Viewing Single Post From: Thom Racina Interview
Dec 3 2008, 10:14 PM
- September 5, 2007
sorry you missed my point...what constitutes good writing is made up of particular elements that can be judged and is not merely a matter of opinion; yours, mine or anyone else and if you have a problem with someone's reaction to your opinions, or the fact they might do so in a way you weren't expecting, all you have to do is stop responding. I was finding this conversation interesting but if you're not, why do you continue answering my posts?
- Dec 3 2008, 07:49 PM
- Dec 3 2008, 12:35 AM
- Dec 2 2008, 11:43 PM
- Dec 2 2008, 10:36 PM
- Dec 2 2008, 08:21 PM
- Dec 2 2008, 07:41 PM
coming from someone who pans a writer based on a story that wasn't given the opportunity to play out, I suppose I shouldn't be surprised by such a response, though I'd love to hear how comparing the history that is changed is in anyway subjective...unless of course you're basing it on whether you care about that history in which case it makes your opinion subjective, not the writer's talent or lack thereof. You do understand that something that can be proven, as in a writer rewrote previous history is not an opinion and comparing two writers based on that fact is therefore not subjective?
Which story? The John & Tony are brother's story? They didn't play that out? News to me.
Sorry, the rest of your post doesn't make sense to me. Not sure what the heck you're trying to say.
subjective, as in the work of a writer being a matter of taste.
I asked how one writer can be panned while another is not when both rewrite history...specifically when rewriting history is used as the reason
for panning a writer's work and your answer was that it was subjective.
whether you liked the story in general is subjective, whether you liked the characters used and how they were used is subjective, whether you thought the pacing was fast enough, or too fast is subjective...whether you believe most people liked it is pretty subjective as well....but if two different writers both do the same
thing...rewrite history, that itself is not subjective...that is a fact that can be verified by going back and watching the story again. If rewriting history in general is a reason to pan a writer as bad, it either works for all the writers who do that, or using that as a valid reason is meaningless.
I disagree. In MY OPINION, there is bad rewriting of history and good rewriting of history... i.e. making Hope's baby be Bo's instead of John's was GOOD rewriting of history
, and rewriting history to say that Marlena was jealous of Isabella and treated Brady badly as a child is BAD rewritten history. And that's my opinion so I do think it's quite subjective.
If you'd based this on how well something was rewritten, I'd say you have a leg to stand on...maybe, but to suggest that rewriting history to make Bo the father of a baby when he'd never had sex with Hope within the nine months before she got pregnant (until they slipped it in afterward) is good and changing Tony into Andre in Aremid was bad (or the other examples you used) is just too ridiculous to take seriously...other than the fact it's completely based on how it affected your favorite characters on the show. That's all well and good, but it doesn't make critiquing a writer based how if he/she rewrites previous stories subjective, other than for you personally and even then it's not based strictly on the merits of the story...it's based on how your favorite character is treated in that story. Those are two completely
different things, and it does not make the writing poor or good, it makes it your preference.
I have plenty of preferences when it comes to characters and what happens to them, but I don't use them as the basis for determining the quality of the writing. For instance, I liked many of the things that Hogan wrote in the last half of 07 but I didn't think his stories were all that great (at least not as they played out on screen), and I've never been a fan of Reilly, or practically anything
he wrote but don't believe that made his stories crap either.
Oh for pete's sake. I said it was MY OPINION. You don't have to think it's good rewritten history just because I do. There is nothing objective about judging whether a writer is good or not :eyeroll:
Even your comments about Reilly and Hogan are subjective. And I can't even remember what my original point was in this because you have taken one thing I said and tried to make it into something I wasn't even talking about. :walkman: