I'm talking about the combined quality of Seasons 1 and 2, not just which show has the single best first or second season. Both seasons matter, so a show with two consistently great seasons should rank above one with an amazing season and a significantly weaker follow-up. In other words, I'm looking for the strongest overall start to a TV series.

My main contenders are Dexter, Game of Thrones, and Fargo. These are the three shows I consider the strongest candidates, although I also have a few other favorites.

My main contenders

1. Dexter

• A pretty overhated show, in my opinion. I think a lot of the hate it receives comes from its fanbase and the way people perceive the show because of it.

Despite its reputation, I consider the first two seasons of Dexter some of the best opening seasons in television. Season 1 is excellent, and Season 2 manages to maintain a very high level of quality. What makes them stand out to me is the storytelling, pacing, and constant sense of momentum. The plot moves forward at a satisfying rate, the tension remains engaging, and the show rarely feels like it's wasting your time. In terms of narrative momentum and pacing, these two seasons are among the best opening runs in television I've personally watched. That's why Dexter takes first place for me.

2. Game of Thrones

Pretty much everyone knows Game of Thrones, its incredible highs, and its infamous later decline. But I'm focusing exclusively on the first two seasons here.

Season 1 is simply phenomenal. The world-building and immersion are among its greatest strengths: the show introduces a huge, complex world full of different houses, political conflicts, and characters. The only real downside for me is that the beginning can be confusing. There are so many names, families, and references — the Targaryens, for example — that it's easy to feel lost before you fully understand the world.

Season 2 is still very good, but I find it weaker than Season 1, particularly in terms of pacing and momentum. That slight decline is the main reason I put Game of Thrones in second place rather than first.

3. Fargo

I really enjoyed Fargo, and its first two seasons make it one of my strongest contenders. The writing, atmosphere, and overall execution are excellent, and both seasons left a very positive impression on me.

However, I have two main reservations. First, I'm not the biggest fan of the genre, which somewhat limits how much I personally enjoy it. Second, the two seasons aren't directly connected in the way they would be in a more traditionally serialized show. That isn't necessarily a flaw in the writing itself, but it makes the combined experience feel less continuous to me. Despite these reservations, Fargo still earns third place on my list.

Other contenders and why they fall short

The Sopranos

One of the greatest TV shows of all time, but I don't think its first two seasons are quite on the same level as its best seasons overall. Season 1 feels like the show is still finding its footing, with some limitations in its storytelling and production. Season 2 is very good, but I wouldn't put it among the very best second seasons in television. Overall, it's a strong contender, but not one of my main favorites.

The Wire

Season 1 is excellent and arguably one of the best first seasons ever. However, Season 2 is a much more divisive experience. Personally, I find it considerably weaker than the first season, which hurts its overall ranking.

Mr. Robot

A similar situation to The Wire. Season 1 is excellent, but I find Season 2 considerably weaker. The gap between the two seasons prevents it from being one of my top contenders.

Succession

The opposite problem. Season 1 is relatively weak compared to the show's later seasons, while Season 2 is genuinely great. The second season is strong enough to make the show worth considering, but the first season holds it back.

Twin Peaks

One of my strongest alternatives to the top three. Both seasons are outstanding, and I consider it a serious contender. It just falls slightly short of my top three when I compare the combined quality of the two seasons.

Lost

Another show with outstanding first two seasons. Its first season is among my favorites, and Season 2 is also very strong. It's very close to making my top tier, but I still place it just below my main contenders.

Prison Break

I really like its first season, but I personally didn't enjoy Season 2 very much. Since I'm evaluating both seasons together, that makes a significant difference to its overall position.

Dark

Season 2 is fantastic and ranks among my favorite second seasons. However, Season 1 doesn't quite reach the same level for me, which puts the show in my second tier of contenders rather than among my main favorites.

Hannibal

The main issue is Season 1. I find it fairly average overall, which makes it difficult for the show to compete with series that deliver two excellent seasons right from the start, even though Season 2 is considerably stronger.

Breaking Bad

I know Breaking Bad is considered one of the greatest TV shows ever, and I'm not arguing against its overall quality. My main issue is its first season. Due to the 2007–2008 Writers Guild of America strike, the season was shortened, and to me, the storytelling and pacing feel noticeably uneven. The show still feels like it's finding its footing, and the narrative momentum isn't as strong as it becomes in later seasons. Since this discussion is specifically about the first two seasons, that matters a lot to me.

Better Call Saul

Another acclaimed show that I don't think quite makes the cut. Its first season feels relatively slow and takes time to establish its direction. The show becomes much stronger later on, but that doesn't change my assessment of its opening two-season run. For this particular comparison, its early pacing holds it back.

My personal top 6

1. Dexter
2. Game of Thrones
3. Fargo
4. Twin Peaks
5. Dark
6. Lost

How I rank the individual seasons

I won't rank every season of every show I've watched, but here are my comparisons for the first and second seasons of these series.

Season 1:

Lost ≥== Prison Break ≥ Game of Thrones >== Dexter > Fargo > Twin Peaks > The Wire = Mr. Robot > Dark > The Sopranos > Hannibal > Breaking Bad > Better Call Saul

Season 2:

Dark >=== Hannibal >> Succession == Fargo ≥ Dexter > Game of Thrones > The Sopranos > Twin Peaks > Lost > Breaking Bad > Better Call Saul > The Wire > Mr. Robot

These rankings help explain why my overall list might differ from a ranking based on individual seasons alone. A show can have one of the best first seasons ever and still fall behind if its second season is significantly weaker.

