|
Post by Jeremy on Mar 19, 2017 16:04:09 GMT -8
Iguana:
[Boscalyn wrote: Freudian Vampire wrote: And so the great Critically Touched civil war was begun. Buffy. The West Wing. Freaks and Geeks. Angel. Long ago, the forum nations lived in harmony. Then, everything changed when the Freudian Vampire attacked. Jeremy wrote: P.S. Reddit sucks.]
If, however, this were Reddit, at least I could upvote.
Boscalyn wrote: What I will say is that I love reading opinions that are different from mine, provided they're civil and well-argued. It's easier to do this with television reviews than, say, social justice issues because art is (unpopular opinion time) more or less without real-world effects independent of one's feeling.
Didn't Noah's Bernstein quote cover that? Art doesn't chance the world. But it changes people, who then go on to change the world. I think that's accurate. The stories we grow up with affect how we see the world. How we see the past. What futures we imagine. What we consider to be normal, what we consider to be just.
Of course, more typically all it does is give us something more diverting to think about on the morning commute than the state of the middle east and the height of one's mortgage. There's something to be said for escapism, too.
So I do agree with your general point. But on the other hand, we've also had pretty polite debates on more sensitive issues here, such as rape, representations of homosexuality, and religion. (Albeit within the context of the show, in the case of the first two. Which helps.) And people can have raving, foaming, screaming shouting matches about which football team is better or what kind of music does or does not suck.
Jeremy: So whilst you can't bring yourself to think of the Wire as the greatest show ever, you do think Sepinwall's reviews are contenders for greatest review ever?
I have to admit that there are shows I simply watched so I could read the reviews here. (Freaks & Geeks, soon to be joined by Twin Peaks and that weird Minnear show.) Which is an interesting kind of meta-entertainment if you think about it.
Edit because I somehow missed Keith's long post the first time around: Okay, I'm convinced. If we're still having sides in this civil war (which I now realise in the context of Boscalyn's post is a great pun. We have a war we're civil about.) I'm on this guy's.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Mar 19, 2017 16:04:44 GMT -8
nathan.taurus:
First of all... Wow! That is a lot of reading.
Buffy the Vampire Slayer is usually in contention for the 'best series of all time' awards. In 2008 Empire Magazine rated it #2 for 'The 50 Greatest TV Shows of All Time', being beaten by 'The Simpsons' and beating out 'The X-Files', another fantasy related show. The series is on so many lists of the best written shows ever and has so many academic books written about it. So it is usually a candidate for best TV show ever.
Buffy the Vampire Slayer is my favourite series ever.... so far. I know it should be in contention for top 10 best show ever, but no series will ever deserve the title of "the best" or "the greatest" ever. Emotions will always get in the way of judging. When you love something it is hard to see the flaws and 'Buffy' has quite a few as does the other acclaimed shows in contention.
I believe 'The Simpsons' is better than 'Buffy' for how much it has achieved even though the latter is still my favourite.
If you are still talking about a series 11 years after it finished and regarding it so strongly than it deserves a spot on the lists, which is what it gets.... most of the time. Top 5, sure.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Mar 19, 2017 16:05:03 GMT -8
Jeremy:
Boscalyn wrote: Buffy. The West Wing. Freaks and Geeks. Angel. Long ago, the forum nations lived in harmony. Then, everything changed when the Freudian Vampire attacked.
I'm hoping Mike doesn't get this, or I might just lose my position as "funniest punster" on this site.
Iguana-on-a-stick wrote: If, however, this were Reddit, at least I could upvote.
Iguana, please stop defending Reddit. It is not your most appealing character trait.
Iguana-on-a-stick wrote: Jeremy: So whilst you can't bring yourself to think of the Wire as the greatest show ever, you do think Sepinwall's reviews are contenders for greatest review ever?
I cam decisively answer "No" there. This is because the only contenders for Greatest Reviews Ever are the reviews for The West Wing on Critically Touched and the reviews for Freaks and Geeks on Critically Touched.
Oh, come on... You all knew that was coming.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Mar 19, 2017 16:05:15 GMT -8
Iguana:
In my defence: I've never actually voted anything on reddit. I don't even have an account there. I don't even know if you -need- an account to post there.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Mar 19, 2017 16:05:36 GMT -8
Keith:
[MikeJer wrote: Keith, no show is flawless -- every single one has its flaws. (e.g. I could rattle off 10 notable problems I have with Breaking Bad just off the top of my head). It then boils down to which flaws are critical enough to take it out of contention for top of the pecking order in show quality. That's when subjectivity comes rushing back into the discussion.
