# Dexter on CBS



## Peter000 (Apr 15, 2002)

So I know this has been discussed here, but I can't find it with a cursory search... TV Guide is reporting that S1 of Dexter is going to air on CBS starting Feb. 17. It'll be interesting to see how they cut it to meet Broadcast standards, and how it will affect the "feel" of the show. I'll probably watch a few episodes just to see that.

http://community.tvguide.com/blog-entry/TVGuide-News-Blog/Todays-News/Cbs-Eyes-Dexter/800030373

Even though it will be a "tamer" version of the show, I urge anyone who hasn't seen it to check it out. The acting and story will still be terrific.


----------



## Havana Brown (Feb 3, 2005)

What? No way. You just lose so much of it on regular tv.  At least I won't be subjected to



Spoiler



Lila's itty bitties


----------



## unicorngoddess (Nov 20, 2005)

That's not gonna make a smooth transition. There's one particular character who, at least in the first few episodes of season 1, kept saying the F word every other word that came out of his mouth. It was funny because a friend of mine got me hooked on Dexter and we had a little marathon. After the first couple of episodes we decided to make a drinking game out of it.

I just don't think it would feel right on network TV. It's like they would have to redo the whole thing.


----------



## Sirius Black (Dec 26, 2001)

Havana Brown said:


> What? No way. You just lose so much of it on regular tv.  At least I won't be subjected to
> 
> 
> 
> ...





Spoiler



No, you wouldn't. That's season 2.


----------



## ClutchBrake (Sep 5, 2001)

I'm not even going to give it a shot on regular television. That just seems... wrong.

This show is definitely one that deserves to be seen in its original format.


----------



## MickeS (Dec 26, 2002)

Except for language and some brief nudity, I think this might work on network TV. It's nothing they haven't dealt with a 1000 times when fixing movies for TV. I'll be interested to see the ratings. If it works, I wonder if they might consider showing it even after the strike is over.

I'm more concerned over the editing for time that they will have to do to fit it in the time slot.


----------



## Sirius Black (Dec 26, 2001)

MickeS said:


> I'm more concerned over the editing for time that they will have to do to fit it in the time slot.


They do this quite a bit for BBC America programming. I'm sure they'll figure out a way. That said, I really hope that this doesn't mean that the show is moving to CBS permanently.


----------



## MickeS (Dec 26, 2002)

Sirius Black said:


> They do this quite a bit for BBC America programming. I'm sure they'll figure out a way. That said, I really hope that this doesn't mean that the show is moving to CBS permanently.


Yeah, and they do it for most movies too. I just think the quality of the show will suffer more because of this than because of any tweaking for content.


----------



## Idearat (Nov 26, 2000)

Hopefully, for the sake of people watching for the first time, they filmed 2 versions. Sex and the City did that, so they wouldn't have to cut 1/2 of Samantha's lines ( and 25% of her scenes ). If not, people are likely to think Debra's a deaf mute. They'll have to make her mumble or something to make sense of the parts of the dialog where people comment on her language.

As for those missing "little bits" from S2, that would be a disappointment for me. I enjoyed those small additions to the show.


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

This reminds me of the Mad TV (or was it SNL) skit about the Sopranos in syndication.


----------



## Havana Brown (Feb 3, 2005)

Idearat said:


> Hopefully, for the sake of people watching for the first time, they filmed 2 versions. Sex and the City did that, so they wouldn't have to cut 1/2 of Samantha's lines ( and 25% of her scenes ). If not, people are likely to think Debra's a deaf mute. They'll have to make her mumble or something to make sense of the parts of the dialog where people comment on her language.


It'll be like watching a Japanese film.


----------



## YCantAngieRead (Nov 5, 2003)

I'm actually excited about this-I got episode 1 from a torrent and watched it in the car on a long road trip and liked it. Now I won't have to download the episodes.


----------



## danterner (Mar 4, 2005)

I'm concerned with the impact this might have on the writers going forward (for season 3 and beyond). If they are aware that they are now penning stories not only for the Showtime audience but also for eventual consumption by regular broadcast hoi polloi, might that not impact what they choose to write? I don't have any problem with a 'cleansed' version of the show airing on CBS (although I feel sorry for the people who don't have the opportunity to watch it in its unadulterated form - it's a great show and shouldn't be abridged), but I don't want the fact that the show will now be on CBS to impact how the show is written for Showtime in the future...

Sidenote: I started watching Dexter because I loved Michael C. Hall's performance as David in "Six Feet Under," a show that I missed when it originally aired on HBO. I watched avidly when it aired on Bravo. I know SFU had nudity, language, and all of that other stuff that comes with many cable shows. The version I saw of SFU was missing all of those things, but still wound up coming across as a very coherent, fantastic show. In fact, it's one of my favorite shows ever. There were occasionally jarring scenes where a character would drop the F-bomb but, through the magic of ADR, would be heard to be saying something much more sanitized. I presume that's what they'll do with Deb, and Doakes. In some cases, it really killed the drama of the scene. In others, it wasn't so much of a problem.


----------



## unicorngoddess (Nov 20, 2005)

Sounds like I should get started on season 2 

I've been saving season 2 for a rainy day...and with no end to the writers strike in sight, I think its starting to look rainy.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

TAsunder said:


> This reminds me of the Mad TV (or was it SNL) skit about the Sopranos in syndication.


MadTV


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

YCantAngieRead said:


> I'm actually excited about this-I got episode 1 from a torrent and watched it in the car on a long road trip and liked it. Now I won't have to download the episodes.


You could just rent the DVDs.


----------



## spikedavis (Nov 23, 2003)

mattack said:


> You could just rent the DVDs.


Exactly. Why would you want to watch a chopped up version of art? It's like buying a censored album or a book with markers through parts someone else deems offensive. Don't let someone else be the judge of what you should and shouldn't see.


----------



## scandia101 (Oct 20, 2007)

:up:
I got the first episode from Amazon Unbox and liked it, so I subscribed to the whole season. I can't imagine what CBS will do to it, but then I won't be watching their cut when I have the good stuff.


----------



## Peter000 (Apr 15, 2002)

spikedavis said:


> Exactly. Why would you want to watch a chopped up version of art? It's like buying a censored album or a book with markers through parts someone else deems offensive. Don't let someone else be the judge of what you should and shouldn't see.


Including you? You're making a judgement on what I should or shouldn't see just by saying that I shouldn't watch an edited version of the show. I like having a choice between something with swear words and something without. Sometimes I don't like being slapped in the face with bloody violence.


----------



## mtnagel (Nov 15, 2003)

mattack said:


> You could just rent the DVDs.


Or get them for free at your local library (if you local library does such things). I think Dexter will be next after I get through the first 2 seasons of Big Love from my library.


----------



## MasterOfPuppets (Jul 12, 2005)

It'll be interesting to see how they do it.
Being on CBS, they probably can't "get away" with some of the liberties that the syndicated Sopranos and Sex and the City have.

But hey, Dexter is one of the best shows on TV, why not bring it to the masses?

Deb doesn't give a fudge.


----------



## Havana Brown (Feb 3, 2005)

unicorngoddess said:


> Sounds like I should get started on season 2
> 
> I've been saving season 2 for a rainy day...and with no end to the writers strike in sight, I think its starting to look rainy.


I can't believe you didn't jump all over it. The last few episodes of season 2 I couldn't wait until the next one!


----------



## unicorngoddess (Nov 20, 2005)

Havana Brown said:


> I can't believe you didn't jump all over it. The last few episodes of season 2 I couldn't wait until the next one!


I entirely planned to jump all over it...but there was so much on tv at the time. And I knew Dexter would be sitting there waiting for me on On Demand whenever I was ready


----------



## RMBittner (Aug 19, 2003)

mattack said:


> You could just rent the DVDs.


Or download S1 on iTunes, which is what I did. I started watching on Showtime when S1 first aired, but I just wasn't in the right mindset for it. I started up again with S2 and really really enjoyed it. But it was great to find it on iTunes so I could go back to S1 and pick up on what I'd missed.

Bob


----------



## MickeS (Dec 26, 2002)

Just a reminder: "Dexter" season 1 starts on CBS on Sunday 2/17 at 10PM/9PM.


----------



## goblue97 (May 12, 2005)

MickeS said:


> Just a reminder: "Dexter" season 1 starts on CBS on Sunday 2/17 at 10PM/9PM.


I will probably tune in just to see how this translates on network tv. I'm still very skeptical that they can pull this off.


----------



## hyimted (Apr 13, 2003)

Havana Brown said:


> What? No way. You just lose so much of it on regular tv.  At least I won't be subjected to
> 
> 
> 
> ...


and that, my girl, is exactly the problem! 

i just can't see this show having the same vibe on regular tv ... but we'll see.


----------



## jstack (Mar 26, 2005)

An average episode of Dexter was a commercial free 52 minutes. An average show 1 hour show on network TV is 42 minutes. They are going to have to cut nearly 20% of every episode.


----------



## goblue97 (May 12, 2005)

jstack said:


> They are going to have to cut nearly 20% of every episode.


Deb + Doakes = 20%


----------



## johnperkins21 (Aug 29, 2005)

goblue97 said:


> Deb + Doakes = 20%


I'm not sure if you remember the storyline from Season 1, but they can't cut Deb out of the show entirely.

This show had a decent amount of exposition that can be cut. It will make the show worse, but it is one of the best shows on TV. Even a cut-up version of Dexter is better than another hour of Dancing With the Stars or some crap. If people watch it and like it, then it's virtually guaranteeing us more episodes of Dexter. Maybe some people who see it on CBS will switch over and get it on Showtime or buy the DVDs. Anything to keep them pumping out new seasons is something I'm willing to get behind.


----------



## bareyb (Dec 1, 2000)

Since I get it on cable uncut I have no reason to watch it on the Networks, but if you can't see Dexter any other way then go for it. I think it'll still be fine even with the Network censors at work. Any Dexter is better than no Dexter.


----------



## caocian (Jul 2, 2005)

In case any of you didn't know, the series is based on books by Jeff Lindsay. Even if you've seen (and loved) the show, you'll love the books every bit as much.

Darkly Dreaming Dexter
Dearly Devoted Dexter
and the new one, Dexter in the Dark.

Seriously, they're great.


----------



## scheckeNYK (Apr 28, 2004)

caocian said:


> In case any of you didn't know, the series is based on books by Jeff Lindsay. Even if you've seen (and loved) the show, you'll love the books every bit as much.
> 
> Darkly Dreaming Dexter
> Dearly Devoted Dexter
> ...


for sure! i just read one and a half on vacation and really enjoyed them. Much less Doakes, Masuka, and Angel in the first book, so I would imagine they might cut the show down in that fashion.


----------



## newsposter (Aug 18, 2002)

mattack said:


> MadTV


i saw this on madtv originally...even if you dont like madtv, if you watched sopranos you should watch the video... i never saw sopranos and found it hilarious.


----------



## newsposter (Aug 18, 2002)

jstack said:


> An average episode of Dexter was a commercial free 52 minutes. An average show 1 hour show on network TV is 42 minutes. They are going to have to cut nearly 20% of every episode.


this is what i hate most...ripoff...but as i didnt get into this until season 2, and sho only caught the last few eps of S1 before S2 started, i may have to wtach this at least to get background on certain things

as far as lila..just watch Hustle on BBC and you can imagine all you want.


----------



## MickeS (Dec 26, 2002)

Credits and recap alone each episode is like 5 minutes.


----------



## Johncv (Jun 11, 2002)

YCantAngieRead said:


> I'm actually excited about this-I got episode 1 from a torrent and watched it in the car on a long road trip and liked it. Now I won't have to download the episodes.


Buy the DVD of Season One. I think Target has it on sale for $12.99.


----------



## jerobi (Sep 28, 2000)

I convinced my wife to give it a shot now that it is restarting on CBS. Granted, it's lousy to lose the extra footage due to network ad time, but it's cool to know that if she likes it then she'll have at LEAST two seasons to enjoy.


----------



## Johncv (Jun 11, 2002)

I read on one of the TV sites that the producers never film a sanitize version of Season One or Two in order to keep cost down. In order to keep the story line intact the producers borrowed from BSG and replace the F word with phony F word that everyone except the FCC will know the meaning of. In first show of season one in the scene where Doakes calls Dexter a Motherf**ker, it replace with Motherlover.  Some of the bloody scene will be tone down to what you would see on CSI:Whatever or any other 9/10pm crime show. Showtime has stated that this will have no effect on Season Three. Season Three will be even darker, as Dexter warps into the Dark Avenger.


----------



## MickeS (Dec 26, 2002)

I just noticed that "Dexter" starts 3 minutes before the hour here, so that's one way of not having to edit it so much.


----------



## phox_mulder (Feb 23, 2006)

MickeS said:


> I just noticed that "Dexter" starts 3 minutes before the hour here, so that's one way of not having to edit it so much.