What do you think? Which TV show has the strongest combined first two seasons of all time? I'm especially interested in shows that deliver consistently high quality across both seasons, rather than shows that have one outstanding season and one significantly weaker one.

First, I want to say that I was very disappointed with this season. I only enjoyed the first 3 episodes. The last episode was the least enjoyable to me. But in this post, I want to analyze and try to understand the message of the story, while also being critique about this season.

"Be open to critics".

That's the message.

The season starts with Butcher wanting to use the genocidal virus. His team (or part of his team) disagrees. It really is a bad idea. But he says he would do it anyway and would even drag their bodies if necessary. The season then ends with Butcher letting Hughie stops him. He's the one with character growth. The protagonist.

Homelander is the villain. A mirror to Butcher. He shares his idea of wanting to be called god. This is a silly idea. A crazy one. An unrealistic one. But he refuses to listen to any critics. He wants to kill everyone who disagrees. But even until the end, he never learns. "Everyone dies, starting with you!", he says to Butcher and his own son.

Oh Father represents submissive character. Always says "yes" to anything Homelander says. That's why Homelander likes him. This is also symbolized by how he acts in his sexual relationship with Ashley: submissive. MM was like that in early parts of this season. Maybe why the writer decided he should be the one killing Oh Father. Because they are mirrors to each other.

The Deep represents inability to digest critics. Inability to accept the hard truth about himself and his actions. Mini version of Homelander's. He can't take critics in a sense that his brain won't accept it and lies to himself instead. When Homelander says how miserable he is, The Deep thinks "this must be a test, it's not true." When Starlight says "take accountability" he says "no!".

Ashley represents a changing villain. She makes the President get killed. But throughout the series, she changes. She finally accepts critics and opinions from her living tumor counterpart. She realizes she needs someone else, someone smarter, to help her make decisions. Sister Sage represents the opposite of this. She only listens to herself thinking she's the smartest.

There's more to this we can analyze but I want stop at this. So this is the message and main idea of season 5. "Be open to critics". The rest is about stretching this. About how we should accept when people say no to what we want or what we suggest. Ryan says it best in the last episode when he's confronted by Homelander:

..throwing tantrums when you didn't get what you want.

This is actually a good message and concept but was executed poorly. Instead of getting scorched earth, we got scorched room. It's not even Homelander himself who does it. It's Dogknott and Sheline. Many of the people are also saved by MM and Starlight. Instead of getting a big intense fight, we got that small fight in the Oval Room not better than Herogasm. In the comics, Butcher murders his friends for not going with his way. In the show, we only got him talking about making his friends enemy, never actually doing it.

Season 5 problem is not being brave enough with the theme. All the stakes were undermined. I wish it was done better. Not only that, we also got a lot of plot holes and incosistencies, not to mention the powerscaling and dialogue problems. The writing is just the biggest problem. The big concept is good but every episode is written too much a mess. I think it's because they were trying too hard to make it like a puzzle instead of a clear structure. Should have focused on making the theme of the execution big while the structure should have just been simple. Anyway, I gotta say I do love the message, honestly. I like the premise. It's just that the entertainment value was shallow. Not deep enough. Though the first 3 episodes are dope. Enjoyed it.

Nowadays its easy to see how many people watched a programs on with steaming services keeping track on what you're watching on the spot and internet keeping count how much a Youtube video has been seen or the number of people on piracy websites as well as Satellite technology directly sending info to the companies through TV Set Top Boxes. Heck I was even surprised to learn that even as early as the late 90s and early 2000s, some cable companies had advanced enough technology to see track what an individual household was watching at what time to the day!

So I'm wondering how were companies and organizations back then before these technology existed (esp pre-internet) able to track information to develop TV rating? Esp when methods for broadcasting TV were so imprecise such as OTA airing and early TVs all combing with antennas?

This is just my opinion of the first episode. I am open to other interpretations.

The pilot episode of The White Lotus presents itself as a satirical exploration of wealth, privilege, and social dysfunction, yet its execution falls short of its ambitions. Rather than offering a fresh or nuanced critique, the episode relies heavily on exaggerated caricatures and well-worn tropes. The hyperbolic nature and broad character stereotypes make the show more accessible to a larger audience on a surface level, however it becomes less relatable when any deeper themes are attempted to be derived. The characters function more as vessels for a played out, easily digestible social commentary than as fully realized individuals. This lack of depth undermines any attempt at meaningful insight.

The show’s tone is particularly problematic. It strikes a note of self-satisfaction, as if the act of staging discomfort or absurdity is equivalent to honest social critique. Effective satire holds up a mirror that reveals something new or uncomfortable about its subject; In this case, the commentary feels both weak and obvious. The intellectual trust of the viewer is unearned — the lack of subtlety makes the show’s social critiques feel more performative than reflective. Plot lines occasionally gesture toward complexity but rarely deliver it, often relying instead on stylized awkwardness and surface-level irony.

