Esmeralda
Charmed
S2 "What If...?"
Fan Fic Winner
Twenty Years Gone....But Never Forgotten.
Posts: 21,920 
|
Post by Esmeralda on Feb 10, 2018 17:07:20 GMT -5
Does anyone have the twitter account or facebook account for the women writing the new Charmed reboot? Someone should send these to them and beg them to PLEASE not make the same mistakes that Classic Charmed made...
|
|
Granny Charmed
Whitelighter
S1 "What If...?"
Fan Fic Winner
Posts: 3,225
|
Post by Granny Charmed on Feb 10, 2018 19:21:54 GMT -5
I don't have social media dear, but I did find the social media accounts of the ladies writing it. Not sure what good it will do when we have already seen the audition videos on what the writing is like, but anyone who has twitter and wishes to comment to them, feel free. twitter.com/jess02jessica?lang=entwitter.com/amylrardin?lang=en |
|
rebooted
Witch
Started watching at 12
Posts: 1,803 
|
Post by rebooted on Feb 11, 2018 22:56:31 GMT -5
Does anyone have the twitter account or facebook account for the women writing the new Charmed reboot? Someone should send these to them and beg them to PLEASE not make the same mistakes that Classic Charmed made... Fab idea Es!
I particularly like her Season 2 review, especially her positive review of Morality Bites which is a fan fave as well... and from memory, your favourite episode?
I also do like the clip show at the end of her Season 8 review with the extended Charmed theme music in the background.
|
|
|
|
Post by West on Feb 12, 2018 0:10:18 GMT -5
I don't have social media dear, but I did find the social media accounts of the ladies writing it. Not sure what good it will do when we have already seen the audition videos on what the writing is like, but anyone who has twitter and wishes to comment to them, feel free. twitter.com/jess02jessica?lang=entwitter.com/amylrardin?lang=enDoes anyone have the twitter account or facebook account for the women writing the new Charmed reboot? Someone should send these to them and beg them to PLEASE not make the same mistakes that Classic Charmed made... Fab idea Es!
I particularly like her Season 2 review, especially her positive review of Morality Bites which is a fan fave as well... and from memory, your favourite episode?
I also do like the clip show at the end of her Season 8 review with the extended Charmed theme music in the background.
This sounds like a great idea!  I found these great too. |
|
Esmeralda
Charmed
S2 "What If...?"
Fan Fic Winner
Twenty Years Gone....But Never Forgotten.
Posts: 21,920
|
Post by Esmeralda on Feb 13, 2018 7:28:03 GMT -5
I admit that I had to rewatch these. But just like the actual show, as soon as Cole becomes the Source and I know Lupa is going to mention it 20,0000 times that it's not Cole's fault when it stopped being funny after the first time, well, that was enough for me. She gets to be as boring as the Charmed Ones! No doubt about it, I'll stick to my first two-and-a-half seasons (Up to 'Sleuthing with the Enemy'.... Yup, like Lupa says, if Charmed has a good idea, they'll find a way to do it stupid is definitely true in the first three seasons, too, but at least I had my Phoebs...
I'll keep saying it and for me it's so very true - this series *so* should've ended with 'All Hell Breaks Loose'!
|
|
|
|
Post by askfreebie on Jul 21, 2018 13:09:45 GMT -5
|
|
cyma
Witch
Waiting
Posts: 1,447
|
Post by cyma on Jul 21, 2018 14:56:37 GMT -5
I actually had to check if I wasn't dreaming after reading this o.0 I'm not! So thanks! :-D |
|
|
|
Post by askfreebie on Jul 21, 2018 16:33:57 GMT -5
I actually had to check if I wasn't dreaming after reading this o.0 I'm not! So thanks! :-D No problem! |
|
|
|
Post by ryang on May 16, 2019 18:18:40 GMT -5
Are these reviews now taken down? I was clicking the links and they go nowhere... I've never seen before and these reviews sound like a terrific watch.
|
|
Esmeralda
Charmed
S2 "What If...?"
Fan Fic Winner
Twenty Years Gone....But Never Forgotten.
Posts: 21,920
|
Post by Esmeralda on May 16, 2019 19:11:26 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by gleamingroses on Jun 27, 2019 2:45:08 GMT -5
Personally I don't think her reviews hold up very well. Sure they are funny regarding Piper and Phoebe's later season characterizations, but I feel even her focus in being funny sidelines her criticisms at times. After looking back at these reviews and seeing how they've influenced people I have to say its gotten pretty ridiculous. Firstly I want to say its one thing to watch along with someone, its another to be a sheep and just go along with what someone says in the review and that's how I feel outsiders of her reviews are coming into these. Aside from that though my biggest problem with her reviews are her inconsistent logic, misinformed information and outright disingenuous framing of wording.
I want to say in retrospect that If you look at her review in terms of how she goes in depth with the inconsistency of the whitelighters, skewed writing areas, the bad time travel, a lot of later season continuity errors, the Elders, the sister's character decline, grams/patty's deaths being meaningless, the Phoebe/Cole storyline, bizzare outfits (my favorite segments) the personal gain issue or any of the stuff that doesn't make sense (you know the general meat of the review?) then yeah her reviews are pretty spot on. But the areas around those criticisms are where he reviews feel outdated and just misinformed.
I feel her season 1 & 2 videos are pretty bad because she not only lacks detail in her criticism, but she mostly just critiqued it for "lacking" quality when most of her complaints boil down to 90's genre tropes and its clear she has a specific taste for more serious shows, when a show doesn't have to be serious to be good. She also flat out ignores things in certain instances which makes me think she wasn't paying attention unless it was something she specifically had a complaint about, which is a frequent problem in her reviews. In some instances she's flat out wrong with her wording.
For instance in season one on her segment about Rex and Hannah she shows the scene where Hannah is screaming not to be vanquished, right when saying it happens out of nowhere. Yet Hannah's dialogue outright confirms there's a bigger power at play (AKA the source) without confirming the source himself. If she has a reason why she didn't cover it then having a reason why should've been applied, otherwise she's just both nitpicking and lying. Then complains about Secrets and Guys for having a stupid title when other shows have them too, even Buffy (which she glorifies a lot in comparison) had stupid titles or ways they made things easy to vanquish. (I think of how they defeated Adam for instance) and one thing that bugs me is her saying the Power of Three is a Desus Ex Machina, but doesn't explain how it is.
For example, discussing "From Fear to Eternity", she complains that Prue's fear of drowning conveniently comes up and was never mentioned before. Sure, it's convenient, but I have to wonder when exactly she thinks something like that would come up in conversation prior to that. I mean, I'm afraid of spiders, I don't tend to bring it up unless I'm talking about fears or there's a spider.
Also it's kind of a shame that she doesn't comment much on the things in season 1 that are relevant to future seasons. Like learning about their history "The Witch is Back"/"That 70's Episode" and foreshadowing to later plots "Is There a Woogy" for example. Also I'd count Hannah's death among that, since it was the first hint at there being a bigger evil (Later revealed as The Source). Even in Season 2, she directs the Infernal Council as the Triad when they are different and doesn't include Prue's grief over Andy in Witch Trial or their talk in the Ghostly plane so she can state how its "thrown away" which tells me she either didn't pay attention to the episode or left it out entirely. Even if her same point applied you can't just leave something out when providing context at least explains why it still doesn't work.
Anyway, there are some opinions that I share with her such as the sexism, easy to win solutions, hamminess of villains etc, but I think we're more on the same page when it comes to later seasons. I don't think season one is as "mindless" as she puts it.. What's funny is in later reviews such as her Charmed Reboot Season Finale podcast she states the earlier seasons are fun campy and harmless (as well as her Charmed Rewind Podcast), but you would not get that impression by her season 1 & 2 reviews, considering she puts them on a lower standard scale because they lack quality. If she didn't say she liked season 3 the same would've applied. There are more things to point out, but that would take longer than it should.
My other problem is her criticism of the Charmed Ones, don't get me wrong we can all anamounsly agree that Piper and Phoebe are insufferable later seasons, that much can't be overlooked or denied. She's spot on pointing out their flaws. However I also feel she sacrifices criticisms about them in favor of framing a narrative or focus on the jokes she makes at them to the point where she'll leave out context to make something worse than what it is, which she does to Paige a lot especially when it comes to Season 8. This applies to her follow up review of A Witch's Tail where despite going back on rewatch someone leaves context out? Yet still goes by the logic of her reviews despite saying they were outdated in the comics review (see where the inconsistency comes in?) Like saying Paige's real job was a temp job or how she goes back and forth (which wasn't even apart of her character in Season 5, but framed it like it was) or Piper writing in the baby book when it was Patty's ghost. While she's completely on point about a lot of things regarding the evil things they've done, it comes off as disingenous when she says something contradicting or exaggerative.
I also don't like the framing of how she presents it as the girls being the same from season 1 to season 8 when it clearly isn't true. She'll go back and forth saying "the girls were unlikable from the start, but no it happened at this specific period" And when she does that it annoys me because she's not setting a ground about applying it to specifically the later seasons where those criticisms are most accurate, but framing it in a way where while her criticisms hold weight she kind of lies just to inflate that point higher. Because of that it makes her criticisms feel disingenuous. Yes they are funny, but I feel she sacrifices research in areas just to focus on making jokes about how bad Piper and Phoebe are, even to the point of not being above leaving out details to make her criticisms come off as accurate. Especially since no, Season 1 Piper and Phoebe are not the same as Season 5-8 Piper and Phoebe.
Even if she has a reason to counteract or explain that the fact she throws out "this is stupid or they are like that" without explaining it just make it seem like she's looking for something to complain about. For instance if she's so strong in saying the sisters were like this since the beginning why not provide examples to contrast both? Otherwise it comes off as painting a false narrative. Especially when the girls aren't the same in earlier seasons except maybe Phoebe in Season 3.
