October Road. - Page 2

**Marleybone** · 03-16-2007, 10:51 PM

I've looked forward to this show for weeks but after watching I'm not sure it's going to hold my interest. The lead guy Nick seemed like a complete jerk. I do agree with you, Broadway, about the beginning character development, so I'll give it another chance and watch again next week to see how it goes. I absolutely loved the music.

Google · Sponsored Links

Mike'sgirl · 03-17-2007, 01:57 AM

Nothing fresh here. Of course, he is the father - the whole story seemed very predictable. I was bored with Men in Trees and hoping this would be a good replacement, now I am not so sure. I think I would rather they bring back "The Nine" in this time slot.

katkitty · 03-17-2007, 06:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FireWoman

Yeah i said the same thing lol. But hearing The Gin Blossoms and such again.. and having it be so fitting.. took me back to the mid 1990's. I admit, I misted up a bit

I think it started in the 90's and ended up being today.

After I watched the 2nd half it became evident the show is in the present time (the twin towers reference was made about 31 minutes into the show...)

speedbump · 03-18-2007, 04:24 PM

This would've made an excellent Hallmark movie of the week- predictable plot all neatly tied up at the end of two hours where the boy gets the girl and his best friend.

I didn't dislike it, just not sure how long this idea can go on for.

buglover · 03-19-2007, 12:54 PM

I watched online. I liked it. I keep expecting more comedy from the female character as she was on That 70s show but all in all, the connection made about the kid being allerigic to nuts was a bingo in my head!

skyhigh79 · 03-21-2007, 11:47 AM

I agree with Krom. The whole 10 years and he didn't know she had a baby thing is too far out to believe. The whole lame excuse about finding himself just didn't work. If he hated his family and life and didn't want to go back, then maybe. M.O.W would be better, it could all be wrapped up in 2 hours.

LG. · 03-21-2007, 12:57 PM

I flipped back and forth between this and Raines (which also premiered at the same time last week) and ended up sticking with Raines instead. Of course I like Jeff Goldblum, and his Raines was like a somewhat less annoying Monk character. I doubt I'll watch this one again unless there is nothing else on at the time (which is the same reason I end up watching What About Brian even though I really get annoyed with that show). What? Turn off the TV? Blasphemy.

Veruka · 03-23-2007, 01:06 PM

I have tried really hard to like this show. I think that it's the music that keeps me watching.

I like the characters a lot, and I like the idea of the show. It is VERY similair to the movie Beautiful Girls, which I adore. But the writing is SO weak. Not only is the idea that he kept in touch with his family, but had no idea in a small town that his former girlfriend had a kid a stretch, but there is so much that is implied that they need to explain better. Okay, so he wrote a book that offended the people in his town. What exactly offended them? If they're going to build the show on that detail, then they need to give more information there instead oftaking the short cut they have. And if they're going to make such a huge point about the groom from Wedding Crashers hating him so much, then they REALLY need to explain why.

I'll watch for a couple of episodes to get answers to those questions. But if they keep on being lazy in implying but not exmplaining, I'll lose interest.

Krom · 03-24-2007, 06:51 PM

I just noticed that TV Guide's Matt Roush gave this show a score of Zero.

Roush's Review (about halfway down)

Quote:

October Road
When: Thursdays, Starting March 15, 10 pm/ET, ABC
The Situation: Replaces Men in Trees into April
The Lowdown: Every you-can't-go-home-again cliché is recycled in the comically pretentious saga of a writer (Bryan Greenberg) reuniting with the former pals (including his ex, Laura Prepon) he exploited in a best-seller, "Turtle on a Snare Drum." (Ick.) The woeful sub-Dawson's Creek dialogue caused me actual pain.
My Score: 0

This was on a ten point scale, but with this show it could have just as easily been zero out of a hundred.

fireflyer · 03-26-2007, 08:36 AM

Wow, I was surprised to read all these comments. I was really liking this show.

OK, the scene with the lead character serenading the colleage Dean and having that actually WORK was a little odd, but otherwise I liked it.

Interesting twist that the cheating affair with the best friend's wife is a weekly event, not just a 1-time fling as the little ugly guy claimed. Not sure what that lady sees in him, but stranger things have happened.

I like the smart little boy.

I think it should be pretty easy for the lead character to verify or discredit Donna's story about who the father was. All he needs to do is look up the boy's birthday in the county birth records, and do the math.