At the end of the day, we can both have a different "best show ever". We can even both be "right", provided we each make an articulate, intelligent, and impassioned case for our choice. I don't see anything wrong with that. I'd rather be learning from each others' experiences rather than trying to claim smug superiority by telling them that they're 'objectively wrong' for their opinion, as has often been the tone within this thread.]
Well, objective wrongness aside, I think it's important to discuss what those flaws actually mean. Surely no TV show is flawless, as I've shown by pointing out several flaws in The Sopranos, and there are plenty in Breaking Bad as well. But it's not just the fact that shows are flawed that is the issue; it's a matter of consistency, and it's a matter of how bad the flaws are.
Frankly, there is no flaw in either The Sopranos or Breaking Bad that is anywhere near as deep as the flaws that plague the final 2/3 of Season 7 of Buffy. That's not a subjective assessment, either - there are problems with plot, problems with characterization, problems with acting, problems with pacing, and problems with the narrative structure throughout that entire stretch of the show that I'm sure anyone with any knowledge of literature or film could point out to you. In fact, I'm willing to bet you see them yourself. That's an awfully long stretch of a TV show, and it comes at a time when they are supposed to building to the climax of the entire series.
The problem that always plagues these debates is that people can't separate their personal feelings for a show, and make an assessment of its value apart from them. That's fine, and it's a credit to everyone involved with Buffy that it inspires that kind of loyalty, and I'm not going to say you're wrong to feel that way. I found myself just as moved as many of you were many times while watching Buffy, and I just watched it for the first time earlier this year as a 35 year old. I think it is a great achievement that a show ostensibly geared towards adolescents and young adults can have that kind of resonance.
But I also find myself having intense emotional reactions to much of what I see in The Sopranos, as well as Breaking Bad. They're different, surely, but they have a similar level of affectation to them that I think is being overlooked in this discussion. It's convenient to say Buffy belongs in the same class as those shows, especially if Buffy resonates with you and those shows don't. A big reason why you can't simply take the artistic value of a TV show as the only measure of its quality is because of how personal art is. Different works mean different things to different people.
You necessarily have to come back to the quality of a show in the terms I've laid out (story, appearance, acting), if you want to credibly put together a list of the best shows ever. And in those aspects, Buffy falls short much of the time. You can make all the arguments you want as to why that doesn't matter, but all you're really doing in that instance is projecting your own personal likes outward. Which, if you're trying to convince someone of why Buffy is worthwhile, or why it is your favorite show, makes sense. But that's a different discussion than one about which is the Best. Show. Ever.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Mar 19, 2017 16:06:06 GMT -8
Scott:
OK, time for me to have a long-ish (for me anyways) post.
[Keith wrote:
However, I think it is a mistake to separate the art from the medium, when it comes to assessing the quality of a particular work. If the only thing about your story worth telling was the story itself, then you wouldn't make it a TV show, you'd write a book, or a magazine serial (do those even exist any more?). To make an analogy, if you publish a collection of van Gogh prints, you wouldn't call it great literature, or even a great book, despite the fact that it contains intensely valuable and meaningful works of art. Regarding the transformative value of something, you wouldn't say that the anti-drug commercial where two kids get high and one shoots another to be great art just because it was transformative in persuading kids not to do drugs (assuming it did). Analyzing the value or worth of a particular work necessarily requires that you include the parameters of the medium in your analysis. Otherwise, the medium loses all value, and I just don't think it is a correct conclusion that TV and film add nothing of value to the written/spoken word.
Which means that you have to account for the fundamental facets of the medium when comparing TV shows. TV tells a story, so just as with literature, the elements of story figure large. Things like plot, characterization, thematic content, and narrative structure matter. As TV is a visual medium, the way a show looks also matters. Makeup, cinematography, and special effects matter. As it also relies on people acting out the story, the quality of the actors' performances also matters. Indeed, the artistic merit of the work matters, too. Maybe moreso than many other aspects of what goes into a TV show. But it's not the ONLY thing that matters. This isn't just rubric creation, either - these are all real, tangible elements of TV that come together to make a show what it is.]
The medium only matters in terms of what people’s expectations for that medium are. In some ways, you need to have enough aspects to actually be a part of that medium. For instance, your example of the book of Van Gogh paintings would not be classified as a novel because it does not have those aspects that make it a novel. But medium classification does not matter when it comes to what “best” or “favourite” is.