Going back to my Paige complaint, in Season 8 she makes statements of how Paige is now as "corrupt" as Piper and Phoebe now due to how more self focused she's become in wanting a normal life and her "Normal life vs magic" schtick being more forefront, yet Paige is only that way for the first few episodes then mainly focuses on her relationship with Henry. Even so Paige does do a lot of flip flopping when helping Billie anyway. Though I won't lie and say her increased apathy isn't good. But what gets me is when she says "Paige gets magical beings to do things for her all season" All season? She states that when it was only ONE episode "Repo Manor" yet frames it to make Paige seem worse, then outright ignores the fact Paige has Billie free her from the deep sleep in "Jung and the Restless" when she saw her charge was in trouble all to keep this narrative, when it still proved Paige was more grounded than Piper and Phoebe who remained in the dream until their selfish desires played out. The only criticism I have with Paige besides the back and forth thing is how she all of a sudden hates Leprchauns when she was friends with them before. (I found Paige worse in Season 6 tbh, even though she was still likable compared to Piper and Phoebe)
As for the rest of her reviews I think she struck the best balance with Seasons 3-5. She went more in-depth and clearly put in the effort and the research, without any of the reviews dragging on for too long. And, she was clearly still having fun in these reviews.
Seasons 6-7 were her worst. This was the point where she was clearly starting to get bored, so the reviews dragged on forever, and her criticism became increasingly more hateful. I hated the fact that she even went as far as taking a potshot at Charmed Sons fans at the start of the Season 7 review. To outright attack fans is wrong. In-depth research also seemed to be thrown out the window, as her reviews became more and more riddled with inaccuracies. This was long, but I had to get that off my chest.
|
|
codebox
Familiar
Hey I'm a Charmed Veteran have been for a long time. Hope to share some insight and opinions.
Posts: 287
|
Post by codebox on Jun 27, 2019 5:24:15 GMT -5
Personally I don't think her reviews hold up very well. Sure they are funny regarding Piper and Phoebe's later season characterizations, but I feel even her focus in being funny sidelines her criticisms at times. After looking back at these reviews and seeing how they've influenced people I have to say its gotten pretty ridiculous. Firstly I want to say its one thing to watch along with someone, its another to be a sheep and just go along with what someone says in the review and that's how I feel outsiders of her reviews are coming into these. Aside from that though my biggest problem with her reviews are her inconsistent logic, misinformed information and outright disingenuous framing of wording. I want to say in retrospect that If you look at her review in terms of how she goes in depth with the inconsistency of the whitelighters, skewed writing areas, the bad time travel, a lot of later season continuity errors, the Elders, the sister's character decline, grams/patty's deaths being meaningless, the Phoebe/Cole storyline, bizzare outfits (my favorite segments) the personal gain issue or any of the stuff that doesn't make sense (you know the general meat of the review?) then yeah her reviews are pretty spot on. But the areas around those criticisms are where he reviews feel outdated and just misinformed. I feel her season 1 & 2 videos are pretty bad because she not only lacks detail in her criticism, but she mostly just critiqued it for "lacking" quality when most of her complaints boil down to 90's genre tropes and its clear she has a specific taste for more serious shows, when a show doesn't have to be serious to be good. She also flat out ignores things in certain instances which makes me think she wasn't paying attention unless it was something she specifically had a complaint about, which is a frequent problem in her reviews. In some instances she's flat out wrong with her wording. For instance in season one on her segment about Rex and Hannah she shows the scene where Hannah is screaming not to be vanquished, right when saying it happens out of nowhere. Yet Hannah's dialogue outright confirms there's a bigger power at play (AKA the source) without confirming the source himself. If she has a reason why she didn't cover it then having a reason why should've been applied, otherwise she's just both nitpicking and lying. Then complains about Secrets and Guys for having a stupid title when other shows have them too, even Buffy (which she glorifies a lot in comparison) had stupid titles or ways they made things easy to vanquish. (I think of how they defeated Adam for instance) and one thing that bugs me is her saying the Power of Three is a Desus Ex Machina, but doesn't explain how it is. For example, discussing "From Fear to Eternity", she complains that Prue's fear of drowning conveniently comes up and was never mentioned before. Sure, it's convenient, but I have to wonder when exactly she thinks something like that would come up in conversation prior to that. I mean, I'm afraid of spiders, I don't tend to bring it up unless I'm talking about fears or there's a spider. Also it's kind of a shame that she doesn't comment much on the things in season 1 that are relevant to future seasons. Like learning about their history "The Witch is Back"/"That 70's Episode" and foreshadowing to later plots "Is There a Woogy" for example. Also I'd count Hannah's death among that, since it was the first hint at there being a bigger evil (Later revealed as The Source). Even in Season 2, she directs the Infernal Council as the Triad when they are different and doesn't include Prue's grief over Andy in Witch Trial or their talk in the Ghostly plane so she can state how its "thrown away" which tells me she either didn't pay attention to the episode or left it out entirely. Even if her same point applied you can't just leave something out when providing context at least explains why it still doesn't work. Anyway, there are some opinions that I share with her such as the sexism, easy to win solutions, hamminess of villains etc, but I think we're more on the same page when it comes to later seasons. I don't think season one is as "mindless" as she puts it.. What's funny is in later reviews such as her Charmed Reboot Season Finale podcast she states the earlier seasons are fun campy and harmless (as well as her Charmed Rewind Podcast), but you would not get that impression by her season 1 & 2 reviews, considering she puts them on a lower standard scale because they lack quality. If she didn't say she liked season 3 the same would've applied. There are more things to point out, but that would take longer than it should. My other problem is her criticism of the Charmed Ones, don't get me wrong we can all anamounsly agree that Piper and Phoebe are insufferable later