TVSquad

-I'm gonna copy/paste this rant every week. -

There's only ONE show i watch on that list and it's House, like Bob said, are we just out of touch?, no one i know watches any of these shows. It's pathetic really.

And i watch ALOT of shows, so that means of all the shows i currently watch only House will get a new season? So that means Prison Break, Heroes, Journeyman, Reaper, Bionic Woman,Chuck,Dirty Sexy Money, Cane,Pushing Daisies,Smallville,Supernatural will all get cancelled or not get renewed? That's freaking ridiculous!

And it's like this EVERY SINGLE YEAR! I don't even know why networks even TRY to create new shows or even less serial shows, they could just have the same shows year after year and still win in ratings! Why try new things when the american people obviously don't want it?

It pisses me off since i'm such a huge TV lover, and every year 85% of the new shows i start watching get cancelled because all the stupid americans with the nielsen boxes decide they only want procedurals, reality shows and sitcoms. Why can't sitcoms die already? I thought they were almost dead but i guess you crazy americans still love to be told when to laugh.

Like i said in another post, they should REALLY destroy those nielsen boxes or give them to more intelligent people!


/end rant

Reply

What I find interesting is how many of these show TV Squad *doesn't* review --- none of the CSIs, NCIS, Criminal Minds, Survivor, Without A Trace, Cold Case, Two and a Half Men, Samantha Who?, Law and Order: SVU, Shark. So 12 of the top 19 shows (Dancing with the Stars being on there twice) are unreviewed. In fact if we ignore the "unreviewable" show (60 Minutes, Sunday Night Football, American Music Awards), it is even worse -- only 4 of the 16 "reviewable" shows get weekly reviews.

Reply

They review Survivor. I know cause I come here to check the comments by other readers after I watch it myself.

I do agree with your point on how many shows go uncovered though. There seems to be a fair amount of writers here but none of them really seem dedicated enough to cover TV(!), instead we get shtick like "What I'm thankful for..." and other such self-reflective crap. It's this aversion to procedurals that baffle me. You guys are writers, you should be writing about things other PEOPLE want to read not what YOU want to write about.

I'm getting pissed off about this mainly because I came on here to read about the Criminal Minds cliffhanger last week and if I recall correctly, you guys made an assumption that these types of shows (including Monk) are mired by their procedural aspects so it made no sense for you guys to cover it. Well, with Criminal Minds, you had the biggest off-season story with Patinkin and you covered that alright. Wouldn't following the upcoming transition have been prudent? What about the character arcs that are beginning to bloom on this show?

You know, if TVSquad wasn't owned by a conglomerate like AOL, I wouldn't be so bothered cause I'd assume the writers have other responsibilities, but you are owned by a corporation and as you guys are fond of reminding your readers: you're getting paid to do this. So can we get some accountability here please? Is there even an editor to oversee these suggestions?

Reply

SVU is the only show I watch without fail... Tuesday nights are my TV nights! "Blinded" (last week's ep) was an awesome episode, too. Lots of drama, some angst, (isn't Elliot/Olivia interaction always angsty?) and lots of great acting from Mariska Hargitay, Chris Meloni, and Diane Neal. I'm glad that it made it into the top twenty - definitely deserved! :)

Reply

These shows are all terrible.. well most of them. How are these ratings determined. I agree with poster at 8:59 nobody I know watches any of these.

Reply

I agree with jds65 & Mel...some of the best shows on TV (NCIS, Criminal Minds, Cold Case, etc...) are not being reviewed! I love to see what the reviewer thinks of the episode and what others post in the comment sections. But most of the shows I watch are not reviewed here. I'm getting frustrated with it!

Hey, can I have the job? :-)

Reply

Good! I'm happy these stupid procedurals don't get reviewed. It's bad enough that the american public decides that they only enjoy procedurals and reality shows and sitcoms that we don't need this site to be bogged down by their reviews aswell!

I don't even know why FOX and NBC are still alive, you people obviously don't want anything to do with those two networks. At least they try new things unlike CBS who relies on the same crap year after year.

What the hell are you people going to watch when those long running series like the 3 CSIs eventually die out ?(god i really hope they do!)

Reply

[quote] What I find interesting is how many of these show TV Squad *doesn't* review --- none of the CSIs, NCIS, Criminal Minds, Survivor, Without A Trace, Cold Case, Two and a Half Men, Samantha Who?, Law and Order: SVU, Shark.[/quote]

I agree. TV Squad only reviews the shows that marketers think we should be watching. That is, they figure that the "young, hip, internet-savvy" folk -- very sought after by advertisers -- can be reached through this here new-fangled blogosphere. So we are subjected to endless reviews and promos of crap like Gossip Girl, Journeyman, Heroes, etc etc.

Now, I don't mind giving new shows a chance and reading stories about them does help me decide if I'm missing something. But sometimes there's a good episode of one of the CSI's or NCIS or Law & Order and I'm always disappointed that there's nothing written here. It's as if they don't exist. Oh, but there IS a detailed write-up of Chuck or Amazing Race.

I know it would be hard to cover every show, every week. But I'd like to see TV squad try to expand its coverage to ALL TV, not just what the "kids" are "supposed" to be watching.

Reply

I agree with what some of you are saying about the limited number of shows that get reviewed.

What I do love is that TV Squad reviews a few shows that aren't that popular - Life and Supernatural. It makes me feel that I'm not alone in my geekdom.

Reply