Post by godsaremonsters on Jul 11, 2011 10:48:19 GMT -5
I know David isn't dumb. I like to think he only comes off as a hypocrite because he doesn't always put the thought he should into the points hes tries to make. Though I have to say that his defense of what TV is and what can be considered a TV show basically boiled down to " just 'cause I say so". The are no rules to TV. Though there are many conventions. A way of doing things that has until the last 10 years or so as he says changed with "The Sopranos". But the fact remains that TV was always changing. I can only imagine how horrified the people working in TV in the 70s would be if you told them what they were doing was good because it was the same was what they were doing in the 40s.
And now it is different. Good. I hope it continues to change. As base as the crass financial nature of television can be, it is collaborative art. And it saddens me that David doesn't seem to value the fact that art is always going to change. And that in fact, though they might not follow the structure of what he considers to be classic television, shows like "The Wire" and "Game of Thrones" are television shows. And why is that? The fact that they were made by television networks, by people who make TV shows, for people who consume TV shows.
Ending my rant, or response, or whatever you'd like to call it. I'll address my remark about David being a hypocrite. In this particular situation I find hypocrisy in David's assertion that changing the the long established rules of TV is a bad thing, and referring to the people who would change them as "smug". When it was David who smugly labeled anyone who thought an African american playing Spiderman was bad as a racist. I'm sure a minority of those people were. I would say though that the majority of them were rebelling against the change to the long tradition of characters background. And labeling them all as racists in a dismissive manor makes you a might bit more smug in my opinion than an artist trying to push the bounds and definitions of their medium.
Me personally, I don't give a shit about Spiderman or Classic TV. Bring on Donald Glover or whoever for Spiderman, and give me great long form story telling on my TV.
And now it is different. Good. I hope it continues to change. As base as the crass financial nature of television can be, it is collaborative art. And it saddens me that David doesn't seem to value the fact that art is always going to change. And that in fact, though they might not follow the structure of what he considers to be classic television, shows like "The Wire" and "Game of Thrones" are television shows. And why is that? The fact that they were made by television networks, by people who make TV shows, for people who consume TV shows.
Ending my rant, or response, or whatever you'd like to call it. I'll address my remark about David being a hypocrite. In this particular situation I find hypocrisy in David's assertion that changing the the long established rules of TV is a bad thing, and referring to the people who would change them as "smug". When it was David who smugly labeled anyone who thought an African american playing Spiderman was bad as a racist. I'm sure a minority of those people were. I would say though that the majority of them were rebelling against the change to the long tradition of characters background. And labeling them all as racists in a dismissive manor makes you a might bit more smug in my opinion than an artist trying to push the bounds and definitions of their medium.
Me personally, I don't give a shit about Spiderman or Classic TV. Bring on Donald Glover or whoever for Spiderman, and give me great long form story telling on my TV.