New posts

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Kenny Coyote" data-source="post: 196113" data-attributes="member: 102">Nice post Marika. You mentioned Dawson's Creek being unrealistic and being "more like a romantic, dreamy fairytale" and I think that's a good description of it. That was their style, and I think Dawson's Creek did an excellent job of being a romantic, dreamy fairytale. I think Beverly Hills 90120 at times did a good job of what it did too, but it's no more realistic than Dawson's Creek. The 90210 kids seem so sure of themselves and act like they have life all figured out. Their "dumb" parents just don't get it. Those are some of the unrealistic traits of that show. Also, problems, or any type of crisis, is usually resolved fairly quickly and easily in Beverly Hills 90210.Dawson's Creek didn't use a lot of dramatic cliffhangers and contrive a lot of OMG moments because it's not a soap. It's a drama, told in a romantic style. It's got a serialized rather than an episodic format, but a lot of shows that aren't soaps use a serialized format.I think it's important to make a distinction between "realistic" and "believable." Realistic, to me, means it shows life the way it really is. Believable, can be something that although it doesn't necessarily portray the way life is, still portrays life as it could be, and maybe even should be. The stories told, and the actions of the characters make sense in that context. That's the purpose of romantic art - to portray life not as it is, but as it could and should be.Each show was unrealistic in it's own way and that alright; I'll watch documentaries if I want to watch something that describes the way life really is. I don't expect shows to be realistic, but I do expect the stories to make sense and be enjoyable to watch. Both shows had that.I think Dawson's Creek, aside from the four syllable adjectives the kids constantly used (I don't know why the producers of the show felt the need for that), was still more believable. Not realistic, but believable. To me to seems their characters acted more genuinely, and the indecisiveness we saw in Joey and Dawson was an example of that. They really weren't sure if they wanted to be boyfriend and girlfriend or of they just wanted to be friends. They were confused about that, because neither was sure what they wanted. That indecisiveness, and uncertainty to me seemed very typical of teenagers. Those are very human qualities, and therefore, believable. Not just believable but relatable.Joey and Dawson loved each other but they were confused about whether they loved each other romantically or just as friends. Then eventually they decided they really were in love with each other, but still were unsure of how to go about showing each other that they were in love with each other!That's an example of what makes Dawson's Creek believable, despite the unrealistic vocabularies the kids had. These are very intelligent kids who have a very strong sense of right and wrong, but they still keep getting confused as to what they should do, such as Joey not knowing how she should go about showing Dawson that she is in love with him.  They have all these complex emotions, but because they're teenagers, they don't know how to act on those emotions.That's something Dawson's Creek was very good at doing - looking at how kids deal with the new emotions they're experiencing at that age. While I did like Beverley Hills and it was fun, it could be very superficial. When it came to dealing with their emotions - it didn't go too deep - it was very surface level. I really enjoy a show like Dawson's Creek that goes beyond that surface level and takes a much deeper look at the emotions the kids are feeling and their uncertainty (because of their age) on how to act on these emotions they're feeling for the first time.I really like that Dawson's Creek goes beyond the surface level and goes deep. I believe it had more substance than Beverly Hills 90210. I found myself caring more about what happened to the characters than I did in Beverly Hills 90210. That's why I believe that, of the two shows, Dawson's Creek was the better quality show.As for kids watching it, I think Dawson's Creek is better for them because it shows that it's alright to feel confused and vulnerable, that it is difficult to know how to act on the new feelings you have at that age. It shows that yes, there will be heartbreak, and you don't always get over that quickly or easily. I think Dawson's Creek offers kids more substance overall. That's the best way I can say it - Dawson's Creek goes beyond the surface of what the kids are feeling and takes things to a much deeper, more interesting and satisfying level.</blockquote>

Verification: Who played Sue Ellen in Dallas?