Okay, I believe in beginning 2003 with a fresh start (and, if all goes well, a fresh job, but I’ll save that for later). No better place to start than finally resolving a number of questions that are still bugging me to this day.
#1: Why has there never, ever been even the slightest criticism of Beavis and Butthead as a show?
“Oh no, not THIS again!” Yes, this again. I will keep asking this until I get a satisfactory answer. It’s driving me nuts like you wouldn’t believe.
I’ve given up trying to understand this show’s appeal (filed it with all the other shows I don’t understand the appeal of). What I want to know is why it’s universally loved. No one who’s not some wrongheaded defender of public morality has had even the faintest whisper of criticism of this show. The overwhelming consensus is that it rocks and is the best friggin’ cartoon ever. No one’s ever challenged this. Ever. Just right now I saw a new thread on GameFAQs devoted to heaping on further praise.
I have a problem with this because it seriously challenges one of the fundamental rules of existence I’ve held for nearly my entire life, i.e., there’s always more than one side, and nothing is universally liked or disliked. When John F Kennedy was assassinated, many Americans praised the killer. Mumia Abu-Jamal, himself a murderer, has garnered some of the fiercest defenders I’ve ever seen any criminal get. And I don’t even have to explain Elian Gonzales, Osama Bin Laden, Princess Diana, etc.
No one dislikes Beavis and Butthead. Everyone believes that the music videos “lampooned” got exactly what they deserved. Everyone thinks that jokes about masturbation and dumb stunts are the coolest things ever. Everyone wants to quote the hapless pair. No one thinks theres anything the least bit wrong or unusual about “huh-huh-huh-huh”. Everyone thinks that simply quoting from the show constitutes a defense. No one believes that some kid somewhere may have actually been inspired to do a dangerous stunt because of what they saw on B&B.
No one finds it annoying. No one finds it pointless. No one thinks the main characters don’t deserve to be main characters. No one thinks it’s anything but the coolest thing ever.
A weird show becoming incredibly popular, I don’t mind. ANY show receiving absolute total 100% accolades, it disturbes me to the very core of my being. I want an explanation, dammit.
#2: What’s with the damn Richard Hatch mystique?
Specifically, why is seemingly everyone treating him like some diabolical ultra-genius master manipulator with godlike powers, whereas he was simply someone who combined a good strategy and luck to defeat relatively weak opposition?
Lemme give the man props…yes, he had a good strategy, by far the best of everyone on that island. And he always looked like he was serious about winning this thing, something that was definitely lacking in many of the other competitors. But Pagong had more than sufficient chances to oust him or any of his allies, so his plan was hardly bulletproof. Of course, since no one saw an alliance coming, he eventually whittled down the Pagong side to the point where he was safe. No master manipulation here, just a rookie mistake he benefitted from.
And he got lucky, dammit. He was able to oust Jenna only because Sean (who looked completely clueless from beginning to end) not only knocked her out of the immunity challenge, but voted for her for no clear reason. Keep in mind that Kelly was something of a wildcard at this point; if anyone in the core alliance goes and Jenna stays, it’s anyone’s ballgame. Later, Richard and Sue were tied 2-2 in the voting, with Kelly voting for Richard; had she stuck with that vote, the result would’ve been another tie, and Richard, having more past votes, is out. Let’s also not forget Kelly deciding to take Richard to the final…who was dead in the water at that point and probably the only person of the remaining four he could’ve beaten.
Note too that everyone in later Survivors who played it like Richard did has gotten destroyed (nb. especially John in the most recent one). Don’t give me that “imitated but not duplicated” nonsense…the strategy simply doesn’t work anymore. (Brian, I might add, made it to the final two mainly because he won three straight immunity challenges, and even then it came down to the final vote.)
Richard Hatch won not only because he had the right gameplan, but because he was in the right place in the right time and things went right for him. That doesn’t take anything away from his accomplishment…but it doesn’t make him a supreme master of anything either.
#3: Is “it’s still better than most of what else is on prime time TV” really enough justification for keeping The Simpsons on the air?
This strikes me as a really, really low bar. Also, let’s not forget that the lack of quality programming on the air has as much to do with some incredibly ill-advised cancellations as anything else. I say don’t use the other guy’s ineptitude to justify your own…if the show’s run its course, pull the plug.
4: Dan Quayle vs. Murphy Brown…like, what the hell?
I actually followed this from start to finish, and it still mystifies me.
Okay, granted that the show was still pretty pouplar at the time, and polticians have been trying to score cheap political points by ripping television for like, oh, an eternity. That this would become a spectacle was predictable.
But a full-blown media circus? Major newspapers publishing ferocious editorials about this? My local paper getting in on the action for weeks? POLLS asking which side was right? (All this over, I might add, a fictional character.)
Given the Bush I administration’s rampant cluelessness on women’s issues, and Quayle being, well, Quayle, and the silliness of the subject (a sitcom about a strong-willed hellraising single mother reporter is still a sitcom, complete with, well, FICTIONAL CHARACTERS), this sounded exactly like one of those “controversial” blowups that’d die out and be completely forgotten within a week. It ended up going on for week after week, even inspiring actual debates about single mothers in society.
Geez, I only wish The PJs got this kind of press…
5: Xena: Warrior Princess and lesbianism…like, what the hell?
Yes, I know it was popular with lesbians. That’s because it had a strong, capable, complex female heroine, something of a rarity even now. What I want to know is where were all the lesbian overtones that some of you insisted were there. I’ve seen nearly every episode, and if there was any hint at this (other than the one “Special Report” episode that made a joke of it), I’m unaware of it.
It’s clear that Xena and Gabrielle love each other a lot. This is because they depend on each other and do just about everything together. But there were no sexual connotations to any of this, let alone sexual tension. Don’t forget that Gabrielle was happily married at one point, so she couldn’t possibly have been a 6-on-the-scale, and Xena would’ve never been so cruel as to force herself on anyone. And yes, it is possible for two nonlesbian women to kiss without going any further.
Let’s not forget that this was a spinoff of Hercules: The Legendary Journeys…hardly a vehicle for women seeking women.