# Help me pick a new show to watch!



## Adam1115 (Dec 15, 2003)

So over the years I seem to miss out on shows when there new. I can't seem to bring myself to suffer through crappy shows to get to good ones.

24 I didn't watch until after it was done. I love it!
Sopranos we didn't start until season three, and both loved it.
We loved the 4400 and Jericho.
We just watched all of Breaking Bad in the last few months.

Now were feeling like we need a new show since we're done with Breaking Bad, what an awesome show.

What really awesome show did I miss out on that we could start from season 1?


----------



## TonyTheTiger (Dec 22, 2006)

Try Sons of Anarchy. It's on Netflix from S1.

You WILL be disappointed in any other show after BB though.


----------



## Adam1115 (Dec 15, 2003)

Yea, I feel like BB and Sopranos are the two best shows I've ever watched.


----------



## jon777 (May 30, 2002)

The Wire


----------



## MikeMar (Jan 7, 2005)

Have to mention it if you haven't seen it - THE WIRE

That said
Six Feet Under (we just watched this for the first time straight through a few months back)
Better of Ted (still one of my favorite comedies, only 2 seasons)
Curb Your Enthusiasm
Freaks and Geeks


----------



## Lori (Feb 20, 2000)

White Collar
Leverage


----------



## Fahtrim (Apr 12, 2004)

so many to list........

The Wire
Homicide Life on the Streets
Deadwood
Farscape
Babylon 5
The Shield
Sons of Anarchy
Justified
Fringe

come back after you are done with those


----------



## Crow159 (Jul 28, 2004)

Some of our favorites that haven't been mentioned:

Shameless - Showtime version (it's really good. William H Macy is great in it.)
Hell on Wheels (we really like it.)
Lost 
House of Cards on Netflix


----------



## Adam1115 (Dec 15, 2003)

This is great, thanks!


----------



## Alfer (Aug 7, 2003)

Seinfeld


----------



## crowfan (Dec 27, 2003)

I will throw a BIG-time second behind The Shield. It's one of my favorite shows of all time and, like Breaking Bad, seemed to just get better as it went on.


----------



## VegasVic (Nov 22, 2002)

The Shield and Justified definitely


----------



## JoBeth66 (Feb 15, 2002)

Definitely Justified. We are also liking Contiuum. Oh, and Community, if you haven't watched it yet.


----------



## mm2margaret (Dec 7, 2010)

Justified. It's really good.


----------



## Turtleboy (Mar 24, 2001)

Do you want something that is already finished?


----------



## Satchel (Dec 8, 2001)

Mad Men is good if you watch from the beginning.

I watched a few eps of season 4, then decided to go back and start at the beginning.&#8230;lots of things make sense if you know the back stories.

I also recently watched all of Boardwalk Empire. Great series...still going.


----------



## tivoboyjr (Apr 28, 2003)

The Shield
Lost
The Wire
Orphan Black


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

+1 to Better Off Ted. One of the few comedies to make me laugh.

Somebody mentioned Leverage so I'll recommend the British show Hustle


----------



## markymark_ctown (Oct 11, 2004)

Damages (great first season...the rest are good, just not as good)


----------



## dirtypacman (Feb 3, 2004)

Shield - my favorite show to this day


----------



## tivoboyjr (Apr 28, 2003)

I also meant to add a +1 to Curb Your Enthusiasm. The funniest show on TV. Ever.

If you liked 24, another suggestion is Prison Break. I loved season 1. Season 2 was good. After that, it went off the rails a little but I kept watching anyway. It, like 24, is not the kind of show that you watch to pick apart in a "that couldn't really happen" kind of way. If you just go with it, it's a fun show to watch.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

OK everyone, name your favorite shows  We have this thread about every couple of months and people list the same shows!

For the OP, what type of mood are you in? Sitcom? Drama? Genre? I could probably name a show I've enjoyed in just about every genre. Also, do you have access to premium channels (or the ability to get their content elsewhere)?

How far back do you want to go? Are you looking for something recent? Or should we recommend a series from the 1960s?

Perhaps you could find something off of this list to watch?

http://tvline.com/2013/06/03/100-best-written-tv-shows-ever-the-sopranos/


----------



## goblue97 (May 12, 2005)

Friday Night Lights. Don't think of it as a football show. There is much more to it than high school football. I originally scoffed at it but I gave it a chance and I'm glad that I did.


----------



## Adam1115 (Dec 15, 2003)

Turtleboy said:


> Do you want something that is already finished?


Not necessarily, but want to be able to start at season 1 either via netflix or directv on demand.


----------



## Adam1115 (Dec 15, 2003)

Shows we've already seen mentioned above-

Six Feet Under (Loved!)
Lost (Hated.)
Prison Break (Loved!)
Friday Night Lights (Loved, surprisingly.)


----------



## Fahtrim (Apr 12, 2004)

How could I forget Friday Night Lights?!!???! loved that show.

I wouldn't advise anyone to watch past Season 1 of prison break
Lost is kinda a fun journey but have a hard time recommending it b/c of so much stupidity


----------



## Doggie Bear (Jan 16, 2008)

I'm going to add to the pile of votes for "Justified." The first three seasons are available for free streaming with Amazon Prime, and if you have a Kindle Fire HD, you can actually download episodes in advance. It's so good that I'm preferring to run indoors on a treadmill so I can watch, rather than head outside. (Well, it's also freaking sub-freezing outside right now....)

My wife thought the pilot episode was a bit slow, but I think it's keeping in spirit with the pacing of Elmore Leonard's character/dialogue-driven stories.


----------



## tivoboyjr (Apr 28, 2003)

Game of Thrones

Homeland - especially if you like 24. It's uneven and frustrating at times, but still better than just about everything else on TV.

My wife loves Scandal and I watch it with her sometimes. I don't love it, but it's not bad.


----------



## JLucPicard (Jul 8, 2004)

A great show (not quite _The Wire_ or _The Shield_ great) that just lasted one season/13 episodes (if you want something to toss in that doesn't stretch several seasons) is _Terriers_. Starred Donal Logue and his sister Karina. I thoroughly enjoyed it!

It is available on Netflix streaming.


----------



## CraigK (Jun 9, 2006)

Second on Terriers even though it was only one season.

Another vote for Justified and Six Feet Under!


----------



## Fahtrim (Apr 12, 2004)

so what did you pick to start watching?


----------



## kcarl75 (Oct 23, 2002)

I just started binge watching House of Cards this weekend. It's really good.


----------



## javabird (Oct 13, 2006)

If you liked 24, try Homeland


----------



## gweempose (Mar 23, 2003)

Firefly
Veronica Mars
Arrested Development
Farscape
Prison Break - The first season was awesome.


----------



## Adam1115 (Dec 15, 2003)

Watched the first episode of Fringe and downloaded the wire.

It's a bummer that you can't watch season one of the shield on demand.


----------



## Fahtrim (Apr 12, 2004)

Fringe and wire. Great choices!


----------



## gweempose (Mar 23, 2003)

Adam1115 said:


> It's a bummer that you can't watch season one of the shield on demand.


It's available on Amazon Prime ...


----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

In addition to many of the great shows already mentioned, check these out if you've never seen them:

Luther
The Newsroom
Oz
The West Wing
Downton Abbey


----------



## tvmaster2 (Sep 9, 2006)

+2 for 'Orphan Black' and the mesmerizing Tatiana Maslany. Season One on DVD, season two begins April


----------



## bengalfreak (Oct 20, 2002)

Deadwood, Carnivale, Firefly


----------



## ebockelman (Jul 12, 2001)

Chuck recently hit Netflix. It's definitely worth watching.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

ebockelman said:


> Chuck recently hit Netflix. It's definitely worth watching.


Loved that show, especially early on. Toward the end it got a little hokey, and I think their budget was cut so some of the special effects were a bit lacking. But this was definitely a show I liked as much for the characters and the chemistry between them than the actual plots. Nice eye candy of course, and I have to say, perhaps the best use of Dolby Digital of any show I've watched before and since.


----------



## betts4 (Dec 27, 2005)

Eureka!


----------



## scandia101 (Oct 20, 2007)

TonyTheTiger said:


> Try Sons of Anarchy. It's on Netflix from S1.
> 
> You WILL be disappointed in any other show after BB though.


I Have been binging on SoA and can't get enough of it. I never thought the show would interest me, but after so many years of hearing how good it is, I had to give it a try when I found it available on Amazon Instant Prime. Now I can't get enough, I watched 9 episodes yesterday.

The Shield is next, but that's different. I watched the first episode and didn't like it, but I'm willing to give it another look.


----------



## astrohip (Jan 7, 2003)

scandia101 said:


> *I Have been binging on SoA and can't get enough of it. * I never thought the show would interest me, but after so many years of hearing how good it is, I had to give it a try when I found it available on Amazon Instant Prime. Now I can't get enough, I watched 9 episodes yesterday.
> 
> The Shield is next, but that's different. I watched the first episode and didn't like it, but I'm willing to give it another look.


SoA is a show I have often told myself I should watch, but have never gotten around to it. Maybe over the break...


----------



## bengalfreak (Oct 20, 2002)

scandia101 said:


> I Have been binging on SoA and can't get enough of it. I never thought the show would interest me, but after so many years of hearing how good it is, I had to give it a try when I found it available on Amazon Instant Prime. Now I can't get enough, I watched 9 episodes yesterday.
> 
> The Shield is next, but that's different. I watched the first episode and didn't like it, but I'm willing to give it another look.


You always have to give a great show at least two eps. I missed out on The Wire for years because I hated the first episode. And its the Greatest of All Time.


----------



## scandia101 (Oct 20, 2007)

bengalfreak said:


> You always have to give a great show at least two eps. I missed out on The Wire for years because I hated the first episode. And its the Greatest of All Time.


That doesn't even make sense to do.

How many episodes are we supposed to give shows that we don't like? and how are we supposed to know that a show is a "great show" (and who decides that?) when after we watch one episode we think it sucks monkey butt? What about the shows that we don't even bother to try because we don't think it's something we'd even like? Are we now required to watch every new show?


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

scandia101 said:


> That doesn't even make sense to do.
> 
> How many episodes are we supposed to give shows that we don't like? and how are we supposed to know that a show is a "great show" (and who decides that?) when after we watch one episode we think it sucks monkey butt? What about the shows that we don't even bother to try because we don't think it's something we'd even like? Are we now required to watch every new show?


Exactly. And one person's great is another person's terrible. My criteria is:

1) If I like it during the pilot, I'll stick with it until it sucks two or three consecutive episodes. Or I just lose interest. If that never happens, I'm all in.

2) If I don't like the pilot, but I see that there's some potential. I'll stick with it a couple of more episodes. (30 Rock, The Goldbergs fall into this)

3) If I don't like the pilot and it just plain sucks. I'm gone (any number of shows)

4) It might be the best written or best developed show of all time, but if the topic doesn't grab me, I'm not going to bother (The Shield. Friday Night Lights...shows that just didn't compel me to even bother because I knew I wouldn't like it because of the topic).


----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

scandia101 said:


> That doesn't even make sense to do.
> 
> How many episodes are we supposed to give shows that we don't like? and how are we supposed to know that a show is a "great show" (and who decides that?) when after we watch one episode we think it sucks monkey butt? What about the shows that we don't even bother to try because we don't think it's something we'd even like? Are we now required to watch every new show?


I tend to set up recordings for any shows that get decent reviews or early word of mouth prior to airing initially. If I like the first couple of episodes I'll stick with it. Otherwise, I cut it from my lineup as I just don't have the time to watch every show on TV. I've cut quite a few shows that are still very popular, mainly because they started getting too repetitive and not breaking any new ground (all of the CSIs, Law and Orders, The Mentalist, et al).

If I hear down the road that the show has gotten a huge following and people are raving about it I may give it a second look. I didn't start watching Mad Men, Breaking Bad, or The Big Bang Theory until the 2nd or 3rd season, mostly because I didn't know much about them initially. There have been lots of great shows that started off slow and eventually evolved into great TV. Seinfeld and M*A*S*H are two such shows, as well as many others. I had a hard time getting into Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D., but I hung around because I knew Joss Whedon would have a few tricks up his sleeve to turn things around. The show is now starting to gel and it looks like it could get interesting. If anyone but Joss Whedon had been involved I probably wouldn't have stuck with it.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

mr.unnatural said:


> I tend to set up recordings for any shows that get decent reviews or early word of mouth prior to airing initially. If I like the first couple of episodes I'll stick with it. Otherwise, I cut it from my lineup as I just don't have the time to watch every show on TV. I've cut quite a few shows that are still very popular, mainly because they started getting too repetitive and not breaking any new ground (all of the CSIs, Law and Orders, The Mentalist, et al).
> 
> If I hear down the road that the show has gotten a huge following and people are raving about it I may give it a second look. I didn't start watching Mad Men, Breaking Bad, or The Big Bang Theory until the 2nd or 3rd season, mostly because I didn't know much about them initially. There have been lots of great shows that started off slow and eventually evolved into great TV. Seinfeld and M*A*S*H are two such shows, as well as many others. I had a hard time getting into Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D., but I hung around because I knew Joss Whedon would have a few tricks up his sleeve to turn things around. The show is now starting to gel and it looks like it could get interesting. If anyone but Joss Whedon had been involved I probably wouldn't have stuck with it.


M*A*S*H I liked from the get go, and in fact the first three seasons are probably the best sitcom episodes collectively of anything I've ever watched. Seinfeld I agree with but came back after a coworker raved about it (in retrospect, those first few episodes weren't that bad in that we know the characters and what they were trying to do NOW). I did the same as you with Breaking Bad (still didn't like) and Mad Men (liked a lot). Agents? I thought the first couple of episodes were pretty good, but I've quickly gotten bored with it. It's on my almost ready to drop list. I find it not "super hero-y" enough for me to find it fun and not "sci-fi" enough to be interesting. It's just kinda boring. Hopefully it will pick up. The only Joss show I liked was Dollhouse, so maybe that's why I'm not enjoying it as much as you. The Big Bang Theory pilot was pretty bad, but I saw the potential in it so I stuck with it and it got much better as it went along.


----------



## bruab (Nov 16, 2001)

scandia101 said:


> That doesn't even make sense to do.
> 
> How many episodes are we supposed to give shows that we don't like? and how are we supposed to know that a show is a "great show" (and who decides that?) when after we watch one episode we think it sucks monkey butt? What about the shows that we don't even bother to try because we don't think it's something we'd even like? Are we now required to watch every new show?


Two. People will tell you (us). Still required. No, just the good ones.

Stay near your phone for further instructions.


----------



## scandia101 (Oct 20, 2007)

bruab said:


> Two. People will tell you (us). Still required. No, just the good ones.
> 
> Stay near your phone for further instructions.


Thank you.


----------



## Fahtrim (Apr 12, 2004)

Do not try to adjust your television set.


----------



## danielhart (Apr 27, 2004)

Wow. Only one mention of Game of Thrones?


----------



## danielhart (Apr 27, 2004)

for the OP:

Game of Thrones (HBO on demand or bittorrent). Pure brilliance. Hands down best thing on TV right now.
Orange is the New Black - Great new show made for netflix. Better than House of Cards imo (although that is a good show too if you like political dramas)
The Wire. First season is simply brilliant - rest of series is good but doesn't live up to the greatness of season one

Sons of Anarchy - very fun although the writing gets frustrating and lazy at times
Six Feet Under - see comments for the wire
Mad Men - some love it, some hate it. i love it
Deadwood - solid throughout. Make sure you use subtitles
Boardwalk Empire - great first season then uneven

Dexter - last few seasons it fell apart but otherwise a fun show

Oh yeah - I almost forgot. The Walking Dead. Pure guilty pleasure.


----------



## replaytv (Feb 21, 2011)

I just got Boss from the library and really like it.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1833285/

I would like to watch a crime series that gives the clues to solve the crime. I saw a movie that did that years ago and it kept me interested and involved. Is there one like that?


----------



## bruab (Nov 16, 2001)

replaytv said:


> I just got Boss from the library and really like it.
> 
> http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1833285/
> 
> I would like to watch a crime series that gives the clues to solve the crime. I saw a movie that did that years ago and it kept me interested and involved. Is there one like that?


The old Ellery Queen show used to have Ellery pause and talk to the audience and enumerate the clues before he revealed the solution: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0072496/?ref_=nv_sr_2


----------



## daveak (Mar 23, 2009)

Duck Dynasty. Especially when the series still had Phil Robertson.


----------



## replaytv (Feb 21, 2011)

bruab said:


> The old Ellery Queen show used to have Ellery pause and talk to the audience and enumerate the clues before he revealed the solution: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0072496/?ref_=nv_sr_2


Thanks, I will pick it up at the library.


----------



## bengalfreak (Oct 20, 2002)

scandia101 said:


> That doesn't even make sense to do.
> 
> How many episodes are we supposed to give shows that we don't like? and how are we supposed to know that a show is a "great show" (and who decides that?) when after we watch one episode we think it sucks monkey butt? What about the shows that we don't even bother to try because we don't think it's something we'd even like? Are we now required to watch every new show?


Sure it makes sense. If there is a show that is, pretty much, regarded as great, both ratings wise and via critical acclaim, you should give that show more episodes to grab you than a show that is brand new and has no track record. I tried watching the first episode of The Wire several times and didn't like it. But because it had such a fantastic track record, someone was able to talk me into giving it several eps. to get going and I am glad they did, its my favorite show of all time.

Conversely, I did the same thing with Mad Men and never got into it. But I don't regret giving it an extended trial.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

bengalfreak said:


> Sure it makes sense. If there is a show that is, pretty much, regarded as great, both ratings wise and via critical acclaim, you should give that show more episodes to grab you than a show that is brand new and has no track record. I tried watching the first episode of The Wire several times and didn't like it. But because it had such a fantastic track record, someone was able to talk me into giving it several eps. to get going and I am glad they did, its my favorite show of all time.
> 
> Conversely, I did the same thing with Mad Men and never got into it. But I don't regret giving it an extended trial.


I disagree. First of all what about critically acclaimed but horrible ratings? (Arrested Development / Community / Friday Night Lights / Terriers). Should I not give those a chance because the ratings were bad? Consider the case of Studio 60 which had abysmal ratings (after the first episode) and was cancelled fairly quickly. Should I not bother? Or how about a show with terrific ratings but not critically acclaimed? A lot of folks are watching and enjoying it, so perhaps I should stick with it? That's what I mean, there's no hard and fast rule. I think really, go with your own tastes. If you know the kind of show you will like, watch those. Who cares what critics think? They are TV viewers just like you and me. And since there's SO much out there, if a show doesn't grab me pretty quickly, I really don't have the time and patience to keep at it. I stuck with Breaking Bad WAY too long, even though fairly early on I knew I wouldn't like it. I gave it 1 1/2 seasons. Time I wish I had back to watch something else. I'm sorry, giving a show THAT much time to grab you is ridiculous.


----------



## Fahtrim (Apr 12, 2004)

I think if something has a lot of hype, EITHER critically or on the internet in places such as this, there's generally a reason.

For example The Wire, I know it is going to be chic to just not like it b/c so many people have now said it was awesome, but that doesn't change the FACT that it is an awesome show. I have yet to talk to or read from anyone who actually watched the entire show say it was anything but awesome.

Not that you have to watch it or anything, but when you come to the internet and ask for a show to watch, you will get over and over the shows that are generally regarded as the best shows, no need to keep on arguing how you don't like them. I guess if you are trolling then keep on at it.


----------



## gweempose (Mar 23, 2003)

bengalfreak said:


> Sure it makes sense. If there is a show that is, pretty much, regarded as great, both ratings wise and via critical acclaim, you should give that show more episodes to grab you than a show that is brand new and has no track record.





Fahtrim said:


> I think if something has a lot of hype, EITHER critically or on the internet in places such as this, there's generally a reason.


I agree with both of these statements. If a show has a great rep, it definitely deserves more of a chance than just any random show. For example, I've never seen a single episode of The Wire, but based on all the ridiculously positive recommendations, I'd give the show at least a season before calling it quits. Shows such as Firefly, Breaking Bad, Game of Thrones, Mad Men, Terriers, etc. have obviously gained such solid reputations for a reason. Sure, they may not be to everyone's taste, but so many people love these shows because they are fundamentally well executed in terms of writing, acting, storytelling, cinematography, music, etc ...


----------



## Adam1115 (Dec 15, 2003)

I'm struggling with The Wire, Fringe. The first two of the Wire suck. Fringe started off ok but is getting old quick. Just started the Shield.


----------



## Fahtrim (Apr 12, 2004)

Well imo wire and fringe both awesome and both developed even more over time


----------



## Hot4Bo (Apr 3, 2003)

I really want my brother to start watching Chicago Fire but he missed the first season and for some reason, nbc.com doesn't have the first season, only the second. That seems to be true of almost everywhere unless you pay a ton of money. You'd think nbc would want people to watch season 1.


----------



## unitron (Apr 28, 2006)

Steveknj said:


> I disagree. First of all what about critically acclaimed but horrible ratings? (Arrested Development / Community / Friday Night Lights / Terriers). Should I not give those a chance because the ratings were bad? Consider the case of Studio 60 which had abysmal ratings (after the first episode) and was cancelled fairly quickly. Should I not bother? Or how about a show with terrific ratings but not critically acclaimed? A lot of folks are watching and enjoying it, so perhaps I should stick with it? That's what I mean, there's no hard and fast rule. I think really, go with your own tastes. If you know the kind of show you will like, watch those. Who cares what critics think? They are TV viewers just like you and me. And since there's SO much out there, if a show doesn't grab me pretty quickly, I really don't have the time and patience to keep at it. I stuck with Breaking Bad WAY too long, even though fairly early on I knew I wouldn't like it. I gave it 1 1/2 seasons. Time I wish I had back to watch something else. I'm sorry, giving a show THAT much time to grab you is ridiculous.


Studio 60 is one of those shows I fear I helped doom by liking it.


----------



## scandia101 (Oct 20, 2007)

bengalfreak said:


> Sure it makes sense. If there is a show that is, pretty much, regarded as great, both ratings wise and via critical acclaim, you should give that show more episodes to grab you than a show that is brand new and has no track record. I tried watching the first episode of The Wire several times and didn't like it. But because it had such a fantastic track record, someone was able to talk me into giving it several eps. to get going and I am glad they did, its my favorite show of all time.
> 
> Conversely, I did the same thing with Mad Men and never got into it. But I don't regret giving it an extended trial.



Watching something years after the fact isn't the issue.


----------



## bengalfreak (Oct 20, 2002)

scandia101 said:


> Watching something years after the fact isn't the issue.


Really? Did you even bother to read the original post?

the last line from that post. "What really awesome show did I miss out on that we could start from season 1? "


----------



## bengalfreak (Oct 20, 2002)

Steveknj said:


> I disagree. First of all what about critically acclaimed but horrible ratings? (Arrested Development / Community / Friday Night Lights / Terriers). Should I not give those a chance because the ratings were bad? Consider the case of Studio 60 which had abysmal ratings (after the first episode) and was cancelled fairly quickly. Should I not bother? Or how about a show with terrific ratings but not critically acclaimed? A lot of folks are watching and enjoying it, so perhaps I should stick with it? That's what I mean, there's no hard and fast rule. I think really, go with your own tastes. If you know the kind of show you will like, watch those. Who cares what critics think? They are TV viewers just like you and me. And since there's SO much out there, if a show doesn't grab me pretty quickly, I really don't have the time and patience to keep at it. I stuck with Breaking Bad WAY too long, even though fairly early on I knew I wouldn't like it. I gave it 1 1/2 seasons. Time I wish I had back to watch something else. I'm sorry, giving a show THAT much time to grab you is ridiculous.


What I said was, that is if a show is both critically acclaimed and got high ratings, its probably a good idea to give it more than an episode to grab you. Sure there are great shows that had poor ratings and excellent reviews. And there are great shows that had fantastic ratings and bad reviews. My point is that if it had both, chances are, there is really something to it. Could a show be both critically acclaimed and highly watched, and I still hate it. Yep, Mad Men is an example. Do I think its a good idea to give those kinds of shows more than an episode before I dump it. Yep, from my experience, its much more hit than miss that way. I think its very hard to argue with that logic.


----------



## scandia101 (Oct 20, 2007)

bengalfreak said:


> Really? Did you even bother to read the original post?
> 
> the last line from that post. "What really awesome show did I miss out on that we could start from season 1? "


Seriously?
You think this is about the OP?
It's not, and you should know it because you started it.


----------



## scandia101 (Oct 20, 2007)

bengalfreak said:


> What I said was, that is if a show is both critically acclaimed and got high ratings, its *probably a good idea* to give it more than an episode to grab you.


No, that is not what you said, it's not even close.
What you said was:


bengalfreak said:


> You *always have to* give a great show at least two eps. I missed out on The Wire for years because I hated the first episode. And its the Greatest of All Time.


People only need to give a show as much of a chance as they feel like giving it. To even suggest anything other than that is just plain ignorant.


----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

One thing's for certain, everybody has different tastes. Unfortunately, the vast majority of the viewing public tends to migrate towards mindless entertainment. How else could anyone explain the popularity of "reality" TV shows? 

While I don't always agree with the critics, they tend to shy away from this kind of crap and look for shows that are a bit more intellectually stimulating. These are the kinds of shows I enjoy the most, although I am also prone to watch shows that are just plain fun on occasion. However, every "critically acclaimed" show doesn't always pique my interest up front and I end up wondering what the critics saw in it that I missed.

Watch what you like. There's certainly enough program variety around to suit every taste.


----------



## bengalfreak (Oct 20, 2002)

scandia101 said:


> No, that is not what you said, it's not even close.
> What you said was:
> 
> Originally Posted by bengalfreak View Post
> You always have to give a great show at least two eps. I missed out on The Wire for years because I hated the first episode. And its the Greatest of All Time.


Yes, and then you asked me how were you supposed to know if a show is great and I went on to tell you that if it receives critical acclaim and has good ratings, probably a really good show. What part of this aren't you getting. You're acting as if somehow I've changed my argument and I haven't. I was always speaking of shows that have been around a while as the OP was asking about.


----------



## bengalfreak (Oct 20, 2002)

mr.unnatural said:


> How else could anyone explain the popularity of "reality" TV shows?


I must admit that I do , occasionally, delve into the mindless reality drivel. Although you can't really call it reality, Repo Games was high on my list once, as was Parking Wars.


----------



## Adam1115 (Dec 15, 2003)

mr.unnatural said:


> How else could anyone explain the popularity of "reality" TV shows?


There are two types of reality shows.

Type 1-
Non reality.
Survivor
The Bachelor
Real Housewives
Duck Dynasty

Type 2-
Pawn Stars
Car Chasers
Fast & Loud
Ice Road Truckers

Type 2 I watch.


----------



## scandia101 (Oct 20, 2007)

bengalfreak said:


> Yes, and then you asked me how were you supposed to know if a show is great and I went on to tell you that if it receives critical acclaim and has good ratings, probably a really good show. What part of this aren't you getting. You're acting as if somehow I've changed my argument and I haven't. I was always speaking of shows that have been around a while as the OP was asking about.


It's just a shame that you can't even follow your own discussions with any kind of comprehension.

I commented that I gave up on The Shield after the first episode, but now I'm willing to give it another try and you responded to that by quoting it and then saying "You always have to give a great show at least two eps." because the discussion was about a first run show and not about catching up sometime later, I asked how is anyone to know if a show is any good.
Perhaps you didn't intend to be discussing that, but because you quoted me on it to make your comment, that is what the discussion was about.

and besides that, as I've already said, you statements on how people should watch tv are just plain ignorant anyway.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

Adam1115 said:


> There are two types of reality shows.
> 
> Type 1-
> Non reality.
> ...


I fail to see what differentiates Type 2 from Type 1, other than perhaps one is "the ones you watch" and the other is "the ones you don't." Both categories include shows that are scripted, often contrived pseudo-reality.


----------



## Adam1115 (Dec 15, 2003)

Type 1 is totally fake staged crap. Type 2 actually has some reality, with maybe some fake crap to make it more interesting.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

Adam1115 said:


> Type 1 is totally fake staged crap. Type 2 actually has some reality, with maybe some fake crap to make it more interesting.


I question that with at least "Pawn Stars." What I've heard indicates that the items shown on the show are placed there by producers, the stars are only in the store these days to film the show, and the store serving as a gift shop for the show more than an actual working pawn shop. Frankly, these days I suspect *any* show that purports to be "reality" being anything but scripted pseudo-reality.


----------



## Edmund (Nov 8, 2002)

Hot4Bo said:


> I really want my brother to start watching Chicago Fire but he missed the first season and for some reason, nbc.com doesn't have the first season, only the second. That seems to be true of almost everywhere unless you pay a ton of money. You'd think nbc would want people to watch season 1.


Amazon Instant video has the first season in HD, 24 episodes, for $19.99. I don't call that a ton of money.


----------



## gweempose (Mar 23, 2003)

Adam1115 said:


> Type 1 is totally fake staged crap. Type 2 actually has some reality, with maybe some fake crap to make it more interesting.


I don't watch the other shows you mentioned, but I don't think it's fair to call Survivor "fake staged crap". The outcome may be manipulated to a degree, but it's still very much a real competition.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

Scanned back through the list, and no one suggested "Falling Skies." 3 10-episode seasons so far, with a fourth to air in Summer. All three seasons are available on Amazon Prime.


----------



## Hot4Bo (Apr 3, 2003)

Edmund said:


> Amazon Instant video has the first season in HD, 24 episodes, for $19.99. I don't call that a ton of money.


Thanks. I still don't see why NBC wouldn't offer it for free for a new-ish show to attract more viewers.


----------



## Adam1115 (Dec 15, 2003)

gweempose said:


> I don't watch the other shows you mentioned, but I don't think it's fair to call Survivor "fake staged crap". The outcome may be manipulated to a degree, but it's still very much a real competition.


A real competition that has nothing to do with 'surviving' in the wilderness.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

Adam1115 said:


> A real competition that has nothing to do with 'surviving' in the wilderness.


Well, no. It's a survivor-themed game show, and I don't think it claims to be anything else.


----------



## bengalfreak (Oct 20, 2002)

scandia101 said:


> It's just a shame that you can't even follow your own discussions with any kind of comprehension.
> 
> I commented that I gave up on The Shield after the first episode, but now I'm willing to give it another try and you responded to that by quoting it and then saying "You always have to give a great show at least two eps." because the discussion was about a first run show and not about catching up sometime later, I asked how is anyone to know if a show is any good.
> Perhaps you didn't intend to be discussing that, but because you quoted me on it to make your comment, that is what the discussion was about.
> ...


You left out the part, in the same message, where you were talking about binging on SoA. It doesn't say anything about you watching The Shield during its initial airing. I assumed, perhaps ignorantly, that you were watching some time after its inital airing, when it had already achieved ratings and critical acclaim. That's why I made the comment about giving a great show multiple episodes. I often find that I don't enjoy the first episode of shows that I grow very fond of. Ray Donovan is a real recent example. But, because it got such good word of mouth, I gave it another episode and really liked it.

I'm sorry you can't follow the logic. I'm even more sorry that you feel the need to call my remarks ignorant. But least ignorant can be fixed. Stupidity is a much bigger problem.


----------



## bengalfreak (Oct 20, 2002)

Hot4Bo said:


> Thanks. I still don't see why NBC wouldn't offer it for free for a new-ish show to attract more viewers.


It seems to be a trend that the networks are doing this. I can't remember what show it was recently that I looked up, but the most current three episodes were all that were available free online. I guess they want to make money on people catching up which doesn't make a whole lot of sense since it would seem to hurt the future ratings of the show.


----------



## scandia101 (Oct 20, 2007)

bengalfreak said:


> You left out the part, in the same message, where you were talking about binging on SoA. It doesn't say anything about you watching The Shield during its initial airing. *I assumed*, perhaps ignorantly, that you were watching some time after its inital airing, when it had already achieved ratings and critical acclaim. That's why I made the comment about giving a great show multiple episodes. I often find that I don't enjoy the first episode of shows that I grow very fond of. Ray Donovan is a real recent example. But, because it got such good word of mouth, I gave it another episode and really liked it.
> 
> I'm sorry you can't follow the logic. I'm even more sorry that you feel the need to call my remarks ignorant. But least ignorant can be fixed. Stupidity is a much bigger problem.


Wow, more comprehension limitations.
Here's that post in its entirety.


scandia101 said:


> I Have been binging on SoA and can't get enough of it. I never thought the show would interest me, but after so many years of hearing how good it is, I had to give it a try when I found it available on Amazon Instant Prime. Now I can't get enough, I watched 9 episodes yesterday.
> 
> The Shield is next, but that's different. I watched the first episode and didn't like it, but I'm willing to give it another look.


I said I passed over SoA in its initial airing w/o watching any of it and said that I had given The Shield one episode before I gave up on it. Other people commented and seemed to understand that I was talking about the initial run of both shows. I don't get how it could be understood any differently, yet as you stated, you *assumed* differently. You passed over the logical explanation to create one that suited your need to tell people how they are supposed to decide which tv shows to watch. 
Who are you to say how people should decide what to watch on TV?

You're sorry that I can' follow the logic??? What logic? You already admitted you made a wrong assumption that nobody else made. In order for me to follow your "logic" I would have to have assumed that you were an idiot that didn't understand my comment. Why would I do that?

As for your last statement, the one where you call me stupid even though you just admitted that you didn't understand a post that everyone else had no problem comprehending, well that's just funny ...in a desperate sort of way.


----------



## scandia101 (Oct 20, 2007)

bengalfreak said:


> Yes, and then you asked me how were you supposed to know if a show is great and I went on to tell you that if it receives critical acclaim and has good ratings, probably a really good show. What part of this aren't you getting. You're acting as if somehow I've changed my argument and I haven't. I was always speaking of shows that have been around a while as the OP was asking about.


I've commented on this post once already but
This is where I didn't assume that you were an idiot that didn't comprehend what I said about The Shield. If I was talking about when I watched the first episode when it first aired (and I was) and assumed you understood that (because everyone else did) why would I not think that you were also talking about first run programs, especially considering that you quoted my statement about how I passed on each show when they first ran?

Yes, I was acting as if you'd changed your argument. When your initial statement is "always have to" and later you change that to "probably a good idea to" it's a significant change in your argument.


----------



## bengalfreak (Oct 20, 2002)

scandia101 said:


> Wow, more comprehension limitations.
> Here's that post in its entirety.
> 
> I said I passed over SoA in its initial airing w/o watching any of it and said that I had given The Shield one episode before I gave up on it. Other people commented and seemed to understand that I was talking about the initial run of both shows. I don't get how it could be understood any differently, yet as you stated, you *assumed* differently.


I don't understand why you took my statement of


> You always have to give a great show at least two eps. I missed out on The Wire for years because I hated the first episode. And its the Greatest of All Time.


 to be so nasty with the first thing out of your mouth being "that doesn't even make sense to do. And go on in the next two sentences to express how lame you thought my opinion was. I thought it was obvious that I was talking about a re-airing.

Since this tit for tat has really gotten to asinine proportions let me re-phrase for everyone who wasn't somehow offended by my original statement.

For shows, that have a great track record in both ratings and reviews, I FEEL one should give it more than one episode before one makes a decision on whether to keep watching it. This is my last word on the subject, although I'm sure you will have more to say as every response from you has gotten more and more unpleasant. So go ahead and have the last word. You've earned it.


----------



## scandia101 (Oct 20, 2007)

bengalfreak said:


> I don't understand why you took my statement of to be so nasty with the first thing out of your mouth being "that doesn't even make sense to do. And go on in the next two sentences to express how lame you thought my opinion was. I thought it was obvious that I was talking about a re-airing.


"You always have to give a great show at least two eps." doesn't make sense in the context of first run shows which is what I was talking about and you and only you didn't understand. At the time a wrongly assumed that you understood what I said in simple plain english. And I've already explained that telling people how they always have to decide what to watch using your standard is just ignorant. People can decide what to watch any way they want even when they are trying out a critically acclaimed show that is now available in it's entirety on netflix.



> Since this tit for tat has really gotten to asinine proportions let me re-phrase for everyone who wasn't somehow offended by my original statement.
> 
> For shows, that have a great track record in both ratings and reviews, I FEEL one should give it more than one episode before one makes a decision on whether to keep watching it. This is my last word on the subject, although I'm sure you will have more to say as every response from you has gotten more and more unpleasant. So go ahead and have the last word. You've earned it.


And now "You always have to" has become "I FEEL one should"
I can hardly wait to see what's next.


----------



## JLucPicard (Jul 8, 2004)

You know, you two could take this discourse to PM and let the thread get back to what it was originally intended for. I keep checking in to see what shows are being recommended only to find you two still hashing out your differences. I don't think we all need to be privy to that.


