|
Post by Jeremy on Mar 19, 2017 14:34:17 GMT -8
Freudian:
Could you people just, like, stop posting for sixteen hours so I can sleep and go to school? I can't keep this up much longer.
Iguana, my point wrt art is that I think Noah's honing in (very well) on a single aspect, whereas my view, as I outlined it in my first post, is that all elements should be of equal importance.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Mar 19, 2017 14:34:27 GMT -8
Mike:
Iguana, although it may not seem like it, the difference between 0% and 0.1% is massive. It's the difference between being capable of being surprised despite your preconceptions, and having absolutely no room/tolerance for a completely new way of looking at something. I feel that's an important distinction.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Mar 19, 2017 14:34:37 GMT -8
Jeremy:
Whoa. Um, whoa. I just logged on here after a few hours away from my computer, and... whoa.
(Runs off.)
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Mar 19, 2017 14:34:48 GMT -8
Freudian:
Clearly I should post more unpopular opinions.
Seriously though, guys. Sixteen hours.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Mar 19, 2017 15:48:44 GMT -8
Zarnium:
I'm not sure I have much more to say since my posts have been mere word salad compared to some of the great stuff that's been posted in the last 12 hours. But Jesus Christ, I don't think I've ever seen a thread here get this many posts this quickly, let alone posts of this much length and quality. Nor have I ever seen so many registered users online at once.
We may beat the Sunday Aug 02, 2009 4:28 pm record yet.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Mar 19, 2017 15:49:00 GMT -8
Freudian:
On your UCP, it tells you which thread you posted in the most. I'm curious whether it's going to end up being this one for me and Mike.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Mar 19, 2017 15:49:23 GMT -8
Jay:
[Noah wrote: To me, it's a question of deciding what's really important in life. To quote George Sand (sorry about quoting a lot, but I'm getting sore fingers):
“Art for art's sake is an empty phrase. Art for the sake of truth, art for the sake of the good and the beautiful, that is the faith I am searching for.”]
(snickers) I just did a riff off that in an e-mail to Mikejer, in lieu of the full quote, but this is fun. Carry on.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Mar 19, 2017 15:49:37 GMT -8
Mike:
Quote: Clearly I should post more unpopular opinions.
Your opinion is shared by -- assuming I counted right -- at least half of the people in this thread that have offered an opinion on the matter. Unpopular? Hardly.
Those in favor of Buffy being in the B.S.E. discussion: Myself, Noah, Boscalyn, Jeremy
Those against: FV, Iguana, Keith, Alex C., and Other Scott (seems to be leaning this way, correct me if I'm wrong Scott!)
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Mar 19, 2017 15:49:49 GMT -8
Freudian:
I'm surprised by that, to be honest; I hadn't been counting, but I'm sure it was more even. And is Jeremy in favour?
I'll amend it to 'controversial opinions', then. The reason this thread exploded as it did is because this is a topic we are all very impassioned about, and we all care enough to justify our beliefs at length. I've been here a decent time, and this is easily the most passionate yet intellectual discussion I've seen.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Mar 19, 2017 15:50:01 GMT -8
BoogtehWoog:
MikeJer wrote: Those in favor of Buffy being in the B.S.E. discussion: Myself, Noah, Boscalyn, Jeremy
I, too, am in favor!
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Mar 19, 2017 15:50:48 GMT -8
Odi et Amo:
Me too re: in favor.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Mar 19, 2017 15:50:59 GMT -8
Freudian:
And so the great Critically Touched civil war was begun.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Mar 19, 2017 15:51:11 GMT -8
Zarnium: Well, I'm in favor, but this discussion is above my pay-grade so I'm not really contributing . Though maybe I'm more of a "not applicable" vote, since I kind of think the idea of "best TV show" doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Out of curiosity, Mike, is there some sort of behind-the-scenes statistic that could tell us what the thread that has gotten the most replies in the least amount of time is?
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Mar 19, 2017 15:53:56 GMT -8
Boscalyn:
I'll address the points from before Freudian posted, because at that point the thread seems to progress from addressing my trifecta of frilliness to telling him he is wrong. (And yes, you and the AV Club are wrong to not include Buffy in the discussion, regardless of whether it would come first.)
Iguana-on-a-stick wrote: Great post, Boscalyn. Plus, funny, which works on some kind of meta-level since you're defending comedy's right to be taken seriously.
I'm flattered, y'all. :0)
Quote: The other two are no doubt also factors in the lack of critical response, but I suspect the fantasy factor is the biggest one. If I'm right, we should be paying close attention to how "Orange is the New Black" will do in main-stream critical review in the coming years. Women: check. Comedy: Check. Critical acclaim: Check. No fantasy though. (Well, possible chicken-based magical realism and unrealistic portrayals of some aspects of the prison system aside.) But it also deals with racism and sexism and the failings of the criminal justice system and offers stories of minority women in ways no other show does, which makes it a lot easier for critics to take it seriously.
I don't have Netflix, so I can't say this for certain, but I think OITNB might be the smartest take on race relations currently available on television. At some point I'll watch it and decide whether it's smarter than Key & Peele. (I'm aware this is not a comparison anyone except me would even consider.)
In any case, I fully expect OITNB to get that level of love-- from my understanding, beyond being female- and comedy-oriented, it's the closest thing to The Wire on television now.
Quote: On the fantasy front there's Game of Thrones as a counter-example. It is taken quite seriously and gets a lot of mainstream response. Why do you think that is? Perhaps because it's a serious and expensive production on HBO that has a strong shock-factor. Perhaps because it's wildly popular and becomes mainstream by that very fact. People also take Harry Potter kinda seriously for that reason, simply because it's so big.
I'll let Scott explain why this isn't a fair comparison.
Other Scott wrote: Game of Thrones is a good rebuttal in terms of people not taking fantasy seriously, but I don't think the argument is that Buffy isn't taken seriously enough among mainstream critics. In fact, if you polled all critics and went "Buffy or Game of Thrones" I think you'd get just as many votes for Buffy.
In terms of a show with strong fantasy elements being in the conversation of "the best of all time", Game of Thrones doesn't cut it as a counter argument. Because Game of Thrones isn't in that conversation either.
And I really, really disagree with the Harry Potter comparison-- partially because I lost literally all interest in the series after eighth grade. But for the most part, it's because J.K. Rowling is in the same camp as E.L. Baum, C.S. Lewis, and J.R.R. Tolkien. People respect The Wonderful Wizard of Oz and The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe, but they're never considered serious literature because they're ostensibly novels about talking animals aimed towards children.
Quote: Perhaps the times are changing. Perhaps your trifecta of cardinal televised sins isn't as great a stigma in 2014 as it was even 10 years ago.
Or perhaps the problem is that "Buffy," alone of the examples I've mentioned, is a combination of all three.
The three problems definitely all compound one another.
Alex C. wrote: Very nice post, Boscalyn. I don't quite agree with you, but you bring up some excellent points that ought to be factored into the debate.
Before I address your three main points directly, I'd like to start by questioning a central premise that underpins your argument: i.e. that Buffy the Vampire Slayer suffers from a dearth of admiration amongst mainstream television critics. I really don't think that that is the case. You don't have to look far to find fairly notable critics like Alyssa Rosenberg and Emily Nussbaum who have written about their love for the show. Alan Sepinwall, who's about as big as it gets in TV criticism, picked Buffy as one of the twelve shows that he profiled in his book "The Revolution Was Televised", which he asserts "changed TV drama forever". Joss Whedon is a household name now more than ever, and I'm pretty certain that the only people who don't consider Buffy to be his best show are the die-hard fans of Angel and Firefly.
See the bolded portion of Scott's quote. And I have other nitpicks with this paragraph too. The critics you mention as champions of Buffy are typically female; TNG indisputably changed TV drama forever, but that doesn't mean it's universally considered good television; Joss Whedon is a household name because of The Avengers rather than Buffy; et cetera.
Alex C. wrote: Also, I have to take very strong issue with your assertion that highbrow TV critics don't appreciate metaphor. If you watched The Wire and didn't see that it was brimming with metaphor, then you need to watch that show again.
Scott also expressed confusion here, and this is entirely my fault. I said metaphor when I should have said "allegory."
This is probably best described by going back to dystopian literarture. 1984 and Brave New World got practically all the slight details about the future wrong, but they're still relevant because surveillance states and totalitarianism and entertainment-induced apathy and escapism are all relevant today. Whereas most modern dystopian fiction falls flat because it's full of sociopolitical issues that are so tied to their epoch that they can't help but be completely irrelevant in ten years.
The Wire has metaphor in it, but it's very much tied to a real place and time, which dates it in a way that allegorical fiction like Buffy doesn't. For example: when I first watched "Gingerbread," I thought it was an obvious metaphor for the persecution of Muslims after 9/11; this is impressive for an episode that aired on January 12, 1999. Hamsterdam's a good metaphor, but it's tied to its epoch.
Quote: 3. Buffy is about women. Here I'm going to take your point and actually expand on it: the role of women on Buffy remains by far the show's greatest claim to have been genuinely groundbreaking. Critics of Joss Whedon's feminist credentials have compiled a list of problems with the show on the gender front that we really don't need to hash over again here and now. But suffice to say that the standout achievement of the show from a character point remains this: that Buffy Summers was the first female television character who was both the undisputed hero of the show and who had a complicated personal life that was explored sympathetically and in depth. That she was also joined by a number of other female characters who could be as compelling and dynamic as her still really feels like something special. Any attempt to trace the expanding presence of the anti-authoritarian heroine as a figure in recent popular culture is more likely than not to locate Buffy the Vampire Slayer as ground zero for that phenomenon.
Buffy isn't necessarily the root of the STRONG FEMALE PROTAGONIST; Xena and Gabrielle predate her by two years and likely paved the way for Buffy and friends. But Buffy is a rare show where the women exist independent of men. Pretty much all the women on Breaking Bad are romantically involved with the male protagonists. The Wire is only marginally better in this regard... someone who's better acquainted with the show can correct me, but IIRC the only significant female character who isn't "protagonist's wife" is Kima. (And hell, even she has a "protagonist's wife.")
In any case, I'd love to see you name another candidate for "best TV show ever" that has four women interacting freely in the way they do in the aforementioned scene in "Listening to Fear."
(DEEP BREATH)
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Mar 19, 2017 15:54:32 GMT -8
Freudian:
Quote: In any case, I'd love to see you name another candidate for "best TV show ever" that has four women interacting freely in the way they do in the aforementioned scene in "Listening to Fear."
But Buffy isn't a candidate for "best TV show ever".
*dodges rotten eggs*
|
|