One of my favorite things about Scrubs isn't even directly about the show.
After my AP Gov class ended last year, we still had three weeks left in the regular school year. Instead of doing more work, I just brought in Scrubs seasons 1-3. So yeah, we watched 2.5 episodes per day for the rest of the year. The best part? My 50-something teacher absolutely loved it to the point where he actually started to talk like Doctor Cox. I saw him the other day, and we were talking about the fourth season that came out. Turns out he watched the whole season straight through in one day. I'm so proud that I created such a fan out of him.
Syphilisaurus on
0
CrayonSleeps in the wrong bed.TejasRegistered Userregular
edited November 2006
I decree that tonight (and subsequent Thursdays) are the greatest thing to happen to comedy since the beginning of time. Earl, Office, AND Scrubs. My gut shall runneth over.
Thing is I'm not sure how they'd write him out but I do want it to happen, I can't stand the smugness this guy gives off. He's been more of a main cast member than some of the main cast in the last few episodes and his relationship with Elliot really just bugs the shit out of me.
[spoiler:c6ba597937]Someone dies this season.[/spoiler:c6ba597937]
Thing is I'm not sure how they'd write him out but I do want it to happen, I can't stand the smugness this guy gives off. He's been more of a main cast member than some of the main cast in the last few episodes and his relationship with Elliot really just bugs the shit out of me.
[spoiler:935e82dcf5]Someone dies this season.[/spoiler:935e82dcf5]
I really doubt they'd kill off young Keith. Even though I want them to.
I think Dr Cox will die, and JD will be the doctor trying to save him, kind of a 'prove your worth' thing.
Then it will end on a sad note as Cox dies and JD becomes this gloomy emibttered version of himself.
Honestly, the reason I always liked Scrubs more than other comedy shows, despite it being flat out funnier, is that it had this emotional weight to it, it adds a certain value to the show that I think while certainly cheesy at times (ololz montage) still makes me care about the characters more than other shows.
The problem with Keith was the wrote in a joke about his surname being duemeister, then realised oh fuck he's now becoming a main character and that name is retarded.
After watching the show twice all of the dialogue for every other episode can be filled in. The only redeeming character is the janitor . . . Even then, slamming my penis in a car door is almost preferable to watching Scrubs. Admittedly, I'm sexually aroused by pain, but not that much.
It's ironic that some people seek "emotional weight" or some kind of attachment to the characters of a show designed explicity to make money when there are plenty of people already suffering and dying all the time in real life.
After watching the show twice all of the dialogue for every other episode can be filled in. The only redeeming character is the janitor . . . Even then, slamming my penis in a car door is almost preferable to watching Scrubs. Admittedly, I'm sexually aroused by pain, but not that much.
It's ironic that some people seek "emotional weight" or some kind of attachment to the characters of a show designed explicity to make money when there are plenty of people already suffering and dying all the time in real life.
After watching the show twice all of the dialogue for every other episode can be filled in. The only redeeming character is the janitor . . . Even then, slamming my penis in a car door is almost preferable to watching Scrubs. Admittedly, I'm sexually aroused by pain, but not that much.
It's ironic that some people seek "emotional weight" or some kind of attachment to the characters of a show designed explicity to make money when there are plenty of people already suffering and dying all the time in real life.
Amirite? Eh?
No.
Willeh Dee on
0
deowolfis allowed to do that.Traffic.Registered Userregular
It's ironic that some people seek "emotional weight" or some kind of attachment to the characters of a show designed explicity to make money when there are plenty of people already suffering and dying all the time in real life.
/takes trollbait
So, not a fan of television, movies, the theatre, novels, short stories or interactive media of any kind then, are you?
Yeah, you guys are right. I'd rather watch scrubs than slamming my penis in a car door. And cultivating emotional attachment to a manufactured character, whereby foregoing real social interaction or intellectual substance through real life or the kind of media that people devote their lives to working on, is awesome.
(
"Hey Barbie, why are you so sloppy today? Did you burn yourself with your curling iron this morning? . . . girl name, one syllable word sung . . .ad ininitum. . . ".
