Terrible fucking actor though. And the whole thing in the Season 2 with the housewife? That was indefensible, it had no point and when on waaaay too long.
Terrible fucking actor though. And the whole thing in the Season 2 with the housewife? That was
indefensible, it had no point and when on waaaay too long.
See, this! This is exactly what I'm talking about with the latter half of season 2. It's just terrible.
And Billy Zane, I mean c'mon?!
Duchovny was one of the only redeeming parts about that latter half.
Pedantophile on
"Considering what your people did to my people during WWII I think a little kissing and breast fondling to be minor reparations, at best."
0
Options
HacksawJ. Duggan Esq.Wrestler at LawRegistered Userregular
edited June 2011
I still need to get around to seeing this.
Hacksaw on
0
Options
GRMikeThe Last Best Hope for HumanityThe God Pod Registered Userregular
calling something unnecessary is just about the weakest criticism you can use
What purpose did he serve to the story or was he an interesting character? The answer is none and no. Like I said Duchovny's character was 10x more interesting.
Don't make me bring up terrible CGI-wood Josie.
Pedantophile on
"Considering what your people did to my people during WWII I think a little kissing and breast fondling to be minor reparations, at best."
0
Options
mrt144King of the NumbernamesRegistered Userregular
Terrible fucking actor though. And the whole thing in the Season 2 with the housewife? That was
indefensible, it had no point and when on waaaay too long.
See, this! This is exactly what I'm talking about with the latter half of season 2. It's just terrible.
And Billy Zane, I mean c'mon?!
Duchovny was one of the only redeeming parts about that latter half.
calling something unnecessary is just about the weakest criticism you can use
What purpose did he serve to the story or was he an interesting character? The answer is none and no. Like I said Duchovny's character was 10x more interesting.
calling something unnecessary is just about the weakest criticism you can use
What purpose did he serve to the story or was he an interesting character? The answer is none and no. Like I said Duchovny's character was 10x more interesting.
Don't make me bring up terrible CGI-wood Josie.
That's distinct from saying he's unnecessary.
No, I'm pretty sure that is exactly the same thing.
Pedantophile on
"Considering what your people did to my people during WWII I think a little kissing and breast fondling to be minor reparations, at best."
calling something unnecessary is just about the weakest criticism you can use
What purpose did he serve to the story or was he an interesting character? The answer is none and no. Like I said Duchovny's character was 10x more interesting.
Don't make me bring up terrible CGI-wood Josie.
That's distinct from saying he's unnecessary.
No, I'm pretty sure that is exactly the same thing.
No, it absolutely is not. None of the characters in the show were actually necessary. Lynch could have cast different people and gone with different character concepts and it could have still been an excellent show. There are things all around us that are unnecessary, but that enrich our lives. To assert that something is unnecessary is to admit that you either don't understand why you don't like it, or are unable to intelligently articulate it. It says nothing meaningful about what you're criticizing.
I think I'd consider narrative function a good metric for necessity in this context.
Aneurhythmia on
0
Options
Dark Raven XLaugh hard, run fast,be kindRegistered Userregular
edited June 2011
This seems as good a place to ask as any...
I've been thinking about watching The X-Files. But it's 9 seasons, a big commitment, non? Figure it'll be either X-Files or Twin Peaks. Which should I go for first?
Well, nothing is necessary, and there is no objective teleology. Sure. But in terms of the show, I'm not really sure what a better way to define necessity would be.
It's an argument that you have to be careful with, because in, say, films or books, the plot's momentum is vastly overvalued, and so relevance to the narrative would be a silly means of defining a character's worth
in television, though, I think that's a pretty reasonable way to define necessity
I think I'd consider narrative function a good metric for necessity in this context.
Then say the character doesn't bring anything to the narrative. Saying the character is unnecessary does not say that.
Saying the character is unneccessary to the narrative vs. just unneccessary? That's your argument? That's just... wow.
