Posted April 09 2003 - 08:48 AM
Brian Kaz wrote (post #15):
| . . . you obviously have not seen a lot of this show. |
I believe I saw all
the episodes at least once. (Some of them more than once.)
| I would think that being such a strong dissenter means you've only seen a couple at most. After all, you wouldn't keep watching a show you didn't like, right? |
Wrong. I actually do at times watch things I may not completely
I don't just watch entertainment programs for "pure entertainment's" sake alone.
One can learn from things that are not necessarily the most pleasant to one's own sensibilities. I like to learn.
I like science-fiction and supernatural horror programming---that's my one and only reason
for owning homevideo of any kind---, and try to give even shows I'm not altogether happy with an ample chance.
As usual, I have not said that I completely disliked it, either. That's only your interpretation
. The show definitely had a modicum of charm to it, but for those of us who were around in the seventies, a lot that charm was "old hat", informed by "retrocool
" that we'd seen and heard before, not the "innovation" some people here think it is.
Its charm, to my mind, didn't outweigh or counterbalance the amount of tedium or of incredibility of the overall story. I had a similar reaction to Brimstone
, a show with no charm at all
, from the first time I saw it: "Premise too strong. Nowhere to go with it. Repeat. Repeat. Repeat. Certain cancellation."
Quentin wrote (post #16):
| "Suffering" from a one-note premise is the "weakness" of every TV show. |
I doubt that seriously, but the difference from most fictional entertainment is that, for "genre" programming, the premise (e.g., an "angel detective agency") is so strong
and subject to such credibility problems that there exists an extra
burden of care that needs to go into building up and playing off of the premise than there is for romances, detective or legal dramas, etc. It isn't "fair", but, nevertheless, it is so. The X-Files
is about an "agency" (or department of an agency) investigating "paranormal" phenomena, but its "universe" is throroughly grounded in realism
and realistic characters, which is what makes the fantastic elements actually work
when they're introduced into the story. Special Unit 2
, by contrast, which is the tv-program probably most aptly comparable to G(ood) vs. E(vil)
, is almost equally as fantastic, as I pointed out before, yet I enjoyed it so much more. Maybe it's that I didn't get the impression that I was being hit over the head with "style over substance
", as I felt with G vs. E
. "Yeah, it's cool. We can see that. So, what else?"
| It is how they explore and expand upon that premise that makes or breaks a show. Buffy is built on a one-note premise - a smartass teen "chosen one" who kills vamps. Strip away all the fun stuff, and you know that she's going to kill a vamp/demon every week. |
So, your logic is inherently flawed...Buffy successfully expands on that premise by introducing meta-plots and exploring characers. G vs. E was in the process of doing the same thing when it was cancelled.
The "success" of that show is very much in the mind of the beholder, my "logic" not withstanding. You need to learn the difference between "logic" and "taste". The "hip-cool" snarky stuff doesn't work with me.