Kindle Vella

[davidfor]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

A good example of a rebooted mess (not nearly as good as the original) is Battlestar Galactica. The remake is awful.

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

Remind me to never trust your opinion again.

I think it means he has lost any credibility he had. But, do we listen to his recommendations and do the opposite?

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

It seems to me that you just like snarking because it makes you feel superior.

You really need to stop worrying about my motives for taking issue with some of your stated opinions. It also wouldn't hurt for you to get over your snark aversion. It's odd.

Originally Posted by pwalker8

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.

What a lovely dissertation on "generic" as it applies to television content. The only problem I see that it doesn't even remotely address the falseness of your claim that people who prefer new and original (and don't rewatch show or movies) do so at the expense of quality. Not to mention the false equivalence you've made in suggesting that new and original equals "new generic" in the first place. Read your own words again and tell me how anyone couldn't have taken them any other way than I did.

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Some video consumers want new generic stuff, and don't re-watch shows or movies. They want new and original over quality.

Still a terribly inaccurate statement. As if "quality" and "new and original" are somehow mutually exclusive. But whatever. You clearly can't look past a little snark to see the errors of your own words. So feel free to continue to be wrong. Someone has to be.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

Remind me to never trust your opinion again.

I actually liked the original more than the remake, but that's more a situation of with the original, I was in college watching it with a bunch of other guys in the dorms. It wasn't bad for when it was made. For some reason, I never really got into the re-make, though I know a number of people who really like it. I don't think I would call it a mess, though.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

I actually liked the original more than the remake, but that's more a situation of with the original, I was in college watching it with a bunch of other guys in the dorms. It wasn't bad for when it was made. For some reason, I never really got into the re-make, though I know a number of people who really like it. I don't think I would call it a mess, though.

IMHO, if remake is not better then the original, then it should not be made. Another show that should never have been remade was One Day at a Time. Netflix did a poor job with the remake.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

You really need to stop worrying about my motives for taking issue with some of your stated opinions. It also wouldn't hurt for you to get over your snark aversion. It's odd.


What a lovely dissertation on "generic" as it applies to television content. The only problem I see that it doesn't even remotely address the falseness of your claim that people who prefer new and original (and don't rewatch show or movies) do so at the expense of quality. Not to mention the false equivalence you've made in suggesting that new and original equals "new generic" in the first place. Read your own words again and tell me how anyone couldn't have taken them any other way than I did.



Still a terribly inaccurate statement.

I see nothing odd about thinking that running around insulting people and thinking you are clever while doing so is sophomoric and undesirable. Maybe you should get over your need to put other posters down. It's certainly unappealing behavior in a moderator.

I also so no reason to try to address your attempt to spin what I actually said into something different. I used the word generic in a manner consistent with the dictionary definition of the word. It's not my concern that you don't understand the usage. It's also not my concern that you fail to grasp what I actually said and now try to spin it some other way. I was listing varies things people desire in media. The list was neither all inclusive nor are each category exclusive to other categories, nor was it meant to be. I think that fairly obvious to anyone who actually read what I said.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

I also so no reason to try to address your attempt to spin what I actually said into something different. I used the word generic in a manner consistent with the dictionary definition of the word. It's not my concern that you don't understand the usage. It's also not my concern that you fail to grasp what I actually said and now try to spin it some other way. I was listing varies things people desire in media. The list was neither all inclusive nor are each category exclusive to other categories, nor was it meant to be. I think that fairly obvious to anyone who actually read what I said.

You keep telling yourself that. You clearly need the reaasurance.

Also...you should try counting the people I "run around insulting" around here. You might find it enlightenting.

[Deskisamess]

On the subject of "serial" books...has anyone heard of "The Flower Letters"? It is a subscription service for $10.00 a month, or $124 per year where you receive 2 snail mail letters a month, telling a story during the time of WW2.

