This thread was inspired by a discussion Eric Paddon and I were having about Moonlighting in the "Rate the Last TV Show You Watched" thread...
Was there ever a TV show you loved in which you were completely committed and invested in the characters only to be soured by how it all ended that it changed the way you watch TV? Or what experiences have you had with show arcs and final episodes that fulfilled you as a fan of a show in which you were completely committed and invested in the characters? Please share!
To answer this for my part, Moonlighting falls into the former category - as Eric and I were discussing int eh other thread, I was completely committed to and invested in David and Maddie, and they way seasons three thru five went (especially the CRUSHINGLY depressing final episode) did affect how I viewed TV shows moving forward as I thought about it. It still HURTS to watch that final episode.
The closest I have been to that level of "emotional investment" since then was ST:TNG and MASH. As I posted in the other thread, I think MASH was a show where I was really involved with the characters (though I was really young when it debuted and watched it mostly in syndication...I remember weeping when the final episode aired and I still do when I see it). ST:TNG had such a great bunch of actors and characters that it really holds up; and of those characters my favorites were Picard, Worf, and Data...especially Worf, as his character had a lot of depth and story to him. It doesn't get old going back and watching his story arc develop.
Honorable mention goes to LA LAW when it was on, but I don't remember the final episode...lol...I do remember I was invested in the show though. But I think that's it...for the life of me I cannot think of any others.
TV Show Experiences
-
Eric Paddon
- Posts: 9036
- Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2005 5:49 pm
Re: TV Show Experiences
I can only echo that point again that what happened to "Moonlighting" did drive me away from watching TV on a regular basis. It was a fundamental lesson in the dangers of caring too much about a show and its characters and thinking the writing was going to deliver in terms of giving you a satisfying outcome.
Past experience should have told me otherwise. I was one of those VERY naïve children of 11 who when I saw the first teaser promos on ABC for "Galactica 1980" thought with excitement, "Oh my gosh, they're bringing it back and they're going to pick up from where they left off with them now finding Earth!" And I can still remember my slack-jawed shock when I watched that first episode seeing all these total strangers except for Lorne Greene and how the promos had been misleading in the EXTREME about what we were going to see. At recess the next day all the other kids who had been awaiting Galactica's return were all of one frame of mind, "What the heck was that we just saw?" It was only stubborn loyalty to an end product that made any of us who were Galactica fans keep watching but I shed no tears when it disappeared and to this day I still can't bring myself to watch G80 again (I went through it once in the early 2000s and it was still not easy). It wasn't until the early 90s when the original Galactica appeared again on Sci-Fi Channel that my love of the original was reborn and it also got me to writing fanfic which satisfied my own feelings about how things might have been.
After "Moonlighting" I remember only two other series I decided to watch every week. The first was the first season of "Seaquest DSV" and the reason why I subjected myself to that every week can be summed up in two words-Stephanie Beacham, who I confess to having had a serious crush on when she was doing The Colbys and Dynasty (yes, she even made me watch that show regularly when she was on!). In the last episode of the first season they were finally suggesting a romance between her character and Roy Scheider which was what the season had been slowly implying would happen someday......and then Universal decided to save costs and move production to Florida and that meant Stephanie quit the show and I refused to watch the show again. Burned a second time!
The last time I tried to start watching again regularly? It was the third year I think of "Lost" because I did let myself get hooked when I decided to watch the first two years on DVD (these were the days when there was a LOT less classic TV on DVD and I was trying to find something else to sample) So after getting hooked in I started to watch the new broadcasts and then got a reminder of why it was wrong to invest yourself in an ongoing storyline, because the snail's pace of "Lost" in moving things forward was too much for me to handle. This is why I won't watch current TV at all. It's not that my shelf is 100% empty of post-1990 titles because I do have "Law And Order" which thankfully is a show I can just sample random episodes of and avoid bad ones that deal with topics I know would offend me and also some "junk food" TV like "Lost World", "Cleopatra 2525" and the Gena Lee Nolin "Sheena" series that is okay to go through on DVD. But I will never watch a show in first-run again and get suckered into caring about characters with expectations that won't get met in all likelihood.
As to when was the last time a show I watched *first-run* left me feeling satisfied, I can't say. I remember thinking "Barney Miller" had a decent last episode and to me that ends okay. But have I ever watched a show first-run for some time and then found myself cheering wildly on the order of Dr. Kimble gets the one-armed man in the last episode of "The Fugitive"? I can't say I've ever had that kind of experience.
Past experience should have told me otherwise. I was one of those VERY naïve children of 11 who when I saw the first teaser promos on ABC for "Galactica 1980" thought with excitement, "Oh my gosh, they're bringing it back and they're going to pick up from where they left off with them now finding Earth!" And I can still remember my slack-jawed shock when I watched that first episode seeing all these total strangers except for Lorne Greene and how the promos had been misleading in the EXTREME about what we were going to see. At recess the next day all the other kids who had been awaiting Galactica's return were all of one frame of mind, "What the heck was that we just saw?" It was only stubborn loyalty to an end product that made any of us who were Galactica fans keep watching but I shed no tears when it disappeared and to this day I still can't bring myself to watch G80 again (I went through it once in the early 2000s and it was still not easy). It wasn't until the early 90s when the original Galactica appeared again on Sci-Fi Channel that my love of the original was reborn and it also got me to writing fanfic which satisfied my own feelings about how things might have been.
After "Moonlighting" I remember only two other series I decided to watch every week. The first was the first season of "Seaquest DSV" and the reason why I subjected myself to that every week can be summed up in two words-Stephanie Beacham, who I confess to having had a serious crush on when she was doing The Colbys and Dynasty (yes, she even made me watch that show regularly when she was on!). In the last episode of the first season they were finally suggesting a romance between her character and Roy Scheider which was what the season had been slowly implying would happen someday......and then Universal decided to save costs and move production to Florida and that meant Stephanie quit the show and I refused to watch the show again. Burned a second time!
The last time I tried to start watching again regularly? It was the third year I think of "Lost" because I did let myself get hooked when I decided to watch the first two years on DVD (these were the days when there was a LOT less classic TV on DVD and I was trying to find something else to sample) So after getting hooked in I started to watch the new broadcasts and then got a reminder of why it was wrong to invest yourself in an ongoing storyline, because the snail's pace of "Lost" in moving things forward was too much for me to handle. This is why I won't watch current TV at all. It's not that my shelf is 100% empty of post-1990 titles because I do have "Law And Order" which thankfully is a show I can just sample random episodes of and avoid bad ones that deal with topics I know would offend me and also some "junk food" TV like "Lost World", "Cleopatra 2525" and the Gena Lee Nolin "Sheena" series that is okay to go through on DVD. But I will never watch a show in first-run again and get suckered into caring about characters with expectations that won't get met in all likelihood.
As to when was the last time a show I watched *first-run* left me feeling satisfied, I can't say. I remember thinking "Barney Miller" had a decent last episode and to me that ends okay. But have I ever watched a show first-run for some time and then found myself cheering wildly on the order of Dr. Kimble gets the one-armed man in the last episode of "The Fugitive"? I can't say I've ever had that kind of experience.
-
AndyDursin
- Posts: 35759
- Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 8:45 pm
- Location: RI
Re: TV Show Experiences
For me, shunning a medium because one show disappointed me would be like saying "I never want to watch another movie again because ISHTAR let me down!" Every TV show is different, as is every film, so not every experience is going to be the same.
I do understand what you guys are saying to some degree, because I've watched shows that engaged me, and then ticked me off, like LOST -- one of the most singularly unique TV series in the history of the medium -- well-acted, interestingly laid out...but when it came time for the show to play out its hand, it was a massive let down, because they never had a good handle (obviously) on what they were doing and painted themselves into corners with no way out. I was hugely invested in the series, and really loved dissecting every episode, as a lot of fans did. Was it all worthless? No. Not even with the collective "fail" of its finale, did I feel I wasted my time. The acting was tremendous, some of the individual moments of the show as it went along were great. It was great fun for a while until the bottom dropped out. On the other hand would I recommend it to someone minus the component of it playing out out in real time as it originally aired? No. And, frankly, I suppose I never had full faith in the producers it was going to "end well" -- so when it was so disappointing at the end, it wasn't like I was devastated. I wasn't wrapped up in the characters like you guys were with MOONLIGHTING.
Growing up, there were always network series I loved like STAR TREK or comedies like NEWHART, but I feel that, over the last 10-20 years, television itself has really grown up. I admit the bulk of 70s and 80s network shows bored me, because they often fell into formulas where every week was the same thing. And there was always the risk -- as there still is -- of a successful show running a long time falling apart at the end, just because it's been on the air so long that it's already said everything it needed to. Network TV series that never developed their characters beyond providing a "one hour a week" type of episodic story typically had this problem.
Today, television has far surpassed film when it comes to telling adult stories. Movies are collectively more and more about big-budget "franchise pictures" and films for kids. The kinds of stories were used to see routinely in the fall and winter months -- intended for adult audiences -- have migrated to television and especially cable.
HOMELAND is one of the best shows I've ever watched -- smart, brilliantly directed, so compelling I tend to fly through every episode of its individual seasons in one gulp. I haven't seen any recent movie come close to the kinds of excitement it's generated.
THE AMERICANS is utterly brilliant as well. Hugely entertaining, well-acted -- playing out in a manner that's like reading a good book. It's impossible to think this show could've functioned as well as a film.
Or how about FX's dark and wonderful take on FARGO as well, which was spectacularly done. Absolutely spellbinding TV that felt like a movie every week.
And these are just series from the last couple of years. There are many others I've become invested in over recent years -- THE SOPRANOS goes without saying, HBO's TRUE DETECTIVE being another, AMC's revolutionary war drama TURN, the recent and hilarious SILICON VALLEY, and FX's TYRANT -- and there are mini-series as well that fit the bill.
TV, for me, is where it's at these days for providing a forum for the kinds of adult stories that, once upon a time, we'd see play in theaters during September/October and the winter time. So I have no problem at all investing full-throttle into new series -- there are some truly amazing shows debuting all the time now, with depth of development and story telling far outweighing most movies.