Donna (or whatever he character's name is) claimed the father was some guy she slept with when she realized the lead guy wasn't coming back from his trip. So that means it was at least 6 weeks after he left town.

03-16-2007, 10:51 PM	#11
Marleybone Twilight Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 14,368	I've looked forward to this show for weeks but after watching I'm not sure it's going to hold my interest. The lead guy Nick seemed like a complete jerk. I do agree with you, Broadway, about the beginning character development, so I'll give it another chance and watch again next week to see how it goes. I absolutely loved the music. __________________ A veteran is someone who, at one point in his life wrote a blank check Made payable to The United States of America for an amount of 'up to and including my life.'

03-18-2007, 04:24 PM	#14
speedbump Lord of the Vineyards Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: NorCal Age: 35 Posts: 6,935 Blog Entries: 1	This would've made an excellent Hallmark movie of the week- predictable plot all neatly tied up at the end of two hours where the boy gets the girl and his best friend. I didn't dislike it, just not sure how long this idea can go on for. __________________ You got to cry without weeping. Talk without speaking. Scream without raising your voice.- U2

03-19-2007, 12:54 PM	#15
buglover Praying for my buddy. Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: CA Age: 34 Posts: 9,466 Blog Entries: 4	I watched online. I liked it. I keep expecting more comedy from the female character as she was on That 70s show but all in all, the connection made about the kid being allerigic to nuts was a bingo in my head! __________________ Roasting in the California Sun.

03-21-2007, 12:57 PM	#17
LG. perfectly pugnacious Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Whack-a-Mole Posts: 13,444	I flipped back and forth between this and Raines (which also premiered at the same time last week) and ended up sticking with Raines instead. Of course I like Jeff Goldblum, and his Raines was like a somewhat less annoying Monk character. I doubt I'll watch this one again unless there is nothing else on at the time (which is the same reason I end up watching What About Brian even though I really get annoyed with that show). What? Turn off the TV? Blasphemy. __________________ Signature line? We don't need no stinkin' signature line.

03-23-2007, 01:06 PM	#18
Veruka FORT Fogey Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Georgia Posts: 6,718	I have tried really hard to like this show. I think that it's the music that keeps me watching. I like the characters a lot, and I like the idea of the show. It is VERY similair to the movie Beautiful Girls, which I adore. But the writing is SO weak. Not only is the idea that he kept in touch with his family, but had no idea in a small town that his former girlfriend had a kid a stretch, but there is so much that is implied that they need to explain better. Okay, so he wrote a book that offended the people in his town. What exactly offended them? If they're going to build the show on that detail, then they need to give more information there instead oftaking the short cut they have. And if they're going to make such a huge point about the groom from Wedding Crashers hating him so much, then they REALLY need to explain why. I'll watch for a couple of episodes to get answers to those questions. But if they keep on being lazy in implying but not exmplaining, I'll lose interest. __________________ "When you believe in nothing, you will believe anything"

03-17-2007, 01:57 AM	#12
Mike'sgirl FORT Fogey Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: IA Posts: 3,167	Nothing fresh here. Of course, he is the father - the whole story seemed very predictable. I was bored with Men in Trees and hoping this would be a good replacement, now I am not so sure. I think I would rather they bring back "The Nine" in this time slot.

03-21-2007, 11:47 AM	#16
skyhigh79 FORT Fogey Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: SoCal Posts: 936	I agree with Krom. The whole 10 years and he didn't know she had a baby thing is too far out to believe. The whole lame excuse about finding himself just didn't work. If he hated his family and life and didn't want to go back, then maybe. M.O.W would be better, it could all be wrapped up in 2 hours.

03-26-2007, 08:36 AM	#20
fireflyer from sky to fire Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 1,177	Wow, I was surprised to read all these comments. I was really liking this show. OK, the scene with the lead character serenading the colleage Dean and having that actually WORK was a little odd, but otherwise I liked it. Interesting twist that the cheating affair with the best friend's wife is a weekly event, not just a 1-time fling as the little ugly guy claimed. Not sure what that lady sees in him, but stranger things have happened. I like the smart little boy. I think it should be pretty easy for the lead character to verify or discredit Donna's story about who the father was. All he needs to do is look up the boy's birthday in the county birth records, and do the math. Donna (or whatever he character's name is) claimed the father was some guy she slept with when she realized the lead guy wasn't coming back from his trip. So that means it was at least 6 weeks after he left town.