![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shadowkatIn an oddly chipper mood today. Took a walk. Went to comic store and reserved my copy of Buffy S8 (due to arrive in two or three weeks, just in time for my B-Day, nice of Joss to time it that way, don't you think? He must like Piceses.). Did a bit more pecking on novel, bit by bit it's coming, just have to let it come in its own time, no forcing. My muse hates deadlines. Give it a deadline? It balks and hides. Let go of the deadline and up it pops all fluffy and friendly. Funniest thing. Plan to do some more tonight. The words are beginning to come...goes to show you, if you don't force things, they sort of float to the surface in their own good time. Oh and have almost chosen an ipod. Once I buy it, methinks I should look into home owner's insurance.
Anyhow... TV.
Are we all still watching the same tv shows, I wonder? I read my flist and think, gee, it's an amazing thing most of these people met each other on a tv show discussion board. What were the odds? 1 out of 100? Course, even though we all watched and obsessed over the same tv show, that's not to say we *agreed* on it. If anything we disagreed, rather vehmently at times, and on just about everything. In fact the only thing I think everyone agreed on was the coolness of the tv show. Not, mind you, when it was cool - that was up for debate. Or which characters were cool. I wonder if that may be the recipe for a successful tv show? To create enough interesting and diverse characters and storylines to basically please everyone who could possibly get into it? If so, odd not more writers have figured that out.
Here's the tv shows I watched this week - so far. (Note: **Still sitting on DVR are two episodes of Friday Night Lights, an episode of Boston Legal, The Office, a documentary on Star Trek, this week's episode of GG (yes, I know, I said I was giving up on it...but apparently I haven't quite yet), and two episodes of Dresden Files - I've already seen but feel compelled to save and rewatch at a later date. And since I've already commented on Dresden Files, won't bore you by doing it twice. It's my favorite new show and if you like fantasy, wizards, and private detective shows you should watch it.)
1. Just finished watching it today. Not bad. They've at least furthered six of the characters arcs. Granted none of those characters is our heroine, Veronica, but what the hey. It's something. I know for a fact Veronica is going to end up with Piz by the end of the season. If you aren't a fan of Piz, prepare yourself for it. Personally? I'm ambivalent. ie. Don't really care that much one way or the other. The mysteries? Eh. Not sure they work. And I don't want Prof Landry to be the bad guy, but I suspect he will be since he always plays bad guys. Lamb dying was a surprise. Keith becoming sheriff again? Also a suprise. Logan moving on to VM's friend? Not so much. And wait, did we actually see Wallace and Mac in the same episode? Whoa. The problem with the show is that Veronica is not that involved with her friends - they seem to lurk on the periphery, occassionally interacting with her, but usually one-to-one. While this is actually very realistic and I completely identify with it - it does not make for entertaining television.
Whedon had the right approach, don't focus on the romance, focus on the friendships - and show more interaction with the friends, have the friends help the heroine solve the case, as opposed to the heroine jumping about doing it by herself all the time. Still not a bad show, just not as gripping and interesting as it used to be. I like Keith's, Mac's and Logan's storylines more than Veronica's and that's not a good thing.
2. I'm enjoying Lost a lot more than most people are. Partly because it has become exactly what I suspected it was - a social psychology/biological science experiment gone haywire or rather The Island of Doctor Moreau (psychologically speaking) meets Lord of The Flies. With all sorts of psychological sci-fi tropes interwined. I have a weakness for stuff like this. So I'm thrilled. I also adore the way they are merging the serial with the anthology format - flashbacking to prior bits as a means of explaining what is happening with the character in the present. The story reminds me a lot of Stephen King, HG Wells, and Maria Doria Russell.
That said, the Jack episodes tend to annoy me. I don't quite know why. Is it the actor? Is it the character? Is it how they've written him? Or is it the Others themselves? I think it has more to do with Jack's character - it's not a character that I normally warm to. I find him egotistical, a bit full of himself, and a tad self-righteous to be honest. Find Sawyer and Kate far more appealing. Juliet bugs me for some of the same reasons. As do the Others.
In fact, I hate to say this, but I'm beginning to think Jack and The Others deserve each other. They share a lot of the same annoying traits - which are stereotypical "doctor"/"scientist" traits - ie. I'm like "god" because I'm a surgeon/doctor/etc and can save lives - a concept Well's played with in Island of Doctor Moreau and The Invisible Man. Very self-righteous and egotistical. Which may be why I find the Jack/Other's episodes tough to watch, we don't get any breaks from the "holier than thou" or "I'm god" attitudes. Unless you count Kate and Sawyer, and I'm sorry, Sawyer's quips aren't enough to lighten things up.
The Desmond episode before it? Cool. Enjoyed that one quite a bit. I keep hoping they'll kill off Jack and center on Desmond, but I can't see that happening. I have a hunch that Jack is the main character here, like it or not. Doesn't bug me too much, b/c I don't hate Jack. More ambivalent, to be honest.
As for the revelations. Uhm, what revelations? I sort of figured all of that out already. LOL!
I'm just waiting for them to reveal that Penny's father is the financier behind the whole thing.
3. Enjoying BSG. It has great episodes and lacklustre ones. The great ones focus on a character or characters, like this past week's one on Adama. The lacklustre ones seem to be more concerned with a message - and unfortunately those episodes all seem to be centered around poor Karl Agathon (Helio). Although I did get more info on him during that one episode - he has a thing about "racism". No tolerance for it. Regardless of who the target is - Sagitarian, Cylon, etc. It's why Karl could accept and support Sharon and Tyrol couldn't. Tyrol is a bigot. He's nice. But he's bigoted. What the show did a good job of depicting is the range of bigotry and how it is possible to be a good, kind, loving person and be racist. We have a tendency to demonize people who threaten us. As opposed to trying to understand them. And no, by "we" I don't mean the bigots, I mean those of us who are understandably and actually threatened by their bigotry. It's not the person who is our enemy, but the bigotry that is. BSG did a good job of showing the range, and when bigotry crosses the line. Reminds me of what an old sociology prof said once, she said it wasn't "racism" or "prejudice" she couldn't abide - it was "discrimination" or "the action" - not the words, thoughts or feelings, but the actual act. Words can bruise feelings, but are largely harmless..."ie. Sticks and Stones can break my bones but words can never hurt me". Meaningless without an action behind them. So, Tyrol and Tigh's statements that Sagitarians are dirty, stupid, ignorant, religious fantatics, isn't a problem - really. What is the problem - is when they allow those feelings to cloud their sympathy, or in Tigh's case his better judgement, so that he overlooks the actions of a doctor who is actively acting on his prejudice and eradicting these people. That's why words such as faggot, dyke, kike, mic, nigger, bitch, cunt...are bad - they are used to "demonize" or "lower someone" in our thought process to something that is beneath us, not worth our notice, allowing us to justify harming them. The more you think of someone as "less than human' or "not human" - the easier it becomes to treat them as less than human or horrendously. That's what that episode was about. It was a bit on the preachy side. But it is a difficult topic to do well. And it does not help, of course, that BSG had been hitting us over the head with it regarding the cylons for the last two years. (eg. Toaster?)
The second episode, which aired this past Sunday, was far better. One of the best one's of the season. It stuck to one pov, most of the way through. And struggled to explore an interesting theme, which ended on an uplifting note. Rare for this series.
Six asks Baltar how she can be human. Note she is asking the Baltar in her head, not the actual one. Much like Gaius, Six doesn't really see the real Baltar, she sees the one she fell for, the one that she's pulled into herself. Baltar similarily does not see the real Six, he sees the one he idealized, fell for, and has pulled inside himself. The Baltar - that Six sees, is a projection of herself, her male animus. The Six that Baltar sees is the projection of himself, the female anima. Romantic love is not really falling for the person as they appear in front of us, who they *really* are - b/c we don't really know them at this point - it's our perception of them we fall in love with. The whole fall in love with love bit. The archetype. BSG is doing an excellent job of playing with this concept.
Anyhow - the Baltar in Six's head reiterates what Six already knows, what she's been taught by the cylons, what she must believe to be true in order to justify her actions against the humans - to live with those actions. "To be human, one must only care about oneself." And the Baltar she fell for, indeed, only appeared to care about himself. He was into self-preservation regardless of the cost. And saw everyone as beneath him. Pointless. This is not the man we have gotten to know or for that matter the one who really exists, it's just the portion that Six has seen.
Is this statement true - the show asks. Let's see. So the episode jumps back and forth between memory and present day. And depicts three marital relationships and a rescue scenario that asks people to risk themselves to save someone else. Someone they do not necessarily have a personal investment in. The first of the three is Adama and his wife, seen primarily through Adama's pov. We get a little of it from Lee's. We do not however get his wife's pov.
Paralleled by Cheif's relationship with Cally, seen via the Chief's pov, not Cally's. And Lee's relationship with his father and wife. In each, at first glance, it appears that the men care about the women to the extent they serve them. Adama comes across as very self-serving. But as the story unravels. It gets more complicated. We see Adama trying to make things work, trying to deal with a moody and unstable wife. Who he loves despite her flaws.
And we see his love for Lee, and realization that perhaps he pushed Lee in the wrong direction and his attempts to remedy that even though it must hit him as ironic, since he is in effect allowing Lee to follow in the father he disagreed with, footsteps. Then we get the rescue - and how Adama risks the lives of his pilots, even his son, to rescue Cheif and Cally.
How the pilots risk their lives to do it, without question.
And the answer that comes back to us is this - it's not so simple. Being human is not a simple answer to a simple mathematical equation. Yes, we must care about ourselves in order to survive. But we must also care a great deal about others to do so. We, like it or not, are dependent on each other for our survival. We can't exist without other people. We are connected to them in ways we can't begin to comprehend. Just as the cylons are connected to each other, except, the human connection is less obvious, less clear, less simple.
What I like about BSG is the showing not the telling. Letting me come up with it myself.
And of course the characters who are all deeply flawed, like I am.
4.
Tina Fey has found a way to poke fun at political issues and make a comment on them at exactly the same time, without being preachy. Someone please tell Aaron Sorkin and David E. Kelley to take notes. (Okay, maybe not Kelly so much - he has James Spader and William Shatner to help.). Last week's episode had the priceless line:"You can't fire someone for calling you a bad name. That would just be silly." This week's? "I think we would be better served if the troops went out and took out Barak Obama, and next election my support goes to Osma." LMAO! This was from Jane Krawoski's airy character and star of the fictional Girlie show. She says it on Hardball, meaning to say, of course the opposite, but the two names get flipped around in her head. Oh this has become a delightful show. And the best sitch comedy I've seen in years.
Other shows that I watched but no time to comment on? Heroes, Desperate Housewives, Grey's Anatomy (yes, it was lame this week -but I liked Cristina)and Brothers & Sisters. Sunday nights are crowded for me.
Okay off to dinner now.
Anyhow... TV.
Are we all still watching the same tv shows, I wonder? I read my flist and think, gee, it's an amazing thing most of these people met each other on a tv show discussion board. What were the odds? 1 out of 100? Course, even though we all watched and obsessed over the same tv show, that's not to say we *agreed* on it. If anything we disagreed, rather vehmently at times, and on just about everything. In fact the only thing I think everyone agreed on was the coolness of the tv show. Not, mind you, when it was cool - that was up for debate. Or which characters were cool. I wonder if that may be the recipe for a successful tv show? To create enough interesting and diverse characters and storylines to basically please everyone who could possibly get into it? If so, odd not more writers have figured that out.
Here's the tv shows I watched this week - so far. (Note: **Still sitting on DVR are two episodes of Friday Night Lights, an episode of Boston Legal, The Office, a documentary on Star Trek, this week's episode of GG (yes, I know, I said I was giving up on it...but apparently I haven't quite yet), and two episodes of Dresden Files - I've already seen but feel compelled to save and rewatch at a later date. And since I've already commented on Dresden Files, won't bore you by doing it twice. It's my favorite new show and if you like fantasy, wizards, and private detective shows you should watch it.)
1. Just finished watching it today. Not bad. They've at least furthered six of the characters arcs. Granted none of those characters is our heroine, Veronica, but what the hey. It's something. I know for a fact Veronica is going to end up with Piz by the end of the season. If you aren't a fan of Piz, prepare yourself for it. Personally? I'm ambivalent. ie. Don't really care that much one way or the other. The mysteries? Eh. Not sure they work. And I don't want Prof Landry to be the bad guy, but I suspect he will be since he always plays bad guys. Lamb dying was a surprise. Keith becoming sheriff again? Also a suprise. Logan moving on to VM's friend? Not so much. And wait, did we actually see Wallace and Mac in the same episode? Whoa. The problem with the show is that Veronica is not that involved with her friends - they seem to lurk on the periphery, occassionally interacting with her, but usually one-to-one. While this is actually very realistic and I completely identify with it - it does not make for entertaining television.
Whedon had the right approach, don't focus on the romance, focus on the friendships - and show more interaction with the friends, have the friends help the heroine solve the case, as opposed to the heroine jumping about doing it by herself all the time. Still not a bad show, just not as gripping and interesting as it used to be. I like Keith's, Mac's and Logan's storylines more than Veronica's and that's not a good thing.
