Sorry, life's been kicking my butt and I haven't been round for a while.
My response was to the OP
It's like watching someone solve a math equation on a blackboard and explaining the solution each step of the way.
Which seemed to be objecting to having to think about the show, rather than it just being moving wallpaper.
Much of the TV I watch might as well be radio for all the attention I pay to the screen, I usually do things on the computer at the same time (what I was watching is currently on pause, because I can't split my attention between that and replying here).
As it happened the cat chose to sit on my lap when I was watching the first episode of
Bull and I couldn't reach the computer to multi-task, so
Bull got my full attention and I got to realize that the show is complex enough to use important visuals in addition to the dialog. I also found it entertaining enough that I was prepared to give it my full attention for 40 minutes.
Again, engaging to some, but I resent the implication that the people who don't like the show aren't *smart* enough to get it. My complaints about the show have nothing to do with being too difficult to follow. It has everything to do with believability within the context of a fictional tv show. And it's not.
You can assume that I am suggesting that people aren't smart enough to get it if you want - if the cap fits... - but my dig is about laziness rather than intelligence. You don't have to be dumb to only want moving wallpaper as your TV experience, that's for people who are lonely and want the TV for company; or for those who can't be bothered to engage their brain to interact with the TV. There are plenty of shows for both those categories of viewer, but not very many for those who
do want TV to exercise their brain, outside of the world of documentaries and even those are being dumbed down.
As I recollect your prime sticking point about the show is "where does the money come from to pay for all this?" I've had no problem filling in the blanks and assume that money is made elsewhere in cases that we don't necessarily see but, as it happens, it is an issue that the show has addressed several times to tell us that there is money that has and is being made to finance the pro bono work.
---
You have a Life?
Well make the most of it; you never know when it might be gone.
reply
share
readerf61
8 years ago
Thank you for a thoughtful response. Yes, that was, and still is, my sticking point. I think it is a personal problem in that I know consultants and property values/rents in Manhattan, and though we are *told* something repeatedly, I don't see the reality in it. So, I realize it is my problem, and I gave up on the show.
As I mentioned in my post, other posters *have* pretty much come out and said that if one doesn't like this show, it's because we don't get it. That statement ignores any criticism of the show, whether it feels relevant or not. I'm not someone who has the tv on in the background at all. As a matter of fact, the one tv we own is in a family room downstairs so it doesn't disturb people trying to read or a family dinner. So I record most shows and watch them in leisure later.
I will say, sometimes the questions asked on some boards about an episode make me wonder if other people even watched the show! But, when pressed, they admit they were doing laundry or doing other chores....in other words distracted viewing. That always surprises me; if I like something enough to record and watch it, I'm going to really watch it. Although, I have to admit, if it's live tv--which I rarely watch--I'm more distracted because I find other things to do during commercials. I suppose that's what happens to them.
_________
No, David. No one is happy in a poodle skirt and a sweater set.
reply
share