<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Top TV</title>
	<atom:link href="http://numero57.net/2010/01/17/top-tv/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://numero57.net/2010/01/17/top-tv/</link>
	<description>Through the wall behind the looking-glass</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 29 Aug 2010 23:05:37 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jim Bliss</title>
		<link>http://numero57.net/2010/01/17/top-tv/comment-page-1/#comment-109339</link>
		<dc:creator>Jim Bliss</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 06 Mar 2010 13:42:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://numero57.net/?p=2033#comment-109339</guid>
		<description>&lt;blockquote&gt;Nurse Jackie; Mad Men&lt;/blockquote&gt;
Have to admit I&#039;ve never even heard of &#039;Nurse Jackie&#039;, &lt;b&gt;Pisces&lt;/b&gt;. As for &#039;Mad Men&#039;... as I said in the above post, I didn&#039;t enjoy it at all. I only watched the first few episodes and perhaps it improves radically, but I&#039;ve tended to notice that if a TV show doesn&#039;t grab me within three episodes (i.e. the running time of an average feature film) it probably never will.

&lt;blockquote&gt;Deadwood is well worth a look if you haven&#039;t already.&lt;/blockquote&gt;
That&#039;s been recommmended to me a couple of times before, &lt;b&gt;Lucas&lt;/b&gt;. I&#039;ll certainly give it a chance should it ever cross my path, though I&#039;m concerned that I might have difficulty with any show that stars Ian McShane. In my eyes, there&#039;s a part of him that will forever be cheeky antique dealer, Lovejoy.

&lt;blockquote&gt;You missed Psych. 40 minute episodes of pure joy.&lt;/blockquote&gt;
I surfed into an episode of &#039;Psych&#039; a while back, &lt;b&gt;Shackleford&lt;/b&gt;, and I must admit that it didn&#039;t capture my attention at all. The dialogue was straight out of The Bumper Book of US-sitcoms and the plot required the kind of suspension of disbelief that I have trouble with. I can happily enjoy a fictional world inhabited by vampires or aliens, but the people still need to behave like real people and have believable motivations... sitcom-dwellers almost never do.

&lt;blockquote&gt;I&#039;m currently about half way through Dexter – definitely an intriguing premise, and I&#039;m quite enjoying it but it&#039;s not blown me away.&lt;/blockquote&gt;
For me, &lt;b&gt;Larry&lt;/b&gt;, &#039;Dexter&#039; is an excellent -- and surprisingly well-realised -- portrait of sociopathy. It can be inconsistent and occasionally slips worryingly close to &quot;serial killer soap opera&quot; (though that in itself has a compelling aspect to it). But when it examines the motives and drives of the main character and those he hunts down, it&#039;s clearly the work of someone well-versed in psychoanalytic theory. I like the cleverness.

&lt;blockquote&gt;On the much debated Buffy question, I occupy a middle ground between those who decry it and those who rave about it: I think it&#039;s ok.&lt;/blockquote&gt;
I can get pretty evangelical about &#039;Buffy&#039; (and about Joss Whedon&#039;s work in general) so I&#039;ll try to refrain from preaching. I just find his writing to be streets ahead of almost anyone else working at the moment -- and I&#039;m talking about any medium now; TV, film, literature, whatever. There&#039;s a rich layer of metaphor and symbolism in everything he does that I find very satisfying. I just wish he wasn&#039;t hamstrung by the commercial agenda that dominates television production. It&#039;s the medium in which his style seems to fit best, yet paradoxically it&#039;s the medium in which risk-taking is least acceptable.

&lt;blockquote&gt;Although it&#039;s been a few years, I seem to remember the X Files being Men in Black minus the comedy – a thoroughly tiresome formula.&lt;/blockquote&gt;
I&#039;ve no idea whether &#039;The X Files&#039; has stood the test of time, but I was a huge fan when it was first broadcast. Bear in mind, though, that I was a permanently spaced-out philosophy undergraduate back then and was half-convinced that it was a fictionalised documentary series.

&lt;blockquote&gt;Are we allowing anime? My unwritten list would probably include Ghost in the Shell Stand Alone Complex, in case you haven&#039;t seen it.&lt;/blockquote&gt;
Not seen it, Larry. I must admit that I&#039;ve never really been too impressed with anime. I know enough people with good taste who assure me there&#039;s some great stuff out there to accept that I&#039;m missing something. But up &#039;til now, I just haven&#039;t connected with it.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<blockquote><p>Nurse Jackie; Mad Men</p></blockquote>
<p>Have to admit I&#8217;ve never even heard of &#8216;Nurse Jackie&#8217;, <b>Pisces</b>. As for &#8216;Mad Men&#8217;&#8230; as I said in the above post, I didn&#8217;t enjoy it at all. I only watched the first few episodes and perhaps it improves radically, but I&#8217;ve tended to notice that if a TV show doesn&#8217;t grab me within three episodes (i.e. the running time of an average feature film) it probably never will.</p>
<blockquote><p>Deadwood is well worth a look if you haven&#8217;t already.</p></blockquote>
<p>That&#8217;s been recommmended to me a couple of times before, <b>Lucas</b>. I&#8217;ll certainly give it a chance should it ever cross my path, though I&#8217;m concerned that I might have difficulty with any show that stars Ian McShane. In my eyes, there&#8217;s a part of him that will forever be cheeky antique dealer, Lovejoy.</p>
<blockquote><p>You missed Psych. 40 minute episodes of pure joy.</p></blockquote>
<p>I surfed into an episode of &#8216;Psych&#8217; a while back, <b>Shackleford</b>, and I must admit that it didn&#8217;t capture my attention at all. The dialogue was straight out of The Bumper Book of US-sitcoms and the plot required the kind of suspension of disbelief that I have trouble with. I can happily enjoy a fictional world inhabited by vampires or aliens, but the people still need to behave like real people and have believable motivations&#8230; sitcom-dwellers almost never do.</p>
<blockquote><p>I&#8217;m currently about half way through Dexter – definitely an intriguing premise, and I&#8217;m quite enjoying it but it&#8217;s not blown me away.</p></blockquote>
<p>For me, <b>Larry</b>, &#8216;Dexter&#8217; is an excellent &#8212; and surprisingly well-realised &#8212; portrait of sociopathy. It can be inconsistent and occasionally slips worryingly close to &#8220;serial killer soap opera&#8221; (though that in itself has a compelling aspect to it). But when it examines the motives and drives of the main character and those he hunts down, it&#8217;s clearly the work of someone well-versed in psychoanalytic theory. I like the cleverness.</p>
<blockquote><p>On the much debated Buffy question, I occupy a middle ground between those who decry it and those who rave about it: I think it&#8217;s ok.</p></blockquote>
<p>I can get pretty evangelical about &#8216;Buffy&#8217; (and about Joss Whedon&#8217;s work in general) so I&#8217;ll try to refrain from preaching. I just find his writing to be streets ahead of almost anyone else working at the moment &#8212; and I&#8217;m talking about any medium now; TV, film, literature, whatever. There&#8217;s a rich layer of metaphor and symbolism in everything he does that I find very satisfying. I just wish he wasn&#8217;t hamstrung by the commercial agenda that dominates television production. It&#8217;s the medium in which his style seems to fit best, yet paradoxically it&#8217;s the medium in which risk-taking is least acceptable.</p>
<blockquote><p>Although it&#8217;s been a few years, I seem to remember the X Files being Men in Black minus the comedy – a thoroughly tiresome formula.</p></blockquote>
<p>I&#8217;ve no idea whether &#8216;The X Files&#8217; has stood the test of time, but I was a huge fan when it was first broadcast. Bear in mind, though, that I was a permanently spaced-out philosophy undergraduate back then and was half-convinced that it was a fictionalised documentary series.</p>
<blockquote><p>Are we allowing anime? My unwritten list would probably include Ghost in the Shell Stand Alone Complex, in case you haven&#8217;t seen it.</p></blockquote>
<p>Not seen it, Larry. I must admit that I&#8217;ve never really been too impressed with anime. I know enough people with good taste who assure me there&#8217;s some great stuff out there to accept that I&#8217;m missing something. But up &#8217;til now, I just haven&#8217;t connected with it.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Pisces Iscariot</title>
		<link>http://numero57.net/2010/01/17/top-tv/comment-page-1/#comment-109338</link>
		<dc:creator>Pisces Iscariot</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 28 Feb 2010 11:22:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://numero57.net/?p=2033#comment-109338</guid>
		<description>Nurse Jackie; Mad Men</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Nurse Jackie; Mad Men</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Lucas</title>
		<link>http://numero57.net/2010/01/17/top-tv/comment-page-1/#comment-108571</link>
		<dc:creator>Lucas</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 17 Jan 2010 20:20:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://numero57.net/?p=2033#comment-108571</guid>
		<description>Deadwood is well worth a look if you haven&#039;t already.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Deadwood is well worth a look if you haven&#8217;t already.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Shackleford Hurtmore</title>
		<link>http://numero57.net/2010/01/17/top-tv/comment-page-1/#comment-108565</link>
		<dc:creator>Shackleford Hurtmore</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 17 Jan 2010 16:30:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://numero57.net/?p=2033#comment-108565</guid>
		<description>You missed Psych. 40 minute episodes of pure joy.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You missed Psych. 40 minute episodes of pure joy.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Larry Teabag</title>
		<link>http://numero57.net/2010/01/17/top-tv/comment-page-1/#comment-108564</link>
		<dc:creator>Larry Teabag</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 17 Jan 2010 16:04:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://numero57.net/?p=2033#comment-108564</guid>
		<description>The only one of these I can really get behind is Twin Peaks. Admittedly I&#039;m hampered by not having seen most the them. I&#039;m currently about half way through Dexter - definitely an intriguing premise, and I&#039;m quite enjoying it but it&#039;s not blown me away. On the much debated Buffy question, I occupy a middle ground between those who decry it and those who rave about it: I think it&#039;s &lt;em&gt;ok&lt;/em&gt;.

Although it&#039;s been a few years, I seem to remember the X Files being Men in Black minus the comedy - a thoroughly tiresome formula.

Are we allowing anime? My unwritten list would probably include Ghost in the Shell Stand Alone Complex, in case you haven&#039;t seen it.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The only one of these I can really get behind is Twin Peaks. Admittedly I&#8217;m hampered by not having seen most the them. I&#8217;m currently about half way through Dexter &#8211; definitely an intriguing premise, and I&#8217;m quite enjoying it but it&#8217;s not blown me away. On the much debated Buffy question, I occupy a middle ground between those who decry it and those who rave about it: I think it&#8217;s <em>ok</em>.</p>
<p>Although it&#8217;s been a few years, I seem to remember the X Files being Men in Black minus the comedy &#8211; a thoroughly tiresome formula.</p>
<p>Are we allowing anime? My unwritten list would probably include Ghost in the Shell Stand Alone Complex, in case you haven&#8217;t seen it.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