seasons, that much can't be overlooked or denied. She's spot on pointing out their flaws. However I also feel she sacrifices criticisms about them in favor of framing a narrative or focus on the jokes she makes at them to the point where she'll leave out context to make something worse than what it is, which she does to Paige a lot especially when it comes to Season 8. This applies to her follow up review of A Witch's Tail where despite going back on rewatch someone leaves context out? Yet still goes by the logic of her reviews despite saying they were outdated in the comics review (see where the inconsistency comes in?) Like saying Paige's real job was a temp job or how she goes back and forth (which wasn't even apart of her character in Season 5, but framed it like it was) or Piper writing in the baby book when it was Patty's ghost. While she's completely on point about a lot of things regarding the evil things they've done, it comes off as disingenous when she says something contradicting or exaggerative. I also don't like the framing of how she presents it as the girls being the same from season 1 to season 8 when it clearly isn't true. She'll go back and forth saying "the girls were unlikable from the start, but no it happened at this specific period" And when she does that it annoys me because she's not setting a ground about applying it to specifically the later seasons where those criticisms are most accurate, but framing it in a way where while her criticisms hold weight she kind of lies just to inflate that point higher. Because of that it makes her criticisms feel disingenuous. Yes they are funny, but I feel she sacrifices research in areas just to focus on making jokes about how bad Piper and Phoebe are, even to the point of not being above leaving out details to make her criticisms come off as accurate. Especially since no, Season 1 Piper and Phoebe are not the same as Season 5-8 Piper and Phoebe. Even if she has a reason to counteract or explain that the fact she throws out "this is stupid or they are like that" without explaining it just make it seem like she's looking for something to complain about. For instance if she's so strong in saying the sisters were like this since the beginning why not provide examples to contrast both? Otherwise it comes off as painting a false narrative. Especially when the girls aren't the same in earlier seasons except maybe Phoebe in Season 3. Going back to my Paige complaint, in Season 8 she makes statements of how Paige is now as "corrupt" as Piper and Phoebe now due to how more self focused she's become in wanting a normal life and her "Normal life vs magic" schtick being more forefront, yet Paige is only that way for the first few episodes then mainly focuses on her relationship with Henry. Even so Paige does do a lot of flip flopping when helping Billie anyway. Though I won't lie and say her increased apathy isn't good. But what gets me is when she says "Paige gets magical beings to do things for her all season" All season? She states that when it was only ONE episode "Repo Manor" yet frames it to make Paige seem worse, then outright ignores the fact Paige has Billie free her from the deep sleep in "Jung and the Restless" when she saw her charge was in trouble all to keep this narrative, when it still proved Paige was more grounded than Piper and Phoebe who remained in the dream until their selfish desires played out. The only criticism I have with Paige besides the back and forth thing is how she all of a sudden hates Leprchauns when she was friends with them before. (I found Paige worse in Season 6 tbh, even though she was still likable compared to Piper and Phoebe) As for the rest of her reviews I think she struck the best balance with Seasons 3-5. She went more in-depth and clearly put in the effort and the research, without any of the reviews dragging on for too long. And, she was clearly still having fun in these reviews. Seasons 6-7 were her worst. This was the point where she was clearly starting to get bored, so the reviews dragged on forever, and her criticism became increasingly more hateful. I hated the fact that she even went as far as taking a potshot at Charmed Sons fans at the start of the Season 7 review. To outright attack fans is wrong. In-depth research also seemed to be thrown out the window, as her reviews became more and more riddled with inaccuracies. This was long, but I had to get that off my chest. This ^ I completely agree with all of this. My thoughts are the same honestly. It was strange how even after a re-watch she framed particular situations wrongs. (namely the whole thing with Paige's jobs and the baby book thing) and all of her stuff begins to contradict one another. And also to note "all the time with them, constantly" about Phoebe's hair comment. Again all the time? or just later when they became more self centered? Though in general Phoebe worrying about her hair being wet was a problem. Though to be fair her Witchstock re-review does fix that problem and was accurate. (Though her comment on The Good, The Bad and the Curse being time travel was wrong, it was a time loop, not time travel.) charmed.fandom.com/wiki/Time_Loop#Appendices Also she mentions how the episode was suppose to be written for Patty and other than calling out the lazy schedule conflict makes no note of opinion about it. Like could be better or worse. It would've been something to bring up just to hear her opinion about it more. Personally I liked Chris, even if Drew's acting was wooden. Also she complained at Piper in Season 4 where she "gives up helping innocents again" when the exampled she showed was her grief over Prue in the season 4 premiere, yet later in a podcast where she's a guest star on she says "Piper's reaction makes sense you wouldn't want someone to replace your sister", but that's literally why Piper was fussing at Phoebe in Charmed Again she just didn't want her to lose another sister! |
|
|
|
Post by gleamingroses on Jun 28, 2019 8:44:27 GMT -5
