Overrated TV shows

I have to say Sherlock is very overrated, but I have never watched it sooo.. LPS (littlest pet shop) is massively overrated as well. About 20% of youtube is people moving the figures with their hands and bad video quality (I have to admit it's still better than the MLP ones).
 
Autumn Storm said:
I've never seen the show but the books are excellent. If they follows the books accurately I can't say I can agree here.
Click to expand...
I haven't read the books yet, so I don't know first hand, however most reviews and people's opinions I've heard seem to suggest that the show does a very good job of following the books. There are some bits and pieces that differ or are changed but I guess that's to be expected when books go to tv/movie. I'm a big fan of the show and am looking forward to it's return. Whether or not it's overrated? Hard to say for me really.

White Knight said:
Breaking bad
Click to expand...
I definitely disagree with this one. That show deserves all the accolades and adulation it got. One of the best television series I had seen in a long time, from start to finish.
 
Red H2O said:
I'd disagree. As I said, to me, they seem to be going towards the same goal: an epic adventure with good characters. And with that in mind, Avatar is by far a better example of that type of show than Adventure Time.
Click to expand...
There's a huge difference in how each show goes about it. Adventure Time is the same type of series as something like Spongebob. It's episodic. There's no main storyline. The characters don't change, and why would you expect them to? Each "adventure" lasts for a single episode and is more or less its own thing.
 
Yaster Goodman said:
There's a huge difference in how each show goes about it. Adventure Time is the same type of series as something like Spongebob. It's episodic. There's no main storyline. The characters don't change, and why would you expect them to? Each "adventure" lasts for a single episode and is more or less its own thing.
Click to expand...
You say that, and then Adventure Time attempts to have it both ways. Remember the Lich King, and how that snail worked it's way into every episode? It tried to make it be in a lot of episodes, and yet it was often pushed to the side, so that it was often forgotten as multiple singular episodes went by with no mention of the previous adventures. On a personal preference note, I just prefer shows with continuous plots, so I am in no way unbiased. But anyone can see that the writers tried to overextend themselves, and fell flat in many areas as a result.
 
Red H2O said:
To me, none of the characters are memorable, or at least not memorable in a good way. I often compare Adventure Time to Avatar the Last Airbender, as they are trying to accomplish similar things: build an elaborate and mystical/captivating world, have fun and deep characters, and incorporate fictional plot points into an at least semi-realistic world. For the first point, I can't personally get engrossed into the world of Ooo or however that's spelled. It feels like I'm in a fever dream, or that someone just wrote down the first things that came to their minds. Avatar, on the other hand, has exquisite introductions of how the world works, which is dealt with within seconds of each episode's opening sequence. Secondly, the characters in Adventure Time are utterly nonsensical. They make up words that, instead of being charming and funny, make me think that everyone has some sort of level of schizophrenia and needs help. And if the world itself is odd, the characters in the world are even worse. Their names are basically their defining characteristics, and they rarely change their personalities, or if they do, it's fifty episodes in, when I had already moved on to a better show. Avatar's characters are renowned for how much they change. Aang goes from being an immature child to a bringer of peace. Katara comes to terms with the murder of her mother. Even Zuko, one of the main villains, changes his entire being to join the side of peace. The list goes on. Finally, Avatar has many points of realism in it's show, making it feel plausible, and, more importantly, relatable. In Adventure Time's case, they change the rules of what is allowed that Finn and Jake might as well snap their fingers and declare themselves gods. If the characters don't take things seriously, why should I?
Click to expand...

Interesting! Yeah, you're taking the show far more seriously than it takes itself, and the fact that you think it's trying to be like Avatar says to me that you're woefully misunderstanding the intent behind Adventure Time. Yes, it is nonsensical, that is part of the point. Yes, world is odd; yes, the characters and places have silly names. That too is part of the point! This is a show that features a magical shape-shifting dog whose innards smell like vanilla, and a small elephant who has the voice of a kindly grandmother, who bakes a righteous apple pie. It's not really aiming for serious.

Obviously it's not your cup of tea, and that's cool - it's weird and absurd and touching and silly and heartwarming and ridiculous. That kind of thing is not going to appeal to everyone. You have to be comfortable with the absurd to enjoy that kind of humor, and be okay with a cavalier approach to traditional storytelling to enjoy these goofy-but-strangely-delightful little 11-minute tales. There's no shame in finding that this kind of thing doesn't butter your toast.

But assuming that the writers and artists are trying to create super-serious Important Characters in Serious Stories with Mature Plots - and failing, repeatedly, every episode for six straight seasons, yet repeatedly getting renewed - may not be the most informed approach here.
 
SuperJay said:
snip
Click to expand...
I understand that people all like different things, and I can respect that, but something fascinates me about people that like Adventure Time. Is it a form of escape from thinking in general? Because it seems like visual drugs to me: it takes you to a strange world, where there is no sense or logic, and you just sit there and enjoy it, without questioning what you're seeing. I see the error of my comparison now. It was like trying to compare Sherlock Holmes to Scooby Doo. This is why I say it is drenched in modern ideals: it doesn't want to question the viewer, and it doesn't want to be questioned, which epitomizes what modern youth love: mindless enjoyment. It doesn't add anything or take anything. It exists to exist, and benefits no one but the creators.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Myu
Red H2O said:
I understand that people all like different things, and I can respect that, but something fascinates me about people that like Adventure Time. Is it a form of escape from thinking in general? Because it seems like visual drugs to me: it takes you to a strange world, where there is no sense or logic, and you just sit there and enjoy it, without questioning what you're seeing.
Click to expand...

Er, wait - how do you know what people who enjoy the show are or aren't questioning?

I see the error of my comparison now. It was like trying to compare Sherlock Holmes to Scooby Doo.
Click to expand...

Dude, it's sadly obvious that you really want the takeaway here to be that the cartoon television show that you like is reflective of your superior intellect and perception, and that other show that those weird people like is reflective of their relative lack of intelligence, compared to your own. The fact that you're so eager to turn a conversation about cartoons into some kind of competition is unfortunately indicative of a certain lack of maturity. So no, it's not like comparing [Classic Literature] to [Children's Cartoon], but your effort to pat yourself on the back is noted. It's more like comparing William Faulkner to Mark Twain.

This is why I say it is drenched in modern ideals: it doesn't want to question the viewer, and it doesn't want to be questioned, which epitomizes what modern youth love: mindless enjoyment.
Click to expand...

I'm actually about twice your age. My kids (who are a bit younger than you) love the show, for completely different reasons than I do, and that's part of what's so brilliant, clever, and subversive about it. It actually does make its viewers think, but it doesn't do so by presenting Big Important Ideas in a clearly-labeled fashion so that you can feel like a smart person for watching it. It's a really intelligent show that is really subtle about the issues it takes on, and clearly that nuance is lost on a lot of people who think it's just a colorful, silly, meaningless romp.

Can you clarify what "question the viewer" means?

It doesn't add anything or take anything. It exists to exist, and benefits no one but the creators.
Click to expand...

I'd submit that you're terribly unqualified to evaluate what the show does or doesn't do well. Again, confine yourself to what you like or dislike and you're fine, but when you try to pontificate about what a work is or is not doing - while making clear you have no interest in even trying to understand it on its own terms - you just make yourself look insecure and uninformed. I'd recommend a different approach in the future.
 
Red H2O said:
You say that, and then Adventure Time attempts to have it both ways. Remember the Lich King, and how that snail worked it's way into every episode? It tried to make it be in a lot of episodes, and yet it was often pushed to the side, so that it was often forgotten as multiple singular episodes went by with no mention of the previous adventures. On a personal preference note, I just prefer shows with continuous plots, so I am in no way unbiased. But anyone can see that the writers tried to overextend themselves, and fell flat in many areas as a result.
Click to expand...
The snail? What does that have to do with the show trying to have a continuous story line? The snail is more of an Easter egg than anything else. From the beginning of the show, it was hidden in every single episode anyway. It just comes in to play a minor role every now and then, nothing more.
 
SuperJay said:
snip
Click to expand...
I really don't feel like getting warning points for starting a flame war or derailing the thread, so I'll attempt to stop after this. But I just have to say how amusing it is that you make so many classic errors in this debate. Bringing personal details such as age into the conversation? Funny. I know people younger than me that are more mature than most people will ever be, and people older than you that act like immature nuisances. Age does not correlate to maturity. Speaking of maturity, I at least made multiple disclaimers that people can like whatever they want, and that I am in no way unbiased. You, on the other hand, claim that I am "terribly unqualified" to have an opinion on a show. I'm sorry, I didn't realize you had studied the great cartoons of the ages and know every nuance of good television programming.
[DOUBLEPOST=1419992410][/DOUBLEPOST]
Yaster Goodman said:
The snail? What does that have to do with the show trying to have a continuous story line? The snail is more of an Easter egg than anything else. From the beginning of the show, it was hidden in every single episode anyway. It just comes in to play a minor role every now and then, nothing more.
Click to expand...
I thought that the Lich King possessed the snail or something. Perhaps I just missed some plot point. Everything I say should of course be taken with a grain of salt, as I haven't watched every single episode of the show in question, and my opinions are more based on a first impression of Adventure Time.
 
I'm in a weird predicament with Game of Thrones, where the fact that I have read ASOIAF makes the show both better and worse. It's nice to see all the major scenes with glorious high-budget effects, and they've made great decisions for casting and location. However, the amount of detail that is cut from the world (especially the history) is pretty annoying, a problem that should be fixed if the rumours of a prequel season is true. The story mainly keeps on track, but the writers make odd deviations here and there. I understand that adapting from third-person narration to AV representation requires some changes, but a significant portion of the changes do not seem slightly necessary. All in all, I'm excited for season five, but I'm more excited for The Winds of Winter.
 
Red H2O said:
I really don't feel like getting warning points for starting a flame war or derailing the thread, so I'll attempt to stop after this. But I just have to say how amusing it is that you make so many classic errors in this debate. Bringing personal details such as age into the conversation? Funny. I know people younger than me that are more mature than most people will ever be, and people older than you that act like immature nuisances. Age does not correlate to maturity. Speaking of maturity, I at least made multiple disclaimers that people can like whatever they want, and that I am in no way unbiased. You, on the other hand, claim that I am "terribly unqualified" to have an opinion on a show. I'm sorry, I didn't realize you had studied the great cartoons of the ages and know every nuance of good television programming.
Click to expand...

I love it when people act like their opinion is factual and then backpedal when things get hairy.

Yes, you're horrendously unqualified to talk about a show you know absolutely nothing about. Moreso when you present your "opinion" as written in stone, end-all-be-all of information.

Maturity is also subjective. Throwing it around as an insult or as a deflection goes to show just how much a grasp on that concept you may or may not have.

Another point; if you're gonna elude to flaming someone, don't dance around the bush. You do it, get your warning points and suck it up like a man if you're so inclined.

I'll be a happy man when society relieves itself of that bastard stage of life concerning "I'M ALWAYS RIGHT NO MATTER WHAT HRRRRNNNGGGGG" for good.

ONTOPIC: My Little Pony and all those "YE OLDE FANTASY" shows like Spartacus, Game of Thrones, etc that substitutes titties and sex scenes in lieu of plot and character development. Don't get me wrong, I love titties and sex. But if you're gonna peddle a :red:ken fantasy novel or retelling of greek mythos, make sure it's more interesting than the other 99% of HBO/Cinemax poops out after 10 pm. Sheesh.
 
lol @ the people saying shows are overrated that they've never watched.

Seriously though? Game of Thrones and Breaking Bad are fantastic shows. And Adventure Time is extremely fun to watch.

As for what I think is overrated; Once Upon a Time and that Batman show (Gotham). I tolerated the first season of OUaT, but after that...
And Gotham? After the first episode I nope'd out of there. Bad acting and awkward scripting.
 
Last edited:
Mystery said:
lol @ the people saying shows are overrated that they've never watched.

Seriously though? Game of Thrones and Breaking bad are fantastic shows. And Adventure Time is extremely fun to watch.

As for what I think is overrated; Once Upon a Time and that Batman show (Gotham). I tolerated the first season of OUaT, but after that...
And Gotham? After the first episode I nope'd out of there. Bad acting and awkward scripting.
Click to expand...
I like Adventure Time since they never have two episodes that are alike. Even if one follows up another, it adds something new. And sometimes it's just plain goofy.:naughty:
 
fuzzly98 said:
Not trying to prove anything not already said, just thought this would be relevant to the adventure time debate and how the series doesn't take itself seriously.
Tv tropes' "Gainax ending" trope has a page just for the use of it in adventure time.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/GainaxEnding
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/GainaxEnding/AdventureTime

So yeah, might be relevant.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I recently got Season 4 on DVD and I noticed a lot of that happening...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom