Debbie:
At a family party this past weekend, you accused me of only watching fluff TV. As an avid watcher of The Vampire Diaries and Psych, I suppose you might have a point … in part.
I’d argue that just because these shows and others like them give you a fun hour of TV with gratuitous moments (whether they be pop culture references, humor, sex or just OMG stuff) doesn’t mean that they are fluff.
What constitutes a NON-fluff show? To me, it’s a consistently well-written show with complex, ever-evolving characters and engaging, unique storylines. I’m not sure I watch any shows that don’t fit into that category.
Is a show fluff just because it’s fun and doesn’t take itself too seriously? I don’t think so.
Fluff to me is a show that you can sit and watch without thinking at all … a show you can completely appreciate even if your full attention isn’t on it … because there’s just not that much to miss. If I did that with Psych, for instance, I’d miss many of the rapid-fire dialog and pop culture references that make the show great. And seriously, you can’t look away from The Vampire Diaries for a second because you’ll miss either a plot twist, an amazing reveal of another layer of storyline or a gruesome death.
So I guess my question for you is: How do you define fluff, since you’re a self-proclaimed TV snob?
Bob:
I think fluff shows are those that are just there for pure entertainment. All they want to do is entertain, which sometimes is great. I don’t have a problem with fluff shows. I think a lot of the USA shows (Burn Notice, Royal Pains, and yes, Psych) are very fluffy. Many other shows on TV are looking to explore some deeper theme or really mine the depths of some of their characters. Let’s face it: Royal Pains is not trying to do this. Many shows try to go deeper and fail, but that doesn’t mean they are fluff.
I haven’t watched enough of The Vampire Diaries to call it fluff or not, but I have a suspicion that it’s not. It may be cheesy, sensational, or campy, but I don’t think it’s fluffy.
Yes, I am a TV snob and I don’t spend a lot of time watching fluff. I prefer the deeper, meaningful shows. I usually give you a hard time for your fluffy viewing tendencies because of your background. You have a degree in English, and spent years analyzing and discussing the intricacies, language, structure, and plotting of books and plays. Why have you abandoned this love when it comes to television?
Debbie:
That’s my point — I don’t think I’ve abandoned it. A show doesn’t have to be depressing and slow-moving to be intricate and discussable — have you read any of my House reviews? In one of my recent episode reviews, I compared the importance of a billboard to the plot and character motivation of the show to that of The Great Gatsby‘s eyes watching over the city. I have anything but abandoned my love for analyzing entertainment.
But that’s the key for me — I’ve got to be entertained. I don’t think The Wire, The Walking Dead and shows with lots of gore and violence and no humor are for me. Before you go all crazy with what you want to say, which I know is, “Deb, how can you say you don’t like gory shows when two of your favorites are Supernatural and The Vampire Diaries?” let me stop you and say that they are fast-moving, they balance the gore with humor and what’s a little blood when there are such deep and complex storylines to keep my attention. You haven’t fully mined characters until you’ve followed Supernatural for six seasons, by the way. I’ll meet you at Mad Men and The Good Wife someday; they really are on my list.
I completely agree with you on Royal Pains, a show that I tried once and don’t watch. It’s one of the fluffiest shows I can think of.
I’m not necessarily on-board with some of the other USA picks, though, because you have to think in order to really appreciate them. I think we just have different definitions of fluff, and that’s OK. It might be fun in a future column to debate whether or not a specific show is fluff or not.
Bob:
Okay, I’ll admit it, perhaps you watch less fluff than I think you do. I just don’t watch a lot of those shows. I guess it is really just a question of taste. I could argue that there is a lot of humor (even if mostly dark) in series like The Wire and The Walking Dead, but I don’t think it’s going to change your opinion. I also don’t think either is slow-moving or depressing. Of course, I’m fairly certain you haven’t seen a single frame of The Wire, so. …
The funny part of all of this — Royal Pains is one show I will watch. As opposed to so many shows that try to be deep and fail miserably, it is totally light and fluffy and nothing else. I appreciate it as a fun summer watch when the rest of the schedule is light. Why USA has decided to bring it back in the middle of this miserable, snowy season I have no idea.
Debbie:
I cannot possibly top that.
. . . . .
<——- so glad he doesn’t watch any fluff
Nice post, guys.
I would argue that The Vampire Diaries is so good because it lacks fluffiness. It’s not even cheesy (barring those horrendous flashbacks to ye olde times) and can being shockingly matter-of-fact in its violence.
The Wire I think managed to blend a bit of everything. It was shockingly violent, depressingly realistic..But it was also hilariously funny at times. And it left you thinking about the episodes long after they were done. I’m still pondering over some of the storylines years later. So I guess ‘fluff’ isn’t really the appropriate term. ‘Disposable’ is better.
Glee, the last 4 seasons of House (give or take an episode), Hawaii 5-0, CSI (the bloody lot of them) are what I’d consider disposable.