We got a heads up from CBS that it will be this way throughout the run.
"Sunday Timings "Off the Clock" effective 2-17-08 UFN.

"these times will differ from week to week, so check the daily timings".

phox


----------



## avery (May 29, 2006)

After listening to nearly everyone I know [with Showtime!] rave about Dexter, I'm really happy to see it on CBS - despite editing.

Just finished watching, thought it was great and in the midst of setting my SP. Two questions:

_Repeats & first-run/First run only_? the episodes are technically re-runs, but not for CBS. Suggestion?

Unfortunately, I missed the first 10+ minutes of the show. Can someone clarify the source/origin of his compulsion, if it was expained? I got the impression that it was, via the conversations with his father.

Also, thanks MickeS and phox_mulder for mentioning the early start time!


----------



## unicorngoddess (Nov 20, 2005)

You don't find out what really drives his compulsion for a while. But as set up by the first episode and his first victim, he only kills bad guys and he works under the code of Harry (his dad)


----------



## phox_mulder (Feb 23, 2006)

"I'm watching you Mother-Lover".

I chuckled.


phox


----------



## avery (May 29, 2006)

unicorngoddess said:


> You don't find out what really drives his compulsion for a while. But as set up by the first episode and his first victim, he only kills bad guys and he works under the code of Harry (his dad)


Thanks! While I knew the _basic_ premise going in [thanks to friends and family], I thought I might have missed the compulsion aspect in the first 10 minutes I didn't see... based solely on his father's remark [from memory] - you can't help how you are. it's not your fault what happened to you - or something like that.


----------



## phox_mulder (Feb 23, 2006)

avery said:


> Thanks! While I knew the _basic_ premise going in [thanks to friends and family], I thought I might have missed the compulsion aspect in the first 10 minutes I didn't see... based solely on his father's remark [from memory] - you can't help how you are. it's not your fault what happened to you - or something like that.


It pretty much takes the whole first season to find out exactly why he is the way he is, well worth the wait IMHO.

phox


----------



## avery (May 29, 2006)

phox_mulder said:


> It pretty much takes the whole first season to find out exactly why he is the way he is, well worth the wait IMHO.
> 
> phox


Well thanks again! Good to know my late viewing start wasn't critical.


----------



## justapixel (Sep 27, 2001)

I just saw this show on CBS. I don't get showtime.

I LOVE it. LOVE.

I can't imagine it could be any better on showtime.

:up: :up: :up:

Now, to complete my dark night, I"m off to watch Breaking Bad.


----------



## jstack (Mar 26, 2005)

justapixel said:


> I just saw this show on CBS. I don't get showtime.
> 
> I LOVE it. LOVE.
> 
> ...


 If you love it now, then you're in for a real treat. Each episode tops the previous one. It's absolutely incredible how the writers continually one up themselves.


----------



## danterner (Mar 4, 2005)

jstack said:


> If you love it now, then you're in for a real treat. Each episode tops the previous one. It's absolutely incredible how the writers continually one up themselves.


Couldn't agree more. In fact, I was late to the Dexter bandwagon. After I finally watched the first couple of episodes, I started a thread here asking if it got any better because I found it to be a good show but not quite as fantastic as everyone was suggesting. I stuck with it. By the third episode, it was one of the first SP's I would play. By the fourth or fifth, I was watching live. By the end of the first season, it was my favorite show currently airing. Now, at the end of the second season, I'd say it is maybe my favorite show ever.


----------



## hyimted (Apr 13, 2003)

phox_mulder said:


> "I'm watching you Mother-Lover".
> 
> I chuckled.
> 
> phox


me too ... thought that was a crackup.

and what did his sister say to him when the sergeant was being all nice? "are you diddling her?" ... or something like that.


----------



## MickeS (Dec 26, 2002)

hyimted said:


> me too ... thought that was a crackup.
> 
> and what did his sister say to him when the sergeant was being all nice? "are you diddling her?" ... or something like that.


She said "Are you dating her?". Which is a bit odd still, as it implies more of an ongoing relationship than "f***ing" her, and didn't really match the reaction. But still worked.


----------



## bareyb (Dec 1, 2000)

FWIW, I have seen the whole series uncut on Showtime and if this first one is any indication, you people without Showtime aren't missing a thing. In fact, I prefer Dexter's sister censored! She has such a unnecessarily foul mouth on the uncensored version I cringe every time I hear her speak. So in that respect, the Network version is actually better.


----------



## MickeS (Dec 26, 2002)

bareyb said:


> FWIW, I have seen the whole series uncut on Showtime and if this first one is any indication, you people without Showtime aren't missing a thing. In fact, I prefer Dexter's sister censored! She has such a unnecessarily foul mouth on the uncensored version I cringe every time I hear her speak. So in that respect, the Network version is actually better.


I thought they did a good job of it, but "mother lover" needs to go...


----------



## bareyb (Dec 1, 2000)

MickeS said:


> I thought they did a good job of it, but "mother lover" needs to go...


Would you prefer Mother Fricker? There's only so many ways they can go with that one. 
As far as I could tell they didn't have to cut anything that would affect the story or detract from it in any major way. I was actually pretty surprised at how much they left in.


----------



## MickeS (Dec 26, 2002)

bareyb said:


> Would you prefer Mother Fricker? There's only so many ways they can go with that one.
> As far as I could tell they didn't have to cut anything that would affect the story or detract from it in any major way. I was actually pretty surprised at how much they left in.


Well, they start 3 minutes early and cut the credits - that's a lot of time right there. As for replacement for "motherf****er", they should use a completely different word, like "bastard" or something, IMO.


----------



## bareyb (Dec 1, 2000)

MickeS said:


> Well, they start 3 minutes early and cut the credits - that's a lot of time right there. As for replacement for "motherf****er", they should use a completely different word, like "bastard" or something, IMO.


True. Or just plain "Mother". Anythings better than "Mother Lover".


----------



## hyimted (Apr 13, 2003)

bareyb said:


> True. Or just plain "Mother". Anythings better than "Mother Lover".


my personal fave: "mudder fudder!"


----------



## madscientist (Nov 12, 2003)

bareyb said:


> FWIW, I have seen the whole series uncut on Showtime and if this first one is any indication, you people without Showtime aren't missing a thing. In fact, I prefer Dexter's sister censored! She has such a unnecessarily foul mouth on the uncensored version I cringe every time I hear her speak. So in that respect, the Network version is actually better.


*shrug* some of us prefer more realism in our dialog.

In my experience, real cops' language tends to be at least as foul as the Showtime version when they're hanging out together. Even the women.


----------



## speedcouch (Oct 23, 2003)

phox_mulder said:


> "I'm watching you Mother-Lover".


God, that was SO lame! :down:

Editing with "frickin" was fine, but they couldn't come up with something better for that one????

What disappointed me was that CBS totally dropped the lead-in! That's absolutely one of the best parts of every episode (Dex dressing and fixing breakfast). I mean, what the heck was wrong with showing_ that _on network TV??? Each thing that looks gross turns out to be just a normally morning activity and such a great lead-in for the show.

Cheryl


----------



## Johncv (Jun 11, 2002)

All you Mother-Lover should go out and buy the DVD, it really much better and without commercials. I bet the sales of DVD for season one and two are going to be off the charts.  Cant wait for season three on Showtime.


----------



## bareyb (Dec 1, 2000)

madscientist said:


> *shrug* some of us prefer more realism in our dialog.
> 
> In my experience, real cops' language tends to be at least as foul as the Showtime version when they're hanging out together. Even the women.


Yeah you are probably right in the "realistic" aspect although I think the show takes it to the extreme. I've worked with Cops before and most of them didn't take it to that extreme. At least not the educated ones. "The Wire" does the same thing, and it has the same affect on me. In fact, the language on that show is one reason I finally dropped the Season Pass. It probably wouldn't have bothered me before I had kids. I am so careful now not to swear myself, that when I hear other people just railing on and on with foul language it makes me really uncomfortable.


----------



## Johncv (Jun 11, 2002)

speedcouch said:


> God, that was SO lame! :down:
> 
> Editing with "frickin" was fine, but they couldn't come up with something better for that one????
> 
> ...


That was only for the first show, it that way on the DVD and when it first shown on Showtime.


----------



## MickeS (Dec 26, 2002)

speedcouch said:


> What disappointed me was that CBS totally dropped the lead-in! That's absolutely one of the best parts of every episode (Dex dressing and fixing breakfast). I mean, what the heck was wrong with showing_ that _on network TV??? Each thing that looks gross turns out to be just a normally morning activity and such a great lead-in for the show.


Edited out for time. No big loss IMO. One of the best parts of every episode, you're kidding, right?


----------



## Johncv (Jun 11, 2002)

MickeS said:


> Edited out for time. No big loss IMO. One of the best parts of every episode, you're kidding, right?


I agree with speedchouch, the intro is design to make you make queasy, nervous, and suspicious of Dexter.


----------



## spikedavis (Nov 23, 2003)

speedcouch said:


> God, that was SO lame! :down:
> 
> Editing with "frickin" was fine, but they couldn't come up with something better for that one????
> 
> ...


They dropped the opening?? You've got to be kidding me. Visually and artisitically it's one of the greatest opening credits in the history of TV. I guess this is what happens when you have to appeal to the masses and edit stuff. Wow. That's just annoying.


----------



## MickeS (Dec 26, 2002)

spikedavis said:


> They dropped the opening?? You've got to be kidding me. Visually and artisitically it's one of the greatest opening credits in the history of TV. I guess this is what happens when you have to appeal to the masses and edit stuff. Wow. That's just annoying.


No, it's what happens when you have to squeeze a 50 minutes show into 43 minutes.


----------



## MickeS (Dec 26, 2002)

Johncv said:


> I agree with speedchouch, the intro is design to make you make queasy, nervous, and suspicious of Dexter.


Well, yeah but once is enough... and hardly the best part of any episode IMO.


----------



## BeanMeScot (Apr 17, 2002)

I really liked it, as well. I was debating getting the DVDs. It would at least be faster since they seem like they are going to show it weekly instead of daily.


----------



## justapixel (Sep 27, 2001)

So, what happens during the intro?

It didn't take much to be suspicious of dexter, even for those of us who knew nothing about the plot. 

But, I'm curious about the opening. It wouldn't be on youtube would it?

Edit: Yes, it would:


----------



## phox_mulder (Feb 23, 2006)

justapixel said:


> But, I'm curious about the opening. It wouldn't be on youtube would it?


Yes, and then some.

Here's the first hit from a search.





phox


----------



## toddvj (Apr 22, 2004)

Johncv said:


> That was only for the first show, it that way on the DVD and when it first shown on Showtime.


That's right. There was no intro on the first episode, only the second and subsequent episodes.


----------



## balboa dave (Jan 19, 2004)

Here's an article that explains in some detail how the show was edited for CBS. Minor spoilers (but not plot reveals) if you haven't seen any of the episodes, specifically the pilot.

The slicing and dicing of 'Dexter'


----------



## unicorngoddess (Nov 20, 2005)

bareyb said:


> FWIW, I have seen the whole series uncut on Showtime and if this first one is any indication, you people without Showtime aren't missing a thing. In fact, I prefer Dexter's sister censored! She has such a unnecessarily foul mouth on the uncensored version I cringe every time I hear her speak. So in that respect, the Network version is actually better.


I always thought the Sergeant guy had a dirty mouth...at least in S1.

As for the opening credits...I don't mind them. I watched the whole season over a long weekend last summer on OnDemand and what really annoyed me was that with each new episodes, the "Previously on Dexter" segments got longer and longer and I was like, 'GET TO THE NEW STUFF ALREADY!'


----------



## justapixel (Sep 27, 2001)

balboa dave said:


> Here's an article that explains in some detail how the show was edited for CBS. Minor spoilers (but not plot reveals) if you haven't seen any of the episodes, specifically the pilot.
> 
> The slicing and dicing of 'Dexter'


Interesting. Apparently it wasn't as hard as it seemed, and it was mostly profanity that they edited. I agree that mother lover sounded very odd, but it didn't detract from the plot or the tension set up by Dexter's actions and I do love this show.

Did Michael Hall win any awards for this show? I think he's doing a remarkable job being a psychopath trying to act normal.


----------



## speedcouch (Oct 23, 2003)

Johncv said:


> That was only for the first show, it that way on the DVD and when it first shown on Showtime.


Awesome! I wondered if that might have been the case and I just couldn't remember the first episode from a couple of years ago. Glad to hear that it will hopefully be back next week. I kept telling my co-worker how cool that part was and was just disappointed they didn't show it on Sunday.

And yes, I think it was a great part of every episode. Just very clever visual images than mislead you and then are cleared up in a minute.

Cheryl


----------



## Sirius Black (Dec 26, 2001)

justapixel said:


> Did Michael Hall win any awards for this show? I think he's doing a remarkable job being a psychopath trying to act normal.


No. He's been nominated for both seasons and been robbed (imo) both seasons.


----------



## MickeS (Dec 26, 2002)

"Indeed, the severed head still bounced on the freeway and the mutilated corpse was still neatly laid out by the motel. But profanities, sexual foreplay, genitals secured with plastic wrap? Cut, cut and blurred, even though you couldn't see anything anyway. You just don't know what might show up on hi-def, Greenblatt explained."

You gotta love America sometimes... seeing a mutilated corpse? OK. Hearing someone say "****"? Bring on the fines!


----------



## markymark_ctown (Oct 11, 2004)

an article from the cleveland paper on moving dexter on cbs:

*CBS making a mistake importing bloody Dexter' from cable -- Mark Dawidziak *

CBSMichael C. Hall plays Dexter, who might not play well with others on his new network.

Although the writers strike is over, CBS is going ahead with its controversial plan to air the cable import "Dexter." This is the blood-drenched Showtime series starring Michael C. Hall as a serial killer who targets serial killers.

CBS claims that not much editing will be needed to make "Dexter" acceptable for a prime-time audience (editing more for language than for violence, to get it to a TV14-LV rating). This certainly is true for the first couple of episodes, but what's going to happen as the season progresses and things get really nasty?

full article here:

http://www.cleveland.com/plaindeale...e/entertainment-0/1203154291288260.xml&coll=2


----------



## Joules1111 (Jul 21, 2005)

caocian said:


> In case any of you didn't know, the series is based on books by Jeff Lindsay. Even if you've seen (and loved) the show, you'll love the books every bit as much.
> 
> Darkly Dreaming Dexter
> Dearly Devoted Dexter
> ...


Except the last one. I didn't care for it at all... :down:


----------



## MickeS (Dec 26, 2002)

markymark_ctown said:


> an article from the cleveland paper on moving dexter on cbs:
> 
> *CBS making a mistake importing bloody Dexter' from cable -- Mark Dawidziak *
> 
> ...


He's got a point, similar to what's been expressed in this thread. But so what, if it fails it fails, if it doesn't, great. It's not likely to affect the series on Showtime anyway.


----------



## Joules1111 (Jul 21, 2005)

Johncv said:


> I read on one of the TV sites that the producers never film a sanitize version of Season One or Two in order to keep cost down. In order to keep the story line intact the producers borrowed from BSG and replace the F word with phony F word that everyone except the FCC will know the meaning of.


Our local newspaper reported that they DID film sanitized versions of some of the dialogue:


> Showtime's Greenblatt, who supervised the editing, says the network had noted the success of rival HBO in turning out sanitized versions of Sex and The City and The Sopranos for basic-cable channels and produced Dexter with that in mind, recording alternate dialogue with softcore words like ''motherlover'' and 'frickin' '' to replace the saltier originals.


Article is here, but is full of spoilers, so beware: http://www.miamiherald.com/tropical_life/story/420709.html


----------



## danterner (Mar 4, 2005)

MickeS said:


> He's got a point, similar to what's been expressed in this thread. But so what, if it fails it fails, if it doesn't, great. It's not likely to affect the series on Showtime anyway.


I hope you are right, but I do see a way its success on CBS could affect the series' future on Showtime.

[Balance of post edited out because I typed a long rationale which sounded oddly familiar. I went back through the thread and saw I already made this point last month in this very thread. Apparently, I agree with me.]


----------



## thurston608 (Nov 9, 2006)

Joules1111 said:


> Our local newspaper reported that they DID film sanitized versions of some of the dialogue:
> 
> Article is here, but is full of spoilers, so beware: http://www.miamiherald.com/tropical_life/story/420709.html


Not sure if it was noted before, but for anyone who watched last night, they didn't seem to be restricted by normal primetime timing structure, didn't seem like there were too many commercial breaks.

I thought it translated to CBS excellently, kudos to the producers for having the foresight to film a more sanitized version at the same time.


----------



## Johncv (Jun 11, 2002)

MickeS said:


> He's got a point, similar to what's been expressed in this thread. But so what, if it fails it fails, if it doesn't, great. It's not likely to affect the series on Showtime anyway.


Tieing _Dexter_ to Jane Jacksons costume malfunction and claiming that CBS is courting trouble is just stretching things a bit. There nothing in this clean up version of _Dexter_ that has not been done on CSI(Place name here). All the showing of _Dexter_ is going to do is sell more DVDs of the show. Maybe more people will subscribe to Showtime. Now if CBS were to show _Tourchwood_ and Capt. Jack kissing all the men, shocking, just shocking.  And this is the clean version of the show.


----------



## IndyJones1023 (Apr 1, 2002)

Wow, this show is awesome! I love it!


----------



## bareyb (Dec 1, 2000)

IndyJones1023 said:


> Wow, this show is awesome! I love it!


It's in my top five best shows on TV. Really something special. Let's hope it lasts!


----------



## Johncv (Jun 11, 2002)

This came from the TV addic:

http://thetvaddict.com/2008/02/22/shame-on-you-parents-television-council/#more-2984

In ADWEEK, the Parents Television Council called on advertisers to boycott CBS airing of DEXTER on Sundays at 10PM.

Despite countless public calls for restraint and corporate responsibility, CBS broke its own promise to the public that it would employ careful editing and accurate ratings guidelines for Dexter, said PTC president Tim Winter. Depictions of violence were barely altered from the Showtime network original format.

Not surprisingly, the TV Addict yet again finds himself absolutely flabbergasted by the complete lack of common sense shown by this so called council of responsible TV watching parents.

Firstly, by calling for a boycott, the PTC is inadvertently promoting DEXTER, which by the way, if I havent mentioned, airs on Sundays at 10PM on CBS. Secondly, the show airs at 10PM on Sunday night! What is your ten year old doing up at 10PM on a school night? Why should the rest of America suffer because you arent a responsible enough parent to police what your childs watching on television. And finally, having seen both the original Showtime version and the edited down CBS version, this TV Addict can assure worried parents that the edited CBS cut of DEXTER is no worse than anything else the Tiffany network has on its schedule. In fact, Id go as far to say that youd find more blood and guts on you average daily repeat of one of the eighteen CSIs or your local news.

I agree with the TV addict, in fact I watch BONES the other day and it had more blood and gore then Dexter. I think what the PTC really object to is the fact that a serial killer is the good guy of the show.


----------



## unicorngoddess (Nov 20, 2005)

LOL. This reminds me of the Futurama episode where the Professor and Hermes didn't want their kids seeing Bender on TV so they started the group FART (Fathers Against Rude Television)

Parents need to take responsibility for what their kids watch. It shouldn't be that hard.


----------



## MickeS (Dec 26, 2002)

unicorngoddess said:


> LOL. This reminds me of the Futurama episode where the Professor and Hermes didn't want their kids seeing Bender on TV so they started the group FART (Fathers Against Rude Television)
> 
> Parents need to take responsibility for what their kids watch. It shouldn't be that hard.


I agree. I hate it when trailers for R-rated or PG-13 horror movies are shown in the middle of otherwise "G/PG" shows, like "Dancing with the stars" and similar. But when a network puts on a show at 10PM, I don't think using "think of the children!" is a very good argument against it.


----------



## johnperkins21 (Aug 29, 2005)

Johncv said:


> I agree with the TV addict, in fact I watch BONES the other day and it had more blood and gore then Dexter. I think what the PTC really object to is the fact that a serial killer is the good guy of the show.


The biggest problem with these groups is that they don't really do their homework. One person will say that this show has too much gore/violence/sex/coarse language or what have you, and all their little sheep will repeat it ad nauseum in letters and phone calls to the station without ever checking the original facts.

As has been said this show is no more graphic than any other CBS crime drama, save for the nudity and language which is edited out. Even the fact that Dexter is a serial killer, and the main character, he's not really portrayed as a "good guy." We do root for him, because he's very like-able when not killing people, but when he's killing people he is very menacing. And there are characters on the show that oppose what he's doing even though he only murders murderers.

No, the big issue with these groups is the fact that they won't think for themselves, and then feel the need to force their uneducated morality on the rest of us. If you don't like it, turn off the TV. No reason for some hillbilly housewife to decide what is and is not acceptable television for me and my family, that's for me to decide.


----------



## justapixel (Sep 27, 2001)

Well said, john.

I don't let my child watch Dexter, and it's very easy to keep him from it. He has no TV in his bedroom, we have TiVo on every TV and I control what is recorded, and he goes to bed before we watch it.

I'm amazed they focused on this show. Granted, I've only seen two episodes, but with the exception of the main character being a serial killer, it is a very mild show in terms of violence. CSI is far worse when showing graphic death scenes, and even their sexuality is much more pronounced - one of their recurring guest characters was a bondage "mistress" as I recall, that Grissom had a thing for. They have also shown some pretty icky fetishes.

This group has the right to protest whatever they want but it seems odd that they have chosen Dexter over other shows. Before they try and ruin a show, they ought to at least be forced to watch it. Like all these other groups, it seems they rely on gossip rather than what is real.

I adore this show. It's now number 2 on my SP list - only Idol is first. I sure hope others find it and watch it too and these people make no dent in their efforts. Otherwise, Showtime here I come.


----------



## newsposter (Aug 18, 2002)

i havent watched saturday cartoons in a while...did they get rid of the gore and violence (bugs/roadrunner) on there yet ? (big rolleyes)


----------



## johnperkins21 (Aug 29, 2005)

newsposter said:


> i havent watched saturday cartoons in a while...did they get rid of the gore and violence (bugs/roadrunner) on there yet ? (big rolleyes)


While I agree with your sentiment, cartoon violence (excluding stuff like japanese anime) is wildly different than dramatic TV violence. Wile E. always gets back up to fight again. Whether or not that's worse by not showing the consequences of our actions is a different debate. Equating the violence in a Warner Bros. cartoon to that in an episode of CSI is really not a serious rebuttal.

I agree with justapixel that we need to allow these people an avenue to voice their opinions, but to counter them, and keep them from setting policy for the rest of us, requires more than a dismissive, flippant "they see worse in X" response. The argument that there is worse out there is not strong enough, and only emboldens them to fight to get those things changed as well. We need to counter the argument that it's "bad for kids" with substantive rebuttals that say not only are your kids not being forced to watch, but not everything in this world should be "safe for kids." I enjoy many things that kids should not experience, and anyone who tries to take those things away from me will have a serious fight on their hands.

Didn't mean to pick on you newsposter, it's just that I'm entirely fed up with the entire "save the children from everything" sentiment. As a person who does not have or want kids, I'm very happy to live in a world that caters to an adult populace considering we make up a good 80% of the market.


----------



## newsposter (Aug 18, 2002)

i dont get why they usually win...can we start a 'more violence' campaign or something?


----------



## Johncv (Jun 11, 2002)

Oh God, just to see what I would find, I Google Parents Television Council and came up with this crap....

The Home page of the PTC.

http://www.parentstv.org/

Note the drive to TAKE ACTION! Help Us Stop Future Airings of Dexter.

Then there this item, which take the show totally out of content.

Dexters Depth of Depravity

http://www.parentstv.org/PTC/publications/TVTrends/2008/0222.asp

CBS Deems Serial Killer TV Show to be Appropriate for 14-Year Old Children

http://www.parentstv.org/PTC/publications/release/2008/0220.asp

Hello, is anyone home, aren't YOUR children in bed on a school night?? 

And then their this...

http://www.onenewsnow.com/Culture/Default.aspx?id=67475

Read some of the comments on the article. 

Maybe we need to start a drive to keep Dexter on CBS.


----------



## JLucPicard (Jul 8, 2004)

Johncv said:


> Maybe we need to start a drive to keep Dexter on CBS.


Ya, we could send in a WHOLE BUNCH of severed body parts!


----------



## smak (Feb 11, 2000)

Two points. 

1. Isn't "Motherlover" a compliment?
2. Doesn't the fact that the ice truck killer's victims leave no blood make this show actually less graphic than any episode of CSI or Law & Order. 

On point 2 i'm assuming the PTC hasn't seen any episodes deeper in the season 

-smak-


----------



## IndyJones1023 (Apr 1, 2002)

smak said:


> 1. Isn't "Motherlover" a compliment?


Not in the physical sense it was delivered.


----------



## justapixel (Sep 27, 2001)

JLucPicard said:


> Ya, we could send in a WHOLE BUNCH of severed body parts!


Chop your Barbie into pieces and send it in!

The only thing that will have power is ratings. Not fighting the good fight - watching the show and getting people to have their friends watch it, buy from the advertisers and tell them you are doing so.

If the ratings are good, if the money is flowing in the right direction, nobody is going to care what the People's Television Council - or whatever - says.

It's all about the money.

Oh, and teens have a lot of buying power - billions a year. So, let 'em watch the show and advertise stuff they want to buy, like ipods! They'll love it!


