The current thread slug mentions:
Deadwood, Entourage, Big Love, Brotherhood, Weeds, Dexter, etc.
Without even getting into FX shows, do you really see all of those shows as being of a type?
Wash: Don't fall asleep now. Sleepiness is weakness of character. Ask anyone. You're acting captain. Know what happens you fall asleep now? Zoe: Jayne slits my throat, and takes over. Wash: That's right. Zoe: And we can't stop it.
'Shindig'
Bureaucracy 3: Oh, so now you want to be part of the SOLUTION?
A thread to discuss naming threads, board policy, new thread suggestions, and anything else that has to do with board administration and maintenance. Guaranteed to include lively debate and polls. Natter discouraged, but not deleted.
Current Stompy Feet: ita, Jon B, DXMachina, P.M. Marcontell, Liese S., amych
Strega - Apr 06, 2007 1:03:53 pm PDT #8771 of 10001
Hayden - Apr 06, 2007 1:20:42 pm PDT #8772 of 10001
aka "The artist formerly known as Corwood Industries."
No, but I don't recall a whole lot of discussion on some of those shows. I know that dreck like Arli$$ and The Mind of the Married Man have only come up with derision.
Nutty - Apr 06, 2007 1:23:05 pm PDT #8773 of 10001
"Mister Spock is on his fanny, sir. Reports heavy damage."
See, this "underlying feel" thing with Boxed Set is a big factor in what gets talked over in that thread. People were surprised when I remarked, during the most recent what-goes-where talk, that Boxed Set is the media fandom thread, but that (usually subtextual) definition is how things are classed into or out of the thread.
I don't know if there's a name for people who watch premium shows plus the hard stuff of FX, but I do tend to group those two things together in my mind -- not because of genre, but because they attract the same people.
They just need a name! And then this question will be resolved.
t /polyanna
Topic!Cindy - Apr 06, 2007 1:24:59 pm PDT #8774 of 10001
What is even happening?
I'm starting to come around to Hec's idea of show threads that we don't let become permanent fixtures. Then there's no spoiler issue because it's easy to avoid, and there's no, "I didn't know we were talking about that in the thread of Group X shows." Sometimes, shows will fit together for whatever reason (genre, etc.) and we might want to group them. I don't know. I don't think there's an easy answer, because while the board can't be everything to everyone, we seem to work better when we're not so rigid about stuff.
Topic!Cindy - Apr 06, 2007 1:25:55 pm PDT #8775 of 10001
What is even happening?
They just need a name! And then this question will be resolved.
Gutter Rats?
Strega - Apr 06, 2007 1:38:23 pm PDT #8776 of 10001
No, but I don't recall a whole lot of discussion on some of those shows.Okay, but can you see how people who don't participate in the thread might be a little confused when that's what they have to go on? Again, I'm in favor of being able to tell from the name/description what is actually going on in the thread.
I'll repeat my earlier suggestion: why not simply define that particular thread according to the shows y'all actually want to discuss, and not worry about trying to invent a category based on network or genre or anything else?
Call me a crazy utilitarian, but it seems a lot simpler.
Kevin - Apr 06, 2007 1:58:18 pm PDT #8777 of 10001
Never fall in love with somebody you actually love.
why not simply define that particular thread according to the shows y'all actually want to discuss
From my point of view, that's best for me as it allows me to easily pick where to put or go for stuff. But I realise I might be a minority view point.
amych - Apr 06, 2007 2:02:26 pm PDT #8778 of 10001
Now let us crush something soft and watch it fountain blood. That is a girlish thing to want to do, yes?
Again, I'm in favor of being able to tell from the name/description what is actually going on in the thread.
Agreed. I think where we disagree is that people in favor (or, okay, me plus my usual brilliant skill at botching what other people are maybe saying) are talking about this:
why not simply define that particular thread according to the shows y'all actually want to discuss,
only from a position of seeing it as a sort-of genre analogous to Nutty's mediafandom point, rather than a list of "this is in, this is out".
Anymore, it seems like TV threads are defined by the fact that people hate them enough to bitch about the fact that there's chocolate in my peanut butter too much discussion. I strongly want a better way to support "I love this shiny new thing, and I know just the place to find a hivemind even if it didn't exist at the time the thread was proposed". We've built that feeling, somewhat accidentally, in Boxed Set, and calling that thread SF/F was a retrofit. I don't think that kind of retrofitting is a bad thing, when it matches what's actually happening.
Maybe I'm just wired folksonomic.
§ ita § - Apr 06, 2007 2:03:33 pm PDT #8779 of 10001
Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.
that (usually subtextual) definition is how things are classed into or out of the thread
How did you support that again? I mean, I discuss all the SF shows in there that I want to, and not the ones I don't. The places for selection, then rest with my subconscious, or what people will engage with me on.
Is there no media fannish stuff in Natter? Premium?
§ ita § - Apr 06, 2007 2:06:06 pm PDT #8780 of 10001
Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.
We've built that feeling, somewhat accidentally, in Boxed Set, and calling that thread SF/F was a retrofit
I thought that it was called SFF from the moment the decision was made to combine SFF threads to make it, accompanying by the implicit assumption (still violated, but by a vote each time) that anything else that came up that fit the SFF mould would be happily placed there too.
This is easily one of the most confusing B'cacy discussions I've participated in. I don't feel I'm speaking English anymore.