Once Upon A Time

[Umbran]

I didn't say it was badly executed.

I know you didn't. In the OP, you remark on how the concept is stupid, but you like it anyway, as if that was somehow surprising, or something.

My point is merely that the dumb premise doesn't really indicate whether anyone's going to like the show, because *all* premises are dumb.

 

[Ed_Laprade]

I watched it last night on compy and was... underwhelmed. Rumplestiltskin was a Dwarf, so what was that shiny whatever supposed to be?

And if time has been standing still in that town for 28 years, how did the kid have a computer? For that matter, nothing about it looked especially like 1983.

Also, why did the sheriff give Emma such a disbelieving look when she told him about the wolf in the road? They're in frikkin Maine! You know, where moose roam the streets.

So, if the first thing they're going to do after establishing the ground rules for the show is to break them, they'll do it without me.

 

[LightPhoenix]

And if time has been standing still in that town for 28 years, how did the kid have a computer? For that matter, nothing about it looked especially like 1983.

I thought it was part of the extended metaphor of the curse. It wasn't that time was standing still; it was that their normal lives were.

 

[Janx]

We thought it was interesting. I think the intriguing part is seeing how the fariry tale people are translated to the modern world.

Dr. Rush = rumplestiltskin. makes sense.

 

[BrooklynKnight]

I'm giving it a commitment of a few weeks, but I think the premier really should have been two hours.

 

[Umbran]

Also, why did the sheriff give Emma such a disbelieving look when she told him about the wolf in the road? They're in frikkin Maine! You know, where moose roam the streets.

Maine does not have a substantial wolf population, and hasn't since the 1890s.

 

[Felon]

My point is merely that the dumb premise doesn't really indicate whether anyone's going to like the show, because *all* premises are dumb.

This is an exceedingly reductive remark. All premises are not dumb, and even if they were a show could still be called dumb in a relative sense. So, it's not all six or a half-dozen.

But certainly you are correct that dumbness has little to do with an IP's popularity. Many smart shows die on the vine, many vapid shows prosper. Then somewhere in the middle we have Chuck.

 

[Hand of Evil]

Kind of wondering, who the wolf is. But then, sometimes a wolf is just a wolf.

 

[Umbran]

This is an exceedingly reductive remark.

Yep. But reductive doesn't necessarily mean bad. A gastrique is reductive too, and quite tasty when properly applied

All premises are not dumb

I simply disagree. Reduce a show to a sentence or two of premise, flat and without the adornment that comes from the execution, and it'll sound pretty dumb. Even for shows that are considered highly intelligent and interesting, the bald premise itself isn't the strong point, nor should it be. I'd argue that if it is long enough to show that it is intelligent, then it is no longer just a premise or concept.

Let us take... Cosmos, the old series starring the brilliant Carl Sagan - arguably the most intelligent TV mini-series ever. Premise? "Geeky man explains the universe to the masses." Several shows before and since have tried that, and weren't worth the effort. Unless you realize exactly who that man is, and what production values are going to back that show, and how good the scripts will be, it sounds like a dumb idea, sure to flop.

 

[Felon]

Yep. But reductive doesn't necessarily mean bad. A gastrique is reductive too, and quite tasty when properly applied

Oh, that's a good one, but I think you know where the potential for fallacy lies in a reductive argument.

Let us take... Cosmos, the old series starring the brilliant Carl Sagan - arguably the most intelligent TV mini-series ever. Premise? "Geeky man explains the universe to the masses." Several shows before and since have tried that, and weren't worth the effort. Unless you realize exactly who that man is, and what production values are going to back that show, and how good the scripts will be, it sounds like a dumb idea, sure to flop.

You can put a spin on anything, but that doesn't prove all premises are dumb, simply that it's not hard to make something sound dumb if you try. Conversely, marketing agencies are often able to make the most vapid works of fiction sound as if they were based on deep and intriguing premises. This does not, however, support an assertion that all premises are inherently deep and intriguing.

Indeed, that leads us to a far better indicator of a dumb premise: listening to someone who has no interest in demeaning the work attempt to explain its premise.

Johnny Carson used to have a yearly bit on the Tonight Show, and likely Leno does too, where he would read TV Guide's fall schedule. The premises of shows were written in an objective voice, but some clearly sounded dumber than the rest. "An ex-cop back from the dead solves crimes with the aid of his indestructible talking car" is one that will always stay with me, because I'd never heard of Knight Rider before then. Sounded so goofy I could've sworn it was a comedy.

But I can certainly describe Cosmos and many other shows in an objective, netural without them sounding dumb. When I heard the premise for Breaking Bad, for instance, it sounded like a clever idea to me. OTOH, shows like Knight Rider or Once Upon a Time actually need some spin to sound less than rididculous.