"Omfg! I learned a lesson today! People die! But when it comes down to it, I still hafta dod my very best, and i'z gotta focus on that and the little things! Lawlz!"
)
Rampant trolling aside, I've only ever seen scrubs on and off before it started airing in syndication on Comedy Central. That being the case, I don't know much of what's leading into this season. I saw on the site that people could name Turk and Carla's baby. Is that the significant event from last season?
Rampant trolling aside, I've only ever seen scrubs on and off before it started airing in syndication on Comedy Central. That being the case, I don't know much of what's leading into this season. I saw on the site that people could name Turk and Carla's baby. Is that the significant event from last season?
It depends if the birth will lead to Carlas pregnancy induced death. She irritates me also.
Write her and keith off as lovers who run away, bring the Janitor up to the star.
It's ironic that some people seek "emotional weight" or some kind of attachment to the characters of a show designed explicity to make money when there are plenty of people already suffering and dying all the time in real life.
/takes trollbait
So, not a fan of television, movies, the theatre, novels, short stories or interactive media of any kind then, are you?
"designed explictly to make money" . . .
Many people have devoted their lives to make media that is meaningful. Experiencing their works, which are in many cases sweet distillations of human experience and thought, is a worthy use of our limited time.
Sure, comedy is nice. But Scrubs isn't even funny and people attribute some kind of emotional depth to it. So lollercopters all over?
Rampant trolling aside, I've only ever seen scrubs on and off before it started airing in syndication on Comedy Central. That being the case, I don't know much of what's leading into this season. I saw on the site that people could name Turk and Carla's baby. Is that the significant event from last season?
It depends if the birth will lead to Carlas pregnancy induced death. She irritates me also.
Or Carla gets stabbed and shot by a drug crazed patient.
No lucky bandanna could bring that bitch back in the O.R.
It's ironic that some people seek "emotional weight" or some kind of attachment to the characters of a show designed explicity to make money when there are plenty of people already suffering and dying all the time in real life.
/takes trollbait
So, not a fan of television, movies, the theatre, novels, short stories or interactive media of any kind then, are you?
"designed explictly to make money" . . .
Many people have devoted their lives to make media that is meaningful. Experiencing their works, which are in many cases sweet distillations of human experience and thought, is a worthy use of our limited time.
Sure, comedy is nice. But Scrubs isn't even funny and people attribute some kind of emotional depth to it. So lollercopters all over?
That's pretty naive.
People endeavor for survival, including artists. Survival requires money.
Artists endeavor for success and exposure (usually). That also requires money.
Commercialism of art doesn't negate its artistic merit.
It's ironic that some people seek "emotional weight" or some kind of attachment to the characters of a show designed explicity to make money when there are plenty of people already suffering and dying all the time in real life.
/takes trollbait
So, not a fan of television, movies, the theatre, novels, short stories or interactive media of any kind then, are you?
"designed explictly to make money" . . .
Many people have devoted their lives to make media that is meaningful. Experiencing their works, which are in many cases sweet distillations of human experience and thought, is a worthy use of our limited time.
Sure, comedy is nice. But Scrubs isn't even funny and people attribute some kind of emotional depth to it. So lollercopters all over?
Apparently you feel so strongly that you feel the need to drop into a thread obviously intended to be a place where people who like the series would talk about it, and rain on their parade.
And yet oddly, it doesn't dimish my enjoyment of the show at all.
People endeavor for survival, including artists. Survival requires money.
Artists endeavor for success and exposure (usually). That also requires money.
Commercialism of art doesn't negate its artistic merit.
It's naive to believe some artists, writers etc. are focused solely on their work? I didn't qualify who fit into this category, but there are some who surely do.
Yes, artists/writers are people too, subject to the entire range of human craziness (often more so?). And commercialism of art doesn't negate it's worth, no.
But Upton Sinclair, Steinbeck, Tolstoy, RL etc > Scrubs
Apparently you feel so strongly that you feel the need to drop into a thread obviously intended to be a place where people who like the series would talk about it, and rain on their parade.
