The board's server will undergo upgrade maintenance tonight, Nov 5, 2014, beginning approximately around 10 PM ET. Prepare for some possible down time during this process.
Was Married With Children still on tv? Now THAT'S real progress.
I fucking love that show. Everyone always wants to talk abou Roseanne as this major benchmark but then they don't bring up Married With Children. There would be no Roseanne without MWC.
Post subject: Re: What are you currently watching on TV?
Posted: Sat July 22, 2017 9:10 pm
Looks Like a Cat
Joined: Wed April 20, 2016 7:11 pm Posts: 14251
Watched the first two of Big Little Lies last night. Ok I guess. It was the wife's call.
_________________ "The fatal flaw of all revolutionaries is that they know how to tear things down but don't have a f**king clue about how to build anything."
Friends is just as unwatchable as The Big Bang Theory or 2 Broke Girls or any other piece of shit sitcom on TV today
I would argue that Friends is way better than either of those other two you mentioned. And it was far more interesting and progressive then those shows pretend to be now. But I've only seen a few episodes of 2BG. Maybe I'm wrong on that one.
Post subject: Re: What are you currently watching on TV?
Posted: Sat July 22, 2017 9:13 pm
An enigma of a man shaped hole in the wall between reality and the soul of the devil.
Joined: Tue January 01, 2013 5:13 pm Posts: 39816 Location: 6000 feet beyond man and time.
durdencommatyler wrote:
tragabigzanda wrote:
durdencommatyler wrote:
tragabigzanda wrote:
How is Friends "shockingly progressive" when it's about six financially comfortable straight white people living in Manhattan, engaging in silly consumerism and casual heteronormative sex? The Jeffersons, Roseanne, The Cosby Show -- THOSE are progressive network sitcoms. Friends is literally as safe as network television comes.
Friends biggest flaw is that it's white-washed. Absolutely. But taking race out of it, how many other shows were there in the early 90s that featured complex women, that featured homosexual characters, that tackled trans issues? Now, it's not as progressive. If the show started airing today we wouldn't be having this conversation. But for 1994? Are you kidding me? And the way that it dealt with so many of those issues, issues that a lot of network shows today still won't touch, with such a lack of judgement was so interesting.
I'm not saying it was perfect. But for what it was: a major network sitcom in 1994, I think you have to acknowledge what the show did and how well it did it.
Friends biggest flaw is that it developed six great characters, and then beat them into the ground for the entire series by never letting them behave outside their prescribed roles...
I wouldn't say that Friends "dealt" with issues at all; it was never even remotely an "issues" show. The show's inclusion of LGBTQ side-characters was somewhat refreshing in its lack of judgement, but when did it ever elevate any of those characters into something more than one-note archetypes?
And "complex women"?! Are you bonkers? There was not one single complex character on that show. Phoebe was flighty and sexually empowered. Monica was uptight and sexually empowered. Rachel was career-oriented and sexually empowered. They are cartoon characters next to Edith Bunker, or Laurie Metcalf's Jackie character on Roseanne.
I completely disagree with your first point. It sounds to me like you're mistaking natural character development in spite of writing for "never letting them behave outside their prescribed roles." This characters change in major ways. And it's entirely organic. But if you bailed on the thing in S2, then maybe that's why you never saw it.
No, it wasn't an issues show. And that's my point. I think all the LGBTQ characters were more than one-note. Even Chandler's father, which is arguably the one to take the greatest issue with, was still a rounded person.
It sounds to me like you have your preferences and your mind is made up. Which is fine. I'm not going to argue preference with you. And I'm not here to tell you that All in the Family and Rosanne aren't amazing shows. They are. But if you think the ladies you mentioned are so much more complex than the ladies on Friends, then that to me just reads like pure bias. Or rather that you're keying into aspects of those other characters which were never meant to be part of the Friends and you're holding against the show for not aping those aspects.
You are honestly going to argue that he's biased here? You of all people?
How is Friends "shockingly progressive" when it's about six financially comfortable straight white people living in Manhattan, engaging in silly consumerism and casual heteronormative sex? The Jeffersons, Roseanne, The Cosby Show -- THOSE are progressive network sitcoms. Friends is literally as safe as network television comes.
Friends biggest flaw is that it's white-washed. Absolutely. But taking race out of it, how many other shows were there in the early 90s that featured complex women, that featured homosexual characters, that tackled trans issues? Now, it's not as progressive. If the show started airing today we wouldn't be having this conversation. But for 1994? Are you kidding me? And the way that it dealt with so many of those issues, issues that a lot of network shows today still won't touch, with such a lack of judgement was so interesting.
I'm not saying it was perfect. But for what it was: a major network sitcom in 1994, I think you have to acknowledge what the show did and how well it did it.
Friends biggest flaw is that it developed six great characters, and then beat them into the ground for the entire series by never letting them behave outside their prescribed roles...
I wouldn't say that Friends "dealt" with issues at all; it was never even remotely an "issues" show. The show's inclusion of LGBTQ side-characters was somewhat refreshing in its lack of judgement, but when did it ever elevate any of those characters into something more than one-note archetypes?
And "complex women"?! Are you bonkers? There was not one single complex character on that show. Phoebe was flighty and sexually empowered. Monica was uptight and sexually empowered. Rachel was career-oriented and sexually empowered. They are cartoon characters next to Edith Bunker, or Laurie Metcalf's Jackie character on Roseanne.
I completely disagree with your first point. It sounds to me like you're mistaking natural character development in spite of writing for "never letting them behave outside their prescribed roles." This characters change in major ways. And it's entirely organic. But if you bailed on the thing in S2, then maybe that's why you never saw it.
No, it wasn't an issues show. And that's my point. I think all the LGBTQ characters were more than one-note. Even Chandler's father, which is arguably the one to take the greatest issue with, was still a rounded person.
It sounds to me like you have your preferences and your mind is made up. Which is fine. I'm not going to argue preference with you. And I'm not here to tell you that All in the Family and Rosanne aren't amazing shows. They are. But if you think the ladies you mentioned are so much more complex than the ladies on Friends, then that to me just reads like pure bias. Or rather that you're keying into aspects of those other characters which were never meant to be part of the Friends and you're holding against the show for not aping those aspects.
You are honestly going to argue that he's biased here? You of all people?
Go on... Say what you want to say, Burt. I've never known you to hold back before. I'm a little shocked, actually.
Post subject: Re: What are you currently watching on TV?
Posted: Sat July 22, 2017 9:18 pm
Looks Like a Cat
Joined: Wed April 20, 2016 7:11 pm Posts: 14251
durdencommatyler wrote:
LoathedVermin72 wrote:
Friends is just as unwatchable as The Big Bang Theory or 2 Broke Girls or any other piece of shit sitcom on TV today
I would argue that Friends is way better than either of those other two you mentioned. And it was far more interesting and progressive then those shows pretend to be now. But I've only seen a few episodes of 2BG. Maybe I'm wrong on that one.
2BG is about as funny as Beasts of No Nation. Friends, while hardly revolutionary, was relatable for millions and was often funny. But, and I will accept the hate here, Scrubs is the benchmark sitcom for me.
_________________ "The fatal flaw of all revolutionaries is that they know how to tear things down but don't have a f**king clue about how to build anything."
Friends is just as unwatchable as The Big Bang Theory or 2 Broke Girls or any other piece of shit sitcom on TV today
I would argue that Friends is way better than either of those other two you mentioned. And it was far more interesting and progressive then those shows pretend to be now. But I've only seen a few episodes of 2BG. Maybe I'm wrong on that one.
2BG is about as funny as Beasts of No Nation. Friends, while hardly revolutionary, was relatable for millions and was often funny. But, and I will accept the hate here, Scrubs is the benchmark sitcom for me.
I like Scrubs a lot, too. Still haven't seen the whole thing but I like what I have seen.
Post subject: Re: What are you currently watching on TV?
Posted: Sat July 22, 2017 9:24 pm
An enigma of a man shaped hole in the wall between reality and the soul of the devil.
Joined: Tue January 01, 2013 5:13 pm Posts: 39816 Location: 6000 feet beyond man and time.
durdencommatyler wrote:
BurtReynolds wrote:
durdencommatyler wrote:
tragabigzanda wrote:
durdencommatyler wrote:
tragabigzanda wrote:
How is Friends "shockingly progressive" when it's about six financially comfortable straight white people living in Manhattan, engaging in silly consumerism and casual heteronormative sex? The Jeffersons, Roseanne, The Cosby Show -- THOSE are progressive network sitcoms. Friends is literally as safe as network television comes.
Friends biggest flaw is that it's white-washed. Absolutely. But taking race out of it, how many other shows were there in the early 90s that featured complex women, that featured homosexual characters, that tackled trans issues? Now, it's not as progressive. If the show started airing today we wouldn't be having this conversation. But for 1994? Are you kidding me? And the way that it dealt with so many of those issues, issues that a lot of network shows today still won't touch, with such a lack of judgement was so interesting.
