Crumbs: Forums » General Discussion » Fix yo stuff
Critical reviews of U.S. TV shows
and analysis of what makes them
good, bad, irritating and enlightening.

Login | Forgot password | Register


What is OpenID?

OpenID is an Internet-wide identity system that allows you to sign in to many websites with a single account.

With OpenID, your ID becomes a URL (e.g. You can get a free OpenID for example from

For more information visit the official OpenID site.

137 Posts in 28 Topics by 26 members

Jump to:

General Discussion

Forums » General Discussion » Fix yo stuff

Moderators: TheTVCritic

Page: 1 Go to End
Author Topic: Fix yo stuff 1649 Views
  • Lunkusd
    Community Member
    1 Post

    Fix yo stuff Link to this post

    You talk about 'plausibility' as if it were the be-all and end-all of television. There are so many factors to consider, yet you only ask yourself whether or not this can exist within reality. Television is 'heightened' reality and its level of realism is determined by the rules set up for that universe, not our own. This makes so many of your arguments invalid, and they come across as minor nit-picks opposed actual criticism. The fact that you have based every single one of your reviews around this point of argument is astounding to me. In no way should the Simpsons be criticised for a lack of real-world plausibility. It is an animated cartoon and it should be treated as such. It should not be held to the standards of reality. This leads me to be believe that you have missed the point of every episode of any surreal television show in existence. In no way does that reduce the enjoyment factor or even the artistic merit of said show.
    In addition to this, you have failed to realise that shows like The Simpsons are restricted to 22 minutes a week and as a result, there is no place for pointless and useless scenes. In your review of the clip show from season 4 of The Simpsons, you stated that Homer should have given Bart a ‘scolding’. I pose these questions to you. Is the episode any better/worse off with the inclusion of this? Does it make the scene any more enjoyable? It is essential or even necessary for the plot? Does the lack of inclusion go against the characters? The answer is no to all of the above.
    The basis on which you 'criticise' television is not only wrong but also insulting to actual critics who take the time to appreciate the many other elements put into making a TV show. When you could look at cinematography, artistic merit, character establishment & development you waste the majority of ‘reviews’ forming reviews based on critical ‘fallacies’. You also criticise based on assumptions. You assumed that the ‘Laura Palmer’ murder was never resolved despite the fact that it was in season 2 of Twin Peaks. If you had bothered to look up a simple plot synopsis of season 2, you would have realised that your criticism was void. Therefore, a blind judgement wouldn’t have been made and you would have spared yourself the embarrassment. It is these kind of ‘criticisms’ that lead me to believe that you have no idea what you are talking about when it comes to the judgement of art and the craft of filmmaking.
    Another thing that leads me to believe this is the fact that according to your review scores you don’t tend to like television very much. Many reviews sit in the 50-60 range in terms of scores. You claim to be a critic and a fan, yet you review so many great episodes so poorly. This comes down to the fact that you generally miss the point of the episode. You claimed that the message of ‘Bart vs. Thanksgiving’ is unclear yet I don’t know how much clearer the message can get. You criticise ‘Radio Bart’ because he doesn’t learn his lesson. What? That’s the point. Bart is a 10-year-old kid who often doesn’t know when he is doing the wrong thing. That’s called character depth. Bart is a Dennis the Menace type character who can’t help is actions as the line between what’s right and wrong is blurred to his 10-year-old mind. The fallacies continue into your reviews of How I Met Your Mother where you review episodes quite poorly and you give little justification. The little justification you do give is often contradictory to what you have already said or the principles of film criticism.
    Just as you have missed the point of way too many TV shows, you may find it easy to miss the point of this comment. I’m not writing this as an insult, but more-so a piece of constructive criticism to help you understand television and art a little more. After reading quite a few of your reviews, I had realised that you had missed the point of so many TV shows. The Simpson’s focus isn’t to be a direct representation of an American family, it’s a damn cartoon. And yes, Michael Scott is racist. He is a sad character. Again, that isn’t a valid criticism. That is the way the writer’s intended him to be, it is what set him apart from every other character on television. Yes, ‘Twin Peaks’ loves to leave unanswered questions, but that is the unique appeal of the show. Every single one of your reviews were almost painful to read as they lack any kind of depth or criticism worth reading. I had also noticed that you had not improved on this over the many years of writing this style of review. May this be a guide for you to strengthen your understanding of the craft.

  • JoeyJoJoJrShabadoo
    Community Member
    1 Post

    Re: Fix yo stuff Link to this post

    I have never agreed more with anything on this website, and that's saying a lot considering I've never agreed with anything on this website.

  • Ben
    Community Member
    65 Posts

    Re: Fix yo stuff Link to this post

    Commenters on tend to fall into two camps; those who buy into the system (including me), and those who don't. I think his writing style is unique, allows for in-depth analysis that, regardless of whether you agree or not, deserves respect.

    Some television reviewers use letter grades, some use a 5-star rating, some use a X/10 score, but this 100 scale allows for differentiating the "good", the "really good", and the "fantastic".

    Television is all about personal taste, as we all value certain components of what we watch differently. I do agree that plausibility is really important, its a major factor as to why I loved Breaking Bad and how it was a massive success.

    Particularly with comedy, jokes/gags/scenes need to have a foot in reality if the show is formed upon that basis. The Simpsons is a great example, it began as a show about a family dealing with issues like grades in school (Bart gets an F) and Homer getting a heart surgery, and now I read about plots about sentient robots and dogs taking over the town. A large percentage of the site is of sitcoms; which may be the most divisive genre of television, because you either find the jokes funny or not.

    It is certainly a normal human drive to want other people to like what you like, so if you love an episode of TV naturally you would want others to agree. When I first started reading TTC for instance, TTC hated "Dinner Party"; an episode of The Office, which is one of my favorites of the series. His criticisms explained why he didn't like it to my satisfaction; it didn't change my opinion of the episode but I could respect that someone had a different perspective and it enriched my television viewing experience.

    Debate can be fun with television, some of my favorite content on the site are from the episodes that sparked the biggest debates/controversy (Get The Girl, The Same Boat, Lost season 6, Flashforward).

Go to Top

Currently Online: There is nobody online.

Welcome to our latest member: