What TV SHOWS are you watching?

I liked it so much I'm in the middle of reading the book. It's a bit different in places, with less of a "six degrees of separation" going on with the characters. The show leaned on that a bit heavily, which made for some unlikely coincidences, etc. But overall I thought it was well done. TIL that gasoline actually expires, though jet fuel has a slightly longer shelf life. Also the cult of the prophet in the book is much creepier.

Something about it just felt refreshingly less overwrought than most shows in this genre, if that's even conceivable with a post-pandemic-apoc setting. It parked the drama for some humanity, which I appreciated.

But I agree with Virabhadra re: The Leftovers. That show spoiled me too. It kinda had everything: mysterious apocalyptic event, religious references/paradoxes/ambiguity, Twin Peaks level of uncertainty about diegetic reality, excellent writing, resonance with current politics/society, etc. I'll never forget the series finale. It left an indelible mark on me in similar ways to Twin Peaks season 3.

I'm enjoying the Last of Us but feel like my knowledge of the main plot beats spoils some of it for me. Episode 3 was a masterpiece, though.

Russian Doll season 1 was mostly fine, though I think much of it fell under my good graces for the NYC setting and having known people similar to Natasha Lyonne's character. Season 2 was just... insufferable and I gave up about half way through. From my salty reddit post: "Nadia was overwritten but somehow overedited at the same time. She sounded like a comic book character on speed spouting zingers every other line with a husky “eeEeh” in between and the continuity between scenes just felt like watching Scooby Doo characters or a montage of brief set pieces that leaned really hard on the soundtrack (which was itself pretty great). There was just so little to latch onto or follow all that closely. It just sorta meandered & reveled in whatever “magical realism meets Columbo” vibe it thought it was conjuring. Super underwhelming."

I just finished watching Star Trek: The Original Series for the first time. I've seen and enjoyed the majority of Star Trek post-TOS but the Original Series never really interested me. Then a podcast I like started doing a re-watch of it and figured it was a good time to watch it. Overall I am glad I watched it for the foundational background information (I need to re-watch Lower Decks with this knowledge), but I generally found it pretty boring. I know it is a product of its time, but a lot of it just doesn't work for me. I can look past all the stuff that was retconned later (e.g. going to/past Warp 10), but every other episode is about Kirk, Spock, and McCoy being kidnapped by some omnipotent being that can blow up the Enterprise at will. It gets very repetitive. Spock's characterization can be a bit uneven at times, and though obviously McCoy is a foil for Spock, he sure dismisses Spock's ideas pretty quickly and loudly, despite being a man of science himself, not even taking Spock's impeccable track record into account. I'm so used to TNG-era Trek that I find the primitiveness and rickety nature of the ship to be frustrating.
There were a handful of episodes that I did enjoy, but they were few and far between. Now it's time to power through the animated series before re-watching all the movies.

I re-watched the original Star Trek a couple of years ago. As a kid, I watched the syndicated re-runs, but never saw the episodes in their original order. I was expecting it to be a slog, in part because they did recycle certain plots a number of times. But I was surprised to find that the pacing of the episodes was usually quite good. I have seen other shows, even Star Trek shows, that dealt with science-fiction elements in a reluctant, gaslighting manner, but Kirk and his crew took even the faintest whiff of the unusual as basis for alert and action. Shatner might be an unpleasant person in real life, but Captain Kirk has remarkable charisma. And the series starts strong, unlike the next _four_ Star Trek franchises which all suffered from a weak first season.

Eventually, I intend to re-watch Star Trek: Next Generation, and I hope that will be better than I remember. Yes, yes, Patrick Stewart is compelling as Jean-Luc Picard. But the rest of the bridge often came across like a corporate HR meeting, earnest but not bold.

I don't think that I will ever get around to watching the entirety of either Voyager or Deep Space Nine. Next Gen started weak, but showed real potential, but the first seasons of Voyager and Deep Space Nine just weren't very good. I have heard repeatedly that the later seasons of Deep Space Nine are great, but I don't know how I will ever get there when I don't like any of the characters.

I had the same problem with Enterprise and gave up early on, but a few years later, I channel-surfed into a decent episode in fourth season. I watched the rest of fourth season and it was pretty decent. A few years ago, I checked out the whole fourth season from the library, and verified that it was overall a good season. But I still don't know if I will ever go back and watch the first three seasons.

As a result, I haven't seen any of the modern Star Trek shows. I would rather see a new show in a new setting than another Star Trek spinoff.

Shellhead wrote: And the series starts strong, unlike the next _four_ Star Trek franchises which all suffered from a weak first season.

I would agree with that. I felt the third season was the weakest.
I'll probably rewatch TNG, but that's a huge commitment that will take a while. I watched all of DS9 about 8 years ago, so I am good on that one. I only ever saw the first half of Voyager, so I'll probably do that one as well. At least I have my next several years planned out.

I love Trek, although it’s been a while since I’ve watched any. For me, it basically begins with TOS and ends at DS9. Voyager was a huge step down in writing and even acting, Enterprise didn’t grab me. The newer stuff doesn’t feel like it’s moving anything forward.

I’ve actually met most of the cast members from TOS, TNG and DS9.

For everyone interested in Trek I can wholeheartedly recommend the Star Trek InTakes on the Ryan’s Edits YouTube channel. He edits outtakes back into scenes which are a lot of fun. Very much worth the minute to watch one.

I enjoy TOS more every time I watch it. I get how people don't like it-- it's clunky, it's clearly of its time, and in a lot of ways it's very simple. But I just adore it, warts and all.

TNG was my jam when I was in college. I was so forgiving of that dreadful first season just because I so wanted it to be better than it was. The later seasons paid off on that hope. But now when I watch it, I'm mostly bored. The characters seem so bland and tame. There are many outstanding episodes, and it will always maintain strong affection in my heart, but my desire to rewatch is surprisingly low.

DS9 I never got into at the time. Just a few years ago I watched the whole series, and I understand why people like it so much. It just didn't grab me. I liked it; I'm glad I watched the whole series. Will I watch an episode if I stumble upon it late at night? Maybe, for a while, but I definitely won't seek it out.

Voyager: Terrible
Enterprise: Terrible (although I agree the 4th season was interesting)
Discovery: Love (some)/(mostly)hate; never got past first season
Picard: Trying too hard to be something it shouldn't be; never got past first season
Strange New Worlds: Extreme love/hate in equal measure; can't wait for the next season

One of the things that's a blessing and a curse for the modern-day tv series: shorter seasons. When TNG is cranking out 24 episodes a year, of course there are going to be some clunkers. But by the same token, when SNW only has 10, why aren't they all great?

Gregarius wrote: One of the things that's a blessing and a curse for the modern-day tv series: shorter seasons. When TNG is cranking out 24 episodes a year, of course there are going to be some clunkers. But by the same token, when SNW only has 10, why aren't they all great?

With shorter seasons you also miss out on character development of the rest of the cast. Discovery is all about Michael, the rest of the cast is just background. I really missed all the other characters getting a chance to be the focus.

That character development for short seasons actually really brings out how amazing Firefly managed to pull it off with such a large cast.

n815e wrote: That character development for short seasons actually really brings out how amazing Firefly managed to pull it off with such a large cast.

Joss, for all of his odious personal habits and predatory behaviors, KNOWS ENSEMBLES. He can write and cast characters that are INSTANTLY both familiar and yet mysterious enough that they have endless room to grow while being easily relatable by viewers. He can also deftly give everyone a contribution in every scene that doesn't feel hamfisted. The first Avengers is superb for this, as were all of his shows (though I never watched the HBO one before he got the boot).

As for Star Trek, I love TOS because it had such strong sci-fi roots and explored so many concepts, even with the budgetary, technical, and "wagon train in space" conceit limitations. I recently watched some TNG and was right back in the 90's again with such strong charachers and performances. I fell off Trek pretty hard with Voyager and never really came back other than Lower Decks. Discovery in particular was just intolerable on almost every level. Picard S3 is baiting me back with the promise of a return to TNG levels but I'm gonna hold out to see if it can stick the landing, otherwise I'll stay with Orville which is lame in some aspects but still has a love of the genre that is comforting.

I don't think shorter seasons leads to a lack of anything in modern TV; quite the opposite, to be honest. The Wire, Breaking Bad, Mad Men; all among the greatest things ever put on TV, none of them more than 13 episodes a season except Breaking Bad's final, which was 16 and split into two parts. I realize I'm setting the bar quite high there, but most other shows of that quality in the modern era are similar. n815e's point about the incredible quality of Firefly in such a short span is spot on. You don't need a 30-episode season to develop your characters. You just need good writing and good actors.

I wasn't a huge fan of TOS when I was a kid in the 70s. I watched all of them because they were the best we got as far as SF TV went; miles ahead of other stuff like Lost in Space, although I was still a devoted watcher of the latter. It was also ahead of stuff like the original Battlestar Galactica which, although it was often more exciting, was obviously lacking the intelligence of many of Star Trek's plots and I could tell that even at 7 and 8 years old. When TNG came out when I was in college, I was a devoted watcher, but it still didn't turn me into a Trekkie, as I was well past the "space exploration" stage of SF fandom into other realms (like cyberpunk, which had emerged several years earlier.) But I watched every episode of TNG and enjoyed many of them. I tried to get into DS9, but it was really slow and lacked the magnetism of someone like Patrick Stewart, so I fell off it somewhere in season 2. I was also watching a lot less TV around then. I went back and watched a lot of the later seasons a couple years ago on Netflix, but still didn't finish it.

I watched a bit of Voyager when it first came out but it didn't really catch me. Similarly, I've watched much of the first season of Discovery and I'm kind of intrigued, but haven't taken the time to finish it (I was watching mostly last summer for something to stick with while exercising.) Part of what was compelling was the presence of Jason Isaacs and I gather that he's not a permanent fixture after season 1. It also sounds like they do a lot of the time travel stuff, which has never been particularly interesting to me.

Jackwraith wrote: I don't think shorter seasons leads to a lack of anything in modern TV; quite the opposite, to be honest. The Wire, Breaking Bad, Mad Men; all among the greatest things ever put on TV, none of them more than 13 episodes a season except Breaking Bad's final, which was 16 and split into two parts. I realize I'm setting the bar quite high there, but most other shows of that quality in the modern era are similar. n815e's point about the incredible quality of Firefly in such a short span is spot on. You don't need a 30-episode season to develop your characters. You just need good writing and good actors.

My issue with a lot of modern "prestige" TV is what while they only have 6-10 episodes or whatever, they A. can't even come up with a brisk plot to cover that abbreviated span of time and B. have a HUGE problem creating well rounded interesting characters with which to spend even that little bit of time with.

The older episodic style of TV required characters that were internally interesting and able to be placed in various situations with a role for each of them. Sure, it led to lots of stereotypes and predictability, but it also made shows stand on each episode, rather than the promise of a slow burn grand reveal years down the road (Servant, I'm looking at you!). These days it seems like every character is hiding a dozen, often contradictory, internal motivations leading to bizarre behavior or are never clearly defined from the outset so each eps writer takes them in yo-yo directions across a season.

Imagine something like Cheers but written for today. It wouldn't be situational comedy set in a bar with a cast of quirky patrons, it would be a murder mystery about someone found dead in the back room that meanders through each characters tragic past with just the most tenuous glue of the bar to hold it together until it is revealed that Lilith and Sam were secretly siblings and the entire thing was a failed hit on Frasier that led to Diane fleeing into witness protection and Rebecca was an undercover cop and oh why do I bother with these things

I recently re-watched the first seasons of both True Detective and Perry Mason. (Season two of Perry Mason starts this week on HBO.) Both shows feature a powerful combination of strong writing, good acting, a solid story, and actual character development. Both seasons clock in at 8 episodes each.

jason10mm wrote: The older episodic style of TV required characters that were internally interesting and able to be placed in various situations with a role for each of them. Sure, it led to lots of stereotypes and predictability, but it also made shows stand on each episode, rather than the promise of a slow burn grand reveal years down the road (Servant, I'm looking at you!). These days it seems like every character is hiding a dozen, often contradictory, internal motivations leading to bizarre behavior or are never clearly defined from the outset so each eps writer takes them in yo-yo directions across a season.

Imagine something like Cheers but written for today. It wouldn't be situational comedy set in a bar with a cast of quirky patrons, it would be a murder mystery about someone found dead in the back room that meanders through each characters tragic past with just the most tenuous glue of the bar to hold it together until it is revealed that Lilith and Sam were secretly siblings and the entire thing was a failed hit on Frasier that led to Diane fleeing into witness protection and Rebecca was an undercover cop and oh why do I bother with these things

I was raised on episodic network television shows, and they were largely disposable. I strongly prefer the story arcs of modern prestige, because they have the luxury of telling the story at a natural pace without reaching a tidy conclusion every 42 minutes. And episodic television can't offer character development, because it will either be erased or constantly reinforced in subsequent episodes. The only time a lasting change happens is either in the pilot episode, the final episode, or when a character gets written off the show.

There is still a market for sitcoms, though maybe more for network television than any premium channels. I don't think that a modern sitcom would necessarily need to be reformatted as a different genre. But it does seem that the longer-lasting modern sitcoms seem to get increasingly serious and less funny as time goes by. The actors maybe aspire to something more than canned laughter, and the writers get overly wrapped up in the characters. Soon the light banter turns to heartbreak and introspection as the comedy fades.

Shellhead wrote: I was raised on episodic network television shows, and they were largely disposable. I strongly prefer the story arcs of modern prestige, because they have the luxury of telling the story at a natural pace without reaching a tidy conclusion every 42 minutes. And episodic television can't offer character development, because it will either be erased or constantly reinforced in subsequent episodes. The only time a lasting change happens is either in the pilot episode, the final episode, or when a character gets written off the show.

Exactly right. All of the shows I listed above as well as the two that Shellhead mentioned were written in the same way: not a shell that regurgitates the same characters dropped into different (and increasingly unbelievable) situations, but a story with a defined beginning and end, like all stories should have. Anyone thinking that shows like Mad Men or True Detective didn't have "well-rounded interesting" characters basically didn't watch them. The fact that many of those characters had "contradictory internal motivations" is what makes them believable humans and not simply cardboard cutouts who respond in predictable fashion, episode after episode. It's a form of TV that makes you think, which is a different form of entertainment from the series of yore. Doesn't mean it has to be everyone's cup of tea, but it's the vastly superior kind, IMO. I tend to be repelled by any show that wants to just be Sitcom 2023 or something like that because I saw plenty of that growing up. I would argue that the reason that DS9 lasted in a memorable form is that it shifted from "strange phenomenon of the week" to the Dominion War which dominated the last two seasons and forced the storytelling into something progressive, like modern "prestige" TV, where every episode had a significant impact on those that followed, like chapters in a book.