From CR on 3-27, on the "Can't we get along" thread:

"The history speaks for itself. I'm usually not talking at all to Dumas, and he comes on to slam me. Just look at this thread. Evidence isn't one of your strong suits, though."

Submitted for your approval, your honor.

Don't you get enough forensics from watching HOUSE?

Could every episode of that show possibly be more of the same?

I don't watch it, but my wife does, and I'm usually in the same room working at the time, so I get a lot of it absorbed into my system by osmosis (It's like Gilmore Girls that way). Am I missing something, or is this EVERY SINGLE HOUSE PLOT EVER?:

"ANY RANDOM HOUSE EPISODE"

a - Person is dramatically (and grossly) sick
b - Doctors say, "It's X!" and begin treatment
c - House says, "No, you fools, it's this OTHER thing!"
d - Doctors say, "House, you're a real jerk! And you're wrong!"
e - Person gets even SICKER and the treatment isn't working!
f - House says, "See!? Now try my wacky idea!"
g - Other doctors say, "NO!"
h - House does it anyway - with ATTITUDE!
i - The person gets better!
j - House says, "I told you so!"
k - Credits roll

House does seem like a real bastard, though. I think I might like him.

Often elements c,d,e, and f are repeated more than once until the real problem is discovered.

This also reminds me of the following:

My wife was reading the TV Guide one evening and began quoting the plot for that night's episode of Quincy (speaking of doctors and forensics):

"Quincy is outraged when...."

I stopped her right there. "Isn't that the plot of every Quincy they've made?"

Gene, if you can't tell the difference between arguing with an opinion and calling someone names, then that's your problem. I've said nothing offensive in this thread.

I thought HOUSE was one of those remodelling shows.

I'm not sure I catch the subtle difference between your trying to prove Dumas' views inconsistent and Dumas (just to keep to the thread I quoted) averring that if you liked something, that was reason enough for him not to like it. However differently the two are expressed, they still come down to, "You poopyhead!"

What's the point of proving anyone's tastes to be inconsistent? Taste is, by its very nature, wildly inconsistent. Alfred North Whitehead was one of the great thinkers of our era but he was supposedly addicted to porn books. Big deal. Whitman gave everyone a get-outta-jail-free card regarding contradicting oneself-- though I like to think that applies mainly to aesthetic matters. (In other words, the Bush administration should go directly to jail without even passing 'Go.")

Whether Whitehead's addiction is true or not, I don't see what that has to do with a contradiction in taste. Regardless, I wasn't arguing about anyone's personal taste per se, but the application of that taste in terms of a rule: the inherent failure of one medium to do what another medium does. As I stated, it really came down to a very subjective taste here, and not the inherent limitations of the comics medium, as the point was originally stated. So, I believe we agree.

As for the inconsistency/incoherency of taste, I'm not sure I agree. Certainly, individual taste is inconsistent, but that doesn't mean it should be.

I tried to ignore a bunch of lame cracks about "Dummy the parrot" and me being stupid over on Gene's thread... but I'm just not in the mood to deal with Reece's shit today.

Shoegaze, Junior Senator: This is the last call for patronizing asshole trolls. You don't have to go home, but you can't stay here.

The inherent failure of one medium to do what another medium does is however objective. ( In theater looking off stage at a spectacle, a close-up in film as forced presence, or speed lines in a comic panel for motion) The way those are overcome, ignored or found to be endearing is the subjective point here I believe.

I touched on this somewhat here:

'Thus X-MEN 3, in adapting the Dark Phoenix saga, will almost certainly leave out all the alien forces that were involved in said saga. In practice, films are more governed by sci-fi's "one gimme" logic, that says that you can have mutants or aliens but usually not mutants and aliens.'

There's no intrinsic reason that a superhero comic book can't stick to the 'one gimme' rule, or that a superhero film can't mix mutants and aliens, but there are "objective" difficulties with both. In superhero comics one objective difficulty is that serial superheroes must always introduce new stuff, constantly on-upping their last adventures. If that means having Batman fight a giant gorilla in one story and an alien in the next, so be it. Serial superhero films come out much less frequently and can pick and choose a bit more (whether they do so well or not).

OTOH, a live-action superhero tv show has more of the same "new stuff" demands as a comic book, but has less budget to work with than a film, even though the essential medium is the same. Thus a show like THE INCREDIBLE HULK very nearly hews to the 'one gimme' fantasy-rule, though others (NIGHTMAN, THE FLASH) may choose to mix genre-menaces more.

Errrr, well, no. It doesn't work like that.

But by all means, continue thinking it does. It certainly wouldn't be the first time your head was in the sand.