And hey a crazy Dru rant. I feel like I've finally arrived.
That's not at all what I'm saying though. I never argued that the character should be called unnecessary to the narrative specifically instead of just saying he's unnecessary. And where am I supposedly figuratively foaming at the mouth as you suggest? Is this something that some of you imagine just so you can pretend you're a figurative martyr? I'm simply pointing out that when someone attacks something as being unnecessary, it's an empty statement. You're not saying anything meaningful. As I said before, any of the characters in Twin Peaks are unnecessary. Nadine certainly isn't necessary. Hell, Cooper isn't necessary. The whole point is that Lynch could have gone with very different characters and still told a story that was just as powerful.
Or you can just keep pretending I'm ranting crazily if that makes you feel special somehow. I guess that would be easier for you.
Druhim on
0
Options
GRMikeThe Last Best Hope for HumanityThe God Pod Registered Userregular
edited June 2011
Look, the show needed a character named Justice and Billy Zane needed a job. Argument over.
what? if anything, tv is far more prone to have extraneous (ie, non-plot-centric) characters showcased. just look at soap opera and it's apparent how interchangeable they can be in terms of story progression; there are frequent plot convolutions in favor of keeping interesting characters or actors onscreen. it's rare in television to have a meta-narrative, so it's frequently heavily character-based.
unless it's an experimental film, a movie is all plot and characterization because that's all there's time for. so a character's contribution to plot is basically the only metric that applies regarding 'necessity.' this is also true, to an extent, for novels. any long-form media is going to have a more relaxed narrative tempo unless it's an adaptation from another form. i'm not saying tv isn't as intense, just that it can maintain that tension over a longer period -- plot becomes less necessary to keep the viewer's interest than compelling characters.
opinions.
anyway, i've still only seen the first season of Twin Peaks, so i'll be re-watching on netflix soon. i just finished The Prisoner again last week, so i may have to delay a bit so my mind doesn't melt. and i agree, both Alan Wake and Deadly Premonition are strongly reminiscent of this show, though the latter is a more direct reference.
I'm simply pointing out that when someone attacks something as being unnecessary, it's an empty statement. You're not saying anything meaningful. As I said before, any of the characters in Twin Peaks are unnecessary. Nadine certainly isn't necessary. Hell, Cooper isn't necessary. The whole point is that Lynch could have gone with very different characters and still told a story that was just as powerful.
@pooka: I so enormously disagree with you in so so many ways, but I also haven't had anything to eat yet today, so any answer would probably get pretty cranky because of how enormously, unbelievably wrong you are, and the absolute ignorance you display towards the role of narrative in a fictive piece and the various elements that play upon it
so I'm gonna get some donuts and maybe tune in later, but that is already an argument that I don't want to get into because of how horrid your opinions there are
e: I mean honestly
unless it's an experimental film, a movie is all plot and characterization because that's all there's time for.
there is absolutely no way that there is a real person posting on this real internet that thinks this is a valid point
what? if anything, tv is far more prone to have extraneous (ie, non-plot-centric) characters showcased. just look at soap opera and it's apparent how interchangeable they can be in terms of story progression; there are frequent plot convolutions in favor of keeping interesting characters or actors onscreen. it's rare in television to have a meta-narrative, so it's frequently heavily character-based.
unless it's an experimental film, a movie is all plot and characterization because that's all there's time for. so a character's contribution to plot is basically the only metric that applies regarding 'necessity.' this is also true, to an extent, for novels. any long-form media is going to have a more relaxed narrative tempo unless it's an adaptation from another form. i'm not saying tv isn't as intense, just that it can maintain that tension over a longer period -- plot becomes less necessary to keep the viewer's interest than compelling characters.
opinions.
anyway, i've still only seen the first season of Twin Peaks, so i'll be re-watching on netflix soon. i just finished The Prisoner again last week, so i may have to delay a bit so my mind doesn't melt. and i agree, both Alan Wake and Deadly Premonition are strongly reminiscent of this show, though the latter is a more direct reference.
Okay well once you watch the second season you'll see what they're talking about. Some exceedingly unnecessary characters and sideplots.
I'm simply pointing out that when someone attacks something as being unnecessary, it's an empty statement. You're not saying anything meaningful. As I said before, any of the characters in Twin Peaks are unnecessary. Nadine certainly isn't necessary. Hell, Cooper isn't necessary. The whole point is that Lynch could have gone with very different characters and still told a story that was just as powerful.
So, what is necessary?
air to breathe? food?
I mean, look at the silly pedants who criticize swearing as unnecessary. Do you really accept that as a meaningful critique of cursing? Hell, why not argue that homosexuality is unnecessary then? It's a dead end argument that tries to cover up lazy thinking.
Man, what? Dru, come on. Necessity is obviously relative to context, and the context of this discussion is obvious. He clearly didn't mean that he didn't need that character in the show to maintain basic life functions, and that's really a limited definition of necessary anyway. I don't need to sustain life. I could just die. The world would keep on.
Aneurhythmia on
0
Options
Clint EastwoodMy baby's in there someplaceShe crawled right inRegistered Userregular
I'm simply pointing out that when someone attacks something as being unnecessary, it's an empty statement. You're not saying anything meaningful. As I said before, any of the characters in Twin Peaks are unnecessary. Nadine certainly isn't necessary. Hell, Cooper isn't necessary. The whole point is that Lynch could have gone with very different characters and still told a story that was just as powerful.
it's good that you've chosen to be civil, since this is not a response i would have perceived as such. and while it's been a couple years since i received my degree (and i know how this sounds, but truthbombs), i actually studied this stuff -- I'm addressing Hollywood productions, which like it or not, maintain a hegemony over creative endeavors in tv and film.
[...] plot's momentum is vastly overvalued, and so relevance to the narrative would be a silly means of defining a character's worth
you seemed to be arguing outside of context with this, which is the entire reason i framed my reply. TLDR, previous reply; in a context where plot is valued, characters tangential to plot are less important.
3-act structure means that plot point A comes at 25% into a movie, (about 20 minutes into a typical 90-minute film), plot point B at 75%, plot point C at 90-99%. you may feel that plot is overvalued in film, but it's the structure that characters and themes hang from. no one wants to watch (or read) potentially interesting characters that sit around doing nothing. the only time that talking heads are compelling is in documentary, and that is still highly structured and edited for pacing.
i'm not at all saying characters or story are unimportant. dont't know why you're getting so frothy.
t bigl: well, i hope i like it more than you did. i got sucked into the first season enough, it might soften the potentially bad bits for me. i also tend to like random characters and confusing diversions, so it'll probably be up my alley.
I've been thinking about watching The X-Files. But it's 9 seasons, a big commitment, non? Figure it'll be either X-Files or Twin Peaks. Which should I go for first?
You can finish Twin Peaks a lot faster, or switch back and forth between episodes if you start getting burned out from marathoning a show.
freakish light on
0
Options
AntimatterDevo Was RightGates of SteelRegistered Userregular
edited June 2011
plus, many people would recommend you not watch all of the X-Files
Man, what? Dru, come on. Necessity is obviously relative to context, and the context of this discussion is obvious. He clearly didn't mean that he didn't need that character in the show to maintain basic life functions, and that's really a limited definition of necessary anyway. I don't need to sustain life. I could just die. The world would keep on.
But your defense of the argument seems to be, since necessity is so vaguely defined and contextual and a matter of opinion, it's perfectly valid to simply assert that something is unnecessary. You seem to be acknowledging the term is very loosely defined while asserting it's a perfectly legitimate critique at the same time. Why not just express intelligently what you really don't like about something? It's as absurd an argument as asserting that same sex marriage somehow threatens the so called sanctity of marriage. Of course it makes no sense that it does, but only if you refuse to actually think about the argument. In the same way, claiming something is unnecessary as art, or in a story fails to address why it doesn't belong.