----------



## Howie (May 3, 2004)

Come on now boys. I'm going to give you a timeout if you keep this up.


----------



## markymark_ctown (Oct 11, 2004)

Kids, go to your corners and don't come out until you can be the kindergarteners we know you can be.


----------



## scandia101 (Oct 20, 2007)

Interesting that the "tough guys" wait until it's over before they come to restore order.
Good job! Don't hurt yourself patting your own backs.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

bengalfreak said:


> What I said was, that is if a show is both critically acclaimed and got high ratings, its probably a good idea to give it more than an episode to grab you. Sure there are great shows that had poor ratings and excellent reviews. And there are great shows that had fantastic ratings and bad reviews. My point is that if it had both, chances are, there is really something to it. Could a show be both critically acclaimed and highly watched, and I still hate it. Yep, Mad Men is an example. Do I think its a good idea to give those kinds of shows more than an episode before I dump it. Yep, from my experience, its much more hit than miss that way. I think its very hard to argue with that logic.


But how long before you cut bait? That's my issue. I only have so many hours in a week to watch TV and lots of other stuff I like to watch. This weekend with my DVR list consisting of all movies, I took a look at OD and Netflix, and you know, there was a TON of shows for me to consider. So for me, if I don't like a show pretty quickly, I move on to the next one. It's up to the show to grab me and not have to spend HOURS getting into a show before it gets any good. I'm not saying give up on the pilot, but should I have spent 1 1/2 seasons on a show that I really never thought I would like, but because of critical acclaim I should still be watching? I could have spent that time either trying out shows more inline with my taste or some other critically acclaimed show. I'm sorry, but with so many options out there, it's up to the show's writers to figure out a way to hook me pretty quick. I have 60 some odd shows on my SP list, so my DVR fills up with shows I want to watch fairly quickly. I tend to watch fairly close to airdate, mostly because I discuss here, and with friends and family. And because that's an old habit that died hard.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

scandia101 said:


> It's just a shame that you can't even follow your own discussions with any kind of comprehension.
> 
> I commented that I gave up on The Shield after the first episode, but now I'm willing to give it another try and you responded to that by quoting it and then saying "You always have to give a great show at least two eps." because the discussion was about a first run show and not about catching up sometime later, I asked how is anyone to know if a show is any good.
> Perhaps you didn't intend to be discussing that, but because you quoted me on it to make your comment, that is what the discussion was about.
> ...


Totally agree. And one person's "good" is another person's "crap". We all have shows, that we know pretty quickly we won't like. Maybe we give them an episode or two based on word of mouth or critical acclaim or ratings, but usually realize that it isn't for me. And some I don't even bother, despite what everyone says, because there's no way I'd even be interested. American Idol, for example (obviously not exactly high brow TV), gets HUGE ratings, but I have no interest and I've never seen more than a few minutes of any episode and those were at someone else's house. I don't care that it gets great ratings, it's not something I'd be interested in. Girls gets nice ratings for HBO and it a critical darling. I watch about 3 or 4 episodes of that and I realized that one was really enough. I'm not the core audience and I found that it doesn't speak to me or my generation, and the characters were such total dbags that I didn't want to spend any time with them.

It's not that I don't give some of these shows a chance, it's that for me, I'm not going to spend a lot of time on them if I don't think I'll like them. I think two episodes is fair on something you think you might like. Grab me in two, or I'm not going to bother.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Adam1115 said:


> Type 1 is totally fake staged crap. Type 2 actually has some reality, with maybe some fake crap to make it more interesting.


To me there are two types:

1) Games and contests - I watch some of these, Big Brother, Survivor, The Amazing Race, but others that are either romantic (The Bachelor) or talent contests (AI, The Voice don't interest me).

2) Documentary style - Those are about individuals in a certain line of work or hobby or location that seem like reality. I have no interest in those. I WILL watch serious documentaries about history or news or sometimes science, but these pretend documentaries are as you say, mostly staged.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Hot4Bo said:


> Thanks. I still don't see why NBC wouldn't offer it for free for a new-ish show to attract more viewers.


Pretty obvious....they must make a ton of money selling DVDs and streaming. Enough to offset any new viewers they might attract.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Edmund said:


> Amazon Instant video has the first season in HD, 24 episodes, for $19.99. I don't call that a ton of money.


I've given up trying to figure out what "a lot of money" is to people. I've seen people spend a couple of 100s of dollars here on the thread on a whim and think it's nothing and others who every dollar counts. To me, spending $20 on a show you've never seen and MAY like seems like it could be wasted money. Other options though are a local library or even taking subbing for Hulu Plus free trial to see if you like something.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

bengalfreak said:


> I don't understand why you took my statement of to be so nasty with the first thing out of your mouth being "that doesn't even make sense to do. And go on in the next two sentences to express how lame you thought my opinion was. I thought it was obvious that I was talking about a re-airing.
> 
> Since this tit for tat has really gotten to asinine proportions let me re-phrase for everyone who wasn't somehow offended by my original statement.
> 
> *For shows, that have a great track record in both ratings and reviews, I FEEL one should give it more than one episode before one makes a decision on whether to keep watching it. *This is my last word on the subject, although I'm sure you will have more to say as every response from you has gotten more and more unpleasant. So go ahead and have the last word. You've earned it.


Wouldn't it have been better to say, *I'd* give it more than one episode before deciding? That's how you do it. Other's don't. There's no best practice in watching TV, don't you think?


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

For the OP. Have you figured out what you are going to give a chance yet? Many fine choices suggested in the thread, despite our differences in how much time you should give a show and so forth. Decide on what sounds good to you and give it a go. Since you know your own tastes, I'm sure you could find something.

I don't recall if it was mentioned (too lazy go go back), but if you're into a sorta Sci-Fi mystery type show, try Orphan Black.


----------



## Edmund (Nov 8, 2002)

Steveknj said:


> I've given up trying to figure out what "a lot of money" is to people. I've seen people spend a couple of 100s of dollars here on the thread on a whim and think it's nothing and others who every dollar counts. To me, spending $20 on a show you've never seen and MAY like seems like it could be wasted money. Other options though are a local library or even taking subbing for Hulu Plus free trial to see if you like something.


When the going rate for a HD episode is $2.99, with 24 episodes that's $71.76. $20 seems like bargain to me.

And the first season was available on Hulu +, that's where I saw it. But not any more.


----------



## Adam1115 (Dec 15, 2003)

Steveknj said:


> For the OP. Have you figured out what you are going to give a chance yet? Many fine choices suggested in the thread, despite our differences in how much time you should give a show and so forth. Decide on what sounds good to you and give it a go. Since you know your own tastes, I'm sure you could find something.
> 
> I don't recall if it was mentioned (too lazy go go back), but if you're into a sorta Sci-Fi mystery type show, try Orphan Black.


Watched a few episodes of Fringe, that show is a bit ridiculous.

Watched two episodes of the wire, don't like it.

Watched deadwood, don't like it.

Watched the shield and like it quite a bit.


----------



## NoCalME (Aug 11, 2005)

All 12 seasons of 'NYPD Blue' are available for streaming on Amazon Prime. I didn't care for 'The Shield' but really liked 'Blue' when it originally aired on ABC.


----------



## waynomo (Nov 9, 2002)

Steveknj said:


> I don't recall if it was mentioned (too lazy go go back), but if you're into a sorta Sci-Fi mystery type show, try Orphan Black.


My son just recommended Orphan Black to me. I didn't see it readily available anywhere. I set up a wish list for it. I'm assuming that BBC America will rerun the first session before they start airing the second season in a couple of months.


----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

Adam1115 said:


> There are two types of reality shows.
> 
> Type 1-
> Non reality.
> ...


Every one of the shows listed is staged or scripted to some degree. Any "competition" show keeps whatever contestants are getting the biggest ratings or positive viewer feedback. The cast of Survivor are probably instructed who to vote for at each tribal gathering.

I used to watch Ice Road Truckers until it was basically the same show every week. There is so much repetitive filler injected in each episode it became redundant. Pawn Stars can be interesting and not as heavily scripted as other reality shows. It's almost more of a trivia/history lesson than a reality show since they delve into the background of anything interesting that comes through the door. I haven't seen some of the shows in the list, but I suspect they're just more of the same.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

mr.unnatural said:


> Every one of the shows listed is staged or scripted to some degree. Any "competition" show keeps whatever contestants are getting the biggest ratings or positive viewer feedback. The cast of Survivor are probably instructed who to vote for at each tribal gathering.


Is this an assumption on your part or do you have anything to back that up? From a reputable site? While there's definitely some manipulation if you listen to Jeff's questions, there's no coercion that I'm aware of on any of those types of shows. If there were, and that came out, that would be the end of them. And considering how long they have been on the air and it hasn't come out yet, I highly doubt that's the case.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

mr.unnatural said:


> Pawn Stars can be interesting and not as heavily scripted as other reality shows. It's almost more of a trivia/history lesson than a reality show since they delve into the background of anything interesting that comes through the door.


Again, you are deluding yourself if you think Pawn Stars is remotely real. The scenes shown on TV are completely fabricated for the cameras. The items involved in the transactions are placed there by the producers purely for their historical story-telling aspect. The store exists, but has been more or less transformed into a gift shop for show merchandise. The only time the show stars are actually there to do "business" is when the shop closes (which it does, despite the "24 Hours" sign on the building) for the show filming. They have to close, after all, since the store is packed with tourists the rest of the time.

I'm not knocking the show, it's an interesting way to present stories about historical items. It, however, is not "real."


----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

I have no doubt that the storylines are based on actual events that may have occurred to the various characters at some point. I just don't believe that they're occurring in real time while the cameras happen to be rolling. I suspect that they are recreated for benefit of the show.

I've never bought that any competition type of reality show wasn't rigged. While I haven't actually looked into it (never thought it was important enough to waste the time), I had read somewhere that the networks already know who's going to win beforehand. I believe there might actually be websites devoted to these things. I think there may also be interactive websites where the audiences vote for their favorite characters.

Yes, I am making assumptions so take it for what it's worth. Do you really believe that the networks would retain any contestants that would not generate higher ratings? That would be like keeping the crappy singers on American Idol.


----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

LoadStar said:


> Again, you are deluding yourself if you think Pawn Stars is remotely real. The scenes shown on TV are completely fabricated for the cameras. The items involved in the transactions are placed there by the producers purely for their historical story-telling aspect. The store exists, but has been more or less transformed into a gift shop for show merchandise. The only time the show stars are actually there to do "business" is when the shop closes (which it does, despite the "24 Hours" sign on the building) for the show filming. They have to close, after all, since the store is packed with tourists the rest of the time.
> 
> I'm not knocking the show, it's an interesting way to present stories about historical items. It, however, is not "real."


News Flash - 99% of everything you see on TV isn't real. Of course Pawn Stars is not real. However, the items presented are real, whether staged or not. Who's to say whether or not the items are actually brought in by outsiders or by the show's producers. They probably screen all items brought into the store during normal hours and then pick and choose which ones to highlight on the show. It's set up to be entertaining and possibly informative and hits the mark on both counts. It's sort of like The Antiques Roadshow on PBS.


----------



## gweempose (Mar 23, 2003)

Adam1115 said:


> Watched a few episodes of Fringe, that show is a bit ridiculous.


It's very possible that Fringe may simply not be your cup of tea, but I will say that it takes a while for the more complex story arcs to develop. The show ended up being very different than the way it started.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

mr.unnatural said:


> I have no doubt that the storylines are based on actual events that may have occurred to the various characters at some point. I just don't believe that they're occurring in real time while the cameras happen to be rolling. I suspect that they are recreated for benefit of the show.
> 
> *I've never bought that any competition type of reality show wasn't rigged. While I haven't actually looked into it (never thought it was important enough to waste the time), I had read somewhere that the networks already know who's going to win beforehand. I believe there might actually be websites devoted to these things. I think there may also be interactive websites where the audiences vote for their favorite characters.*
> 
> Yes, I am making assumptions so take it for what it's worth. Do you really believe that the networks would retain any contestants that would not generate higher ratings? That would be like keeping the crappy singers on American Idol.


None of this has ever been proven by any reputable site. It falls in the category of any number of conspiracy theories you want to choose. Do the producers/networks pick contestants they think will be entertaining? Of course, before the show. But I haven't read from any reputable site that there's any collusion by anyone to rig these games. So unless this comes out from a reputable source, I'll stick with the game being mostly clean (I do think that sometimes certain challenges are picked where some contestant might have an advantage, but it's still up to that contestant to actually win the challenge.)

Show me one reputable website that reports the shows are rigged. By reputable, I mean from a major news or entertainment organization, not from showsarerigged.com or some such.


----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

Steveknj said:


> None of this has ever been proven by any reputable site. It falls in the category of any number of conspiracy theories you want to choose. Do the producers/networks pick contestants they think will be entertaining? Of course, before the show. But I haven't read from any reputable site that there's any collusion by anyone to rig these games. So unless this comes out from a reputable source, I'll stick with the game being mostly clean (I do think that sometimes certain challenges are picked where some contestant might have an advantage, but it's still up to that contestant to actually win the challenge.)


If you really believe that then I've got some prime swamp land for sale in Florida. 



> Show me one reputable website that reports the shows are rigged. By reputable, I mean from a major news or entertainment organization, not from showsarerigged.com or some such.


OK 

http://realitytv.about.com/od/realitytvnewsgossip/a/Reality-Show-Rigging.htm

http://www.uproxx.com/tv/2013/08/a-...loyee-claims-that-the-reality-show-is-rigged/

http://www.today.com/id/36601251#.UsL9WrQbB6I

http://www.tvguide.com/news/reality-tv-shows-that-are-fake-1058683.aspx

http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-secrets-making-reality-tv-they-dont-want-you-to-know/

http://www.wicproject.com/everything-else/7-disappointing-reality-show-secrets/

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/03/a...-you-guess-the-fakes.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Do the NY Times, The Today Show, and TV Guide websites work for you? These were just on the first page of a google search, with a considerable number in addition to these.

Reality TV ain't real, folks. Deal with it.  They're all designed to entertaining in a way that will get them high ratings and nothing more. Anything that ends up being close to reality is purely a coincidence. Next thing you know you'll be trying to convince us that Professional Wrestling is an actual sport and is also real.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

mr.unnatural said:


> If you really believe that then I've got some prime swamp land for sale in Florida.
> 
> OK
> 
> ...


Funny, not one of those listed Survivor which is what you alleged was rigged. The closest one, Big Brother, turned out to be completely wrong, as the so called "CBS Insider" said Amanda Zuckerman was going to win, and she didn't. Supposedly that was "predetermined" The ones we've already talked about not being real, is already common knowledge. I don't watch Idol or any of those so I can't speak to those. You've given me nothing about the "Survival" type shows being rigged.


----------



## CraigK (Jun 9, 2006)

waynomo said:


> My son just recommended Orphan Black to me. I didn't see it readily available anywhere. I set up a wish list for it. I'm assuming that BBC America will rerun the first session before they start airing the second season in a couple of months.


I removed some Orphan Black episodes that just showed up on my To Do list for January 12th. Looks like it might be a marathon of the first season.

The third season of Luther is on earlier in the day.


----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

I didn't spot anything about Survivor in the first two pages of my google search results, which is why nothing was linked. Upon further investigation, it appears that Survivor is, in fact, real, but many of the scenes are reenacted for the camera. The contestants are dogged day and night by camera crews, but many things get missed the first time around. As for the voting, it appears to be done by the contestants themselves, but the order in which the votes are presented are done for greatest impact.

I had read something a few years ago about Survivor being staged as well as hearing a few things about it on radio talk shows. I don't follow the show so anything I mentioned was pure conjecture on my part. However, I still stand by most of my comments about other "reality" shows in general.

In the grand scheme of things, none of this is important unless you think it is. The reality is, I don't give a crap one way or the other.


----------



## gweempose (Mar 23, 2003)

CraigK said:


> I removed some Orphan Black episodes that just showed up on my To Do list for January 12th. Looks like it might be a marathon of the first season.


What channel were they on? My TiVo doesn't show any upcoming episodes?


----------



## CraigK (Jun 9, 2006)

gweempose said:


> What channel were they on? My TiVo doesn't show any upcoming episodes?


Sorry, BBC America. Just the first two episodes popped up so it's on the very end of the To Do list window. Your TiVo guide data probably doesn't go that far yet. Next update will probably do it.


----------



## waynomo (Nov 9, 2002)

CraigK said:


> Sorry, BBC America. Just the first two episodes popped up so it's on the very end of the To Do list window. Your TiVo guide data probably doesn't go that far yet. Next update will probably do it.


So I check my Wish List for Orphan Black. No episodes show up.

I then go to channel info under setting up a recording. It does list Orphan Black on 1/12. I create a season pass for it. It creates it, but shows no shows recording. I go back to the channel listing and select view up coming shows and it lists no shows even though it does show up under BBC America.

Anyway I check to see when my TiVo made its last connection and it was a bit after 1 PM so I suspect it is still compiling the new data or whatever it does.

I'm sure it will be right tomorrow.

Anyway, thanks for the heads up!


----------



## gweempose (Mar 23, 2003)

CraigK said:


> Sorry, BBC America. Just the first two episodes popped up so it's on the very end of the To Do list window. Your TiVo guide data probably doesn't go that far yet. Next update will probably do it.


I just connected to the mothership, and the guide does now show the first two episodes. Just set up a Season Pass. Thanks for the heads-up!
By the way, how exactly does the search function work? I'm assuming the results must be based on popularity. I was shocked when Orphan Black came up after only typing in the letter "O".


----------



## Zevida (Nov 8, 2003)

In my view the two types of reality shows are competition and non-competition. 

The competition shows (Survivor, Big Brother, American Idol) are filmed and manipulated and edited for maximum entertainment value, but aren't "fixed" so that their outcome is known in advance. 

The non-completion shows (Pawn Stars, Real Housewives, Swamp People) are staged and scripted almost as much as a fiction show. Some more than others. These are not documentaries or news stories. They are fixed.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

Zevida said:


> In my view the two types of reality shows are competition and non-competition.
> 
> The competition shows (Survivor, Big Brother, American Idol) are filmed and manipulated and edited for maximum entertainment value, but aren't "fixed" so that their outcome is known in advance.
> 
> The non-completion shows (Pawn Stars, Real Housewives, Swamp People) are staged and scripted almost as much as a fiction show. Some more than others. These are not documentaries or news stories. They are fixed.


