Fox's new show "Glee"

[Lathum]

Just watched the Xmas episode. Good stuff.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Talk about random thread necromancy, but I thought it was very cool to discover that Halestorm's "Here's To Us" made tonight's episode of Glee. Pretty big deal for a band at this stage of their career, they seem pretty jacked about it and I'm pretty happy for 'em.

Here's the real thing in case you Gleesters (Gleeites? Gleeps?) are curious.

[Matthean]

I assume they used an edited version.

[ISiddiqui]

And the term is gleeks, if you were interested, JIMG .

Btw, powerful ep, at least in the beginning.

[CrimsonFox]

I kinda gave up on this show. Becmae repetitive and the musical numbers were so showy it lost its edge that it had in the beginning.

[PackerFanatic]

Originally Posted by CrimsonFox

I kinda gave up on this show. Becmae repetitive and the musical numbers were so showy it lost its edge that it had in the beginning.

Ditto - I like the songs, but the story and characters did absolutely nothing to keep my interest.

[CrimsonFox]

Oh and their dumbass decision to dump Michele, Montheith, and Colver (which also by default dumps O'Malley and Darren Criss) is just stupid. Gee Colver won the golden globe and nominated for an emmy (bringing more attention to the show) and Michele is one of the reasons the show works. She'll probably just go back to broadway though. Their reasoning is just pretentious and full of it. There are always reasons to keep write in people on a show. Heck they don't HAVE to graduate at the end of the season. I think they signed their cancellation notice.

[PackerFanatic]

I had heard they were thinking of a spin-off with a few of those characters - anything more on that? I do agree that Glee itself would lose quite a bit by losing them.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by CrimsonFox

Oh and their dumbass decision to dump Michele, Montheith, and Colver (which also by default dumps O'Malley and Darren Criss) is just stupid. Gee Colver won the golden globe and nominated for an emmy (bringing more attention to the show) and Michele is one of the reasons the show works. She'll probably just go back to broadway though. Their reasoning is just pretentious and full of it. There are always reasons to keep write in people on a show. Heck they don't HAVE to graduate at the end of the season. I think they signed their cancellation notice.

I have FAR more respect for them doing this than keeping them on indefinitely like this is Saved by the Bell.

[Matthean]

They could do what FNL did and still keep certain characters around and give them big send offs as needed. If Colfer is 100% gone with no appearances, then that's going to be a huge loss for the show and a misstep on their part.

[ISiddiqui]

Well they'll likely follow Michelle, Montheith, and Colfer in NY, but it won't be a major story arc. I imagine that next year the main actors will be Darren Criss and Chord Overstreet (and hopefully the glee project winners get more screen time).

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by CrimsonFox

Oh and their dumbass decision to dump Michele, Montheith, and Colver (which also by default dumps O'Malley and Darren Criss) is just stupid. Gee Colver won the golden globe and nominated for an emmy (bringing more attention to the show) and Michele is one of the reasons the show works. She'll probably just go back to broadway though. Their reasoning is just pretentious and full of it. There are always reasons to keep write in people on a show. Heck they don't HAVE to graduate at the end of the season. I think they signed their cancellation notice.

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

I have FAR more respect for them doing this than keeping them on indefinitely like this is Saved by the Bell.

1000x yes. This show doesn't work because these actors are so great - in fact, Finn is a pretty terribly acted character and he can't dance. It's the shell that works and I give tons of credit to moving graduating characters out. This will make me MORE likely to watch.

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Well they'll likely follow Michelle, Montheith, and Colfer in NY, but it won't be a major story arc. I imagine that next year the main actors will be Darren Criss and Chord Overstreet (and hopefully the glee project winners get more screen time).

Just a side note. This habit of using the actors' names instead of characters is annoying to me. I had to go to IMDB to figure it out. These guys aren't known names except maybe Lea Michele and Jane Lynch.

[stevew]

Shameful

Glee Egregiously Rips Off Jonathan Coulton

Glee made its name on enthusiastic unoriginality. The hit TV show, in which high school teens sing syrupy-sweet covers of famous pop tunes, has never really relied on new musical material. But the cover arrangements on the show are often very original—smart, interesting reharmonizations and mash-ups that often make even the tiredest pop tunes sound fresh.

However, with one of their arrangements for next week's episode, Glee appears to have flagrantly stolen an arrangement from geeky songwriter Jonathan Coulton.