Here's the blurb:

Our stories are told through letters written between characters. Our first collection is told through 24 letters.

Subscribe and look forward to receiving 2 letters every month, for a year. Each month, one of the letters will contain a postcard you can send to a friend, or keep for your own collection. Be on the lookout for a few surprises too!

Our stories are interactive historical fiction and center around a certain era or historical event. We hope this inspires you to research these events to enrich your experience with The Flower Letters.

Also, be sure to save your letters - you might need them later!

I'm not seeing anything to make this sound tempting or interesting. Supposedly each letter is hand folded and stuffed. I'm not a fan of books that are basically correspondence. I did enjoy Up the Down Staircase years ago, but it was more memos than actual letters.

[issybird]

Originally Posted by Deskisamess

On the subject of "serial" books...has anyone heard of "The Flower Letters"? It is a subscription service for $10.00 a month, or $124 per year where you receive 2 snail mail letters a month, telling a story during the time of WW2.

Here's the blurb:

Our stories are told through letters written between characters. Our first collection is told through 24 letters.

Subscribe and look forward to receiving 2 letters every month, for a year. Each month, one of the letters will contain a postcard you can send to a friend, or keep for your own collection. Be on the lookout for a few surprises too!

Our stories are interactive historical fiction and center around a certain era or historical event. We hope this inspires you to research these events to enrich your experience with The Flower Letters.

Also, be sure to save your letters - you might need them later!

I'm not seeing anything to make this sound tempting or interesting. Supposedly each letter is hand folded and stuffed. I'm not a fan of books that are basically correspondence. I did enjoy Up the Down Staircase years ago, but it was more memos than actual letters.

I do like epistolary novels, done well. However, this has all the earmarks of grossly overpriced twee trash. I would be absolutely gobsmacked if the letters weren’t chock full of anachronisms, that 21st century take on how things must have been during WWII.

[ApK]

Originally Posted by issybird

I do like epistolary novels, done well. However, this has all the earmarks of grossly overpriced twee trash. I would be absolutely gobsmacked if the letters weren’t chock full of anachronisms, that 21st century take on how things must have been during WWII.

I had to look up 'epistolary' AND 'twee!' I don't often need to look up two in as many sentences.

By the way, if I ever open a store that sells electronic handguns, I'm calling it "The Epistolary." We will, of course, take mail orders.

ApK

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

You really need to stop worrying about my motives for taking issue with some of your stated opinions. It also wouldn't hurt for you to get over your snark aversion. It's odd.

I love me some high-class snark. Count me in.

What a lovely dissertation on "generic" as it applies to television content. The only problem I see that it doesn't even remotely address the falseness of your claim that people who prefer new and original (and don't rewatch show or movies) do so at the expense of quality. Not to mention the false equivalence you've made in suggesting that new and original equals "new generic" in the first place. Read your own words again and tell me how anyone couldn't have taken them any other way than I did.

I defy anyone to tell me that if I choose to rewatch The Wire, that I'm choosing generic s**t over quality. I could probably rewatch that show every second year and still luxuriate in the sheer uniquity and quality of it. I still think it's the best thing over done on episodic TV.

Still a terribly inaccurate statement. As if "quality" and "new and original" are somehow mutually exclusive. But whatever. You clearly can't look past a little snark to see the errors of your own words. So feel free to continue to be wrong. Someone has to be.

Oh, hell, I'm still recovering from the idea that Jon actually knows that One Day At A Time was remade for NFLX, or that he knows that the remake is sh*te and the original wasn't. I may be traumatized all day by that.

Hitch

[Deskisamess]

Originally Posted by ApK

I had to look up 'epistolary' AND 'twee!' I don't often need to look up two in as many sentences.

By the way, if I ever open a store that sells electronic handguns, I'm calling it "The Epistolary." We will, of course, take mail orders.

ApK

I knew there was a word for the type of book I was talking about, so I knew what epistolary meant, but had to look up "twee" as well.

