Stupid article of the day: J.J. Abrams is a hack?

Boxcar: I actually watch it because it's so bad it's become hilarious. It only got funnier when Jennifer Garner, one of the worst actresses ever, won an Emmy for best female actor.

I sadly can't say the same about the schmalzy soap opera turd called Lost; that one is just aggravating.

I'm obviously in the minority, as the show's been on the air for a number of years, but how can people actually sit and watch "Alias"? I mean, all I hear (or, well, all I heard three or four years ago) is(was) how amazing "Alias" is and how it's the best show on television and ZOMG JJABRAMS IS TEH GOD!

Have any of you actually WATCHED the show? I'd imagine, that if you read plot synopses and looked at stills from the show, it might SEEM like a good show. Sure, everything's blowing up and exciting and Jennifer Garner is moderately attractive, and I think it's got that one old guy in it. But from the episodes I've forced on myself, the acting is wooden, almost comatose, and the writing makes me want to vomit!

Maybe I only think these things because Garner has so much screen time and ISN'T GOOD! Yeah, that's probably it.

Let's see... current book to read for Lost is "Bad Twin". Anna on Alias is now an "Evil Twin" of Sydney. Coincidence? I think not.

Well, I agree that this is just Slate writers doing what Slate writers do best: Exaggerated revisionism because it's cool to be contrary. But nonetheless... you really can only do "explosive in your head" once.

Though she does raise an interesting issue. In Felicity, Alias, Lost and MI:III, Abrams keeps doing that "creating compelling characters" and "tying storyline to emotion" and "being funny" thing, which is really jarring when you've been watching "CSI" and "King of Queens". Seriously, homeboy needs to learn a new trick.

I'm not sold on JJ Abrams, either. Not so much because he uses a literary device often, but because he abandons the story for the sake of story-telling. In other words, he can really present a story well, but he does not present good stories.

Let me preface this part by saying I've only seen a handful of episodes of "Felicity" and "Alias". I've enjoyed the single episodes I've seen. But from my friends and family who were big fans of both, they say that both series ended (and are ending) very poorly.

I watched the first season of "Lost," but I decided not to watch the second because I have a strong suspicion that the creators of the show have no idea where it's going. Again, the stylized storytelling is great, but utlimately I felt the story went nowhere.

Finally, I watched all of MI3, and I thought it was a very entertaining movie, but it also ended very weakly. The "twist" at the end seemed a bit forced and did not really shock me all that much.

And now I'm sure I will be subject to the many Abrams apologists. Just know this is one man's opinion, and until Abrams gives me a good ending to one his projects, I'm stickin' to it.

I think all the BSG fans out there will agree that "x hours earlier" gets REALLY annoying after seeing it more than once. I'll agree... It's a pretty gimmicky plot device that only rarely works well.

It's not like JJ's shows are the only ones to use that device, Battlestar Galactca used it a couple times, the movie Swordfish did it and Fight Club.

Being a fan of Alias and Lost and having seen the movie, the only thing I noticed was the "flash forward" at the start thing and it didn't bother me.

I think it's important to remember here that the article doesn't say that Abrams is hacky for doing these things, but rather that he's hacky for doing them *so* *much.*

And that's a basic premise I think I agree with. For every episode of Alias where the "72 Hours Earlier" structural device really works and builds tension and builds interest right away, there's another episode where it's not nessecary and doesn't really accomplish anything, particularly lately it's just been fluff.

So, to recap: "X Hours Earlier" in the pilot = absolutely, unequvocally 100% brilliant. "X hours Earlier" lately = not so hot. But it's become somewhat of a signature of Alias to do it, so, I let it slide.

With respect to M:I:iii, though, I watched JJ on Charlie Rose talking about how he used that particular device to get people to immidiately distance themselves from what they know/exect of a Tom Cruise / Action / Mission: Impossible movie right off the bat, and to take Tom Cruise out from being Mega Star Tom Cruise to being, you know, Ethan Hunt. This is a fact that the Slate article totally glosses over, leaving it solely as a stylistic device, rather than one intended to build meaning.

The question really is, how much of M:I:iii is for Alias fans. If you're an Alias fan and JJ Abrams fanatic, seeing the "X Hours Earlier" business can really make you cringe at this point--I know it certainly does with me--but, lets face it, Alias ain't the most popular show in the world, so in bringing new people to the neat-ness that is JJ Abrams, his signature stylistic flair is appropriate.

That doesn't mean I wouldn't mind if he learned a few new tricks, though.

That's nuts. If JJ Abrams is a hack than I'm living in bizzaro land. This man has re-invented suspensful action television. I guess he will never be able to get away from Gone Fishin