|
Post by Jeremy on Mar 19, 2017 16:09:25 GMT -8
Mike:
FV, we can disagree about whether Buffy should be included in this discussion. That's fine. This issue comes down to one of respect for well-argued opposing POVs. To me, Buffy is the best. I've made a thorough argument and shared my perspective that favors this conclusion. My issue is not that you don't agree with it, it's that you come across as trying to objectively prove me wrong for holding Buffy in this category. It seems like you're trying to say, "I've determined that Buffy is 'objectively' not in this discussion, therefore you're wrong for thinking it is." If the tone is simply changed to, "Buffy isn't in this discussion in my mind and by my criteria, but the case you've made for it helps me understand and respect your perspective," then we could arrive at a conclusion here. We can both have different 'best shows' and still both be right, provided we both offer accurate evidence to support our perspectives.
Perhaps I'm just interpreting the tone you're giving off incorrectly. If so, I apologize. But this is what I've felt from you within this discussion.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Mar 19, 2017 16:09:38 GMT -8
Iguana:
Quick reply to this: Freudian wrote: 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.
Hmm... how about you consider the aspects of cinematography or CGI as they service the overall theme and message of the show?
I'd say, for example, that the cruddy CGI in the season 3 finale makes it a hell of a lot harder to appreciate its message.
On the other hand, I think that all the technically highly accomplished CGI battle sequences in Lord of the Rings greatly -detract- from the original novel, since all that tale's thematic debt is replaced with empty spectacle. Even if it had been superbly acted, filmed, etc, etc, the volume and duration of the battles would still have added nothing except visual splendour that contradicts the original anti-war messages of the books without offering anything in their place.
So I'd say that the craftmanship aspects are perhaps -necessary- to create great television, but are not what -makes- great television. Just like literature requires the ability to write beautiful sentences and come up with inventive turns of phrase, but by themselves those things would never produce memorable work. And at the same time, balder prose can occasionally result in a tale that stands the test of ages despite its limitations.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Mar 19, 2017 16:10:02 GMT -8
FV:
Mike, I'm afraid I must refer you to my prior post where I carefully laid out exactly what it is I mean when I say 'objectively'.
The post that instigated this discussion was yours on the "Chosen" comments where you noted that I was implying that I felt Buffy was undeserving of the accolades placed upon it by you, Kyle and Noah; my responses have been purely meant to explain why I feel that Buffy ought not be in the conversation. I don't mean to demean or condescend, but I have a point and I'm going to keep arguing for it as long as there are counter-proposals. This discussion has led to some of the most interesting arguments we've seen on this site, certainly since I've been here, and I'd hate to quell it with an 'agree to disagree' when there's still more gold to be mined. I think you're misinterpreting my desire for continued discourse as aggression.
Iguana, you are of course correct. However, poor CGI is poor in and of itself, regardless of whether it detracts from any theme or message; if it does do that, then obviously that's a far more damning criticism. I wasn't trying to imply that we should consider the technical aspects in a vacuum if they have an obvious effect on the success of other parts of the show.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Mar 19, 2017 16:10:12 GMT -8
Mike: I actually didn't see that post -- I think I was busy writing up a response to Keith when you made it. Oops! After now reading it, it clarifies a bit, but I still take issue with the tone in parts of it (e.g. stating things about shows as if they're facts, when they're not), but I've honestly already said everything I have to say on the subject. I'm just going to sit back and enjoy the show for a while now.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Mar 19, 2017 16:10:33 GMT -8
FV:
MikeJer wrote: I still take issue with the tone in parts of it (e.g. stating things about shows as if they're facts, when they're not)
I don't see it, Mike.
I, in the post Mike refers to, wrote: 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 [...] I don’t think a few fleeting glimpses of transcendence make Buffy a great work of art, much less a great TV show [...] I think that’s more of a damning indictment of the TV medium than it is a point in the show’s favour [...] I chose The Sopranos as an example because I personally believe it is the best show ever made [...] Do you get the feeling that the series had to last seven seasons before it ended? I don’t [...] I feel that Buffy’s power comes from individual episodes and moments more than it does from the show as a whole.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Mar 19, 2017 16:10:49 GMT -8
Iguana:
I don't see it either.
I suspect it's because of the nature of the discussion. We're discussing the question "Should "BTVS" be in the discussion of what the best show ever (tm) is?"
Naturally, anyone forcefully asserting "No, it doesn't belong it this discussion" can come off as sounding dismissive. It sounds like the other side isn't even allowed to debate this. But that's an illusion forced upon them by the nature of the question.
If the question is rephrased as "Is BTVS in the very highest tier of television shows ever produced" then it suddenly sounds more reasonable if someone were to say "No, it's in a tier below that." It sounds harsher to say "It shouldn't be in the discussion." But in context, the two answers are exactly the same.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Mar 19, 2017 16:11:08 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Mar 19, 2017 16:11:21 GMT -8
FV:
But every post is like that, Mike. Your reviews are like that. Look at "Welcome to the Hellmouth", and look at the way you phrase yourself. Most of your criticisms and points of analysis are stated baldly as if they were obvious, and you conclude with "This is a very good start to Buffy the Vampire Slayer", an opinion phrased as a fact. The first paragraph of your "Chosen" review contains four of these.
Look at Noah's first comment, the one that everyone adored. "An image is an artistic medium, but not the art itself." "Buffy the Vampire Slayer is not about vampires, or realism, or authority or anything like that". Those are opinions, and fairly contentious ones at that, and yet they are stated outright and with no room for interpretation. I did not criticize Noah for speaking like this, because to do so would be petty and pointless; if we all needed to add 'I theoretically hypothesize' to every opinion we gave we would be here all day.
The only reason you're singling out my comments is because they explicitly disagree with you.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Mar 19, 2017 16:12:00 GMT -8
Iguana:
Yeah, what FV said. All of those are clearly claims he makes, claims based on his judgement and opinions. Some I might agree with, others I might not, and many of whom I am clueless about since I don't know the stuff he's drawing the comparisons to. But I don't need an "I think" before or after every sentence to make that obvious. That's just how opinion pieces are written.
I'm a bit disappointed as well. Surely we're better than questioning eachother's good faith here.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Mar 19, 2017 16:12:07 GMT -8
FV:
I edited the 'thought better of this forum' part out of my previous post because I thought it sounded a little passive-aggressive, but ...
Are there any of the best show ever candidates that all of us have seen? I know that Jeremy, Alex C. and Scott have all seen most of if not all of The Sopranos, and Iguana has seen The Shield, and quite a few of us have seen Breaking Bad, but I'm suddenly aware that my arguments must be a bit nonsensical to those who haven't seen the shows I'm arguing for.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Mar 19, 2017 16:12:21 GMT -8
Scott:
I now know the true purpose of this thread... to get Iguana up to the 3000 post mark and see what happens.
But yeah, we're running out of steam a little here. Someone may need to come in with a fresh take to liven things back up again.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Mar 19, 2017 16:12:33 GMT -8
FV:
I know Alex C. has promised some thoughts on the subject, but he indicated they may be a while.
Myself, I'm quite interested to see what Noah makes of my latest comments, since they are in direct opposition to his viewpoint. I think if we can get the civil tone back again there might be some life in this thread yet.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Mar 19, 2017 16:12:53 GMT -8
Mike:
FV, you just quoted statements a couple posts ago highlighting instances where you didn't come across the way I was suggesting. I simply responded with several instances contrary to that. *Shrug*
As for my reviews... well, it's an entirely different context. We're having a discussion here, which is distinctly different than the context of a formal review. Even putting that aside, the very first paragraph of my very first review sets up where my perspective will be coming from, what the tone of the reviews will be, and what my critical markers for success will be:
Quote: Welcome to my analysis of Buffy the Vampire Slayer! Without reservation I will say that this is easily my favorite television show, and I hope that you'll feel my love for it even when I put it under the microscope. For this critic, the elements that are the most exciting in television are great characterization, rich and relatable themes, and strong emotional resonance. It's these very elements that will be the focus of my evaluation of each episode and season to come.
Everything I write after that is colored by this setup and qualification.
Apparently I've misread your tone in our discussions. Reading tone in writing can be tricky, which is why qualifiers are so helpful within this context. It's too bad this is being taken as "questioning each others' good faith." That is farthest from my intent.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Mar 19, 2017 16:13:11 GMT -8
FV:
MikeJer wrote: As for my reviews... well, it's an entirely different context. We're having a discussion here, which is distinctly different than the context of a formal review.
Yes, and the context of a discussion ought to be far more relaxed than that of an academic critique! Your disclaimer at the beginning is a little meaningless, because I think it's pretty clear that we're all operating from a similar position here anyway with regards to opinion. I may disagree with you, strongly in some cases, but I'm not writing any differently to you or Noah or Iguana or anybody else.
This thread isn't going to devolve into a game of 'he said', 'she said', anyhow. Now I have the last word :wink: , I think we can end the semantics here.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Mar 19, 2017 16:13:28 GMT -8
Iguana:
Yeah, perhaps time to take a step back. Tone arguments are seldom productive anyway. And it strikes me that my "questioning good faith" comment is in itself questioning good faith, which... well, perhaps I need an avatar of a pot or a kettle.
*this post is only 70% motivated by my curiosity about the 3000 post mark.
|
|