If you have a TV show that is light on character and plot, though still has enough of it that it should be classified as a “fictional TV show”, yet is very heavy on imagery and directoral style, does that make it lesser? No, because categorization is an arbitrary construct and not an indication of style. A piece of work that is categorized as a certain medium does not need to get all A’s on that “medium report card” to be a quality piece of work. Sometimes all you need to do to make the show “top quality” is to redefine the expectations of the medium in such a way that it matches the work.
Speaking more specifically of TV, the primary goal for a TV show is to get people passionate about their show. They aren’t a student handing submitting a project to a teacher following a certain rubric. They aren’t trying to check boxes of quality. They don’t necessarily need to go through and say, “great characters, check, exciting plot, check, good visuals, check, top notch acting, check.” They just need to form their show in such a way that it speaks to a certain section of the population. TV shows are declared successes or failures based on audience, not critical guidelines. That’s not to say shows with higher audiences are therefore better, because that takes both passion and individuality out of the equation. But if a show works for you, then for you it is a great show.
So if an individual is like me or you or FV, and what makes quality is checking those boxes, then they have every right to say in their mind the best show is a show like the Sopranos that does everything well. But if an individual is driven much more by their emotions, they also have the right to ignore those boxes entirely and say a show that moves them more emotionally is better. I’m a big believer that works should be judged on the basis of what they are attempting to do. Some works are attempting to be more all-around great, having high quality in every area of the show. Others are just attempting to affect the viewer and not really care about things like internal consistency or realism. Both are completely acceptable ways to try to accomplish the show’s goal of generating passion, and there’s no reason to think one is inferior to the other.
I have no idea if any of this made sense.
EDIT: Just saw Keith's latest post, and I think I can help sum up my thoughts using a quote from it- Quote: The problem that always plagues these debates is that people can't separate their personal feelings for a show, and make an assessment of its value apart from them.
There's no such thing as value outside a person's personal feelings for the show. The show itself serves no purpose except to be consumed. A person's personal feelings are the entire reason for the show's existence. Therefore, the show shouldn't be judged on some arbitrary construct of what it should be, but it should be judged on the basis of those personal feelings a person has for it. TV shows were made for people, not people for TV shows. The shows goal is to generate passion- that's the barometer. If it does that, it should be celebrated, regardless of whether it meets a certain set of criteria.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Mar 19, 2017 16:06:21 GMT -8
Keith:
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.
Quote: There's no such thing as value outside a person's personal feelings for the show. The show itself serves no purpose except to be consumed. A person's personal feelings are the entire reason for the show's existence. Therefore, the show shouldn't be judged on some arbitrary construct of what it should be, but it should be judged on the basis of those personal feelings a person has for it. TV shows were made for people, not people for TV shows. The shows goal is to generate passion- that's the barometer. If it does that, it should be celebrated, regardless of whether it meets a certain set of criteria.
But I think there is a difference between "should be celebrated" and "is one of the best shows of all time." Value is not the same as quality. I agree, a technically proficient production that fails to provoke passion in the audience is worthless. Likewise, a show that is not technically proficient, but connects deeply with a large audience is an achievement worth celebrating.
However, you need to do both, and do them consistently, to be considered one of the best shows of all time. When things like inconsistent characterization and poor plotting get in the way of a large portion of the audience's connection with and passion for what they are watching, then the show must be judged to be poorer for the fact that it happened. More importantly, it must be judged to be worse than other shows that create similar passion with a large audience, and don't suffer similar lapses. And if you (not you personally) don't lose that connection, and are as invested and passionate as ever despite whatever technical problems affected the show, that doesn't mean you can just ignore them when assessing the show's quality relative to other shows because it didn't affect you.
It's not so much a matter of checking boxes for the sake of checking them, it's that checking the boxes is how you put forth a TV show that reaches the heights that the best shows reach. Of course, if you can redefine the genre, or operate outside traditional storytelling and still manage to consistently connect with your audience, all the better, but I don't see Buffy that way at all. That's not to say there aren't some fresh and innovative aspects to the show, but it relies on plot and character as much as any conventional TV drama for generating passion in the audience.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Mar 19, 2017 16:06:40 GMT -8
Noah:
Quote: However, I think it is a mistake to separate the art from the medium, when it comes to assessing the quality of a particular work. If the only thing about your story worth telling was the story itself, then you wouldn't make it a TV show, you'd write a book, or a magazine serial (do those even exist any more?). To make an analogy, if you publish a collection of van Gogh prints, you wouldn't call it great literature, or even a great book, despite the fact that it contains intensely valuable and meaningful works of art. Regarding the transformative value of something, you wouldn't say that the anti-drug commercial where two kids get high and one shoots another to be great art just because it was transformative in persuading kids not to do drugs (assuming it did).