It's where adult viewers are going, it's where mature story telling is going, and with good reason. I couldn't envision not watching current dramatic series, as they fulfill everything most movies today lack.
I do understand what you guys are saying to some degree, because I've watched shows that engaged me, and then ticked me off, like LOST -- one of the most singularly unique TV series in the history of the medium -- well-acted, interestingly laid out...but when it came time for the show to play out its hand, it was a massive let down, because they never had a good handle (obviously) on what they were doing and painted themselves into corners with no way out. I was hugely invested in the series, and really loved dissecting every episode, as a lot of fans did. Was it all worthless? No. Not even with the collective "fail" of its finale, did I feel I wasted my time. The acting was tremendous, some of the individual moments of the show as it went along were great. It was great fun for a while until the bottom dropped out. On the other hand would I recommend it to someone minus the component of it playing out out in real time as it originally aired? No. And, frankly, I suppose I never had full faith in the producers it was going to "end well" -- so when it was so disappointing at the end, it wasn't like I was devastated. I wasn't wrapped up in the characters like you guys were with MOONLIGHTING.
Growing up, there were always network series I loved like STAR TREK or comedies like NEWHART, but I feel that, over the last 10-20 years, television itself has really grown up. I admit the bulk of 70s and 80s network shows bored me, because they often fell into formulas where every week was the same thing. And there was always the risk -- as there still is -- of a successful show running a long time falling apart at the end, just because it's been on the air so long that it's already said everything it needed to. Network TV series that never developed their characters beyond providing a "one hour a week" type of episodic story typically had this problem.
Today, television has far surpassed film when it comes to telling adult stories. Movies are collectively more and more about big-budget "franchise pictures" and films for kids. The kinds of stories were used to see routinely in the fall and winter months -- intended for adult audiences -- have migrated to television and especially cable.
HOMELAND is one of the best shows I've ever watched -- smart, brilliantly directed, so compelling I tend to fly through every episode of its individual seasons in one gulp. I haven't seen any recent movie come close to the kinds of excitement it's generated.
THE AMERICANS is utterly brilliant as well. Hugely entertaining, well-acted -- playing out in a manner that's like reading a good book. It's impossible to think this show could've functioned as well as a film.
Or how about FX's dark and wonderful take on FARGO as well, which was spectacularly done. Absolutely spellbinding TV that felt like a movie every week.
And these are just series from the last couple of years. There are many others I've become invested in over recent years -- THE SOPRANOS goes without saying, HBO's TRUE DETECTIVE being another, AMC's revolutionary war drama TURN, the recent and hilarious SILICON VALLEY, and FX's TYRANT -- and there are mini-series as well that fit the bill.
TV, for me, is where it's at these days for providing a forum for the kinds of adult stories that, once upon a time, we'd see play in theaters during September/October and the winter time. So I have no problem at all investing full-throttle into new series -- there are some truly amazing shows debuting all the time now, with depth of development and story telling far outweighing most movies.
It's where adult viewers are going, it's where mature story telling is going, and with good reason. I couldn't envision not watching current dramatic series, as they fulfill everything most movies today lack.
-
Eric Paddon
- Posts: 9036
- Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2005 5:49 pm
Re: TV Show Experiences
The thing is Andy, I don't have the time or desire to want to invest myself in a serialized form of storytelling that is open-ended potentially over years. The luxury of a self-contained show and that includes especially the classic shows of the earlier age mean I can do the sampling of individual stories and focus on the performances of actors who I have a higher comfort zone with because the performers who dominated TV from the mid-50s to roughly the mid-80s are old, familiar faces to me whereas the ones of today are total strangers to me as a result of the disconnect process that began for me in the early 90s. I would note I was an OBSESSIVE watcher of network TV in the mid to late 80s and I was also bailing out on "Cheers" because I didn't like the fact Shelley Long left. So this was a time when across the board a *lot* of shows were letting me down and making me ask myself, "Why am I investing all this time in these shows?" This was also a time when I was starting to build up more and more a bigger home video collection of vintage material and the ability to discover other things was opening up and network television was no longer the only game in town for me. My disconnect is largely conditioned as a result of how things were in that era and I can't envision changing my habits today when I've gotten a lot of viewing satisfaction out of having the classics available to me and being able to discover more classics from that era featuring performers whose work I know from other programs/movies and who seem like old friends to me.
Yes, some classic shows that were too formulaic did overstay their welcome. One of my favorite shows "The FBI" just released its 9th and final season on DVD and the show was by that point a tired shell of what was one of Quinn Martin's best shows. It stayed around too long but it didn't *offend* me and leave such a bad taste in my mouth the way "Moonlighting" did. I'll add that among older shows it's also hard for me to watch "The Incredible Hulk" much knowing that they didn't do a Fugitive style resolution (and those post-series TV movies don't count for me because I HATED them, especially "Death Of The Incredible Hulk" which didn't even have the critical character of Jack McGee appear!). So yes, it was flawed back then and yes, there were problems of not developing and maturing characters over time and being trapped in the formula, but they are still a comfort zone for me in watching I will take any day over what there is now and I have no intention of ever getting back into current fare. To me, I'm not souring on the medium, I'm learning to discover the greatness of what I didn't have a chance to discover before.
