Hell, those of us who feel told instead of shown are not the only ones.

From TWOP:

On a dark street, a family packs their car by battery-powered lanterns. Y'know, Sep addressed this last week and I barely have the energy to care, but this whole "citizens flee Sunnydale" plot is beyond lame. It's so far beyond lame that it's the Lame at the End of the Universe. Not the concept so much, but the execution. Oh, sure, ME is doing a little more showing now. Showing us the people leaving rather than just telling us it's happening. But the threat? The motivation? The source of the mass panic? We're still being told. We haven't seen a single second of it. We've seen a villain -- the villain to end all villains, supposedly, the Source of All Evil -- that has all its energy focused on a handful of people in a single house. And we're told that somehow this translates to Sunnydale being emptied of its residents, yet we see NOTHING. Fuckin' lame. Lame lame lame lame. I just can't…I can't even express how disappointed I am in Joss Whedon and his crew here. I don't have the words (and believe me, that doesn't happen often). Anyway, we see Buffy walk by this fleeing family, her sad arms clutched around her tiny, emaciated torso, her tiny brow crumpled over her empty, soulless eyes, her lower lip pouting and quivering. I remain unmoved.

Dana, that's no friend. That's a freak.

No, she's good people. You met her in Toronto. She's just...a little weird. Like, she doesn't eat eggs.

Okay. When, in Shadow, Buffy was in a battle with a Thing and Spike threw her a knife but stayed out of the fight, that was showing. When, in the episode where Riley left [Into The Woods], Xander made a big speech to Buffy about what a great guy Riley was, that was telling. Care to refute either of those?

Sure. If by telling you mean "speaking" and showing you mean "not speaking" you are obviously correct, but that seems a not very useful tautology. Speaking, after all, is an activity the same as knife throwing. But I assume that isn't what you mean. In which case I would argue Xander's speech (which I still remember) was more dramatic and effective storytelling than the knife throwing (which I'd completely forgot). Obviously ymmv-but then that is my point.

Like, she doesn't eat eggs.

Oh. I forgive the no Monty Python thing, then, because that can be resolved. But us egg-avoiders are few and to be cherished.

I agree with Ted's criterion of rewatching. I don't think this season will ever have me as hungry as S2 (but, really, what can?), but I would never ever consider watching any 24 episode twice, other than the final ep of last season, and that was a personal thing. I don't watch much twice, but this season, with the Torrenting, I've watched early, and then watched on time without hesitating.

ted, I think you either disagree with the showing not telling philosophy of good television, or you don't understand it. If it's the former, you're entitled to your opinion. If it's the latter then feel free to join me in my corner since I don't get it 100% either. But I wouldn't argue with the mechanics of that philosophy. Obviously a knife throwing is a showing, while a speech is a telling.

Sure. If by telling you mean "speaking" and showing you mean "not speaking" you are obviously correct, but that seems a not very useful tautology. Speaking, after all, is an activity the same as knife throwing. But I assume that isn't what you mean. In which case I would argue Xander's speech (which I still remember) was more dramatic and effective storytelling than the knife throwing (which I'd completely forgot). Obviously ymmv-but then that is my point.

Ted, I feel like you're deliberately misunderstanding.

Spike throwing the knife *showed* something about his feelings for Buffy, his understanding of her, etc.

Xander's speech was about *Riley.* We learned about Riley from someone else talking about him.

We learned about Spike from something he *himself* did.

We learned about Riley (maybe) from something someone else said.

That's the difference between showing and telling.

I'm not saying 24 is a better show then BtVS. I'm saying the last few 24s have been more enjoyable to watch, then Buffy has.

For you. And that's fine. Not, however for me. Is one of us "wrong?" Not in any proveable sense. At most you could appeal for majority rule and take a vote among all Buffy fans, but if we are arguing popularity equals quality than Survivor is a much better show than BTVS ever was.

But the most startling thing they could do is write Jack's daughter not as a moron.

Hear hear.

I haven't been feeling the 24 love this year because I find it totally unbelieveable that so much crappy stuff could happen to one person in a 24 hour period, yet his bladder and bowel seem to be completely intact, despite him never going to the toilet once. And yet, I'm still watching.

For you. And that's fine. Not, however for me. Is one of us "wrong?" Not in any proveable sense.

Right. I was clarifying my previous post which described 24 as Good Television, and recent Buffy as NSM. 24 doesn't have the deepest characters and the richness of plot, but what it does have is kick-ass pacing and suspense. Buffy used to be all that and a bag of chips. Now it's lost some of the chips, and some of the all that.

his bladder and bowel seem to be completely intact, despite him never going to the toilet once

It's the same magic that healed his leg, and brought him back to life.

The First Evil.