Actually, one of the critics at the Hollywood Reporter liked the show. It made his top *network* shows when he created his year end lists several times. But, it's network tv. And even worse, it was on CBS, the home of the cookie cutter, looks just like all the others, no diversity in sight, procedural shows. It was a hard sell to convince people this was anything else.
It became even harder after Carter was killed off. I still can see the rationale behind the move from a story point of view, but it was also a blow to the little diversity the show *did* have.
And lastly, while it aired on CBS, it wasn't owned by CBS. That makes a huge difference in profits after the show ends. Sold into sydication and to Netflix, it made money for Warners, and probably Bad Robot, but very little trickle down for CBS. Unless they could sell big bucks worth of advertisement, they were probably barely breaking even while it aired.
Mr. Robot *is* difficult to watch for many reasons. But one thing it does....there was an article in the *business* section of my local paper talking about the verisimilitude of the show. When the viewers see a screen shot, the coding is correct. They have a hacker on staff to make sure things are accurate. They had to dump a story idea because they couldn't figure out how to portray it accurately. That makes a certain, hardcore audience very happy. It's all lost on me; but I can understand how programmers and coders would appreciate the effort.
PoI had a different feel completely. There was a discussion about certain types of science fiction, and that was really interesting. I like the type of science fiction that looks at possible societal outcomes, though I admit I'm sick to death of dystopian futures. This was a combination of humanity and technology shaping our future, and I enjoyed it. I can't speak for others.
reply
share
angrycandy1
8 years ago
Actually, one of the critics at the Hollywood Reporter liked the show. It made his top *network* shows when he created his year end lists several times. But, it's network tv. And even worse, it was on CBS, the home of the cookie cutter, looks just like all the others, no diversity in sight, procedural shows. It was a hard sell to convince people this was anything else.
Is CBS really the worst of the worst. I'm not american and I don't watch it but I recently realized that they have made some of my favorite shows "The Twilight Zone", "Northern Expousure" and now "POI".
reply
share
blackflag01609
8 years ago
Ratings wise CBS is the best network. In 2000 when "CSI" first came on the air it was the #3 network, now it's #1. Just like when any other network cancels your favorite show they'll call it the worse network because of it. CBS found a formula that, for many years has worked and brought in the viewers. Sooner or later with the cyclical nature of television another network will find a formula that works and take over the #1 spot. That's the way it works.
reply
share
angrycandy1
8 years ago
You mean like when HBO gave us The Sopranos in 2000 and it was really unique look at family life and now every "prestigious cable drama" has to have a rich or at least well of, mid-life crisis-stricken, white dude, who whines about the fact that his wife is pissed at his adultery and his mistress wants to leave. (Nip Tuck, Mad Men, True Detective, what am I forgetting?) That is the cliche I'm really sick of.
reply
share
readerf61
8 years ago
I think all the networks are afraid to take risks; I think CBS is the most enamored with its template. CBS is definitely of the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" mentality. That means, as another poster said, they do a lot of things that look alike. But other channels are following suit with franchises and similar shows.
It is the reason many viewers just skip network tv altogether.
But you are correct that those shows you mentioned were very good. They were a while ago. PoI's was a good show that failed to find an audience that may have really enjoyed it had it been on cable.
reply
share