Both of these analogies are false. If you publish a collection of van Gogh prints the medium is not "book", but still "image", or perhaps if you insist on a material medium, "painting". Besides, literature is written, so no matter what images you put in the book it be definition can't be great literature. More on definitions in a moment. In any case, I do not see how this analogy relates to Buffy. Finally, art itself has been moving away from the necessity of craftsmanship in a medium for a long time. Ever heard of John Cage? Or Joseph Beuys? Or Andy Warhol? You can be a great artist without attaining excellence in craftsmanship in a medium. The art is not in the medium, the art is immaterial, so this analogy is as well, though in the other sense.
(I would also dispute with anyone who said that Buffy wasn't well crafted. It wasn't big budget, but it had its own aesthetic that was quite systematic and coherent. Have you read Mike's reviews? He talks all about the use of visual irony and motif in the show, as well as literary symmetry and other marks of high craftsmanship. if you still don't believe me, read the blogger lostboy's analysis of "Pangs". While Buffy isn't consistently, I grant, at the highest level of craftsmanship in its medium, it sometimes is, and is usually very good.)
As for the second analogy, that isn't what I'm talking about at all. What you describe, an anti-drug PSA, is not art because it isn't transformative. Manipulating or frightening someone into doing something isn't transformative. You don't grow into new understanding from that; you actually become more confused. Even if it accomplishes a societal "good", it doesn't do it the right way. If you made a PSA that explores human volition and free will with respect to its value compared to momentary pleasure, and did it in such a way that it gave the kids who saw it a greater understanding of themselves and what it is to be human, that would be art. "All the cool kids are doing it, but you're a twerp so don't" is hardly an appropriate analogy.
Quote: Analyzing the value or worth of a particular work necessarily requires that you include the parameters of the medium in your analysis. Otherwise, the medium loses all value, and I just don't think it is a correct conclusion that TV and film add nothing of value to the written/spoken word.
Again, medium is both a means to an end and an end in and of itself. Excellence in craftsmanship is wonderful. Have you ever seen a tapestry, a real one, and thought about the work that goes into that thing? Holy crap. That's wonderful, and thrilling even, and a real goal that human beings should strive for. But you could have a perfectly crafted tapestry of Tony the Tiger. It's excellence doesn't make it art. In fact, I would call that a waste of craftsmanship. What I'm looking for is a reason for excellence. Excellence in and of itself is void. But if it's for the sake of that which is noble and good, or for the sake of freedom and healing, then it's, well, Great. And as I said above, you can have the latter without the former. Buffy often has both.
Quote: Which means that you have to account for the fundamental facets of the medium when comparing TV shows. TV tells a story, so just as with literature, the elements of story figure large. Things like plot, characterization, thematic content, and narrative structure matter. As TV is a visual medium, the way a show looks also matters. Makeup, cinematography, and special effects matter. As it also relies on people acting out the story, the quality of the actors' performances also matters.
As I've pointed out to Freudian several times, this is a category error. You keep telling me that consistent quality is important, but, and sorry to beat this horse to death and then just keep on going, but quality is a word that is not allowed to have objective existence outside of the beholder. Only quantity is objective. Ask any mainstream philosopher of science whether qualities are objective and they will say no. So you keep saying it needs to be "objectively of consistently high quality", but that doesn't mean anything. You have to say what quality is, and which qualities are good an which bad, but that's all subjective.
As for the qualities that you listed (but didn't define), I believe that Buffy excels in many of them. Makeup and special effects are sometimes poor on the show, but special effects are often excellent. Lostboy has an essay on them, and how they are used purposively in the series. Cinematography? Look at any Whedon directed episode. That doesn't jive with your consistency argument, but I don't necessarily buy that one either. In any case, the show effectively uses the resources it has to accomplish its artistic goals.
(As to consistency, who says? You do, that's who. Look at Wagner's Ring Cycle. It's got some not-the-best moments in there. Like, have you heard the Ride of the Valkyries with the singing? If that had been the only opera I'd ever heard, I'd think opera was a crime against humanity. But some people love that part. I love other parts that other people don't. Consistency goes out the window when your supposedly objective measures of quality do. I would agree that Buffy is inconsistent. But the lows are often used to sculpt more magnificent highs, which, while not completely excusing them, makes up for them.)
