|
>actually, the big thing i find fault with is the fact that the
>characters are stereotypical cutouts and the narrative is
>driven by a plodding and tepid voiceover that barely masks its
>“Wonder Years” aspirations
Hey, AF, that's fine. You don't like the show, those are valid criticisms. But to continue carping on the fact that 1982 Chris had an emotional moment set to a 1985 Klymaxxx record (hypothetically speaking) or the fact that March 1982 Chris was eating Reese's Pieces with ET on the package, even though ET didn't come out until June of 1982 (again, hypothetically speaking) is pretty much a waste of time, and says more about the person watching than the actual show itself, don't you think?
>but i don’t think that desiring accurate details is really
>nitpicking. particularly for people who actually lived through
>the era that’s been portrayed. if they tell me that the story
>is set in 1982 or 1983, don’t get mad at me for noticing that
>it’s full of references from 1985 and 86.
Even when the show's co-creator says, "It's not supposed to be historically accurate?" So what you're saying is, basically, 'fuck you, Chris Rock, my memories are better than yours, so therefore your show is false because you're not matching my memories about that time. Even though you've said, hey, historical accuracy isn't the point of the show.'
Come back to me with this argument when you see A Knight's Tale again. Criticize that movie for being set in medieval times but insisting on using a contemporary rock soundtrack. That's fine. But I'm sorry, I can't cosign "desiring accurate details" for a sitcom when a) the cues themselves aren't that long (a 5-second music cue affects the rest of a 19-minute episode how again?) and b) the creators have emphasized that they're not going for historical accuracy, they're going for the comedy. You can either agree or disagree that it's funny or not, that's fine. But the "desiring (of) accurate details" is nitpicking, no matter how it's phrased by you.
>basically, what you’re proposing is the same argument you come
>with whenever any UPN “black” shows are discussed: cut them a
>break… don’t ask for too much… judge them by a different
>standard because they’re “just trying to tell some funny
>stories with some heart”
"Basically," I didn't propose any "argument," AF. But as usual, you're looking for an excuse to have one, and I provided you with it. All I said to you was stop nitpicking, and now you're going to launch into a diatribe about my defense of UPN shows. As you put it:
>please, dude.
You'd have a point had Chris Rock and Ali LeRoi said they were doing completely silly and ironic comedy, or they had worked really hard to maintain the historical accuracy of the time period. Then you could go on your little detail-searching missions, and come back to report that you had exposed the show's creators for their laziness and inattentiveness to detail.
And the only accurate detail you have right in that bullshit you typed above is the last sentence, because that's what they're trying to do. If you have a problem with that, stop watching. That simple. Or, better yet, create a show that you think will come off better. Good luck.
>>I swear, some of you mofos are never satisfied... and before
>>anyone chooses to play the "cop out" card, just know that
>>these guys (Ali LeRoi, and particularly Chris Rock) have
>been
>>in on the show since its inception, so they pretty much know
>>what the hell they're talking about.
>
>uhh…. what does this mean?
What it means, AF, is that the show's creators know what fucking tone they want to set with the show. That means when Chris Rock says, "we're not going for historical accuracy," that means they decided early on, look, we're not really concerned with how accurate each and every goddamn detail of the goddamn show is. That stuff is minor compared to what we're trying to do, which is, in (ZooTown's alleged words), "tell some funny stories with heart."
>“they’ve been on the show since its inception, so they pretty
>much know what the hell they’re talking about”
>
>i totally don’t understand the logic of that statement. i’m
>sure Uwe Boll guides his movies from their inception… does
>that mean that HE knows what he’s talking about?
Here's your logic, AF.
Chris Rock and Ali LeRoi *create* a show called Everybody Hates Chris. When you create a show, AF, that means you're the one who sets up the characters and the world they inhabit. They decide that, while the show is set in 1982, they're not going to cowtow to the expectations of the audience, who will probably want to get most of their laughs from all the correct and exact nostalgia of 1982: "Yo, son, remember that Planet Rock shit? Ha ha ha." They decide that they're going to, again, in ZooTown's allegedly rehashed argument, "tell funny stories with heart."
I don't see why that's such a faulty thing to say. Is it because you want to laugh at all the funny 1982 stuff and can't get past the fact that they dared to use a Midnight Star song from 1986 (again, hypothetically speaking, AF)? Did that 5-second cue really ruin your enjoyment of the show?
>if they’ve been on the show since its inception and they are
>misguided, then the show will be misguided from the inception
Why are they misguided? Because they didn't meet your high standards of what the show should be? That's lame. They created the show; they know what the fuck they wanted to say, and the way they wanted to go about saying it. You don't have to like it.
>and i don’t understand the point of these swipes you posted
>either, Zoo…
Then I really can't say anything else. Your high standards have been tainted by "historical inaccuracies." I presented two swipes from the show's creators who pretty much spell out the fact that they're *not* going for historical accuracy, yet you're coming at me for a) quoting their defense of what they do; and b) (once again) defending UPN sitcoms.
How did you say it? "please, dude."
>so… what Chris Rock is saying is that it is not “historically
>accurate,” meaning that THE STORY is not 100% the true story
>of HIS LIFE. and guess what? that is the case with ALL
>BIOGRAPHICAL WORKS
He also said it's "loosely based on his life." And aren't those little details you and ks are going apeshit over not a part of THE STORY? They don't necessarily have to make "logical" sense. If Chris gets his heart broken because the girl he likes is kissing his brother, then sure, the use of the music cue "Breaking My Heart" doesn't make *logical* sense, because it's from 1991 and this show's set in 1982. But *emotionally*--
Wait, let me type that again, AF: *EMOTIONALLY*
the use of the song makes perfect sense.
>i don’t CARE about Chris Rock’s life… i know how old he is,
>and i noticed right from the beginning that the character was
>like 4 years younger than the real Chris would have been in
>1982. but none of that stuff matters to me. all that matters
>is that you tell a good story, and that the story makes sense
>within the logical parameters it has set for itself
You'd have a point if, say, in the pilot, it was clearly established that the show was set in 1982 (like, they had characters talking about Reagan and how tough it is to be in 1982, etc.), but then in, say, episode 3, we see young Chris in 1995 Seattle, drinking a latte (no Orbit-o). That's an example of a show not staying within the logical parameters it has set for itself. I refuse to believe that a 5-second song cue from 1991, one that *mirrors the emotional tone of the character in that particular moment*, somehow strays from the "logical parameters" the show has set for itself. Especially if you understand what goes into telling that story, which involves more than "logical parameters."
>>WHY WE LOVE IT First off, even though it's set in 1982,
>the
>>show resists the temptation to become a one-note-joke period
>>piece.
>
>actually, that is what it HAS become.
Not according to you. Did you not get upset because an upcoming episode features 1982 Chris wearing what appears to be the gear of 1984 Prince (nevermind the fact that I don't recall his look changing very much from 1999 to Purple Rain)?
>because the producers have chosen to throw in every 1980s joke
>they can whether or not it fits within the chronological
>context, so a lot of the time the joke IS “look… it’s the
>Eighties!”
You really haven't been paying attention to the show, AF. This is just another one of your "I have high standards and if you don't meet them, you're lame" exercises. I believe fire said it best when she said, "You don't like anything." And yeah, I quoted fire. So there.
>if they were really concerned with just creating a realistic
>setting in which to tell good stories that are not necessarily
>tied into the jokes about the time period, then they would
>just set the thing in the year they said they did and leave
>all the 80s jokes out
What "80's jokes," AF? It'd be different if you had characters (and Chris) constantly making references to ET, Rubik's Cubes, Toughskins jeans (stop laughing), Underoos (no homo), cassette tapes, boomboxes and the like. But so far, most of the humor has revolved around family, race, class, money, male/female relations, love, bullies, siblings, etc.
And I think that bothers the nitpickers more than anything else, the fact that they refuse to trade in our name and product recognition from that time period into cheap laughs.
This isn't That 70's Show, AF. They're trying for something a little deeper. You don't have to agree that it always works (and most of the time it doesn't), but that *is* their aim.
>look at “Freaks and Geeks, for instance. the fact that it is
>set in 1980 is not a big deal to the story, but it is more or
>less accurate. which allows you to just settle down and enjoy
>the story.
Good example, but again, what makes it "accurate" to you? Are all of the music cues from 1980? FYI, the theme song for that show, Joan Jett's "Bad Reputation," came out in 1981. Does that fact somehow lessen your enjoyment of that show? No, and that's my point. You can get mad at Everybody Hates Chris for not being funny, or for feeling emotionally false. But don't couch that criticism in "oh yeah, they used a Prince 'Batdance' music cue, and that shit RUINED it for me, son" bullshit and not expect to get called on it.
>it’s not MY fault that they said the story was set in 1982. if
>they wanted it to be just some vague Eighties period, they
>could have said “the mid-80s” and we’d all be fine
Just to belabor the point, it would be different had all of the promotional material leading up to the show's premiere focused on the fact that it was set in 1982. Then you'd have a case. You could get mad because "they kept saying the show was going to be in 1982." But that's not what was promoted, AF, and you know that. And before you say you "don't understand the logic" of what I wrote, I'll spell it out for you. The promotion for the show focused on *Chris Rock*. The show was sold as "Chris Rock's life as a kid," not "a show set in 1982 focusing on a kid named Chris Rock from that golden year of 1982." There is a difference.
>but talking about crack in 1982? to me that’s like talking
>about AIDS in 1976. how you gonna tell that I’M wrong because
>i noticed that you haven’t taken the time to situate your
>story properly.
Did Rochelle make that joke? Or was that Chris' narration? If I remember, it was Chris' narration. So, if my memory is right, then this argument of yours is flawed (and if I'm wrong, accept my apologies). It'd be different if the episode was named "Everybody Hates Crack," and it centered around the family taking in a crackhead relative. But you mean to tell me that *one joke* about crack, spoken by the narrator (again, if I remember correctly), whom we can presume is in the current day, ruined the show for you? Okay, ock.
I'm going to end it here by adding that this whole "Hollywood is so lazy" argument (which is also what this is) is also getting quite tired.
________________________________________________________________________________________
unfolding
enveloping
missles of soul
|
Printer-friendly copy 
Email this topic to a friend
Pass The Popcorn 