[Izulde]

Glee's got at most one or two seasons left anyway. The new high school cast is terrible and uninteresting - essentially a reset of the original cast's character types with not enough variance to make it worthwhile. This is probably intentional, but it isn't working. At all.

The New York stuff, as unrealistic as a lot of it is, is nonetheless actually interesting and pretty much the only reason I keep up with the show anymore.

[chadritt]

Originally Posted by stevew

Shameful

Glee Egregiously Rips Off Jonathan Coulton

Glee made its name on enthusiastic unoriginality. The hit TV show, in which high school teens sing syrupy-sweet covers of famous pop tunes, has never really relied on new musical material. But the cover arrangements on the show are often very original—smart, interesting reharmonizations and mash-ups that often make even the tiredest pop tunes sound fresh.

However, with one of their arrangements for next week's episode, Glee appears to have flagrantly stolen an arrangement from geeky songwriter Jonathan Coulton.

This story has gotten huge in the nerd world the last 24 hours and it blows my mind. First off the "proof" is a screenshot of swedish Itunes so its entirely possible that this isnt even real. Secondly, unless they actually used his master tracks, which would be stupidity of the highest order, theyve actually done nothing either uncommon or illegal. Theyve used other peoples covers before, American Idol has done it a TON, X Factor has done it in multiple countries, and rarely is the original artist credited or even mentioned. Speaking of credit....Coulton might be credited in the show but nobody has bothered to find out before raising hell. Its entirely possible that he has a full screen with an announcement saying "the arrangement of baby got back was done by jonathan coulton", which would be above and beyond whats required of the show but nobody knows because, again, NOBODY ASKED ANYONE.

For the record: Im a fan of Coulton and i think it would be a dick move to take his arrangement and not credit him. If they were dumb enough to use his tracks then sue the hell out of them. Otherwise this is between them and sir mix a lot because colton doesnt own the song. Good for Coulton though; the sheer volume of nerd anger, which hes even admitted he shouldnt have sparked since he didnt bother talking to a lawyer or anyone from Glee, has gotten him more publicity than hes probably had in years.

[Matthean]

Originally Posted by chadritt

First off the "proof" is a screenshot of swedish Itunes so its entirely possible that this isnt even real.

You didn't follow the link to the Swedish store that's right above the image?

[chadritt]

Still doesnt change a whole lot and still could be an error since only sweden seems to have it. This is massively blown out of proportion and handled incredibly poorly.

[DanGarion]

If there is anything I know. That sounds EXACTLY like the JC music and song...

[Lathum]

TV Show ‘Glee’ Depicts School Shooting - ABC News

very poor taste.

I stopped watching the show a while back, so I can't comment on the episode aside from what I read in the article, but seems like a poor decision to air an episode like this one.

[JonInMiddleGA]

'Glee' star Cory Monteith found dead in hotel in Canada - CNN.com

[Lathum]

Wow. That's sad.

[Flasch186]

I find myself less and less saddened when a person with a past involving drugs passes away. Not to sound callous but as Ive grown older I tend to say to myself, "yup, drugs." and immediately cast blame on the person who passed versus feeling any sadness at all. Not sure what other variables are involved with my getting there but Im just not feeling sadness anymore when this occurs.

[rowech]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

I find myself less and less saddened when a person with a past involving drugs passes away. Not to sound callous but as Ive grown older I tend to say to myself, "yup, drugs." and immediately cast blame on the person who passed versus feeling any sadness at all. Not sure what other variables are involved with my getting there but Im just not feeling sadness anymore when this occurs.

+1

[Lathum]

Addiction is a sickness. One by all accounts he tried to have treated. Would you feel the same had he does of cancer?

It's easy for you and me to say "he should just stop taking drugs " but for someone suffering addiction it's not that simple.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Lathum

Addiction is a sickness. One by all accounts he tried to have treated. Would you feel the same had he does of cancer?

It's easy for you and me to say "he should just stop taking drugs " but for someone suffering addiction it's not that simple.

Not sure Im right or wrong just a feeling of moving very quickly past the sadness phase. I used to feel it for longer before moving to the casting blame phase but that sadness phase is now very very short.

[Suicane75]

Originally Posted by Lathum

Addiction is a sickness. One by all accounts he tried to have treated. Would you feel the same had he does of cancer?

It's easy for you and me to say "he should just stop taking drugs " but for someone suffering addiction it's not that simple.

This. My aunt had a lump on her breast and we were all really worried, thank god the biopsy showed she was just addicted to drugs.

[Suicane75]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Here's the real thing in case you Gleesters (Gleeites? Gleeps?) are curious.

I think the word you're searching for is virgins.

[Matthean]

Sharknado claims another.

[rowech]

Originally Posted by Lathum

Addiction is a sickness. One by all accounts he tried to have treated. Would you feel the same had he does of cancer?

It's easy for you and me to say "he should just stop taking drugs " but for someone suffering addiction it's not that simple.

He never should have started. You can't be addicted to something you never try.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by rowech

He never should have started. You can't be addicted to something you never try.

Wow. Judge much?

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by rowech

He never should have started. You can't be addicted to something you never try.

Between this comment and your views on gay marriage you really do see the world with blinders on.

I will say I appreciate you standing by your statements. No matter how shortsighted they may be.

[FBPro]

Sad nevertheless........

[rowech]

Originally Posted by Lathum

Wow. Judge much?

Do you smoke? If not, why don't you? Must have decided it wasn't good for you and probably shouldn't do it because of the health risks?

People know drugs are bad -- there are countless examples of people's lives who were ruined because of them. You pick one up, you're taking a risk. Just that simple. Kids are told from day one about the dangers of them. Don't want the consequences, don't pick them up.

Alcoholism runs rampant through my family. Both grandpas, my dad who recently died from it in September, and my two brothers are on their way. I chose long ago to never drink. I made the decision long ago because I didn't want the consequences both personally and for those I'm around. I hardly live with blinders. I made choices in my life that go right to the root of my beliefs on this topic.

As for gay marriage, I would say I have evolved on things there. I was wrong. I still don't believe the government has any place in marriage whatsoever but if they're going to be involved in someway, then everybody must be treated equally.

[Lathum]

I got you confused with someone else on gay marriage. My bad. As for addiction , he was 13. Do you hold yourself accountable for your actions from when you were 13?

[rowech]

Originally Posted by Lathum

I got you confused with someone else on gay marriage. My bad. As for addiction , he was 13. Do you hold yourself accountable for your actions from when you were 13?

I think in the case of things like drugs, you have to. Like I said, these kids hear it in school from such an early age about how wrong it is, how much damage it can do, etc. that it's just a dumb decision. I think people would be shocked how early and how much information kids are getting on drugs now.

I suppose an argument can be made that presenting that information to kids might make them all the more curious.

I also think an argument can be made that we as a society have somewhat made the problem worse because of the way we medicate in this country. Have a headache -- take a pill, have problem x -- take a pill, have problem y -- take a pill. I'm not saying all drugs are bad so please don't take it that way. I'm saying in many ways I fear our society has created a culture where we simply take so many medications that kids can get the idea that it will "help" their situation to take drugs.

I still think at 13, you know what decision you're making with drugs. You know it's wrong. You might not understand the consequences of what might happen but you still know it's wrong.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Lathum

I got you confused with someone else on gay marriage. My bad. As for addiction , he was 13. Do you hold yourself accountable for your actions from when you were 13?

He isn't 13 anymore. He has been able to afford the best help imagineable. Sad to hear but his death was caused by his own actions, his own lack of willpower. This was something he had the power and resources to prevent.

[sterlingice]

That just strikes me as really harsh. I mean, I'm glad the stupid mistakes I made at 13 (or 18 or 23) were of the harmless variety and not the serious variety. But I still think there's some measure of "there but by the grace of God go I". There's a reason why we don't give full rights and privileges to people until 18 or 21. Even at that age, it's hard to sometimes understand the full consequences of our actions.

SI

[RainMaker]

He was 30 years old.

[Lathum]

I think it's sad that people look at addicts and assume they lack will power or that it is as easy as simply not doing it anymore.

[RainMaker]

I think it's sad that they think there is no personal responsibility involved. That all of a sudden you wake up and are forced to ingest narcotics with no ways to stop it. That it's like catching the flu, just crappy luck.

[lungs]

Addiction is often times a symptom of a larger psychological disorder. Last summer my parents took in my cousin that was addicted to heroin. It was a messy situation with grandparents on both sides turning it into a holy war because of her lack of religion and my parents and aunt/uncle thinking that removing her from her environment was all that was needed. After spending some time with her and sharing my own past substance abuse issues I could tell it was a deeply rooted psychological issue. Once I convinced my family that none of them were psychologists and that she needed inpatient care, we finally made some progress. A year later she's doing much better and is currently working on her teaching degree. Not that there won't be any bumps in the road, but as a family we are much better equipped to deal with these issues now. Unfortunately in some cases like this, it doesn't work out.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I think it's sad that they think there is no personal responsibility involved. That all of a sudden you wake up and are forced to ingest narcotics with no ways to stop it.