Yes, some classic shows that were too formulaic did overstay their welcome. One of my favorite shows "The FBI" just released its 9th and final season on DVD and the show was by that point a tired shell of what was one of Quinn Martin's best shows. It stayed around too long but it didn't *offend* me and leave such a bad taste in my mouth the way "Moonlighting" did. I'll add that among older shows it's also hard for me to watch "The Incredible Hulk" much knowing that they didn't do a Fugitive style resolution (and those post-series TV movies don't count for me because I HATED them, especially "Death Of The Incredible Hulk" which didn't even have the critical character of Jack McGee appear!). So yes, it was flawed back then and yes, there were problems of not developing and maturing characters over time and being trapped in the formula, but they are still a comfort zone for me in watching I will take any day over what there is now and I have no intention of ever getting back into current fare. To me, I'm not souring on the medium, I'm learning to discover the greatness of what I didn't have a chance to discover before.
-
AndyDursin
- Posts: 35759
- Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 8:45 pm
- Location: RI
Re: TV Show Experiences
Eric, you've said before you stopped going to the movies in the 1980s (with a few exceptions) and you seem to have stopped watching TV series around that time. I mean, it's 2014. I just find it curious you have an interest in film and TV but seem to have stopped entirely caring about experiencing anything new decades ago from that point. As much as I like watching old movies, especially in HD, that I haven't seen, I cannot fathom why you are totally uninterested in experiencing some of the phenomenal entertainment that is out there in the here and now that's, quite honestly, much better than what was out there in 1975 or 1985, especially where TV is concerned.
I should add, these "serialized" shows as you put it DO have endings on them -- they are not perennially open-ended, many of these shows are self-contained in terms of seasons, just not individual episodes. Most of them have an endgame. For me they are far more interesting than watching something like THE ROCKFORD FILES or MAGNUM PI or THE A-TEAM or whatever, where each show is just a variation on the last, there's little (or no) progression in character development or story. Same goes with so many sitcoms where each show was just the same thing, characters never changed and every episode was formula. Of course there are exceptions to that, but in general, that's what TV was like for me growing up. I understand it might be comfortable for you to revisit those shows, and there are series I do revisit and have in my collection, but I like a balance in my viewing, and I do prefer watching series where there's an evolution of characters, some depth and evolving plots beyond 80 episodes of the same 1-hour story.
I should add, these "serialized" shows as you put it DO have endings on them -- they are not perennially open-ended, many of these shows are self-contained in terms of seasons, just not individual episodes. Most of them have an endgame. For me they are far more interesting than watching something like THE ROCKFORD FILES or MAGNUM PI or THE A-TEAM or whatever, where each show is just a variation on the last, there's little (or no) progression in character development or story. Same goes with so many sitcoms where each show was just the same thing, characters never changed and every episode was formula. Of course there are exceptions to that, but in general, that's what TV was like for me growing up. I understand it might be comfortable for you to revisit those shows, and there are series I do revisit and have in my collection, but I like a balance in my viewing, and I do prefer watching series where there's an evolution of characters, some depth and evolving plots beyond 80 episodes of the same 1-hour story.
-
Eric Paddon
- Posts: 9036
- Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2005 5:49 pm
Re: TV Show Experiences
I should have added from my past experiences that my negative reaction to the final episode of "24"'s first season drove me away from that series as well and also made me refuse to ever subject myself to something that long again if I wasn't going to be given a payoff that could leave me feeling good. And that was something I had watched in marathon viewing on DVD, and I shudder to think of what my reaction would have been had I seen that season finale after six months of build-up.
So collectively it hasn't been one show that did this to me it was a lot of "Fool me twice, shame on me" incidents.
Andy as to the first part of your question, I think you should also take into account what I also watch in the areas of documentaries (I have over a couple thousand and in *that* genre I still keep myself open to getting new ones and don't just watch the same ones made a couple decades ago over and over), not to mention that as a collector of vintage sports, game shows and news material I have probably over 10,000 hours of material archived from these areas of interest to me as a historian. When you add to that leaving time to watch live news and live sports, then something has to give there to let me find time for things I've spent decades amassing a large collection of (as well as leaving time for reading books and doing other things in life with people) and current fare became easy for me to do that with a long time ago when it wasn't doing anything I consider special. I for one feel more rewarded to have discovered something like the "Dr, Kildare" Season 1 Christmas episode which is the kind of program I would *never* see made today and IMO is one of many examples I've been able to find that proves that Newton Minnow was full of crap when he was talking about TV as it was at that particular time. Too many people I think have grown up thinking the only "good" TV of the 60s was "Star Trek" and "Twilight Zone" and that everything else was shallow, superficial filler when my own digging beneath the surface has for me proved that argument wrong on all levels.
So collectively it hasn't been one show that did this to me it was a lot of "Fool me twice, shame on me" incidents.
