Quote:
|
Originally Posted by !@#$%!
i haven't seen it so i'm not really disputing your claims, it's just that for me bad writing would me more about a poorly constructed character or terrible dialogue (one of the worst lines i've seen is when in lord of the rings aragorn talks about sending an army to the gates of mordor and mr. legolas the obvious say "a diversion"-- yeah duhhhhh, thanks for the definition).
anyway, your criticisms have more to do with plausibility, which is more of a journalism approach to the thing--if you were the editor of this magazine, you'd send an army of fact checkers. which is a good thing!
i don't mind the occasional absurd story as long as it has some entertainment appeal. for example the first season or two of "weeds" were preposterous but also hilarious and engrossing. it was only later as characters turned into caricatures (e.g. celia) that i lost interest in that shit.
same thing with that show i was talking here some weeks ago-- the royals. apparently 3 dudes are enough to guard the royal family, ha ha ha. who knew! it's absurd and preposterous and all kinds of implausible but i keep watching because it makes me laugh- and i think the writers want me to laugh with them-- i think they're very conscious of their kitsch mass product for the celebrity channel and don't mind wearing their underpants on the outside. i applaud that. talk-back tv is a thing in itself.
|
I know the "diversion" line and it drives me crazy too!
I think it's somewhat famously stupid even. At least among nerdier circles. I'm not actually that big of a nerd (I know it seems that way, but trust me, by comparison, I'm like a 3.5 out of 10, tops), but I'm pretty sure I've seen it in meme-form.
Ilduclo, do you work for a magazine?