This site will work and look better in a browser that supports web standards, but it is accessible to any browser or Internet device.

Whedonesque - a community weblog about Joss Whedon
"How's it sit? Pretty cunning, don'tchya think?"
11945 members | you are not logged in | 20 October 2014




Tweet







October 14 2008

We can't pay you to watch Buffy. Buffy unfortunately makes the list of 20 hits we couldn't pay someone to see. Gossip Girl is a healthy alternative though.

More like the list of things that I am not going to try, because I assume that they suck, even though I have never seen them. Bad night for my anger. First I realize that Heroes has lost any good that it had after that disgusting display, and then I read this awful list. Uggh.

I'm going to read a book or something.

[ edited by Giles_314 on 2008-10-14 04:55 ]
Fmeh! This list reminds me of people I've known who wouldn't watch Buffy just because they disliked someone who liked the show. I'll bet those people liked air and food and water, too, but no sign of that being avoided.

Grr.. Sometimes I just get steamed at people.

FALSE ADVERTISEMENT: When things get hot, you need the sort of refreshment that really satisfies. You need Smite™. Smite™ has a crisp lemon-lime taste, sparkling carbonation and thunderous blitzkrieg of karmic justice that drenches you with satisfaction. So next time you're feeling hot and bothered, remember: Obey your thirst (for vengeance), choose Smite™!
That woman with the "Godfather" thing? That's just beyond-the-words-of-strange.
I went to the website that wrote this article (it was not credited to a person), where they sang the praises of "Rock of Love Charm School" and "Wipeout". These shows clearly exhibit a level of quality and class that Buffy could never attain, so I totally understand where this person is coming from.
No....sopranos??????? No James BOND? I mean, come on! They'll never watch Lord of the Rings?

Sad.
Yes, but Grotesk (and directed a bit at you too, Giles_314), I'm not sure you're being fair. Air and food and water are necessities for human life...as is, I would argue, entertainment/diversion, at least in some form. Problem is, you can get your entertainment from a lot of places, and so Buffy isn't comparable to a physical necessity. Well, okay, it is if you're obsessed, I guess...

I too once shunned Buffy because I thought it wouldn't interest me--and yes, on the grounds that the people I knew to whom it appealed weren't exactly ringing endorsements of the show. Then one night by accident, I caught an episode and was hooked. (And it was "Bargaining," which doesn't rank high on most people's favorites list...including mine. I think that says something about the quality of the series.) I still remember walking out of my dorm room and into the crisp night air, saying to myself, "Hmm. That wasn't bad at all. In fact, it was kinda neat. Maybe I'll watch again next week. Backstory seemed kinda complex, though. Say, I wonder if it's in reruns anywhere?" Thank God my college cable network had FX.

The thing is, though, I think theirs is a natural and (mostly) grounded human intuition. I mean, strictly, it's a logical fallacy, but it's still widespread, in part because it seems to work for a not-small portion of the time. Most of the other things those people liked, I couldn't bear. Believe me, after my exposure to Buffy, I tried most of them. Couldn't bear them to save my life. And yet this one thing, I not only could bear, I became obsessed with. In short order, I was the Uber-Nerd, walking around quoting lines of the show and making veiled references to plot points. And I must have driven my roommate crazy singing the "OMWF" score.

I guess my point is, before you break out your big Can o' Smite, don't judge these people too harshly. They're using reasoning that's worked before, even though they might be wrong this time...or then again, they might be right. I'm sure there are shows and movies that you don't watch because of the people/tropes you associate with them. I'm sure because if that's not the case, you're either so perfectly rational that you only qualify as human in the biological sense...or you just don't watch anything at all.

Or maybe you're not even human in the biological sense. I don't know--it's logically possible. And if so, are you some kind of robot? And if so, what kind of powers do you have? Do you use them for good, or for awesome? Would you like to join forces? I just happen to be the greatest criminal mind of our time.

Hmm. This comment ended up in a different place than it started out in.
stupid list guy. what a maroon.
I, too, once avoided Buffy like the cliche about plagues. In the end my friends duct-taped me to the chair and forced me to watch it.