Andy as to the first part of your question, I think you should also take into account what I also watch in the areas of documentaries (I have over a couple thousand and in *that* genre I still keep myself open to getting new ones and don't just watch the same ones made a couple decades ago over and over), not to mention that as a collector of vintage sports, game shows and news material I have probably over 10,000 hours of material archived from these areas of interest to me as a historian. When you add to that leaving time to watch live news and live sports, then something has to give there to let me find time for things I've spent decades amassing a large collection of (as well as leaving time for reading books and doing other things in life with people) and current fare became easy for me to do that with a long time ago when it wasn't doing anything I consider special. I for one feel more rewarded to have discovered something like the "Dr, Kildare" Season 1 Christmas episode which is the kind of program I would *never* see made today and IMO is one of many examples I've been able to find that proves that Newton Minnow was full of crap when he was talking about TV as it was at that particular time. Too many people I think have grown up thinking the only "good" TV of the 60s was "Star Trek" and "Twilight Zone" and that everything else was shallow, superficial filler when my own digging beneath the surface has for me proved that argument wrong on all levels.
Last edited by Eric Paddon on Mon Dec 29, 2014 12:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
AndyDursin
- Posts: 35759
- Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 8:45 pm
- Location: RI
Re: TV Show Experiences
BTW I don't mean to be critical. If you tried watching one of the shows I listed and hated it, that's one thing, but it seems to me you have indeed shunned modern TV entertainment simply because you didn't like how MOONLIGHTING ended! (or season 1 of 24).
There's a world of great stuff out there that is, indeed, superior to what's come before in terms of the TV medium itself. That's just my POV.
FARGO, HOMELAND, THE AMERICANS -- all phenomenal TV, which I'd rank with some of the best things I've ever watched outside a theater. Don't knock any of those until you've tried them.
There's a world of great stuff out there that is, indeed, superior to what's come before in terms of the TV medium itself. That's just my POV.
FARGO, HOMELAND, THE AMERICANS -- all phenomenal TV, which I'd rank with some of the best things I've ever watched outside a theater. Don't knock any of those until you've tried them.
-
Eric Paddon
- Posts: 9036
- Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2005 5:49 pm
Re: TV Show Experiences
Andy there is also the cultural/political dynamic of modern Hollywood as well that also factors into that decision and I know I shouldn't delve too deep in that area again. My POV on which era I prefer is set and irrevocable and I'm more saddened by the fact that a lot of vintage TV shows I'd be interested in discovering with other classics are in danger of being lost forever to future generations thanks to short-sighted preservation practices and lack of interest by those who own the material.
I think "24" and "Lost" were enough for me to realize that my first instincts were right. I even found the one time I sampled an "acclaimed" HBO miniseries like "John Adams" it ended up boring me to death with that absolutely maddening insistence of actors mumbling their lines to be more "naturalistic" and in the process make what's happening on screen incomprehensible to me. And then of course there's the "critically-acclaimed" plagiarism of one of my favorites from the late 70s that I suffered watching one season of just to see if I was being too prejudiced against it because of my strong views of the original Galactica, and what I saw validated every other instinct I have about why I think it was overall much better then, than it ever can be now. So it isn't just "Moonlighting" that did it and I never tried again, Andy. Like I said, I've had more than my share of "Fool me twice, thrice" moments since then. (I also tried watching "X-Files" on DVD and got bored with that to death. Talk about "formulaic" in which every week you know its going to be another alien/monster and you suck out all the suspense imaginable. "Alias" I did watch a lot of on DVD and that was okay and had an okay payoff but it isn't the kind of show I ever want to sit through the five years of storyline again).
I think "24" and "Lost" were enough for me to realize that my first instincts were right. I even found the one time I sampled an "acclaimed" HBO miniseries like "John Adams" it ended up boring me to death with that absolutely maddening insistence of actors mumbling their lines to be more "naturalistic" and in the process make what's happening on screen incomprehensible to me. And then of course there's the "critically-acclaimed" plagiarism of one of my favorites from the late 70s that I suffered watching one season of just to see if I was being too prejudiced against it because of my strong views of the original Galactica, and what I saw validated every other instinct I have about why I think it was overall much better then, than it ever can be now. So it isn't just "Moonlighting" that did it and I never tried again, Andy. Like I said, I've had more than my share of "Fool me twice, thrice" moments since then. (I also tried watching "X-Files" on DVD and got bored with that to death. Talk about "formulaic" in which every week you know its going to be another alien/monster and you suck out all the suspense imaginable. "Alias" I did watch a lot of on DVD and that was okay and had an okay payoff but it isn't the kind of show I ever want to sit through the five years of storyline again).
Re: TV Show Experiences
I have missed out on a lot of TV first runs primarily because I do not have cable or Hulu Plus or Netflix or any of that stuff. All I get is free TV, but nothing on free TV generally interests me. I will watch MeTV for older shows (been enjoying Hogan's Heroes recently) and usually Fox 28 for syndicated shows (like Big Bang Theory which is hilarious, Modern Family, and Two and A Half Men...a disgusting show but funny at times). I watch sporting events and PBS documentaries...I tried keeping up with Once Upon A Time but that show dragged on and on and I lost interest. For me it is more of not getting emotionally invested in TV shows anymore (though as I noted in the initial post there have been exceptions).
-
AndyDursin
- Posts: 35759
- Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 8:45 pm
- Location: RI
Re: TV Show Experiences
If you are stuck with network TV, you're missing out. It's just the reality of it. Cable has the best programs, no question.
Re: TV Show Experiences
Great topic!
Breaking Bad is a show I was emotionally invested in and one that managed to “stick the landing” in the final season. I remember wondering early on if the show would actually have an ending, a question many were asking in light of the ambiguous Sopranos ending and the questionable Lost ending. The show was so plot-oriented that it seemed unthinkable that it wouldn’t end with a definitive conclusion. I had not realized how invested I was in the characters until one particular episode in which a character dies and it hit me pretty hard.
Fargo had a terrific first season with a complete story.
I can think of several shows I was really into during the 90’s and 2000’s that had weak final seasons, but I still enjoyed the shows overall. Some of these are: Alias, Babylon 5, Hercules: The Legendary Journeys, Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Gilmore Girls.
An example of a show I really liked and then hated is the update of Battlestar Galactica. I have no strong feelings either way on the original series so I enjoyed the new show for what it was, which was quite exciting and thought-provoking…until the end of the second season. The last two seasons just got worse and worse. One of the worst endings ever.
I enjoy modern serialized TV so much that I’ve been reluctant to watch many shows from the 60s, 70s and 80s, especially if I never watched them before (either because I was too young to appreciate them or they were on too late).
Breaking Bad is a show I was emotionally invested in and one that managed to “stick the landing” in the final season. I remember wondering early on if the show would actually have an ending, a question many were asking in light of the ambiguous Sopranos ending and the questionable Lost ending. The show was so plot-oriented that it seemed unthinkable that it wouldn’t end with a definitive conclusion. I had not realized how invested I was in the characters until one particular episode in which a character dies and it hit me pretty hard.
Fargo had a terrific first season with a complete story.
I can think of several shows I was really into during the 90’s and 2000’s that had weak final seasons, but I still enjoyed the shows overall. Some of these are: Alias, Babylon 5, Hercules: The Legendary Journeys, Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Gilmore Girls.
An example of a show I really liked and then hated is the update of Battlestar Galactica. I have no strong feelings either way on the original series so I enjoyed the new show for what it was, which was quite exciting and thought-provoking…until the end of the second season. The last two seasons just got worse and worse. One of the worst endings ever.
I enjoy modern serialized TV so much that I’ve been reluctant to watch many shows from the 60s, 70s and 80s, especially if I never watched them before (either because I was too young to appreciate them or they were on too late).
-
Paul MacLean
- Posts: 7533
- Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 10:26 pm
- Location: New York
Re: TV Show Experiences
Eric, I too was among those youths who went nuts at the prospect of Galactica's return, having been suckered-in by the TV trailers -- trailers that offered shots of a fabulous effects sequence of a Cylon attack on Los Angeles. "This is gonna be awesome!" I thought.Eric Paddon wrote:I was one of those VERY naïve children of 11 who when I saw the first teaser promos on ABC for "Galactica 1980" thought with excitement, "Oh my gosh, they're bringing it back and they're going to pick up from where they left off with them now finding Earth!" And I can still remember my slack-jawed shock when I watched that first episode seeing all these total strangers except for Lorne Greene and how the promos had been misleading in the EXTREME about what we were going to see.
Tellingly (in retrospect) the trailers didn't give us a glimpse of Starbuck and Apollo (or any main actors -- just Lorne Greene in a beard
). Thus the programme began, and I was subjected to disappointment upon disappointment -- why is "Arthur" from the Brady Bunch playing some kind of wiz kid? I don't want the guy from Adam-12! I want Starbuck and Apollo! (I guess Richard Hatch decided Dead Man's Curve was the better career option -- though actually he may have been right!) Why are Vipers suddenly equipped with back seats -- especially when they are still one-seaters in the (repurposed) effects shots? And the awesome battle scene in the skies over LA? That was merely "video simulation" cooked-up by Dr. Zee to explain why they can't land of Earth when they Cylons are close behind them.Never mind that if the Cylons are fast approaching, they will inevitably pick-up Earth's communication signals and attack anyway. And if the Galactica bypasses Earth to lure the Cylons away from it, how can it still be in close enough range for Troy and Dillon to shuttle back and forth?
Then they go back in time to Nazi Germany -- which causes their uniforms to turn white for no plausible reason (except to make use of those leftover costumes from "War of the Gods").
Also, I was under the impression it was going to be a miniseries, which would give closure to us Galactica fans. Needless to say I felt cheated once again by open-ended finale, which suggested it was going to be some kind of time-travel series. Of course, that actually would have bee preferable to the way the series actually did unfold -- with Troy & Dillon babysitting a bunch of kids in boy scout uniforms!
-
Eric Paddon
- Posts: 9036
- Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2005 5:49 pm
Re: TV Show Experiences
Yes, had we been older and wiser, we might have recognized those "destruction scenes" as stock footage from "Earthquake". Those were the days when Universal had a habit of cannibalizing movie footage into their TV series to squeeze out more scripts, with the most notorious example being the "Incredible Hulk" episode that stole footage from "Duel" and in the process infuriated Spielberg (they did a similar one with "Airport 1975" footage).
