|
Post by magnusgreel on Sept 27, 2006 14:17:57 GMT -5
I was looking for a little reassurance here. My first viewing is mainly to take in the information, so that I'll be prepared to watch for real, later. Still, i'm concerned that after viewing #1 my impression is of a group of dull, unfunny people who ought to be at least a bit funny in conversation. And Gilbert and Sullivan was a solution to anything? Non-Sorkin WW seemed funnier.
I can just watch it again of course, but I'll have trouble making myself. I will, just not now, and not for awhile if I don't hear good things about it from others.
|
|
|
Post by Stratman on Oct 1, 2006 11:57:31 GMT -5
Stick with it. I, personally, haven't seen a show this good in a long time.
|
|
|
Post by magnusgreel on Oct 2, 2006 22:25:36 GMT -5
Is that based on the first episode or the first two? The third just wrapped up a couple minutes ago. I'm starting to think, maybe this IS just some show about the mechanics of a comedy show, without ideas or politics or any real point. The last three seasons of the West Wing were actually funnier than this. I don't know why I'm supposed to care, yet. Some bits are actually starting to make me angry at Sorkin, and it hasn't hit me why yet, except that these sketches on their show seem to bludgeon people over the head with simple messages, and the Tom Cruise parody really pi$%ed me off. Cruise got dumped by his movie company (whatever the term is) for the bad attention he's drawn for things like his stance against psychotropic drugs, which he just happens to be right about, not too different from Bill Mahar's firing, which is an outrage to Sorkin (and me). Anyway, this show doesn't seem important. If i don't have a special reason to watch TV I don't watch.
|
|
|
Post by Stratman on Oct 3, 2006 3:52:34 GMT -5
Is that based on the first episode or the first two? The third just wrapped up a couple minutes ago. I'm starting to think, maybe this IS just some show about the mechanics of a comedy show, without ideas or politics or any real point. The last three seasons of the West Wing were actually funnier than this. I don't know why I'm supposed to care, yet. Some bits are actually starting to make me angry at Sorkin, and it hasn't hit me why yet, except that these sketches on their show seem to bludgeon people over the head with simple messages, and the Tom Cruise parody really pi$%ed me off. Cruise got dumped by his movie company (whatever the term is) for the bad attention he's drawn for things like his stance against psychotropic drugs, which he just happens to be right about, not too different from Bill Mahar's firing, which is an outrage to Sorkin (and me). Anyway, this show doesn't seem important. If i don't have a special reason to watch TV I don't watch. You remind me of a Christian trying to push his religion on me. You know why? Because you're annoying me. And just for the record, Tom Cruise' stance on psychiatry is not right, it's madness based upon the rantings of some crazy man.
|
|
|
Post by Stratman on Oct 3, 2006 3:59:15 GMT -5
Anyway, what did people think of this weeks episode? I've yet to see it, but I'm downloading it as we speak. ;D
|
|
|
Post by ilana on Oct 3, 2006 5:59:20 GMT -5
Geez chill a little people- it's the third episode! I think the show is fantastic, and I definitely think the show did have points beyond simple entertainment- the whole DUI thing, treating it seriously, the question of public versus private lives. It's not West Wing- but we had West Wing for that. It's fantastic writing (and acting) and appreciate it, in a world of reality TV that is not a given
|
|
|
Post by jenw on Oct 3, 2006 17:22:59 GMT -5
I could have countered that, but I've already moved on to other things in my head.
|
|
|
Post by magnusgreel on Oct 4, 2006 9:33:10 GMT -5
Yeah, that's what's wrong with fundamentalists... the simple fact that they annoy you. That's a wonderful, carefully thought-out criterion on which to judge them. And as for the anti-psychotropic stance, there are thousands and thousands of people who know for an absolute fact that (despite his and Scientology's general loopiness) he's telling the truth. Announcing it's crazy doesn't make it so. It's just possible that there are some people in this world who have access to some information, because of their experiences, that you don't know. It's an insult to those people to have people like you being insulting and dismissive toward them, after having to go through these awful experiences.
|
|
|
Post by username on Oct 4, 2006 14:11:03 GMT -5
That's true, but neither does citing facts anymore. All it comes down to, is if enough people believe it (truthiness), and after your impassioned argument I'm inclined to belive you Magnus. Anti-psychotropics (I'm assuming those are pills) are bad, because you and "thousands of people who know for an absolute fact"(!) said so. Suck on that Stratman! Lets burn down the chemical plants! We don't need Viagra, old people shouldn't be having sex anyway! Whose with us?
|
|
|
Post by wowposter on Sept 8, 2008 4:56:08 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by wowposter on Sept 11, 2008 0:41:46 GMT -5
|
|