|
Post by Jeremy on Mar 19, 2017 16:17:45 GMT -8
Noah:
Thanks, Iguana! It didn't register to me in that way. I see better what FV was saying.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Mar 19, 2017 16:17:58 GMT -8
FV:
The choir analogy is perfect because it describes exactly our point of difference. For you, though the lyrics may be weak and the singing poor, it is still great art because of the theme behind it; that is to say, for you the theme is the art. That's a valid point of view, and one that I can understand. For me, however, everything is in the execution. The message of the song may be beautiful and transcendent, but the song itself is bad because it fails to communicate its meaning successfully and in a way that can be enjoyed.
As for your interesting consequence, perhaps I worded myself lazily. I believe a theme can be great even if the work containing it is not, but containing a great theme does not make the work containing it great by default.
We're going around in circles here. I believe that a TV show should be judged as a TV show, and so if you're going to ignore all aspects of design except for what you refer to as the 'art', then you are failing to give the full and proper evaluation that is required of you as a reviewer.
The rest of what you argue is semantics once again. I've explained, numerous times now, what my definition of 'objective' is. Why you seem to think that people are allowed to disagree on the meaning of art but not of objectivity is puzzling to me. You can't consider my comments under your definition of the word any more than I can disregard yours because I do not share your view of art.
I do consider you and Mike to be judging the show objectively; or, to be more specific, I believe that you are judging a single aspect of the show objectively. It is when fans attempt to compare Buffy to other great shows that I feel that objectivity slips away and is replaced by pure emotion.
The Angel reference was directed more at Mike than it was you, as I know he thinks Buffy to be the better show, and yet under your criteria they are, by necessity, near equals.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Mar 19, 2017 16:18:15 GMT -8
Odi:
Thank you for the call out, Noah. I appreciate it.
It would really interest me to see if other shows in the pantheon, especially the ones Freudian values more, can mirror Buffy's effect on you. In many ways the discourse between the two of you is not an even playing field - you have not seen the shows that he values more (the Sopranos, the Shield, Breaking Bad, and the Wire especially, but also Six Feet Under...correct me if I am wrong on that), and the shows that are also in the discussion (Mad Men for me and Jeremy, Deadwood).
These other shows do not change how you value Buffy (and did not for me, and definitely did not for Mike), but they have altered the manner in which Freudian views Buffy. A meaningfully large facet of Freudian's valuation of Buffy, and thus his impact on the discourse proceeding here, is his relativism - he is now viewing Buffy partially through comparison to these other shows that he prefers.
[EDIT - every notion of value or preference I will employ is intrinsically subjective and internal.]
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Mar 19, 2017 16:18:34 GMT -8
Noah:
Freudian Vampire wrote: The choir analogy is perfect because it describes exactly our point of difference. For you, though the lyrics may be weak and the singing poor, it is still great art because of the theme behind it; that is to say, for you the theme is the art. That's a valid point of view, and one that I can understand. For me, however, everything is in the execution. The message of the song may be beautiful and transcendent, but the song itself is bad because it fails to communicate its meaning successfully and in a way that can be enjoyed.
I'm not sure that I would say that the theme is the art. The realization of the theme is the art, but we disagree over where that happens. I think it happens in an immaterial or mental realm. You think, and correct me if I'm wrong, that it happens in the crafted work. That's a philosophical difference that is not unique to us. Currently, I think you probably have the larger army of support in the world at large.
As for the choir, if the choir performs the piece so inaccurately that the music cannot communicate what it might, I would call that unsuccessful for the audience, and I think it deprives them of an artistic experience. The coir, on the other hand, can still have that experience.
Quote: The rest of what you argue is semantics once again. I've explained, numerous times now, what my definition of 'objective' is. Why you seem to think that people are allowed to disagree on the meaning of art but not of objectivity is puzzling to me. You can't consider my comments under your definition of the word any more than I can disregard yours because I do not share your view of art.
This point I half concede and half argue. I concede that I did do some of what I objected to your doing, and that was hypocritical of me. I was unjust. Sorry!
On the other hand, my main criticism of your definition of objective is that it doesn't jive with the rest of the terms in the discussion. "Reasonable" isn't clear enough. "real, genuine critique and thought" is also a mystery to me. And I find "one that takes into account such things as emotion and spirituality, but which is ruled by reason and not emotion." to be contradictory enough to make me confused.
Quote: I do consider you and Mike to be judging the show objectively; or, to be more specific, I believe that you are judging a single aspect of the show objectively. It is when fans attempt to compare Buffy to other great shows that I feel that objectivity slips away and is replaced by pure emotion.
Ok, that's fair. I would say that my position is that that one aspect so far outweighs the other in importance, that mere acceptability in craftsmanship does not detract from depth of theme and transcendent potential in art.
The last thing I want to say about these points for the moment is that I think this discussion can be viewed analogously to an art work. We both feel that discussion is worth our efforts. I think that, no matter whether our discussion would be viewed as "valuable" to others, or whether we ever reach a consensus, I still feel we've benefited from it because we've considered things that we hadn't before and came to new understandings of how we really feel. And maybe we've even changed our minds. I think there's a lot of value in that, and that it's the most important thing, just like transformation in art.
I also feel that my last post was rather snarky. Sorry about that.
Odi: Quote: It would really interest me to see if other shows in the pantheon, especially the ones Freudian values more, can mirror Buffy's effect on you. In many ways the discourse between the two of you is not an even playing field - you have not seen the shows that he values more (the Sopranos, the Shield, Breaking Bad, and the Wire especially, but also Six Feet Under...correct me if I am wrong on that), and the shows that are also in the discussion (Mad Men for me and Jeremy, Deadwood).
I'm really interested to know too. i just haven't had the time to commit to those shows lately. Other shows that have moments anywhere close to Buffy for me are The Inside, Wonderfalls, Deep Space Nince, TNG (The Inner Light), and, of course, Angel.
Quote: These other shows do not change how you value Buffy (and did not for me, and definitely did not for Mike), but they have altered the manner in which Freudian views Buffy. A meaningfully large facet of Freudian's valuation of Buffy, and thus his impact on the discourse proceeding here, is his relevatism - he is now viewing Buffy partially through comparison to these other shows that he prefers.
You have an amazing talent for putting things clearly, accurately, and concisely. That pretty much sums up the central point of contention.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Mar 19, 2017 16:18:58 GMT -8
Jeremy:
Okay, I was mentioned about six times in the last two pages of discussion, mostly in the context of examples, despite the fact that I haven't posted a single comment since morning. That's pretty cool. Well, except for Scott's reference. That was annoying on numerous levels.
Odi et Amo wrote: In many ways the discourse between the two of you is not an even playing field - you have not seen the shows that he values more (the Sopranos, the Shield, Breaking Bad, and the Wire especially, but also Six Feet Under...correct me if I am wrong on that), and the shows that are also in the discussion (Mad Men for me and Jeremy, Deadwood).
I'll just point out that I have seen the first six episodes of Deadwood. I watched them over the summer. However, I lost track of the series while trying to work my way through The Sopranos. It actually looks to be an interesting show (though I haven't yet decided if it works more on an entertainment level or an appreciation level), so I'll return to it sometime soon.
Regarding the tonal shifts - I know I'm a bit late to the party here, but I want to get a point across regarding the merits of constantly prefacing opinions with "I think" or "I feel". Although these words are good for clarification, opinions tend to get their points across better if they are stated more forcefully. As I once heard a television critic speak about the subject, "Glop too much frosting around, and the cake tends to disappear."
That's one of my major philosophies in writing reviews, actually.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Mar 19, 2017 16:19:15 GMT -8
Keith:
[Noah wrote:
This goes back to us caring about different things. I care about the reasons for excellence, you care that it be as excellent as possible, and you like it to have a reason.
On the other hand, I'm not sure I know what it means, and it suffers from many of the problems that I've alluded to above, subject/object discussion, what is art?, comparison problems etc.
I also want to point out that Odi et amo wrote a brilliant exegesis of the philosophical underpinning of Buffy like 6 pages ago. For anybody who wants to talk about themes/craftsmanship, that's some great intellectual craftsmanship.]
I care about the reasons for excellence. I just think that artistic value alone is not a proper basis upon which to conclude that a show is of the highest possible quality. And I'm using what I believe is your definition of "art" as expressed here - that art, in its purest form, is expression that transforms the consumer.
I'm wondering how you are able to separate the artistic merit from the manner in which it is expressed. Great art can come from poor expression, but if poor expression blunts the impact of the art, then doesn't that affect your impression of that thing? If so, then isn't it fair to judge art at least partly based on how well it is expressed? If not, why not?
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Mar 19, 2017 16:19:54 GMT -8
Iguana:
10 pages and running!
On the "objectivity" bit, I think I'll quote myself from the last time this discussion came up. Since I tend to agree with my past-self quite a bit.
[Past-Iguana wrote: What the objectivity/subjectivity debate is about? I say it's about trying to persuade other people that the standards I'm using make sense when evaluating an episode. I can't prove that James Marsters is a better actor than David Boreanaz on "Buffy," but I can present arguments for that, I can point to examples that I think indicate he's better. And while some people, who judge things by different standards, will always disagree, I can nonetheless persuade a majority if my arguments make sense and the standards I'm using are acceptable to them.
Is "Buffy" objectively better than "S.H.I.E.L.D.?" It's not hard at all to make a very persuasive case for that. But the subject is fuzzy enough that you do need to make that case, you need to line out those arguments. You can't trust everybody to just "see" it the way they can see the sun rises in the morning.
And that's what Mike's reviews are all about. They teach us things about the show we wouldn't have realised if we hadn't read them, but most of all they form a very persuasive argument for his main thesis that "Buffy" is a very deep, character-driven show that handles its themes very deftly, even more so in the later seasons than the earlier ones. There will always remain people who think only the high-school seasons are any good, but they'd need to muster some very convincing arguments indeed if they want to convince me, since I've read these reviews.
But when it comes to things that are very close to eachother in quality, it becomes almost impossible to make an argument so persuasive it will get everyone on your side, because there will always be arguments to argue the contrary. "The Gift" and "Fool for Love" are both brilliant. And you'll never convince everybody that one is better in all regards. At best you can make the other see why you think it's better. And honestly? I think that understanding why other people like what they like is at least as interesting as persuading them to change their minds about an episode.]
Perhaps "objective arguments" is the wrong term to use here, but I do think past-Iguana is on to something here. There's a difference between merely stating a subjective opinion, and trying to defend it in terms that are acceptable to a majority of a hypothetical audience.
Does this connect in any way to your view of what constitutes an objective argument, Freudian?
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Mar 19, 2017 16:20:27 GMT -8
Mike:
Just to make sure I was clear: I do value a works' craftsmanship, or execution, and it definitely weighs into and plays a role in any evaluation of mine. If you don't believe me, take a look at the Cons section of my B7 Review again.
It is simply not the most important factor -- it weighs less than other criteria for me. It's fine that others feel differently though!
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Mar 19, 2017 16:20:41 GMT -8
Jeremy:
Iguana-on-a-stick wrote: There's a difference between merely stating a subjective opinion, and trying to defend it in terms that are acceptable to a majority of a hypothetical audience.
Boy, ain't that the truth.
Speaking of which, have I mentioned that Scott has just convinced me to write another Blog article about The Wire?
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Mar 19, 2017 16:21:09 GMT -8
Odi:
Jeremy wrote: Speaking of which, have I mentioned that Scott has just convinced me to write another Blog article about The Wire?
-salivates & rubs hands-
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Mar 19, 2017 16:21:27 GMT -8
[MikeJer wrote: Just to make sure I was clear: I do value a works' craftsmanship, or execution, and it definitely weighs into and plays a role into any evaluation of mine. If you don't believe me, take a look at the Cons section of my B7 Review again.
It is simply not the most important factor -- it weighs less than other criteria for me. It's fine that others feel differently though!]
I wouldn't say I feel all that differently, really. I think Buffy has as many interesting and important things to say as any other show I've watched. It's just that to me, the calculus is pretty simple. To be considered one of the best shows ever, you need to be near-flawless at both expressing themes, and telling a story through the medium. Doing one without the other may be enough to be considered good, or even great. But when you start talking about best ever, you can't fall short in either aspect. Buffy fails too much and too often at storytelling to be considered among the best ever. Even when grading on a curve to account for all the extra screen time required of Buffy. To be the best ever, you have to be near the best at every aspect of making television. Your S7 review and the cons you point out therein alone is enough to move it out of the realm of BSE, especially when you also consider that S1 is lacking in both narrative and thematic content.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Mar 19, 2017 16:21:38 GMT -8
Mike: The flaws of S1 and parts of S7 are but a small part of the entirety of the show though Keith. They're not some huge black mark on it, at least not in my eyes. Additionally, of the "big shows" I've seen, I can point out just as many flaws in them too. They may be in different areas, but I feel they have their notable flaws nonetheless. I've yet to see a show that is, or even approaches, perfection on every level. Quote: Buffy fails too much and too often at storytelling to be considered among the best ever. I just flat-out disagree with this statement. I feel it's far more consistent at getting across its messages than you're giving it credit for. But maybe that's just me.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Mar 19, 2017 16:21:58 GMT -8
Bosc:
Shit, this thread just won't slow down!!!
Keith wrote: I'd argue that the goal of TV is to entertain, not to invoke passion, but I think the concepts are closely enough related that trying to argue one or the other is pointless.
The cynic in me wants to argue that television (and mass media in general) is a means of entrainment rather than entertainment-- to destroy diversity of opinion rather than create it. But I don't know if I could say all that without feeling bad.
Freudian Vampire wrote: A word on the nature of the ‘best show ever’ debate. Paradoxical as it may seem, I don’t think that such a debate presupposes that a genuine ‘best show ever’ must exist. For me, at least, it refers to the bracket of shows which make up the very top tier of television, and which one could claim to be, in their view, the ‘best show ever’ and not be widely disagreed with or ridiculed. Critical consensus, at least to me, suggests that these shows are The Sopranos, The Wire, Breaking Bad, The Shield, Mad Men, Deadwood and Six Feet Under, with the likes of Freaks and Geeks just behind, and shows like Buffy and the Star Treks having enough of a cult following to worm their way into the conversation. That perception may be false, as it’s based on my own limited experience, but I’m sure you can understand the sentiment.
I should establish that when I bring up this debate, I'm referring to neither Buzzfeed-type pop culture "best ever" lists (which are decidedly unintellectual) nor to academic debate (which is too smart to fall into BEST THING EVER debate). If we were talking about the former, we'd be debating Seinfeld and The Simpsons (which are good, fairly revolutionary shows, but with too steady a decline to be considered great). Academia couldn't care less about best shows ever-- that's common whore material.
I'm referring to the Roger Eberts of the world-- non-academics who seriously debate the merits of television.
Quote: The Sopranos was extended longer than it should have been due to HBO’s interference, and internal arguments led to Deadwood being cut down before its time. Nonetheless, both those shows, and the other giants, managed to tell a complete story which began in the right place and ended pitch-perfectly. Buffy never had that same sense of direction. Do you get the feeling that the series had to last seven seasons before it ended? I don’t. Breaking Bad, on the other hand, could not have been any shorter than it was, and would have suffered from repetitiveness if it had been dragged out any longer. The Shield is a sequence of escalating events, all of which are vitally important and relevant many seasons down the line, and the final season could not have occurred without the season which preceded it, and so on and so forth. I think I’m repeating myself a little here. The contenders for the best show ever title are well structured and coherent. Buffy isn’t.