Was Turturro's character in The Big Lebowski at all necessary? Of course he wasn't! But that completely sidesteps how enjoyable his character is. The movie would have still been great without him. But he was a fantastic, albeit minor character.
But your defense of the argument seems to be, since necessity is so vaguely defined and contextual and a matter of opinion, it's perfectly valid to simply assert that something is unnecessary. You seem to be acknowledging the term is very loosely defined while asserting it's a perfectly legitimate critique at the same time. Why not just express intelligently what you really don't like about something? It's as absurd an argument as asserting that same sex marriage somehow threatens the so called sanctity of marriage. Of course it makes no sense that it does, but only if you refuse to actually think about the argument. In the same way, claiming something is unnecessary as art, or in a story fails to address why it doesn't belong.
I'm sorry, Dru. This just doesn't read coherently to me. I think it stems from a strange premise about defining necessity. I don't know. I'm going to drink a beer and maybe come back to it later.
I haven't seen Lebowski in years, so I can't really comment with any sincere knowledge of the details. If this is rigorous debate, I can't just assume that the character is either necessary or unnecessary without looking at it again.
But as a general comment, I'll just say that I think context specifically makes necessity not vague at all. I don't think it's a full argument on its own, which you seem to look for. But you also jumped very early to disqualifying it completely. I don't think the guy was making a nuanced argument about the character's necessity, but I also don't think the guy was inherently wrong for using necessity as the fulcrum of his position.
I don't think the guy is lacking the intelligence to make some other argument about the quality of the character. He just didn't make a formal argument about his position.
Posts
Terrible fucking actor though. And the whole thing in the Season 2 with the housewife? That was indefensible, it had no point and when on waaaay too long.
And Billy Zane, I mean c'mon?!
Duchovny was one of the only redeeming parts about that latter half.
Billy Fucking Zane.
blog facebook steam twitter
blog facebook steam twitter
The movie was fucking terrifying. I had to sleep on my best friend's couch the night after I watched it.
On the the other hand, Chester Desmond is a badass.
Steam | Twitter
blog facebook steam twitter
Don't make me bring up terrible CGI-wood Josie.
Duchovs-dog was THE only redeeming part.
That's distinct from saying he's unnecessary.
No, it absolutely is not. None of the characters in the show were actually necessary. Lynch could have cast different people and gone with different character concepts and it could have still been an excellent show. There are things all around us that are unnecessary, but that enrich our lives. To assert that something is unnecessary is to admit that you either don't understand why you don't like it, or are unable to intelligently articulate it. It says nothing meaningful about what you're criticizing.
I've been thinking about watching The X-Files. But it's 9 seasons, a big commitment, non? Figure it'll be either X-Files or Twin Peaks. Which should I go for first?
Then say the character doesn't bring anything to the narrative. Saying the character is unnecessary does not say that.
And hey a crazy Dru rant. I feel like I've finally arrived.
in television, though, I think that's a pretty reasonable way to define necessity
That's not at all what I'm saying though. I never argued that the character should be called unnecessary to the narrative specifically instead of just saying he's unnecessary. And where am I supposedly figuratively foaming at the mouth as you suggest? Is this something that some of you imagine just so you can pretend you're a figurative martyr? I'm simply pointing out that when someone attacks something as being unnecessary, it's an empty statement. You're not saying anything meaningful. As I said before, any of the characters in Twin Peaks are unnecessary. Nadine certainly isn't necessary. Hell, Cooper isn't necessary. The whole point is that Lynch could have gone with very different characters and still told a story that was just as powerful.
