Log in

No account? Create an account
editorial time - love like me ・ 日記
non solum memento mori, memento vivere sed etiam
editorial time
気持: philosophical
音楽: aiko - 光のさすあしもと
i have figured out why i hate episodic drama (real-life as well as animated). it's not planned. there's room for all kinds of inconsistencies and such to be masked by the fact that the continuous storyline takes a backseat to the episodic action. in a cohesive dramatic series (i'm thinking things like Gundam, Star Wars, 24, &c.), the storyline has been mapped out beforehand so that it all makes sense and there are a minimum of inconsistencies. on the other hand, your average American drama series (Buffy, Angel, whatever other nonsense they're showing) is made up on the fly by a varying team of writers, some of whom may or may not even know what happened in the previous episode, much less the previous season. sitcoms are the same way, but in sitcoms the emphasis is on comedy, not on dramatic tension and richness of storytelling, so plot inconsistencies are more readily forgiven.

of course, manga is like that too. manga artists never know whether or not a story is going to be popular, just like all the people involved in a tv series don't know whether or not their show is going to get good ratings. the big difference there, though, is that, in general, manga writers don't have a summer-long hiatus to lose touch with their work, and the same artist is in charge of the story from start to finish (they may change editors, but that's a different story). furthermore, when manga becomes anime, the plot is usually further revised, both to fit the number of episodes the animation company wants to make, and to fix any inconsistencies that have been noted.

no offense to anyone, but i'll never consider something like Buffy or Angel good drama, because it's not. it's something we're meant to consume and forget about and wait for the next one to come along.
Link Previous Entry Share Next Entry
From: lobotomymonkey Date: Wednesday 22nd January 2003 09.24 (UTC) (Link)
I think that what you don't understand is that, whether the inconsistencies are intentional or accidental, it is fun to discuss something like a TV show with friends who watch the same show. And fun to extrapolate, and to draw your own conclusions, and see if you're right.

And besides, there was a Dragon Ball Z reference in last night's Buffy, you might be appreciative of that.
valamelmeo From: valamelmeo Date: Wednesday 22nd January 2003 09.40 (UTC) (Link)
i didn't say anything about anyone's right to talk about those sorts of shows. i'm just giving fair warning as to where that stuff stands in my estimation, and why people's talking about them generates comments from me that are more acid than usual, especially when people seem to be talking about them just for the sake of conversation (evidenced by the fact that nothing of real consequence is said).

that, and the whole point of extrapolating what future plot developments might arise is completely lost when it comes to these shows that are made up on the fly, because at any point a writer can completely disregard most of the show's history and take it in a completely different direction that is wholly unfaithful to the previous plot. look at what happened to Star Trek, canon and otherwise (though canon hasn't veered as far off as non-canon stuff has). my point is that it's not any fun to try to predict the future when no one knows what that is. you're not trying to predict the machinations of the author's carefully-thought-out plot twists, you're trying to predict his whims. much less satisfying imo.
From: lobotomymonkey Date: Wednesday 22nd January 2003 09.55 (UTC) (Link)
You'd be surprised how far in advance certain plot-twists are thought of, in sci-fi-ish or drama-ish types of shows. Buffy in particular has been very good with this sort of thing. Not perfect, but very good.
And even when they're not, the writers will put throwaway events/lines into the show which they can always use later as post-foreshadowing. Even if it wasn't intended at the time, it's fun to pick up on that, and possibly even influence what it means if you discuss things in the right circles.
valamelmeo From: valamelmeo Date: Wednesday 22nd January 2003 10.09 (UTC) (Link)
that annoys me to no end.

but i was talking about its merit as a work of art, not the response it elicits in its target demographic, which i'm sure are the sorts of people who want those sorts of devices and means of influencing the storyline.

personally, i'd rather see something that was created by someone with a vision of what they wanted it to be that stands on its own merit, not something that was created to provide maximum appeal to certain types of people and can only stand on what people think of it.
From: lobotomymonkey Date: Wednesday 22nd January 2003 10.23 (UTC) (Link)
Nothing is appealing to everyone. And no art is created in a vacuum either.
valamelmeo From: valamelmeo Date: Wednesday 22nd January 2003 10.39 (UTC) (Link)
i suppose i have unnaturally high expectations for the world, then. i just can't respect something that's created by and for public opinion.
From: lobotomymonkey Date: Wednesday 22nd January 2003 10.49 (UTC) (Link)
Like the government?
valamelmeo From: valamelmeo Date: Wednesday 22nd January 2003 11.36 (UTC) (Link)
is there a reason the government deserves my respect?
valamelmeo From: valamelmeo Date: Wednesday 22nd January 2003 15.10 (UTC) (Link)
that inspires gratitude, but not respect.
raditzsex From: raditzsex Date: Thursday 23rd January 2003 02.52 (UTC) (Link)
Now you're just whining. Television is not art! Television is entertainment! Movies are entertainment! People create these things with the sole purpose of entertaining others. If someone makes a movie or tv show which has a purpose other than to entertain, they've chosen the wrong career. Even documentaries are created to entertain. Why do you think "educational television" gets a bad rap? Because it's (generally) not entertaining. The stuff you like from tv and music was created for entertainment purposes. Usually the best stuff is what also entertains the creator, so it might appear to be "art", but it's entertainment.

Now, I'll agree that the work will suffer when the focus is on crankin' out shows, rather than on creating a good product every time. (Hence why some eps of Nicktoons suck, while almost no eps of CN shows suck.) But that doesn't mean it wasn't created with the sole purpose of entertaining others. By saying you don't respect something created by and for public opinion is saying you don't respect any entertainers at all. And you may well not. But I think that's disrespecting some of the most talented and creative people in the free world.
valamelmeo From: valamelmeo Date: Thursday 23rd January 2003 13.39 (UTC) (Link)
my take on this is that art and entertainment can and do overlap. a lot of art is not very entertaining, and a lot of entertainment is pure rubbish, artistically speaking. but even assuming that all entertainment falls under the general category of art in one sense or another, or whether you assume that no entertainment can ever be considered true art, you come to the same conclusion that when the focus is on the quantity of output and the adherence to a strict schedule, the quality of the work suffers greatly.

what i meant is that i don't and can't respect entertainers who spend all their energy focusing on pleasing others and giving the public what they want rather than giving the fullest of their creativity even when it takes a direction that may not be particularly entertaining to the majority of the public. i do respect entertainers who follow their own vision and create the types of entertainment they want to without excessive caluculating and tailoring it so as to provide maximum marketability and revenue. that is to say, i don't respect most celebrities in general, or really anyone who makes how much money or popularity they can attain a core value.