It took me years to figure out why the Galactica cast members were not obligated to return to the show in light of the later examples like "Remington Steele" keeping Pierce Brosnan from becoming Bond sooner. Apparently, the contracts of all the Galactica actors expired with the show's cancellation and they were under no contractual obligation to return to a revival. The script was offered to Hatch and Benedict but once they turned it down, they decided they weren't going to bring back anyone else and just go with a many generations later approach.....until at the last minute Lorne Greene begged to come back and they decided to accommodate him (implausibly from a story standpoint). Eventually, G80 also brought back Herb Jefferson as Boomer (with gray hair dye applied).
If you think G80 was bad though, you should see the telemovie "Conquest Of The Earth" that hashed together several G80 episodes and then threw in out of leftfield footage from the original series episode "The Young Lords" as a way of shoehorning an old scene of John Colicos as Baltar into the action!
It took me years to figure out why the Galactica cast members were not obligated to return to the show in light of the later examples like "Remington Steele" keeping Pierce Brosnan from becoming Bond sooner. Apparently, the contracts of all the Galactica actors expired with the show's cancellation and they were under no contractual obligation to return to a revival. The script was offered to Hatch and Benedict but once they turned it down, they decided they weren't going to bring back anyone else and just go with a many generations later approach.....until at the last minute Lorne Greene begged to come back and they decided to accommodate him (implausibly from a story standpoint). Eventually, G80 also brought back Herb Jefferson as Boomer (with gray hair dye applied).
If you think G80 was bad though, you should see the telemovie "Conquest Of The Earth" that hashed together several G80 episodes and then threw in out of leftfield footage from the original series episode "The Young Lords" as a way of shoehorning an old scene of John Colicos as Baltar into the action!
-
John Johnson
- Posts: 6264
- Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 3:28 pm
Re: TV Show Experiences
On a side note, Galactica:1980 took several years to reach the UK. It was released theatrically under the title Conquest of the Earth as a double bill with one of the lesser known Smokey and the Bandit films. Television-wise, the series didn't show up until 1985.Eric Paddon wrote: If you think G80 was bad though, you should see the telemovie "Conquest Of The Earth" that hashed together several G80 episodes and then threw in out of leftfield footage from the original series episode "The Young Lords" as a way of shoehorning an old scene of John Colicos as Baltar into the action!
London. Greatest City in the world.
-
Eric Paddon
- Posts: 9036
- Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2005 5:49 pm
Re: TV Show Experiences
I'm bumping this ancient thread because what started it was a discussion on how my experience with "Moonlighting" drove me away from watching first-run TV in the sense that I never wanted to get emotionally invested in a show again. I have watched my share of shows afterwards on DVD (not a lot but some) but I learned a lesson that when you go week to week investing yourself that much in a show, most of the time your expectations will be unfulfilled.
A new oral history about "Moonlighting" has just come out.
The author managed to interview all the major people associated with the show except for Willis, who was unable to make time in his schedule (though he was clear he did want to participate). So we get to hear from Shepherd, Caron, most of the major writers, directors and producers (even Robert Butler who directed the pilot and is still with us in his 90s!). There is candor about what went awry in addition to how they were able to be so experimental in the first place that helped make the show a white-hot phenomenon. There's a lot about the making of the B/W episode (and getting Orson Welles to introduce it, in what would be his last professional credit done just a week before his death) and the "Atomic Shakespeare" one (I was disappointed that there was nothing on the great "It's A Wonderful Life" Christmas episode takeoff which for me is where the series ends!). Shepherd is a bit more reticent than the other participants, I think in part because even though Caron and others have patched their differences with Shepherd, there's more of an underlying current that she was the one who caused more problems compared to Willis. Allyce Beasley offers a hint that she holds bitter feelings toward both Shepherd and Willis for the fact that the show didn't last as long as it could have.
The information is illuminating to this degree in making the case that it wasn 't "They did it" that did in the show, it was the chaos that erupted just as they had made the decision to go in that direction that was totally unforeseen and kept them from taking the series in a direction they might have effectively gone in otherwise. Shepherd's pregnancy caught everyone off-guard and left them scrambling so badly in terms of how to handle it that in the end all the badness of Season 4 basically was the result of how impossible it was to come up with effective stories while being forced to sideline Shepherd for a lengthy period of time and thus leave us with no episodes of Maddie/Dave together. It didn't help that Caron took a powder during this time to do his first movie "Clean And Sober" leaving people less capable of dealing with the chaos to handle things. So what you had was decided before ANY scripts or stories had been brainstormed to have Maddie go off to Chicago to be with her parents (Robert Webber, Eva Marie Saint) and film a whole bunch of scenes that would be dropped into later episodes even though they had no idea where they'd go. This explains why those early Season 4 episodes in which there's a forced separation going on epitomized by the sadistic "Cool Hand Dave" (which for some reason the author loves because he sees it as a great case of the show applying its old satiric/comedic touch in a solo Willis vehicle without realizing that the audience tuning in didn't want to see that!) are so awful. They just didn't know how to do anything right at this point. And then it didn't help when Caron returned and came up with the infamous "Maddie marries Dennis Dugan" plotline that drove everyone else away.
The show had basically been damaged by this point and then when you had "Die Hard" becoming a hit, and the show moved to a killer timeslot, it was clear the show wasn't salvageable and all the parties involved just wanted to move on. The great what-if, is what-if their timing hadn't been screwed up by Shepherd's pregnancy? They had basically started down the path of them "doing it" when that came up and it was too late to reverse course on that whole Mark Harmon storyline but basically the point that's fair is that if they could have been able to chart the future of Maddie and Dave without that complication they might have been able to pull it off. We'll never know. After flying by the seat of their pants during the first three seasons and riding the show to the top, they weren't able to keep doing it any longer.
The book also makes the point that because the DVDs are out of print now and it faces insurmountable music problems to ever get reissued or be streamed, it' s not likely the show is ever going to be rediscovered by future generations. It's already becoming quite forgotten as it is.
The author thankfully refrains from getting political at any point except to make the absurd argument that the twist gimmick of Dave's ex-wife leaving him for a woman was "groundbreaking" in an age supposedly when homosexuality and AIDS were still taboo. Look, anyone who watched TV in the 80s knows those subjects were no longer taboo! Heck, the reason why Mark Harmon was such a hot property at the time was that he had just left St. Elsewhere after doing an AIDS storyline. But that was the only minor bobble on his part. If you remember "Moonlighting" and came away let down by the experience, you need to read this book.
A new oral history about "Moonlighting" has just come out.
The author managed to interview all the major people associated with the show except for Willis, who was unable to make time in his schedule (though he was clear he did want to participate). So we get to hear from Shepherd, Caron, most of the major writers, directors and producers (even Robert Butler who directed the pilot and is still with us in his 90s!). There is candor about what went awry in addition to how they were able to be so experimental in the first place that helped make the show a white-hot phenomenon. There's a lot about the making of the B/W episode (and getting Orson Welles to introduce it, in what would be his last professional credit done just a week before his death) and the "Atomic Shakespeare" one (I was disappointed that there was nothing on the great "It's A Wonderful Life" Christmas episode takeoff which for me is where the series ends!). Shepherd is a bit more reticent than the other participants, I think in part because even though Caron and others have patched their differences with Shepherd, there's more of an underlying current that she was the one who caused more problems compared to Willis. Allyce Beasley offers a hint that she holds bitter feelings toward both Shepherd and Willis for the fact that the show didn't last as long as it could have.
The information is illuminating to this degree in making the case that it wasn 't "They did it" that did in the show, it was the chaos that erupted just as they had made the decision to go in that direction that was totally unforeseen and kept them from taking the series in a direction they might have effectively gone in otherwise. Shepherd's pregnancy caught everyone off-guard and left them scrambling so badly in terms of how to handle it that in the end all the badness of Season 4 basically was the result of how impossible it was to come up with effective stories while being forced to sideline Shepherd for a lengthy period of time and thus leave us with no episodes of Maddie/Dave together. It didn't help that Caron took a powder during this time to do his first movie "Clean And Sober" leaving people less capable of dealing with the chaos to handle things. So what you had was decided before ANY scripts or stories had been brainstormed to have Maddie go off to Chicago to be with her parents (Robert Webber, Eva Marie Saint) and film a whole bunch of scenes that would be dropped into later episodes even though they had no idea where they'd go. This explains why those early Season 4 episodes in which there's a forced separation going on epitomized by the sadistic "Cool Hand Dave" (which for some reason the author loves because he sees it as a great case of the show applying its old satiric/comedic touch in a solo Willis vehicle without realizing that the audience tuning in didn't want to see that!) are so awful. They just didn't know how to do anything right at this point. And then it didn't help when Caron returned and came up with the infamous "Maddie marries Dennis Dugan" plotline that drove everyone else away.
The show had basically been damaged by this point and then when you had "Die Hard" becoming a hit, and the show moved to a killer timeslot, it was clear the show wasn't salvageable and all the parties involved just wanted to move on. The great what-if, is what-if their timing hadn't been screwed up by Shepherd's pregnancy? They had basically started down the path of them "doing it" when that came up and it was too late to reverse course on that whole Mark Harmon storyline but basically the point that's fair is that if they could have been able to chart the future of Maddie and Dave without that complication they might have been able to pull it off. We'll never know. After flying by the seat of their pants during the first three seasons and riding the show to the top, they weren't able to keep doing it any longer.
The book also makes the point that because the DVDs are out of print now and it faces insurmountable music problems to ever get reissued or be streamed, it' s not likely the show is ever going to be rediscovered by future generations. It's already becoming quite forgotten as it is.
The author thankfully refrains from getting political at any point except to make the absurd argument that the twist gimmick of Dave's ex-wife leaving him for a woman was "groundbreaking" in an age supposedly when homosexuality and AIDS were still taboo. Look, anyone who watched TV in the 80s knows those subjects were no longer taboo! Heck, the reason why Mark Harmon was such a hot property at the time was that he had just left St. Elsewhere after doing an AIDS storyline. But that was the only minor bobble on his part. If you remember "Moonlighting" and came away let down by the experience, you need to read this book.