Knowledge Gaps: Critically Acclaimed/Wildly Popular Shows You've Never Seen

[proserpina65]

On ‎01‎/‎15‎/‎2017 at 3:10 PM, blueray said:

Game of thrones: I'll say is on this list right now, but I'm being pressured into trying it. I think my hesitation comes from the same reason as Breaking Bad, in that nobody is completely a "good person". All the characters seem like power-hungry assholes, that are all trying to get each other.  I want to be able to relate to the characters. And since it's a "fantasy" story I want to escape into it. The world is bad enough, I don't need my entertainment to be as cruel as the real world is.  That being said I love some realism in the story (such as DS9 provides). I may eventually give this a try, but I'm still hesitating.

There are some good people on GOT, although every character does have some flaws.  But they're not all power-hungry assholes.  It can get relentless downbeat, though, because bad things often happen to the good characters and the worst characters often come out on top, at least temporarily.  It still might not be your cup of tea.

[vibeology]

I want to agree about Game of Thrones. There are actual heroes. Straight up good people (still flawed like a well-written character should be) who do what's right. That being said, like @proserpina65 mentioned, they also tend to get crapped on an awful lot so that could be a dealbreaker. And I will say this, many of the awful power-hungry assholes are the most interesting, best written and best acted characters on the show. Some of the show's villains are just awful and, yes, soul-crushing but others are nuanced and complete people who are worth the pain.

[DangerousMinds]

On 1/15/2017 at 0:53 PM, cleo said:

I hate BB and on paper it should appeal to me. I loved Sopranos and the Wire for example.

The big difference to me- all of the BB characters were thoroughly unlikable. Whereas with the other shows there were characters I liked and cared about. If I wanted to watch awful people do awful things for hours on end I could just watch the news.

YMMV.

Hank was a hero to me. Maybe a bit unlikable at first, but definitely the hero of the show IMO.

[Chaos Theory]

On 1/15/2017 at 0:53 PM, cleo said:

I hate BB and on paper it should appeal to me. I loved Sopranos and the Wire for example.

The big difference to me- all of the BB characters were thoroughly unlikable. Whereas with the other shows there were characters I liked and cared about. If I wanted to watch awful people do awful things for hours on end I could just watch the news.

YMMV.

Here is where I disagree.  I liked the characters on BB but just didn't care about any of them on Sopranos or The Wire.  The whole point of BB was you kind of had to like Walt a little in the beginning otherwise the story wouldn't work and I often think that is where the disconnect is.  People going in hating Walt knowing he is eventually going to be the bad guy.  

[cleo]

7 hours ago, DangerousMinds said:

Hank was a hero to me.

Yeah I agree he was the closest. I did like Hank, but still couldn't make it through the rest of the show.

 

3 hours ago, Chaos Theory said:

The whole point of BB was you kind of had to like Walt a little in the beginning otherwise the story wouldn't work and I often think that is where the disconnect is.

Well this is interesting take and makes more sense. A lot of times people would say to me the whole point of BB is that everyone was supposed to be unlikable.  

[Chaos Theory]

5 minutes ago, cleo said:

 

Well this is interesting take and makes more sense. A lot of times people would say to me the whole point of BB is that everyone was supposed to be unlikable.  

Walt starts the show as a thoughtful put upon guy where Hank comes across as an alpha male asshole.  They actually both run opposite trajectories which is what I find the most fascinating thing about the show.  Walt becomes this alpha male monster and Hank becomes a thoughtful well meaning guy.  

And yes I understand there are people who were never going to like this show,  The topic of drugs in America.  Violence.  And whatnot,  That being said I do take umbrage at the people who dislike the show because it is a critical and popular hit.

[Jack Shaftoe]

I tried The Americans but dropped it very quickly.  Not just because I couldn't root for the protagonists but because I found the premise ridiculously implausible. Why on Earth would the spy couple need to have kids? Talk about a needless complication, it's not like a married couple not having kids was all that strange, even several decades ago. The protagonists having to pose as a married couple also seemed unnecessary complicated but it was the kids thing that really made me say "Yeah, right".

I also dropped Breaking Bad very quickly, it just seemed so full of its edginess and "important messages" (tm). I don't want to even try Game of Thrones because I find the book original really overrated. Mad Men... so well crafted, yet so boring, with characters whom I either hated or couldn't care less about. I couldn't finish a single season. I love good drama, even if it is depressing, but so many shows are trying way too hard to be darker and edgier, IMO. If I don't care about the characters, I won't care if they all die horribly, after all.

[CaffeinatedAunt79]

I do not watch Westworld...not an fan of sci-fi shows plus I feel like it is overhyped to the max.  Also I have no interest in zombie or vampire shows.

I loved The Office on NBC, but I never could get into some of the other shows airing in that Thursday night block like Parks and Rec, 30 Rock or Community.  I love Joel McHale but the times I tried with Community and never found it funny.

[Chaos Theory]

On 1/19/2017 at 8:56 AM, Jack Shaftoe said:

I tried The Americans but dropped it very quickly.  Not just because I couldn't root for the protagonists but because I found the premise ridiculously implausible. Why on Earth would the spy couple need to have kids? Talk about a needless complication, it's not like a married couple not having kids was all that strange, even several decades ago. The protagonists having to pose as a married couple also seemed unnecessary complicated but it was the kids thing that really made me say "Yeah, right".

Actually it made perfect sense especially from a Russian/Communist point of view.  Philip has always been two steps away from defecting and the only thing stopping him is his family.  Elizabeth spent the first decade of their marriage informing on him to their higher ups. She only stopped when he showed her his love in an act of violence that she found idly romantic.   A marriage in this case allows both parties to watch each other's back and well watch each other for the higher ups.

As for the kids they serve a purpose as well.  They add an airbag legitimacy to the arrangement.  People notice when single people (especially men) and even unmarried couples move into suburbia.  People talk.    The last thing the Jennings need is people talking about them or asking even seemingly Innocent questions because people talk and off something happened people would talk about the single guy who lived in the big house or the unmarried couple who went in and out a lot.  With kids they could almost move unnoticed anywhere,  An FBI agent could move in across the street and barely give them two looks because they are your typical American family.  That is the whole point. 

[Jack Shaftoe]

Quote

With kids they could almost move unnoticed anywhere,  An FBI agent could move in across the street and barely give them two looks because they are your typical American family.  That is the whole point. 

I understood what the point was back I when I tried watching the show, I just think the risks far outweigh the rewards. There is a reason why real world spies don't bother with fake families unless they absolutely have no other choice. Also, I found the idea of top spies wasting a decade of our lives in a position where they couldn't learn any really important secrets very odd. If you are going to conduct such a lengthy operation, at least try to place the spies somewhere where they have access to sensitive information. The whole seemed backwards, as if someone had asked themselves "What if Soviet spies were forced to live like a perfect suburban family?" and never bothered to ask the next question, namely, why would they want to do that for long and (as of the start of the show, at least) for so little in the way of results.

Quote

Elizabeth spent the first decade of their marriage informing on him to their higher ups. She only stopped when he showed her his love in an act of violence that she found idly romantic.   A marriage in this case allows both parties to watch each other's back and well watch each other for the higher ups.

And they wouldn't be able to do that if they were to pose as a brother and sister because...?

Edited January 20, 2017 by Jack Shaftoe

[Ceindreadh]

2 hours ago, Jack Shaftoe said:

I understood what the point was back I when I tried watching the show, I just think the risks far outweigh the rewards. There is a reason why real world spies don't bother with fake families unless they absolutely have no other choice. Also, I found the idea of top spies wasting a decade of our lives in a position where they couldn't learn any really important secrets very odd. If you are going to conduct such a lengthy operation, at least try to place the spies somewhere where they have access to sensitive information. The whole seemed backwards, as if someone had asked themselves "What if Soviet spies were forced to live like a perfect suburban family?" and never bothered to ask the next question, namely, why would they want to do that for long and (as of the start of the show, at least) for so little in the way of results.

And they wouldn't be able to do that if they were to pose as a brother and sister because...?

I think also the point of them having kids is that the Soviets are playing a long game.  The first step is getting their first generation spies in place, but there's always the danger of somebody picking up on their stolen identities.  So the next step is to get their second generation spies who will have legitimate birth certs that will pass a background check.  The kids aren't just part of the cover, they're intended as future assets. 

[Chaos Theory]

No show in the history of tv makes sense if you think about it too much.  The premise of a couple of spies pretending to be married works because married couples get overlooked.  If they pretended to be brother and sister people would talk and notice things that get overlooked when married couples do them.  It's just a fact.  Even in my neighborhood now the single guy gets. Talked about a whole lot more then the married childlessness couple who gets talked about more then almost any family the neighboorhood.  If a police officer or FBI agent ever stopped by to ask questions must people's minds would go to the odd situation and that is the bro and sis living next door or the single guy living in a family home.  It just would.  A family gives you legitimacy almost anywhere in America.   Yes it makes things messy and complicated but it allows you to hide in plain site that being single or living with a sibling just doesn't do.  

