TV shows that shouldn't have lasted as long as they should've

Aries

DTVUSA Member
#1
We all know them, we turn the dial to another channel, and we think "Why in the Hell is this show still on the air!?"

For me, I'd have to say Kids Next Door, it's a good concept for a kids show, but the overall execution of it is rather poor. And Aqua Teen Hunger Force on Adult Swim, I'll admit I laughed my head off at the episode with the Mummy, but the rest were rather lackluster.
 

bicker

DTVUSA Member
#3
I just posted this in another thread, but it actually belongs here, so I moved it here:

Please pardon the tangent....

"Funny" and "not funny" -- and "Good" and "not good", for that matter -- are personal perspectives, of course, and so I don't think it makes much sense to dwell on "why" something is likely or not liked, by one person or by a mass-audience. King of the Hill (for example) was a very popular show. It was considered funny, and overall a good show, by many, but not by me.

I always take a case like this -- a show that so many people liked, but that I did not -- as a personal disconnect, of sorts: Clearly, such a big block of what has been offered to me I've let pass by (which is arguably a bad thing). Similarly, when I like something but no one else does (and so it gets canceled), I see that as also a personal disconnect, of sorts: What could I have done to better appreciate what so many other people appreciate, so that I would have been better able to avoid my own disappointment (which is, unequivocally, a good thing)?

Contrast this with people who blame others for such situations: Blaming broadcasters for filling their schedules with so many shows that they don't like (even though so many other people like those shows), or blaming society for failing to appreciate what they define as good. Those are ridiculous perspectives. When there is a disconnect between the programming available to us and what we want, the source of the disconnect is within ourselves. The broader context isn't supposed to fit itself to expectations of the individual.

That's not to say that people need necessarily change themselves to fit the proclivities of the broader population. There is nothing wrong with being an individual: maturely and philosophically accepting that there are fewer offerings that one appreciates, because one has "unique tastes"; and maturely and philosophically accepting that other people are individuals deserving of respect and dignity as well, even though their preferences are different.

Where people go wrong is when they engage in blame, as described above. It shocks me to see how often people try to place the blame (if there must be blame) outside themselves for situations like this. The sense of entitlement and expectations runs so deep that most folks who engage in such things fail to recognize it, even when pointed out to them. They seem, at times, to have the impression that the world should conform to them, and nothing seems to shake them from that delusion.
 

Aaron62

Contributor
Staff member
#4
I just posted this in another thread, but it actually belongs here, so I moved it here:

Please pardon the tangent....

"Funny" and "not funny" -- and "Good" and "not good", for that matter -- are personal perspectives, of course, and so I don't think it makes much sense to dwell on "why" something is likely or not liked, by one person or by a mass-audience. King of the Hill (for example) was a very popular show. It was considered funny, and overall a good show, by many, but not by me.

I always take a case like this -- a show that so many people liked, but that I did not -- as a personal disconnect, of sorts: Clearly, such a big block of what has been offered to me I've let pass by (which is arguably a bad thing). Similarly, when I like something but no one else does (and so it gets canceled), I see that as also a personal disconnect, of sorts: What could I have done to better appreciate what so many other people appreciate, so that I would have been better able to avoid my own disappointment (which is, unequivocally, a good thing)?

Contrast this with people who blame others for such situations: Blaming broadcasters for filling their schedules with so many shows that they don't like (even though so many other people like those shows), or blaming society for failing to appreciate what they define as good. Those are ridiculous perspectives. When there is a disconnect between the programming available to us and what we want, the source of the disconnect is within ourselves. The broader context isn't supposed to fit itself to expectations of the individual.

That's not to say that people need necessarily change themselves to fit the proclivities of the broader population. There is nothing wrong with being an individual: maturely and philosophically accepting that there are fewer offerings that one appreciates, because one has "unique tastes"; and maturely and philosophically accepting that other people are individuals deserving of respect and dignity as well, even though their preferences are different.

Where people go wrong is when they engage in blame, as described above. It shocks me to see how often people try to place the blame (if there must be blame) outside themselves for situations like this. The sense of entitlement and expectations runs so deep that most folks who engage in such things fail to recognize it, even when pointed out to them. They seem, at times, to have the impression that the world should conform to them, and nothing seems to shake them from that delusion.
Surely you have a preference of what you've thought was bad TV though?

Take for instance Kids in the Hall. I don't hold the country of Canada liable fo bad comedy nor do I blame American broadcasters for running that show here in the states. But to me, it was NOT a funny show at all.

We're merely talking about or debating what was on TV for too long according to our own personal tastes.
 

1inxs

DTVUSA Member
#5
Seriously, for me, it was M*A*S*H*. I understand it was one of, if not the most successful series ever. After watching it umteen times and catching glimpses of it while channel surfing for years and years. :gramps: All I could think was "make it stop". :boom:
 

EscapeVelocity

Moderator, , Webmaster of EV's Antenna Blog
#6
There is a philosophy major on the loose.


As to the OP's postulation, it seems to me that many, many shows are appropriately described as such. The way TV shows are setup they go nowhere, they just meander around endlessly. Now this may be fine for sitcoms even smart comedies, but for drama and other genres? One of the worst offenders is sci-fi shows....Babylon 5 was an exception, that had a overarching plot and theme which was resolved before cancellation. This should be a much more common way of doing shows. A great story to be done in the multi year overarching plot style is the Lord of the Rings.

Hopefully BattleStar Gallactica comes to some resolution before benig cancelled as well.
 
Last edited:
#7
Shows which go on and on and on and on with no end....


SOAP OPERAS!

I cannot think of anything more boring. it's worse than watching infomercials, worse than watching the History Channel (Which, in retrospect, isn't half bad ;) )

Another one is The Simpsons i mean i'm surprised it lasted as long myself, it started in 1989!
 
Last edited:

bicker

DTVUSA Member
#10
There is a philosophy major on the loose.
Gosh, way too many years ago. Sometimes bits of pieces of it flow back to me. :)

This should be a much more common way of doing shows.
The risk for such shows is prodigious. I suspect that there were many more losers than winners in the B5 business case. Shows like Alias went down the same path, and struggled to attract enough viewers to justify their existence. B5 managed to limp along, with a couple of skips along the way, primarily on the strength of JMS' own will (and probably his willingness to write for peanuts) and on the corners they cut on the F/X (have you ever seen B5 on a big screen television? blech).

Of course, the big problem with shows like that is that if you miss one or two, you feel lost. And trying to join a show like that in the middle, two or three seasons in, is almost impossible. So in a difficult business, you're already starting with two Strikes against you.

Perhaps with DVRs viewers won't be as reticent to get involved with such shows. (And we can see how shows like this that are on now are often among the most DVR'ed shows.) However, that's doesn't really help foster this type of show. DVRs also mean commercial avoidance. I've got 25 episodes of Smallville stacked up to watch over the next two months. Even if I was going to watch the commercials, some of them are almost a year old, and just don't count anymore.

Hopefully BattleStar Gallactica comes to some resolution before benig cancelled as well.
It has and it did.
 
#11
Galactica found Earth over 20 years ago. in Galactica 1980 . it's sadly sucked since. i wasn't around when it first came out in 1978 so it's not nostalgia, for a long time i figured the newer series the only one. then i saw the original. done deal.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
C DirecTV 0
J Comcast 0
B Comcast 0

Similar threads

Top