His stance over time did not change, in fact it was as strong as ever if the first two episodes are anything to go by. He knows shit exists, he has seen alien/human hybrids, mind readers, etc. His stance changed from episodes 2->3 in unrealistic (given his history) fashion. It would have been a completely different situation if we were introduced to a new mulder at the onset of this series, and my criticism would not be warranted, but that is not the case. If it's the first time you've seen the series I understand how it might be appealing, or if you have vague recollection of the past series. For anyone knowledgable of the original story lines, they will be understandably annoyed at this portrayal.

This post was edited by Bazi on Feb 24 2016 03:49pm

so i gather the new xfiles is good?

Episode three was a complete fairy tale about not accepting everything you're told as pure fact just because you saw it on tv or have some preconception about reality. How many policeman fall victim to their own preconceptions and after convicting a person they found out 20 years later they were completely wrong and all the testimony was fake.

Not filling your expectations does not even remotely suggest that his character was assassinated, it just proves you don't understand the significance of episode 3.

Thinking the show has some responsibility to fulfill your personal expectations only proves you might have a limited perspective and if you were honest, there was something else that bothered you right?



yup, just don't expect episode 3 to be part of the narrative, they definitely expanded the bounds of what a narrative and story is.

This post was edited by card_sultan on Feb 24 2016 04:32pm

Yes it was my expectations they would adhere and address some of the main story lines from the previous 9x season show. I was not alone in these expectations as season 9 ended on a very pivotal note. That the premiere ignored the precarious situation we were left with, I could get past since they seemed to be eluding to an entirely novel idea which I was interested in. They followed it up well in episode 2. The tone of the show changed in episode 3, and while independently it may have been an entertaining and nostalgic episode, left many disappointed. I am not the first or only person with this criticism, so to suggest I am hiding some personal bias is not only silly, but irrelevant. The fact is the tone of the show changed following episode 3 and weighs even more in a mini series. Some people are more easily entertained than others. I was looking for something dark and thought provoking, something the first 9 seasons delivered for me. This just didn't do it for me. I'll address the Mulder contradictions and why it was shit writing when I'm home.

Since you like making erroneous analogies I'll indulge for a moment. Casino Royal was a great movie, however many bond enthusiasts will argue the point it was an incomplete bond movie.

I would suggest that it was not the tone or characters of the season that changed in episode 3, it was just that it didn't fit into your expectionions of an A B C narrative structure.

There's are many examples of great novels/films where these expectations are played with, and with great effect I might add.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonlinear_narrative

As for the Bond character growing versus remaining a static representation of 1960s masculinity, yup it certainly did - but social norms grow and change and he is actually a representation of change, I for one find his character to be quite different and that doesn't bother me in the least.

This post was edited by card_sultan on Feb 24 2016 05:35pm

My analogy of Bond wasn't a comparison of 60s Bond to today, rather Casino Royal vs. other Bond movies. You completely missed the point there, but that's fine and ultimately not essential.

I'm not against nonlinear trends in movies/flicks if they serve a greater purpose. I absolutely love being in the situation with an uncertain future.There are countless examples of this working out, as you said, not including this. The episodes written by Carter were no doubt better than their counterparts, at least for me. Episode 5 diverged as well from the plot lines of episodes 1/2 and everything prior, but still had the element missing in episodes 3/4. Your point that I lacked understanding in episode 3 is incorrect, I fully get what they were trying to do, perhaps even better with hindsight, it was just poorly done. Didn't need to take an entire episode to demonstrate the theme. Furthermore while that episode itself may have not followed a linear path in context of the series, that episode itself was, ironically, painfully predictable. A huge chore to finish that episode and only out of respect to Duchovny did I. You are right that I was biased though. If the show wasn't called "xfiles"I would have stopped the show 15 minutes into episode 3.

GL to anyone who pick this show up. As an avid fan of the series in general, as long as you don't have positive expectations you'll be just fine. Before launch I was concerned of how much I would lust for a follow up series after this, given its history and how enthralled you might be in it at that moment. I would still look forward to anticipated episodes, as long as the Morgan brothers stay far...far away.

This post was edited by Bazi on Feb 24 2016 06:13pm

I didn't miss the point, because there are two films with the name Casino Royale (the 1967 and the 2006 version) and I just used the most prevalent interpretation of what you were inferring - that changes to his character, somehow make the entire series null and void.

Now that you are being more precise - the distinction between the tone of 1967 Casino Royale and the rest of Bond series is very stark but just a complete non sequitur argument because the films were made by two totally different groups of people with entirely different visions. I suppose that seems like a very important point but that's fine and ultimately not essential.

Like I said before, just because 1 show didn't fulfill your expectations is not a reason to trash the entire series, it's a rather weak reason you're trying to over explain and I highly suspect there is far more to the story than what your saying.

BTW, what are your feelings about 9/11 - do you think that was the Government lying to you or are you simply a blind patriot who prefers lies, assumptions, coincidence and magic?

I think the government has more information than what was released and what the Bush administration did (after) was borderline treason (Iraq). You can keep digging if you feel I am hiding a source for animosity, I'll answer anything. Your defense for a failed product is more intriguing to me but I don't care enough to play 20 questions about it.

Again my point about Casino Royal (2008) was that it was missing vital elements consistent with the majority of Bond films and aspects that made the series unique, from say a Bourne movie. Despite it not being a stereotypical Bond movie, it was still highly successful and rated highly.

I didn't trash the entire series, I didn't even "trash" the season. I love the series as a whole, even with this season that was overall subpar. I'm hardly alone, as I've mentioned already.

Critics Consensus: Gillian Anderson and David Duchovny's chemistry remains intact, but overall, The X-Files revival lacks the creative spark necessary to sustain the initial rush of nostalgia.

Spot on for me

This post was edited by Bazi on Feb 25 2016 05:50pm

So if you think that George Bush directly costing the taxpayers 2 trillion dollars, 1000s of American deaths, 10,000+ permanent disabilities in order to not release information he had and in order to continue with his lie was just "borderline" treason, I'm curious to know about how you feel about Bill Clinton nearly being impeached for get a BJ?

Also, who do you think the Zombies represent in TWD, I mean do you really think that a zombie Apocalypse is likely - like do you think that a direct Biblical view of Apocalypse is going to happen or could they represent something else?

@ bold - I was being diplomatic
At Clinton - don't think impeachment should be on the table for personal affairs

TWD - no I don't think a zombie apocalypse is likely. There is not enough information to make assumptions on what they represent in the show

Is it alright if I ask a question, do you currently take any medications?

It's ok for people to have different opinions on a TV show without having to reconcile it with your own belief systems.

This post was edited by Bazi on Feb 26 2016 12:00am