I have so much rage and loathing for that phrase. I will give a million dollars to anyone who can tell me what the actual fuck that even LOOKS like in TV storytelling. Or any medium, frankly, because that's the thing about entertainment - it is, sort of by definition, WHAT YOU WANT. If you don't want it, you turn the TV off. You put the book down. You hit the little X in the corner of your browser. And guess what? There are no consequences!
I kind of agree, but I think the problem with the phrase is that it gets interpreted as an either/or kind of deal. To largely c&p what I said over at my LJ, because it's Sunday and I'm lazy, I think there's a very large grey zone between the two, and most worthwhile books/series/films/etc fall somewhere in there. Anyone who just preaches is a bore, anyone who writes pure wish fulfillment is a hack; there needs to be a (damn, this word still feels besmirched by Season 8) balance. The writers, producers, filmmakers and musicians that I love all have in common that they keep surprising me, keep showing me things I didn't know would happen, showing me other perspectives, tossing me curveballs; if all I wanted was exactly what I knew I wanted, then I could write it myself. There shouldn't be, and luckily rarely is, a binary choice between either being entertained or being made to think. What we need is stories that surprise, thrill and challenge us; what we want is stories that entertain us while doing that. The two aren't opposites.
I am still baffled that people continue to use this argument when there is SO MUCH GOOD TV right now. And sometimes it's TV CRITICS saying it, which is the most bizarre of all.
Yeah. That's why most people still giggle whenever they hear someone call themselves a "TV critic", good writers like Sepinwall et al notwithstanding. The word "critic" should imply that there's some form of thinking applied.
To be fair, I am still watching Agents of SHIELD and it is getting better.
I agree, it's gone from ineptly dull and clichéd to competently dull and clichéd. But I still haven't seen anything in it I haven't seen done better by other shows, I still haven't seen anything in it that convinces me that the idea behind it is more than just a pure marketing decision - "We need something to keep fans interested between movies."
Also you get bonus points for punctuating your rant with a West Wing clip.
Heh. There were actually a few West Wing references in this post before I trimmed it a bit, but I couldn't cut that last one. ♥ Josh Lyman.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2013-12-15 01:18 pm (UTC)I have so much rage and loathing for that phrase. I will give a million dollars to anyone who can tell me what the actual fuck that even LOOKS like in TV storytelling. Or any medium, frankly, because that's the thing about entertainment - it is, sort of by definition, WHAT YOU WANT. If you don't want it, you turn the TV off. You put the book down. You hit the little X in the corner of your browser. And guess what? There are no consequences!
I kind of agree, but I think the problem with the phrase is that it gets interpreted as an either/or kind of deal. To largely c&p what I said over at my LJ, because it's Sunday and I'm lazy, I think there's a very large grey zone between the two, and most worthwhile books/series/films/etc fall somewhere in there. Anyone who just preaches is a bore, anyone who writes pure wish fulfillment is a hack; there needs to be a (damn, this word still feels besmirched by Season 8) balance. The writers, producers, filmmakers and musicians that I love all have in common that they keep surprising me, keep showing me things I didn't know would happen, showing me other perspectives, tossing me curveballs; if all I wanted was exactly what I knew I wanted, then I could write it myself. There shouldn't be, and luckily rarely is, a binary choice between either being entertained or being made to think. What we need is stories that surprise, thrill and challenge us; what we want is stories that entertain us while doing that. The two aren't opposites.
I am still baffled that people continue to use this argument when there is SO MUCH GOOD TV right now. And sometimes it's TV CRITICS saying it, which is the most bizarre of all.
Yeah. That's why most people still giggle whenever they hear someone call themselves a "TV critic", good writers like Sepinwall et al notwithstanding. The word "critic" should imply that there's some form of thinking applied.
To be fair, I am still watching Agents of SHIELD and it is getting better.
I agree, it's gone from ineptly dull and clichéd to competently dull and clichéd. But I still haven't seen anything in it I haven't seen done better by other shows, I still haven't seen anything in it that convinces me that the idea behind it is more than just a pure marketing decision - "We need something to keep fans interested between movies."
Also you get bonus points for punctuating your rant with a West Wing clip.
Heh. There were actually a few West Wing references in this post before I trimmed it a bit, but I couldn't cut that last one. ♥ Josh Lyman.