I concur with this, although on both I'd add that they very likely cast for "big personalities," and in some cases, very *specific* personalities that they know are more than likely to produce the results they're looking for.


----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

Zevida said:


> In my view the two types of reality shows are competition and non-competition.
> 
> The competition shows (Survivor, Big Brother, American Idol) are filmed and manipulated and edited for maximum entertainment value, but aren't "fixed" so that their outcome is known in advance.
> 
> The non-completion shows (Pawn Stars, Real Housewives, Swamp People) are staged and scripted almost as much as a fiction show. Some more than others. These are not documentaries or news stories. They are fixed.


I'd agree, but I'm still suspect about whether some of the competition shows are "fixed" or not. I wouldn't put it past any of the studio execs to try and sway the outcome one way or another. I don't watch any of them so I have no way of knowing.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

mr.unnatural said:


> I'd agree, but I'm still suspect about whether some of the competition shows are "fixed" or not. I wouldn't put it past any of the studio execs to try and sway the outcome one way or another. I don't watch any of them so I have no way of knowing.


Competition shows, reality or not, fall under the category of game shows, and they have to be extremely careful *not* to sway the results, due to federal law. They can edit the show however they feel, as long as the results shown are accurately portrayed.

(Admittedly, whether the "quiz show" laws apply to reality-based competition shows is a matter of some debate. However, the fact that there IS some debate causes the producers of these shows to often assume that they do apply, playing on the side of caution.)


----------



## Zevida (Nov 8, 2003)

mr.unnatural said:


> I'd agree, but I'm still suspect about whether some of the competition shows are "fixed" or not. I wouldn't put it past any of the studio execs to try and sway the outcome one way or another. I don't watch any of them so I have no way of knowing.


Sway, absolutely. But actually decide who wins? I don't think so. The producers don't cast the votes at Tribal Council. But they probably talk to the contestants. And shows like American Idol can certainly heavily influence who America votes for through editing.


----------



## Turtleboy (Mar 24, 2001)

Aren't competitions game shows and isn't it illegal to rig game shows?

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0110932/


----------



## Turtleboy (Mar 24, 2001)

It's interesting how people who don't watch "reality" shows can't distinguish between Survivor and Real Housewives of Atlanta.


----------



## Jstkiddn (Oct 15, 2003)

Zevida said:


> In my view the two types of reality shows are competition and non-competition. The competition shows (Survivor, Big Brother, American Idol) are filmed and manipulated and edited for maximum entertainment value, but aren't "fixed" so that their outcome is known in advance. The non-completion shows (Pawn Stars, Real Housewives, Swamp People) are staged and scripted almost as much as a fiction show. Some more than others. These are not documentaries or news stories. They are fixed.


This exactly. I do think the producers try to sway some things here and there (especially on Big Brother) but at the end of the day, they aren't the ones casting the votes. I also think they may put up certain physical competitions that may be better suited to one contestant over another, but as in any competition anything can happen and the results are never guaranteed.


----------



## waynomo (Nov 9, 2002)

Turtleboy said:


> It's interesting how people who don't watch "reality" shows can't distinguish between Survivor and Real Housewives of Atlanta.


There's a difference???
In reality they don't even exist for me. That's the characteristic that makes them the same for me.


----------



## Adam1115 (Dec 15, 2003)

I shouldn't have said Survivor, that was a mistake. I should've said Big Brother, Real World, 16 & Pregnant, Kardashians, Real Housewives, etc. 

The distinction in my mind is that one set is about fake drama and arguments, the other is about 'something' - rebuilding classic cars, reselling real estate, driving a truck on an ice road, selling stuff in a pawn shop. Yes I know there are a lot of scripted elements to those as well, but there is still a big difference in the content of the show.


----------



## Turtleboy (Mar 24, 2001)

Adam1115 said:


> I shouldn't have said Survivor, that was a mistake. I should've said Big Brother, Real World, 16 & Pregnant, Kardashians, Real Housewives, etc.
> 
> The distinction in my mind is that one set is about fake drama and arguments, the other is about 'something' - rebuilding classic cars, reselling real estate, driving a truck on an ice road, selling stuff in a pawn shop. Yes I know there are a lot of scripted elements to those as well, but there is still a big difference in the content of the show.


Big Brother is a competition.


----------



## Zevida (Nov 8, 2003)

Adam1115 said:


> I shouldn't have said Survivor, that was a mistake. I should've said Big Brother, Real World, 16 & Pregnant, Kardashians, Real Housewives, etc.
> 
> The distinction in my mind is that one set is about fake drama and arguments, the other is about 'something' - rebuilding classic cars, reselling real estate, driving a truck on an ice road, selling stuff in a pawn shop. Yes I know there are a lot of scripted elements to those as well, but there is still a big difference in the content of the show.


I think the only distinction in the way you are grouping shows is that some are about topics that interest you and some are about topics that do not interest you.


----------



## waynomo (Nov 9, 2002)

Zevida said:


> I think the only distinction in the way you are grouping shows is that some are about topics that interest you and some are about topics that do not interest you.


So you don't think there is a difference between Pawn Stars and Survivor?


----------



## Zevida (Nov 8, 2003)

waynomo said:


> So you don't think there is a difference between Pawn Stars and Survivor?


 Of course I do:



Zevida said:


> In my view the two types of reality shows are competition and non-competition.
> 
> The competition shows (*Survivor*, Big Brother, American Idol) are filmed and manipulated and edited for maximum entertainment value, but aren't "fixed" so that their outcome is known in advance.
> 
> The non-completion shows (*Pawn Stars*, Real Housewives, Swamp People) are staged and scripted almost as much as a fiction show. Some more than others. These are not documentaries or news stories. They are fixed.


What I was commenting on is that Adam is attempting to divide the non-compeition shows into "real" topics (Pawn Stars) and "not-real" topics (Housewives) and my assertion is the only difference between those is that he is interested in one and not the other. I think they are equally as scripted and fake.


----------



## Adam1115 (Dec 15, 2003)

Zevida said:


> I think the only distinction in the way you are grouping shows is that some are about topics that interest you and some are about topics that do not interest you.


No. While Pawn Stars might have some elements that are scripted, it's a real pawn shop and the show is about that pawn shop.

Big Brother is a show about nothing except trapping a bunch of people in a house to see what they do. Real Housewives is about a bunch of rich snobby *****es who like to talk **** about each other.

I'm setting a minimum expectation that reality shows I am interested in be about SOMETHING real. The other group is just about fake drama.


----------



## Turtleboy (Mar 24, 2001)

But one is a competition, in which there are rules and one is not a competition.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Zevida said:


> In my view the two types of reality shows are competition and non-competition.
> 
> The competition shows (Survivor, Big Brother, American Idol) are filmed and manipulated and edited for maximum entertainment value, but aren't "fixed" so that their outcome is known in advance.
> 
> The non-completion shows (Pawn Stars, Real Housewives, Swamp People) are staged and scripted almost as much as a fiction show. Some more than others. These are not documentaries or news stories. They are fixed.


Well said. And, like so many other conspiracy theories there's always going to be someone saying it's fixed, and some website will pick up on it.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Adam1115 said:


> No. While Pawn Stars might have some elements that are scripted, it's a real pawn shop and the show is about that pawn shop.
> 
> Big Brother is a show about nothing except trapping a bunch of people in a house to see what they do. Real Housewives is about a bunch of rich snobby *****es who like to talk **** about each other.
> 
> I'm setting a minimum expectation that reality shows I am interested in be about SOMETHING real. The other group is just about fake drama.


If you want "real" you're better off watching documentaries instead of "reality" shows. I have totally different expectations of either. I don't watch any of those "story" reality shows, where there's supposed real people doing their real jobs, living in their real neighborhoods or whatever. Those just don't interest me. I don't find them interesting, I know that they are performing for the camera, and I couldn't care less about them. That's different than a competition show. Sure Big Brother and that ilk have a lot of the same elements that the "story" shows have, and the players are manipulated sometimes into confrontation, but there'a s rooting interest there, and a winner at the end. Do you root for a Pawn Star to sell something? Or a Real Housewife to be the biggest b**ch?


----------



## waynomo (Nov 9, 2002)

And if you want documentaries Independent Lens on PBS is a great source. 
Set up a season pass for it and just watch/record the ones you're interested in.


----------



## Adam1115 (Dec 15, 2003)

Turtleboy said:


> But one is a competition, in which there are rules and one is not a competition.


Ok you're right. Big Brother is a competition to see who can put up with listening to Courtney Stodden talk the longest. 

It's still trying to attract viewers who like to watch drama vs. a show about something. I get that most of them have some sort of fake drama to spice things up, making less of a distinction between the two.



Steveknj said:


> If you want "real" you're better off watching documentaries instead of "reality" shows. I have totally different expectations of either.


I do! My favorite channel is the Smithsonian channel. BTW, documentaries are scripted. Sometimes even exaggerated. 



Steveknj said:


> Do you root for a Pawn Star to sell something? Or a Real Housewife to be the biggest b**ch?


No I just like to watch cool old stuff and how much it sells for. I also like to watch cool classic cars doing burnouts. That's it.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

waynomo said:


> And if you want documentaries Independent Lens on PBS is a great source.
> Set up a season pass for it and just watch/record the ones you're interested in.