Now, you still couldn't pay me to watch Buffy. I'd pay you to let me.
Ignorance is not bliss, it's just ignorance.
I can't really decide if this list makes me sad, or angry. I think I'll just sit here and give thanks that I discovered something quality before my entertainment tastes were completely deadened by the media-of-the-moment. Like Gossip Girl, which apparently rates over Buffy. When did that happen?
"I'm against vampires".

Didn't the person understand the title: Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Buffy is against vampires too...except for ah...Angel and Spike.

"pay you to watch Buffy." Sounds like a fan campaign that hasn't been tried before!
I can't respect a writer about popular culture who refuses to watch most of the most iconic examples of popular culture! What does this person watch? Reality TV?
Well, whoever decided to create the list sure woke up on the proverbial wrong side of the bed.

And while there are plenty of items on the list that aren't to my taste, in other cases, Buffy's really in good company: The Sound of Music. Harry Potter. Lord of the Rings. The Godfather. James Bond.

For everything that many people love, there will somewhere be a sourpuss who can't stand it. Their loss! :)
It took me no fewer than ten years to get over myself and give Buffy a try. It is now my favourite show.

I am led to believe this is not a unique tale.
Rabble! Rabble rabble! ***incoherent grumbling about poor sodding bastards and their empty lives*** Rabble!

Well, this just means that we are once again the special enlightened few. I know people who are adamantly anti-Buffy for a number of reasons; my parents fall into the "it looks stupid, I don't want to waste my time" group.

C'est la vie (C'est la guerre, c'est la pomme a terre)

I say, fewer people to take up seats at 'cons; fewer people with whom we have to fight for the final BtVS comic on the rack. To each his/her own awesomeness--we know ours is the real deal.
Sounds like insane troll logic to me.
They can pay me to watch Buffy if they want.

Really, at this point, they could pay me to do almost anything.

[ edited by theonetruebix on 2008-10-14 08:39 ]
Well I agree with the person who doesn't want to watch High School Musical. But then again I have heard some of the songs from the first film and seriously considered numerous acts of senseless violence.

So it isn't like my dislike is entirely baseless...
I too avoided Buffy because I thought it sounded silly. By the end of the first episode, I totally knew it wasn't.
Buffy is the best thing pop culture ever get! Not seeing it is just stupid!
Yeah, that'll convince them.

Personally i'd watch pretty much anything allowable on network or cable TV if you paid me, so long as you match whatever my hourly salary is (it may not be better but it's unlikely to be worse than work, whatever it is ;). There're some things where I either wouldn't or it'd take a helluva lot of money to make me watch it though (we can all probably figure out what those are - non-fiction is much more disturbing than anything we can dream up IMO).

(I don't mind the entries that've decided - on incomplete information - to not seek a show/film out, we all do that, given finite time/resources it's an essential human "ability". It's those that seem to have decided a show/film/whatever isn't very good based on incomplete information, those that're actively avoiding a show based only on their preconceptions that bug me - I reckon folk would profit from adopting more of a neutral attitude towards things they're ignorant of until they've reason not to)
I wouldn't watch Buffy because she killed vampires. I like vampires.

My kids made me. They're good kids.
I was going to say that this list seemed like a rather poor April Fool's joke on the behalf of some people with an underdeveloped sense of time, then remembered that High School Musical was on the list. Can't say as I'll argue with them about that choice. I've got an 11-year old girl, so I'm VERY familiar with it. It's music that makes you want to crank up the vacuum-blender-lawn mowing-leaf blower machine.

As for the rest of it, sad, sad...I guess if people don't want to investigate the highlights of pop culture, how awful for them.
I wish I had never seen Titanic. That was pretty horrid.
Wow. There's a lot of people missing out on some really good stuff. It seems sad that some silly prejudice would cause a person miss out on something truly enjoyable. It's perfectly fine to just not enjoy something, but it's pretty dumb to miss out on something great just because so many other people like it.
Buffy.Lord of the Rings.Star Wars.Harry Potter. Are this people crazy?! they're iconic. they're important.
and Friends and The Simpsons ? they're fun, they're simple, no big plots to follow and they're really easy to find
High School Musical,American Idol ,reality tv,Twilight, that I understand.
and hey, bring it on is fun.

like crossoverman said, ignorance isn't bliss.
a marathon of buffy might be
Hah, BAFfler, your homestar reference really cheered me up.
Once upon a less enlightened time, you couldn't have payed me to watch Buffy either. How wrong I proved to be... ;)
I used to be completely indifferent to Buffy too. I don't care about vampires or supernatural stories, so I never thought I could like it. I could believe it was good as people were telling me but there's tons of objectively great stuff that doesn't entertain me. Plus I had caught five minutes of an episode once with a demon-infested computer (yup, it was IRYJ) and, well, it didn't encourage me to try it.

