Sheesh.

15 Feb

There is such a thing as over-analyzing a TV show, but ATPo and its discussion board are not guilty of this.

Discuss.

23 Responses to “Sheesh.”

  1. ninerva February 15, 2006 at 6:03 pm #

    Huh??? Is someone suggesting that it is? Haven’t people been analysing Shakespeare for 500 years, the Bible for another 1500+ years before that, and I recently watched a program on Sherlock Holmes fans, a very very long tradition of analysis and dressing up.

  2. neshaffer February 15, 2006 at 6:20 pm #

    I came across this today, and it just annoyed me:
    http://spikemania.tripod.com/id5.html
    “All Things Philosophical on BtVS.” A fun site that looks deeper into the heart of Buffy and Angel. Perfect for those who have to over analyze things. Contains Discussion Boards and other bits of info that will make you go, “Oh. Now I get it.”
    First of all, WTF? Just because *they* watch these shows through a shallow lens doesn’t mean that’s the most legitimate way to watch them.
    And second, they *admit* that what I write explains stuff they didn’t understand. So how is that “over-analyzing”?
    Grrr….

  3. lakrids404 February 15, 2006 at 6:24 pm #

    No such thing as too much fun and analyzing is fun. So therefore can you not overanalyze.

  4. neshaffer February 15, 2006 at 6:26 pm #

    I think it *is* possible to overanalyze. You overanalyze when you continually see things in TV shows that *just aren’t there*. But merely discovering hidden depths in a show, depths that were there all along, that’s not over-analyzing.

  5. ninerva February 15, 2006 at 6:59 pm #

    Just had a quick click through the site and you need to consider the source. It’s a bit of fun, totally different set up than ATPo. There is however a place for everything, she thinks ATPo is a fun site, and there is analysis, moreso than on other sites. As for over-analysis that’s just a matter of interest. Maybe you are over-analysing it. ;-);-)

  6. neshaffer February 15, 2006 at 7:15 pm #

    Thanks for looking over the site for me. I saw the word “Spike” and just couldn’t go any further than the referring page.
    And we so-called “over-analyzers” know how to have fun! We’re big fun!

  7. angeyja February 15, 2006 at 7:34 pm #

    *smile* I sort of used to think TTMQ was an odd badge if honor (as long as it didn’t get into Campbell.)
    FWIW, I read that statement as sort of fun also, and the last sentence, Contains Discussion Boards and other bits of info that will make you go, “Oh. Now I get it.” as def positive.

  8. angeyja February 15, 2006 at 7:35 pm #

    sorry “of honor”
    OK, then. Back to database vacumming…

  9. neshaffer February 15, 2006 at 8:05 pm #

    TTMQ is us poking fun at ourselves. But honestly, the service we perform at ATPo enlightening the fandom community speaks for itself.
    Except Campbell. That’s right. If you bring in Campbell, you *are* thinking too much.
    ; ) ; )

  10. mamculuna February 15, 2006 at 8:55 pm #

    That sounds like something one of my students would say, the one who buried her face in her hands when asked a question in class, moaning, “Don’t make me think!”
    For some, any=over.

  11. neshaffer February 15, 2006 at 9:02 pm #

    I’m not sure whether to be scared of your student, or amused.

  12. mamculuna February 15, 2006 at 9:07 pm #

    Both, both.

  13. cactuswatcher February 15, 2006 at 10:15 pm #

    If you bring in Campbell, you *are* thinking too much.
    Or perhaps too little.
    ;o)

  14. hankat February 15, 2006 at 10:18 pm #

    Hey! Wait a minute
    I bring him (Campbell and others) up all the time and hardly consider myself as one who thinks too much…I mean, the colour on the box says blonde after all…;) Oh yeah and what about the posts on hair and eyes and whatnot?
    I liked the fact that they mentioned your site.
    Rufus

  15. neshaffer February 15, 2006 at 10:26 pm #

    Re: Hey! Wait a minute
    ATPo: We are nothing if not fun!!

  16. neshaffer February 15, 2006 at 10:30 pm #

    One must always be suspicious of people who bring in the *sniff* popularized theorists.
    ; ) ; )

  17. anomster February 16, 2006 at 12:16 am #

    @>)
    I’m not sure they mean the “overanalyze” part all that seriously. In view of the “Now I get it” part, I’m takin’ it in the spirit of “They overanalyze so you don’t have to.”

  18. neshaffer February 16, 2006 at 12:26 am #

    But if I’m actually explaining something that confused the viewer, then by definition I’m *not* over-analyzing–which by definition means “gratuitous analyzing.”
    PS – you’re logged in!!1!

  19. suzicpa February 16, 2006 at 12:28 am #

    What is Good Television…..
    If ATPO etc overanalyses Buffy and Angel, it is because the rest of television, with very few exceptions is philosophical crap these days.
    What other shows today is worth it? No really, I would really like to know of any show on tv today that is philosophically worth analysing…
    Sorry for the spelling.
    Suzi

  20. neshaffer February 16, 2006 at 12:33 am #

    Re: What is Good Television…..
    I would really like to know of any show on tv today that is philosophically worth analysing…
    I haven’t found one. I considered “Lost” for about a nanosecond, but luckily the impulse passed quickly.

  21. anomster February 16, 2006 at 6:27 am #

    Well, that’s what I’m saying about not thinking they mean it all that seriously.
    I don’t know what’s going on w/my login status. It seems to vary depending on which LJ I’m replying in. I looked above the Message window, & even though the dot was in Anonymous, my username was right there next to “Logged-in User.” So I clicked to put the dot there, but I still had to take the human test. When I passed it, my reply appeared w/that name & my icon. But. When I tried to reply in ‘Bit’s LJ, my username wasn’t on the screen, & the “Password” & “Log in” boxes were greyed out. So my reply showed up as anonymous. And guess what? The same thing’s happening in your LJ now. So maybe it isn’t a q. of whose LJ, in which case I have no idea what it depends on.
    OK. Hold on. When the human test came up just now, there was my username again. I just put the dot by it. Let’s see if I can post as myself again. And BTW…your reply showed up in my email last time!

  22. Anonymous February 16, 2006 at 6:36 am #

    Well, wouldja lookit that. @>\

  23. Anonymous February 16, 2006 at 6:44 am #

    Oh, come on!!
    OK, I’m tired of talking to myself…g’night. @>p

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: