I barely enjoy television anymore, and it's really tiring me out
Hey folks, I thought I'd bring up something that I've been struggling with for the past few years. As the title suggests, my issue is that it's been really, really difficult for me to watch television lately. I rarely find anything that looks appealing to begin with, and even when I do, I almost always end up in a constant state of—for lack of a better word—cringe. This happens with some movies, but almost every single TV show I try to start.
The moments when I start getting uncomfortable are pretty consistently dialogue scenes. It's not the idea of two characters interacting that bothers me, but rather how they do it. The way that people talk on TV (especially protagonists) is unrealistic to the point where it is distracting enough to make me stop watching, because it makes literally no sense as a part of human society. I understand that no show is going to replicate real-life conversations 1:1, and that makes sense (filler words, useless tangents, etc. would just be distracting), but so many characters are direct to the point where any characterization that their words are supposed to provide seems utterly contrived, and I consequently ignore it.
I seem hyper-aware of the fact that everything that a character is doing serves a specific purpose to either stretch the plot or artificially deepen their personality, but not in a meaningful way. The somewhat cheesy premise of The 100 (as a random example) kept me watching for a little while, but literally every conflict was forced. I could tell that there was a writer behind every, "Hey, look at Mr. <humorous adjective> here" and, "I'm telling you right now, stop! Don't do this!" and, "Just leave me alone!" trying to provide multiple sides to a character. The fourth wall may as well not even exist. Yes, I understand that your characters are all very complex human beings, but only because you're using every method known to man to imply it. It's just so heavy-handed that I can't pay attention to your broader message and instead focus on how ridiculous every word out of their mouths are.
Okay, I understand that this character is supposed to be a symbol of feminine empowerment because she just kicked 14 guys and made a witty remark about having been underestimated. Okay, I understand that these scary-looking buff guys are bad because they keep explicitly saying how much they like murdering people. Are audiences really so stupid that they have to have characterization spelled out for them in dialogue? Can actions alone not be enough to convey meaning? Why does every meaningful interaction have to coincide with a ridiculously on-the-nose explanation of why it's relevant?
It's ruining almost everything I watch. My immediate thought after hearing any TV quote that's supposed to be remotely funny or attention-grabbing is, "Ugh, that is such a 'television' thing to say," and it instantly makes me think negatively of the work. I've noticed that the feeling is somewhat dampened when watching foreign TV (in a different language), although it still feels sort of formulaic. Are my standards unrealistically high? Am I being a massive elitist? If so, how would I even change the way I look at television at this point? Or am I too far down the meta TV tropes rabbit-hole to be able to enjoy the medium fully again?
Have you watched any of these? The ratings won't be current --
edit: adding Barry!
Yeah, I think Atvelonis's issue is that they need to just watch the better TV that's out there. I think the best shows (like movies) draw you into a hypnotized state where you experience the actors' emotions through some empathic mental connection. It requires good acting and good writing to draw you into a story, and even just those two alone can carry a show through poor storywriting.
You're gonna get this with more mainstream broadcast content. Forced dialogue is rampant and formulaic plotlines abound in "play in the background" shows, and "reality TV" is all sensationalized melodrama. If OP is looking for something refreshingly more "real talk", I would suggest High Maintenance or the show Easy. Both have a very conversational tone that makes the characters seem more human and less mechanical.
A few years ago I might have suggested the show Louie as well, but now it feels a little dirty. But if anyone is willing to toe the line of the uncanny valley, I think Dating Around has an odd realism to it as well.
Perhaps it's just TV shows themselves that cheap and artificial, in which case there's plenty of movies that can truly captivate an audience with the acting alone. However to keep with the theme of the shows I listed above, here are a few movies that rely more heavily on dialogue:
it definitely wasn't for everybody, but you (specifically) might enjoy The Romanoffs. You (still personally) should definitely check out Documentary Now if you haven't already. Hader and Armisen have such a knack for capturing the spirit of a documentary while parodying it. The one they did on Grey Gardens is exceptional.. but every single one has been unbelievable. This last week they parodied Marina Abramovic: The Artist is Present -- and its perfect.
Back to television -- the core issue, to me, is that there's really great TV (the stuff mentioned above, Star Trek Discovery, Rubicon, most of Mad Men, etc), and then there's a good-sized gap to the pretty-good stuff like some of the more iconic network shows. Stuff that isn't perfect, but its still mostly enjoyable / redeemable.
At the high end of this I'd put in some favorites like House and the first few seasons of Criminal Minds (before Mandy Patinkin left.) Then we see a MASSIVE gap where its like everybody is reading off of cue cards, the stories are taken from some sort of 'write your first screenplay' workshop book, etc. Yet the stuff in this low tier is all over network TV and rakes in the ad revenue.
I have an ongoing list of TV shows I've watched just to keep track of the sheer volume of it all. When I compare lists with friends, they have no idea wtf I'm talking about. When Animals was on, I was in love with it from the get-go and was talking to everybody about it --- to this day I think I only know a handful of people who saw it... and that's on HBO.
Long story short, there is absolutely no shortage of amazing television, but I think the options are overwhelming to some, where others just aren't aware of what else is out there (not to mention foreign series like Tokyo Diner or Gomorrah.)
Speaking of Easy, I loooooooved Jane Adams in Hung. Not the best series, but some really great scenes here and there.