Then I discovered Firefly, loved it and was floored there wasn't more of it. So I thought, well, I could check out the other shows Whedon has done: at the very least I'll get more of his fantastic dialogue. And I started watching Buffy in order and after Innocence I was hooked. After Becoming I was obsessed, I bought the complete series on DVD and Angel too and now it's one of my favorite shows ever. I still can't care less about vampires but the great thing about Buffy, it's not about the monsters.
Hmmm... I'm going to have to agree with BAFfler here - it's rather unfair to diss these people based on their taste on television and movies. Preferring Gossip Girl over Buffy does not make someone stupid or ignorant, and likewise liking Buffy does not automatically make someone intelligent.

There is so much pop culture produced today that to not be interested in even checking out some "icon" can hardly be called ignorant. Hell, it would be easy to argue that Big Brother is a much more important cultural milestone than Buffy, and on that standard something that everyone should watch.

There were plenty of titles on that list such as Godfather, Sopranos, and the Da Vinci Code that I have not watched/read, and, frankly, refuse to waste my time on watching/reading because I know that I would not like them, or - in the case of the Da Vinci Code - already know that they're crap.
I didn't think I would be interested in the Godfather, and didn't watch it until earlier this year.

I loved it.

Though you can't pay me to watch Gossip Girl, Twilight, High School Musical or The Davinci Code, so there ya go.
Vampires are not for everyone. I had thought The Goonies was though.
Clearly some people just aren't feeling the Goonie Love.
Am I imagining a note of pride in the refusal to try something, primarily because it is popular with too many people, or people the refuser scorns as uncool?

If I'm not imagining it, I for one find that sort of thing icky. It's similar to bragging about personal "flaws" that you think, not so secretly, are actually impressive: "I'm so impetuous", "Such a perfectionist","have no patience with fools", etc.
were i this person, i would hate my life - missing out on such great things because of my overinflated pride.

[ edited by whiterabbit on 2008-10-14 16:48 ]
I don't care is someone doesn't like Buffy. My best friend actually doesn't. (Although her husband does so she has good taste in men. ;) ) But she tried it. It's just not her thing. I do get a little annoyed though when people refuse to watch something just because of so called hype or because too many other people they don't like watch it. That's just spiteful and silly, IMO. Why deny yourself a chance at something that you might enjoy just because someone you don't like (or in general don't want to be associated with- ie: fandom) watches it. When did it become cool to hate something without any experience of that thing?

[ edited by NYPinTA on 2008-10-14 16:52 ]
Hmm. Since when did being a perfectionist become a bad thing?
It's not but claiming perfectionism as a flaw when you actually think it isn't is disingenuous, which is a bad thing.

If I'm not imagining it, I for one find that sort of thing icky. It's similar to bragging about personal "flaws" that you think, not so secretly, are actually impressive: "I'm so impetuous", "Such a perfectionist","have no patience with fools", etc.

Heh, "CV flaws" I call those toast cos they're the sort of fake character "flaws" you put on a CV ;). I agree there's a hint of that in some of the entries, not all though in fairness.

When did it become cool to hate something without any experience of that thing?

It's the "lone wolf" syndrome I think, "lone wolves" are automatically cooler in some people's eyes just because there're fewer of 'em and the romantic conception of them is that they walk to the beat of a different drum.

I think folk sometimes equate not sharing popular interests with good taste when in fact it could just be narrow-mindedness. It's true, as Bertrand Russell (may have) said, that "if fifty million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing" but it's equally true that it's not foolish because fifty million people say it (that's kinda the point - how many people say it is irrelevant).
I'm all sorts of OK with people marching to the beat of their own drum, but I'd rathey they do it by being true to themselves and not just by being contrary for contrary's sake.
Like Buffy, don't like Buffy but don't not like Buffy because too many people do like it. Where is the joy in that?