Now, as for the purpose of TV, well, that depends. Just because most TV is simply for entertainment doesn't mean that a show that isn't is poor television. I find that argument highly illogical, especially with respect to the fact that you're all trying to convince me that your shows are better than Buffy on their merits. The merits you're proposing are seriously that The Sopranos has consistently better production values and is more entertaining?
As for the end of the show, the plot becomes a bit of a mess. Mutant Enemy was doing three large ensemble shows, and it was obviously too much. But if you give 50 shows that have better plotting around the finale, I still won't give a crap. First of all, no serious reader of a text reads for the plot. The plot is means to an end. That end is what Buffy accomplishes better than any show I've ever seen.
Quote: However, you need to do both, and do them consistently, to be considered one of the best shows of all time
In your opinion. As I said on the Chosen portion of this debate, ranking greatness is ultimately meaningless to me. You can tell me that Shakespeare is a better artist than Wagner, but that's just your opinion, even if you have an argument. The fact of the matter is that you are doing exactly what you accuse Mike, Jeremy, and me of doing, and that it substituting your judgment for others' as an objective measure of value. What I'm saying is that since value cannot be measured (measurement does not only imply, but requires a unit; what is your greatness unit on the TV show scale? See how ridiculous that is?), you cannot say that Buffy is or isn't the greatest show ever. I'm not trying to say either way. I'm just trying to say that it does things that are vitally important and resound with those who attempt to create or understand meaning in the world. I'm objecting to your saying that Buffy is a show of lesser quality.
Also, as one last point, the title of the show is Buffy the Vampire Slayer. It's about her. Her arc, in my opinion, never falters. It's beautiful, it's important, and whether or not the ubervamps got weaker is simply unimportant when compared with Buffy's epiphany in Chosen. I have much more to say on Chosen, but that's perhaps for a different thread.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Mar 19, 2017 16:07:09 GMT -8
Freudian:
No, Boscalyn, you have it all wrong. I’m not a warmonger; I’m a hero of the people, leading them into victory against the establishment.
Part I: Semantics I think I still need to clarify what I meant when I said ‘objective’, since I think that is causing a great deal of miscommunication on this thread. What I mean, in the simplest terms, is an opinion which is based on real, genuine critique and thought, one that takes into account such things as emotion and spirituality, but which is ruled by reason and not emotion. The Battlestar Galactica example I brought up is perfect for this; ‘the veer into fantastical was mishandled and created incoherency in the narrative’ is objective, whereas ‘I dislike the show’s veer into the fantastical because I dislike the fantastical’ is not.
People need to stop apologising when they use the word ‘art’. I understand you’re all jesting, but I think you might have misunderstood me when I spoke about my grievances with the word. My opinion is that the term ‘art’ is used so widely and in so many different contexts that it has, essentially, lost its original meaning. This does not mean I get irritated when others use it, or even that I think that it needs redefining, or even that I think it is not applicable to film or literature or television. It simply means that you will never see me use it outside of the context of what you might see in a gallery, or be taught in an Art lesson.
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.
Part II: Noah and Keith’s Posts Buffy is intrinsically tied to the television medium, as is The Sopranos, as is Breaking Bad, as is any show you can name. A message or theme or human truth is only as strong as the vehicle through which it is conveyed. It is story, and so must be judged on its plot, characters, writing, structure, mythology and coherency. It is seen, and so must be judged on its acting and cinematography. It is heard, and so the music must also factor into any evaluation.
What you argue is the very essence of subjectivity. Perhaps you were moved and transcended your existence when Buffy leapt from the tower in “The Gift”, but somebody else might have a similar reaction to anything you care to name. I’m sure I could find you a person who found themselves empowered by the heroic journey that Harry Potter undertook in JK Rowling’s novels, or somebody who saw the image of the hurricane at the end of Dexter and saw it as tapping into the great human truth of destruction and inevitability. Such responses have little to do with the object (or work of art, however you choose to see it) but more to do with the beholder. That’s simply not something that is of any interest to me.
Objective arguments can and should be made to support these conclusions, but I don’t think a few fleeting glimpses of transcendence make Buffy a great work of art, much less a great TV show. To be those things, it would need to sustain that transcendence for its entire run, and be able to do it unfettered by the mischaracterization and poor plotting that plagued the series for much of its run. No TV show can have zero flaws, but shows like Breaking Bad have very few, and that’s simply not a claim Buffy can make.
