Reviewer refuses to watch the part of the show were all of the fans agree that it gets better...

>reviewer refuses to watch the part of the show were all of the fans agree that it gets better, and judges the show based on the first episodes that even the fans didnt like

Other urls found in this thread:

sfdebris.com/videos/startrek/t104.php
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

The first episode is supposed to be the thing that makes you interested and want to keep watching the show.

If your first bite of steak is cold, you don't keep eating it cause, "The middle is warm I swear!"

>reviewers would rather watch shows they think have potential rather than dig for gold in a heap of shit
Three words OP, M-L-P!

but if the reviewer wants to see why people like it it`s a stupid idea to watch one of the least liked episodes.
you're just setting yourself up to not like it

> When judging something you're suppose to ignore it's flaws and only judge it based on its miniscule good features

Sure wish guys used that standard for dating

Its the job of the show to entice the viewer with the initial episodes

Its not the audience's fault if the beginning is trash

That seems like a logical proposition.

However, if we where to judge a show like Star Trek TNG by its first few episodes (heck the first season is kinda bad) then we would never have gotten the best of TNG.

The Simpsons first season was also kind of clunky. They didn't hit their stride until season 4 and 5.

I'm assuming you're talking about cartoon reviewers, which means that watching grown men who review children's cartoons is a thing that you do...in which case, what the fuck are you doing with your life?

Three episode rule, user.

that's a subtle loss, I almost missed it.

>review thing
>don;t sample whole thing

Yeah shitty opinions will be discarded too. Just like the whole bojack thing made that site that reviewed it after 4 episodes instigate a policy where they actually had to watch the whole series to review it.

this is the reasons like weabo shows like hunter x hunter are terrible

Sounds like OP is talking about Bojack Horseman.

Three episode rule is only for 12-13 episode shows, because on average pacing that's generally where the setup ends and the actual story starts.
And even then it's not exactly an absolute measure of anything.

Anime fans like to use the excuse "It doesn't get good until episode 94! It's your fault for giving up early!"

Nigga, if a piece of media can't convince me to keep watching it after sitting through 76 hours of it, then that piece of media is SHIT.

But then your ignoring the fact that shows can get better

>food metaphors
But a television series is an ongoing work where early mistakes can potentially be learned from leading to improvement. It's very common for TV shows to have to take some time to find their legs as writers and actors figure out what works well for the series/characters.

The first episodes of TNG aren't bad, they're just not as good as what came later.

I've yet to see a show where the first episode is actually bad where the series gets good later on. Even if the show starts out slow, dry, or boring there is something to entice you. Like the chemistry between the cast is good, the setting is interesting, or maybe they hook you in with an enticing mystery.

Digibro please leave.
Also Gintama

What is Mr. Entard's review of Sanjay and Craig?

>The first episodes of TNG aren't bad

One word: Wesley.

There was an episode about a planet of black people abducting a white woman for "honor".
sfdebris.com/videos/startrek/t104.php

This was the fourth episode. Imagine if people didn't like the (honestly) boring two part opener "Encounter at Farpoint" and "The Naked Now".

>wants to autistically make people watch things they don't like in the off-chance it becomes good seasons later
Fuck you op
Yes, for any given show there's always a chance that it "becomes great" in the next episode, but there is a huge number of shows, and this includes a big number of bad shows, so everyone's better off choosing according to shows that seem to catch their own preferences and seem interesting or judging from a few episodes because that's better than watching every bad show out there. Berating people for not doing this is the shittiest thing you could do. As for the situation, more often than not the fanbase has diverging opinions on when 'it gets good' and even then, they're applying a special lens when judging such episodes, perhaps because they were already invested into the series, so I'll watch the series then get to the part where it 'gets good' and it may be marginally better but still sucks.
Fuck you and your ilk

That doesn't make the hours of shit go away.

Nobody should be expected to fish around in a toilet for the chance tjat there MIGHT be something good in there.

That analogy doesn't work when it's a tv show and is made by people who actively try to make the show better.

Fair enough, but then the reviewer should point out that's how they came to their conclusions. More than once I've read how they assume with total confidence that the rest is just much of the same.

Agents of SHIELD and The Clone Wars season 1
There are people who refuse to watch AOS because the first half of season 1 isn't the best or think The Clone Wars is a stupid kids show because of the first season.

>There are people who refuse to watch AOS because the first half of season 1 isn't the best

You're delusional if you think the first season of Agents of Shield is anything better than absolute dog shit.

"Wasn't the best"? Get a fucking clue.

>Nobody should be expected to fish around in a toilet for the chance tjat there MIGHT be something good in there.


2 Iphones and a set of keys to a corvette so far( from work)

>But then your ignoring the fact that shows can get better

Look, if a product cannot make a case for itself in less than FORTY HOURS then it probably isn't a good product.

More like the first two seasons. That's almost two entire days that I'll never get back.

Nobody's trying to make anybody do anything. It's perfectly acceptable to do things according to your own preference and to discard things according to first impressions- when you're doing it on your own time. But when you put yourself out there and make content as a reviewer, the viewers watching the reviews can hold the reviewer to a standard where they expect them to do a fair amount of research before proclaiming something as a whole is shit when they themselves have not experienced that thing as a whole.

When you watch only the first episodes of a program- especially when the fanbase agrees those episodes are shit- and then turn around and tell your viewers that the whole show is shit and not to watch it, you're being unfair to the show, its fans, and your viewers who are expecting you to know what you're talking about. When you're just watching a show on your own time for fun nobody cares if you drop it after the first episodes.