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

I'm digging this show a bunch. The acting is superb.


----------



## thurston608 (Nov 9, 2006)

Thankfully I don't let nonsense like the PTC make decisions for me. I think everyone knows that outside of vulgar language and brief scenes of nudity, dexter isn't any more over the top than any other shows on TV. The show isnt about the gore or blood, it's about delving into mind of a serial killer hunting other serial killers. It's an awesome show, and translating quite well on CBS from what i've seen.


----------



## MickeS (Dec 26, 2002)

Even though I watched this show when it first aired on Showtime, I'm watching it now again on CBS, and I have to say that whatever editing they did, I haven't noticed it at all except for a few word replacements.

Last night's episode was awesome, even the second time around.


----------



## gossamer88 (Jul 27, 2005)

Could not wait for CBS to air these episodes so I rented them from Netflix. All I can say is wow! 

BTW, I saw the first three episodes on CBS, in my opinion not all that much different from the unedited version I watched.


----------



## Peter000 (Apr 15, 2002)

So how is Dexter (on CBS) doing in the ratings? I suppose middling to low. I haven't heard any "buzz" about it doing well.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

As a non-Showtime subscriber, CBS is my first experience with the show, and I must say, WOW. I am NOT a fan of your typical cops and robbers shows, such as CSI, L&O etc. but I like this because it's quirky and well written. I WILL probably rent or buy S1 on DVD during the summer when there's less on to watch, as right now, I have about 30 movies to watch on DVD, plus about 10 more on my DVR and my regular shows. But I must say, I can't imagine it being THAT much better than it is on CBS.

As for the PTC, these are the same folks who spend hours watching the 700 Club and the like, full of thief evanglenists with sordid sexual pasts, sit there and drink 6 pack after 6 pack of beer, and cheat on their spouses. It also always struck me funny that bloody violence is ok, scantially clad bikinis are ok, but saying one bad word or a little bit of nudity is going to warp our children's minds. Pretty much every TV has the V-Chip, every cable or satellite box has it, and kid should be in bed by the time these series are on. If you are responsible, your kids won't be watching. If you are offended, you shouldn't watch. It's like the old line, "Thou doth protest too much" Look at these political sex scandals as an example. The people who fight these things the most probably have the most to hide.


----------



## Mr_Bester (Jan 27, 2007)

Peter000 said:


> So how is Dexter (on CBS) doing in the ratings? I suppose middling to low. I haven't heard any "buzz" about it doing well.


In the first week it was something like number 31 or 32. A couple of weeks later it was about 60 or so. Not really that bad.

edit, for the week of March 10-16, it was # 46 with a 2.3(about 6.4 million watched)


----------



## MickeS (Dec 26, 2002)

Mr_Bester said:


> In the first week it was something like number 31 or 32. A couple of weeks later it was about 60 or so. Not really that bad.
> 
> edit, for the week of March 10-16, it was # 46 with a 2.3(about 6.4 million watched)


Yeah, those are pretty good numbers for this show I'd say considering the subject matter, has been on Showtime already AND it's out on DVD.


----------



## 7thton (Mar 3, 2005)

Is Dexter still being shown on CBS? My DVR isn't finding any upcoming episodes.


----------



## MickeS (Dec 26, 2002)

7thton said:


> Is Dexter still being shown on CBS? My DVR isn't finding any upcoming episodes.


Mine shows an upcoming episode this Sunday and the next (3/23 and 3/30).


----------



## JLucPicard (Jul 8, 2004)

7thton said:


> Is Dexter still being shown on CBS? My DVR isn't finding any upcoming episodes.


Do you have it set for first run only? I think I had to change mine to "Both".


----------



## tai-pan (Feb 9, 2006)

YCantAngieRead said:


> I'm actually excited about this-I got episode 1 from a torrent and watched it in the car on a long road trip and liked it. Now I won't have to download the episodes.


Some I know have downloaded both seasons.


----------



## Ladd Morse (Feb 21, 2002)

What the ... ????

I sit down today to watch last night's episode of Dexter and it is Cold Case!


----------



## gossamer88 (Jul 27, 2005)

Ladd Morse said:


> What the ... ????
> 
> I sit down today to watch last night's episode of Dexter and it is Cold Case!


March Madness baby!!!


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

Ladd Morse said:


> What the ... ????
> 
> I sit down today to watch last night's episode of Dexter and it is Cold Case!


Yep...I stumbled upon that accidentally last night whilst the S3 was humming along recording, what I thought was, Dexter. Hurriedly, I padded by an hour which I needed to watch the entire episode....and it was WELL worth it.

Unfortunately CBS is not streaming these...probably because of the Showtime involvement.


----------



## steve614 (May 1, 2006)

Bierboy said:


> Yep...I stumbled upon that accidentally last night...


So did I.
Only I recorded from the guide and have two 30m mistitled recordings.

It's all good, though 'cause I got VRD TVSuite.


----------



## newsposter (Aug 18, 2002)

it's on showtime on demand if you have an HR20 etc!  yippee finally my linksys bridge pays off 

ep 106 just no HD


----------



## MickeS (Dec 26, 2002)

Well crap. I recorded these to save them in HD on my PC. I guess that idea can be scratched now.


----------



## Peter000 (Apr 15, 2002)

I've been watching this on CBS, and I've got to say, I haven't missed the swearing once. I've been enjoying it as much as the Showtime run the first time around. Is that wrong??


----------



## TIVO_GUY_HERE (Jul 10, 2000)

I'm surprised that more people have not been burned by the Sunday Sports on CBS, not to pad automatically. Next week they have Basketball, Golf, and Tennis, so I would pad people.

I am also re-watching these, and think they are doing a fantastic job.


----------



## MacThor (Feb 7, 2002)

Netflix subscribers can watch Season One instantly. It is commercial-free and unedited. I discovered this when I also had "Cold Case" last Sunday....I was in Vegas for March Madness and had forgotten to pad.


----------



## MickeS (Dec 26, 2002)

Peter000 said:


> I've been watching this on CBS, and I've got to say, I haven't missed the swearing once. I've been enjoying it as much as the Showtime run the first time around. Is that wrong??


I've been enjoying this too - haven't missed anything of what they might have edited.

Last night's episode had my favorite scene in the whole series - when the suspected Ice Truck Killer faces Dexter, and says "Who the hell are you?". The expression on Dexter's face following that line is priceless.


----------



## lambertman (Dec 21, 2002)

MickeS said:


> Last night's episode had my favorite scene in the whole series - when the suspected Ice Truck Killer faces Dexter, and says "Who the hell are you?". The expression on Dexter's face following that line is priceless.


Quoted for truth. I was starting to waver on the show, but at that moment I was snapped right back in.


----------



## Ladd Morse (Feb 21, 2002)

MickeS said:


> Last night's episode had my favorite scene in the whole series - when the suspected Ice Truck Killer faces Dexter, and says "Who the hell are you?". The expression on Dexter's face following that line is priceless.


My recording cut off just as the smile started to appear. I could see how the end of the episode might have been only a second or two from that point, but would like to confirm if there was more to the show.


----------



## MickeS (Dec 26, 2002)

Ladd Morse said:


> My recording cut off just as the smile started to appear. I could see how the end of the episode might have been only a second or two from that point, but would like to confirm if there was more to the show.


That was the very last scene in this episode, and it did indeed end just seconds later.


----------



## dbranco (Nov 20, 2003)

Thanks to CBS, Dexter has two new die-hard fans. It has become one of our absolute favorite shows. 

We rewound that "ending smile" of Dexter's several times, ran it in slo-mo, and just savored it. Perfect way to end the episode. 

Deb


----------



## danterner (Mar 4, 2005)

dbranco said:


> Thanks to CBS, Dexter has two new die-hard fans. It has become one of our absolute favorite shows.
> 
> We rewound that "ending smile" of Dexter's several times, ran it in slo-mo, and just savored it. Perfect way to end the episode.
> 
> Deb


Yay! Reading posts like this makes me happy. Dexter is one of those shows that's just so good that it pleases me to no end when I see others come into the fold.

You've got a real treat in store. Season one starts great and gets better with each successive episode, and season two (in my opinion) is even better than season one.


----------



## dbranco (Nov 20, 2003)

Wow, that's excellent! Can't wait for Season 2!! Does anyone know if CBS will continue to air Dexter after Season 1? Is S2 out on DVD yet?


----------



## garath (Mar 7, 2008)

dbranco said:


> Wow, that's excellent! Can't wait for Season 2!! Does anyone know if CBS will continue to air Dexter after Season 1? Is S2 out on DVD yet?


I JUST got notification from Amazon that S2 DVD is in their system for pre-order. No date yet though. I am dying (pun intended) to see it. Bought S1 on DVD and loved it.


----------



## gossamer88 (Jul 27, 2005)

garath said:


> I JUST got notification from Amazon that S2 DVD is in their system for pre-order. No date yet though. I am dying (pun intended) to see it. Bought S1 on DVD and loved it.


You can subscribe to Showtime On Demand for a month and watch season 2 that way.

And yes S2 is as good if not better than S1.


----------



## getreal (Sep 29, 2003)

I'm also a recent convert to "Dexter". Great show -- glad to learn that it only gets better!


----------



## Neenahboy (Apr 8, 2004)

garath said:


> I JUST got notification from Amazon that S2 DVD is in their system for pre-order. No date yet though. I am dying (pun intended) to see it. Bought S1 on DVD and loved it.


TVShowsOnDVD reports August 19th.


----------



## garath (Mar 7, 2008)

Neenahboy said:


> TVShowsOnDVD reports August 19th.


Wow. That far? That's disappointing.


----------



## jilter (Oct 4, 2002)

We watched the entire second season on On Demand. It was amazing. We are subscribers to Showtime, and after all these years, I was elated to be.
I love On Demand. I just wished they had more content.


----------



## dbranco (Nov 20, 2003)

gossamer88 said:


> You can subscribe to Showtime On Demand for a month and watch season 2 that way.


Thanks for the link. I can't see any way to subscribe to _just_ On Demand, though. From what I can see, you have to get Showtime itself, to get its On Demand. True?

Deb


----------



## gossamer88 (Jul 27, 2005)

dbranco said:


> Thanks for the link. I can't see any way to subscribe to _just_ On Demand, though. From what I can see, you have to get Showtime itself, to get its On Demand. True?
> 
> Deb


You'll need to call your cable company. Mine allows you to subscribe for 4.95 a month separately from Showtime itself.


----------



## BeanMeScot (Apr 17, 2002)

I bought the first season DVDs and was quite upset yesterday to discover that I didn't have 2 episodes left. The last 2 episodes on the DVD are Brotherhood. (I couldn't tell because I rip them to a media player. They were the length of an episode so I thought they were still Dexter episodes). 

I'll have to decide if I want to wait for the S2 DVDs or see if I can get them some other way. I believe Amazon has them on Unbox as well. I watch them on the treadmill so I hope to find some way to continue that. Nothing like watching something really interesting on the treadmill to make the time fly by!


----------



## Peter000 (Apr 15, 2002)

The first season DVDs are not complete?? That would suck. Or they made a mistake on the pressing. 

CBS sure picked a sucky timeslot to try out Dexter. Twice program delays because of sports or whatever have made TiVo miss it for me.


----------



## MacThor (Feb 7, 2002)

Wow. This is the first time I've been disappointed in this show. I saw the ice truck killer's identity a mile away, and they telegraphed it sooooo much. If this was supposed to be the big "reveal" of S1, boo writers.


----------



## MickeS (Dec 26, 2002)

MacThor said:


> Wow. This is the first time I've been disappointed in this show. I saw the ice truck killer's identity a mile away, and they telegraphed it sooooo much. If this was supposed to be the big "reveal" of S1, boo writers.


1. The Ice Truck Killer was revealed last week, and he hadn't been featured much before that. If you saw his identity coming last week, big whoop. 

2. It is not the big reveal.


----------



## MacThor (Feb 7, 2002)

Sorry, I just watched the episode in question yesterday.  Let's say I saw it coming pretty much since the character was introduced....... 

Still loving this show overall.


----------



## dbranco (Nov 20, 2003)

gossamer88 said:


> You'll need to call your cable company. Mine allows you to subscribe for 4.95 a month separately from Showtime itself.


Chatted with them today. Not surprisingly, they won't allow that. Said I have to subscribe to Showtime. 

Has anyone heard whether CBS will continue Dexter for its second season?


----------



## Hunter Green (Feb 22, 2002)

I remember we were all disappointed at the abrupt transition when the Ice Truck Killer became obvious. Risky ploy by the show creators, and it will pay off, really it will.


----------



## garath (Mar 7, 2008)

MacThor said:


> Wow. This is the first time I've been disappointed in this show. I saw the ice truck killer's identity a mile away, and they telegraphed it sooooo much. If this was supposed to be the big "reveal" of S1, boo writers.