Personally I don't think her reviews hold up very well. Sure they are funny regarding Piper and Phoebe's later season characterizations, but I feel even her focus in being funny sidelines her criticisms at times. After looking back at these reviews and seeing how they've influenced people I have to say its gotten pretty ridiculous. Firstly I want to say its one thing to watch along with someone, its another to be a sheep and just go along with what someone says in the review and that's how I feel outsiders of her reviews are coming into these. Aside from that though my biggest problem with her reviews are her inconsistent logic, misinformed information and outright disingenuous framing of wording. I want to say in retrospect that If you look at her review in terms of how she goes in depth with the inconsistency of the whitelighters, skewed writing areas, the bad time travel, a lot of later season continuity errors, the Elders, the sister's character decline, grams/patty's deaths being meaningless, the Phoebe/Cole storyline, bizzare outfits (my favorite segments) the personal gain issue or any of the stuff that doesn't make sense (you know the general meat of the review?) then yeah her reviews are pretty spot on. But the areas around those criticisms are where he reviews feel outdated and just misinformed. I feel her season 1 & 2 videos are pretty bad because she not only lacks detail in her criticism, but she mostly just critiqued it for "lacking" quality when most of her complaints boil down to 90's genre tropes and its clear she has a specific taste for more serious shows, when a show doesn't have to be serious to be good. She also flat out ignores things in certain instances which makes me think she wasn't paying attention unless it was something she specifically had a complaint about, which is a frequent problem in her reviews. In some instances she's flat out wrong with her wording. For instance in season one on her segment about Rex and Hannah she shows the scene where Hannah is screaming not to be vanquished, right when saying it happens out of nowhere. Yet Hannah's dialogue outright confirms there's a bigger power at play (AKA the source) without confirming the source himself. If she has a reason why she didn't cover it then having a reason why should've been applied, otherwise she's just both nitpicking and lying. Then complains about Secrets and Guys for having a stupid title when other shows have them too, even Buffy (which she glorifies a lot in comparison) had stupid titles or ways they made things easy to vanquish. (I think of how they defeated Adam for instance) and one thing that bugs me is her saying the Power of Three is a Desus Ex Machina, but doesn't explain how it is. For example, discussing "From Fear to Eternity", she complains that Prue's fear of drowning conveniently comes up and was never mentioned before. Sure, it's convenient, but I have to wonder when exactly she thinks something like that would come up in conversation prior to that. I mean, I'm afraid of spiders, I don't tend to bring it up unless I'm talking about fears or there's a spider. Also it's kind of a shame that she doesn't comment much on the things in season 1 that are relevant to future seasons. Like learning about their history "The Witch is Back"/"That 70's Episode" and foreshadowing to later plots "Is There a Woogy" for example. Also I'd count Hannah's death among that, since it was the first hint at there being a bigger evil (Later revealed as The Source). Even in Season 2, she directs the Infernal Council as the Triad when they are different and doesn't include Prue's grief over Andy in Witch Trial or their talk in the Ghostly plane so she can state how its "thrown away" which tells me she either didn't pay attention to the episode or left it out entirely. Even if her same point applied you can't just leave something out when providing context at least explains why it still doesn't work. Anyway, there are some opinions that I share with her such as the sexism, easy to win solutions, hamminess of villains etc, but I think we're more on the same page when it comes to later seasons. I don't think season one is as "mindless" as she puts it.. What's funny is in later reviews such as her Charmed Reboot Season Finale podcast she states the earlier seasons are fun campy and harmless (as well as her Charmed Rewind Podcast), but you would not get that impression by her season 1 & 2 reviews, considering she puts them on a lower standard scale because they lack quality. If she didn't say she liked season 3 the same would've applied. There are more things to point out, but that would take longer than it should. My other problem is her criticism of the Charmed Ones, don't get me wrong we can all anamounsly agree that Piper and Phoebe are insufferable later seasons, that much can't be overlooked or denied. She's spot on pointing out their flaws. However I also feel she sacrifices criticisms about them in favor of framing a narrative or focus on the jokes she makes at them to the point where she'll leave out context to make something worse than what it is, which she does to Paige a lot especially when it comes to Season 8. This applies to her follow up review of A Witch's Tail where despite going back on rewatch someone leaves context out? Yet still goes by the logic of her reviews despite saying they were outdated in the comics review (see where the inconsistency comes in?) Like saying Paige's real job was a temp job or how she goes back and forth (which wasn't even apart of her character in Season 5, but framed it like it was) or Piper writing in the baby book when it was Patty's ghost. While she's completely on point about a lot of things regarding the evil things they've done, it comes off as disingenous when she says something contradicting or exaggerative. I also don't like the framing of how she presents it as the girls being the same from season 1 to season 8 when it clearly isn't true. She'll go back and forth saying "the girls were unlikable from the start, but no it happened at this specific period" And when she does that it annoys me because she's not setting a ground about applying it to specifically the later seasons where those criticisms are most accurate, but framing it in a way where while her criticisms hold weight she kind of lies just to inflate that point higher. Because of that it makes her criticisms feel disingenuous. Yes they are funny, but I feel she sacrifices research in areas just to focus on making jokes about how bad Piper and Phoebe are, even to the point of not being above leaving out details to make her criticisms come off as accurate. Especially since no, Season 1 Piper and Phoebe are not the same as Season 5-8 Piper and Phoebe. Even if she has a reason to counteract or explain that the fact she throws out "this is stupid or they are like that" without explaining it just make it seem like she's looking for something to complain about. For instance if she's so strong in saying the sisters were like this since the beginning why not provide examples to contrast both? Otherwise it comes off as painting a false narrative. Especially when the girls aren't the same in earlier seasons except maybe Phoebe in Season 3. Going back to my Paige complaint, in Season 8 she makes statements of how Paige is now as "corrupt" as Piper and Phoebe now due to how more self focused she's become in wanting a normal life and her "Normal life vs magic" schtick being more forefront, yet Paige is only that way for the first few episodes then mainly focuses on her relationship with Henry. Even so Paige does do a lot of flip flopping when helping Billie anyway. Though I won't lie and say her increased apathy isn't good. But what gets me is when she says "Paige gets magical beings to do things for her all season" All season? She states that when it was only ONE episode "Repo Manor" yet frames it to make Paige seem worse, then outright ignores the fact Paige has Billie free her from the deep sleep in "Jung