Pretty much this.

And as far as being 13 when he started, if you don't have a better sense of right/wrong, wise/foolish, etc. by that point then something more than just addiction has gone wrong already afaic.

[Suicane75]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Pretty much this.

And as far as being 13 when he started, if you don't have a better sense of right/wrong, wise/foolish, etc. by that point then something more than just addiction has gone wrong already afaic.

This may be nearly as silly as comparing addiction to cancer.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Suicane75

This may be nearly as silly as comparing addiction to cancer.

Why? Because I expect someone to have already developed the foundations of making choices by the time they're 13?

If that's wrong, then just damn ... I guess we really have abdicated personal responsibility, starting with parenting.

Let's be clear here: at that age it's still a learning process, but the foundations of it better be pretty much laid. And I can say that as someone who (considerably older than 13) spent all or part of 92 straight days drunk well beyond the legal limit. But the choice to do that was a conscious one, the responsibility for it was my own.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Why? Because I expect someone to have already developed the foundations of making choices by the time they're 13?

If that's wrong, then just damn ... I guess we really have abdicated personal responsibility, starting with parenting.

+1

[Suicane75]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Why? Because I expect someone to have already developed the foundations of making choices by the time they're 13?

There is a big difference between the foundation being laid, understanding right and wrong, and comprehending the gravity and long term effects of situations when you haven't had near the life experience to completely understand them. I knew I shouldn't smoke when I was 16, I had very little consideration for the long term effects because sometimes you can't comprehend the levels pain addictions bring until it's far too late.

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

If that's wrong, then just damn ... I guess we really have abdicated personal responsibility, starting with parenting.

Unfortunately for the most part I believe we have. But even with the best parenting, to say that a 13 year old should be able to figure things out well beyond his maturity level is insane. Are you a smoker John? For some reason I think I recall you saying you were, but it might just be your sig that I'm recalling. In any event you mentioned your drinking, does that mean your parents were bad parents? Of course not.

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Let's be clear here: at that age it's still a learning process, but the foundations of it better be pretty much laid. And I can say that as someone who (considerably older than 13) spent all or part of 92 straight days drunk well beyond the legal limit. But the choice to do that was a conscious one, the responsibility for it was my own.

I agree with you that it's about personal responsibility. But as anyone who's ever been addicted to anything ever knows, whether it's twinkies, cigarettes or cocaine, you don't do it the first and second time because it makes you feel shitty and the idea that you're chasing some fictional golden carrot doesn't really set in till it's too late.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Suicane75

Are you a smoker John?

Good heavens, you really don't know me, do you?

I'm a steady 2-pack-a-day guy (down from my peak of 3.5 ppd) for what seems like forever, in reality only since hmm, 19ish IIRC.

My point about the parenting is/was that the foundations should certainly be in place by age 13. And if they are then there's personal responsibility that goes with the choices being made, the whole "he was just a kid" excuse doesn't really hold much water at that point.

That applies to me smoking at 19 or my own kid criminally trespassing* at like 11 or 12 or this actor doing whatever he did at 13.

*not charged nor even investigated but that's essentially what it was

[larrymcg421]

Holy shit the last half page of this thread may have made me angrier than anything else I've read on FOFC. Just really shocked (eventhough I know I shouldn't be) at how heartless people can be sometimes.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Holy shit the last half page of this thread may have made me angrier than anything else I've read on FOFC. Just really shocked (eventhough I know I shouldn't be) at how heartless people can be sometimes.

This.

Though props to Lathum and Suicane for reminding me that humanity has some redeeming qualities left.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Holy shit the last half page of this thread may have made me angrier than anything else I've read on FOFC. Just really shocked (eventhough I know I shouldn't be) at how heartless people can be sometimes.

I didn't mean to come across heartless. I think it's sad that he died. I think it's sad his friends and family have to go through this. I think it's sad someone that young with that kind of talent will never get to live out a great life that they had built.

He made a decision on how he wanted to live his life. There are unfortunate consequences for that lifestyle. He wasn't some broke junkie with no support system either. He had money to buy the best help in the world (which he previously did), he had loving family and friends behind him, he had a bright future.