I love American Experience. Sometimes American Masters. More real than any reality show


----------



## daveak (Mar 23, 2009)

Reality TV. Where the cameras are recording as many as 6-7 days a week and for usually most of the day - and you only see an hour or two of the recorded material they want you to see. So you will believe the story they want to tell - the storyline they believe will give them the best ratings. Cynical, a little. I am sure there are some directors and producers that want to tell the real story, but money (and ratings) are sure to be a corrupting influence. And money and ratings will keep you employed and the money flowing. 

The true story? If it is a good one that means money and ratings... It would be fun to see a reality show during filming and production and then see it on TV, even if I had to sign a NDA. I really would love to see the process.


----------



## Adam1115 (Dec 15, 2003)

Sons of Anarchy- :down:
The Wire- :down:
Better of Ted- It's ok, not THAT funny...
Farscape- Woa. Weird. I might watch a couple more.
The Shield- :up: But wife hates this show. I love it.
Sons of Anarchy- :down:
Justified- :down:
Fringe- :down:
House of Cards on Netflix- :up: We both love this!

I'm surprised nobody mentioned True Detective, but I didn't like it...


----------



## waynomo (Nov 9, 2002)

I'm surprised there aren't more vote for Game of Thrones. I haven't watched an episode, but surprisingly my wife said she was interested so I started recording yesterday. They are running 3 episodes a night till I guess the runup to season 4.

I did see a couple of mentions of Orphan Black. My son recommended this to me. They just started rebroadcasting season 1 getting ready for season 2. I haven't seen any, but I'm actually pretty excited about watching this for some reason. Also my son has never led me wrong with a TV recommendation with the exception of Squidbillies.


----------



## TonyTheTiger (Dec 22, 2006)

Adam1115 said:


> *Sons of Anarchy*- :down:
> The Wire- :down:
> Better of Ted- It's ok, not THAT funny...
> Farscape- Woa. Weird. I might watch a couple more.
> ...


I guess you didn't like Sons twice!!!!

Oh, and your choices show a distinct lack of taste!


----------



## markymark_ctown (Oct 11, 2004)

Started watching season 1 "The Americans" a couple of weeks ago. We're hooked and now caught up in season 2. Great TV...


----------



## Zevida (Nov 8, 2003)

Adam1115 said:


> Justified- :down:


Curious how many episodes you gave each show before deciding on them. Justified definitely gets better, especially towards the end of season 1 and is dynamite in season 2. (But then I loved it from the start.)



Adam1115 said:


> I'm surprised nobody mentioned True Detective, but I didn't like it...


It hadn't started airing before the last post prior to this one.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Zevida said:


> Curious how many episodes you gave each show before deciding on them. Justified definitely gets better, especially towards the end of season 1 and is dynamite in season 2. (But then I loved it from the start.)


What's the norm that you should give a show you don't like before giving up on it? I go no more than 5, and usually less. I gave Justified 3 before I decided it's not for me.



> It hadn't started airing before the last post prior to this one.


Then I'll add it:

True Detective :up:

I would also change Fringe to a :up: - but I think you have to like that sort of show going in.


----------



## waynomo (Nov 9, 2002)

Steveknj said:


> What's the norm that you should give a show you don't like before giving up on it? I go no more than 5, and usually less. I gave Justified 3 before I decided it's not for me.


Some shows I won't even finish watching the pilot.


----------



## DUDE_NJX (Feb 12, 2003)

Fringe started off interesting, but after a few decent episodes it became ridiculous.


Recommendations:

Game of Thrones (duh)
The Borgias
Episodes


----------



## Zevida (Nov 8, 2003)

Steveknj said:


> What's the norm that you should give a show you don't like before giving up on it? I go no more than 5, and usually less. I gave Justified 3 before I decided it's not for me.


For me really depends on the type of show. I am usually a pretty good judge of if I'll like something or not, so I don't typically end up trying stuff I don't like. But I've given up on shows 20 mins into the pilot and halfway through the third season.


----------



## Crow159 (Jul 28, 2004)

Crow159 said:


> Some of our favorites that haven't been mentioned:
> 
> Shameless - Showtime version (it's really good. William H Macy is great in it.)
> Hell on Wheels (we really like it.)
> ...


To add a few more to my list from the first time (Glad you liked House of Cards ):

Banshee - Cinemax original show, just finished up with season 2. Good action
Strike Back - also on Cinemax, we think it's like 24 with cussing and sex scenes. 
The Killing - on AMC, Wife liked this one. I think another season is being made for Netflix.
The Walking Dead - On AMC, if you like Zombie movies.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Zevida said:


> For me really depends on the type of show. I am usually a pretty good judge of if I'll like something or not, so I don't typically end up trying stuff I don't like. But I've given up on shows 20 mins into the pilot and halfway through the third season.


For me, if I'm into the third season there has to be SOMETHING I liked about the show at one time or another. Take Revolution. I really liked the first season, especially the first half. But when it took it's hiatus and came back, it seemed to have lost something. Still I stuck with it because I really liked what I had seen. I watched this season, about 5-6 episodes and I was really bored with it, and then they did the unthinkable with one of the big baddies and I swore I would stop watching if they did that (I don't want to spoil what happened). It had gotten so ridiculous that I couldn't watch anymore. But I stuck with it for as long as I did, because I liked something.

Then there's another popular show which I was told that was the best on TV. I watched a full season, and still didn't like it. I watched half the second season and STILL didn't like it. But was told...oh, it gets better the second season, or the third season. How long do you watch something you clearly don't like because it might "get better?"

My TV schedule is so crowded these days that I am less likely to give something a shot longer than 2-3 episodes. I find myself struggling to stay caught up, and, sure I could binge watch, but when? Summer? Well summer is for baseball and catching up on MOVIES I've saved up all year that I didn't have time to watch  I might pick ONE series to squeeze in there. Last summer it was Mad Men. This summer it's going to be The Blacklist and maybe Dexter (I'm at the beginning of S3).


----------



## Zevida (Nov 8, 2003)

Steveknj said:


> For me, if I'm into the third season there has to be SOMETHING I liked about the show at one time or another.


Oh, yeah, totally. I watch as long as I enjoy it and then I stop.


----------



## Adam1115 (Dec 15, 2003)

DUDE_NJX said:


> Fringe started off interesting, but after a few decent episodes it became ridiculous.


Exactly this! I liked the first few episodes, then it just became unbearable because it was so over the top.


----------



## waynomo (Nov 9, 2002)

This may help you find shows to watch. I just started another thread about it. It's called Graph TV.

http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?t=515946


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Adam1115 said:


> Exactly this! I liked the first few episodes, then it just became unbearable because it was so over the top.


I thought the middle of the series was a little "out there" but I thought the last season was great.


----------



## Adam1115 (Dec 15, 2003)

I like the Shield but I don't know how much longer I can deal with the camera moving all over the place like a home movie. Why do they do that?


----------



## goblue97 (May 12, 2005)

Has anyone mentioned Brotherhood yet?


----------



## wprager (Feb 19, 2006)

The Blacklist has really grown on me. Started watching it just because I enjoy Spader's "acting" (so sue me). It's really developed into a very dark show (not necessarily my thing, but it made it better).

Agents of SHIELD was another one that started (for me -- haven't read the comics) a bit off but I'm really enjoying it now.

Grimm -- liked it from the start.

Fringe -- surprised at the comments in here; I thought it was a bit all over the map in the first season but (other than the animated episode) I loved the rest of it.

Orphan Black was a nice surprise; eagerly anticipating S2 in about a week's time.

Continuum, if you like sci-fi is not bad at all. Somehow I completely missed S2. Recording S3 now and will try to get S2 on US Netflix (need to find a free DNS solution that will work now that tunlr.net is no more).

Suits (don't think it's been mentioned)


----------



## waynomo (Nov 9, 2002)

wprager said:


> Grimm -- liked it from the start.


I seem to go in phases with Grimm. I really enjoyed at first. After a bit I got bored and stopped watching. Fortunately, I used KUID for this SP so I didn't miss any shows while not watching. Went back and watched. I'm glad I did!

I was just starting to get a bit bored with it again, and then the last 2 episodes were really good. I like that it just wasn't about some random beast that killed someone.


----------



## wprager (Feb 19, 2006)

Just rewatched the first two episodes of Sports Night (on YouTube of all places). Don't know how much of the show is available there, or if it's available elsewhere, but worth it if you like Sorkin's writing.


----------



## waynomo (Nov 9, 2002)

Sports Night is one of my favorites. It is currently being broadcast on FXX. 

I just recorded and archived the whole series!


----------



## Adam1115 (Dec 15, 2003)

House of Cards was AWESOME. But we finished it.


----------



## Adam1115 (Dec 15, 2003)

markymark_ctown said:


> Started watching season 1 "The Americans" a couple of weeks ago. We're hooked and now caught up in season 2. Great TV...


:up: Great recommendation! We love this!


----------



## markymark_ctown (Oct 11, 2004)

Yes, this thread is great for finding quality shows you may not know about...


----------



## Adam1115 (Dec 15, 2003)

We gave up the the Americans.

We're hooked on Dexter though!


----------



## SoBelle0 (Jun 25, 2002)

I started Justified week before last. Love this! I'm not sure why I didn't pick up initially. I've watched two whole seasons in just under two weeks.  

The second season I just wanted to watch them one right after the other...


----------

