General Television Thread

[EddieG]

I haven't given it a second chance, but general concencus is that New Girl was unwatchable, and has turned into one of the best comedy shows on tv?

If I based my opinion off the previews it looks just as bad. But maybe I just will never like it

That's how I feel too But it was mainly in response to Kong who stated there's no show that started off bad and turned out great.

[livid]

TV is littered with examples of this so I'm honestly a bit surprised that what I'm saying isn't that clear.

[KONGO]

So name 'em.

[TKz]

I found pretty much the entirety of the first season of Breaking Bad pretty boring. I didn't watch Sons of Anarchy for like a year because it didn't have a very interesting first few episodes. And those are just the really good shows, I won't even bother listing things like Supernatural which had one of the weakest starts to a season ever, or Smallville which has entire seasons of terrible before anything good comes about.

The first like, half a season is never indicative of how a show is going to end up. Most of the time they're still figuring out what kind of show they want to be and where they're going. Fair enough if you don't want to stick around for that, but it's silly to expect a show to know exactly what it's doing and do it perfectly from the first half of a season.

I'm suddenly very glad none of you have any actual sway on what shows get picked up, or we wouldn't have half as much on television to choose from.

[Your Mom]

Community is another one for me anyway

[Josh]

Because if no one ever bothered to stick with any show past the first few episodes, no shows would ever get past that first season.

No one's telling you to stick around if you're not enjoying it. But if you're not going to bother giving it more of a shot than the first three episodes, then you're not going to get in to many shows.

I'm hard pressed to think of any show I follow regularly that started out with a rough first 2 or 3 episodes. But there is some truth in your first statement: there's a lot of shit on TV and more or less all of it tells you it will be shit (or just unremarkable) in the first few episodes.

I haven't given it a second chance, but general concencus is that New Girl was unwatchable, and has turned into one of the best comedy shows on tv?

I found it pretty terrible when I watched the first few episodes. I tried some more recent material and my opinion remains the same.

Obviously, we're getting into more subjective territory when discussing whether specific shows are good or not, but the concept of giving a new show a shot for more than a handful of episodes in the hope that it will become something you like is still odd to me.

[KONGO]

I'm suddenly very glad none of you have any actual sway on what shows get picked up, or we wouldn't have half as much on television to choose from.

Yeah, we'd have fewer and better shows on with writers who were competent and didn't need three hours of television to decide "what kind of show they're going to do" when movies run for two hours and somehow figure out all that shit in time.

[TKz]

Community is another one for me anyway

Pretty much the perfect example of a show that ended up being completely different than the pilot.

Or hey, how about the literal example of "give it a season", Parks and Recreation?

Or you know, The Office, which was pretty much horrible until it started doing it's own thing.

[C-MIL]

Community is another one for me anyway

I am the opposite. I liked the early Community episodes way more than the later ones.

[livid]

I'm suddenly very glad none of you have any actual sway on what shows get picked up, or we wouldn't have half as much on television to choose from.

Yeah, we'd have fewer and better shows on with writers who were competent and didn't need three hours of television to decide "what kind of show they're going to do" when movies run for two hours and somehow figure out all that shit in time.

Just because you watch both does not mean you can compare them as if they are the same thing. Apples to oranges, man.

[KONGO]

So what you're saying is, they should have just written the second season and skipped the boring season 1? I just don't understand the mindset at all. If they write bad TV, they write bad TV. Writing good TV later doesn't justify the bad TV they started with, whether it's the same series or not. Maybe don't greenlight shows where the people in charge don't really know what they're doing?

I'm suddenly very glad none of you have any actual sway on what shows get picked up, or we wouldn't have half as much on television to choose from.

Yeah, we'd have fewer and better shows on with writers who were competent and didn't need three hours of television to decide "what kind of show they're going to do" when movies run for two hours and somehow figure out all that shit in time.

Just because you watch both does not mean you can compare them as if they are the same thing. Apples to oranges, man.

Why?

[Josh]

I found pretty much the entirety of the first season of Breaking Bad pretty boring. I didn't watch Sons of Anarchy for like a year because it didn't have a very interesting first few episodes. And those are just the really good shows, I won't even bother listing things like Supernatural which had one of the weakest starts to a season ever, or Smallville which has entire seasons of terrible before anything good comes about.

The first like, half a season is never indicative of how a show is going to end up. Most of the time they're still figuring out what kind of show they want to be and where they're going. Fair enough if you don't want to stick around for that, but it's silly to expect a show to know exactly what it's doing and do it perfectly from the first half of a season.