It just gets more interesting from there IMO. Knowing who he is as the audience and watching what happens got me on edge. Plus as a few other posters have mentioned, there is another 'big reveal'. I would be surprised if anyone guesses that one.


----------



## David Platt (Dec 13, 2001)

Peter000 said:


> The first season DVDs are not complete?? That would suck. Or they made a mistake on the pressing.


They're complete; they just split up the episodes on the discs in a very odd way. Discs 1 has three episodes, discs 2 & 3 have four, and disc 4 has only one, with two episodes of HBO's other show 'Brotherhood' as 'extras.' If you didn't know how many episodes there were, it was easy to go into disc 4 expecting another three or four episodes to enjoy, only to find there was only one.


----------



## gossamer88 (Jul 27, 2005)

dbranco said:


> Chatted with them today. Not surprisingly, they won't allow that. Said I have to subscribe to Showtime.
> 
> Has anyone heard whether CBS will continue Dexter for its second season?


BitTorrent is your friend. But you'll need software to download it. Here's a thread discussing it.


----------



## Peter000 (Apr 15, 2002)

David Platt said:


> They're complete; they just split up the episodes on the discs in a very odd way. Discs 1 has three episodes, discs 2 & 3 have four, and disc 4 has only one, with two episodes of HBO's other show 'Brotherhood' as 'extras.' If you didn't know how many episodes there were, it was easy to go into disc 4 expecting another three or four episodes to enjoy, only to find there was only one.


Ah. I misinterpreted her post. Thanks for the clarification.


----------



## stellie93 (Feb 25, 2006)

Can anyone tell me what season and ep the last 2 are from so I can torrent them? The site I use only gives season and ep, and the guide I use only gives ep titles.


----------



## BeanMeScot (Apr 17, 2002)

David Platt said:


> They're complete; they just split up the episodes on the discs in a very odd way. Discs 1 has three episodes, discs 2 & 3 have four, and disc 4 has only one, with two episodes of HBO's other show 'Brotherhood' as 'extras.' If you didn't know how many episodes there were, it was easy to go into disc 4 expecting another three or four episodes to enjoy, only to find there was only one.


This is correct. As I said, I wasn't even putting the disc in a player where you would see only one episode when you got to that disc. I ripped them and they were the length of a Dexter episode so I thought they were.

I, too, was disappointed in the telegraphing of the Ice Truck Killer. Classic red shirt crap. I thought this show was better than that. But the end is still good and surprising.


----------



## spikedavis (Nov 23, 2003)

BeanMeScot said:


> This is correct. As I said, I wasn't even putting the disc in a player where you would see only one episode when you got to that disc. I ripped them and they were the length of a Dexter episode so I thought they were.
> 
> I, too, was disappointed in the telegraphing of the Ice Truck Killer. Classic red shirt crap. I thought this show was better than that. But the end is still good and surprising.


As someone who's been with Dexter since the beginning, I'm reading these posts and laughing. Don't be so quick to judge, people. You really have no idea what's coming.


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

spikedavis said:


> As someone who's been with Dexter since the beginning, I'm reading these posts and laughing. Don't be so quick to judge, people. You really have no idea what's coming.


Licking my chops....


----------



## BeanMeScot (Apr 17, 2002)

spikedavis said:


> As someone who's been with Dexter since the beginning, I'm reading these posts and laughing. Don't be so quick to judge, people. You really have no idea what's coming.


I've already seen the whole season. I still don't like the "red shirt" in an intelligent drama. At first I was excited thinking this would be the first show where the killer didn't turn out to be someone we had already met. That it would be more "real" than that. It still could have been done without that artifice.


----------



## balboa dave (Jan 19, 2004)

BeanMeScot said:


> I've already seen the whole season. I still don't like the "red shirt" in an intelligent drama. At first I was excited thinking this would be the first show where the killer didn't turn out to be someone we had already met. That it would be more "real" than that. It still could have been done without that artifice.


So instead of appreciating the show for what it is, you decided what it should be, then complain about that? How can that ever be a good attitude?


----------



## MickeS (Dec 26, 2002)

BeanMeScot said:


> I've already seen the whole season. I still don't like the "red shirt" in an intelligent drama. At first I was excited thinking this would be the first show where the killer didn't turn out to be someone we had already met. That it would be more "real" than that. It still could have been done without that artifice.


Personally, I like that a) they revealed Rudy in basically one episode and b) it was someone we had met. I DON'T like when they just throw in someone out of the blue, it feels like cheating - we should at least have the chance to make someone a suspect.


----------



## BeanMeScot (Apr 17, 2002)

balboa dave said:


> So instead of appreciating the show for what it is, you decided what it should be, then complain about that? How can that ever be a good attitude?


 I thought it was a good show. I just think it could have been better had they not leaned on the same old tired old device where the killer is someone they know. In real life, how often does a cop actually know a serial killer before they suspect him of something? I expected more. It was a very intelligent drama prior to that. That doesn't make it a bad show or make me dislike it. I don't have to agree with every decision the writers make and I have a right to feel about it however I want.


----------



## MickeS (Dec 26, 2002)

BeanMeScot said:


> I thought it was a good show. I just think it could have been better had they not leaned on the same old tired old device where the killer is someone they know. In real life, how often does a cop actually know a serial killer before they suspect him of something? I expected more. It was a very intelligent drama prior to that. That doesn't make it a bad show or make me dislike it. I don't have to agree with every decision the writers make and I have a right to feel about it however I want.


Biting my tongue since my reply would have to include spoilers...


----------



## BeanMeScot (Apr 17, 2002)

MickeS said:


> Biting my tongue since my reply would have to include spoilers...


I already know all the spoilers. Only other people in the thread don't.


----------



## MickeS (Dec 26, 2002)

BeanMeScot said:


> I already know all the spoilers. Only other people in the thread don't.


Yeah, they are the ones I'm worried about.


----------



## balboa dave (Jan 19, 2004)

BeanMeScot said:


> I thought it was a good show. I just think it could have been better had they not leaned on the same old tired old device where the killer is someone they know. In real life, how often does a cop actually know a serial killer before they suspect him of something? I expected more. It was a very intelligent drama prior to that. That doesn't make it a bad show or make me dislike it. I don't have to agree with every decision the writers make and I have a right to feel about it however I want.


Let's leave "feelings" out of this. Your pejorative use of the term "red shirt" indicates you've concluded the identity of the ITK was a random choice, and that you haven't considered that what the ITK did to put himself in this position was calculated from the start, many episodes before the reveal. He's next to Dexter ON PURPOSE, on his terms, and for reasons yet to be fully revealed. Now that WE (not the characters) are let in on his identity puts an entire new spin on the dynamics of the show. It's too bad you missed all that.


----------



## spikedavis (Nov 23, 2003)

balboa dave said:


> Let's leave "feelings" out of this. Your pejorative use of the term "red shirt" indicates you've concluded the identity of the ITK was a random choice, and that you haven't considered that what the ITK did to put himself in this position was calculated from the start, many episodes before the reveal. He's next to Dexter ON PURPOSE, on his terms, and for reasons yet to be fully revealed. Now that WE (not the characters) are let in on his identity puts an entire new spin on the dynamics of the show. It's too bad you missed all that.


Right. Rudy got close to Dexter because he's been stalking him since the first episode.


----------



## MickeS (Dec 26, 2002)

spikedavis said:


> Right. Rudy got close to Dexter because he's been stalking him since the first episode.


Exactly. The Ice Truck Killer didn't just happen to start dating Deb, he does it deliberately to get to Dexter. That's what makes it OK for me.


----------



## brettatk (Oct 11, 2002)

This is my first time watching Dexter and there really havnt been any surprises yet that were not pretty obvious. I called Rudy as being the Ice Truck Killer right after he was introduced. Also I thought it was fairly obvious Rudy was the cable man that had visited Dexter's real father. All in all I am happy with the show. A few weeks ago basketball ran over and it did not record the entire show. I switched to SHO On Demand to watch it and was really surprised at what was left out. But I guess to get it down from 57 minutes to 43 minutes takes a lot of editing. If I had more time I'd probably finish out the show on SHO On Demand. Plus I dont know which is better, Dexter in it's entirety or Dexter in HD.


----------



## BeanMeScot (Apr 17, 2002)

balboa dave said:


> Let's leave "feelings" out of this. Your pejorative use of the term "red shirt" indicates you've concluded the identity of the ITK was a random choice, and that you haven't considered that what the ITK did to put himself in this position was calculated from the start, many episodes before the reveal. He's next to Dexter ON PURPOSE, on his terms, and for reasons yet to be fully revealed. Now that WE (not the characters) are let in on his identity puts an entire new spin on the dynamics of the show. It's too bad you missed all that.


What it means is that I concluded the writers were smarter than this. They made a unique show and then backslide by using tired cliches within it. And this wasn't the last or only one. I was just disappointed the writers weren't better than that.


----------



## balboa dave (Jan 19, 2004)

BeanMeScot said:


> What it means is that I concluded the writers were smarter than this. They made a unique show and then backslide by using tired cliches within it. And this wasn't the last or only one. I was just disappointed the writers weren't better than that.


I don't care whether you like this show or not, but nothing about your criticisms are based on the show I saw. If you were watching for the first time, I would wait for the story to unfold so you can find out for yourself why you're wrong. But you say you've watched this series, so I can only respond with a seriously major spoiler. Really, the reveal of the ITK we've discussed so far pales before this spoiler.


Spoiler



For this to be a cliche, even a tired one, it has to be an overused plot element. Please list all of the other TV shows, or even movies for that matter, where brothers are serial killers, with one stalking the other. Your entire statement of "how often does a cop actually know a serial killer before they suspect him of something?" misses this entire premise. It is the most fundamental element of this entire season, and one of the keys to Dexter's character. I can only conclude you didn't pay close enough attention to the story, which is why I find your criticism of the writers to be so grating.


----------



## BeanMeScot (Apr 17, 2002)

balboa dave said:


> I don't care whether you like this show or not, but nothing about your criticisms are based on the show I saw. If you were watching for the first time, I would wait for the story to unfold so you can find out for yourself why you're wrong. But you say you've watched this series, so I can only respond with a seriously major spoiler. Really, the reveal of the ITK we've discussed so far pales before this spoiler.


You're looking at it too specifically. If I say how many shows have the serial killer be the wife's half sister on her mother's side once removed, of course the answer is going to be one. If I say how many shows introduce a character in an episode so that that person can be identified as the serial killer later, the answer is almost all of them, including this one. THAT'S the plot device. Not how the killer fits in with the other characters on the show. As MacThor pointed out earlier, they telegraphed this guy from a mile away because of how he was introduced into the show. The fact that I, MacThor and probably almost everyone who watched the show knew who the killer was before the audience was formally told is why this is a cliche.


----------



## MacThor (Feb 7, 2002)

brettatk said:


> This is my first time watching Dexter and there really havnt been any surprises yet that were not pretty obvious. I called Rudy as being the Ice Truck Killer right after he was introduced. Also I thought it was fairly obvious Rudy was the cable man that had visited Dexter's real father. All in all I am happy with the show. A few weeks ago basketball ran over and it did not record the entire show. I switched to SHO On Demand to watch it and was really surprised at what was left out. But I guess to get it down from 57 minutes to 43 minutes takes a lot of editing. If I had more time I'd probably finish out the show on SHO On Demand. Plus I dont know which is better, Dexter in it's entirety or Dexter in HD.


I switched over to Netflix Watch Instantly and would answer "Dexter in its entirety." While my Rule #1 is "Everything is better in HD" my Rule #1-a is "unless it's edited for TV."

Once I started watching online, I actually went back and watched all the episodes I had already seen on CBS, and they are cutting quite a few scenes, not just the nudity and dirty language. Some may feel the cut scenes are peripheral, but I prefer to see what the writers intended, not what network censors/editors decided.

Plus, I can watch in my office instead of the living room, away from the easily-spooked wife. 



BeanMeScot said:


> You're looking at it too specifically. If I say how many shows have the serial killer be the wife's half sister on her mother's side once removed, of course the answer is going to be one. If I say how many shows introduce a character in an episode so that that person can be identified as the serial killer later, the answer is almost all of them, including this one. THAT'S the plot device. Not how the killer fits in with the other characters on the show. As MacThor pointed out earlier, they telegraphed this guy from a mile away because of how he was introduced into the show. The fact that I, MacThor and probably almost everyone who watched the show knew who the killer was before the audience was formally told is why this is a cliche.


Wow, look what I started. I understand both sides of this argument -- I have refrained from reading the spoilers because for some reason I've decided not to charge ahead of the aired episodes, but I have faith that there's a big payoff still to come. But I agree with BMS that the ITK reveal was a letdown. You can tell the writers/producers intended the closing scene of "Shrink Wrap" to be a big jaw-dropping moment by the way it was shot, but all the telegraphing just made it fall flat.

Remember the last few minutes of the pilot of "The Shield?" Now _that_ was a jaw-dropper. That's how you do it differently.


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

MacThor said:


> ...Remember the last few minutes of the pilot of "The Shield?" Now _that_ was a jaw-dropper. That's how you do it differently.


I don't believe I've EVER had more jaw-dropping moments than watching the Shield. It sets the bar very high.


----------



## Hunter Green (Feb 22, 2002)

Wow, I don't think I've ever seen someone miss the point of a show so badly before.


----------



## David Platt (Dec 13, 2001)

I'm not sure where the CBS airings are, so I'll spoilerize my take on BeanMeScot's annoyance with the plot device:



Spoiler



The genius thing about Dexter's use of the plot device is that they take something so completely overused (the killer ends up being somebody right under their nose) and turn it completely on its head. They not only have the killer be somebody right under Dexter's nose, but they also have a perfectly logical backstory supported by everything shown previously in the season for WHY he's right under Dexter's nose. Rudy's not there purely for the expected plot device; the writers take the overused device and our expectations of how its been used in hundreds of other stories, then they blow the cliche and our expectations right out of the water by having it make perfect sense that the killer is right under Dexter's nose.

My two cents.


----------



## spikedavis (Nov 23, 2003)

David Platt said:


> I'm not sure where the CBS airings are, so I'll spoilerize my take on BeanMeScot's annoyance with the plot device:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Bingo.


----------



## brettatk (Oct 11, 2002)

Bierboy said:


> I don't believe I've EVER had more jaw-dropping moments than watching the Shield. It sets the bar very high.


I agree 100%. I'm waiting to get some of those moments on Dexter. I mean I've enjoyed what I've seen so far dont get me wrong but I haven't been sitting there and suddenly go "Holy Crap!!" like I've done so many times with the Shield.

For those who have watched both seasons on Showtime. Is season 2 as good as season 1? I know alot of times the second season does not live up to the first and I'm just curious.


----------



## BeanMeScot (Apr 17, 2002)

People, I KNOW you all think that that the writing for this show is pure genius. But I will bet money that every one of you knew who the killer was the second he set foot on the show. Why? Because he was introduced to be the killer. If the writing was so good, why wasn't he there at the beginning of the show? At least then, it might have actually been a surprise when it turned out that he was the killer. We get to know him all season long as a fixture on the show and he turns out to be the big bad.

Or how about another plot device that bugged me


Spoiler



The little old neighbor lady who saw the "cable repairman" but couldn't get Dexter's attention to say "Hey, that guy you were asking about, he's in that car right there".


 How many murder shows have done that one?

I'm not saying that the writing on the show was/is bad. I am saying that it is so good, I expect better than that. There are other ways to do what they wanted to do. Ways where they don't have to telegraph things a mile away or use tired old plot devices. If I can think of one, good writers should be able to think of a dozen.


----------



## David Platt (Dec 13, 2001)

BeanMeScot said:


> People, I KNOW you all think that that the writing for this show is pure genius. But I will bet money that every one of you knew who the killer was the second he set foot on the show. Why? Because he was introduced to be the killer. If the writing was so good, why wasn't he there at the beginning of the show? At least then, it might have actually been a surprise when it turned out that he was the killer. We get to know him all season long as a fixture on the show and he turns out to be the big bad.


Because in the construct of the show, that simply wouldn't have made any sense. The season centered on the search for the Ice Truck Killer, who had just started killing. The entire reason for Rudy's killings, and thus the entire reason for the Ice Truck Killer's existence, was as a way to get close to Dexter by committing murders in a way that would get his attention as a fellow 'dark traveler.' To have him there as someone already in the show would mean that he would *already* be a part of Dexter's life, and he would have no reason to commit the killings to get his attention. If he were already there when the show started, the ice truck killings would never have happened.


----------



## fmowry (Apr 30, 2002)

brettatk said:


> For those who have watched both seasons on Showtime. Is season 2 as good as season 1? I know alot of times the second season does not live up to the first and I'm just curious.


I'm in the middle of season 2 now and it's just as good. It ties in to season one more than a whole new year of new stuff.

Frank


----------



## BeanMeScot (Apr 17, 2002)

David Platt said:


> Because in the construct of the show, that simply wouldn't have made any sense. The season centered on the search for the Ice Truck Killer, who had just started killing. The entire reason for Rudy's killings, and thus the entire reason for the Ice Truck Killer's existence, was as a way to get close to Dexter by committing murders in a way that would get his attention as a fellow 'dark traveler.' To have him there as someone already in the show would mean that he would *already* be a part of Dexter's life, and he would have no reason to commit the killings to get his attention. If he were already there when the show started, the ice truck killings would never have happened.


BS. He hadn't just started killing and he didn't start just for Dexter. Someone that skilled at it just doesn't wake up one day and start so he can get someones attention. He did tailor his kills to get Dexter interested and probably accelerated them but that first chopped up body wasn't his first kill. He definately wanted Dexter to know they were two of a kind and it wouldn't have mattered how long they had known each other. He was introducing a new level to their relationship. In fact, I would think Rudy would have relished getting to know Dexter slowly and over a longer period of time. To watch him find and admire that first kill would have been the ultimate for Rudy.


----------



## Peter000 (Apr 15, 2002)

Maybe I'm just stupid, but I didn't think they telegraphed the Ice Truck killer "the moment he stepped on the show." I thought they ramped him up rather nicely. After his second episode I thought "that would be twisted to have him as the IT killer." So I kind of knew that he was it. I think at the end of his third ep, it was established.

But I think someone has pointed this out, but what comes as a surprise isn't that he's the killer, but his backstory, and who he ultimately turns out to be, and where his relationship with Dexter heads. Just awesome and I didn't see that coming at all.

It would have been too clich&#233;d to have the IT killer be someone from the beginning of the show. SO many murder mysteries have done that.


----------



## BeanMeScot (Apr 17, 2002)

Peter000 said:


> It would have been too clichéd to have the IT killer be someone from the beginning of the show. SO many murder mysteries have done that.


Yeah, I also think they could have come up with something very awesome. Too bad they didn't.


----------



## Peter000 (Apr 15, 2002)

I thought it was perfect the way they did it. I have no complaints.


----------



## BeanMeScot (Apr 17, 2002)

Peter000 said:


> Maybe I'm just stupid, but I didn't think they telegraphed the Ice Truck killer "the moment he stepped on the show." I thought they ramped him up rather nicely. After his second episode I thought "that would be twisted to have him as the IT killer." *So I kind of knew that he was it.* I think at the end of his third ep, it was established.


I guess figuring out who the murderer is before he is revealed is the mark of a great murder mystery. I wouldn't have suspected that. 



Peter000 said:


> But I think someone has pointed this out, but what comes as a surprise isn't that he's the killer, but his backstory, and who he ultimately turns out to be, and where his relationship with Dexter heads. Just awesome and I didn't see that coming at all.


Totally agree.


----------



## spikedavis (Nov 23, 2003)

I think something important has been missed in this argument. Who the Ice Truck Killer is isn't as important to the story as to WHY he is the Ice Truck Killer. I know that sounds pretentious, but in the big scheme of things trying to look at all the characters on the show and guess who is the killer isn't really that important. It's like people who brag "I figured out the ending to the Sixth Sense ahead of time". Well, who cares? Does that make it a poorly written story? No. The sign of good writing is not to provide red herrings-the storytelling twists and turns have to be earned and make sense. And the writers of Dexter do that-nothing on this show is ever cheap or inconsequential-and that's made even more clear in Season Two. Things have consequence and meaning-as opposed to other, lesser shows whose goal is to simply provide "shocks" that really have no meaning other than to make you stay tuned during the commercial break.


----------



## BeanMeScot (Apr 17, 2002)

Has anyone bothered to look at the original thread about the episode Shrink Wrap? I decided to see if I could find one. Funny how no one was getting jumped in that thread for saying that what was done was cliche and yet I notice several people said it. What is so wrong with admiting they could have done it better? Even if they "made up for it later" that doesn't mean it couldn't have been done better to begin with.


----------



## JLucPicard (Jul 8, 2004)

I'm hesitant to jump into the fray here and didn't go back and re-read this thread, but BeanMeScot, have you seen the rest of the first season and where this story is headed? If so, then I'm talking out of my - well, not my mouth (fingers?) - so please feel free to ignore me.

If you haven't, then I would venture to guess that some of the reaction you're seeing now (and did not see in the previous "live" thread) is based on others knowing where this went. The previous thread may be lacking the "frogs" because the pay off was unknown at that time.


----------



## gossamer88 (Jul 27, 2005)

BeanMeScot said:


> Has anyone bothered to look at the original thread about the episode Shrink Wrap?


Good catch!


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

Peter000 said:


> Maybe I'm just stupid, but I didn't think they telegraphed the Ice Truck killer "the moment he stepped on the show." I thought they ramped him up rather nicely. After his second episode I thought "that would be twisted to have him as the IT killer." So I kind of knew that he was it. I think at the end of his third ep, it was established.....


I'm with stupid ....I didn't see it right away either. I thought they kind of eased into it.


----------



## BeanMeScot (Apr 17, 2002)

JLucPicard said:


> I'm hesitant to jump into the fray here and didn't go back and re-read this thread, but BeanMeScot, have you seen the rest of the first season and where this story is headed? If so, then I'm talking out of my - well, not my mouth (fingers?) - so please feel free to ignore me.
> 
> If you haven't, then I would venture to guess that some of the reaction you're seeing now (and did not see in the previous "live" thread) is based on others knowing where this went. The previous thread may be lacking the "frogs" because the pay off was unknown at that time.


Yes, I have seen the entire season and yes, this was not the only big reveal. What I have been saying is that the show is so well written, they could have done better than to pull up the same old tired cliche and use it yet again.


----------



## Hunter Green (Feb 22, 2002)

BeanMeScot said:


> Has anyone bothered to look at the original thread about the episode Shrink Wrap? I decided to see if I could find one. Funny how no one was getting jumped in that thread for saying that what was done was cliche and yet I notice several people said it.


Several of us said *in this thread* that back then when it first aired, we all thought it was a bad idea, and then we found out later we were wrong. Pay attention.


----------



## BeanMeScot (Apr 17, 2002)

Hunter Green said:


> Several of us said *in this thread* that back then when it first aired, we all thought it was a bad idea, and then we found out later we were wrong. Pay attention.


You are completely missing the point. Why does what is found out later negate the fact that people knew who the killer was before he was formally identified? The point of a murder mystery, at least to me, is that the killer is a MYSTERY and when all is revealed, it is a surprise. There was no surprise in Rudy being the murderer. I am not one of those obsessive people who try and figure things out ahead of time. I would rather go along for the ride. If someone who is not even working hard can figure it out, how good of a mystery was it?


----------



## Craigbob (Dec 2, 2006)

BeanMeScot said:


> You are completely missing the point. Why does what is found out later negate the fact that people knew who the killer was before he was formally identified? The point of a murder mystery, at least to me, is that the killer is a MYSTERY and when all is revealed, it is a surprise. There was no surprise in Rudy being the murderer. I am not one of those obsessive people who try and figure things out ahead of time. I would rather go along for the ride. If someone who is not even working hard can figure it out, how good of a mystery was it?


I see your confusion. You are treating this as a straight forward murder mystery when in fact it is anything but. I see it as more of a character study that has a murder mystery as a small part of it.

Once you change your perspective your expectations tend to change. This not a Columbo, or Murder she Wrote type of mystery. Just remember that.


----------



## BeanMeScot (Apr 17, 2002)

Craigbob said:


> I see your confusion. You are treating this as a straight forward murder mystery when in fact it is anything but. I see it as more of a character study that has a murder mystery as a small part of it.
> 
> Once you change your perspective your expectations tend to change. This not a Columbo, or Murder she Wrote type of mystery. Just remember that.


I don't think it is a straightforward murder mystery like MSW or Columbo. Those shows each week is canned and has little to do with the overall show. In this show the murder mystery is the entire season. That allows more character and relationship development. The point of the whole season was to find out who the Ice Truck Killer was and to explore his relationship to Dexter. If finding out who ITK is is a big part of the overall story, being able to guess who he is without much question or wondering or discussion isn't good, to me. Exploring the relationship is very important, too and they do a good job of that. I just think they could have done a good job with both.


----------



## Craigbob (Dec 2, 2006)

BeanMeScot said:


> I don't think it is a straightforward murder mystery like MSW or Columbo. Those shows each week is canned and has little to do with the overall show. In this show the murder mystery is the entire season. That allows more character and relationship development. The point of the whole season was to find out who the Ice Truck Killer was and to explore his relationship to Dexter. If finding out who ITK is is a big part of the overall story, being able to guess who he is without much question or wondering or discussion isn't good, to me. Exploring the relationship is very important, too and they do a good job of that. I just think they could have done a good job with both.


