Well - Game of Thrones and Breaking Bad...
I somehow did not get into them. They're well made, have some good writing but they did not fit me somehow. I can't even ecplain why exactly.
I didn't watch it until the series was over, then I binge-watched it on Netflix. Loved it. Was not overly thrilled with the final episode, but I understand why they did it the way they did.
And National Geographic Channel, and Smithsonian Channel, and MTV, and...
The race to the lowest common denominator is relentless. I wonder if it works in reverse. If we started The Smutty Alaska Little People Channel, would it eventually become the Oxford Bodleian Library Review Channel?
IMO it is hard to watch anything if you actually know about the subject matter. I am a lawyer and hate law shows. My buddy is a cop and can't watch cop shows and really hates The First 48.
They tend to put compelling, familiar narratives ahead of research. I know that's what TV is about, so they can't be blamed in that sense, but, in their quest for the familiar and compelling, they tend to use either the most familiar or most sensationalist historical narratives, and that's when things often go sideways.
The 'familiar' narratives tend to be outdated (superseded by more recent research) stuff that was in the textbooks of previous generations or the subject of a bestseller by an author (too often not an historian) with famous but flawed, superseded, or biased conclusions. The 'sensationalist' narratives are usually just that - exciting but questionable stuff drawn from uncorroborated work by fringe historians, or just plain old "leave out the 'boring' or contradictory stuff" narratives. Most times, these questionable narratives are woven in with well-established fact, so they can be hard to distinguish. It's really a matter of suspending belief while watching and checking out their assertions for yourself.
In general, PBS is still a good source of history docs, and other U.S. channels get it right as often as not. The really bad perpetrators of this stuff in my experience are the oddball, low-budget docs lurking in the shadows of Amazon Video, Netflix, etc., as well as most by the 'History' Channel and some of Smithsonian Channel's stuff (they are not run by the Smithsonian Institute anymore). I can't speak to other countries' channels/production companies.
Some warning signs to look for: only one actual historian 'talking head' (especially a very young one with no university credentials in his/her title) presenting the main evidence for the narrative; super-specific topics with little context provided; stories told in re-enactments rather than by documents or other sources from the time; the words "Secrets of..." in the title; lots of weasel words and phrases like "may have," "might," "some believe," "new evidence suggests everything we know is wrong," "according to some historians," "Dr. So-and-so believes," and "what [they, historians, etc.] don't want you to know is..."
There's more, but being a smart viewer of history docs basically just comes down to using your BS/sensationalism detector and checking the facts for yourself on reputable sites, or in books by historians, whenever things seem overly exciting or you find yourself thinking, "Holy cow! Why wasn't this headline news?!?"
I've been surrounded by people that love the show. Multiple friends have read the comics all of the way through, and are up to date on the latest episode. One of them used to wear one of those "Ricktatorship" shirts around all of the time.
I binged the first whole season and watched the first episode of season 2, and never picked it back up. I've seen parts of episodes while with other people, and they never really succeeded in pulling me back in. The first season was great, but I guess I just didn't really connect with the people well enough to continue watching.
Join the Discussion
Duck Dynasty.
Crocodile Hunter. Same old thing over and over.. Move big reptile from point a to point b and get all muddy doing it.
Mad Men.
Well - Game of Thrones and Breaking Bad... I somehow did not get into them. They're well made, have some good writing but they did not fit me somehow. I can't even ecplain why exactly.
Sons of Anarchy. For being badass criminals, all they seemed to do was hug each other.
Breaking Bad. It just did not appeal to me. Everyone seems to love it though.
I didn't watch it until the series was over, then I binge-watched it on Netflix. Loved it. Was not overly thrilled with the final episode, but I understand why they did it the way they did.
I heard people praise it up and down for years, so I finally watched it.
I really tried, but I just didn't like it. There were some good parts, but part of the way through season 2, I just gave up.
The Sopranos, and Breaking Bad after season 2. Also, anything on the History Channel or Bravo.
"The History Channel." "The Learning Channel." "Arts and Entertainment." They were all good a long time ago.
And National Geographic Channel, and Smithsonian Channel, and MTV, and...
The race to the lowest common denominator is relentless. I wonder if it works in reverse. If we started The Smutty Alaska Little People Channel, would it eventually become the Oxford Bodleian Library Review Channel?
Sons of Anarchy. I actually ride a Harley and have friends that are patched club members. We, uh, don't do that.
IMO it is hard to watch anything if you actually know about the subject matter. I am a lawyer and hate law shows. My buddy is a cop and can't watch cop shows and really hates The First 48.
Historian here. Can't stand to finish watching 9/10 history documentaries. So many disproven theories.
Care to elaborate a bit?
They tend to put compelling, familiar narratives ahead of research. I know that's what TV is about, so they can't be blamed in that sense, but, in their quest for the familiar and compelling, they tend to use either the most familiar or most sensationalist historical narratives, and that's when things often go sideways.
The 'familiar' narratives tend to be outdated (superseded by more recent research) stuff that was in the textbooks of previous generations or the subject of a bestseller by an author (too often not an historian) with famous but flawed, superseded, or biased conclusions. The 'sensationalist' narratives are usually just that - exciting but questionable stuff drawn from uncorroborated work by fringe historians, or just plain old "leave out the 'boring' or contradictory stuff" narratives. Most times, these questionable narratives are woven in with well-established fact, so they can be hard to distinguish. It's really a matter of suspending belief while watching and checking out their assertions for yourself.
In general, PBS is still a good source of history docs, and other U.S. channels get it right as often as not. The really bad perpetrators of this stuff in my experience are the oddball, low-budget docs lurking in the shadows of Amazon Video, Netflix, etc., as well as most by the 'History' Channel and some of Smithsonian Channel's stuff (they are not run by the Smithsonian Institute anymore). I can't speak to other countries' channels/production companies.
Some warning signs to look for: only one actual historian 'talking head' (especially a very young one with no university credentials in his/her title) presenting the main evidence for the narrative; super-specific topics with little context provided; stories told in re-enactments rather than by documents or other sources from the time; the words "Secrets of..." in the title; lots of weasel words and phrases like "may have," "might," "some believe," "new evidence suggests everything we know is wrong," "according to some historians," "Dr. So-and-so believes," and "what [they, historians, etc.] don't want you to know is..."
There's more, but being a smart viewer of history docs basically just comes down to using your BS/sensationalism detector and checking the facts for yourself on reputable sites, or in books by historians, whenever things seem overly exciting or you find yourself thinking, "Holy cow! Why wasn't this headline news?!?"
cordcutter WITHOUT netflix/hulu here...
I think the only show I've watched that has come out in the past several years has been The 100. I like what I've seen of it so far.
The Walking Dead.
I've been surrounded by people that love the show. Multiple friends have read the comics all of the way through, and are up to date on the latest episode. One of them used to wear one of those "Ricktatorship" shirts around all of the time.
I binged the first whole season and watched the first episode of season 2, and never picked it back up. I've seen parts of episodes while with other people, and they never really succeeded in pulling me back in. The first season was great, but I guess I just didn't really connect with the people well enough to continue watching.