Canvassing opinions on TV series

[hellboy76]

So anyone here like Arrested Development?

[ShogunRua]

A good question, but one that is very difficult to answer. In general, it's hard to say what precisely causes a certain piece of writing to be "good" and another to be "bad", especially in a comedy series. Much like how it's difficult to do the same for a piece of music or painting, although one likely has strong feelings either way. There's nothing wrong with being unnatural, either; lots of shows with outstanding writing (Fawlty Towers comes to mind) have unique, uncommon dialogue between their characters.

When I say unnatural, I mean unnatural within the voice of the show. Fawlty Towers works because the structure of episodes and the interactions between characters allow for the type of humour they use. The internal logic stands. So an unnatural joke wouldn't be Childrens Hospital doing a Childrens Hospital joke. It would be Parks and Rec doing a Childrens Hospital joke (my favourite, by the way, is when Lola uses her elbow to break the emergency glass but there's no glass so someone off camera just yells "smash!").

I'm curious about this topic in particular because a few friends and I recently got a development deal with a Canadian network and we start writing our pilot next week.

Congratulations! What type of show is it?

On another topic, I feel like people get annoyed with your opinions because you tend to phrase things as "this show is shitty" rather than "I think this show is shitty". Making an objective statement does imply that you think people who watch the show are stupid. It doesn't bother me because, off the internet, I talk in exactly the same way.

Then those people are highly immature. "This show is shitty" is shorthand for "I think this show is shitty". There's no need to add in an extra qualifier every time. Of course it's my opinion; who else's would it be?

However, if you're experienced with the Internet, this unnecessary qualifier wouldn't actually placate a butthurt fanboy. Note the number of death threats or anger any online reviewer gets for saying they dislike popular show/movie X, even in the mildest of terms. Ocelet seems like the only childish fanboy in this topic; CMonster is simply being pedantic and argumentative to no real end other than "winning" the discussion.

So anyone here like Arrested Development?

We had all better, because otherwise, we're just "stupid and wrong" according to Ocelet.

[JacoIII]

Congratulations! What type of show is it?

It's a sketch show with the structure of a nightly news broadcast. So we'll be doing individual sketches about general political topics (environmental disasters, political gaffes, women in politics) while simultaneously satirizing news broadcasts as a whole. Kind of like those short Onion videos but far less dry and with way more surrealism. Also, our characters will have continuing relationships (sorta).

Then those people are highly immature. "This show is shitty" is shorthand for "I think this show is shitty". There's no need to add in an extra qualifier every time. Of course it's my opinion; who else's would it be?

However, if you're experienced with the Internet, this unnecessary qualifier wouldn't actually placate a butthurt fanboy. Note the number of death threats or anger any online reviewer gets for saying they dislike popular show/movie X, even in the mildest of terms. Ocelet seems like the only silly fanboy in this topic; CMonster is simply being pedantic and argumentative to no real end other than "winning" the discussion.

Eh, I always add the qualifier. But then again I tend to stay away from comment sections on the whole.

[Ocelot]

i mean your "stupidness and wrongness" stems from how you're approaching these shows and your attitude after watching at most 2 episodes of them, but well done calling me the one throwing a tantrum such that if I dare to challenge that notion I'd be proving you right

"An hour of a piece of media is usually enough to draw certain conclusions about it."

this statement might have some validity if you hadn't spent your hour watching AD coming to the conclusion that Michael Bluth is portrayed as a hero to pander to the audience. it might be nice to give the people you're talking with some sort of credit and go "hmm maybe the two episodes I saw didn't give me enough of an accurate impression." it's not the fact that you don't like it that's aggravating; it's that you watched almost the lowest amount possible, formed a questionable view and are now calling people babies for being put off by your belligerence

[ShogunRua]

i mean your stupidness and wrongness stems from how you're approaching these shows and your attitude after watching at most 2 episodes of them, but well done calling me the one throwing a tantrum such that if I dare to challenge that notion I'd be proving you right

"An hour of a piece of media is usually enough to draw certain conclusions about it."

this statement might have some validity if you hadn't spent your hour watching AD coming to the conclusion that Michael Bluth is portrayed as a hero to pander to the audience

In your blind fanboy fury, your ability to comprehend written English evidently suffered. I wrote "hero" in the sense of someone to "sympathize" and "commiserate" with, while at the same time noting the audience would largely feel superior to Michael's character.

You might disagree with this too, but that is a qualitatively different argument than "he is a hero to pander to the audience" with no further explanation.

While we're all guilty of this to some degree, dumbing down an opponent's argument because it's easier to reply to that way and then accusing them of being "stupid and wrong" is pretty damn, well....stupid and wrong.

Edit-

it might be nice to give the people you're talking with some sort of credit and go "hmm maybe the two episodes I saw didn't give me enough of an accurate impression."

You sound like someone who disagrees with the moral behind "The Emperor's New Clothes". That stupid, wrong boy should just shut up because everyone praising the clothes deserves credit, right?

