Comment Stream

Search and bookmark options Close
Search for:
Search by:
Clear bookmark | How bookmarks work
Note: Bookmarks are ignored for all search results

Total Found: 1 (Showing 1-1)

Page 1 of 1
Set Bookmark
Nomishjos
Thu, Mar 5, 2020, 8:15pm (UTC -5)
Re: PIC S1: Nepenthe

I don’t know how television actually gets made, but Alex Kurtzman is being described some in almost auteur terms, as if what we see on screen is a product of his inner consciousness, to the exclusion of any errant or wayward thought the hundreds of other people who are Involved in creating the show might have had.

To date, people who have criticized the show (and there are legitimate grounds for doing so) have criticized it as 1) a product of bland corporate committee-ism, or 2) as the product of one person (Michael Chabon, Kurtzman, whomever). The latter critics... Well, the argument has yet to offer a certain refinement. Once someone references Kurtzman as “Colonel Kurtz” (a reference smart enough warrant its being used... well, so...inelegantly), What Else can possibly be said of him? (Other than, I guess, the other “criticism” to the effect that he (assuming it IS he, I guess) relies on formula, as if the criticism were of a vice instead of a characteristic).

I suppose it must be difficult to decide which “Insert Blame Here” button to push as the occasion demands. It doesn’t sound like a very fruitful undertaking. It also sounds kind of joyless. There’s a humorless didacticism to some of the more negative comments on this site about the show.

Some people on this site have claimed they are receiving undeserved flak for their “”negative comments,”” which, they assure us, are non-hateful, it-pains-me-to-say-it criticisms. Speaking only for myself, the problem I have with the arguments made by the flak-takers, is that, to a tee, it seems, the interlocutors claim special, inalterable, unassailable knowledge (as presaged by the use of the Royal “we” or “our”’) of what exactly the “good old days” were like, and what “now” is like, and why the latter is “bad” because it is not the former —— as of reasonable people of good faith are not permitted to have varying opinions on these matters.

“They’ve managed to turn dubious scientific theory into dogma,” as someone once said. And rather glumly at that.
Page 1 of 1
▲Top of Page | Menu | Copyright © 1994-2020 Jamahl Epsicokhan. All rights reserved. Unauthorized duplication or distribution of any content is prohibited. This site is an independent publication and is not affiliated with or authorized by any entity or company referenced herein. See site policies.