On a slightly different tangent, take a look at pretty much anything Anthony Bourdain made if you want to see what the reality TV genre could be without the sensationalised melodrama. It's somewhat bittersweet to see now knowing that his mental health struggles won out in the end, but I'm re-watching Parts Unknown and he paints thoughtful, honest, sensitive and above all very real portraits of the people and places he visits.
Great list overall and I agree OPs not looking the right places. Is this seriously good? I finished the book a while ago and loved it. I was so disappointed in Under The Dome for TV that I haven't even considered watching this.
so, the series is good --- its not as good as the book, and some things are different, but overall it covers it nicely. There are also a lot of subtle details from the book that they just didn't have time to cover that are there, but not mentioned.
Typically King's series are somewhat disappointing, but this one stood out.
My experience with it was disappointing. The book was thoughtful, detailed, a little contemplative. The series seemed in a rush to complete itself, and the changes to the original seemed unfaithful.
Take my word with some salt: I quit after the first 10 or 20 mins, because it felt out-of-place for a book that good. I loved the book (sans that silly ending), and wanted to see the series get it right. In my opinion, it didn't.
It's not you, it's them. The sheer amount of bad writing / characters is ridiculous, and it does ruin shows.
Nearly all characterization and dialog is surface-level -- there's little to no subtlety. I think it's telling that I am a mediocre writer and I'm finding the writing of most modern shows to be pretty awful.
There are the occasional bright spots, like the first season of Westworld that, if not note-perfect, are still orders of magnitude more watchable and enjoyable. But they're depressingly rare.
I think this stems from a practically religious but rote-literal interpretation of "a story needs conflict", like they think that the reverse is true and if they just cram in conflict everywhere, they'll have a story.
That's the thing, though -- when you have high-concept cheese is when you are in most need of subtle characterization. That's the balance that makes it work. You can pull off even the most outlandish concept if your implementation understands what it needs to do.
You're right about the increase in production. With Netflix, HBO, and Amazon all looking for their "killer app" shows (and a frightening abundance of big-data customer information to drive things), they've been pumping out shows like mad. Still, with all the people who want to write movies and series, you'd think they could hire a slightly better class of writer.
I don't remember the last time I saw a TV programme that I didn't think was a waste of my time. I remember watching Walking Dead and quite enjoyed that for the first two series. And then I got onto the third and thought "Hang on, this is exactly the same as the first two but in a different location". The same stories were being regurgitated with very slight differences. I felt a bit cheated actually, so stopped that one. I suspect my attention span suits movies more than series after series of TV programmes and find that the way TV programmes are written frustrates me as the protagonists always seem to have such bad luck so as stretch out story longer and longer.
Now I think about it, Black Mirror was one I did enjoy. One story per programme with a vague running theme throughout and then you're not left hanging at the end.
I don't have much desire to involve myself in a TV series for years on end. Give me a story for an hour, let it conclude and then I can get on with my life or dip into another story later if I so wish.
The list someone posted here is alright, I guess. A bunch of stuff in there is snobbish, presumptuous, self-congratulatory nonsense. I especially cannot recommend The Deuce (entrancing and lurid setting gives way to indulgent filler) or The Good Place (joke-a-minute fun but discards its premise quickly and never stops expositing) or Barry (redemption story bends over backwards to give its character reasons not to redeem himself just yet)
But it's also alright if you're just not into it these days. I stopped enjoying TV as my generation started to get hired into writing rooms. I started to recognize the vocabulary as coming from specific sources, and felt a repetition set in as multiple waves of artists made their responses to messages we were told as children. You start to get a sense of the intention behind things, like you're doing, and that really effects whether you can enjoy something on its own terms -- so it's okay to check out on a medium if it isn't speaking to you.
I feel like there has definitely been a proliferation of vapid television programming over time, but since The Sopranos, there has also been a proliferation of what I can only characterize as incredibly high quality, episodic cinema, if you look for it. Some recommendations:
Unless your awareness of it is pathological, painful, you're doing alright. You just have taste.
My perception changed when I watched Breaking Bad. It's so well-written that almost everything after it seemed like a waste of time. Nuff said, right?
Well, I also watched a little series called Person of Interest. It's filled with the exact problems you list: overtness, mechanical dialogue with too much exposition... But it's also one of the greatest post-cyberpunk shows out there, because of the way it deals with topics like ASI, cybersecurity, vigilantism, and a handful of others later in the series. The dialogues might be bad, but the background is pretty damn good. It deserves its reputation, despite all the flaws in its storytelling. (The later seasons get smarter about it, mostly because they get focused and refined down the line.)
There's also Intelligence. I doubt you heard of it: it seemed like it was small. It's a US show about the first-of-his-kind government agent with a prototype microchip in his brain that allows him to fetch digital data on-the-fly with the power of thought. Same problems, but it had a bunch of redeeming qualities – the exploration of the cyber side not the least of them – that more than helped me through the series. It's one of my favorites now, and I'd saved it on the backup drive knowing I'm going to rewatch it eventually (did twice already).
You're not alone, and the problem isn't you. However, most shows will not be enough to satisfy you completely. There's a handful of superb TV stories, all of which deserve the praise they get. Most... aren't as superb, though they still have their strong sides. Find those you where you can tolarate the clunky exposition because it has something else you'd rather enjoy. And if you can't – well...
You could try some of the more obscure entries: maybe you'll pick up on where the big execs didn't. There are some pretty good web series out there, like Cobra Kai, the sequel to the original Karate Kid films, told from the other side's perspective.
Or, you could switch to books, where the problem is much rarer because of the naturally-wider pool to choose from. For many, you could probably get a digital sample, to see if it suits you.