P.S. Goonies rock.
Telling someone they HAVE HAVE HAVE to watch something that they aren't particularly interested in is a great way to ensure they never watch it. It just builds resentment. I have a friend who refuses to watch Firefly or Serenity for that very reason: people made her feel like something was wrong with her for not caring.

I will say, the person who won't watch any "dancing" movies did make me a little sad. Then again, I own Bring It On.
Bring It On might be the best film of all time, Lady Brick.

It's mesmerizing. If I happen to be flipping through channels and I come across BIO, I'm helpless to resist watching. Same goes for Singin' in the Rain, Happy Gilmore and Serenity, among others. (What's Happy Gilmore doing in that list? I guess I have a soft spot for Mr. Richard Kiel.)
I love Bring It On too, but for a slightly different reason. With Eliza Dushku (Faith), Clare Kramer (Glory), and the girl who played the victim of the blood-sucking machine in "The Wish" all playing cheerleaders; the movie being partially set at Torrance (aka "Sunnydale") High; and the original score being composed by Christophe Beck--well, every time I watch it, I always get the feeling that we're dealing with some sort of bizarro-world take on Buffy here, perhaps circa Season 3.

There are some shots where I could swear I see Cordelia on the cheerleading squad, and every so often I am convinced that if the camera just panned a little left, we would see Buffy, Xander and Willow following Giles to the library as they plotted to save the world from the Unholy Feast of Something-or-Other. Hell, some of the dialogue even feels like something Joss Whedon might have written if he'd decided to do a TV series about the travails of high school cheerleaders...and tell me Kirsten Dunst wouldn't have made for, certainly not a better, but at least an interesting take on Buffy Summers.

Say, why did "Missy Pantone" (if that is your real name, Faith) transfer from Los Angeles anyway? Are we sure that's not just a cover story for Faith ariving from Boston? And what's Glory doing there? Maybe some recon work, posing as a high school cheerleader while looking for the Key--which hasn't even COME to Sunnydale yet, stupid hellgod? Seriously, try telling yourself these stories. I guarantee that if you're a Buffy freak, you'll be entertained for hours.
Honestly: I can understand not wanting to watch something. I have yet to watch Titanic for instance. The hype completely killed it for me and I absolutely loathed that Celine Dion song. Thus: I have not watched it (which, I think, Dana is probably jealous of right now ;)).

Same thing happened with 'Harry Potter' initially. Being all hyped up meant I didn't feel like reading the books. People telling me I should then furthered my singlemindedness not to read it (yeah, I'm one of those people, sometimes ;)). In the end I bought the first four books in English for my mum, though, because I wanted her to read some fairly easy-to-read books to practice her English. I ended up picking up book three one day (I'd seen the first two movies) when I was bored and because I figured I could easily read it in a day. Of course, I ended up loving it and have now read and re-read the entire series.

In the same vein, I'm pretty sure that if I hadn't read 'The Da Vinci Code' before it became a hype (and liked it as breezy, exciting, fastpaced fun), I wouldn't have read the book to this day.

People don't watch, read or listen to things for weird reasons. Everyone does it sometimes, probably including almost all people here. So I don't judge these people, even if the things they don't want to watch contain some of my favorite movies and television shows. The same might be true in reverse.
Just to reiterate, not wanting to watch something is different to wanting to not-watch something IMO - some of these entries smack of the latter.

I'm all sorts of OK with people marching to the beat of their own drum, but I'd rathey they do it by being true to themselves and not just by being contrary for contrary's sake.

Exactly. Follow your own beat by all means but realise that doing so isn't a virtue unto itself - if you make it one and deliberately avoid popular books/films/etc. just because they're popular then you're not a "lone wolf" at all, you're just a different kind of sheep.

That said, avoiding stuff because it's been over-hyped or because someone's tried to browbeat you into trying it is just human nature I think, we're all contrary that way to varying degrees (that's why we have the concept of over-hyping something to begin with ;). I haven't watched 'The 4400' (yet) for instance partly because there were so many adverts for it on Sky TV that I was already sick of the idea of it before it even aired here.