I’m puzzled that you seem to think the artistic qualities you champion are unique to Buffy, or somehow lacking in the other great shows. The Sopranos and The Wire are held in high esteem because they manage to tap into themes about society and the human condition which are both universal and current (that is, that are applicable to everyone who has ever lived and yet are expressed specifically through the lens of modern life) and it managed to convey said themes in a way which interested people but also moved them. The Sopranos depicts a world which is dying because people chose the easy option over the right one, and posits that unless people are willing to struggle for positive change decadence is inevitable. Unlike The Shield, which explores what can happen if people go down a path of making the wrong choices, The Sopranos attempts to answer the more common question of what happens if somebody makes the same wrong choice every single day. This is an idea that’s quite difficult to express on paper, but if you’ve seen the show, you should understand what I mean. It’s an idea which is meaningful to everyone, and the show thus has both artistic merit and the critically bulletproof plotting and characterization which Buffy lacks.
I chose The Sopranos as an example because I personally believe it is the best show ever made, but all of the great shows share the artistic qualities you find so appealing, and they all manage to do it on a consistent basis.
In the end, I feel that Buffy’s power comes from individual episodes and moments more than it does from the show as a whole. I’ve discussed my issues with “Chosen” and the latter half of season seven before, but suffice to say I don’t think the show coheres all that well at all, and it’s lasting power suffers as a result. It may be, as Scott says, one of the best representations of the ‘coming of age’ tale in television (I personally think Freaks and Geeks is marginally better in this regard, although as a whole show Buffy is superior) but, to be honest, I think that’s more of a damning indictment of the TV medium than it is a point in the show’s favour. Buffy’s seven year journey is well done, but as a whole, it’s not done anywhere nearly as well as the ‘coming of age’ tales you see in great works of literature or even films.
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 find myself very, very confused when I encounter such posts as this:
Kyle wrote: Season 1 isn’t a sharp season. So what? So what if season 2 has a rocky first half? Who cares if season 3 doesn't have any standout episodes? So season 4 doesn’t have the best plot. What does it matter? What does it matter that Glory takes her time getting her butt moving in season 5? Sure, season 6 had a bit of drop off in a few of its middle episodes. So...? And what’s wrong with season 7? Oh that’s right! It had a few plot holes and a minor drop off in the middle of its run like season 6... Yeah, that definitely detracts from the series as a whole. In fact all of the other minor problems mentioned detract from the overall brilliance and enjoyment of Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Pleeease...
You might frame the notion sarcastically to make it sound ridiculous, but yeah. Those problems do detract from the overall brilliance and enjoyment of Buffy the Vampire Slayer, and they do so a lot. I think those who would deny that are either focusing so specifically on a single aspect that they lose sight of the forest for a tree, or Buffy apologists; and if that sounds harsh, then I apologise, but no matter how silly you might make the idea sound, every flaw is a flaw and Buffy has enough of them that they do significantly damage it’s overall quality and standing in the television pantheon. If we were to disregard everything the show did wrong, then we might as well call it perfect.
You know that show Dexter? Who cares if the end of season 2 was weak. What does it matter that season 3 was a little disappointing and lacking in the tension of the previous two? Season 5 concluded abysmally, but let’s just ignore that. Season 6 was horrifically plotted, made all the characters into idiots and was so poorly done that it made many viewers quit the show, but that’s not important. Season 7 had good moments but just as many risible ones, but why don’t we just forget about that. What’s wrong with season 8? Oh yeah, it’s completely terrible, and it makes the show look bad. In fact, all of these things detract from the show’s overall quality. Pleeease.
Do you see what I mean?
Part III: Encouragement and Thanks So that last part was a little snarky, but the post it responded to was snarky, so I think I can forgive myself for that. Although the disagreements are passionate, everyone has remained civil and polite and that’s an enormous feat, one we should all be proud of. This discussion needs to keep going, people, because it’s probably the best we’ve ever had on this site.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Mar 19, 2017 16:07:24 GMT -8
Mike:
To Keith:
Quote: That's not a subjective assessment, either.
1. Oh, but it is. Buffy Season 7, in my view, has, if I recall, zero characterization inconsistencies outside of "Empty Places" -- that's 1 episode of out 22 that season. Any poor acting is limited to a bunch of very very minor characters that are in the background most of the time, so it's a minor issue to me, at most. You are correct, though, when it comes to issues with plot, pacing, and narrative structure. But, speaking of plot, pacing, and narrative structure, I can lob similar complaints at Breaking Bad (parts of S1, S2, and S5, in particular), for example, just as easily. No, BB doesn't quite ever have the level of plot messiness that B7 has at times, but I do have some notable qualms with these three aspects in BB nonetheless.
2. Buffy is a much larger show than the ones you're comparing it to. To that end, it deserves more leeway for having a few weak stretches of episodes. I mentioned this earlier in the thread, but if we're to be dryly examining a show's consistency via subjectively chosen metrics of quality, at the very least we can look at this as quality by percentage rather than quality, or lack there of, by pure volume. Otherwise Buffy will always be held at a disadvantage -- it has 2-3 times the volume of episodes! Of course there are going to be more weak episodes and weak stretches.
3. To further the last point, if we really wanted to do this futile exercise of trying to objectively calculate these shows' respective 'quality percentages' so we can compare them to each other, I can guarantee you that we'll have strong, very subjective, disagreements about whether a show is consistently good at a particular metric, or not. Just look at your complaints of B7: I don't really agree with 2/5 of them!
4. Ultimately, I don't like this method of evaluating show quality at all. Not only is it dryly academic and mostly void of the reasons I ultimately watch and care about television, but it's not even all that objective anyway. Too many subjective judgments end up going into an allegedly objective result.
5. Example Time: The case of Mad Men. I can see why people might consider this in their list of Best Shows Ever. It has great craftsmanship: plotting, acting, directing, themes, characterization, etc. It has all the raw materials. And yet... to me, it utterly lacks soul. It's cold. I can't stand any of the characters, even though they are well constructed. Although there is great attention to detail, I yet find its presentation to be insultingly pretentious and one-sided.
Mad Men may have all the markers you would attribute to 'quality', yet it still wouldn't appear anywhere near a 'best of' list of mine. I strongly dislike the show. Yes, I can still respect its craftsmanship -- it does that well -- but to try to remove or minimize a show's emotional and spiritual value as an equal part of this equation is ultimately self-defeating to me. No thanks.
Finally, even though Mad Men will never appear anywhere close to my 'best ever' list, I'd never tell, say, Jeremy, that he's wrong for putting it on his. To him (for the sake of example!), it is on that list, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that so long as he makes an articulate, intelligent, and impassioned case for the show and why it resonates and works for him that powerfully. Even though I see it differently doesn't mean I can't respect his point of view, perhaps even learn from it.
Evaluating television shouldn't be an exercise akin to tallying checkboxes or assembling furniture. Sure, craftsmanship is a factor in its evaluation, but it's not the only factor, and I don't even think it should be the dominant one.
***
I think I've said about all I'm going to say in this thread, as it currently stands. But I look forward to reading everyone else's thoughts on the matter!
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Mar 19, 2017 16:07:43 GMT -8
Freudian:
Noah, you defined your criterion for art as something that is ‘transformative’, that invites the viewer to ‘be moved to changed … when a theme cuts you to the bone and makes you change how you live, or when a plot comes from character and causes you to understand more about yourself and thereby be freed from some psychological issue’.
The problem with this is that it is far, far too open to be of any use. Whether something moves or transforms a person has as much to do with the viewer as it does the art; I brought up Harry Potter and Dexter, and noted that both could be seen as fulfilling your criterion, despite that they are quite self-apparently inferior to, say, the works of Tolstoy or David Chase.
Alex C. raised a very interesting point in a private message to me about this discussion, and it’s one I think needs to be discussed here, as I’m sure it will cause a few of you to perhaps reconsider your positions. If all that you need to be a contender for the best TV show ever is the ability to transform and affect the viewer, why exactly is Angel not better than Buffy?
An argument can and, I think, should be made that the high points of Angel managed to achieve philosophical meaning far greater than anything Buffy ever managed. Consider “Reprise” and “Epiphany”, if you doubt what I say. These are episodes which present a fundamental truth about human existence, explore it to a level of depth that Buffy never went into and present it in a way so powerful and moving that it genuinely made many Whedon fans into existentialists.
How about the statements about redemption the show makes? How about the issues of judgement and the right to judge which are presented in the third season, or the theme of predestination and free will which pervades the fourth? Corruption and the inability to resist it are explored quite in depth by many episodes in the fifth season, and the comparison they draw to corporate America (via metaphor, Mike!) is both amusing and quite complex, when you come to think about it.
How about “Not Fade Away”? How about “To Shanshu in L.A.”? How about “Reunion”, and how about “Lullaby” and “Sleep Tight”? Mike, you yourself have argued on various occasions that Angel is more driven by its themes than its characters and that, as a consequence of that, it has far deeper and more powerful ideas as a result. Buffy’s good on this front, of that there can be no doubt, but it is often far too simplistic. The theme of sexuality and the cautionary tale of Angelus in season two is very well done, and yet it is far less transformative than the concepts and metaphors we see in Angel.