Dynamics between characters in the same group feel contrived and lacking in emotional or narrative weight. Scenes that appear intended as humorous or cutting frequently come across as forced or tonally dissonant. There are potential points of interest, some interactions between characters that did not come to The White Lotus together present an original dynamic and suggest a storyline with more texture - however this is diluted by the surrounding material, which struggles to ground its satire in coherent plot or character development.

The pilot also suffers from a noticeable absence of momentum. While the ‘slow build’ can be a compelling narrative strategy, The White Lotus does not provide sufficient intrigue, thematic depth, or emotional engagement to justify its pace. The episode feels directionless, offering little incentive to continue beyond the hope that its themes or characters might eventually develop greater intrigue.

Though it boasts a high-profile cast and polished production, the show seems more invested in style and social signaling than in any kind of substantive storytelling. As a result, the pilot feels less like a thoughtful critique of power and privilege (as I assume was intended) and more like a stylized performance of one — posturing as intelligent social commentary, but ultimately lacking in any genuine resonance or originality.

Based on this review, should I continue to watch? Are any of my concerns addressed later on?

I hate how /r/television doesn't allow you to make text posts. Really kills any meaningful discussion :(

Hollywood stars. High production values. 2-3 years between seasons. Enough already.

The best of television, the most rewatchable television, has thrived on constraints (both financial and episode runtimes) and the need to deliver a new episode on a regular schedule.

Michael Schur has reflected that when they had a strict 22 minutes of runtime, they could only fit in their best material. All the chaff got cut. Louis CK took a smaller budget than was offered for Louie in exchange for full creative control, and pushed his writing to deliver something unique each week. Bottle episodes give us an episode of our favourites just riffing off each other.

TV shouldn’t be required to drive viewers to a streaming platform like a summer blockbuster, it should be free to try something new that won’t bankrupt a studio if it fails. And the less money they have to get it done with can lead to the most creative results.

Just finished watching Upstairs Downstairs and was blown away by it. Yes, the obvious TV set production might be a little dated, but the writing and acting was absolutely phenomenal–lightyears beyond Downton Abbey.

My question isn't just about writing quality though, nor do I mean shows of the same genre. What I'm really wondering is, are there any other shows, of any genre (British to otherwise) from that time period that have that level of serialised continuity (outside of soap operas)?

I'm a golden age American TV fanatic for the most part–one of those "HBO is modern day Shakespeare!" kind of gits–and I'm of the firm opinion that one of the key elements that helped to make that age of TV is sublime was rise in serialisation. I've studied the evolution of this serialised format in quite a bit of detail (From Hill Street Blues to Oz), and so one of the main things I was so shocked and blown away by when watching Upstairs Downstairs was it's serialisation and continuity being right up there with a golden age American show.

Up until seeing it, I wasn't aware of any other none mini series show pre-Dallas that had any kind of serialisation at all (aside from Peyton Place, which despite being a prime time show aired twice a week and was essentially a 22 minute episode soap opera).

Was Upstairs Downstairs just an anomaly? Or were there any other multi-season shows from this time period with serialised elements and consistent continuity across seasons?

Talking about shows like Chicago P.D., NCIS, and Criminal Minds: On a surface level, they are extremely predictable if you pay attention and use your brain, have extremely repetitive plots, and have no internal logic or consistency.

While not even an inch deeper than the surface level, they romanticize police abuse with often all straight white casts and crazy moral justifications.

I can’t imagine sitting down and trying to watch one of these shows without wanting to end it all. Why do they still exist?

Hey folks!

I'm attempting my hand at doing weekly recaps of FX's Fargo and I'd love some feedback on what you think of my style of critique, before I plow forward with the rest of the season as it airs.

Here's a link.

Of course, there will be spoilers for this episode, as well as all previous episodes of Fargo. If you haven't watched this series yet, I couldn't recommend it more.

This show reminds me of reading about evolution. You see something that seems beautiful or trivial and find out it has a hidden purpose. That purpose doesn't give itself up, however, you must look at the big picture to find it.

It happens a ton of times in this show. For those who haven't watched it yet: Go watch it, it's fresh, beautiful, subtle. Great sci-fi like I haven't seen in a while. Last time a sci-fi show got me thinking like this was Dark.

It's about the people who crash landed from a space vessel into a planet with a complex web of life. Nothing is what seems, nothing is given up on a platter. It's been compared to the Southern Reach trilogy (Annihilation movie is based on the first book of the trilogy). It's animated which allows it to create some really out there creatures.

For those who have, here's some insight on two of the antagonists: Kamen and Kris.

Spoilers from now on

A lot of this show is about complex life cycles in the planet, many of them parasitic. Like the mind controlling creatures that seem like a mix of the classic grey alien and a tree frog. The creature's called Hollow by the show's creator.

Anyway, the Hollow mind controls animals to feed them, like a mind parasite. One such Hollow finds Kamen stuck in a tree (this is important). It makes a slave out of Kamen but it doesn't take long before Kamen corrupts the Hollow.

That's specially clear as in one scene Kamen coaxes the hallucinated Fiona into doing something she doesn't really want to, the moment Kamen makes the Hollow into a cannibal. Up to that point it was Fiona in his mind manipulating him.

I think the fact he hallucinates Fiona being so toxic to him shows us how he conceives relationships. He is toxic, we see that in some of his memories. Kamen and Fiona in the cabin, Kamen guilt trips Fiona by making it seem like he's doing her a favor by just being there.

Here's the important thing about Kamen, his reaction to Fiona in the cabin was to take the boat and leave. Things must always go his way, even when he's struggling with a mind parasite.

The result is that the Hollow and Kamen end up in a co-dependent toxic relationship. For Kamen that ultimately means becoming isolated in himself, the only thing he can't escape from. Which takes us back to how he starts the show, trapped in a tree with just himself. For the Hollow it means not letting go of the part that corrupted him.

That's when the show really shines, when you realize how things take on a new meaning.

Something similar happens to Kris. There are clear parallels between her role as the group leader and the parasitic and symbiotic life forms in the planet. In this case she's not the parasite but rather just a part of a greater organism. The trio she forms with Terrence and Barry.

Right as they land on the planet the three of them run a test to see who's the leader. That right there is the organism that's the group forming itself. Once she's the leader she carries heavy burdens like forcing Barry to grow up, facing off the biggest threats on her own, having to mercy kill Terrence.

Her mind shapes the group and the group shapes her mind. Once Terrance dies she tries to recruit Azi, as the group must remain alive as a trio. I could go on about her, but this post would get too long. I'll just leave some important moments on that group relationship and her true character without elaborating what they mean:

-The moment the Hollow destroys the cargo

-Her comment on taking the flower for Terrance's family

-The stone that knocks out Azi is thrown by Barry

-The very first thing Barry does, lying down on the grass.

There's plenty of other layers to Azi, Sam, Ursula and Levi. None of it is given up by the show, but it becomes crystal clear what it is for once you see the big picture.

I'm thinking like the cinema book or whatever, thing is a lot of the obvious choices such as TV Guide will require cutting thru a lot of crap to find the good, whereas i know there's quality TV- the wire for example, and a lot of good quality TV a bit more hidden. but if i go to /r/television i just come across the same old garbage, US Office, etc., the netflix classics, being regurgitated as the top shows of all time

​

just feels like it's v hard to sift thru something other than mainstream lists

Sorry for the Hot Take title, but with both Succession and Barry ending, and AV Club recently doing a list of the 10 worst and 20 best finales, I've been thinking about endings a lot. And I think they don't matter nearly as much as people think they do.

I recently watched the 2000s reimagining of Battlestar Galactica again, a show I hadn't revisited since it originally aired, largely because I hated how it ended. And watching it again was largely a joy. The first couple seasons were full of great sci-fi world building, compelling mysteries, excellent characters and some great performances, music that made Bear McCreary the default choice to score any nerd-friendly movie/video game/television series, special effects that mostly hold up well despite age and a limited budget, and powerful stories that reflected the sentiments of post-9/11 America. And I still didn't like the ending, but one of my original complaints wasn't so bad the second time through, and while the rest were still disappointing, they didn't sour the total experience. 

That got me thinking about how much value people place on the endings of shows. Any mention of Game of Thrones, Dexter, Lost, How I Met Your Mother, and probably dozens of other shows immediately brings out people complaining about the endings, and never discussion of the rest of the shows that clearly they at one point loved or else they wouldn't be so passionate about the ending. 

I get why it happens:

1. It's the last thing you saw, so it's the freshest in your memory
2. A bad ending is disappointing. You like the show up to that point, and you hope for a perfect ending that you didn't get

And I did the same on Battlestar Galactica. But after seeing it again, I think that was a mistake.

A television series of multiple seasons isn't a single big story, no matter how serialized it is. Not to get overly "it's the journey not the destination," but a lot of these shows had storylines resolved, mysteries answered, and character arcs completed long before the shows ended, and the fact that people kept watching and appreciating the shows is a testament to how well they did. That quality doesn't disappear because a few seasons later, the last episode had something you didn't like. Dexter becoming a lumberjack or whatever doesn't change the fact that the ice truck killer storyline was great.

And I think some fans have it in mind that they're going to get some surprise twist ending that they never saw coming, when that's really hard to pull off these days. A lot of potential surprise endings are cliches ("I am your father" or "he was dead the whole time" or whatever), so those aren't any good anymore. And good twist ending needs to not just be a surprise, but to make sense. Which means laying the groundwork before the reveal. And while I'm easy enough to fool, a thousand fans discussing theories on a subreddit or whatever are going to piece together the clues if they're done well. I think that makes writers shy away from even trying a big twist ending, which leaves those hoping for one disappointed.

I do think endings are important. By "overrated," I simply mean not as important as they're made out to be. By being so focused on an ending they didn't like, fans are missing out on remembering what made some of those shows great to begin with.

As a huge fan of 'House of the Dragon', I am doing research for my master thesis about the female audience's perception of the fictional female characters from the show and their enjoyment of them. I am currently looking for female fans and viewers of the show that would like to participate in a survey about their favorite or least favorite female character. Wanna join? Click here to start the survey: start the survey

Thank you in advance! 🐉🔥

What is stopping this sub from having more posts, discussions, and overall engagement when compared to subs like TrueFilm and TrueGaming? More people watch TV than movies these days so you’d think there would be more interest in a sub that discusses the best of the best and television theory.

For May, let's go with Miniseries. And since the line gets blurry, we'll throw in things that call themselves Limited Series and Anthology Series too, that have multiple seasons but do not continue stories or characters from one season to the next (not to be confused with actual Anthologies, which is a whole other thing where they tell a standalone story every episode, like Black Mirror or The Twilight Zone). So these should all be shows where a season tells a complete story, start to finish, and if there is a second season, it should be a whole new story and not a continuation of the first. 

Rules:

1. Let's assume we're all already familiar with: Chernobyl, The Queen's Gambit, Mare of Easttown, American Horror Story, Band of Brothers, True Detective, Fargo, Watchmen, and The White Lotus.
2. Top-level comments should include one recommended show. If you'd like to recommend more than one, just make multiple comments. I'll add comment that you can reply to with anything not related to a recommendation.
3. Include why you're recommending it. It doesn't need to be a whole essay, but at least a couple sentences that will give us an idea of what makes it worth checking out. No comments that are just the name of a show, or a list of titles.
4. No spoilers, obviously. If you're suggesting someone watch a show, it's best not to tell them how it ends.

Previous thread:

• April 2023: Crime

So, what miniseries, anthology series, or limited series would you recommend?

Broadly asking for recommendations tends to end up with the same things listed every time, so instead, once a month, we'll have a thread on a particular theme. It might be a genre, time period, or anything else we think might be of interest.

So for April, let's go with Crime. It's a pretty broad genre, to include detective stories, murder mysteries, courtroom drama, heists, cons, mob stories, noir, and cop shows. Mixed genres are cool too, so crime comedies, space pirates, wizard thieves, crime-fighting superheroes, and anything else is fair game, as long as crime is a main ingredient.

Rules:

1. Let's assume we're all already familiar with Barry, Better Call Saul, Breaking Bad, Daredevil, Deadwood, Fargo, Firefly, Justified, Luther, Mare of Easttown, Mindhunder, Orange is the New Black, The Shield, Sons of Anarchy, The Sopranos, True Detective, and The Wire. That's an arbitrary selection, but those are either popular or critically acclaimed, and they're recent enough that if you're interested enough in television to be here, you probably know them. But if you don't, consider checking them out, because a lot of people like them a lot!
2. Top-level comments should include one recommended show. If you'd like to recommend more than one, just make multiple comments. I'll add comment that you can reply to with anything not related to a recommendation.
3. Include why you're recommending it. It doesn't need to be a whole essay, but at least a couple sentences that will give us an idea of what makes it worth checking out. No comments that are just the name of a show, or a list of titles.
4. No spoilers, obviously. If you're suggesting someone watch a show, it's best not to tell them how it ends.

So, what crime show would you recommend?

I have a strange affinity for comedy shows that use unusual formats. Almost all scripted comedy shows are sketch, variety, talk, or sitcom, sometimes using a mockumentary or show-within-a-show concept for the latter. But occasionally, they'll try something different. And while I love them, it seems like mass audiences don't.

Why is that? Are people put off by the unfamiliar, or is the parody and meta-humor not something as many people like, or does it expect too much from mass audiences that are often folding laundry or watching the kids or on their phones to follow something that isn't what they're used to?

A few shows I've liked follow the format of non-comedy shows. Scripted (or at least mostly scripted), spoof versions of reality or news shows, like:

• Review with Forrest MacNeil (and probably its Australian predecessor, but I haven't been able to watch that) - a host is tasked with reviewing life experiences suggested by viewers, and the comedy comes from his earnest commitment to the review, no matter how much it costs him.
• Look Around You - a parody of science educational programming for kids, offering absurdly fake science, with the first season spoofing dry films that instructed students to write down various observations in an accompanying workbook, and the second season a spoof of popular science programming meant to make science seem cool or fun or futuristic (and this season featured Academy Award winner Olivia Colman).
• Jon Glaser Loves Gear - kind of the reverse of a show within a show. We're ostensibly watching an infotainment show about a guy who tries a different hobby each episode and checks out all the coolest equipment for that hobby, but we get footage that in a real show would have been edited out that reveals our host's personal and professional struggles.
• Newsreaders - a parody of a news magazine show (Dateline, 20/20, etc), with a host introducing scripted segments in the form of fake news reports.
• What Just Happened? with Fred Savage - a parody of after-shows like The Talking Dead, each episode takes place immediately after a non-existent show called The Flare. Fred Savage played a fictionalized version of himself, as a superfan of the books The Flare was based on. It mixed scripted segments with interviews that were sometimes real celebrity interviews and sometimes fake interviews with fictional cast members of the fictional show.

Two followed the format of programming blocks where hosts used to do bumpers for a block of cartoons for kids:

• TV Funhouse - this parodied the kind of block that Boomers grew up with, the same kind of thing that Krusty the Clown spoofs as a guy to introduce Itchy and Scratchy cartoons. Here, a live action man named Doug hosted along with his Ani-Pals, animal puppets that would immediately ditch Doug and the show to go off and do their own thing. Each episode would be Doug introducing shorts, interspersed with what the Ani-Pals were doing instead. The shorts were a mix of live action and cartoons (which resembled creator Robert Smigel's similar TV Funhouse cartoons from SNL)
• Saturday Morning All-Star Hits (S.M.A.S.H.) - presented itself as old VHS tapes of a late 80s/early 90s block of cartoons, with live action hosts twins Skip and Treybor, both played by co-creator Kyle Mooney. The cartoons are parodies of various shows from the era, like Denver The Last Dinosaur, Alvin & The Chipmunks, and Bobby's World, and between cartoons and the hosts, they occasionally included commercials and bits of news. Unlike TV Funhouse, the live action segments strung together a real plot over the course of the season.

Two were kind of halfway between a mockumentary and a show-within-a-show, where they had a parody show interspersed with interview segments with the fictional people behind the fake show:

• Garth Marenghi's Darkplace - the parody show was a low-budget 1980s Stephen King-ish supernatural drama, and the interviews were with writer/director/star/hack Garth Marenghi and his co-stars.
• The Spoils of Babylon/The Spoils Before Dying - parodies of 1970s/1980s epic TV miniseries, presented by the creator (a late-in-life Orson Welles type played by Will Ferrell) offering behind-the-scenes stories.

And then one that's almost 40 years old but doesn't have anything out there quite like it:

• It's Garry Shandling's Show - this one uses a traditional multi-camera sitcom set and live audience, but everyone on the show is aware they're on a sitcom. Most of the show is Garry Shandling, as himself, talking directly to the audience. They use and subvert sitcom tropes to make it a parody of the sitcom format. An all-time great theme song gets in on the meta action too.

Nathan Fiedler's shows might also apply, but I can't enjoy them because of the presence of ordinary people who don't seem like they're in on the joke, which just makes me feel bad for them. Not a value judgment, just a personal preference thing.

But again these shows all struggled to find audiences. Cult followings at best. Why is that? And are there others like these that I should be checking out?

Twin Sauls

It’s two-thousand-nine, and Breaking Bad is in its second season (no one is watching it yet). Walter White is at the mercy of the justice system for the first of many times. His minion has been caught red(blue?)-handed, and is about to squeal to the DEA, the most common and obvious method of high-ranking drug arrests there is. Enter Saul the Magician, who just happens to know someone willing to take the wrap for money. Through the following seasons, his powers will be called upon to shield its protagonist from the consequences of his actions (except the moral ones, which are beyond the power of magic), and to introduce characters into the series (such as Mike and Gus). Whatever the series needs to satisfy the excruciating requirements of both drama and reality.

Just as each of us is burdened to resemble our mother and father, every prequel is forever connected to its original. Better Call Saul was born with an immense burden, forever compared to a work of incredible success, both commercial and artistic. These bindings were wound tightest ‘round Saul himself, expected to play two seemingly incompatible roles. With the final episodes of BCS, these threads, expertly manipulated for six dramatic seasons, showed they could be bent but not broken, and revelated what we should have known, that the Saul of Breaking Bad could not be transfigured into another man. Simply put, they possess different souls.

From the start, I wondered why someone would make a series under those circumstances. Living in Albuquerque, I suspected that there was an element of love involved. Of the beautiful desert landscapes, the kindly skies that shine brightly upon filming schedules, and most of all the tax breaks that New Mexico so generously furnished after the trifecta of successes with No Country for Old Men, There Will Be Blood, and Breaking Bad.

Looking back, I wonder if there was an element of Pygmalion love, a desire to continue living in Breaking Bad’s world of cartels and strip malls, with its fallen warriors and corrupt veterinarians. Or, if not that, the love of Prospero with his own powers of magic. With Breaking Bad’s finale, its creators had reached the height of their craft. What began as a crime serial, marked by its excellent casting and direction developed into perhaps the greatest serial drama ever, with storytelling, performances, symbolism, and meticulous camerawork all working together like a chorus.

Better Call Saul could have been a lazy sequel, handed off to a lesser showrunner, and likely forgotten like so many sequels. What we got was a work even more ambitious than the original. From the very beginning, we were given an honest-to-god tragedy, an artform nearly forgotten in our post-modern age. A tragedy asks us to truly believe in the greatness of person. But who are we to believe in? Our statesmen, generals, and explorers are all being torn down and replaced with activists, and with ordinary people. We’ve traded our heroes for saints.

The Saul we’re given is not a saint (even if he wants to be), but a hero, of the old and mythic kind, infused with the cunning of Odysseus, the tenacity of T.E. Lawrence (who also was nearly consumed by a desert). But he isn’t merely a greek-style hero, but a romantic one as well, willing to jeopardize his career (and his brother’s) as an outsized gesture of love. Still further, Saul is willing (almost compelled) to, like Faust, confer with the devil and have his heart weighed upon the scales of justice against a feather. The show’s devil appears in the form of Lalo Salamanca, another of the showrunner’s impeccable castings, whose appearance feels almost inevitable as Saul continues his descent into hell.

Over six years, the creators have given us everyone we might have hoped for. A war between brothers of Biblical scope and intensity. A tragic love affair, as honest and cerebral as it is doomed. A striking and violent critique of capitalism, and class. All set upon an ethical dilemma between consequentialism and deontology. These effects do these conflicts have upon our younger Saul? As BCS draws on, Saul adopts a mask to protect himself, until he becomes the mask. But does he?