Thing is, every show had a terrible first episode.

It's much much worse when people judge only the first couple minutes of a movie. This is a huge pet peeve of mine, pic related.

did you only just watch IHE's "review" of the first episode of MLP or something?

Most people can sit through a whole movie and see whether it improves or stay shit; it's only a 2 hour investment.

A TV series, though? One with 5 fuckin seasons? Hell, even ONE season of 26 half hour episodes? You pour 13 hours of your time into that.

If the show isn't good after 13 hours, then a person is more than justified in calling it shit and walking away.

It's more like skimming the frosting off a cake and proclaiming the cake is shit. You're meant to eat the frosting with the cake part and you didn't even eat any cake.

>which means that watching grown men who review children's cartoons is a thing that you do...
why not review them? cartoons are just stories told in a specific medium. it's not like most pop culture products are significantly more "mature".

the reviewer doesn't want to see why people like it, but whether he likes it.

Then they're a shitty reviewer. When you're watching just for you then you're just a viewer. When you review something it's typically to give others the idea whether or not they will like it. Yeah, a reviewer's personal opinion still matters, but usually because the people consuming the reviews expect to have similar tastes to them.

If the cake has shitty frosting, it will taste bad even if the inside is good.

But with as much media as I can ingest these days, why should I bother slogging through garbage to get to the good stuff, when other shows start with gold and stay there?

>When you review something it's typically to give others the idea whether or not they will like it.
Not necessarily.
I, for one, never watch reviews to form an opinion on a product that I'm going to watch. I either watch reviews of things I've already seen, or things I weren't planning on watching anyway. The main value of the reviews as I see it is looking into other people's views and analysis of a work of fiction, comparing it to your own, maybe picking up some ideas, broadening your art perception.

While true, if the show has been going enough so it has a fanbase, people changed their perception of it, and its popular enough to warrant visits to your reviews then watching one episode wont be enough. Its a proportion thing. If a 70 episode show doesnt hook me on the second one I keep watching. If it doesnt around , say,15 then its worth considering for dropping it.

>dude keep watching, it gets better after 50 episodes

A component like a frosting can taste bad all on its own when its meant to compliment another component that's supposed to balance it out. The frosting for example might be too sugary but taste great with the addition of a more bitter or maybe citrus or other flavored cake. You shouldn't say that the cake is too sugary if you haven't tasted the cake, the cake is probably going to be less sugary than its frosting. It works even better when there's only a thin layer of frosting on top and the majority of the dish is the cake itself.

Okay, nobody does that. At most they'd say to wait a season. If it's bad for several seasons then it's a bit justified not to watch it.

I disagree. I think the purpose of reviews is to broadcast the effect of a product for potential consumers. When its just a personal opinion as it effects the individual, it's just a blog that's been posted under the label of a review. And it's fine to go read people's blogs to get an idea of personal opinion, but those people shouldn't pretend they know what they're doing as critics.

Yes and it was shit

All art criticisms besides purely technical ones are more or less based on one's subjective preferences.

Except tv episodes are made to stand on their own because they usually come in weekly installments.

Yes, and that's why a good reviewer has the job of anticipating the reaction of others and relating it to their own opinion instead of focusing purely on their own solitary experience.

This doesn't need to be the case anymore now that streaming sites and television networks are experimenting more and more with new schedule strategies. For example, cartoon network keeps airing Steven Universe in "bomb" format where they dump a week's worth of episodes over a short time and that bomb sometimes forms one cohesive story made of several smaller segments. And then we have Bojack Horseman which seems to be trying to take full advantage of the binge watching technique, by gradually building tension up to a big climax in a season they know is going to be dumped all at one time. So in these cases the episodes are made to work as parts of a whole rather than as standalone works.

Some shows have seasons that last 50 episodes

stop looking for dates on Sup Forums, you will find there are lots of average men out in the real world with low standards.

Eureka 7 sucks until episode 25, gets good around episode 40, and ends at episode 50. And gets stupid close to the end.
You wonder if it's worth it. I recommend it to people based on the consensus that it's amazing, with a warning that you'll hate the characters for a while, but I'm not so sure something that's so bad for so much of the series is really worth recommending. 2bh there were things I ended up falling in love with, so maybe for that.

Netflix original series like Bojack Horsemen are written knowing that nobody's going to see a random episode of it, so its episodes don't need to work as a stand-alone thing.

>watch the first few episodes of a show
>think "this is great! i love this!"
>stop watching it

I watched every season of Korra and it still sucks dick...not in a good way, the teeth and vomitting way.

Ten years later you LoK fags will keep saying one or two episodes in one of the odd numbered seasons redeems Korra from bring wasted potential and dumbed down George Lucas tier bull shit.

More like the Legend of Korra, death of the Avatar Universe because we can't write.

>"It doesn't get good until episode 94! It's your fault for giving up early!"
user, everybody knows that shows with more than 50 episodes are shonen shit and not worth your time.

See that's food you can't do that with TV shows you usually have to give them like 3 - 5 episodes before you decide its worth watching

then they're not making a review of the show overall, but rather a "first impressions" video/review

ffuuuuck Gintama

>judging something purely on its worst moments

You just described Sup Forums user

>reviewer refuses to watch the part of the show
It's fair, it's the shows fault for not keeping their interest up.

>were all of the fans agree that it gets better, and judges the show based on the first episodes that even the fans didnt like
>fans agree
>as if 'fans' aren't already biased for the most part

I had a good chuckle over that. thanks OP