Fast Learner said:
It's worth pointing out, I think, that I don't mean by my comment that no one should find the show to be great; rather, I'm just saying that I don't believe the show's producers, writers, and directors are trying to make "great" TV, in a Hollywood sense. They're not trying to make a show that critics will roundly praise, not trying to make a show that will last for decades as some of the best entertainment ever, not trying to make something that will be watched and examined in media classes for years, not trying to make something that changes people's lives and how they view the world.
That doesn't make it any kind of "bad," just not something that people will consider "great" for years to come. Does that make any sense?
Yeah, I definitely see what you're saying, and I think I agree with it. They're not out to change the genre, just out to entertain. That makes sense, though I think I would use the word "classic" instead. I think it's more a wording subtext that I perceive in that if something isn't "great," I think there's a subtle undercurrent of "it sucks."
For example, I really loved The Adventures of Brisco County, Jr.
Brisco County, Jr was awesome!
(snipped excellent examples)
These are shows that changed my perspective on either the world at large or on what television could do. They are largely critically praised. They have been or will be studied in television writing or directing classes. Many of them changed, in at least some respects, what people thought television could do. They are, from my perspective and that of a large number of others, great television (ok, not
John from Cincinnati, but that's just ignorance
).
Reaper doesn't fit in that group. I still like it, though.
Again, for this position I can see what you're saying. I'm not particularly convinced that greatness can be "made," per se, and I think social climate has a large part in influencing greatness, but I do see what you're saying. I would use as a counter-example
Firefly. It would fulfill, in my opinion at least, all the criteria for greatness... but it didn't make it, and is no more than a blip on the radar.
Brown Jenkin said:
1. Take an established concept and do it better than most things in its class. For Sitcoms that is shows like The Mary Tyler Moore Show or Seinfeld or for Sci-Fi for things like B5.
2. Shows that manage to last for very very long periods of time. Things like Gunsmoke (20 seasons), The Simpsons (19 Seasons), or Law & Order (18 Seasons).
3. Shows that redefine or create new categories. Things like this are what the academics study. Things like Hill Street Blues, Sopranos, or I Love Lucy.
4. Shows that may not last or be outstanding in their own right but hit some cultural cord that propels them, their stars or certain ideas permanently into general society. This is shows like Star Trek, Baywatch (Yeah I know it sucks but who in the world doesn't know it), or the 1960's Batman.
<snip>
Pushing Daisies (#1 and #3)
I think the only one that a show can really do is #3.
#2 is not necessarily an indication of greatness, in my mind. For example, I know many Simpsons fans who think the show should have been pulled off the air a long time ago, despite being groundbreaking (which would make it great). Conversely, I think most shows that people would define as great weren't actually on all that long, relatively speaking. I think #4 is simply culturally relevant, so it may be lasting... but I don't think many people would call any of those shows "great". As for #1... I think you can be the best for a time, but I also think that "best" is a subjective term. I would posit by that definition that Friends is more "great" than Seinfeld, but I personally think the latter is by far the more seminal work in sitcoms.
Also, I wanted to say that I think #1 and #3 are pretty contradictory. Pushing Daisies is definitely #3, but it can't be the best in a field/concept it's the only show in.
