Ok. Here’s the problem, kids. I had thought that in order to give a decent rebuttal to our Kat’s take on the IT Crowd–which I have deemed hysterically funny and she finds lacking for various reasons–I would have to dip my toe into the pool of just why we think so alike yet so differently on various issues. We both come from the same demented genetic swimming pool, but with a slight generational gap (Hey! It’s only ten years and a bit, dammit!); and obviously different families, being cousins and all that. Problem is explaining all that turns into a friggin’ thesis, with stories that rival Shakespeare in terms of bloody comedy versus tragedy (with a writing style akin to Dr Seuss. Hop on Pop! Hop on Pop! Do Not Hop on Pop If He is Having Vietnam Flashback, Stop!). And with all the sidetracking I do? We’d be here forever. So I’m not going to bother with that right now and instead just explain why I’m so very right about this. Mostly because I’m the oldest and I said so.
The IT Crowd came highly recommended to me from a number of people, most notably Doug of Doug’s TV Reviews, as well as Communies of many sorts. This cultishly classic Britcom launched the careers of the very adorable Chris O’Dowd and Richard Ayoade. It appears to be somewhat iconic among nerdfolk for its representation of wacky computer supporters. Here’s my problem with it: it sucks.
So. Downton. I know I’m late to the party, do forgive.
Well. Not late, per se, I only just got Season 2 this week–that came out in 2011. So, ok, very per se and very fucking late. I’d actually seen some of these episodes when they first aired here but became determined to watch from the very beginning. As the great poet once said ‘Shit happens’–and here we are now discussing it.
Richard Hammond, Jeremy Clarkson, James May, and mysterious driver The Stig
Surprises come in strange packages. Sometimes you think it isn’t worth watching a show based on the subject. After all, most people wouldn’t watch a show about something they’re not interested in. But history has showed, time and time again, that the more people broaden their horizons, the more they find happy surprises. A perfect example is the BBC juggernaut Top Gear.
I am not a purist. I should define what I think a purist is. To me a purist is someone who always believes the original is better than the remake, and that some things are sacred and should never be changed. A movie purist is someone who believes the new Star Trek wasn’t good because it wasn’t campy. A television purist is the guy who thought House M.D. jumped the shark when the original team left at the end of season 3. It wasn’t. It was when Kutner killed himself so Kal Penn could work in politics. Anyway, purists think the book is always better than the movie. That all cover songs are bad, or at least not as good as the originals. Or maybe that changing the opening credits signals the beginning of a show’s downfall, or losing a principal character is a death sentence. I’ve fallen into the trap of believing these things, but not anymore.