So what do we know of the ITK at this point in the story, he makes prosthetics, and is dating Deb. At this point in the story we still don't know why he is doing this and what his relationship to Dexter is.

I guess to me the journey is more important then the destination. I also figured out who the ITK was as soon as he was introduced. I really don't think the intention was to keep it from the audience as much as you think it is. The characters don't know at this point IIRC. It's been a while since I saw S1 so I may be mistaken at this point.


----------



## Hunter Green (Feb 22, 2002)

BeanMeScot said:


> You are completely missing the point. Why does what is found out later negate the fact that people knew who the killer was before he was formally identified? The point of a murder mystery, at least to me, is that the killer is a MYSTERY and when all is revealed, it is a surprise.





Hunter Green said:


> Wow, I don't think I've ever seen someone miss the point of a show so badly before.


Guess we'll just have to wait to see if, after you watch the rest of the season and realize you were wrong, you're man enough to admit it.


----------



## BeanMeScot (Apr 17, 2002)

Hunter Green said:


> Guess we'll just have to wait to see if, after you watch the rest of the season and realize you were wrong, you're man enough to admit it.


First of all, if you bother to look to the left, that is a picture of me. Don't have any male parts, at all. Second of all, had you read the thread and actually paid attention, you would have found that I have said I have watched the entire season at least 4 or 5 times.

Thanks for playing


----------



## newsposter (Aug 18, 2002)

BeanMeScot said:


> First of all, if you bother to look to the left, that is a picture of me. Don't have any male parts, at all.


i wish i had more line in my sigs...thats fantastic material.


----------



## balboa dave (Jan 19, 2004)

spikedavis said:


> I think something important has been missed in this argument. Who the Ice Truck Killer is isn't as important to the story as to WHY he is the Ice Truck Killer. I know that sounds pretentious, but in the big scheme of things trying to look at all the characters on the show and guess who is the killer isn't really that important. It's like people who brag "I figured out the ending to the Sixth Sense ahead of time". Well, who cares? Does that make it a poorly written story? No. The sign of good writing is not to provide red herrings-the storytelling twists and turns have to be earned and make sense. And the writers of Dexter do that-nothing on this show is ever cheap or inconsequential-and that's made even more clear in Season Two. Things have consequence and meaning-as opposed to other, lesser shows whose goal is to simply provide "shocks" that really have no meaning other than to make you stay tuned during the commercial break.


Not pretentious at all. You're agreeing with the point that everyone but BMS is making. This entire season is about taking (what appears to be) a common murder mystery to an entire new level, something not everyone has yet got.


----------



## balboa dave (Jan 19, 2004)

BeanMeScot said:


> BS.
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> ...


 I'm not sure why you feel you get to reveal spoilers. That's quite rude. Until this point we've been straddling the line between generic discussion and reveals. You crossed that line.


BeanMeScot said:


> You're looking at it too specifically. If I say how many shows have the serial killer be the wife's half sister on her mother's side once removed, of course the answer is going to be one. If I say how many shows introduce a character in an episode so that that person can be identified as the serial killer later, the answer is almost all of them, including this one. THAT'S the plot device. Not how the killer fits in with the other characters on the show. As MacThor pointed out earlier, they telegraphed this guy from a mile away because of how he was introduced into the show. The fact that I, MacThor and probably almost everyone who watched the show knew who the killer was before the audience was formally told is why this is a cliche.





Spoiler



The ITK is a prosthetic specialist. How could that character have possibly been introduced before he was needed to treat the guard?

Dexter's narrative is not an omniscient perspective. It's an internal dialog done in a narrative style. Several times, the conclusions he makes have been proven wrong, like why he was led to the guard. Consider that the ITK framed then amputated the guard, just to get an introduction to the investigating team, specifically Dexter's sister. Think of how the guard noticed the flirting, and even said something like "you're spoiling my chances here."





BeanMeScot said:


> Has anyone bothered to look at the original thread about the episode Shrink Wrap? I decided to see if I could find one. Funny how no one was getting jumped in that thread for saying that what was done was cliche and yet I notice several people said it. What is so wrong with admiting they could have done it better? Even if they "made up for it later" that doesn't mean it couldn't have been done better to begin with.





BeanMeScot said:


> People, I KNOW you all think that that the writing for this show is pure genius. But I will bet money that every one of you knew who the killer was the second he set foot on the show. Why? Because he was introduced to be the killer. If the writing was so good, why wasn't he there at the beginning of the show? At least then, it might have actually been a surprise when it turned out that he was the killer. We get to know him all season long as a fixture on the show and he turns out to be the big bad.
> 
> I'm not saying that the writing on the show was/is bad. I am saying that it is so good, I expect better than that. There are other ways to do what they wanted to do. Ways where they don't have to telegraph things a mile away or use tired old plot devices. If I can think of one, good writers should be able to think of a dozen.


You're basing the support for your argument on people guessing what was going on DURING the season, and not their opinion after the season concluded. How does that help you, other than provide proof you're not getting it?


Spoiler



Reviewing the episode threads, every single character was considered as possibly being the ITK, from the sister to the other cops to the lady in the records department. Considering any new character as suspect is a reasonable exercise. They suspected the guard. The doctor was even dismissed as being too obvious. In the midst all of the evidence against the trailer park guy, NO ONE was thinking it was the doctor, except maybe our fallible Dexter. It was only after that wonderful scene when Dexter finally met with him that any viewers could say with certainty the doctor was now the most likely guy.





BeanMeScot said:


> You are completely missing the point. Why does what is found out later negate the fact that people knew who the killer was before he was formally identified? The point of a murder mystery, at least to me, is that the killer is a MYSTERY and when all is revealed, it is a surprise. There was no surprise in Rudy being the murderer. I am not one of those obsessive people who try and figure things out ahead of time. I would rather go along for the ride. If someone who is not even working hard can figure it out, how good of a mystery was it?





BeanMeScot said:


> I don't think it is a straightforward murder mystery like MSW or Columbo. Those shows each week is canned and has little to do with the overall show. In this show the murder mystery is the entire season. That allows more character and relationship development. The point of the whole season was to find out who the Ice Truck Killer was and to explore his relationship to Dexter. If finding out who ITK is is a big part of the overall story, being able to guess who he is without much question or wondering or discussion isn't good, to me. Exploring the relationship is very important, too and they do a good job of that. I just think they could have done a good job with both.





balboa dave said:


> So instead of appreciating the show for what it is, you decided what it should be, then complain about that? How can that ever be a good attitude?


My comment above is so correct it bears repeating.


Spoiler



The entire point of so casually showing us the ITK doing his thing while on the phone with the sister PROVES this is not a mystery. It IS a psychological drama between two sociopaths of a very high order.





BeanMeScot said:


> Or how about another plot device that bugged me
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> ...


This is where being off track causes you to miss what's really going on.


Spoiler



The entire cable guy incident was for the viewers. It was to demonstrate how the ITK was able to move among the rest of the characters so easily without being found out. It's further proof that this is not a mystery, it's a drama.


Everyone but you has made this adjustment.


----------



## BeanMeScot (Apr 17, 2002)

balboa dave said:


> I'm not sure why you feel you get to reveal spoilers. That's quite rude. Until this point we've been straddling the line between generic discussion and reveals. You crossed that line.


Exactly what spoiler do you think I revealed? That Rudy had killed before? Aside from the fact that they said this was the 3rd similar killing of a prostiute, anyone that knows anything about serial killers would know that wasn't anyone's first kill. They aren't that skilled at it when they start out. They never even discussed Rudy's history prior to his modeling his kills to attract Dexter. So how can talking about something that is not even in the show be construed as a spoiler?


balboa dave said:


> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> The ITK is a prosthetic specialist. How could that character have possibly been introduced before he was needed to treat the guard?


Duh. He could have already been dating Deb from the beginning. Why would his profession matter?


balboa dave said:


> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> The doctor was even dismissed as being too obvious.


That says it all.



balboa dave said:


> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> In the midst all of the evidence against the trailer park guy, NO ONE was thinking it was the doctor, except maybe our fallible Dexter. It was only after that wonderful scene when Dexter finally met with him that any viewers could say with certainty the doctor was now the most likely guy.


And that was still before he was revealed to the audience as being ITK.



balboa dave said:


> My comment above is so correct it bears repeating.
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> ...


I don't know that it PROVES anything. I'll quote TAsunder from the original Shrink Wrap tread:


TAsunder said:


> I just watched all the episodes on demand this weekend. It was obvious that the doctor was ice truck killer from the first scene he appeared. By the time it was revealed, it was REALLY obvious. But yet they played it like we were supposed to be incredibly shocked. Ah well, maybe some people were.





balboa dave said:


> This is where being off track causes you to miss what's really going on.
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> ...


I don't even know what you are saying here. 


Spoiler



The fact that the little old lady across the street recognized Rudy as the cable guy is supposed to prove to us he can move among the other characters and not be found out? Dexter would have found out right then and there who the killer of his father was had he been paying attention to her. But, of course, they used that same device I have seen many times where a character doesn't listen to another character because they are old or a little crazy or a little out of it or they are too busy to listen, etc., etc.


----------



## MickeS (Dec 26, 2002)

I think people just need to accept that BeanMeScot has a different opinion and move on... there is no wrong or right here!


----------



## BeanMeScot (Apr 17, 2002)

MickeS said:


> I think people just need to accept that BeanMeScot has a different opinion and move on... there is no wrong or right here!


I was just coming back here to write something similar. I really don't get why so many people are so obsessed with "proving" to me that they are right and I am wrong. And many times in a very rude and condescending way. Why do they care what I think? Why do I have to agree with them?


----------



## David Platt (Dec 13, 2001)

BeanMeScot said:


> I was just coming back here to write something similar. I really don't get why so many people are so obsessed with "proving" to me that they are right and I am wrong. And many times in a very rude and condescending way. Why do they care what I think? Why do I have to agree with them?


In a rude and condescending way? You mean like referring to other people's posts as "BS," starting out posts with a dismissive "duh," saying "thanks for playing" to dismiss somebody else's opinion, and acting like anybody who disagrees with you is simply a fanboy willing to accept what the show did simply because it's the almighty Dexter?

Yep, there has been some rudeness and condescension on both sides in this thread, hasn't there?


----------



## Hunter Green (Feb 22, 2002)

BeanMeScot said:


> First of all, if you bother to look to the left, that is a picture of me. Don't have any male parts, at all. Second of all, had you read the thread and actually paid attention, you would have found that I have said I have watched the entire season at least 4 or 5 times.


I guess we have our answer, then. Hope you enjoy whatever you watch next.


----------



## BeanMeScot (Apr 17, 2002)

David Platt said:


> In a rude and condescending way? You mean like referring to other people's posts as "BS," starting out posts with a dismissive "duh," saying "thanks for playing" to dismiss somebody else's opinion, and acting like anybody who disagrees with you is simply a fanboy willing to accept what the show did simply because it's the almighty Dexter?
> 
> Yep, there has been some rudeness and condescension on both sides in this thread, hasn't there?


Are you kidding me? Start with post #149 forward and tell me who started what.

This is the first substantive post


balboa dave said:


> Let's leave "feelings" out of this. Your pejorative use of the term "red shirt" indicates you've concluded the identity of the ITK was a random choice, and that you haven't considered that what the ITK did to put himself in this position was calculated from the start, many episodes before the reveal. He's next to Dexter ON PURPOSE, on his terms, and for reasons yet to be fully revealed. Now that WE (not the characters) are let in on his identity puts an entire new spin on the dynamics of the show. It's too bad you missed all that.


You don't think that is condescending?

Or how about:


Hunter Green said:


> Wow, I don't think I've ever seen someone miss the point of a show so badly before.


You don't think that is condescending and directed at me? I didn't even respond to that one.

I called BS in post 175 where you posted that the first murder we see was Rudy's first murder. That's just not true or even possible. The first scene of at the swimming pool says this was the 5th (I believe) similar killing. I didn't see you continuing to argue that this was his first kill.

Let's continue forward:


Peter000 said:


> It would have been too clichéd to have the IT killer be someone from the beginning of the show. SO many murder mysteries have done that.


So that wasn't condescending and wasn't directed at me???

How about this?


Hunter Green said:


> Several of us said *in this thread* that back then when it first aired, we all thought it was a bad idea, and then we found out later we were wrong. Pay attention.


I suppose that wasn't rude or condesending either.

How about this:


Hunter Green said:


> Guess we'll just have to wait to see if, after you watch the rest of the season and realize you were wrong, you're man enough to admit it.


My response to this was apparently rude and condescending. And after Balboa Dave's diatribe when I say Duh, I guess that was wrong of me after he had been so kind as to listen to what I said. I guess if I take it for several days and finally choose to respond in kind, that makes me the rude one. Glad we got that straight. Thanks.


----------



## David Platt (Dec 13, 2001)

BeanMeScot said:


> Are you kidding me? Start with post #149 forward and tell me who started what.
> 
> This is the first substantive post
> 
> ...


I didn't intend to convey that this was his first kill; I meant that we had just seen him start killing on the show. Irrespective of that, I chose not to continue arguing down that path because of the combative tone this thread was taking, both from your side and from those arguing against you. You've made a lot of valid points in the thread, but I tend not to continue on in discussions with such a negative vibe as this one.



> Let's continue forward:
> 
> So that wasn't condescending and wasn't directed at me???
> 
> ...


If you re-read my last reply, I never said you were the only one being rude:



David Platt said:


> Yep, there has been some rudeness and condescension on both sides in this thread, hasn't there?


As I clearly stated, there was plenty of rudeness to go around. I'm not sure how you're interpreting that I'm saying you were the only one at fault.


----------



## Peter000 (Apr 15, 2002)

Peter000 said:


> It would have been too clichéd to have the IT killer be someone from the beginning of the show. SO many murder mysteries have done that.





BeanMeScot said:


> So that wasn't condescending and wasn't directed at me???


I wasn't trying to be condescending. It was directed at your comment, though. But I don't see how simply disagreeing with you is being condescending. It's just my opinion. I'm sorry if you took it that way; it was obviously a miscommunication on my part.


----------



## David Platt (Dec 13, 2001)

Peter000 said:


> I wasn't trying to be condescending. It was directed at your comment, though. But I don't see how simply disagreeing with you is being condescending. It's just my opinion. I'm sorry if you took it that way; it was obviously a miscommunication on my part.


Your comment wasn't condescending in the least, Peter. I can't even understand how it could be taken that way.

You're pointing out a thought that I had wanted to make earlier in the thread as well: either way the writers had done it (having the ITK be someone introduced halfway through the series, or have it be someone who had been there all along and Dex already knew), it would have been a cliche. Both ways have been done to death. So I guess it all comes down to which cliche viewers think is worse-- the former or the latter?


----------



## BeanMeScot (Apr 17, 2002)

Peter000 said:


> I wasn't trying to be condescending. It was directed at your comment, though. But I don't see how simply disagreeing with you is being condescending. It's just my opinion. I'm sorry if you took it that way; it was obviously a miscommunication on my part.


The emphasize on SO is what makes it condescending. Read it in your head and emphasize that word (as you intended since you did emphasize that word), that's when it crosses the line to condescending.


----------



## BeanMeScot (Apr 17, 2002)

David Platt said:


> If you re-read my last reply, I never said you were the only one being rude:
> 
> As I clearly stated, there was plenty of rudeness to go around. I'm not sure how you're interpreting that I'm saying you were the only one at fault.


My point is that any perceived rudeness on my part came after 2 days of being subjected to rudeness from others and not responding in kind. To be called out for it when I was the object of most of it from many people is disingenuous at best.


----------



## tivogurl (Dec 16, 2004)

Now that the series is over (on CBS anyway), I have some questions.

1) how the heck did Rudy find out Dexter was a serial killer? Dexter left no evidence that the police, with sophisticated forensic tools, could link to him, so what evidence did Rudy have and how did he get it? Rudy's conversation with Dexter in which he says (paraphrased) "I looked for you and found out you were like me" implies that this isn't mere wishful thinking on Rudy's part.

2) If Rudy recovered physical evidence (I don't see how), won't it be in the personal effects recovered from Rudy's apartment? Dexter had better hope none of that is subjected to forensic analysis.

3) Why didn't Dexter install surveillance equipment in his apartment? I would if somebody was breaking in and leaving stuff.


----------



## BrandonRe (Jul 15, 2006)

tivogurl said:


> Now that the series is over (on CBS anyway), I have some questions.
> 
> 1) how the heck did Rudy find out Dexter was a serial killer? Dexter left no evidence that the police, with sophisticated forensic tools, could link to him, so what evidence did Rudy have and how did he get it? Rudy's conversation with Dexter in which he says (paraphrased) "I looked for you and found out you were like me" implies that this isn't mere wishful thinking on Rudy's part.
> 
> ...


I wondered the same thing. I have not seen Season 2 yet, so I wonder if those questions are addressed in any way...


----------



## BeanMeScot (Apr 17, 2002)

tivogurl said:


> Now that the series is over (on CBS anyway), I have some questions.
> 
> 1) how the heck did Rudy find out Dexter was a serial killer? Dexter left no evidence that the police, with sophisticated forensic tools, could link to him, so what evidence did Rudy have and how did he get it? Rudy's conversation with Dexter in which he says (paraphrased) "I looked for you and found out you were like me" implies that this isn't mere wishful thinking on Rudy's part.
> 
> ...


I haven't watched season 2 either but I would imagine that Rudy tracked Dexter down, then started following him. Trying to get to know him without Dexter seeing him. He might have seen Dex do a murder or he might have just found enough pieces (i.e. saw him meeting someone who wound up dead). The Ice Truck killers first murders were never shown. In the scene at the pool, Deb says it was the fifth (or maybe 3rd?) similary killing. We don't know anything about Dexter's kills at that time.

As for the 3rd point, Dexter was thrilled that someone he considered his master in the "art" of murder was interested in him. This guy fascinated Dexter. He didn't really want to catch him, even before he knew who he was but Rudy forced his hand by dragging Deb into it and trying to get him to give up Harry's Rules. The Rules that Dexter had used to shape his life from his teenage years. Rules that allowed him to kill without being caught.


----------



## Hunter Green (Feb 22, 2002)

tivogurl said:


> 1) how the heck did Rudy find out Dexter was a serial killer? Dexter left no evidence that the police, with sophisticated forensic tools, could link to him, so what evidence did Rudy have and how did he get it? Rudy's conversation with Dexter in which he says (paraphrased) "I looked for you and found out you were like me" implies that this isn't mere wishful thinking on Rudy's part.


This is never really addressed, but it doesn't seem that hard to me. On the one hand, the question is, "we have these crimes, who did them?" and on the other, the question is, "we have this person to observe, is he doing criminal things?" The latter seems a much easier question to answer. In a city of five million people, picking out the one person who did something is hard. But if you have a suspect, observing him stealthily is likely to lead to confirmation when you see Dexter doing suspicious things. All we have to assume is that Rudy was careful enough to not get caught by Dexter shadowing him.



> 3) Why didn't Dexter install surveillance equipment in his apartment? I would if somebody was breaking in and leaving stuff.


Dexter also wanted to play. Remember his reaction to the Barbie doll in the freezer? The whole thing called out to the Dark Passenger.


----------



## jebbbz (Sep 7, 2007)

Can any of the regulars here tell me why in the world a specific shipping container would still be in use and be on the docks for/after 35 years? It would have been a pile of rust particles assuming it had not been scrapped. Did I miss some explanation? Did its presence advance some story line?


----------



## spikedavis (Nov 23, 2003)

jebbbz said:


> Can any of the regulars here tell me why in the world a specific shipping container would still be in use and be on the docks for/after 35 years? It would have been a pile of rust particles assuming it had not been scrapped. Did I miss some explanation? Did its presence advance some story line?


There's nitpicking-and then there's this.


----------



## Peter000 (Apr 15, 2002)

jebbbz said:


> Can any of the regulars here tell me why in the world a specific shipping container would still be in use and be on the docks for/after 35 years? It would have been a pile of rust particles assuming it had not been scrapped. Did I miss some explanation? Did its presence advance some story line?


Yeah, I had the same thought, and let it go.

And I would assume the container would be scrapped after a brutal chainsaw homicide took place in it, but apparently they just hosed it down and put it back into service.


----------



## MickeS (Dec 26, 2002)

Was that the actual container, or just a container that was in the same docket? I don't remember where the container number came from.


----------



## danterner (Mar 4, 2005)

MickeS said:


> Was that the actual container, or just a container that was in the same docket? I don't remember where the container number came from.


It's been quite a while since I saw the episode, so my memory may be hazy and wrong, but I seem to recall Dexter looking at a newspaper photo of the crimescene, showing Harry in uniform standing in front of the container. Dexter was able to discern the container number by looking at the photo.


----------



## sketcher (Mar 3, 2005)

Peter000 said:


> Yeah, I had the same thought, and let it go.
> 
> And I would assume the container would be scrapped after a brutal chainsaw homicide took place in it, but apparently they just hosed it down and put it back into service.


They didn't put it into service. They just set it out on the dock so Dexter would be able to find it when he needed it.


----------



## jebbbz (Sep 7, 2007)

sketcher said:


> They didn't put it into service. They just set it out on the dock so Dexter would be able to find it when he needed it.


And they filled it with bananas in case Dexter was hungry.

This was not just an inevitable continuity error. Call it nit-picking but they seemed to spend a fair amount of time on getting Dexter there to be confronted by Doakes to be called away by their phones. I just wondered if it meant something.

(On the whole I have enjoyed the series and will follow it on DVD from here on --don't take any premium cable packages-- but for quirky I prefer Life and for gritty I prefer The Shield.)


----------



## brettatk (Oct 11, 2002)

I have a question for anyone who has watched Dexter on SHO On Demand. I was thinking about starting season 2 and was looking at the On Demand episodes. It begins Episode 202, then goes straight to 204. So I'm wondering what happened to 201 and 203. Anyone have any insight?


----------



## gossamer88 (Jul 27, 2005)

You can also catch it on iTunes.


----------



## brettatk (Oct 11, 2002)

gossamer88 said:


> You can also catch it on iTunes.


But I dont want to have to pay for it. 

I don't know what I was thinking anyway. I totally forgot about torrent files. I found one that contains the entire 2nd season in 720p. Of course it's over 14GB but I guess I can wait for it to download.


----------



## tivogurl (Dec 16, 2004)

Has CBS hinted at airing Season 2?


----------



## smak (Feb 11, 2000)

Yah, I want to know that question too. It seems like something they might do during summertime, but probably not this summer.

I rented season 1, but watched it again on CBS because of the HD. 

-smak-


----------



## JLucPicard (Jul 8, 2004)

I don't know what kind of ratings CBS got for this, but I always looked at them airing S1 in two ways. 1) To fill a time slot that may have been knocked a little haywire because of the writer's strike (speculation only on my part - those that will bring the hammer down citing all the technical aspects of the strike need not reply ; and 2) to entice people to become subscribers of Showtime.

I think it would take some extraordinary circumstances for them to follow up with an airing of season 2, just to "be nice" to viewers - I think their generosity in 'giving it away' only extends so far on something like this.


----------



## brettatk (Oct 11, 2002)

I'm almost done with Season 2 and I'm equally impressed with it. I have two more episodes and then I guess I'll have to wait for Season 3 to air.


----------



## lew (Mar 12, 2002)

It was aired due to the writers strike but there isn't any reason why CBS couldn't air S2 during a down time (summer for example). It's not a matter of "being nice". No reason not to make a few extra dollars showing it on network TV after showing it on SHO and making money with DVD sales.

Is it possible some of the people viewing Dexter on CBS might subscribe to SHO so they can see S3 a year sooner, and uncut, vs waiting to see it OTA?

Many shows are aired on cable channels after they are first shown on broadcast TV. No reason why this can't be reversed for some shows.



JLucPicard said:


> I don't know what kind of ratings CBS got for this, but I always looked at them airing S1 in two ways. 1) To fill a time slot that may have been knocked a little haywire because of the writer's strike (speculation only on my part - those that will bring the hammer down citing all the technical aspects of the strike need not reply ; and 2) to entice people to become subscribers of Showtime.
> 
> I think it would take some extraordinary circumstances for them to follow up with an airing of season 2, just to "be nice" to viewers - I think their generosity in 'giving it away' only extends so far on something like this.


----------



## JLucPicard (Jul 8, 2004)

I don't know - I've seen enough posts in the flavor of "Why should I pay to see it? I'll just wait until it comes out on DVD (or when CBS airs it free)." I just can't see the business sense in setting it up so a "Showtime Exclusive" series is assured to air on network TV as well - even if it's a year later. That may just be me, though.


----------



## lew (Mar 12, 2002)

JLucPicard said:


> I don't know - I've seen enough posts in the flavor of "Why should I pay to see it? I'll just wait until it comes out on DVD (or when CBS airs it free)." I just can't see the business sense in setting it up so a "Showtime Exclusive" series is assured to air on network TV as well - even if it's a year later. That may just be me, though.


HBO is releasing the John Adams mini-series to DVD months after it aired on HBO. Most successful tv shows, premium cable and OTA, become available on DVD.

Offering Dexter to CBS, after it's already aired on SHO, and after it's been available on DVD probably increases the awareness of the show.

I suspect people who are willing to wait a year, to see an edited version on CBS, wouldn't have paid under any circumstance.


----------

