Re: New "Doctor Who" comes to the U.S.

>>On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 09:32:15 -0500, HC wrote
(in article <43cbae68$0$38723$edfadb0f@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>):

>
> "Amy Guskin" <aisling@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> skrev i en meddelelse
> news:0001HW.BFF11360002780D3F0284550@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>> On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 09:03:57 -0500, HC wrote
>> (in article <43cba7c0$0$38621$edfadb0f@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>):
>>
>>>
>>>> No, B5 doesn't fit anyone's definition of the soap opera (daytime drama)
>>>> genre. A soap continues indefinitely and uses a series of interlocking
>>>> storylines - that's a very important piece of the definition, the
>>>> interlocking storylines - to tell the stories of relationships between
>>>> characters in a limited (closed) community. The points of the stories
>>>> _are_
>>>> the relationships. It is specifically a character-driven genre. That's
>>>> why
>>>> no matter how many years a soap has run, you can pretty much pick it up
>>>> at
>>>> any time and start watching. It's not that, as some people like to
>>>> joke,
>>>> "nothing ever happens on a soap" - it's that the format is specifically
>>>> friendly to new viewers, who can be up to speed after viewing just a
>>>> couple
>>>> of episodes at most.
>>>>
>>>> There is just no way you could class Babylon 5 as anything _but_
>>>> storyline-driven. That's pretty much the whole point of it. The fact
>>>> that
>>>> the characters were rich and well-rendered was a very nice bonus, and
>>>> one
>>>> of
>>>> the aspects that made it such a beloved and fondly remembered show.
>>>>
>>>> But a soap? Never. It just doesn't fit.
>>>>
>>>> Dune was a long story - is that a soap? How about the Foundation books?
>>>> Simply being long doesn't qualify something as a soap.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I'm just amused at the extent you guys are taking this so seriously ;-)
>>> <<
>>
>> Uh... Taking it so seriously? You made a statement with which I
>> disagreed,
>> so I put forth my counterargument in reply. If you don't want discussion,
>> why make a statement like that? If you _do_ want discussion, why make a
>> statement like that, and then disparage the person who replies to you by
>> implying that it was somehow foolish or fannishly-obsessed to assume you
>> seriously intended to discuss that point?
>
>
> Discuss all you want =) <<

Notice how he didn't reply to anything of substance in my current post, nor
the last. Troll.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: WOTT - Scaring the Straits
    ... > Because you have nothing of substance to add to this thread so you opt to ... > troll it instead? ... Prev by Date: ...
    (rec.martial-arts)
  • Re: OT: RGP KKK
    ... Another troll. ... You did not write anything of substance here. ... I guess these are the people the Republicans are against giving ... "these are the people the Republicans are against giving health care" ...
    (rec.gambling.poker)
  • Re: BUSH IN ISREAL
    ... that Dutch made no sense, then snipped all the parts of the post that ... and called him a troll. ... Well, Bob, reread it yourself! ... Dutch has consistently ignored any substance and has resorted to repeating ...
    (rec.gambling.poker)
  • Re: Origin of the Moon .. pro/con Collision Theory arguments invited
    ... He needs to be reschooled as a troll. ... Not "startling" rude, but just rude? ... occasional rude comment backed by substance. ... I suspect that you're a sock puppet for Brad Guth. ...
    (sci.geo.geology)
  • Re: Top New Golf Products for 2005..And A Guess At 2006
    ... > is interested in explaining/defending their point with substance. ... the dozens of others who've shown up here over the years. ... Larry admits he's a troll! ...
    (rec.sport.golf)