2. I'm enjoying Lost a lot more than most people are. Partly because it has become exactly what I suspected it was - a social psychology/biological science experiment gone haywire or rather The Island of Doctor Moreau (psychologically speaking) meets Lord of The Flies. With all sorts of psychological sci-fi tropes interwined. I have a weakness for stuff like this. So I'm thrilled. I also adore the way they are merging the serial with the anthology format - flashbacking to prior bits as a means of explaining what is happening with the character in the present. The story reminds me a lot of Stephen King, HG Wells, and Maria Doria Russell.
That said, the Jack episodes tend to annoy me. I don't quite know why. Is it the actor? Is it the character? Is it how they've written him? Or is it the Others themselves? I think it has more to do with Jack's character - it's not a character that I normally warm to. I find him egotistical, a bit full of himself, and a tad self-righteous to be honest. Find Sawyer and Kate far more appealing. Juliet bugs me for some of the same reasons. As do the Others.
In fact, I hate to say this, but I'm beginning to think Jack and The Others deserve each other. They share a lot of the same annoying traits - which are stereotypical "doctor"/"scientist" traits - ie. I'm like "god" because I'm a surgeon/doctor/etc and can save lives - a concept Well's played with in Island of Doctor Moreau and The Invisible Man. Very self-righteous and egotistical. Which may be why I find the Jack/Other's episodes tough to watch, we don't get any breaks from the "holier than thou" or "I'm god" attitudes. Unless you count Kate and Sawyer, and I'm sorry, Sawyer's quips aren't enough to lighten things up.
The Desmond episode before it? Cool. Enjoyed that one quite a bit. I keep hoping they'll kill off Jack and center on Desmond, but I can't see that happening. I have a hunch that Jack is the main character here, like it or not. Doesn't bug me too much, b/c I don't hate Jack. More ambivalent, to be honest.
As for the revelations. Uhm, what revelations? I sort of figured all of that out already. LOL!
I'm just waiting for them to reveal that Penny's father is the financier behind the whole thing.
3. Enjoying BSG. It has great episodes and lacklustre ones. The great ones focus on a character or characters, like this past week's one on Adama. The lacklustre ones seem to be more concerned with a message - and unfortunately those episodes all seem to be centered around poor Karl Agathon (Helio). Although I did get more info on him during that one episode - he has a thing about "racism". No tolerance for it. Regardless of who the target is - Sagitarian, Cylon, etc. It's why Karl could accept and support Sharon and Tyrol couldn't. Tyrol is a bigot. He's nice. But he's bigoted. What the show did a good job of depicting is the range of bigotry and how it is possible to be a good, kind, loving person and be racist. We have a tendency to demonize people who threaten us. As opposed to trying to understand them. And no, by "we" I don't mean the bigots, I mean those of us who are understandably and actually threatened by their bigotry. It's not the person who is our enemy, but the bigotry that is. BSG did a good job of showing the range, and when bigotry crosses the line. Reminds me of what an old sociology prof said once, she said it wasn't "racism" or "prejudice" she couldn't abide - it was "discrimination" or "the action" - not the words, thoughts or feelings, but the actual act. Words can bruise feelings, but are largely harmless..."ie. Sticks and Stones can break my bones but words can never hurt me". Meaningless without an action behind them. So, Tyrol and Tigh's statements that Sagitarians are dirty, stupid, ignorant, religious fantatics, isn't a problem - really. What is the problem - is when they allow those feelings to cloud their sympathy, or in Tigh's case his better judgement, so that he overlooks the actions of a doctor who is actively acting on his prejudice and eradicting these people. That's why words such as faggot, dyke, kike, mic, nigger, bitch, cunt...are bad - they are used to "demonize" or "lower someone" in our thought process to something that is beneath us, not worth our notice, allowing us to justify harming them. The more you think of someone as "less than human' or "not human" - the easier it becomes to treat them as less than human or horrendously. That's what that episode was about. It was a bit on the preachy side. But it is a difficult topic to do well. And it does not help, of course, that BSG had been hitting us over the head with it regarding the cylons for the last two years. (eg. Toaster?)
The second episode, which aired this past Sunday, was far better. One of the best one's of the season. It stuck to one pov, most of the way through. And struggled to explore an interesting theme, which ended on an uplifting note. Rare for this series.
Six asks Baltar how she can be human. Note she is asking the Baltar in her head, not the actual one. Much like Gaius, Six doesn't really see the real Baltar, she sees the one she fell for, the one that she's pulled into herself. Baltar similarily does not see the real Six, he sees the one he idealized, fell for, and has pulled inside himself. The Baltar - that Six sees, is a projection of herself, her male animus. The Six that Baltar sees is the projection of himself, the female anima. Romantic love is not really falling for the person as they appear in front of us, who they *really* are - b/c we don't really know them at this point - it's our perception of them we fall in love with. The whole fall in love with love bit. The archetype. BSG is doing an excellent job of playing with this concept.
Anyhow - the Baltar in Six's head reiterates what Six already knows, what she's been taught by the cylons, what she must believe to be true in order to justify her actions against the humans - to live with those actions. "To be human, one must only care about oneself." And the Baltar she fell for, indeed, only appeared to care about himself. He was into self-preservation regardless of the cost. And saw everyone as beneath him. Pointless. This is not the man we have gotten to know or for that matter the one who really exists, it's just the portion that Six has seen.
Is this statement true - the show asks. Let's see. So the episode jumps back and forth between memory and present day. And depicts three marital relationships and a rescue scenario that asks people to risk themselves to save someone else. Someone they do not necessarily have a personal investment in. The first of the three is Adama and his wife, seen primarily through Adama's pov. We get a little of it from Lee's. We do not however get his wife's pov.
Paralleled by Cheif's relationship with Cally, seen via the Chief's pov, not Cally's. And Lee's relationship with his father and wife. In each, at first glance, it appears that the men care about the women to the extent they serve them. Adama comes across as very self-serving. But as the story unravels. It gets more complicated. We see Adama trying to make things work, trying to deal with a moody and unstable wife. Who he loves despite her flaws.
And we see his love for Lee, and realization that perhaps he pushed Lee in the wrong direction and his attempts to remedy that even though it must hit him as ironic, since he is in effect allowing Lee to follow in the father he disagreed with, footsteps. Then we get the rescue - and how Adama risks the lives of his pilots, even his son, to rescue Cheif and Cally.
How the pilots risk their lives to do it, without question.
And the answer that comes back to us is this - it's not so simple. Being human is not a simple answer to a simple mathematical equation. Yes, we must care about ourselves in order to survive. But we must also care a great deal about others to do so. We, like it or not, are dependent on each other for our survival. We can't exist without other people. We are connected to them in ways we can't begin to comprehend. Just as the cylons are connected to each other, except, the human connection is less obvious, less clear, less simple.
What I like about BSG is the showing not the telling. Letting me come up with it myself.
And of course the characters who are all deeply flawed, like I am.
4.
Tina Fey has found a way to poke fun at political issues and make a comment on them at exactly the same time, without being preachy. Someone please tell Aaron Sorkin and David E. Kelley to take notes. (Okay, maybe not Kelly so much - he has James Spader and William Shatner to help.). Last week's episode had the priceless line:"You can't fire someone for calling you a bad name. That would just be silly." This week's? "I think we would be better served if the troops went out and took out Barak Obama, and next election my support goes to Osma." LMAO! This was from Jane Krawoski's airy character and star of the fictional Girlie show. She says it on Hardball, meaning to say, of course the opposite, but the two names get flipped around in her head. Oh this has become a delightful show. And the best sitch comedy I've seen in years.
Other shows that I watched but no time to comment on? Heroes, Desperate Housewives, Grey's Anatomy (yes, it was lame this week -but I liked Cristina)and Brothers & Sisters. Sunday nights are crowded for me.
Okay off to dinner now.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2007-02-25 04:11 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-02-25 04:28 am (UTC)I think the only two "situation" comedies making me laugh right now are The Office and 30 Rock. Although I do enjoy Ugly Betty...so there's that.
Agree though. I've only really seen four episodes. I tuned in to the first one or two, and wasn't impressed. Tried again a few weeks back and was impressed. And the last two weeks? Were hilarious. I think it's finding it's stride and picking up speed. Hope it makes it another year. I think it will. NBC seems to be behind it and it has picked up in the ratings.
no subject
Date: 2007-02-25 05:00 am (UTC)But when it's clicking for me it does sort of work in the same way.
no subject
Date: 2007-02-25 06:29 am (UTC)Alec Baldwin while well-meaning isn't the lovable curmudegon Lou Grant was. Although he is much funnier. Seinfield in a way changed all that.
no subject
Date: 2007-02-25 05:35 pm (UTC)True. 30 Rock is a smaller and sillier show -- building a show like MTM in the 70s, centering around a career woman and set in the workplace was a political statement. And that entailed a kind of weight - even as a sitcom - that 30 Rock doesn't really need to carry.
no subject
Date: 2007-02-25 11:34 pm (UTC)Now, we're in the age of the dramedy - Boston Legal, Ugly Betty, Buffy,
Studio 60...where the tough issues are presented either as drama or comedy.
And situation comedies are relegated to farce very rarely allowed to be "dramatic" or "heavy" - and I think they've suffered a bit as a result.
There's less quiet moments. Too many jokes cram-packed inside the episode.
To work, a joke needs to build, you need the down time - I think. Seinfield is partly responsible for that change.
There are a few exceptions - The Class, How I Met Your Mother, My Name is Earl, and Scrubs which have dramatic moments, but not many. And none of these come close to the impact of MTM or Mash or Murphy Brown.
no subject
Date: 2007-02-26 01:59 am (UTC)I've given up on Lost, I was even thinking about watching it the other night when nothing else was on TV, and I forgot and ended up channel surfing instead. I figure if something amazing ever happens then I can always catch up in Summer reruns or DVD rental, but I no longer expect anything to happen.
BSG is always pushing the envelope, even when an episode doesn't completely work, you can see why they thought it was a good idea.
I've also been enjoying 30 Rock, I think the show is getting better (which is always a great sign!) It is interesting to compare it to Mary Tyler Moore.
Dresden and Ugly Betty are the best new shows IMO, but I am really enjoying Heroes and still loving Desperate Housewives and House. Basically there are quite a few good shows on the air this year, which I'm grateful for: I really enjoy TV more than movies, this link was at Whedonesque:
http://blogcritics.org/archives/2007/02/24/120812.php
and I really agree that TV can so a lot more than film.
no subject
Date: 2007-02-27 04:08 am (UTC)But then I prefer novels to short stories, love the "serial" form and prefer to see characters evolve slowly and change over time. Film or movies doesn't really allow enough time for that - and is in reality a short story of sorts. The best films are often adaptations of "short stories". It's very hard to translate a longer work to film - without dumping a portion, making a triology, or changing the work entirely. There are exceptions to this of course - the epic. Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter, the Star Wars triology,
the Matrix, The Godfather films, Lawrence of Arabia and Gone with the Wind all come to mind. But most films tend to cram a lot into a short period of time.
Television on the other hand has more time. Soap operas - have five days a week for an entire year to develop characters and create stories - while they can be hokey and cheap at times, they also can have amazing moments that you do not find elsewhere in the medium - small moments, which a viewer who has not watched the entire serial or most of it, could not possibly appreciate. Then there's the novela's for tv or miniseries - such as The Thorn Birds, Roots, The Holocaust, Rich Man Poor Man...those novels would not have worked nearly as well on film. And now, finally tv series such as Friday Night Lights, Lost, Heroes, BattleStar Galatica, and Ugly Betty which are in effect serials as well, each episode building on the next.
I have a weakness for serials. It's my favorite story format. It's why I adored the X-men, Buffy, Angel, Firefly, BSG, and yes, daytime soap operas.
Procedurals or episodic stories such as Doctor Who, Quantum Leap, Murder She Wrote, the Fugitive, Higway to Heaven, Touched by an Angel, the CSI's and even Monk don't hold my interest very long. I realize the characters won't really evolve and it is really just an anthology series or a series of short stories with the three or two or one star as the connecting thread. The lead travels from place to place and helps people, solves what amounts to little morality plays. Star Trek was like this as well - the original one. The ones that came after much less so - which is why I prefered them. It's not that I don't like them, I just lose interest. It's short stories, and I can only read one or two before my attention wavers - I feel unsatisfied, I want more.
Dresden, House, the Closer, and Veronica Mars are more like Angel and Buffy - they aren't as episodic, the characters evolve and change, I learn new things about them in each episode and they aren't wandering about solving people's problems, people are coming to them and in the process we learn something about them - more actually than the guest star - it's the episodic format flipped on its head - which is why I prefer The Dresden Files to Doctor Who. If that makes sense.
Again it just comes down to personal preference. I used to apologize or hide my preferences, worry over if others shared them or what they thought, now I don't care. I've learned that it doesn't really matter. While it can be frustrating that a show I found silly is getting higher ratings and is lasting longer on the air than one I love, there's really zip I can do about it. I can't make people watch Dresden or like it. Any more than they can make me love Doctor Who.