"Mordechai T. Abzug" <morty@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:I6adnROaV_cpfnTanZ2dnUVZ_g-dnZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [spoiler space:
>
> N
> o
> t
> h
> i
> n
> g
>
> s
> t
> a
> n
> d
> s
>
> o
> u
> t
>
> ]
>
> In the latest New Amsterdam, John decides to reveal his immortality to
> preserve a relationship with a woman who thinks he's hiding something.
> But instead of "showing" (i.e. by sticking a dagger in his middle), he
> just tells her. And surprise! She doesn't believe him.
>
> Apparently, these guys didn't watch HL close enough. Come on! When
> you tell someone something extraordinary, you need to provide
> extraordinary evidence. After 400 years, John should really know
> better than to tell someone his story in a serious context without a
> demo.
>
> - Morty
When I read these critiques of New Amsterdam I become confused. People
dont
like it because it is a Highlander copycat..... people dont like it
because
it isnt enough of a copycat......
It is a pretty good police show, even without the immortal nonsense. The
immortal gimmick is weak, but it makes at least as much sense, if not
more,
than the original Highlander gimmick. Would anyone have bothered with
Highlander the TV show if it weren't for the swordfights and lightning
strikes?
It can be argued that the only reason TV Highlander had any success was
due
to the dynamic of syndication. Just enough of an audience on a lot of
marginal stations to make it profitable, even if it could not stand on its
own in a network situation. Lord knows that's the real reason a lot of
national radio shows have the success they do.
I'm enjoying the program. But then I'm not looking at it as a Highlander
imitator, but a police show. The flashback stuff is of interest, but not
critical.
..
>
|
