Quote:
Originally Posted by DiapDealer
Weird, maybe. But hardly surprising. 
My beef was simply:
Seemed pretty clear to me that pwalker8 was putting whatever he means by "generic" on the opposite side of the equation from quality. And that those who choose new and original (as opposed to rewatching), do so at the expense of quality. It's a crap statement any way you slice it. |
It seems to me that you just like snarking because it makes you feel superior.
What does the word generic mean - According to Merriam-Webster one of the definitions of generic is
"having no particularly distinctive quality or application "
Apparently in your experience, you have never seen people channel surf or simply put something on just to have something on. I have. As I pointed out the extraordinarily obvious that fact even the worse rated program on tv has people who watch it. Are you trying to argue that the worse rated program has a particularly distinctive quality or application? For that matter, even the worse YouTube video has someone who will watch it, just because they noticed it. No particularly distinctive quality, they just were browsing and happened to come across it.
Hollywood use to churn out what was called b-grade movies. Many times, it was simply a generic western churned out in less that a week. John Wayne made a lot of this sort of movie before he became a star. Typically, it was just filler to keep the audience occupied before the main feature came on. By most sane definitions, this is generic programming, not that I expect now that you have driven you stake in the ground that you will admit the obvious.
There is a lot of content out there that has no distinctive quality. People still watch it.