And yet oddly, it doesn't dimish my enjoyment of the show at all.
The subject is titled Scrubs. . . People don't make threads that simply say:
Affirmative Action! Come and let's all discuss why we love it!
Even then, slamming my penis in a car door is almost preferable to watching Scrubs. Admittedly, I'm sexually aroused by pain, but not that much.
You know what percolates my juices? Intellectual cripples who visit harmless threads and assail us with their ironclad knowledge that our cherished hobby/sports team/t.v. show is the absolute worst thing to happen since women were allowed to vote. And right now, I want to plow you like a corn field. Call me baby.
People endeavor for survival, including artists. Survival requires money.
Artists endeavor for success and exposure (usually). That also requires money.
Commercialism of art doesn't negate its artistic merit.
It's naive to believe some artists, writers etc. are focused solely on their work? I didn't qualify who fit into this category, but there are some who surely do.
Yes, artists/writers are people too, subject to the entire range of human craziness (often more so?). And commercialism of art doesn't negate it's worth, no.
But Upton Sinclair, Steinbeck, Tolstoy, RL etc > Scrubs
No, it is naive to make the statements you've made on the subject and conclude the conclusions you've concluded, unless we're missing a key piece of your particular stream of consciousness on the subject. You haven't provided any evidence or insight as to why you believe Scrubs was explicitly designed to make money and Steinbeck, for instance, did not write Of Mice and Men explicitly for cash.
It is naive to believe writers are above commercial intent and TV writers have only commercial intent in mind.
You are welcome to fill me in on your blend of logic, though. If you aren't just trolling, I'd love to understand this perspective that lead to Literature = Art, Scrubs = Crap, but until then I can't really debate anything substantial with you because nothing you've said has substance.
What's funny is that he picked a thread about Scrubs to do this in. There are far worse shows. Why don't you just make a thread about the lack of artistic merit in mainstream television or something? Ugh, if your opinion about a relevant yet totally independent matter isn't strong enough to support its own thread, don't bog down this one with it.
Edit: On the topic of the newest episode: It was good. The spaghetti in the beginning was pretty funny, but Dr. Cox's hair is outrageous. Also, they picked an incredibly annoying kid to play the Cox's son. I mean, I don't have any sympathy for the kid, no matter how angry Cox gets at him.
People endeavor for survival, including artists. Survival requires money.
Artists endeavor for success and exposure (usually). That also requires money.
Commercialism of art doesn't negate its artistic merit.
It's naive to believe some artists, writers etc. are focused solely on their work? I didn't qualify who fit into this category, but there are some who surely do.
Yes, artists/writers are people too, subject to the entire range of human craziness (often more so?). And commercialism of art doesn't negate it's worth, no.
But Upton Sinclair, Steinbeck, Tolstoy, RL etc > Scrubs
Apparently you feel so strongly that you feel the need to drop into a thread obviously intended to be a place where people who like the series would talk about it, and rain on their parade.
And yet oddly, it doesn't dimish my enjoyment of the show at all.
The subject is titled Scrubs. . . People don't make threads that simply say:
Affirmative Action! Come and let's all discuss why we love it!
What the fuck?
Art doesn't have to be fucking revolutionary genius to be enjoyable and good. If you only read Tolstoy and Steinbeck you're a pretentious asshole who's missing out on a lot.
The subject is titled Scrubs. . . People don't make threads that simply say:
Affirmative Action! Come and let's all discuss why we love it!
Generally show threads in here are intended to be places for fans of the show to discuss the show. This does not mean we sit around and fellate the writers...if an episode sucks, we talk about how it sucks. If the show is annoying us, we talk about that too. See Lost and House threads for good examples.
The only counterexample I can think of is the Jericho thread, where we all pretty much bitch about how bad it is and wonder why we watch it anyway. Then again, there aren't really any fans of that show, so it makes sense that the thread would take that route...and it's all good-natured fun anyway.
But these threads are not usually meant for people who obviously hate the show to just come in and bitch about how bad it is and spew a bunch of elitist garbage about how much better Tolstoy is than American Idol. Good for you. Don't watch it then. But stay out of the thread as well if you don't have anything useful or interesting to add.
I can't believe I just wasted this much time on an obvious troll anyway. Go die in a fire, fuckhead.
People endeavor for survival, including artists. Survival requires money.
Artists endeavor for success and exposure (usually). That also requires money.
Commercialism of art doesn't negate its artistic merit.
It's naive to believe some artists, writers etc. are focused solely on their work? I didn't qualify who fit into this category, but there are some who surely do.
Yes, artists/writers are people too, subject to the entire range of human craziness (often more so?). And commercialism of art doesn't negate it's worth, no.
But Upton Sinclair, Steinbeck, Tolstoy, RL etc > Scrubs
No, it is naive to make the statements you've made on the subject and conclude the conclusions you've concluded, unless we're missing a key piece of your particular stream of consciousness on the subject. You haven't provided any evidence or insight as to why you believe Scrubs was explicitly designed to make money and Steinbeck, for instance, did not write Of Mice and Men explicitly for cash.
It is naive to believe writers are above commercial intent and TV writers have only commercial intent in mind.
You are welcome to fill me in on your blend of logic, though. If you aren't just trolling, I'd love to understand this perspective that lead to Literature = Art, Scrubs = Crap, but until then I can't really debate anything substantial with you because nothing you've said has substance.
What do we know about corporations? In the US, they're subject to the the precedent set by the Supreme Court in Dodge v. Ford Motor Company:
Ruling? It is illegal for corporations to deliberately sacrifice revenue for other interests.
provide evidence or insight as to why you believe Scrubs was explicitly designed to make money
I have no real motivation for arguing that there exist some people who are not driven by desire for wealth - out of the millions of people that have lived, there surely have been some. It is also very difficult to prove intent, but when smart people spend their lives devoted to causes like the enfranchisement of others (Harriet Beecher Stove, Gandhi, Upton Sinclair, Martin Luther King, Zinn perhaps) or studying an obscure subject (Campbell, Tolkien) they probably don't live for money.
Artistic merit is subjective, but we can agree that at least scrubs is repetitive?I suppose we could catalogue all of the plots and dialogue in order to see how repetitive it is, but I have to do work now. Enjoy the spaghetti scene discussion.
Deathmonger on
0
thorgotthere is special providencein the fall of a sparrowRegistered Userregular
Yes, I hope that doesn't invalidate my other points. . .
You had points? Scrubs doesn't fall under your taste in comedy. Hooray you. What other subjective things shall we try to objectively prove are good or bad?
People endeavor for survival, including artists. Survival requires money.
Artists endeavor for success and exposure (usually). That also requires money.
Commercialism of art doesn't negate its artistic merit.
It's naive to believe some artists, writers etc. are focused solely on their work? I didn't qualify who fit into this category, but there are some who surely do.
Yes, artists/writers are people too, subject to the entire range of human craziness (often more so?). And commercialism of art doesn't negate it's worth, no.
But Upton Sinclair, Steinbeck, Tolstoy, RL etc > Scrubs
No, it is naive to make the statements you've made on the subject and conclude the conclusions you've concluded, unless we're missing a key piece of your particular stream of consciousness on the subject. You haven't provided any evidence or insight as to why you believe Scrubs was explicitly designed to make money and Steinbeck, for instance, did not write Of Mice and Men explicitly for cash.
It is naive to believe writers are above commercial intent and TV writers have only commercial intent in mind.
You are welcome to fill me in on your blend of logic, though. If you aren't just trolling, I'd love to understand this perspective that lead to Literature = Art, Scrubs = Crap, but until then I can't really debate anything substantial with you because nothing you've said has substance.
What do we know about corporations? In the US, they're subject to the the precedent set by the Supreme Court in Dodge v. Ford Motor Company:
Ruling? It is illegal for corporations to deliberately sacrifice revenue for other interests.
provide evidence or insight as to why you believe Scrubs was explicitly designed to make money
I have no real motivation for arguing that there exist some people who are not driven by desire for wealth - out of the millions of people that have lived, there surely have been some. It is also very difficult to prove intent, but when smart people spend their lives devoted to causes like the enfranchisement of others (Harriet Beecher Stove, Gandhi, Upton Sinclair, Martin Luther King, Zinn perhaps) or studying an obscure subject (Campbell, Tolkien) they probably don't live for money.
Artistic merit is subjective, but we can agree that at least scrubs is repetitive?I suppose we could catalogue all of the plots and dialogue in order to see how repetitive it is, but I have to do work now. Enjoy the spaghetti scene discussion.
So, what are publishing houses then? They aren't businesses? No publishing house has ever incorporated? What kind of argument is this?
Yes, I hope that doesn't invalidate my other points. . .
No, what invalidates your point is the fact of you fucking comparing a 30 minute sitcom with MERIT FOR A SITCOM to fucking tolstoy, you fucking tool. Nothing you say matters.
And who is to say that kicking back with your friends, or loved one, or family and watching a FUCKING TV SHOW OR MOVIE is not "real life." Who fucking decreed that media automatically takes out the essence of real life?
So you admit that reading=real life, but that watching scrubs!=real life? How do you draw such a position rationally? Are you an absolutist prick who puts one medium of entertainment over another simply because your tea pinkie hangs a bit higher in the air as opposed to us down here in the dregs of society mopping up with our dur-dur-dur sponges of triviality and stupidity?
Duchamp's urinal = everything else that could have existed, everything that has existed and everything that will exist.
His urinal is existence and nothingness. His urinal is Nirvana.
Interesting. I see it more as a critique to the idea that something becomes artistic by sheer fact that it becomes accepted as when the established art community decides it is. The notion that all things are works of art and the idea of elevating one type or mode above another, the high/low dichotomy, is utterly meaningless. Everything is art, and people either like it or they don't.
Yes, I hope that doesn't invalidate my other points. . .
No, what invalidates your point is the fact of you fucking comparing a 30 minute sitcom with MERIT FOR A SITCOM to fucking tolstoy, you fucking tool. Nothing you say matters.
And who is to say that kicking back with your friends, or loved one, or family and watching a FUCKING TV SHOW OR MOVIE is not "real life." Who fucking decreed that media automatically takes out the essence of real life?
So you admit that reading=real life, but that watching scrubs!=real life? How do you draw such a position rationally? Are you an absolutist prick who puts one medium of entertainment over another simply because your tea pinkie hangs a bit higher in the air as opposed to us down here in the dregs of society mopping up with our dur-dur-dur sponges of triviality and stupidity?
Seriously, shut the fuck up windbag.
For the record, I cannot enjoy War And Peace for the life of me.
I have, however, watched and enjoyed the entirety of Scrubs, with the exception of the first half of season five (which I watched but didn't really enjoy).
edit: Also, I thought "RL" referred to RL Stine, the famed "Goosebumps" literary figure.
Also, I'm watching Scrubs for the first time on an HD set, but notice that it letterboxes at 16:9 whereas The Office, Heroes, etc... fit the screen. I don't know tons about hd broadcasts yet, but is it just not shown in the same resolution as the others?
Posts
After my AP Gov class ended last year, we still had three weeks left in the regular school year. Instead of doing more work, I just brought in Scrubs seasons 1-3. So yeah, we watched 2.5 episodes per day for the rest of the year. The best part? My 50-something teacher absolutely loved it to the point where he actually started to talk like Doctor Cox. I saw him the other day, and we were talking about the fourth season that came out. Turns out he watched the whole season straight through in one day. I'm so proud that I created such a fan out of him.
I love me the scrubs
[spoiler:c6ba597937]Someone dies this season.[/spoiler:c6ba597937]
I really doubt they'd kill off young Keith. Even though I want them to.
Then it will end on a sad note as Cox dies and JD becomes this gloomy emibttered version of himself.
Honestly, the reason I always liked Scrubs more than other comedy shows, despite it being flat out funnier, is that it had this emotional weight to it, it adds a certain value to the show that I think while certainly cheesy at times (ololz montage) still makes me care about the characters more than other shows.
The problem with Keith was the wrote in a joke about his surname being duemeister, then realised oh fuck he's now becoming a main character and that name is retarded.
It's ironic that some people seek "emotional weight" or some kind of attachment to the characters of a show designed explicity to make money when there are plenty of people already suffering and dying all the time in real life.
Amirite? Eh?
No.
/takes trollbait
So, not a fan of television, movies, the theatre, novels, short stories or interactive media of any kind then, are you?
(
"Hey Barbie, why are you so sloppy today? Did you burn yourself with your curling iron this morning? . . . girl name, one syllable word sung . . .ad ininitum. . . ".
"Omfg! I learned a lesson today! People die! But when it comes down to it, I still hafta dod my very best, and i'z gotta focus on that and the little things! Lawlz!"
)
X 500 hours.
It depends if the birth will lead to Carlas pregnancy induced death. She irritates me also.
Write her and keith off as lovers who run away, bring the Janitor up to the star.
"designed explictly to make money" . . .
Many people have devoted their lives to make media that is meaningful. Experiencing their works, which are in many cases sweet distillations of human experience and thought, is a worthy use of our limited time.
Sure, comedy is nice. But Scrubs isn't even funny and people attribute some kind of emotional depth to it. So lollercopters all over?
Or Carla gets stabbed and shot by a drug crazed patient.
No lucky bandanna could bring that bitch back in the O.R.
Imagine the awesome.
Priceless.
That's pretty naive.
People endeavor for survival, including artists. Survival requires money.
Artists endeavor for success and exposure (usually). That also requires money.
Commercialism of art doesn't negate its artistic merit.
Apparently you feel so strongly that you feel the need to drop into a thread obviously intended to be a place where people who like the series would talk about it, and rain on their parade.
And yet oddly, it doesn't dimish my enjoyment of the show at all.
It's naive to believe some artists, writers etc. are focused solely on their work? I didn't qualify who fit into this category, but there are some who surely do.
Yes, artists/writers are people too, subject to the entire range of human craziness (often more so?). And commercialism of art doesn't negate it's worth, no.
But Upton Sinclair, Steinbeck, Tolstoy, RL etc > Scrubs
Apparently you feel so strongly that you feel the need to drop into a thread obviously intended to be a place where people who like the series would talk about it, and rain on their parade.
And yet oddly, it doesn't dimish my enjoyment of the show at all.
The subject is titled Scrubs. . . People don't make threads that simply say:
Affirmative Action! Come and let's all discuss why we love it!
You know what percolates my juices? Intellectual cripples who visit harmless threads and assail us with their ironclad knowledge that our cherished hobby/sports team/t.v. show is the absolute worst thing to happen since women were allowed to vote. And right now, I want to plow you like a corn field. Call me baby.
OT Edit: Huzzah for a new season. Great show.
No, it is naive to make the statements you've made on the subject and conclude the conclusions you've concluded, unless we're missing a key piece of your particular stream of consciousness on the subject. You haven't provided any evidence or insight as to why you believe Scrubs was explicitly designed to make money and Steinbeck, for instance, did not write Of Mice and Men explicitly for cash.
It is naive to believe writers are above commercial intent and TV writers have only commercial intent in mind.
You are welcome to fill me in on your blend of logic, though. If you aren't just trolling, I'd love to understand this perspective that lead to Literature = Art, Scrubs = Crap, but until then I can't really debate anything substantial with you because nothing you've said has substance.
Edit: On the topic of the newest episode: It was good. The spaghetti in the beginning was pretty funny, but Dr. Cox's hair is outrageous. Also, they picked an incredibly annoying kid to play the Cox's son. I mean, I don't have any sympathy for the kid, no matter how angry Cox gets at him.
What the fuck?
Art doesn't have to be fucking revolutionary genius to be enjoyable and good. If you only read Tolstoy and Steinbeck you're a pretentious asshole who's missing out on a lot.
Generally show threads in here are intended to be places for fans of the show to discuss the show. This does not mean we sit around and fellate the writers...if an episode sucks, we talk about how it sucks. If the show is annoying us, we talk about that too. See Lost and House threads for good examples.
The only counterexample I can think of is the Jericho thread, where we all pretty much bitch about how bad it is and wonder why we watch it anyway. Then again, there aren't really any fans of that show, so it makes sense that the thread would take that route...and it's all good-natured fun anyway.
But these threads are not usually meant for people who obviously hate the show to just come in and bitch about how bad it is and spew a bunch of elitist garbage about how much better Tolstoy is than American Idol. Good for you. Don't watch it then. But stay out of the thread as well if you don't have anything useful or interesting to add.
I can't believe I just wasted this much time on an obvious troll anyway. Go die in a fire, fuckhead.
Excellent!
First exhibit (don't read the URL, just click)
http://www.footankledoc.com/IngrownNail1.jpg
Next, who produces Scrubs?
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0285403/companycredits
Surprise! All Corporations! (I can't find out much about Doozer, but I think they're Inc.)
http://www.towersproductions.com/about.htm
What do we know about corporations? In the US, they're subject to the the precedent set by the Supreme Court in Dodge v. Ford Motor Company:
Ruling? It is illegal for corporations to deliberately sacrifice revenue for other interests.
So there I have fulfilled your wish that I . . .
I have no real motivation for arguing that there exist some people who are not driven by desire for wealth - out of the millions of people that have lived, there surely have been some. It is also very difficult to prove intent, but when smart people spend their lives devoted to causes like the enfranchisement of others (Harriet Beecher Stove, Gandhi, Upton Sinclair, Martin Luther King, Zinn perhaps) or studying an obscure subject (Campbell, Tolkien) they probably don't live for money.
Artistic merit is subjective, but we can agree that at least scrubs is repetitive?I suppose we could catalogue all of the plots and dialogue in order to see how repetitive it is, but I have to do work now. Enjoy the spaghetti scene discussion.
That image is disgusting. Why did you post that. Why.
I missed the first 15 minutes, is there anything important that I missed?
If you want to start a thread discussing the commercialization of art and the reasons this is leading to a decline in quality, go start a thread.
You had points? Scrubs doesn't fall under your taste in comedy. Hooray you. What other subjective things shall we try to objectively prove are good or bad?
Tolstoy = formulaic/made for money Scrubs = that toe nail picture = shock sites
I'm sorry for disrupting this excellent discussion. Forgive me please? Tell me more about the spaghetti scene?
So, what are publishing houses then? They aren't businesses? No publishing house has ever incorporated? What kind of argument is this?
(Those are rhetorical questions.)
What are your thoughts on Duchamp's urinal?
His urinal is existence and nothingness. His urinal is Nirvana.
No, what invalidates your point is the fact of you fucking comparing a 30 minute sitcom with MERIT FOR A SITCOM to fucking tolstoy, you fucking tool. Nothing you say matters.
And who is to say that kicking back with your friends, or loved one, or family and watching a FUCKING TV SHOW OR MOVIE is not "real life." Who fucking decreed that media automatically takes out the essence of real life?
So you admit that reading=real life, but that watching scrubs!=real life? How do you draw such a position rationally? Are you an absolutist prick who puts one medium of entertainment over another simply because your tea pinkie hangs a bit higher in the air as opposed to us down here in the dregs of society mopping up with our dur-dur-dur sponges of triviality and stupidity?
Seriously, shut the fuck up windbag.
Interesting. I see it more as a critique to the idea that something becomes artistic by sheer fact that it becomes accepted as when the established art community decides it is. The notion that all things are works of art and the idea of elevating one type or mode above another, the high/low dichotomy, is utterly meaningless. Everything is art, and people either like it or they don't.
For the record, I cannot enjoy War And Peace for the life of me.
I have, however, watched and enjoyed the entirety of Scrubs, with the exception of the first half of season five (which I watched but didn't really enjoy).
edit: Also, I thought "RL" referred to RL Stine, the famed "Goosebumps" literary figure.