[Snow Apple]

I've never seen Homeland even though I adore Damian Lewis. Now that he's no longer on, I have even less desire to watch.

I'm another who have never seen Game of Thrones. I don't have HBO and now that there's so many seasons, I'm too overwhelmed to start.

Sons of Anarchy. I've never even heard of the show until the final season or I probably would have watched.

In fact, I haven't seen or heard of a lot of shows until a few seasons in or even the final season because there are too many shows and channels these days to keep up.

[Irlandesa]

On 1/19/2017 at 7:56 AM, Jack Shaftoe said:

Why on Earth would the spy couple need to have kids?

Because these spies did have kids. Sure, the circumstances are a bit different in these examples in that they maybe reproduced more because they wanted to than out of duty but many spy duos had those complications.  For a TV show, they raise the dramatic stakes but they have real life counterparts as a model.

On 1/19/2017 at 7:56 AM, Jack Shaftoe said:

I also dropped Breaking Bad very quickly, it just seemed so full of its edginess and "important messages" (tm).

What important messages were in Breaking Bad?  

[Jack Shaftoe]

Quote

I think also the point of them having kids is that the Soviets are playing a long game.  The first step is getting their first generation spies in place, but there's always the danger of somebody picking up on their stolen identities.  So the next step is to get their second generation spies who will have legitimate birth certs that will pass a background check.  The kids aren't just part of the cover, they're intended as future assets. 

But there is no guarantee that the kids would have any talent for spying. Plus, a background check would presumably check their parents' background too, so we get back to square one.

Quote

If a police officer or FBI agent ever stopped by to ask questions must people's minds would go to the odd situation and that is the bro and sis living next door or the single guy living in a family home.  It just would.  A family gives you legitimacy almost anywhere in America.  

As far as I recall, nothing forced the protagonists of The Americans to live in the suburbs. If neighbours in the suburbs are really as nosy as you say then the easiest solution would be to live some place else where that wouldn't be the case - an apartment or a more isolated house. Last but not least, if a top spy can't convince the neighbours that he or she is harmless without using a spouse and kids as props then they probably aren't that good at their job anyway.

Anyway, I am sure I would have overlooked these things far more easily if the protagonists weren't Soviet spies. I really don't like the Soviet Union and it would take a near-perfect execution to convince me to watch a show where Soviet spies are portrayed sympathetically. Also, just once I would like to see a spy show or movie where there aren't any spies who learn secrets be relying on their sex appeal.

[BW Manilowe]

13 hours ago, Ceindreadh said:

I think also the point of them having kids is that the Soviets are playing a long game.  The first step is getting their first generation spies in place, but there's always the danger of somebody picking up on their stolen identities.  So the next step is to get their second generation spies who will have legitimate birth certs that will pass a background check.  The kids aren't just part of the cover, they're intended as future assets.

And they're playing that out right now, with Philip & Elizabeth (the undercover KGB assets)'s daughter, Paige, being groomed (or at least the KGB bosses have asked that Philip & Elizabeth begin grooming Paige) as a "second generation", US-born, asset (who would be less suspected as a KGB asset because it's easier to prove she was born in the US than her parents were because her parents are using the identities of dead Americans)--though Philip, & even Elizabeth (who's the most loyal to the cause, if you will, of the parents)--seem to be reluctant to go through with actually grooming Paige to follow in their footsteps, & Paige has actually told her pastor that her parents are Russians (or actual Russian spies, pretending to be Americans), though it's really not yet clear if the pastor believes Paige.

[bubbls]

I've never seen 24, among many others, but 24 is the one I do plan on eventually watching. 

[UYI]

I'm a political junkie, and I have yet to watch either The West Wing or House of Cards. I'm surprised I haven't been disowned yet.

There are so many current shows I haven't watched yet, it's not even funny. That's the thing with all these different TV avenues today, it makes it hard to catch up! My love of re watching classic TV plays a role, too (and I'm almost 28, so it's not that I'm old, either). 

[Archery]

On ‎1‎/‎21‎/‎2017 at 5:12 AM, Jack Shaftoe said:

But there is no guarantee that the kids would have any talent for spying. Plus, a background check would presumably check their parents' background too, so we get back to square one.

They wouldn't need to be super James Bond-y, just able to have access to files and documents any low level government staff would have.  And, having had a full background check in the mid-1990's (and re-ups periodically since then), I know that your parents' background isn't delved into more than superficially unless they are foreign-born.  Philip and Elizabeth's 30-year cover would totally hold up for Paige to become a civil servant at the Department of Defense.

[NutMeg]

18 hours ago, Archery said:

They wouldn't need to be super James Bond-y, just able to have access to files and documents any low level government staff would have.  And, having had a full background check in the mid-1990's (and re-ups periodically since then), I know that your parents' background isn't delved into more than superficially unless they are foreign-born.  Philip and Elizabeth's 30-year cover would totally hold up for Paige to become a civil servant at the Department of Defense.

I never realised they were called Philip and Elizabeth - how so very British royalty. Are their children named Charles, Anne, Andrew, or a combination thereof by any chance?

[Archery]

Heh. No, Paige and Henry (which is at least a royal name).

[Chaos Theory]

4 hours ago, NutMeg said:

I never realised they were called Philip and Elizabeth - how so very British royalty. Are their children named Charles, Anne, Andrew, or a combination thereof by any chance?

 

4 hours ago, Archery said:

Heh. No, Paige and Henry (which is at least a royal name).

But even that makes sense because Elizabeth is a true believer and has more tends to favor the European over the American so I can see her subtly favoring European names for her children.

[BoogieBurns]

On 2/22/2017 at 7:17 AM, UYI said:

I'm a political junkie, and I have yet to watch either The West Wing

Well, I highly recommend it. I like watching it now just to see how the general public used to view the presidency then vs. now. It's basically a time capsule. It took me a year to binge it because I hate when good things are over. But now, with Washington DC being, well, different than before, I am seeing the show in a different way. 

[UYI]

On 2/23/2017 at 4:00 PM, BoogieBurns said:

Well, I highly recommend it. I like watching it now just to see how the general public used to view the presidency then vs. now. It's basically a time capsule. It took me a year to binge it because I hate when good things are over. But now, with Washington DC being, well, different than before, I am seeing the show in a different way. 

I FINALLY forced myself to sit down and start watching it on Netflix. I'm liking it so far. 

Edited March 4, 2017 by UYI

[DearEvette]

Rectify gets such glowing reviews.  My husband and I finally sat down to watch it.  He likes it and plans to continue.  I found it wrist-slitting depressing so I was out  after the first 20 minutes. 

[supposebly]

Sopranos. I happened to come across an episode. I see a woman being raped in a stairwell. I turned it off again.

Nope. Not happening. Not ever. I don't care how good of a show it is.

[Moose135]

@supposebly, that's about all I've ever seen of the Sopranos as well. I wasn't especially excited about the show to begin with over its depiction of Italian Americans (which I am) and seeing that sealed the deal for me.

[amaranta]

I've never seen Portlandia.  Don't know why.  It even seems like it might be my kind of show.  I just keep forgetting it exists.

Quote

Sopranos. I happened to come across an episode. I see a woman being raped in a stairwell. I turned it off again.

Had a similar experience, except with my ep was a really unpleasant hit.  Never again.

Edited March 15, 2017 by amaranta

[ChromaKelly]

My nope-ing out of an episode was Oz. Someone got shat on and I was like well, that's enough of that.

I've never seen Buffy. I have a working knowledge of it, but I started to hate it even though I've never watched just because it gets brought up all the time.
 

[HoboClayton]

I have also never seen Portlandia. I have been a  huge Sleater-Kinney (and their other bands) fan since the 90's. Was shocked to see Carrie becoming mainstream. No excuse for my actions.. Someone did show me the Aimee Mann skit though, which was funny. I will eventually come around to it I guess. 

[Raja]

On 1/20/2017 at 12:42 PM, Jack Shaftoe said:

And they wouldn't be able to do that if they were to pose as a brother and sister because...?

The drive to have conjugal needs satisfied by other than their business partner will leave the spy in a vulnerable situation. To either drop the mission in favor of the biological urges being satisfied by the local civilian or to being honey trapped by the counter intelligence agents.

[Affogato]

There are a number of shows I haven’t seen that I know I would like, such as the Sopranos and Succession. I believe they are good shows. I am not squeamish.  I am just rarely in the mood for gangsters and businessmen.
 

Oh, honestly, many many shows. There is limited time and I prefer genre shows. i’m also partial to medical shows. You have to give me a good reason to watch a police procedural, like Cagney and Lacey and the Closer, which I watched. 
 

you can’t watch everything. May as well watch what you like. 

Edited November 4 by Affogato