I'm guessing you're implicating me with that comment.

Good doesn't 'suffice' for me. I simply recognized the show for what it was. If the show was 'good', it wasn't terrible. It was good. If it was good, it wasn't great. It was good.

Saying it was good doesn't mean that it's enough, it just means that it was good.

The problem with a lot of you is that if a show isn't jaw-dropping, innovative, brand spanking new and unbelievably original, that somehow makes it terrible. It doesn't have to be amazing to not be shit, and that's basically what you're saying.

I'm just saying the show was solid. Not great.

So yes, it's Mania. We want amazing. They should strive for amazing. We didn't get amazing. Still, there's a stark difference between a bad show, a good show, and a great show. Last night was a good show, not a bad one, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't still want amazing.