I'm getting worried. As you may (or may not) know, I do a “third-episode verdict” thing here. The general argument is that a pilot episode is always unrepresentative of a series, since it has a bigger budget, the format is still a bit fluid, characters might change or get recast and so on. So shows can often become completely different once they start their runs. Usually, though, the third episode is enough to see if the show is going to be worth sticking with.
Or so I thought. But now all the big new US shows are serials. They all have running themes. And they've all either got good or dropped off from around the fourth or fifth episode: Heroes, Jericho, Battlestar Galactica, even Men in Trees, apparently, although I've stopped watching, of course. Robin Hood, depending on whom you talk to, either got really good (a regular got killed) or really bad (Robin fires pies over Nottingham Castle's walls) during the fourth episode.
What do you think? Should I change the system to “fifth-episode verdict”? It'll be next to useless for British shows (“Here's a show you should have been watching. You can catch the last episode next week”). There'll be some delayed gratification. And it means I'm going to have to sit through possibly two additional episodes of rubbish for each new show, something I'm not exactly looking forward to if they're all like Brothers and Sisters. But I'll fall on that sword for you guys if you want me to.
Related entries
- November 2, 2006: Fifth-episode verdict: Standoff
My fifth-episode verdict on Standoff - November 27, 2006: Sometimes, it just has to be five episodes. At least.
Smith shows you should wait until the fifth episode before cancelling a show.
October 31, 2006 | Reply
Since the American networks aren't going to break old habits overnight, why not still do three and out for the British shows and five for the American shows - but only if their first three seem to warrant a best 3 out of 5 assessment?
I'd have to have you sour on the whole magilla if you fell behind on the overload.....
October 31, 2006 | Reply
I like the three ep reviews and you're right that they will generally give a good idea of a shows direction and potential.
But...
Longer narratives with an ogoing arc or theme do present more of a challenge. The difficulty is that you can't just do three and then check in at ep 5 to see if it got better, because the narrative flow is what is driving it. (though from your comments I suspect some series wouldn't know that if it bit their asses).
October 31, 2006 | Reply
Looks like three with an optional five then...
October 31, 2006 | Reply
I'm perfectly happy with the system you currently use?¢‚Ǩ‚Äùan initial review for some series, and a third-episode review for a later look. I wouldn't delay it further, although if a show massively improves half-way through a run, you can always revisit it.
October 31, 2006 | Reply
Increasing forced watching of television, however much you like it, can't be a thing I'd recommend, even to a chap who has to for a living.
Three seems a reasonable figure. If you find good reason to go further than that on a particular series -- and you'll have to determine your own 'good' here -- then I won't stop you.
Though I should point out ep4 of Robin Hood managed to be non shit.