Quote:
Originally Posted by screech
I barely know or care who Jimmy Jacobs is. If he wrote it or didn't, or took credit for it - who cares?
My question, which you still haven't answered even in this essay, is why does it matter what it looks like on paper if it worked on the show?
Whether or not you like who wrote it or how it seemed it would be is irrelevant if the end result is something you've admittedly enjoyed. Jericho was given an idea to work with and he crushed it, as usual. Are you unable to just enjoy that part of it without bitching?
|
Because that is what we were talking about. It's the whole conversation.
Your question is not pertinent. I have very purposefully avoided engaging with it.
I actually didn't enjoy the segment. I'm sorry if I gave that impression. I can accept that people generally enjoyed it though. I'm not a big fan of Jericho's latest run. I just appreciate him as a talent. But I could do without the list stuff entirely. It's been well-received though, so whatever. My point is just that I believe he deserves all the credit for that, because the things he was given to do were, in my opinion, terrible. You can disagree with me on that, and that's fine. But your question about how it ended up isn't relevant to my line of thinking, because how it was exists outside star and performance is entirely my concern.
And before you go and ask the same question again, that is because that is what I am talking about. I don't care if something is shit when it is written and then turns out to be great,
except when I am talking specifically about how it is shit when it's written. Within that context, yes, that is everything to do with the point I am making. Why were we talking about that? Because I asked what Jimmy Jacobs did and someone said "He's been given credit for this," and I said "Eh, I don't think he deserves credit for that." That is what we were talking about. Who takes credit
is the subject matter. Not whether or not that ultimately matters.