Short version for those who don't want to click: Bawww! Fans hated the finale. That's cuz they just didn't GET it. They didn't get it cuz they're GURLZ SHIPPERS
( Read more... )
It's such a silly argument. Pellucid summed it up well when she said it was "smug." He's mistaking fans's desire to experience an ending that validated and acknowledged all of the story that came before it (without dismissing any of that as an unknowable mystery we should just accept under the name of divinity), with the idea that we wanted it to end "our way."
As for shippers, why be so dismissive at all? I don't get it. Even if I only watched your show for one character, one relationship, one plotline...isn't that great that I'm watching at all?
I watch a ridiculous amount of TV. There are very few shows that I like every single element of. Some shows (hello Fringe!) I watch out of loyalty to an actor. Some I enjoy a particular character (Cameron on TSCC). Some I like a piece of the plot (Paul exposing the Dollhouse.)
The dismissal of shippers is simply playing into the usual sexist stereotypes that romance is not something that should be valued because it is a womanly thing. It's the same reason why people scorn romance novels out of hand (because there are a crapload of bad Harlequins out there, but there's just as many shitty exploitative action thrillers on the market too).
Blegh. His argument is so wrongheaded on so many levels. I applaud your rage.
Smug is the word, yes. And dude, if you were the "science" "adviser" for BSG Season Four, smug is the LAST thing you should be.
without dismissing any of that as an unknowable mystery we should just accept under the name of divinity
I hate to say it, but Jacob called it when he said it was like something you'd come up with at 3am after a lot of coffee the night before your term paper was due. (Okay, I made some of that up, having been in that situation and not caring to look up exactly what he said.) I mean "it's just inexplicable" is an easy out which should be used sparingly.
And yeah, the show spent a fair amount of time developing the relationships, so of course people invested in them. And I'm also a big believer in there being no wrong way to watch a TV show. Including just being in it for one character and/or relationship.
As for shippers, why be so dismissive at all? I don't get it. Even if I only watched your show for one character, one relationship, one plotline...isn't that great that I'm watching at all?
I watch a ridiculous amount of TV. There are very few shows that I like every single element of. Some shows (hello Fringe!) I watch out of loyalty to an actor. Some I enjoy a particular character (Cameron on TSCC). Some I like a piece of the plot (Paul exposing the Dollhouse.)
The dismissal of shippers is simply playing into the usual sexist stereotypes that romance is not something that should be valued because it is a womanly thing. It's the same reason why people scorn romance novels out of hand (because there are a crapload of bad Harlequins out there, but there's just as many shitty exploitative action thrillers on the market too).
Blegh. His argument is so wrongheaded on so many levels. I applaud your rage.
Reply
without dismissing any of that as an unknowable mystery we should just accept under the name of divinity
I hate to say it, but Jacob called it when he said it was like something you'd come up with at 3am after a lot of coffee the night before your term paper was due. (Okay, I made some of that up, having been in that situation and not caring to look up exactly what he said.) I mean "it's just inexplicable" is an easy out which should be used sparingly.
And yeah, the show spent a fair amount of time developing the relationships, so of course people invested in them. And I'm also a big believer in there being no wrong way to watch a TV show. Including just being in it for one character and/or relationship.
Reply
Word. So, so much word to this.
Reply
Leave a comment