View Single Post
Old October 10 2013, 02:12 AM   #756
Reverend
Rear Admiral
 
Reverend's Avatar
 
Location: UK
Re: Agents of SHIELD. Season 1 Discussion Thread

Turtletrekker wrote: View Post
Professor Zoom wrote: View Post
Turtletrekker wrote: View Post
We're only three episodes in. Each episode has shown a marked improvement. What do people want? How many shows are instant classics right out the gate? TNG? Buffy? DS9? B5? None of the above. This shown has just been great fun. I think it's way too early too pass judgement on it as it's really just getting started and finding its identity.
I'm going to push back on this. Why do I have to wait for a show to improve? Why can't it be good from the beginning? A lot of shows are. Arrow had a great pilot. Warehouse 13 had a great pilot. West Wing had an AMAZING pilot. This whole idea that pilots aren't very good...just don't buy it. Sure, shows improve on their pilots, but, why can't a show, you know, start off good?

I can't speak to Buffy, but the other three, all had something I was engaged with, right from the beginning, and improved from there. Farscape, nuBattlestar. All great pilots that improved from there. (Perhaps later stumbled... sure...) Sleepy Hollow for a new show. The Headless Horseman had a machine gun...! Awesome sauce.

But, I honestly can't think of a show that I didn't like at the start that suddenly I did.

This show just doesn't engage me. It feels like weak sauce and lazy writing. Riding on the coattails of a very successful movie universe (which they keep reminding us of.)
I'm not saying that you have to wait for anything to improve. I'm not trying to manage your viewing habits in the slightest. I'm just saying that in my own experience, I prefer to give a show a chance to grow a little before writing it off.

I could've given up on TNG after three episodes. Encounter at Farpoint, The Naked Now and Code of Honor? Yuck! Hell, TNG didn't begin to get anywhere near good until 3/4 of the way through season 1. Glad I stuck with it.

Sometimes I'll stick with a show that never quite gets it together (The Cape, No Ordinary Family), but I never regret giving the show a chance.

And I can think of a show that I didn't like, didn't engage me and I gave up on early that I later regretted doing so-- Star Wars: The Clone Wars. The movie that started it off was horrible and gave no reason to keep following. Except the show ran five seasons and it is generally well liked. Should I not have given up despite the fact the movie/pilot did nothing for me? Or should I have given a chance to improve? I wish that I had given Clone Wars that chance.
Personally I go by a "three strikes and you're out" system. That is if a new show has three episodes in a row that felt like a waste of time, then (baring extraordinary circumstances) I give up on it.

It's served me well so far. And of the few shows that I gave up on that made it past the first season, most were simply not my cup of tea. Haven for example bored me to death so I gave up around episode 7 or 8 and yet I gather it's not in it's 3rd or 4th season? Been a few close run things though. Almost gave up on Defiance and Jeremiah on more that one occasion.

I get the arguments on both sides. On the one hand it's usually worth giving a new show a fair chance to build some momentum, but on the other hand there's a limit to what anyone is willing to sit through without being entertained. It's all about your personal thresholds.

As far as SHIELD goes...I'll keep watching it for now. Though it's awfully hammy at times--almost a throwback to 80's & 90's action shows--it's not *horrible* and there has been the odd flash of brilliance. Enough so far to keep me interested. Plus of course having Whedon's name attached makes a big difference to what I'm willing to sit through. Buffy Angel and Dollhouse all started off a bit slow and episodic and didn't really come into their own until about a dozen episodes in.
Reverend is offline   Reply With Quote