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?

Submitted by slicerprime t3_z7fsjn in television

My vote for worst are the shows that make you plod along through crap and then finally "make it worth your time". I've come to hate reviewers who say things like that because they miss the point of a TV series. It's entertainment for crying out loud! It's not surgery, or medicine, or an undergraduate degree. It's not important enough for me to be miserable until I finally reap the rewards. The whole reason I'm there from the beginning is to be entertained throughout. Not to suffer through crap until my life is changed by some great revelation.

I'm not saying that a new series can't be given a chance to find its footing. If you're interested enough to do that, then fine. Go for it if there's enough there to at least keep you interested. But, if you're suffering in order to get to the goodies, I think that's nuts. I swear, I don't get it when both the pro and amateur reviewers all say things like "Hang in there. It will get better" and "I wanted to give up, but...". All that does is piss me off that the creators of the series made something that was inevitably going to make me miserable for hours.

0

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

testingtor t1_iy6clt7 wrote

If slow burn tv makes you miserable or makes you suffer then just stick to comedies.

3

slicerprime OP t1_iy6gd21 wrote

Replying to testingtor (#751,114)

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

slicerprime OP t1_iy6h7ws wrote

Replying to [deleted] (#751,320)

Slow burn shows where it takes time to get the small or "foundational" stuff across at the right pace, are not a problem. There are a lot of shows like that that I love. It's the ones that are unintentionally crap in the beginning, but are touted because of what they eventually figure out how to become.

IMO, if you expect me to suffer for a season because it took you that long to finally figure out how to tell your great story, then you belong in a lower level of hell than the guy who just wrote a completely bad show people can give up on early without missing a damn thing.

1

slicerprime OP t1_iy6ikrw wrote

Replying to testingtor (#751,932)

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

froop t1_iy6jmyv wrote

If you quit before it gets good, they're the same. If reviewers are saying it gets better, then it probably does. Some really great shows had rough starts but turn out great overall. It's on you to decide if that's worth your time.

1

slicerprime OP t1_iy6lbzy wrote

Replying to testingtor (#752,399)

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

GarlVinland4Astrea t1_iy6m9qn wrote

The one that is good... Though I don't think OP gets the concept of "worth the wait". The whole point is that the wait built up to the good stuff and the show is better for going through all that and it paid off.

4

Lardkaiser t1_iy6o86e wrote

I can't tell you how many times people told me "Just wait, it'll get a lot better", and then it didn't.

So, 100%, without a doubt, absotively and posulutely the first is worse.

9

slicerprime OP t1_iy6uj02 wrote

Replying to GarlVinland4Astrea (#753,076)

Yes, I do understand.

There are two types. The first is "worth the wait". The second is not...

  1. The slow burn - A long, intentional simmer to allow the build up of information and the creation of characters at a pace that doesn't overwhelm. This is great world building. It can feel boring or too slow to some. But, not me. This is good writing and can be great television. This is not at all what I'm complaining about. I'm happy to go along for the ride. Slow is not the problem. Crap is the problem.
  2. A stumbling show that hasn't found itself yet - This is the crap I'm complaining about. The kind of stuff that obviously went into production before it was ready. Sometimes the director or writers eventually find their groove, or sometimes people are replaced in order to bring in people who can save things. Whatever the case, it's shows that are crap in the beginning unintentionally and somehow find a way to right the ship and do something good or great later in the series. This irritates the shit out of me and I'm not at all interested in wasting time watching a show figure out how to be worth watching.

It's the reviews that say "Hang in there. It gets better" and they're talking about #2 that drive me crazy.

3

Zarathustra30 t1_iy71hyc wrote

Replying to slicerprime (#754,703)

A good example of the latter is the Reboot cartoon. It was an ambitious show, hampered by overzealous censorship. About halfway through season 2, it finally finds its footing, and becomes excellent.

Fortunately, the early episodes aren't critical, and you can skip to the good stuff.

2

slicerprime OP t1_iy741if wrote

Replying to Zarathustra30 (#756,064)

The '90s series? I remember seeing one or two at the time, but never stuck with it.

Given the fact that I ended up being a software developer, and that you say I can skip ahead...maybe I will go back and check it out. Thanks!

0

farseer4 t1_iy7hgs9 wrote

Replying to froop (#752,551)

It probably doesn't, to be honest. People who say it gets better probably liked the show from the beginning, or at least didn't dislike it.

3

ClipClipClip99 t1_iy86brf wrote

I felt this way about white lotus season one and I felt it never got good enough for me to actually enjoy watching it. Though sometimes when a show becomes part of the social conversation I stick it out just so I know what people are talking about. The leftovers I felt had a rough first season and I couldn’t stick it out to get to the “good” parts that everyone loves.

1

mickeyflinn t1_iy8c0h9 wrote

> Which is worse?

For me it is a show that is "worth the wait". I like to think of myself as patient with TV shows but if I am three hours into a show and it hasn't hooked me I move on.

2

mickeyflinn t1_iy8c67a wrote

Replying to testingtor (#751,114)

> If slow burn tv makes you miserable

You are twisting the OPs words. There are many slow burn shows that are excellent. Slow Burn doesn't mean wasting the viewers time.

3

OkayAtBowling t1_iy8ryak wrote

Replying to slicerprime (#751,888)

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

sweetpeapickle t1_iy9h9yw wrote

How many people actually sit through a series they dislike at the beginning??? Most of the time it's good, then goes bad. That's when people will sit through a series til the end. If it's at the beginning, for most, at least on here, people will quit after 10 minutes.

3

chicagoredditer1 t1_iyb1cql wrote

They're the same show to me.

Shows may take time to grow into something special, but they rarely show no promise to begin with, so it's just a natural curve.

Any show that I've been told "it gets better" that I didn't like to begin with, never actually got better.

1