[QUOTE=eleanorigby]
All of this is your opinion. The show was not to your taste-why not just say that, instead of trying to run the show and its fans down?
[/QUOTE]
Its fans? Cite?
[QUOTE=eleanorigby]
If 99% of everything disappoints you, you have a long life ahead.
[/QUOTE]
No, that just proves I’m still (irrationally) an optimist. I watch almost everything I watch hoping–no, expecting–that it will be good. Otherwise I wouldn’t watch it; I’d move on to the next thing on my list.
[QUOTE=eleanorigby]
99% vs 1% seems a bit black and white to me–how about 80/20?
[/QUOTE]
No, not really. I watch (clicking of abacus) about 1,000 movies a year. About 1% of them are not crap. Of course, the remaining 99% are varying degrees of crap, and some of them are crap on a motorcycle. But 99/1 seems about right to me.
[QUOTE=eleanorigby]
Yes, I got it the first time you posted it.
[/QUOTE]
Whoosh.
[QUOTE=eleanorigby]
I got it the very first show. Most people bury their feelings-or hide them or deny them. How like life this show is! How egregiously, aggressively unpleasant TV can be in refuting that very human aspect–but shows like SFU don’t. In SFU we saw a serious gay relationship, not camp, not comic relief, but a realistic one. We saw race relations, gender frictions, addictions, consequences for bad choices, love faded and worn out, control misconstrued as love, mental illness (realistically portrayed for once), and much more.
None of these things (except the healthy gay relationship) are pleasant or fun. It’s a drama. The plot depends on tension and conflict (but there was humor as well-the Kathy Bates character was wonderful). I don’t really need to 'splain this to you, do I? Underneath all of the scathing dismissal is this: the show was not to your taste. End of story.
[/QUOTE]
And how, exactly, did I suggest anything else? (And yes, the KB character is about the only character I liked.)
[QUOTE=eleanorigby]
But I didn’t miss the point–you did. SFU has as much to do with soap operas, such as All My Children as soaps do with existential lit or the classics, i.e. not much except for characters changing over time. None of the plots are interchangeable-that’s your interpretation. Since you brought the point up, though-all literature (or pulp fic or soaps), they all essentially tell a story, and a story is fundamentally the change in characters over time. That may be all they have in common, but they do share that. To make another analogy, paintings start with marks on a flat surface, but after that one essential aspect, not so much…
[/QUOTE]
Sigh. Colder and colder; you’re now in a different time zone from the point. I never, never never never never, said that story, or change in character over time, or whatever definition you want to concoct for it, was bad. I said that “what happens next” was ***ALL ***that 6’U had going for it. When the ONLY reason you watch is to find resolution for a cliffhanger–repeating myself here, but you obviously didn’t read it the first time–then you’re in soapopera country. And change in a character is only good if it’s good. IOW, I think Stephen King is terrible writer because his characters ring so false. Sure they go through changes, but only to move the plot along. Ditto All My Children, ditto 6’U.
[QUOTE=eleanorigby]
If I worked in a video store, I’d have the sense to reply to the customer that I didn’t care for the series, but that it was critically acclaimed and very popular. Is that so hard?
[/QUOTE]
You know what? Shame on you for taking your assumption that I don’t do the same thing as an inarguable given.
[QUOTE=eleanorigby]
Or is your opinion the only one that matters?
[/quote]
Um, cite that I said so? My opinion is the one being solicited.
[QUOTE=eleanorigby]
I work in a library; people ask me for suggestions all the time. I certainly don’t use their request as a chance to browbeat them about my discernment or make them feel lesser because of their supposed lack.
[/quote]
Again, shame on you for this.
[QUOTE=eleanorigby]
Not even if they are asking for the latest Danielle Steele or Tabor Evans. It’s not my job to change their taste. (I am in no way equating SFU with Steele or Evans, btw).
You’re supposed to move the merchandise, even in a video store,
[/QUOTE]
Um, no. They’re gonna rent something anyway. I’m supposed to answer a question honestly, if only so they know if their taste agrees with mine for future such exchanges.
[QUOTE=eleanorigby]
not “wow” the clientele with your superior taste and discriminating palate for canned entertainment. Frankly, if I asked the guy in our local video store his opinion on something and he responded with anything resembling your opinion,
[/QUOTE]
No; with your irrational *assumption *of how I express my opinions to a customer.
[QUOTE=eleanorigby]
I’d think to myself: this guy’s a wanker. Who is he to be the arbiter of taste for his customers? And then I’d dismiss you as a possible source for reasonable input.
[/QUOTE]
And some customer do realize that I don’t like all the same things they like. But I always try to explain *why *I don’t like something, if they ask, so it’s a learning experience all around. And let me just say I’m eternally grateful I don’t have you for a customer, although if I did I’d figure out pretty quickly that you’re one of those who doesn’t actually want an honest opinion; you just want me to validate your choice. That’s cool, I handle those customers with skill as well.
(FTR, the only titles I actively try to talk people out of renting, unsolicited, are Black Dahlia, Lady in the Water, and The Brothers Grimm, and then only if they’re regular customers whom I’m pretty sure won’t like them, and *then * I tell them why, so they can take my advice or leave it.)