Or you can just keep pretending I'm ranting crazily if that makes you feel special somehow. I guess that would be easier for you.
blog facebook steam twitter
what? if anything, tv is far more prone to have extraneous (ie, non-plot-centric) characters showcased. just look at soap opera and it's apparent how interchangeable they can be in terms of story progression; there are frequent plot convolutions in favor of keeping interesting characters or actors onscreen. it's rare in television to have a meta-narrative, so it's frequently heavily character-based.
unless it's an experimental film, a movie is all plot and characterization because that's all there's time for. so a character's contribution to plot is basically the only metric that applies regarding 'necessity.' this is also true, to an extent, for novels. any long-form media is going to have a more relaxed narrative tempo unless it's an adaptation from another form. i'm not saying tv isn't as intense, just that it can maintain that tension over a longer period -- plot becomes less necessary to keep the viewer's interest than compelling characters.
opinions.
anyway, i've still only seen the first season of Twin Peaks, so i'll be re-watching on netflix soon. i just finished The Prisoner again last week, so i may have to delay a bit so my mind doesn't melt. and i agree, both Alan Wake and Deadly Premonition are strongly reminiscent of this show, though the latter is a more direct reference.
So, what is necessary?
so I'm gonna get some donuts and maybe tune in later, but that is already an argument that I don't want to get into because of how horrid your opinions there are
e: I mean honestly
there is absolutely no way that there is a real person posting on this real internet that thinks this is a valid point
Okay well once you watch the second season you'll see what they're talking about. Some exceedingly unnecessary characters and sideplots.
air to breathe? food?
I mean, look at the silly pedants who criticize swearing as unnecessary. Do you really accept that as a meaningful critique of cursing? Hell, why not argue that homosexuality is unnecessary then? It's a dead end argument that tries to cover up lazy thinking.
oh
my
lord
you seemed to be arguing outside of context with this, which is the entire reason i framed my reply. TLDR, previous reply; in a context where plot is valued, characters tangential to plot are less important.
3-act structure means that plot point A comes at 25% into a movie, (about 20 minutes into a typical 90-minute film), plot point B at 75%, plot point C at 90-99%. you may feel that plot is overvalued in film, but it's the structure that characters and themes hang from. no one wants to watch (or read) potentially interesting characters that sit around doing nothing. the only time that talking heads are compelling is in documentary, and that is still highly structured and edited for pacing.
i'm not at all saying characters or story are unimportant. dont't know why you're getting so frothy.
t bigl: well, i hope i like it more than you did. i got sucked into the first season enough, it might soften the potentially bad bits for me. i also tend to like random characters and confusing diversions, so it'll probably be up my alley.
how's annie
how's annie
You can finish Twin Peaks a lot faster, or switch back and forth between episodes if you start getting burned out from marathoning a show.
But your defense of the argument seems to be, since necessity is so vaguely defined and contextual and a matter of opinion, it's perfectly valid to simply assert that something is unnecessary. You seem to be acknowledging the term is very loosely defined while asserting it's a perfectly legitimate critique at the same time. Why not just express intelligently what you really don't like about something? It's as absurd an argument as asserting that same sex marriage somehow threatens the so called sanctity of marriage. Of course it makes no sense that it does, but only if you refuse to actually think about the argument. In the same way, claiming something is unnecessary as art, or in a story fails to address why it doesn't belong.
Was Turturro's character in The Big Lebowski at all necessary? Of course he wasn't! But that completely sidesteps how enjoyable his character is. The movie would have still been great without him. But he was a fantastic, albeit minor character.
Steam | Twitter
6 seasons is good enough
I'm sorry, Dru. This just doesn't read coherently to me. I think it stems from a strange premise about defining necessity. I don't know. I'm going to drink a beer and maybe come back to it later.
But as a general comment, I'll just say that I think context specifically makes necessity not vague at all. I don't think it's a full argument on its own, which you seem to look for. But you also jumped very early to disqualifying it completely. I don't think the guy was making a nuanced argument about the character's necessity, but I also don't think the guy was inherently wrong for using necessity as the fulcrum of his position.
I don't think the guy is lacking the intelligence to make some other argument about the quality of the character. He just didn't make a formal argument about his position.