(It's also like saying that all blacks like watermelon and chicken, and
that
all chinese are bad drivers. Are you comfortable being in that group? I
mean, if you're *that* guy...more power to ya. Just don't get upset if I
tend to lump you into that narrow-minded group of idiots who can't evolve
past stereotypes.)
Uh no. It's one thing to say 'blacks like hot sauce lol.' It's quite
another to ignore an inherant trend in a cultural group because you can't
see anything past religious or secular denomination. It is well
established
that Muslims are aggressively missionary. Or are all historians
'narrow-minded idiots'?
(Let's explain some very basic principles to you. Real quickly. The
*reason*
they garner so much money is because people *watch* them. See those things
called ratings? They mean people are watching.)
Okaaaay. I never argued that people don't watch them, so thanks for
reading. My argument is in terms of the quality. It looks like we're
going
down that same video game debate road again.
(When people watch (in droves week after week) it means that they can
command the money they rightfully deserve.)
Now let me challenge your definition of 'rightfully' (and keep it on
topic). Can Hulk Hogan, by the same token, _rightfully_ demand a ****load
of money from TNA? He had marginal returns for the WWE during his run
(aside from PPV buyrates), but at the same time, his appeal was to the
audience that was already entrenched in the product. They came to see the
Hulk-up, the legdrop, the ear-cupping, what have you.
The Simpsons is usually in the top 20 or so of the ratings. They're
essentially at the same spot they've been for the last 12 years or so of
their run. Why? Because it's the same people who tune it to see the same
damn thing they've seen for years now. Now, 'rightfully' they deserve
money
because they're bringing in steady returns. However, _rightfully_ they
don't, because they might as well just air reruns they are so banked out
creatively. Their writers have even admitted so publically.
(Now, I'm sure you're familiar with the old, "can't have your cake and eat
it too" concept. See, if they're *bad*...then it stands to reason that
people *wouldn't* watch (in droves, week after week) and thusly, the
ratings
would go *down* meaning that they wouldn't be commanding the money they're
commanding. I know it's a tough nut to swallow, but the fact that they
*are*
commanding so much money basically means they're...how shall I put this?
"still good".)
Again, see my argument from before. The Simpsons could, given their
appeal, theoretically continue making new episodes for another decade and
still bring in the same returns. Looney Tunes have been around for 60
years, and can still bring in some cash with a live-action movie. It
doesn't mean that it's still good.
(You obviously happen to be in what we like to call, "a very small, vocal,
minority". Don't be upset. I'm sure there are maybe two or three people,
like Alex Cain for instance, who share your view. Maybe the two of you can
have a long 500 thread discussion about how they've "jumped the shark" and
then pat yourselves on your intellectually challenged backs.)
I think the pro and anti-Simpsons causes are pretty much equal. Maybe
you just need to get out more.
|
