Re: Now this is interesting!
I could make a cake with a special ingredient
Daemons are benevolent or benign nature spirits, beings of the same nature as both mortals and gods, similar to ghosts, chthonic heroes, spirit guides, forces of nature or the gods themselves.
Re: Now this is interesting!
What do you make of this?
My first though: Jayne doesn't smile!!
My second though: I wonder if Nathan forgot to clean his teeth that morning?
Re: Now this is interesting!
Hmmm... Could mean nothing at all. Could obviously mean Nathan might be joining the cast.
Hmmm...
Re: Now this is interesting!
im getting the feeling that there's like only 10 or so actors in america and they all act everywhere
8 2010-02-23 09:25:16 (edited by sc1982 2010-02-23 09:28:05)
Re: Now this is interesting!
OMG, that has so totally made my day, I really really really hope Nathan Fillion is going to be in a few, or at least one, episode of Chuck!
Damn... no such luck me thinks...
It was a mini-Firefly reunion when Nathan Fillion stopped by the Chuck set today to hang with Adam Baldwin (Jayne on Firefly), Zachary Levi and Yvonne Strahovski. http://chucktv.net/2010/02/22/photo-nat … its-chuck/
Re: Now this is interesting!
Re: Now this is interesting!
Just as I thought then, meant nothing at all.
What's Whedon up to now anyway, since the disappointing effort that was Dollhouse?
Re: Now this is interesting!
since the disappointing effort that was Dollhouse?
Can I ask you exactly what you mean by that statement?
Re: Now this is interesting!
graybags wrote:since the disappointing effort that was Dollhouse?
Can I ask you exactly what you mean by that statement?
He obviously meant the disappointing effort by the network, and the American viewing public on behalf of Dollhouse.
Re: Now this is interesting!
I am calling fake. Not sure why, but I thought he was busy filming Castle - which is really good btw.
As for Dollhouse, its goodness could be graphed as a bell curve. Its started crap, got better, was really good in the middle, then got crap again, and ended in a really really bad way.
http://xkcd.com/488/
Re: Now this is interesting!
Mxyzptlk wrote:graybags wrote:since the disappointing effort that was Dollhouse?
Can I ask you exactly what you mean by that statement?
He obviously meant the disappointing effort by the network, and the American viewing public on behalf of Dollhouse.
That is what I'm hoping he meant... but what if he didn't mean that?
I am calling fake. Not sure why, but I thought he was busy filming Castle - which is really good btw.
As for Dollhouse, its goodness could be graphed as a bell curve. Its started crap, got better, was really good in the middle, then got crap again, and ended in a really really bad way.
This would be my curb for graphing Dollhouse:
16 2010-02-23 14:21:33 (edited by miGs 2010-02-23 14:21:54)
Re: Now this is interesting!
HEY!
Interesting indeed. . . (see what I did there )
Nathan Fillion guest starring in Chuck would be awesome! He could just be visiting the studio though. I heard that Chuck also films on the same lot as the Ellen DeGeneres show is filmed.
It's nice to see Jayne with Mal again.
Re: Now this is interesting!
karenbear wrote:Mxyzptlk wrote:Can I ask you exactly what you mean by that statement?
He obviously meant the disappointing effort by the network, and the American viewing public on behalf of Dollhouse.
That is what I'm hoping he meant... but what if he didn't mean that?
Wizard wrote:I am calling fake. Not sure why, but I thought he was busy filming Castle - which is really good btw.
As for Dollhouse, its goodness could be graphed as a bell curve. Its started crap, got better, was really good in the middle, then got crap again, and ended in a really really bad way.
This would be my curb for graphing Dollhouse:
Hmmm... So you think that Dollhouse improved exponentially over time? I hate to say it, but I disagree. I'm a huge Buffy/Angel/Firefly fan, but Dollhouse wasn't in the same league, not even close. It had it's moments when it appeared things were changing, but it just fizzled out. And I thought the last episode was a complete let down.
I imagine I should run for cover now why everyone tells me that I'm wrong, because they said so.
Re: Now this is interesting!
Mxyzptlk wrote:karenbear wrote:He obviously meant the disappointing effort by the network, and the American viewing public on behalf of Dollhouse.
That is what I'm hoping he meant... but what if he didn't mean that?
Wizard wrote:I am calling fake. Not sure why, but I thought he was busy filming Castle - which is really good btw.
As for Dollhouse, its goodness could be graphed as a bell curve. Its started crap, got better, was really good in the middle, then got crap again, and ended in a really really bad way.
This would be my curb for graphing Dollhouse:
Hmmm... So you think that Dollhouse improved exponentially over time? I hate to say it, but I disagree. I'm a huge Buffy/Angel/Firefly fan, but Dollhouse wasn't in the same league, not even close. It had it's moments when it appeared things were changing, but it just fizzled out. And I thought the last episode was a complete let down.
I imagine I should run for cover now why everyone tells me that I'm wrong, because they said so.
I think that Dollhouse had a relatively weak beginning, but after episode 6, it just became better and better...
Re: Now this is interesting!
HEY!
Interesting indeed. . . (see what I did there )
Nathan Fillion guest starring in Chuck would be awesome! He could just be visiting the studio though. I heard that Chuck also films on the same lot as the Ellen DeGeneres show is filmed.
It's nice to see Jayne with Mal again.
Maybe he's pretending to visit, so that we will get heart attacks when we see him as a guest star...