[Ocelot]

i'll ignore the "blind fanboy fury" comment because yes, i didn't look back for that post, so i apologize for my "illiteracy." all i can say, i suppose, is that i'd suggest giving the show another chance without carrying in any preconceptions possibly instilled by dumbass manbaby fanboys like me

"You sound like someone who disagrees with the moral behind "The Emperor's New Clothes". That stupid, wrong boy should just shut up because everyone praising the clothes deserves credit, right?"

this doesn't make any sense considering a core part of the issue is watching two episodes vs the entire series

[CMonster]

You're becoming very tiresome. I gave you a reason why I felt the series was pandering, an admittedly nebulous quality that is difficult to pinpoint, and noted that many people viewed it similarly. However, I also previously noted that this might be a stretch.

You then spent a few pages worth of posts jerking yourself off over your imagined e-brilliance. Meanwhile, you completely ignore a simple question that would have actually led to a constructive discussion;

Are there any movies or television series you consider guilty of pandering? And if so, what is your supposed proof?

You engage me and then accuse me of "jerking myself off over my imagined e-brilliance." And when I've backed you into a corner instead of just admitting you were wrong, you link to your reply to somebody else that just says "Fair enough. Maybe my "pandering" interpretation went a bit too far." Which has no acknowledgement that you were basing your interpretation of the shows quality (specifically the writing) on how other people reacted to it. Which isn't all that note worthy except for the fact that we've all seen you often on this forum calling people out for referring to any critic, populous, or aggregate site as part of their opinion as a logical fallacy. That combined with my boredom at work leads us to the point where you should basically just admit that you enjoy being the contrarian to things that are popular with people you feel superior to.

[inmate]

i've never known anyone who loved arrested development after only two episodes.

Did you know anyone who thought it was trash after two episodes and then grew to love it?

not sure i've ever met someone who's hated it as much as you, but i have shown it to several friends and almost every time they say "eh, it's alright" after the first couple episodes, and they almost always end up loving it by episode 5 or so. the pilot is possibly the weakest episode of the first two seasons, and i didn't come around to loving episode two until the second time through (i'm rewatching the show for the sixth time right now). it's up to you if you want to keep going, but i think you would at least hate it less.

[ShogunRua]

i'll ignore the "blind fanboy fury" comment because yes, i didn't look back for that post, so i apologize for my "illiteracy." all i can say, i suppose, is that i'd suggest giving the show another chance without carrying in any preconceptions possibly instilled by dumbass manbaby fanboys like me

You still don't get it. The friends of mine who loved AD were hardly "dumbass manbaby fanboys"; they're intelligent people whose opinions I respect. Their enthusiasm encouraged me to watch the show. I don't watch about 80% of popular TV shows at all. Those that I do are ones I feel have a high chance of being good. If anything, I was predisposed to liking it.

You've built up this imaginary narrative in your head about why I don't like the show, and you're not letting reality get in the way of that.

You engage me and then accuse me of "jerking myself off over my imagined e-brilliance."

CMonster appears to be suffering from short-term memory loss. This conversation began when you engaged me, not vice versa.

And when I've backed you into a corner instead of just admitting you were wrong, you link to your reply to somebody else that just says "Fair enough. Maybe my "pandering" interpretation went a bit too far." Which has no acknowledgement that you were basing your interpretation of the shows quality (specifically the writing) on how other people reacted to it. Which isn't all that note worthy except for the fact that we've all seen you often on this forum calling people out for referring to any critic, populous, or aggregate site as part of their opinion as a logical fallacy. That combined with my boredom at work leads us to the point where you should basically just admit that you enjoy being the contrarian to things that are popular with people you feel superior to.

For someone who claims to have backed me into a corner, it's strange how you continually ignore a simple question that goes to the heart of your argument, and could actually lead to a fruitful conversation;

Are there any movies or television series you consider guilty of pandering? And if so, what is your supposed proof?

Your avoidance of simple, direct questions is giving me bad flashbacks to various discussions with Agosto.

[CMonster]

You engage me and then accuse me of "jerking myself off over my imagined e-brilliance."

CMonster appears to be suffering from short-term memory loss. This conversation began when you engaged me, not vice versa.

And when I've backed you into a corner instead of just admitting you were wrong, you link to your reply to somebody else that just says "Fair enough. Maybe my "pandering" interpretation went a bit too far." Which has no acknowledgement that you were basing your interpretation of the shows quality (specifically the writing) on how other people reacted to it. Which isn't all that note worthy except for the fact that we've all seen you often on this forum calling people out for referring to any critic, populous, or aggregate site as part of their opinion as a logical fallacy. That combined with my boredom at work leads us to the point where you should basically just admit that you enjoy being the contrarian to things that are popular with people you feel superior to.

For someone who claims to have backed me into a corner, it's strange how you continually ignore a simple question that goes to the heart of your argument, and could actually lead to a fruitful conversation;

Are there any movies or television series you consider guilty of pandering? And if so, what is your supposed proof?

Your avoidance of simple, direct questions is giving me bad flashbacks to various discussions with Agosto.

When I say you engaged me, it clearly means that you started participating after my initial post but then when you realized how silly the point you made was, you tried to say I was just giving myself e-hard. A clear ploy to try and make yourself seem above the argument and that I was a mere argument monger, trolling for prey.

This lack of subtly is the first clear indicator that you were backed into a corner by your faulty logic. So you also tried to change the subject to give yourself an out. This classic misdirection is not the sort of thing a man who gives himself e-hand would fall for. I'll give you an out, just admit that your opinion on the shows writing was clouded by other people, you didn't give it a fair short because of a God complex, and that your sorry for being caught as a hypocrite and a fool. I don't think that's asking to much.