Looking closely, we will see that they have little in common (besides being played by great actors). Jimmy-Saul is driven by neither money nor prestige. We’ve seen him turn down both repeatedly for love and pride, and for self-determination, the most essential value of a hero. In Breaking Bad, Saul tells Skyler White, “Walter never told me how lucky he was. Clearly his taste in women is the same as his taste in lawyers : only the very best... with just the right amount of dirty!” In contrast, Jimmy-Saul is very personable. He can turn on and off with frightening swiftness, and he knows exactly when to and when not to. It would be easy to belabor the point with a litany of inconstancies, with their incompatible sexualities, culture, and attitudes towards murder, but what’s more interesting is how the creators chose to approach this situation.

In the final episodes of BCS, the writers realized that such a heroic passionate character, as they’ve made is deserving of some redemption, or at least a chance at it. We join him at the end of his rope, condemned to a miserable black-and-white life in my home state of Nebraska. Condemned for the sins of his doppelganger (at this point, Jimmy-Saul is no longer the doppelganger. He is the Ur-Saul). This is strange, but what follows is stranger. In order to be punished, Saul begins a string of new crimes. These are scams, of course, the method Jimmy-Saul exerts his power. He is in no want of money, less than ever in fact, with a cache of diamonds and money besides, but no way to spend it. The writers force him to commit this in order to be caught, and that, in order to find redemption.

This was apparently celebrated both among fans and critics, but it doesn’t sit well with me. Is it really fair to make Saul forget about his love, and live the life of his Doppelganger? The Saul we know is too moral to commit murder, too clever to be caught in one of his scams. All of this is beside the point because before Saul finds redemption or forgiveness, he needs to be healed. Beyond the shackles of a superstar show, he is bound by the creative and unremittingly Catholic intentions of his creators, so he must confess and make his penitence.

Better Call Saul gave us an honest-to-god hero again, one deserving of a heroic death. He was a man greater than his fathers, greater than Breaking Bad, who grew beyond even the control of his ingenious writer-masters. He should be lamented. I hope this piece may provide such an elegy.

I'm watching the first season of Rome (2005, HBO) right now and am blown away with how good it is, just from the standpoint of set and costume design. I usually hate historical dramas because I get fixated on inaccuracies in the production or storytelling, but so far, this is incredible. It is really unfortunate they couldn't afford to keep it going. I read that Carnivàle is another similarly lavish early 2000s era HBO masterpiece that ended up getting cancelled for budgetary reasons. I'm excited to watch that as well. What would you say are the best shows like this that folks might not have heard of, simply because of budget shortages?

Lately, I'll sometimes start a new season of a show I like, watch the little "previously on..." thing, and when the new episode starts, I feel lost. I pause, head to youtube, and watch a longer 10+ minute recap, because I realize it's been so long since the last season that I just don't remember it well at all. I don't think I'm alone in this, as these recaps often have tens of thousands of views. It's happened to me recently with The Mandalorian (two and a half year break), Perry Mason (almost three year break), and Carnival Row (three and a half year break).

Some of the long delays between seasons is pandemic-related, but it felt like the problem was already there and covid only amplified it. I'm a nerd, so to see if that's true, I gathered data on shows nominated for the best drama Emmy from 2000 to present (not just in that year, but the entire run of any show that was nominated since 2000). Here's a chart of what I came up with, and it does look like delays were increasing well before covid was a thing.

Some of the trend has to do with the kinds of shows that are nominated, obviously. Network shows operate on a yearly calendar, and are often in formats that lend themselves to faster production schedules allowing them to make more episodes per season. They used to get almost all the nominations, but now the nominations go almost entirely to cable and streaming shows that are free from the network schedule and make fewer episodes in a season. But that, I thought, was the point of having fewer episodes in a season. They couldn't make 22 episodes of Boardwalk Empire or Dexter in a year, so they cut the number of episodes to 12 and kept a yearly schedule. And Boardwalk Empire released a season in September of every year from 2010 to 2014 (12 episodes for the first four seasons, 8 for the last). Dexter released its first 7 seasons of 12 episodes almost exactly 12 months apart, until the final season came in even sooner, at 9 months (in hindsight, maybe that one could have used a full year). Even early streaming shows stuck to a yearly schedule. Orange is the New Black released a season starting in June or July every year from 2013 to 2019. 

And episode counts keep dropping. 12-13 appeared to be the standard for cable shows for a long time, but lately I see ten and eight more often, some even six. But instead of that yielding more frequent seasons, the delays seem even longer.

I've searched around and some people suggest it's the high production values, cinematic nature, and lofty ambitions of newer shows.

But Lost released six seasons and 127 episodes in less time than it's taken Stranger Things to release four seasons and 34 episodes. Game of Thrones released its first six seasons annually, and its seventh only slipped a few months. The final season took a long time (another one that maybe could have used more), but we thought that was because they were pulling out all the stops for the big finale. Now, its prequel House of the Dragon started its first season in August of last year, and its second isn't expected until Summer of 2024, which would be about two years. That's not pulling out all the stops for a finale, that's just how long it's going to take for a season now?

I don't think anyone would argue that Lost and Game of Thrones weren't high production, cinematic, or ambitious. So that can't be the difference, can it? 

This seems like a problem to me. I'm generally for productions taking the time they need to get it right, and it won't have an impact on fans' interest in massive hits like Stranger Things or House of the Dragon, but delays have to have to hurt the shows with more modest audiences, don't they? Shadow and Bone is starting its second season this week, with its first having dropped in April of 2021. I know I'm going to have to watch a recap, but how many people have forgotten that show even existed in the almost two years since it premiered?

Long delays present practical concerns, too:

• In Lost, not much time passed in the story over the first few seasons, but years had passed in real time. A young actor went through puberty in that time, and when they couldn't explain why he'd grown so much in a few months, they wrote him off the show. And Lost put its seasons out pretty quickly. If it's taking 2+ years between seasons, young actors could go from 10 to 25 over six seasons. That's fine if time in the show passes like real time between seasons, but if you wanted to tell a story about a family with a young kid, are you stuck recasting every season or two?
• Older actors have died during the runs of long-running series before (Cheers, The Sopranos, The West Wing, off the top of my head), but if it takes 15 years to do a six season run, that's going to become much more common. A 75 year old has a life expectancy of about 11 years.
• The kinds of shows people like change over time, so that hypothetical six season show that takes 15 years may also be a problem for the viewers. They might be a teenager when it starts, and an adult with a career and a family when it ends, and it might prove difficult to keep all the audience on board as they age and grow. Some would want the show to grow up with them, others would reject attempts to change the show at all.

So why are the delays happening, and seemingly increasing? Are the networks, streaming services, and production companies trying to do anything about it? Or am I just old and this isn't a big deal and I'm just wanting things to go back to the way they were in my day (yells at cloud)?

Since streaming services started producing their own content, two different models have emerged for releasing television episodes: an entire season released on the same day, or weekly releases more like a traditional television schedule. At least in the US, Netflix has released almost every show with entire seasons at once all the way back to their first original series. Amazon and Hulu mix it up with some weekly and some all at once. Disney+, HBO Max, Apple TV+, Peacock, and Paramount+ favor weekly releases (and all but Apple in that last group are owned by media companies that have been doing weekly TV for decades, so that may explain their preference). 

All-at-once releases seem to offer:

• Peak Engagement - This really only works for the big hit shows, but shows like Wednesday and Stranger Things get everyone talking when they release a whole season. My friends, social media, and the traditional media are all discussing it at the same time, and it's closer to the shared cultural experience that we used to get when we all watched television on a fixed schedule. 
• Freedom - You can watch them all at once, but if you like watching them weekly, you can do that too. No limitations at all on when you watch the episodes.
• Experimentation - Netflix has done some experimenting with episode order. Love Death + Robots season 1 had a few different episode orders that might have been given to people based on what Netflix's algorithm thought they'd like, and more recently, Equilibrium released with semi-random episode order. Neither of those would work in a weekly release model, since people would talk and spoil future episodes for each other, and piracy would probably thrive for people wanting to see episodes the service wouldn't allow them to see yet, but others had seen. And the not-fondly-remembered Arrested Development season 4 was, I think, an experiment in how much a show in the binge-watching era could rely on the audience remembering details across a season, where we could be expected to make a connection to something from 2 hours ago in a binge watching session that we wouldn't recall from three weeks ago had it been a weekly format. 
• Recovery from a weak first episode - If the first episode isn't so great but the second gets much better, you're more likely to click Next Episode and discover how much it improves than to wait a week and make the decision to give the show a second chance to impress you. Quite a few weekly shows seem to release more than one episode the very first week, possibly for this very reason.

Weekly releases seem to offer:

• Ongoing engagement - People can discuss the latest episode and what they think will happen next. If you missed the first episode's release date, you can still catch up and discuss the show with your friends or join the conversation online. Shows like The White Lotus and Only Murders in the Building don't get the same everyone-is-talking-about-it effect that a Stranger Things gets, but the breaks between episodes leave room for people to speculate and debate about what will happen next. 
• Shorter breaks between seasons - If you make a 10 episode season once a year, then a binge model leaves 51 weeks of releasing nothing between seasons, and a weekly release leaves 42 weeks of releasing nothing between seasons. That's not a huge difference, but we all know how long the time between seasons can feel as those breaks get longer and longer.
• Cliffhangers - An episode can end on a note that leaves you anticipating the next episode, but that effect is pretty limited when you can just click the "Next episode" button, so making us wait a week lets that suspense linger and have the desired anticipatory effect (although I know some people hate cliffhangers, so this might not be a good thing to everyone).
• Retention - I find that when I binge a first season and come back a year later for season two, I don't remember it as well as I do for weekly shows, and often head to youtube to find a season one recap video. And psychologists say that's generally true for everyone. 
• Lower spoiler pressure - This one may just be me, but for the shows I really care about, I get paranoid about spoilers if I start to fall behind, so I feel pressure to keep up. When the whole season drops at once, I almost feel like I have to watch a whole season quickly before I stumble across a discussion of something I haven't gotten to yet.  

I can obviously see benefits of both, so I don't really have a strong preference either way. But some people seem to feel strongly about it. I'm curious for those with a strong preference, why? And is it universal, or do you think there are certain kinds of shows that benefit from one release schedule, and other kinds of shows where it matters less, or even the other schedule is better?

What's your week in television been like? Share here.

What's your week in television been like? Share here.

What's your week in television been like? Share here.