I'm suddenly very glad none of you have any actual sway on what shows get picked up, or we wouldn't have half as much on television to choose from.

Community is another one for me anyway

Yeah, we're definitely getting into subjective territory: I liked both Breaking Bad and Community from their first episodes. Community got better for me as it went along, but it had a solid base to build on. Breaking Bad was straight up excellent from the off. Those other shows I've either never seen or seen enough to have no interest.

[TKz]

Well, KONG's solved it everyone, let's just stop making TV shows unless they're absolutely perfect from the start. Just, don't bother trying and improving, that shit's not worth anyones time.

[KONGO]

If you don't have a good point to make, don't act like I'm being a dick. I didn't say "Don't watch the show if you want to," but you putting it across like people aren't doing their duty or not giving it "a real shot" if they don't watch the X amount of shows you determined is ridiculous. People will watch as much as the show inspires them to watch. Eyerolling past that is childish.

[TKz]

What I'm saying is that it's entirely possible for a show to evolve past what it starts as into something great, I can forgive a rocky start if it results in that. I'm not going to give up on something with potential after three episodes because it hasn't realized that potential in three episodes. Not every show is perfect from the start. I never once said they're not doing their duty or any of this shit, I'm saying you can't expect to experience everything a show has to offer if the only time you're going to put in is barely any at all.

[KONGO]

I guess don't get on people's case about it, then? The way you bring it up implies that people are missing out on something huge every time, when in reality, if they gave up on the show they probably don't care about experiencing everything a show has to offer.

[livid]

So what you're saying is, they should have just written the second season and skipped the boring season 1? I just don't understand the mindset at all. If they write bad TV, they write bad TV. Writing good TV later doesn't justify the bad TV they started with, whether it's the same series or not. Maybe don't greenlight shows where the people in charge don't really know what they're doing?

I'm suddenly very glad none of you have any actual sway on what shows get picked up, or we wouldn't have half as much on television to choose from.

Yeah, we'd have fewer and better shows on with writers who were competent and didn't need three hours of television to decide "what kind of show they're going to do" when movies run for two hours and somehow figure out all that shit in time.

Just because you watch both does not mean you can compare them as if they are the same thing. Apples to oranges, man.

Why?

They have different timelines to provide information and develop character and typically TV has more of both to do.

Let's say we have an hour long show with 22 episodes. That means that the material they're working with is being stretched out over 22 hours but apparently it's okay to judge that story based on just a fraction of that?

[Your Mom]

What I'm saying is that it's entirely possible for a show to evolve past what it starts as into something great, I can forgive a rocky start if it results in that. I'm not going to give up on something with potential after three episodes because it hasn't realized that potential in three episodes. Not every show is perfect from the start. I never once said they're not doing their duty or any of this shit, I'm saying you can't expect to experience everything a show has to offer if the only time you're going to put in is barely any at all.

If shows like that last I usually give them a second look, but watching week to week is a pain if it's not giving you anything worthwhile

[TKz]

Well, my whole point was that you can't really judge it by it's first few episodes. The same way you wouldn't read the first few chapters of a book and give up on it. But yeah, okay, fair enough. I wasn't "getting on anyone's case" about it, just suggesting that you might find something you like if you don't give up on everything right away.

But yeah, to each their own really. I'll keep giving stuff a chance, you carry on with whatever works for you.

[KONGO]

So what you're saying is, they should have just written the second season and skipped the boring season 1? I just don't understand the mindset at all. If they write bad TV, they write bad TV. Writing good TV later doesn't justify the bad TV they started with, whether it's the same series or not. Maybe don't greenlight shows where the people in charge don't really know what they're doing?

I'm suddenly very glad none of you have any actual sway on what shows get picked up, or we wouldn't have half as much on television to choose from.

Yeah, we'd have fewer and better shows on with writers who were competent and didn't need three hours of television to decide "what kind of show they're going to do" when movies run for two hours and somehow figure out all that shit in time.

Just because you watch both does not mean you can compare them as if they are the same thing. Apples to oranges, man.

Why?

They have different timelines to provide information and develop character and typically TV has more of both to do.

Let's say we have an hour long show with 22 episodes. That means that the material they're working with is being stretched out over 22 hours but apparently it's okay to judge that story based on just a fraction of that?

Yeah, it is, for two reasons.

1.) TV is produced and meant to be consumed by episode. Even though every episode can serve a larger story, they should also be considered on their own.

2.) 30 minutes to an hour is that time no matter how you slice it. If I give you 2 hours of my time I want that two hours to be worth it, and I don't particularly care whether it's called a movie or whether it's called a TV show at the outset.