Give me old shows any day over most of the dreck trotted out as sitcoms today. We've been recording Barney Miller and have watched through the whole series.
Even as old as it is, it's still better than most shows for the last 30+ years. (Saw Hal Linden and Barbara Eden locally live on stage in 2019 in "Love Letters" with my mom and my husband)

Love Frazier as well, except for a few episodes with the gal from SNL. It seems every time a new show seems good to us, it gets cancelled. Matthew Perry was in a show called "Go On" that had great potential IMO. But it barely got out of the gate. If there is any evidence of smart clever writing, the masses seems to not like it. But 2 Broke Girls was on 6 seasons. Gah.

[Pajamaman]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Yes, some people want generic stuff, that's why it gets produced. Even the lowest rated programs on TV have someone watching them.

I'm not sure that I agree as such, but I think I know what you are trying to say.

I'm thinking particularly of Netflix. I find most of the shows...very sameish. Nothing stands out about most of them. The acting and scripts are formulaic. So yes, I would say they are generic, and yes, people like to watch them.

At the same time, those same viewers probably enjoy something a bit more distinctive, creative, original, better, and yes, less generic. For example, Stranger Things was a big hit. And I like Lucifer because of the main actor is so stand out and refreshing. The scripts are varying in quality, but it's the main actor that makes it above average.

It's the same with music, I think. It's hard to find non-generic music. The singers and songs sound similar, at least to me. But others like it. Yes, from my perspective at least, they do like generic stuff. Personally, it bores me to tears. The same with books.

It's the lightning in the bottle, as the movie-makers call it, and the reason computers cannot write good music or books.

[Pajamaman]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

You really need to stop worrying about my motives for taking issue with some of your stated opinions.

No, I think he takes issue with how you express yourself. There is often something very acerbic in your tone. Are you aware you are doing it?

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by Deskisamess

I knew there was a word for the type of book I was talking about, so I knew what epistolary meant, but had to look up "twee" as well.

Give me old shows any day over most of the dreck trotted out as sitcoms today. We've been recording Barney Miller and have watched through the whole series.
Even as old as it is, it's still better than most shows for the last 30+ years. (Saw Hal Linden and Barbara Eden locally live on stage in 2019 in "Love Letters" with my mom and my husband)

Love Frazier as well, except for a few episodes with the gal from SNL. It seems every time a new show seems good to us, it gets cancelled. Matthew Perry was in a show called "Go On" that had great potential IMO. But it barely got out of the gate. If there is any evidence of smart clever writing, the masses seems to not like it. But 2 Broke Girls was on 6 seasons. Gah.

I can rewatch quality anytime. Clever writing, however, is invariably the death of a show. If we had the sort of snappy patter evinced in your avatar, for example, it would probably not make it past 6 shows. Sadly. (I'm still fraught over the idea that Johnny bloody Depp apparently wanted to REMAKE TTM. I mean, why screw with perfection?)

Hitch

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by Deskisamess

Give me old shows any day over most of the dreck trotted out as sitcoms today. We've been recording Barney Miller and have watched through the whole series.
Even as old as it is, it's still better than most shows for the last 30+ years. (Saw Hal Linden and Barbara Eden locally live on stage in 2019 in "Love Letters" with my mom and my husband).

I did love Barney Miller, and can still re-watch old episodes. But for every one of the "old classics" that I loved when I was younger--and can still watch, there's tons that after trying to re-watch... well, lets just say that I simply can't believe there was ever a version of me that found them remotely enjoyable.

So I mostly don't bother any more. I figure it's better to have pleasant memories of TV shows I used to think were great, than it is to repeatedly hit myself in the head with a "My god, how did I ever enjoy this garbage?" brick.

There's always been garbage on TV. I'll leave it up to others to decide for themselves whether that ratio has changed over the years. That discussion is a bit too "you kids get off my lawn" for my taste.