Comment on [deleted]
empireOfLove2@lemmy.dbzer0.com 10 months ago
Counterpoint:
Good shows remain good because they were cancelled before they got boring.
Boring shows were good shows that got drug out way too long for their own good.
I also like shows that follow a story arc that has a beginning and an end. A show that comes to a natural end. Bam, done, that was great entertainment, moving on.
Instead they try to retain viewers with dumb (and I really mean dumb) cliffhangers, never committing to actually killing a character so they can bring them back if need be etc. …
There are exceptions of course, but not many shows deliver (lasting) quality beyond two seasons.
That’s the main reason I stopped streaming all those new shows. They get canceled with some half-open ending, and it feels like a slap in the face.
Filler-content is somewhat expected when seasons are getting stretched, but without a decent ending I ain’t watching no more.
Or were mediocre to begin with. Thats why they performed good for a wide viewer base that does not care about “good” as long as it entertains enough to be distracting.
That’s just misanthropy though. People have their own idea of good which may not align with yours but nonetheless exists.
I bet I could dunk on your tastes for hours, it wouldn’t mean you “don’t care about good”, just that I enjoy being mean.
bampop@lemmy.world 10 months ago
Lower standards are easier to maintain. If a show appeals to viewers with low expectations, it can retain those viewers for longer. Example: The Big Bang Theory.
Chainweasel@lemmy.world 10 months ago
With shows like The Big bang theory I usually just put them on when I’m cleaning or cooking so I have noise in the background.
It’s not captivating enough to make me sit down and watch it but it’s not off-putting enough that I can’t stand listening to it in the background.
Honestly that’s probably where a non-Insignificant amount of viewer retention comes from in low effort shows.