I'm not saying it was perfect. But for what it was: a major network sitcom in 1994, I think you have to acknowledge what the show did and how well it did it.
Friends biggest flaw is that it developed six great characters, and then beat them into the ground for the entire series by never letting them behave outside their prescribed roles...
I wouldn't say that Friends "dealt" with issues at all; it was never even remotely an "issues" show. The show's inclusion of LGBTQ side-characters was somewhat refreshing in its lack of judgement, but when did it ever elevate any of those characters into something more than one-note archetypes?
And "complex women"?! Are you bonkers? There was not one single complex character on that show. Phoebe was flighty and sexually empowered. Monica was uptight and sexually empowered. Rachel was career-oriented and sexually empowered. They are cartoon characters next to Edith Bunker, or Laurie Metcalf's Jackie character on Roseanne.
I completely disagree with your first point. It sounds to me like you're mistaking natural character development in spite of writing for "never letting them behave outside their prescribed roles." This characters change in major ways. And it's entirely organic. But if you bailed on the thing in S2, then maybe that's why you never saw it.
No, it wasn't an issues show. And that's my point. I think all the LGBTQ characters were more than one-note. Even Chandler's father, which is arguably the one to take the greatest issue with, was still a rounded person.
It sounds to me like you have your preferences and your mind is made up. Which is fine. I'm not going to argue preference with you. And I'm not here to tell you that All in the Family and Rosanne aren't amazing shows. They are. But if you think the ladies you mentioned are so much more complex than the ladies on Friends, then that to me just reads like pure bias. Or rather that you're keying into aspects of those other characters which were never meant to be part of the Friends and you're holding against the show for not aping those aspects.
You are honestly going to argue that he's biased here? You of all people?
Go on... Say what you want to say, Burt. I've never known you to hold back before. I'm a little shocked, actually.
"It just sounds like you're biased, which is fine and I'm not gonna argue with you, but I'm going to passive-aggressively argue with you anyway and reiterate that you just sound biased, then respond with "oh was I doing that? I didn't think so, but that's your opinion, which is fine", so the conversation will end here because opinions. Now excuse me while I treat every attractive woman on tv not wearing a bikini a the second coming of Susan B. Anthony because I RESPAKT WAMEN SO MUCH..."
Post subject: Re: What are you currently watching on TV?
Posted: Sat July 22, 2017 9:26 pm
Production Police
Joined: Tue September 24, 2013 5:56 pm Posts: 47122 Location: In the oatmeal aisle wearing a Shellac shirt
Joey I didn't bail on season 2 of friends, that's just about when I felt its schtick got old. I've seen just about every episode. They have all long since blended into one craptacular episode in my mind.
Sounds to me like your own bias against me (your need for me to constantly be this giant cloying asshole who thinks he's somehow superior but is actually just a poser, narrow-minded, SJW-imposter-idiot and condescends when he's out if his depth) has skewd your reading comprehension. If that's what you got from what I wrote, then... well, I don't know what to tell you, friend. I guess I'll just have to try better next time.
Though, still feels like you're dancing around what you really want to say to me, Burt. Don't hold back. I know it's on the tip of your tongue.
Joey I didn't bail on season 2 of friends, that's just about when I felt its schtick got old. I've seen just about every episode. They have all long since blended into one craptacular episode in my mind.
Sorry. I thought when you mentioned S2 earlier that you stopped watching. My bad.
Your opinion is totally valid, friend. I certainly didn't mean to imply otherwise. I just disagree and think you're not giving the show enough credit.
Post subject: Re: What are you currently watching on TV?
Posted: Sat July 22, 2017 9:43 pm
The Master
Joined: Sun May 25, 2014 9:32 pm Posts: 31614 Location: Garbage Dump
durdencommatyler wrote:
LoathedVermin72 wrote:
I'm officially done worrying about whether art is progressive. I am so sick of people talking about it in those terms.
Yeah, I get that. I think it's important. But I get what you're saying.
It's tricky for me. I still can find it beautiful when a movie executes progressive social undercurrents well (the multiculturalism of Fast & Furious, for example), and I still find it nauseating when they do things I find toxic (the disgusting misogyny of Gone Girl, for example). But I am soooooooooooo done with people who know nothing about movies or art trying to extol or criticize art strictly in terms of contemporary identity politics. I can't stomach it anymore. It's as if aesthetics and challenging ideas mean absolutely nothing to these people. Seeing all the "tributes" to Romero focusing almost entirely on the progressive racial politics of Night of the Living Dead was the last straw for me.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 35 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum
