Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

slicerprime OP t1_iy6gd21 wrote

Reply to comment by testingtor in Which is worse? A show that is "worth the wait" because it finally becomes good after wasting your time for half the series? Or a show that just plain sucks all the way through and can be dumped early without missing anything? by slicerprime

It's not slow burn that bothers me. It's straight up bad TV that's irritating. There are plenty of shows that I have loved that simmered for ages before (if ever) boiling. Slow doesn't mean uninteresting. Sometimes slow is actually where a great story belongs.

I'm talking about the shows that just plain suck until the writers/directors finally figure out how to do what they were hired to do. I've run across plenty of series where it's a true slog, with nothing of any depth - or little enough to not matter - before it becomes watchable. And sometimes, it even becomes the really good kinda watchable. But, still, like I said, that just ends up pissing me off.

Hence my question. Is that kind of show worse than a straight up bad show? IMO, yes it is. Because it made me suffer for no good reason before it finally handed over anything good. And that's just plain dumb of anybody to waste their time doing. Like I said, it's just TV. Not medicine.

5

testingtor t1_iy6gk3b wrote

You realize "straight up bad tv" is subjective right? Just because youre not getting anything out of early episodes doesnt mean theres nothing there.

2

slicerprime OP t1_iy6ikrw wrote

Of course. But I think you know there is a difference between shows that are slow burn and shows that even the critics say are just bad in the early episodes (even season(s)). I also think you know I'm talking about the latter.

I'm not a viewer without patience or a willingness to expand and go beyond my previous or current interests. I like to be pushed and challenged to find value where I might not normally look or recognize it.

What I don't like is to have my time wasted while a director or writers figure out what they should have figured out before they let the camera roll. I don't like watching practice sessions. Unfortunately, sometimes the politics or economics of the business means that crap ends up on my screens.

5

testingtor t1_iy6is73 wrote

Why are you watching stuff you have no interest in and youve already been told you wont like? Also it would probably help if you gave examples eventually

1

slicerprime OP t1_iy6lbzy wrote

Actually, now I specifically stay away from the type I'm talking about. In the past, I used to jump right in if it was a genre or actor I liked, ignoring the warnings of early crap and willing to slog through for the good stuff promised later. Now....nope.

As for examples, I was going to put some in the post, but I decided against it. I didn't want things do devolve into whether any specific show was good or bad. I just wanted an answer to the question "Which of these things is worse..." and see if anyone had thoughts and/or examples of their own.

Anyway, apparently it wasn't such a great question. Oh well :)

2

OkayAtBowling t1_iy8ryak wrote

I'm curious what shows you're thinking of that started out bad before getting good. I can understand why you'd rather not give examples (presumably because you don't want it to devolve into debates about specific shows), but most of the ones I can think of are older ones when they had a lot more episodes to make and more time to fill.

Maybe something like Star Trek: The Next Generation? Or even stuff like Buffy and The X-Files (which I don't think started out bad but it did take them a season or two to really get their footing).

Generally speaking though I feel like very few shows I've watched in recent years are like this. Due to shorter seasons and more serialized storylines, they usually feel like they've been pretty well thought out beforehand compared to shows from the 90s or early 2000s. Or maybe I'm just not watching those shows.

1