In fact, why isn’t Dollhouse equal or better than Buffy? Nobody can deny that it had some very juicy and thought provoking material, and indeed many consider the moral questions at the heart of the show to be the most complex Whedon has ever proposed. The statements about free will, about whether one can sign a contract to be a slave, about the inevitability of power being abused, about ignorance being as dangerous as malice … Proportionally (hey, Mike!), when you consider how brief the show was and yet how many ideas it managed to explore, this easily outstrips Buffy and possibly Angel as well.
Would you, Noah, be amenable to the notion of Angel and Dollhouse being equal to Buffy? I doubt it. I know for certain that Mike and Jeremy would vociferously disagree.
This illustrates exactly why I think your approach to critiquing is flawed. I loved your review of The Inside, and said as much on my comment, but my single point of disagreement was on a plot detail you wrote off as unimportant because of how it was overshadowed by the deeper meaning of the episode. At first, I considered that a simple difference in opinion. Now, however, I think it’s indicative of the fact that we have two very opposing philosophies when it comes to television and art.
You might think any flaws are rendered meaningless by the positives; I think that such an approach renders meaningless everything.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Mar 19, 2017 16:08:00 GMT -8
Mike:
Quote: Would you, Noah, be amenable to the notion of Angel and Dollhouse being equal to Buffy? I doubt it. I know for certain that Mike and Jeremy would vociferously disagree.
You're still missing the point, FV. Do I, personally, think Buffy is inferior to those other shows? No, not currently. But the more important question is whether I would cast off someone else making that argument. And I wouldn't. Just because I see it differently does not mean I have to smugly disregard someone arguing that they are. I'd love to read, and have at times, eloquent arguments in favor of Angel and Dollhouse being as good or even better than Buffy. Some of those arguments have greatly increased my appreciation of said shows. I'm open to having my opinions on these shows swayed should a powerful argument or experience reach and touch me.
I'd much rather learn from others' experiences with television than telling them they're wrong.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Mar 19, 2017 16:08:12 GMT -8
Scott:
Freudian Vampire wrote: Buffy is intrinsically tied to the television medium, as is The Sopranos, as is Breaking Bad, as is any show you can name. A message or theme or human truth is only as strong as the vehicle through which it is conveyed. It is story, and so must be judged on its plot, characters, writing, structure, mythology and coherency. It is seen, and so must be judged on its acting and cinematography. It is heard, and so the music must also factor into any evaluation.
Why? Who says how something has to be judged? It's your personal relationship with a television show, you can choose to define the important terms however you like.
It's a bit weird that I'm arguing against this, because those things are how I judge a TV show. But not everyone has to do it that way.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Mar 19, 2017 16:08:32 GMT -8
Freudian:
MikeJer wrote: You're still missing the point, FV
Not at all. You are misunderstanding what I wrote, which was purely a criticism of Noah's approach to tackling television.
I understand that it must frustrate you a great deal when people dismiss Buffy in these kinds of debates, given the amount of time and effort you've spent trying to argue for it's inclusion. However, that doesn't mean that we all have to tiptoe around criticizing the show and disagreeing with you on whether it deserves to be placed in the top tier. If somebody wrote incredible analyses of Harry Potter, would that mean I was automatically required to start taking it seriously as a candidate for the best book ever? I don't think so. That I'm even participating in this discussion proves that I value your opinions, or else I would have just slapped down a 'you're wrong, moron' and left.
Here's some interesting site history for you: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=291
Other Scott wrote: Why? Who says how something has to be judged?
I think it should be judged this way because it is a television show. You can judge it as art as Noah does, or as story focused on the narrative aspects, or as a visual spectacle reliant only on cinematography or CGI. If you want to judge it as a TV show, I think you need to consider all of these aspects, otherwise you're doing a grave disservice to the care and attention that went into every facet of its construction.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Mar 19, 2017 16:08:45 GMT -8
Iguana:
Okay, at this point I no longer know which side I'm on. Noah and FV are both making excellent but diametrically opposed points and I feel I'd have to take a long stop to analyse and study each post before I could even figure out completely which ones I agree with and why. But by the time I'd be done with that, we'd have another page of new stuff.
Mike: I have to say though, I think you're giving FV short shrift here. He's not "smugly disregarding" the rest of us/you. He's presenting a different and compelling framework with which to view and judge television. I'm not completely convinced (since Noah's arguing the other side) but that's not the point. The point is that FV is very demonstrably not casting off any arguments. He's debating them.
Edit: As he said in his edit.
|
|