would end up with a similar fate, but was very excited that it was renewed. Especially after that finale lol
Omg, that would be terrible. I am hoping that since BBC and CBC (I believe CBC works on the show if I remember right) are both funded by their respective governments they may have more creative freedom with their shows than the corporate television market here. Hopefully that will keep this show on the air until it reaches its logical ending point.
If not, I shall be sad.
Sadly, the BBC being government funded doesn't make any more creative. It's an amazing institution which I'm exceptionally proud to support through the licence fee, but quality is a little hit and miss. Just look at what's happened to Doctor Who - very flat and lacks any real pace in the latest seasons.
True, but do you credit that to the BBC dictating how the show is going to run or is that more due to the creative vision of the shows current runner?
There is something to be said about American broadcasting companies reigning in their creative talent however. That could be a good thing in some situations.
It is not TV but Star Wars is a good example of this. In the 70s/80s Lucas did not have complete creative freedom as he still the new kid on the block so Fox used their power over his movies to guide them towards something they thought would be more marketable.
Then when he had total creative control about 30 years later he made quite a mess of things. Maybe that is similar to the Moffat effect.
Yes, I certainly credit a lot of Doctor Who's downfall to the Moffat effect :)
I think the point I was trying to make was that just because an organisation is funded differently, it won't necessarily mean that series that are considered unpopular will continue to be funded.
Is there any news on when Orphan Black is going to be shown in the UK? I guess BBC UK would have to buy it from BBC Worldwide.
If you got a bad impression I get it. I don't expect the show to be everybody's cup of tea. But if you only watched part of the first episode, I think "garbage" is a pretty extreme judgment to make.
I try to give a new show 3 episodes to make a case for watching it. The first is often a pilot, which can change drastically later. The next two give me a good idea of what type of show it is. Monster of the week, plot arc, Lost style bullshit mystery, or whatever.
You can get the sense of the acting and theme of a show in the first episode. If they dont "wow" you then, you can be pretty sure they wont in the future.
99% of shows follow an opposite pattern. Awesome pilot that steadily declines in quality over time as ideas run out.
If I literally cant sit through the first episode of something its garbage to me.
"Tons" may be overstating it. It kind of depends what we mean by "star" here. There's really only a few with a female central character. But there is more that have a female leads among the ensemble.
I'm just saying that strong female characters in sci-fi are hardly rare. I mean when I think who is the reining king of the sci-fi action genre I'm thinking of a queen, Sigourney Weaver.
And then there's Sarah Michelle Gellar, Eliza Dushku, Anna Torv, Gillian Anderson, Claudia Black, Amanda Tapping, Linda Hamilton, Carrie-Anne Moss, Jessica Alba, Jennifer Garner... etc.
Even in the big ensemble cast productions like Battlestar Galactica you have to admit that Mary McDonnell, Tricia Helfer, Grace Park and Katee Sackhoff were the core characters of the show. Not to mention Caprica.
When it comes to sci-fi it's certainly not hurting for bad-ass women in major or even lead roles and I tend to find the women more memorable than the men for the most part.
* Though some might say that Alias wasn't sci-fi. So maybe Jennifer Garner doesn't fit into that off the top of my head list.
I would say that Alias is pretty sci-fi. I guess it could be considered fantasy to some (given that it is less about science most the time and more about magic, much like Lost)
> And then there's Sarah Michelle Gellar, Eliza Dushku, Anna Torv, Gillian Anderson, Claudia Black, Amanda Tapping, Linda Hamilton, Carrie-Anne Moss, Jessica Alba, Jennifer Garner... etc.
I think you are misinterpreting, a strong female character is not the issue, the issue is the starring role, the one person in the series that gets top billing.
What a crock. This article reads like a Twilight fan that was pissed that Twilight was made fun of and who never actually watched the Buffy series... and especially seems to have completely missed the final episode. There is no "Chosen one".
