You've actually defined - intentionally or not - what's left of the little bit on the internet once you've filtered out the five giant site orgy:

Trivial Bullshit

What if we put it simpler. (Or at least less academically)...

Just listen and make fewer assumptions. You might find yourself learning more naturally about both the philosophy and culture of a place.

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!

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.

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 :)

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.

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.

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.

>Would it have worked?

No.

As has been said elsewhere, the scale and pace of US military production at the time was just too strong. That "long term" you mention would probably have been very short. Far too short for a "mid term gain" of drawing the US to the negotiating table. The US reaction would have been the same as it was, only probably even more pissed off.