I don't think it's fair to complain that shows end too quickly or go on for too long because these things are far more often dictated by folks with Nielsen boxes than the showrunners. Breaking Bad only ended when it did because AMC wanted to make room for The Walking Dead and didn't renew it farther.
No offense to The Shield here, but... "A sequence of escalating events, all of which are vitally important and relevant seasons down the line, where each season could not have happened with the series before it?" I think that's a fair description of Buffy.
I think Buffy could have ended Season 5, and it would have been a tighter show. But for all the flaws in Seasons 6 and 7, I think the world is better off for "Once More With Feeling" and "Dead Things" and "Selfless" and "Storyteller." This isn't Dexter where the show jumps the metaphorical shark and falls off a metaphorical cliff and throws its metaphorical feces at metaphorical people.
I think there's an underlying assumption here that a show needs a predetermined beginning, middle and end to have solid structure. On a morality tale like Breaking Bad? Sure. But the problem with that is that life just doesn't work like that-- people don't have predetermined arcs. If a show can let its characters grow without any left-field developments, I don't see why this is a knock against it.
Noah, quoting Vince Gilligan wrote: If religion is a reaction of man, and nothing more, it seems to me that it represents a human desire for wrongdoers to be punished. I hate the idea of Idi Amin living in Saudi Arabia for the last 25 years of his life. That galls me to no end. I feel some sort of need for Biblical atonement, or justice, or something. I like to believe there is some comeuppance, that karma kicks in at some point, even if it takes years or decades to happen. My girlfriend says this great thing that's become my philosophy as well. 'I want to believe there's a heaven. But I can't not believe there's a hell."
I know that this was meant to discuss the themes of Angel, but I believe this quote applies to you as well, Freud. I'm reminded of our debate in "WWE Presents: Alex C. vs. Freudian Vampire." You said that Rona and Kennedy's screentime hurt "Chosen" because you wanted to see the characters you knew and loved get the focus. I countered that one of the strengths of the episode was that by letting these new people do the ass kicking, it strengthened the themes by actually showing the shared empowerment rather than just saying it.
So... I don't mean to offend when I say this, but I get the impression that you value organization in story more due to the personal satisfaction it brings you rather than the objective importance of closure.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Mar 19, 2017 16:22:17 GMT -8
Iguana:
You know, the more the debate goes on, the more I feel like Tevye in this.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Mar 19, 2017 16:22:40 GMT -8
Keith: [MikeJer wrote: The flaws of S1 and parts of S7 are but a small part of the entirety of the show though Keith. They're not some huge black mark on it, at least not in my eyes. Additionally, of the "big shows" I've seen, I can point out just as many flaws in them too. They may be in different areas, but I feel they have their notable flaws nonetheless. I've yet to see a show that is, or even approaches, perfection on every level. I just flat-out disagree with this statement. I feel it's far more consistent at getting across its messages than you're giving it credit for. But maybe that's just me. ] It's not huge, I agree, but we're not talking huge orders of magnitude here. The difference between a "great" show and one of the best shows ever is not a big difference. S1 of Buffy is not a great season of TV. It's not even a very good one. I'm not sure you can say a show is among the best ever when it has a poor season like that. That's not to say other shows are flawless, but it's a question of degree. The Sopranos, for example, does not have a season which has any serious flaws, where serious flaws are things like poor structure and bad plotting. It has episodes that don't work, and one or 2 that are downright bad. But not a long run of episodes, and certainly not a full season. So while no, I can't put an actual score on it, or give you a percentage or other number that ranks one show against another, I think it is absolutely possible to point out how the flaws of Buffy take it out of the stratosphere occupied by shows deserving of the title of best show ever. Buffy does consistently do a good job of conveying the themes and messages it intends to cover, but that doesn't make up for its other flaws, and can't alone be said to make it the BSE when other shows do the same.
|
|