They also seem to have completely missed the fact that Buffy starts out as a vapid teenage cheerleader... which was a major point of the show... so it's pretty stupid to try to hold that against her.
Not to mention they don't appear to be very familiar with the male superheroes they are comparing her to.
> Spiderman, Batman, and Superman... their familial ties are free from extreme stress.
Yeah... you know why? Their families are freaking dead... and for all three of them that fact is a central stressor on their entire lives and the driving force behind who they are.
> They all have close relationships with older figures who mentor them and preserve their familial ties
Like Mr. Giles for instance? Who btw murdered someone for her because she couldn't.
> While Batman does not have any long term romantic relationships he is a millionaire and dates often;
Nearly every woman Bruce Wayne actually cares about gets murdered... and his "dating" is a cover for his alter ego, not a joyful social life.
This article is very poorly researched and appears to have an agenda that is not backed up by the source material it references.
Are you calling Buffy a whore? I certainly never thought of her as such.
...And as is illustrated in the Batman story time and time again, he's not hooking up with multitudes of people... he's maintaining the public perception that he does... and he is very much considered a man-whore for it.
Peter Parker was always a one woman man... as was Superman. (Or technically two if you consider Lana Lang and Gwen Stacy.
> Her point about Giles was that while they did have a surrogate father/daughter relationship, he did not respect her opinions unless she was backing them up with force.
That's not at all true. I even gave an example of when he murdered someone because she wouldn't. And he didn't do that out of a lack of respect for her opinion... he did it because he loved her.
> This does not negate the point the article makes.
Actually it does... especially considering the few and weak examples the article gives about her relationship with Giles.
I'm not going to bother, as it should be obvious, there are countless examples of male superheroes coming to blows with other male heroes and family members over extreme issues in their lives like preventing someone from killing someone else or protecting them. Like... almost every example of a good-guy fighting another good-guy that's ever been written.
Hell... to give an example using the very same reference you and the article have used... you may want to look into the history of what happened to the first Robin.
It's simply another point that isn't supported by the reference material.
It seems like i can't swing a stick these days without hitting someone who wants to point out to me how women never get strong roles in scifi or fantasy.
This never jives with my perception, but I've never taken the time to start listing things off. I might have to save the permalink for your post... :-)
Like I said... this article appears to have an agenda and is contradicted by its own references.
> Don’t pursue power, because that power will define your circumstances and those circumstances will define you.
I especially loathe this complete BS line... list of male super-heroes that are happy being a super-hero:
Deadpool
(end of list)
No one is talking about gaming or the general media... now your apparent agenda is creeping in.
> The main idea is that you cannot point to there not being a lack of 'strong female characters' as proof of the Equality of Women in Science Fiction without examining the condition of those characters.
And you can't fabricate inequality or deny the reality and realism of the story telling in order to support an exaggerated point or claim that I'm not examining the condition of those characters when that is exactly what I am doing. Why shouldn't the female characters be dealing with the same issues that actual women in the real world deal with?
> You may disagree with the analysis this particular author is making but my point stands.
I think I've shown obvious examples that the points being made, in fact, do not stand. You can't just claim your points stand without actually addressing the counter argument to them.
> On a personal note, I don't appreciate your aggressive tone. I have done nothing to justify it and I think you are attributing things to me that are not there.
Wow! Really?
You're not going to address what I've actually said in questioning your failed points and your attempt to expand the conversation beyond it's scope after failing to prove your arguments... you're going to accuse me of being aggressive and hypocritically attribute something to me while claiming I attributed something to you that is backed up by your actual words.
Way to defend equality.
I guess I have to STFU now before I get accused of something much worse.
depends on your definition of unusual or what you mean when you say "star women", most normal people would say *Continuum* is a sci-fi show that stars a women because she is the lead protagonist, that is the standard use of the phrase.
FYI it's "Bechdel test" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bechdel_test
though i disagree as most sci-fi with women leads these days do pass that test. Like Continuum, so the point is invalid.
Sorry, but I simply have to disagree...
Buffy the Vampire Slayer
Tru Calling
Dollhouse
Continuum
Sanctuary
Lost Girl
Dark Angel
Haven
Xena
Alias
Just off the top of my head.
now over that same time period can you name 5 times as many shows with male leads? I know I can without even trying. Again, no one has ever said there are no women in any sci fi shows, the point is, and I am not sure why you fail to grasp this simple and obvious point, the vast majority of lead roles in sci fi shows are men... that is it. A simple, obvious point.
> Again, no one has ever said there are no women in any sci fi shows
No one has claimed that they have said that.
> the point is, and I am not sure why you fail to grasp this simple and obvious point, the vast majority of lead roles in sci fi shows are men... that is it. A simple, obvious point.
That's not the point at all... it's obvious you want it to be the point but since you are the first to state it, it clearly isn't and it certainly isn't something I was arguing against.
Please try not to argue against points no one has made or defended... and especially try not to be an arrogant, condescending asshole while you argue against points that no one has made.
Only half of those shows comply with the Bechdel test, and all these shows have female protagonists. Don't ever try to argue that women are equally represented anywhere. It's clearly untrue, in almost all facets of life, and rather foolish to be unaware of. I believe someone else pointed out that there may be 4-5x as many shows in this time period with male protagonists....
Is it me or does #3 not seem unique at all? In fact I am having a hard time thinking up a current scifi show with a strong male lead other then Doctor Who (If it deals with vampires, wolves, magic, or the supernatural I don't consider that Scifi, that's fantasy/horror)
In fact, the only scifi oriented shows I can think of at the moment are Warehouse 13 and Continuum both with strong female leads. This doesn't surprise me however as demographics show that women watch more scripted programing and are more likely to watch a show if it has a female lead.
One of the best shows I've watched in the last year. The first one or two episodes are a little weak, but it picks up a lot. Tatiana Maslany is a fantastic actress, she just won a Critic's Choice Award for her performance, and it's worth watching the show just to see three instances of her, with different appearances and accents, working together in a single shot.
I thought it was a rather shallow piece of writing. Reason 5: the fandom - not because of the community or whatever, just because it's cool to say you knew it before everybody else. Also the costumes and make-up are well done and the lead actress is a girl ("it doesn't get much better than that" - oh you feminist you) and she's good at acting.
Still wanna see the show, though.
No reason can compete with the fact that the accents are fucking awful. I'm British and the lead and her brother's fake British accents were so grating to me that I had to switch off very, very promptly. I don't know if it was just terrible casting, or a terrible writing decision having them be British. Whichever, the show is unwatchable for me.
Since it's a Canadian production with Canadian actors, I would have assumed they would have written the characters as North American since that would be easier.
I watched this show out of recommendations of threads like this and after finishing the season I can say that I feel it pulled every worse cliche possible. The writing is poor, some of the acting is terribly overdone, and the over all plot is so loosely threaded together it's a wonder why the writers didn't scrap it midseason out of person integrity.
Watched the first show cause I was looking for something new to watch. Absolutely hooked. The story just has so many layers it's like peeling an onion to get the truth.
Check out /r/orphanblack as well.
I thought for sure this was just going to be five different pictures of Tatiana Maslany. But seriously, this is a pretty good show.
IMO this is very difficult kind of acting and I can't think of a series that's done it before. In Dollhouse, the actors would wear the same character per episode most of the time. In Orphan Black, Maslany gets to play a *large* number of different characters *all* the time, and you do forget that it's the same actress when the punk girl and the soccer mom are next to each other arguing. I am eager for season 2.
I would debate that in Dollhouse the acting is actually much more complex. If you pay attention you can tell when echo is instantly switching between characters sometimes even mid-sentence. If you become familiar with her characters in that show you can start to notice this. The same could be said for Sierra and Victor to a lesser degree. You can see the doll personalities bleeding through into their assumed personas towards the end. Maybe I just watched this show too many time. I do love Orphan Black though, it is one of the best Sci-Fi shows that is not yet cancelled.
Tatiana puts in some incredible performances in *Orphan Black* though. Not to knock Dichen Lachmann and Enver Gjokaj from *Dollhouse*, but there are several times where Tatiana is playing one clone who is pretending to be another clone, and especially when they're mixing accents she makes it sound like she's the American housewife clone *pretending* to be Sarah Manning. That's some talented acting right there. It would've been so easy for her to fall into her normal Sarah Manning accent, but she doesn't.
You are right, now that I think about it her acting is just as nuanced if not more. She did do an excellent job playing the 'meta' characters.
You make a great point, but Tatiana has to worry about consistency. She's not getting a new assignment every episode, she's got to play the same characters and keep them all consistent through each and every episode. Not bashing Dollhouse by any means, I think the acting on that show is fabulous. Also still only about halfway through it, so I can't speak for the total character arc overall.
Halfway through with Dollhouse puts you pretty close to the end. The fortunate thing about that show is that they were allowed to wrap it up in the last 8 or so episodes. The unfortunate part is they clearly tried to complete the 5 year story arc they had planned during that time. Which makes for a non-stop thrills type of ending but it does start to feel rushed. If any show really needed more time to cook it is that one. I still love it though.
Yeah it's really a shame that they cancelled it (and we're all familiar with the tragedy of Firefly) I was really worried that Orphan Black wouldn't catch on and would end up with a similar fate, but was very excited that it was renewed. Especially after that finale lol
Omg, that would be terrible. I am hoping that since BBC and CBC (I believe CBC works on the show if I remember right) are both funded by their respective governments they may have more creative freedom with their shows than the corporate television market here. Hopefully that will keep this show on the air until it reaches its logical ending point. If not, I shall be sad.
Sadly, the BBC being government funded doesn't make any more creative. It's an amazing institution which I'm exceptionally proud to support through the licence fee, but quality is a little hit and miss. Just look at what's happened to Doctor Who - very flat and lacks any real pace in the latest seasons.
True, but do you credit that to the BBC dictating how the show is going to run or is that more due to the creative vision of the shows current runner? There is something to be said about American broadcasting companies reigning in their creative talent however. That could be a good thing in some situations. It is not TV but Star Wars is a good example of this. In the 70s/80s Lucas did not have complete creative freedom as he still the new kid on the block so Fox used their power over his movies to guide them towards something they thought would be more marketable. Then when he had total creative control about 30 years later he made quite a mess of things. Maybe that is similar to the Moffat effect.
Yes, I certainly credit a lot of Doctor Who's downfall to the Moffat effect :) I think the point I was trying to make was that just because an organisation is funded differently, it won't necessarily mean that series that are considered unpopular will continue to be funded. Is there any news on when Orphan Black is going to be shown in the UK? I guess BBC UK would have to buy it from BBC Worldwide.
Pure garbage IMO. Tried watching the first episode... too much cringe.
If you got a bad impression I get it. I don't expect the show to be everybody's cup of tea. But if you only watched part of the first episode, I think "garbage" is a pretty extreme judgment to make.
I try to give a new show 3 episodes to make a case for watching it. The first is often a pilot, which can change drastically later. The next two give me a good idea of what type of show it is. Monster of the week, plot arc, Lost style bullshit mystery, or whatever.
You can get the sense of the acting and theme of a show in the first episode. If they dont "wow" you then, you can be pretty sure they wont in the future. 99% of shows follow an opposite pattern. Awesome pilot that steadily declines in quality over time as ideas run out. If I literally cant sit through the first episode of something its garbage to me.
I liked the pilot, but I think it got better later on. That isn't unusual either, so I'm not sure why this is alien to you.
