>And I think it's just obvious logic that if you have a story
>that only fits 8 episodes, that having four episodic episodes
>to kick things off and establishing the characters is better
>than having filler episodes or a lot of overlong or filler
>scenes in the middle of when the show should have momentum.

"It’s “obvious logic” to make half of an 8 ep show episodic?"

Think for a second. Seriously. Just read and think instead of jumping to disagreement. "If you have a story that only fits 8 episodes" means the story isn't long enough to fill the show order. Therefore, instead of having overlong stuff to extend that story, why not have some episodic eps at the start.



-- "Again, what was stretched out? Those are perfectly reasonable suggestions but I didn’t see anything stretched out."

WTF? Pretty much everyone has agree the shows are too long and there are too many episodes. Now you're dismissing that?
Again, your response to something is to deny it's a problem even though the premise of my approach. If you don't think so, great, then there's nothing to discuss here. But most everyone else seems to think the show could have been much tighter.


">Again, Justified was filled with them.

Go watch Justified then."

You want an example and then you are dismissive when one is given. Typical.



-- "What ideas or context are needed for that suggestion? You want a dissertation on why having *some* interaction between these characters, who are being primed for a team up series, would be a good thing? Particularly when two of those characters are an actual team in the comics with one of them being married to another central character in the mix?

Yeah, THAT sure needed a deeper explanation."

So when someone asks you for more explanation, you can't imagine why that would be needed and dismiss the need for discussion but everyone else has to spell it out for you after your dismissive posts. And apparently you don't know it but when you write a post saying there are no good ideas in the entire post and then respond with stuff like "What for?", "I see zero benefit", "Nor should they be." it comes off as dismissive and not exactly opening up a discussion.
And all of your evidence is to set-up the future shows. How would a team up have fix Luke Cage? Didn't they have a team up with Claire? Why would they have teamed up for one episode and then taken off and not gotten a call when Luke was in trouble?



Although this is my favorite part of your nonsense:


"LOL@”demanding more evidence”. What are you even talking about?"

AND THEN!

"No opening for discussion in any of my comments? I LITERALLY ASKED YOU FOR MORE DETAILS. Pretty much the definition of “opening for discussion”.


So you didn't demand more but then you claim you weren't dismissive because you demanded more. And again, I thought your tone in this entire post was dismissive. Rereading it, I still think so.

----
NBA MOCK DRAFT #1 - https://thecourierclass.com/whole-shebang/2017/5/18/2017-nba-mock-draft-1-just-lotto-and-lotta-trades