and the Restless" when she saw her charge was in trouble all to keep this narrative, when it still proved Paige was more grounded than Piper and Phoebe who remained in the dream until their selfish desires played out. The only criticism I have with Paige besides the back and forth thing is how she all of a sudden hates Leprchauns when she was friends with them before. (I found Paige worse in Season 6 tbh, even though she was still likable compared to Piper and Phoebe) As for the rest of her reviews I think she struck the best balance with Seasons 3-5. She went more in-depth and clearly put in the effort and the research, without any of the reviews dragging on for too long. And, she was clearly still having fun in these reviews. Seasons 6-7 were her worst. This was the point where she was clearly starting to get bored, so the reviews dragged on forever, and her criticism became increasingly more hateful. I hated the fact that she even went as far as taking a potshot at Charmed Sons fans at the start of the Season 7 review. To outright attack fans is wrong. In-depth research also seemed to be thrown out the window, as her reviews became more and more riddled with inaccuracies. This was long, but I had to get that off my chest. This ^ I completely agree with all of this. My thoughts are the same honestly. It was strange how even after a re-watch she framed particular situations wrongs. (namely the whole thing with Paige's jobs and the baby book thing) and all of her stuff begins to contradict one another. And also to note "all the time with them, constantly" about Phoebe's hair comment. Again all the time? or just later when they became more self centered? Though in general Phoebe worrying about her hair being wet was a problem. Though to be fair her Witchstock re-review does fix that problem and was accurate. (Though her comment on The Good, The Bad and the Curse being time travel was wrong, it was a time loop, not time travel.) charmed.fandom.com/wiki/Time_Loop#Appendices Also she mentions how the episode was suppose to be written for Patty and other than calling out the lazy schedule conflict makes no note of opinion about it. Like could be better or worse. It would've been something to bring up just to hear her opinion about it more. Personally I liked Chris, even if Drew's acting was wooden. Also she complained at Piper in Season 4 where she "gives up helping innocents again" when the exampled she showed was her grief over Prue in the season 4 premiere, yet later in a podcast where she's a guest star on she says "Piper's reaction makes sense you wouldn't want someone to replace your sister", but that's literally why Piper was fussing at Phoebe in Charmed Again she just didn't want her to lose another sister! Yep and that's where he reviews fall flat is clarity. In terms of the general meat of the show she's on point with a lot of stuff and in newer reviews she does clarify why things don't work. But what still gets me is how she frames things. Still likes to say the girls never save anyone, despite saying numerous times in later reviews the original premise was saving innocents, meaning the girls helped people. You can't say something like that only to act like they've never helped anyone. In her Re-watch of a Witch's Tail she does explain how saving an innocent doesn't work in their case, but it's only for that episode. She doesn't bother comparing that type of situation to earlier seasons in order to back up her statement on "the girls never save anyone" otherwise she comes off as misinformed. Even if she has her reasons or counterarguments actually explaining or showcasing examples should still be used in a way so those complains become more valid. You can't say for instance Piper crying over feeling guilt for losing Dr Williamson in Astral Monkey is the same as being insensitive toward Miley the Mermaid in A Witch's Tail, which kills me when she acts like the girls have always been the same character, but then says claims like "When Phoebe started out she was the troubled sister who screwed up and tried to redeem herself, or back in the day she was a character" then say "the girls just never save anyone and have been bad for 8 seasons" those two claims are contradictory when you explain how she's different previously than later. Lacking that distinct clarification that she's only applying it to later seasons means that she comes off as disingenuous when she's wrong. The fact people were able to point out those flaws in comment sections further proves me point. She bothers correcting herself on the From Fear, to Enterity comparison to Piper being saved, yet doesn't do research or pay attention to know its the episode where Paige quits her job. Which further fits into my statement of it feeling like she specifically looks for things that annoy her personally. Even if you want to argue that it doesn't impact the general meat of said review being right it doesn't change the fact that her claims come off as misinformed and inconsistent. She never gives a distinct comparison as to why the girls were always bad. If she would compare a Season 1 episode to a later season episode and compare why they don't work when saving innocents in general like she did specifically with A Witch's Tail (which only applied for that episode) then I would be more inclined to agree. But the girls actually did save innocents earlier and their complaining wasn't as apparent as it was later. I mean there's a reason her season 1 and 2 reviews have a lot of dislikes. You wouldn't get the impression she thinks they were good campy fun by watching them, yet in A Witch's Tail rewatch states they are enjoyable campy, as well as her season finale of reboot. She also goes by the notes of her old reviews despite saying she hasn't went back to see the series since then, yet she goes by her notes in particular instances. In her note during Beth & Abby's Charming Podcast she states the girl's apathy is a problem through the whole show, but becomes more apparent later. I would like to see her provide examples of the girls being apathetic in earlier seasons rather than just saying they were, which doesn't help that she says "Phoebe starts off as Paige" while saying Paige likes helping people, which is the same as saying early season Phoebe liked helping people. Even if something doesn't seem noteworthy, clarifying why is better than making a baseless statement, otherwise it just comes off as finding something to complain about. She is funny with her reviews so there are things to enjoy, but those lack of clarity at times kills it for me. When I had to rewatch these just like the actual show, as soon as Cole becomes the Source and I know Lupa is going to mention it 20,0000 times that it's not Cole's fault when it stopped being funny after the first time, well, that was enough for me. She gets to be as boring as the Charmed Ones! |
|
codebox
Familiar
Hey I'm a Charmed Veteran have been for a long time. Hope to share some insight and opinions.
