Favorite Whedon TV Show Meme

[shadowkat]

I can't remember what Whedon tv shows my readership favors. So perhaps you can help? My current guess is that you rank them as follows:

1. Buffy
2. Angel (with about 25-45% preferring Angel to Buffy for various reasons)
3. Firefly
4. Dollhouse (with 65% squicked by the series and finding it unwatchable)


Only 5% read the comics and liked them. Everyone liked Dr. Horrible. Few read the X-men comics by Whedon or stuck with them. So comics Whedon - not a fav. Also few appear interested in the current films, Much Ado, Cabin in the Woods, or Avengers. Am I right?
Here's a poll to find out, assuming people participate. As all mathematicians and staticians know...polls are repsentative of the sampling. If only 20 people take the poll?
You guess based on those 20. So...I have approximately 150 who have friended me, of the 150, about 50 probably read on a daily basis, of the 50, 30% are into polls. So..I have no way of knowing, do I? The only way I can know is if everyone who reads my journal and likes or ever liked Whedon shows takes the poll. And that's well impossible. So this is ...far from an exact exercise. (A lesson to the people out there who do a lot of surveys for sociology, psychology and marketing classes - people? They aren't that reliable. You know that right? IF not, just read the internet - it will prove it to you. There's a reason that sociology, psychology and marketing are considering inexact sciences or soft. They rely on inexact data that can't be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Lawyers love to poke holes in statistical data.)

That said, for a bit of fun, take the poll and see if you can prove me wrong? Feel free to link, since a lot of readers seem to be through links at times.

[Poll #1831422]

[Note: Won't be able to respond until late on Thursday or Friday, since I can no longer access personal blogs via my workplace. So can only access at home. PS: I reposted this poll fifteen minutes after first posting, because I screwed up on the last question and had to fix it. Now it should be fine. If you responded to the deleted post, please respond again. Thanks.]

[ETA: Read the comments. Fascinating.]

Comments

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

Curious...what do you mean by this statement:

I don't usually read or watch for character (for writers or actors but not characters so much) but she and Sarah Connor are my exceptions that prove the rule.

I've managed to interpret it three different ways and am uncertain which is the correct one.

1) you are more interested in the performance of the actor and the structure of the narrative than character arcs? (ie. a Doylist take as opposed to a Watsonian one?)

2) you prefer theme, and style...or the world and setting and mythology to the character, characters are window dressing?

3) you can't identify with the characters...so focus on the plot and theme instead, with the exception of Buffy in S6-(comic books), and Sarah Connor?

Or none of the above?

Not sure. But it is an intriguing take. The exact polar opposite of how I come at things, which is what I find so interesting about it. See? For me it's all about the characters, if I can't find anything interesting about the characters or don't like any of them, I'm gone. I won't bother. The character arcs are the most important bit. It's how I write and how I approach narratives. And mainly how I've been taught to...from the age of 1 up. But from what you stated above, I'm wondering if you are the opposite?

[aycheb.livejournal.com]

Growing up I watched old Hollywood movies and read science fiction. In the former film stars play themselves as much or more than the characters, there's a continuity to Stewart or Stanwyck or Grant or Hepburn that's bigger than the individual parts they play. Similarly in sf the characters are often rather flat but the stories have the personalities of their authors, Ursula LeGuin, Joanna Russ and James Tiptree Jnr (my personal favourite) are stronger characters than any of the people they write. They seep through the people and the world they create you get to know them, the way they think, the questions they ask, their feelings and loyalties.

I think when I grew older and branched out into more character based genres I'd already learned to read books as a way to get out of my own head and into the author's and to read movies as all connected to one another and I never lost that. I fell in love with George Elliot and Toni Morrison and Samantha Morton and Powell and Pressburger more than the individual stories they told or the characters they created or played. So it is about characters just not the ones people make up. Or maybe it's less complicated than that and the kind of character I find resonant in fiction is simply rare. I like women and I like survivors, characters who can resist change, who don't go on a journey, who have centres not arcs and that seems to be not what good character writing is supposed to be about.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

I've been flipping your response around in my head all day. It occurs to me that your previous statement in an unrelated thread to an unrelated post, works here as well - at least for me - we do tend to "overstate" things on the net. Or "generalize".

While I tend to...come at things from a vastly different angle than you do and think very differently, I want you to know that I appreciate your response, and appreciate you taking the time to explain a different perspective. It's important, I believe, to surround oneself with people who think and view the world from different angles. It keeps me honest.
I like to be intellectually challenged.

While I may not always agree, it helps to see how someone else sees it.
Maybe it is the lawyer in me? No. I was taught at any early age to value diversity in all things. Even when it hurts.