For what its worth, WE, you have put forward a good argument. Not one I agree with but considered.

QUOTE:
And the argument that it makes folk discuss Issues Of The Day, while it may or may not be sound, doesn't let them off the hook artistically.

I agree and I did point out that that wasn't the main thrust of my argument but a useful by-product and a highly effective one.

I think that me saying that hobbes is a cultural snob based on his blanket dismissal of soaps as "shit" needs far less basis than him just saying that they are all shit repeatedly but, there again, I don't view him like a brother. Indeed, I would and have been far more stringent with my own brother and he similar

However, hobbes' remarks have got the stink of cultural snobbery throughout them. They are essentially "Here is a widely popular TV genre and it is shit. I have no reasons to give you for this"

He has repeated this over and over. He is dismissing programmes that are hugely popular with the general public with no back-up.

As I say, Nil might be wrong in saying that they are all bad actors but, at least, he backing up his point, Liquidator has a point if he is saying that Coronation Street isn't as good at the moment (I am not sure he is)

The best we can say of hobbes is that he is making vapid and shallow generalisations based out of complete ignorance but I do feel that his whole attitude is based on cultural snobbery.

I mean, I will hold my hands up if I am using the phrase "cultural snob" incorrectly here without realising. Please tell if I am and what the correct usage is?

QUOTE:
To be honest, Nil, I perhaps shouldn't have included you in my post as you seemed more cosidered and offered an explanation but your point about the low quality of the acting and the direction across the board, that I refer to above, seemed to mistaken that I assumed that you had never seen many soaps.

Having said that, it isn't like osmosis or something (wrong metaphor, I am sure) you can't claim to be an expert on soaps because your mum watches. Unless, of course, you are like my dad who harrumphes from behind the paper and says that he doesn't watch soaps yet knows all the plotlines

When I lived at home and when I visit I'm like your dad. King Mob made the point about poor acting and direction. My input was an attempted Kermode gag and pointing out that the benefit of mindless TV was pretty small compared to the amount of time invested.

See, I will forever on this board read your posts as coming from my Dad now.

I partly agree with your Kermodism hence me giving up on Brookside and Coronation Street when they went to five days a week but two hours of "Neighbours" a week I can handle especially as my mother-in-law tapes the omnibus for me.

Equally, I agree in some respect with what you, WE and others have said that increased quantitiy

QUOTE:
can

dilute the quality but this doesn't mean that it is all low quality as you say or that it is all unmitigated shit as hobbes says repeatedly

QUOTE:
I think that me saying that hobbes is a cultural snob based on his blanket dismissal of soaps as "shit" needs far less basis than him just saying that they are all shit repeatedly ...

The latter is just an aesthetic opinion; the former is an ad hominem criticism. So not only does it need, in conscience, more evidence; even if you came up with some, it's irrelevant. Even someone who's motivated by cultural snobbery could, in principle, be right in this particular case.

I'm guessing there is about a 40 to 50 year age gap between me and your dad but I've had the same problem with WOM ever since he started talking aboutt watching Location, Location, Location.

You may have missed hobbes post at the end of page 2 where he gives his reasons for disliking soaps?

QUOTE:
"Here is a widely popular TV genre and it is shit. I have no reasons to give you for this"

He has repeated this over and over. He is dismissing programmes that are hugely popular with the general public with no back-up.

QUOTE:
Aye. From what I've seen they're poorly acted, cheaply made, low budget, low quality crap. Also by the very nature of them they fail one of the most important things that TV should be and that's fresh. Even something as wonderful as The Simpsons got stale by about series 9 or 10. Most good programmes shark-jump after about 40-60 episodes.Soaps are on far more often than this. Therefore they can't really help becoming either bland and repetitive and a shadow of what they were meant to be like Corrie, or they go the other way with ever expanding farcical storylines. (See Emerdale's plane crash, Corrie's car-into the river and the never ending returns of Nasty Nick, the Mitchells and Dirty fucking Den.
I've often heard it said by people that you can not see one of these for months and slip right back into it. And it's said as if it's a good thing! I can't think of anything that more undermines the concept of entertainment.
It's like being in a pub where the jukebox plays exactly the same songs every night. Surely, surely after about a week you'd want to pull the fucking thing off the wall. That's why I say they're shit. Their very structure makes them so.

The irony is, you're having a go at me for merely repeating myself over and over, by doing exactly the same thing.

QUOTE:
but I do feel that his whole attitude is based on cultural snobbery.

Well as you obviously don't know what it actually means, then perhaps you should stop bandying it around.

QUOTE:
Even something as wonderful as The Simpsons got stale by about series 9 or 10. Most good programmes shark-jump after about 40-60 episodes.Soaps are on far more often than this. Therefore they can't really help becoming either bland and repetitive and a shadow of what they were meant to be like Corrie, or they go the other way with ever expanding farcical storylines. (See Emerdale's plane crash, Corrie's car-into the river and the never ending returns of Nasty Nick, the Mitchells and Dirty fucking Den.

Ok, the first statement is your matter of opinion but you seemed to have worked out a whole theory based on that because all soaps go on for longer than the hobbesian 40-60 episodes, they must be shit. Interesting, certainly better developed than your "all soaps are shit" point but again wrong through ignorance.

Soaps, by their very never-ending qualty, ebb & flow in quality. Plane crashes, character returns and lesbian kisses are usually a sign that a soap is ebbing. Crucially, they very rarely work for regular soap watchers and are not what regular viewers watch them for.

Equally, as Harry points out, when Corrie becomes shit, there is a high chance that Eastenders is good (or, even, Brookside or Neighbours). This is vastly different from "all soaps are shit"

QUOTE:
I've often heard it said by people that you can not see one of these for months and slip right back into it. And it's said as if it's a good thing!

Really? Often said by people you say? Oh it must be true then. Would these be people be the same people that come up with the sort of generalising dismissals that you do by any chance?

I watch "Neighbours" which is the soap that has this point said about it the most. It is partly true but mainly because they have the refresher bit at the start of every episode. Even having that, you only are up-to-date with the current week's storylines not the previous four months.

It is a simlar deal I am sure with other soaps but only becasue you can watch a two hour omnibus to get you back into the characters stories.

Your accusation is similar to saying that you can get back into the Corleone's lives in Godfather II even though we haven't seen what's happened in the intervening years

QUOTE:
It will only become so if eejits like you misrepresent me in order to make yourself feel superior.
At present it actually means just being wrong about everything. I can live with that. After all it's based on my opinion of terribly low-brow lagers. What a snob I am

I didn't make up the saying, it seems to be going all through this board.

As it goes, this ale/lager seems to be a private thing between you and WE but, for what it is worth, I can't see how WE can be a snob for drinking real ale. He is to be ptited for that

QUOTE:
Well as you obviously don't know what it actually means, then perhaps you should stop bandying it around.

Oh, is it obvious what I mean? I must have missed that?

Look, just because I say that I stand to be corrected on the usage doesn't mean that I am worng, it merely means I am open to the possibilty.

It's what makes me so open-minded

For fuck's sake, hobbes, you finally came up with your considered points eight minutes before I made that post about you repeating that they were shit. It was a cross-post.

I then addressed your points.

Having said that, it still doesn't detract from the fact that your first detailed response was one long riff on "They're shit because I said so"

"Doing a hobbes" just means "Holding a startlingly wrong opinion" doesn't it? There's no imputation of ignorance. And it's generally a bit of, you know, jocular ribbing stroke badinage, rather than the bitter criticism you seem to be taking it for.

Ok as this seems to be the bone of contention for you and opinions, even ones backed up with reasoning just don't cut it, answer me something.
What is, objectively the definition of "good" and "bad?"
What is it in BotD land that constitutes quality? Remember, it's categorical FACT that I'm after. Not your opinion.

QUOTE:
As it goes, this ale/lager seems to be a private thing between you and WE but

It's between me and about half the board. And it usually comes from people I know, like and respect and who I hope feel much the same way in return.

QUOTE:
For fuck's sake, hobbes, you finally came up with your considered points eight minutes before I made that post about you repeating that they were shit. It was a cross-post

Fair enough, I withdraw that bit.