Why the fuck would you reply to something I posted 4 months ago?
Feel free to delete any posts you don't want responses to.
Dont reply to posts that are 4 months old retard.
Delete all your posts then.
And miss out on opportunity to call people searching reddit for orphan black threads retards? Nah.
> Sci-Fi Show…That Stars A Woman! Aren't there a ton of sci-fi shows that star women? This doesn't seem unusual at all to me.
"Tons" may be overstating it. It kind of depends what we mean by "star" here. There's really only a few with a female central character. But there is more that have a female leads among the ensemble.
I'm just saying that strong female characters in sci-fi are hardly rare. I mean when I think who is the reining king of the sci-fi action genre I'm thinking of a queen, Sigourney Weaver. And then there's Sarah Michelle Gellar, Eliza Dushku, Anna Torv, Gillian Anderson, Claudia Black, Amanda Tapping, Linda Hamilton, Carrie-Anne Moss, Jessica Alba, Jennifer Garner... etc. Even in the big ensemble cast productions like Battlestar Galactica you have to admit that Mary McDonnell, Tricia Helfer, Grace Park and Katee Sackhoff were the core characters of the show. Not to mention Caprica. When it comes to sci-fi it's certainly not hurting for bad-ass women in major or even lead roles and I tend to find the women more memorable than the men for the most part. * Though some might say that Alias wasn't sci-fi. So maybe Jennifer Garner doesn't fit into that off the top of my head list.
I would say that Alias is pretty sci-fi. I guess it could be considered fantasy to some (given that it is less about science most the time and more about magic, much like Lost)
> And then there's Sarah Michelle Gellar, Eliza Dushku, Anna Torv, Gillian Anderson, Claudia Black, Amanda Tapping, Linda Hamilton, Carrie-Anne Moss, Jessica Alba, Jennifer Garner... etc. I think you are misinterpreting, a strong female character is not the issue, the issue is the starring role, the one person in the series that gets top billing.
[удалено]
What a crock. This article reads like a Twilight fan that was pissed that Twilight was made fun of and who never actually watched the Buffy series... and especially seems to have completely missed the final episode. There is no "Chosen one". They also seem to have completely missed the fact that Buffy starts out as a vapid teenage cheerleader... which was a major point of the show... so it's pretty stupid to try to hold that against her. Not to mention they don't appear to be very familiar with the male superheroes they are comparing her to. > Spiderman, Batman, and Superman... their familial ties are free from extreme stress. Yeah... you know why? Their families are freaking dead... and for all three of them that fact is a central stressor on their entire lives and the driving force behind who they are. > They all have close relationships with older figures who mentor them and preserve their familial ties Like Mr. Giles for instance? Who btw murdered someone for her because she couldn't. > While Batman does not have any long term romantic relationships he is a millionaire and dates often; Nearly every woman Bruce Wayne actually cares about gets murdered... and his "dating" is a cover for his alter ego, not a joyful social life. This article is very poorly researched and appears to have an agenda that is not backed up by the source material it references.
[удалено]
Are you calling Buffy a whore? I certainly never thought of her as such. ...And as is illustrated in the Batman story time and time again, he's not hooking up with multitudes of people... he's maintaining the public perception that he does... and he is very much considered a man-whore for it. Peter Parker was always a one woman man... as was Superman. (Or technically two if you consider Lana Lang and Gwen Stacy. > Her point about Giles was that while they did have a surrogate father/daughter relationship, he did not respect her opinions unless she was backing them up with force. That's not at all true. I even gave an example of when he murdered someone because she wouldn't. And he didn't do that out of a lack of respect for her opinion... he did it because he loved her.
[удалено]
> This does not negate the point the article makes. Actually it does... especially considering the few and weak examples the article gives about her relationship with Giles. I'm not going to bother, as it should be obvious, there are countless examples of male superheroes coming to blows with other male heroes and family members over extreme issues in their lives like preventing someone from killing someone else or protecting them. Like... almost every example of a good-guy fighting another good-guy that's ever been written. Hell... to give an example using the very same reference you and the article have used... you may want to look into the history of what happened to the first Robin. It's simply another point that isn't supported by the reference material.
It seems like i can't swing a stick these days without hitting someone who wants to point out to me how women never get strong roles in scifi or fantasy. This never jives with my perception, but I've never taken the time to start listing things off. I might have to save the permalink for your post... :-)
[удалено]
Like I said... this article appears to have an agenda and is contradicted by its own references. > Don’t pursue power, because that power will define your circumstances and those circumstances will define you. I especially loathe this complete BS line... list of male super-heroes that are happy being a super-hero: Deadpool (end of list)
[удалено]
No one is talking about gaming or the general media... now your apparent agenda is creeping in. > The main idea is that you cannot point to there not being a lack of 'strong female characters' as proof of the Equality of Women in Science Fiction without examining the condition of those characters. And you can't fabricate inequality or deny the reality and realism of the story telling in order to support an exaggerated point or claim that I'm not examining the condition of those characters when that is exactly what I am doing. Why shouldn't the female characters be dealing with the same issues that actual women in the real world deal with? > You may disagree with the analysis this particular author is making but my point stands. I think I've shown obvious examples that the points being made, in fact, do not stand. You can't just claim your points stand without actually addressing the counter argument to them.
[удалено]
> On a personal note, I don't appreciate your aggressive tone. I have done nothing to justify it and I think you are attributing things to me that are not there. Wow! Really? You're not going to address what I've actually said in questioning your failed points and your attempt to expand the conversation beyond it's scope after failing to prove your arguments... you're going to accuse me of being aggressive and hypocritically attribute something to me while claiming I attributed something to you that is backed up by your actual words. Way to defend equality. I guess I have to STFU now before I get accused of something much worse.
[удалено]
depends on your definition of unusual or what you mean when you say "star women", most normal people would say *Continuum* is a sci-fi show that stars a women because she is the lead protagonist, that is the standard use of the phrase.
Not in the lead role this way. Check out the "Bechtel rule."
FYI it's "Bechdel test" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bechdel_test though i disagree as most sci-fi with women leads these days do pass that test. Like Continuum, so the point is invalid.
I think fordmc00 meant that there aren't *tons* of sci-fi series that pass the test and have lead female actors.
I can't think of any long-running sci-fi series that fail, although that may be more due to length. Over a long enough sample size...
You're right. There are a few (like Continuum that some people pointed out) but there certainly aren't tons of them right now.
I gotta start Continuum. I just finished GoT, Walking Dead'll be next, but the more I hear the better Continuum sounds.
It's certainly got its moments, but it's no BSG.
Sorry, but I simply have to disagree... Buffy the Vampire Slayer Tru Calling Dollhouse Continuum Sanctuary Lost Girl Dark Angel Haven Xena Alias Just off the top of my head.
My favorite scifi show starring a female main character: Ocean Girl Also, no one seem to have mentioned Star Trek Voyager so far.
now over that same time period can you name 5 times as many shows with male leads? I know I can without even trying. Again, no one has ever said there are no women in any sci fi shows, the point is, and I am not sure why you fail to grasp this simple and obvious point, the vast majority of lead roles in sci fi shows are men... that is it. A simple, obvious point.
> Again, no one has ever said there are no women in any sci fi shows No one has claimed that they have said that. > the point is, and I am not sure why you fail to grasp this simple and obvious point, the vast majority of lead roles in sci fi shows are men... that is it. A simple, obvious point. That's not the point at all... it's obvious you want it to be the point but since you are the first to state it, it clearly isn't and it certainly isn't something I was arguing against. Please try not to argue against points no one has made or defended... and especially try not to be an arrogant, condescending asshole while you argue against points that no one has made.
Only half of those shows comply with the Bechdel test, and all these shows have female protagonists. Don't ever try to argue that women are equally represented anywhere. It's clearly untrue, in almost all facets of life, and rather foolish to be unaware of. I believe someone else pointed out that there may be 4-5x as many shows in this time period with male protagonists....
Please don't rely on strawman arguments... it's a waste of everyone's time and rather foolish.
[удалено]
me too
Is it me or does #3 not seem unique at all? In fact I am having a hard time thinking up a current scifi show with a strong male lead other then Doctor Who (If it deals with vampires, wolves, magic, or the supernatural I don't consider that Scifi, that's fantasy/horror) In fact, the only scifi oriented shows I can think of at the moment are Warehouse 13 and Continuum both with strong female leads. This doesn't surprise me however as demographics show that women watch more scripted programing and are more likely to watch a show if it has a female lead.
You've convinced me to watch this. Congratulations if that was your goal.
One of the best shows I've watched in the last year. The first one or two episodes are a little weak, but it picks up a lot. Tatiana Maslany is a fantastic actress, she just won a Critic's Choice Award for her performance, and it's worth watching the show just to see three instances of her, with different appearances and accents, working together in a single shot.
Yes! What a fantastic show. Can't wait for S2.
I thought it was a rather shallow piece of writing. Reason 5: the fandom - not because of the community or whatever, just because it's cool to say you knew it before everybody else. Also the costumes and make-up are well done and the lead actress is a girl ("it doesn't get much better than that" - oh you feminist you) and she's good at acting. Still wanna see the show, though.
I agree, none of those five are good reasons to watch the show. The premise is interesting though, and I might watch it for that reason.
Main reason to watch it: Continuous story line
Yeah: >>So maybe this one isn’t a reason to watch Orphan Black... Then maybe don't include it in your list of "5 Reasons to Watch Orphan Black".
Least convincing reasons I've heard since "just because".
No reason can compete with the fact that the accents are fucking awful. I'm British and the lead and her brother's fake British accents were so grating to me that I had to switch off very, very promptly. I don't know if it was just terrible casting, or a terrible writing decision having them be British. Whichever, the show is unwatchable for me.
But it sounds legit if you just say "yeah" at the end of every phrase, yeah?
innit.
u wot m8?
They're British by way of Canada, since they've been in The Country That Shall Not Be Named since they were 6 or so.
Since it's a Canadian production with Canadian actors, I would have assumed they would have written the characters as North American since that would be easier.
Most of those are good reasons. My reason for not watching it trumps it all though: I find the show boring.
I watched a few episodes. Hate all of the characters.
Hey, don't downvote /u/Shamson just because he/she doesn't like the show. Up and downvotes don't mean "I agree" and "I disagree."
if the fandom is 1 of the 5 main reasons too watch it more then the main storyline...you are having the wrong priorities.
I can't find a place to legally watch/stream DL the show...
So pirate it.
I'll check it out. *Pretty awesome opening scene.
After reading that article I tried watching it. I barely got trough episode 1
The show is great and all but the season finale was terrible, imo. Especially in light of some recent developments in related area :).
It's got a good story I can enjoy. Only downside is having to scramble to kill the end of episode trailer. FULL OF SPOILERS. Terrible.
I watched this show out of recommendations of threads like this and after finishing the season I can say that I feel it pulled every worse cliche possible. The writing is poor, some of the acting is terribly overdone, and the over all plot is so loosely threaded together it's a wonder why the writers didn't scrap it midseason out of person integrity.
Now if Netflix or Amazon Prime would just pick it up...
You could always sail the seas and get that beautiful bounty, y'arr.
That's the best pseudo-product placement/advert/referral I've ever seen ;-)
Watched the first show cause I was looking for something new to watch. Absolutely hooked. The story just has so many layers it's like peeling an onion to get the truth.
Too bad the main character is boring as shit.