Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="LightPhoenix" data-source="post: 3929206" data-attributes="member: 115">Yeah, I definitely see what you're saying, and I think I agree with it.&nbsp; They're not out to change the genre, just out to entertain.&nbsp; That makes sense, though I think I would use the word &quot;classic&quot; instead.&nbsp; I think it's more a wording subtext that I perceive in that if something isn't &quot;great,&quot; I think there's a subtle undercurrent of &quot;it sucks.&quot;Brisco County, Jr was awesome!Again, for this position I can see what you're saying.&nbsp; I'm not particularly convinced that greatness can be &quot;made,&quot; per se, and I think social climate has a large part in influencing greatness, but I do see what you're saying.&nbsp; I would use as a counter-example Firefly.&nbsp; 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.I think the only one that a show can really do is #3.#2 is not necessarily an indication of greatness, in my mind.&nbsp; 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).&nbsp; Conversely, I think most shows that people would define as great weren't actually on all that long, relatively speaking.&nbsp; 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 &quot;great&quot;.&nbsp; As for #1... I think you can be the best for a time, but I also think that &quot;best&quot; is a subjective term.&nbsp; I would posit by that definition that Friends is more &quot;great&quot; 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.&nbsp; Pushing Daisies is definitely #3, but it can't be the best in a field/concept it's the only show in.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="LightPhoenix, post: 3929206, member: 115"] 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." Brisco County, Jr was awesome! 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 [i]Firefly[/i]. 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. 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. [/QUOTE]

Verification