I hate "dropper" shows

Post Reply New Topic

First, an explanation. A "dropper" show is one that requires keen knowledge of what happen prior to the episode you are watching. The most notorious examples of this type of show are 24 and, judging from the very small amount of info I know about it, Doctor Who. In other words, if you missed ANY of the previous episodes, you're screwed. It really detracts from the viewing experience, in my opinion.

I'm with you on that one! Another "dropper" show I think is "Lost". Although given that shows are now available on DVD to rent or check out from a library, it's not such a pain in the ass to do the "beginning to end" thing.

True...I gave up on 24 several seasons ago, and I never cared for Lost.

I just don't have the time or patience to watch an entire season of anything without missing a single episode.

That's why I like the Law and Order series (you can watch the eps in isolation without losing too much).

I also liked Boston Legal when it was still on--knowing what had happened before helped, but it wasn't absolutely essential.

In defense of Doctor Who, there are a number of back references and wiki entries that can bring one up to speed rather quickly. Aside from being a "dropper" show, it is original content and very creative considering the junk on domestic (US) TV. I like many of the British productions because of that.

I just remembered a BBC America series called Hex--anyone else watch that?

It only lasted for two series (seasons) and you definitely had to pay close attention, but it was really entertaining. Pity it ended the way it did.

One of the reasons why i hate television as a phenomena.

I buy all TV shows i want on DVD and watch whenever *I* want - not when some program planner wants.

I don't like dropper shows. I like shows that you can watch in any order, such as Married with Children and Spongebob.

Doctor Who isn't as bad as some shows, as many adventures are designed to be as self-contained as possible. For example, despite the continuity references, Doctor Who: The End of Time actually spells out what happened before, or at least what you need to understand the story. It helps if you have also heard about the Time War that occurred between the classic and new series, but there is little continuity you need to know beyond that.

So many episodes do not actually require much more knowledge than the fact that the Doctor is an alien travelling in an old time and space machine in bad need of repairs. There's some excellent stories from both the classic series and new series that do not require knowledge in order to enjoy, even if they do have references to previous stories. I can give some examples if you like, Giftorcurse.

The same could go for, say, episodes of Blake's 7 or The Prisoner. Both of them require only a small amount of basic background knowledge. Unlike, say, Neon Genesis Evangelion, which you have in your avatar.

I like shows with lengthy plot lines, it makes it more interesting, the one s I don't like are the ones where the events of the last episode might as well have never happened since they are never mentioned again afterwords.

I myself am a fan of The Office, and it could be considered a "dropper." While it is still enjoyable if you haven't watched any previous episodes, it really adds to the viewing experience if you have followed the series since the beginning (they will make jokes referencing previous episodes, characters' personalities, etc.). Once I started following the show, I downloaded and watched The Office from Season 1 on. Knowing what was going on really helped me enjoy the show.

I've never liked these sorts of shows. I don't like dramatic television, I guess (besides the news ^^).

I feel the opposite. Shows which require one to have watched the previous episodes are the best, because they usually have the most intricate plotting and are the most likely to allow the plot to change the status quo episode-to-episode.

On top of this, I prefer to wait until shows are over and then watch them in marathons. I have no truck with haituses or episode breaks.

I think the proper term is "serial" shows. These shows have an overarching story line in which each episode might be a story unto itself, but it also provides another part to the overarching story.

People who aren't into the show enough to watch every episode tend to get annoyed at the "bits" that don't seem to fit in.

They are written more for the fan, and I like some and hate others. Simply put, you can't tell a good story in 40 minutes. Even 2 hours won't let you tell a very in-depth story.

Anything I really want to watch I watch through the internet, so it stands to reason that I prefer "serial" or "sequential" shows. Plots that try to be extremely self-contained seem to be in greater danger of falling into a spiral abyss of clichés. Well, maybe. I won't push the point, since example-mining could be tedious.

Shows with mainly standalone episodes are less immersive, in my experience. Maybe that's the reason. I watch a lot, and I usually go from beginning to end.

Still, a bad story is a bad story, and a bad and long story is doubly screwed. Short and trite stories aren't any better. Got to make the best use of your time.

Like some others here, I don't really have the patience to watch "dropper" shows.
I used to really like the early X-Files shows. The later shows never made any sense to me because I'd missed so many previous shows.
I remember trying to watch Twin Peaks midway through the series and not knowing what was going on. I wanted to understand that one, because it looked like quite an interesting show.
Stuff like 24 and The Wire I'm not too interested in.

I'm with you on this one, especially the second point, I love plot arcs.
it's one of the reasons I'm enjoying Stargate: Universe more than Atlantis, there's a stronger ongoing plot from episode to episode