(and I liked 'Bring it On' too, not seen the sequels though. I actually didn't hate 'Titanic' either though it was way too long, quite by the numbers and I could've done without the song, especially as overexposed as it was. Not seen it again right enough and I don't feel like I need or want to which may say something)
Um, I watched Titanic when I was a 15-yr-old girl who'd never really seen much good tv or cinema, and must confess to totally loving it and erm... seeing it three times at the cinema. Ahem. However, that got it out of my system quite effectively and I've never wanted to watch it again since. (Also, in my defence, the stuff I did find coolest even then were the special effects and the use of advanced maths to model large-scale sea.)

I was guilty of the avoiding Buffy thing - not so much because of hype (I only knew one person who watched it), but just because I didn't think vampires and American shows about blonde teenage girls and scary things that go bump in the night were really my thing. When it first came out was also the time when I was gorging myself on Dickens and Victor Hugo after all. Even after my friend lent me Firefly, many years later, and I watched it and adored, my heart sank a little when she insisted on lending me s1 of Buffy immediately afterwards. Of course, I was wrong...

I can feel myself doing a similar thing with other hyped shows such as Mad Men, Dexter or Sopranos. It's very bad of me... but yeah, I agree with Saje that it's human nature, something to do with resenting the fact that everyone else loves them so much and wanting to be contrary. Or fearing I won't like them too and will feel left out... I'm not sure.

On the plus side, the Titanic-susceptible side of me is also still alive and well and has possibly evolved into me watching Gossip Girl these days. So that's okay then. ;)
Saje:"I think folk sometimes equate not sharing popular interests with good taste when in fact it could just be narrow-mindedness."

Yeah, I've been there. BtVS opened my eyes for me on that, not just about itself, but about popular culture in general. You think I'd have gotten it before, what with the various popular culture "guilty pleasures" I had, and that refusal to read the delightful The World According to Garp because so many people liked it, and so on - but it really was Buffy the Vampire Slayer that made me see how much I was missing by being an intellectual snob or whatever it was that I was.

Well, that's really how Buffy changed my life. And now I won't do anything but watch TV and read comics and I hate literature 'cause basically reading sucks. ; >

But seriously, some folks wouldn't consider reading a Harry Potter book? or a book recommended by Oprah? Because she recommended it? That's missing some mighty good books for no good reason.

This whole list kinda reminds me of those two characters Mary and Yale in Woody Allen's Manhattan, who had their own cosy little club of two and started a list they called "Academy of the Overrated" - on which they included such losers as Carl G. Jung, Vincent Van Gogh and Ingmar Bergman.

From my own experience, I can only say, "Well, it's your loss, and you might find that out some day - and guaranteed you will feel a little foolish."
I absolutely loathed that Celine Dion song.

I think that knowing you will be subjected to a Celine Dion song is a legitimate reason for not wanting to watch something. :)

(Although I liked Titanic well enough. Especially the boat-tipping part.)
On a related note, I saw The English Patient when it first hit cable. It was a movie I was definitely going to avoid. It just looked a little too heavy and the hype was screaming that this would be a movie my mother would love.

Anyway, I turned on the television about 20 second after the credits and didn't know what I was watching. Afterwards, I still literally didn't know the name of the amazing movie I just saw but I had to tell someone. Sure enough, in speaking with my sister, it was determined that I just watched (and loved) The English Patient. I never would have considered watching it if I knew beforehand it was TEP.

Along that line of thought, why didn't Joss name Buffy something like Bad-Ass Slayer of Evil or Death-Bringer or even just Vampire Slayer or something else that mainstream audiences would not have had to avoid? (Yes I said it. They HAD to avoid.) The minute "Buffy" is in the title, you eliminate more than half of the potential viewing audience (I didn't do a scientific study or survey but my gut tells me this). Why? I understand that a rose by any other name would smell as sweet but if you called it a shit-flower, I'm guessing many folks wouldn't be willing to give it that first sniff. And obviously with TV, the more sniffers, the better...so as important as great writing, acting, quality production, effects, music, etc. are to a show, if nobody sees it, it doesn't matter how great it is.

This begs the question, if you pander to the audience by changing the title to something "safe" does it negatively impact the quality of the show? (like the argument about someone doing a documentary but not having an impact on the content; For example, how could cameras sitting in the room not affect a person being filmed??)

Wow this turned into a long post. Cant wait to hear what Saje thinks ;)
"Taj Mahal? Nah, don't like tombs."

(I'm on affterrnooon break at work so I'vent' read the whole list yet, so my comments are limted now.)
I can see the point to the extent that there are genres and themes that don't appeal to a person. I don't like the whole gangster milieu so I have no plans to seek out Godfather(film or book)/Sopranos/Goodfellas/Once UPon a Time in America etc regardless. And I grew up around it so I'm not inclined to watch Siz Feet Under even if I had a TV. (Like a friend on another board, won't watch Friday Night Lights because he grew up in a biggish town in East Texas and doesn't feel like re-visiting it, or an African-AMerican guy I used to work with who wouldn't watch the Rocky series because all thru high school he was often annoyed by "Yo Adrian!" type Italians.)

So I can see someone not being inclined to watch BtVS or Anything Else. Avoiding something just because it's fairly popular is childish tho; I feel that way because when I was a child I did that. It is possible to be contrary and stilla dult, tho. And I agree on judging soemthing as to value sight unseen because of its popularity is absurd.

Something like JFK or The Da Vinci Code tho, I avoid because, unles it's sepcifically packaged as s-f-/fanatasy, I avoid anything which panders to whacky a-historical conspiracy theories. (And you're d**ned right that's an opinion.)

[ edited by DaddyCatALSO on 2008-10-14 22:06 ]
Totally off the main point, Saje, re: CV flaws- The "biggest flaw" my law school classmates and I would claim for ourselves at job interviews, back in the day, was being a "terrible workaholic". I always had a hard time delivering the line with a straight face, and thought a good percentage of interviewers must have been stiffling some hoots, too.

We had a theory that it was a test devised by law firms to see if a potential litigator could keep her poise while making a patently ridiculous argument in public.

[ edited by toast on 2008-10-14 20:34 ]
They can pay me to watch Buffy if they want.

Really, at this point, they could pay me to do almost anything.


Very subtle. So when does payb!Xtodoalmostanything.net launch again?

I think, we're all contrary that way to varying degrees


toast - awesomeness :). Seriously, you workaholic, you!

I'm not. Crap! You got me...
Muhahaha. The contraritrap™ springs ! Or doesn't, frankly i've given up trying to predict it.

And now I won't do anything but watch TV and read comics and I hate literature 'cause basically reading sucks. ; >

Also, most books have movies now anyways QG, s'much quicker and easier (tho' even then I usually fast-forward through the wordy bits - like, "Toby or not Toby ?" Dude, just ask him his frikkin' name, what's the problem ?!).

(I generally try not to draw a line between "high" culture and "low" culture, you're just closing yourself off to opportunities doing that IMO. In fact, i'd say one of the things that makes me happy to be British is that over here, in general, culture is culture. We have as many snobs as anywhere else, don't get me wrong, it's just that it seems like most people accept that 'Coronation Street' is just as much a part of British culture as e.g. the Last Night of the Proms or Shakespeare)

The "biggest flaw" my law school classmates and I would claim for ourselves at job interviews, back in the day, was being a "terrible workaholic". I always had a hard time delivering the line with a straight face, and thought a good percentage of interviewers must have been stiffling some hoots, too.

Heh ;). Sometimes I think interviewers use those questions to find folk with a sense of humour or that are unusually honest. I mean, most people aren't going to admit they like to eat staples or fart the national anthem in the office or whatever little "quirk" they happen to have so what's the point ? If I was an interviewer i'd probably give the job to the first person who said "I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that it's a load of bollocks" ;).
Sadly, having later worked with a few of the folks who asked this question, I can definitely say that at least some of them were serious, and thought it was a clever and revealing tactic. ( And many of them wouldn't have recognized humour if served to them on a platter- with or without a rubber chicken.)
I think what helped me get a job one time was answering the "What's your biggest flaw?" interview question with my answer, "I have an uncontrollable urge to laugh when I hear that question."

I will say that I thought I had a snowball's chance in hell of getting the job, which can really free you up... I wasn't usually quite so eggsy.
I used to say, "I have horrible handwriting so I've become an extraordinary typist."
The ignorance in that list made me cringe. I couldn't even make it to the end. I don't understand why anyone would make a list like that or how people could find it funny. Ignorance is not funny, it's terrifying.
It really helps to think you won't get it, Quoter Gal. I got my present state job, which suits me very well, many years ago under similar circumstances. An interviewer- later my boss, asked me if I'd done anything which might embarrass the (then) governor.

The idea that anything I could do would have any effect whatsoever on the governor just struck me funny. I started to laugh, and couldn't stop. I was weak with giggling, and finally squeaked out, "I don't know, I guess it depends on how easily he's embarrassed."

Could be that there's a major connection between how much you act like yourself, and how well you fit the job? Makes sense.

[ edited by toast on 2008-10-15 01:50 ]
Heh...once in response to that idiotic interview question I said, "Um, other than getting hammered before noon most days?"

Got an offer, but it liked me not.

I'm not a good manager. Have been a manager of people, but don't like it and, while I can do it, I don't do it well. So when I've encountered that question, that's my response. Interviewers have been quite surprised by candor.
Yikes Chris! That's candor???
You know, I notice they didn't offer to pay me (yeah, I do it for free, but getting paid to do it would just be gravy...)
Back to the silly list thing, the problem with the whole "Don't like vampires, so won't watch Buffy" thing is that it's a big, varied genre. I'm not a fan of Anne Rice, Twilight or the old Hammer Horror vampires, but I love BtVS and Angel, and I liked Dark Shadows and Forever Knight. You can dislike some or most examples of any genre and still find the one show, book or movie that you absolutely love. So other than, say, someone with an intense fear of spiders and hospitals avoiding anything involving those, it's just silly to write off a show forever because you didn't like something else you saw with that general subject matter.

And looking through the rest of her(?) list, how can you tell you don't like to watch things about the mob if you haven't watched the most acclaimed portrayals of it? Yes, the real-life mob does lots of bad things and shouldn't be glorified. So did pirates, western outlaws, and lots of other historical unsavory types, but it doesn't mean that movies about them aren't fun. Watching Jack Sparrow didn't make people set out to sea and start scuttling ships. It's just a story.

Then there are the people who assume that all BtVS fans are Goths who love all things dealing with vampires, or that everyone who watches Star Trek are socially-inept nerds, etc. Some people have these stereotypes of those who they imagine are the audience for a show, and are afraid to watch for fear of turning into that imaginary stereotype. It's amazingly stupid, but I've seen people actually use that as an argument.

And Harry Potter won't get upset if you watch or read Lord Of The Rings. You're not cheating on him or being disloyal. Really. You know why? Because he's a FICTIONAL CHARACTER! So there.

Mind you, I personally tend to avoid things that I feel are overhyped or overmarketed, but not forever. I just wait a year or two until the hype dies down, and then I watch it. I know it's not a logical reason, but seeing "Friends" on the cover of every magazine or looking through a rack of shirts and finding that literally over half of them are from Napoleon Dynamite makes me back off from trying them right away. But I know that's a stupid reaction, and I'd look stupid to brag about it the way they're bragging on that list.
. You can dislike some or most examples of any genre and still find the one show, book or movie that you absolutely love.

I can guarantee that I will not enjoy anything with clowns in it.

Hmm, maybe It: The True Nature of Clowns.
It does seem that each entry came from separate individuals, but the points still hold.
I can guarantee that I will not enjoy anything with clowns in it.

The first episode of Are You Afraid Of The Dark? that I saw as a kid had a very scary clown in it. It was awesome.

ETA: Meaning if you like horror, there may be a clown story out there for you.

[ edited by Sunfire on 2008-10-15 15:30 ]
I like horror, but that doesn't mean I like being terrified :)

'It' seems to express how I feel about clowns, but I don't love it. Or love It as it were.

You need to log in to be able to post comments.
About membership.



joss speaks back home back home back home back home back home