Posts: 287
|
Post by codebox on Jul 23, 2019 18:48:32 GMT -5
To be fair though her reviews are fairly accurate and don't impart on her main criticisms. I also think they are funny. Plus her newest one on Season 1 cleared a lot of it up while still providing entertaining jokes.
|
|
codebox
Familiar
Hey I'm a Charmed Veteran have been for a long time. Hope to share some insight and opinions.
Posts: 287
|
Post by codebox on Sept 18, 2019 5:23:58 GMT -5
What do you think of their newest one on Long Live the Queen Roses?
|
|
|
|
Post by gleamingroses on Sept 18, 2019 5:41:49 GMT -5
What do you think of their newest one on Long Live the Queen Roses? Personally I thought it was her best one as far as negative reviews go. It wasn't one where she got things out of context or exaggerated a lot of what happens. The main focus being on Phoebe and the Cole drama surrounding her also helps considering it was the one critique in her entire reviews that had the most weight in them. However there are a few minor gripes I have with it. Firstly it falls victim into what I stated before, people have become so into just seeing her react so negatively to the show that they themselves have taken the liberty to do the same thing, so even though she went into it with the best of intentions her influence has caused people to want the negative rather than the positive. Secondly it bugged me that she only listed Morality Bites as the show's ONLY good episode, yet stated "good Charmed vs Bad Charmed" these two statements contradict one another because she insisted the show only has ONE good episode, yet still thinks the Prue seasons are the good parts of the show, then what makes them good if the show only has one definitive episode? If she means by quality of the standard for the show okay then, but she didn't state that. This might have been a joke, but it rubbed me the wrong way. I also don't like how she stated the girl's saved so few innocents when this claim is very vague on circumstance. Not every episode focuses on the girls trying to save someone, yet she uses this claim as if every single episode has to involve them saving someone and failing. Even so I wouldn't say the girls barely saved anyone, at least if we're talking Seasons 1-4, I can totally get Seasons 5-8. In fact I can name all the innocents the saved, named or nameless they've saved and it doesn't align with how little she states. Even if the girls lost innocents, it was either teaching a lesson such as Death Takes a Halliwell and Astral Monkey or wasn't through the Charmed One's negligence. Conversly I also feel this is a case where her only reviewing singular episodes from a season clouds her arguments in areas. Like I think most of her arguments would be so much stronger if she'd watch the full season prior to her Re-reviews, they've give so much context. Other than those gripes aside it was a good review as a whole, their jokes felt funny and less repetitive. Their commentary on the subject was strong and their criticisms were mostly accurate. (Though I do find it weird how they don't mention Piper is the one who states the whole "Can't hve it both ways claim".. Nitpicking though) I also wonder if she sees these comments on Charmed Café. |
|
|
|
Post by openspacesp3 on Mar 13, 2020 15:20:47 GMT -5
|
|
codebox
Familiar
Hey I'm a Charmed Veteran have been for a long time. Hope to share some insight and opinions.
Posts: 287
|
Post by codebox on Mar 13, 2020 17:13:21 GMT -5
When it comes to her latest ones I feel they are an improvement from the first few she did where she was mostly just repeating things from her old reviews (not a good idea to still use old 2013-2016 videos, especially outdated for current evaluation) and still left out things despite going back to see the episode. I'd say her recent ones have improved, and in a couple of her later Charmed reboot eps she did levity a lot of the things she got wrong before or explained them (like the Season 1-4 being "Good Charmed" and Season 5-8 "Bad Charmed) even admitting they were when the show was good.
However I feel out of the recent ones this is the one I've had the most problems with. Now I will say I did enjoy them having a guest star on as sort of a viewer lens, because I feel having someone who doesn't just agree is a nice breath of fresh air, I appreciated Peter's neutral/indifferent response as well as his enjoyment to the overall camp factor. However if there are a couple problems I have it would be her weird stance on early Phoebe and still bashing the sisters over the whole "hero" thing.
With Phoebe, something that made no sense was in her She's a Man Baby, A Man review she claims Phoebe is a lot stupider in these early seasons compared to later, but doesn't give any context or explain how Phoebe is dumber, both Allison and Phelan just say Phoebe is dumber without even a comparison or explaining how . Which to me, I don't see it. I fail to see how Phoebe is dumber in these earlier episodes. By her logic, the Phoebe that constantly dismisses everyone over some obviously evil connection to Cole or her delusions regarding her love advice or her general ignorance in understanding people PhoeMe is somehow smarter than the Phoebe who was more free spirited, a working college student and usually more intuitive? Her only argument is the smart spell, which while it only made Phoebe smarter in terms of trivia and knowledge, it wasn't that it gave her LITERAL sense, ithere's a fine line of what area of smartness could be applied, with Phoebe it was simply to give her knowledge on trivia or knowledge (such as memorizing the Book and latin spells) it's not like she was so dumb she needed the spell to do so much as just function, again there's no fine area here, especially when different areas of smartness could be applied, but instead they just label her as dumb.
On top of that I really hated her jab at the sisters when she complained them bragging at the beginning of the episode of their progress they made helping people, again she never really gives this fine line over this particular view point. Especially when she claims this era of the show being better, one of the factors that make it better was the girls saving people. What's even more baffling is that the literal previous episode was the Charmed Ones stopping the LITERAL apacalyspe, and she even mentions this in the review, yet acts like they've never done anything. I feel that jab was more reaching than anything. This is basically the issue when you try to make claims specifically by a single episode instance.
Not every episode focuses on the girls trying to save someone, yet she uses this claim as if every single episode has to involve them saving someone and failing. Even so I wouldn't say the girls barely saved anyone, at least if we're talking Seasons 1-4, I can totally get Seasons 5-8. In fact I can name all the innocents the saved, named or nameless they've saved and it doesn't align with how little she states. Even if the girls lost innocents, it was either teaching a lesson such as Death Takes a Halliwell and Astral Monkey or wasn't through the Charmed One's negligence. Conversly I also feel this is a case where her only reviewing singular episodes from a season clouds her arguments in areas. Like I think most of her arguments would be so much stronger if she'd watch the full season prior to her Re-reviews, they've give so much context.
I understand her reason for this being how it's difficult to keep up with everything, but in some cases its not even a matter of keeping up as much as its misinformed, and it still bugs me that people who only follow the show through them just take every word of it, meaning contextless misinformation is part of their logic. And this isn't just a "Season 5-8" jab, it's something that's out of context regardless.
They even claim Prue is unlikable in this episode, which is something I never noticed before. Not picking at their claims, I'm just curious because I never noticed it. But I also never saw a reason based on what they described other than her being overfocused on dates. But I do agree Shannen wasn't particularly strong in this one either. It will be curious to note as we get to the finale. Their only claim for this is the fact she's focused on dates, when really the main problem with them being focused on dates (moreso later seasons) would how it would come to the deteriment of their duties, here Prue is just dating, it's not hurting innocents or ignoring her duties. They even say teenage Prue wore glasses, even though she didn't.. I have no idea where that came from.
Also I find it odd that her category for the voting poll was just "French Stewart Genie". Why make a poll based around a singular episode when it's literally the only episode by default that will win because it's the only one with French Stewart in it? They might as well have just picked the review themselves or did a poll based on all the season finales. Or if they were going to do Genies, have this vs I Dream of Phoebe.
And a minor nitpick, but she said nobody uses the words "I wish" what about the phrases "I wish I could help, but___ or Y'know I wish they would stop" like what? I also feel like their guest/editor Peter should've been shown a Season 1 episode. Otherwise I did enjoy the review for the actual review and their jokes were still funny and I agree with the rest of the points and claims that they made in the review.
|
|
Esmeralda
Charmed
S2 "What If...?"
Fan Fic Winner
Twenty Years Gone....But Never Forgotten.
Posts: 21,920
|
Post by Esmeralda on Mar 14, 2020 13:22:49 GMT -5
I bored out after less than a minute before they even got to the episode. When do they stop talking Carmn and start talking Charmed? And this was voted the best to be reran??? Why? Because it's ultra-stupid or because it include French Stewart?
Sorry, Lupa - I'm disappointed.
|
|
codebox
Familiar
Hey I'm a Charmed Veteran have been for a long time. Hope to share some insight and opinions.
Posts: 287
|
Post by codebox on Mar 14, 2020 21:38:40 GMT -5
I bored out after less than a minute before they even got to the episode. When do they stop talking Carmn and start talking Charmed? And this was voted the best to be reran??? Why? Because it's ultra-stupid or because it include French Stewart? Sorry, Lupa - I'm disappointed. I find it odd that her category for the voting poll was just "French Stewart Genie". Why make a poll based around a singular episode when it's literally the only episode by default that will win because it's the only one with French Stewart in it? They might as well have just picked the review themselves or did a poll based on all the season finales. Or if they were going to do Genies, have this vs I Dream of Phoebe. I did like her previous recent ones though. |
|
