Television viewers, and people in general, tend to latch on to the familiar and idolize and worship it. The familiar becomes an entitlement and there is an expectation that the familiar will remain…familiar. Such capitulation to predictability is the mainstay of human nature when confronted with patterns of recurring life.
Ie, television shows. A show, once aired, earns its faithful, its devoted, who then proceed to assume that said series will unfold continually in the manner that is has previously unfolded. And if it ever diverges from expectations writ in the annals of history, the collective worshipers of said series will bellow out loudly in anger and pessimistic opposition to the “new” format of the old formula. There is little forethought and expansive appreciation for the nature of change as it settles into the humdrum machinery of human existence. People are quite unlikely, and unable, to transform their perceptions and adapt to the fluid nature of evolution. So they cry about how season 2 “sucks” more than season 1, even though, in all fairness, the only fair, sincere criticism that could be made of season 2 is not that it “sucks,” but that it’s “different.”
There is quite a vast chasm between the sensibilities of asserting something is of lower quality versus merely observing that is of differing quality.
For instance, HBO’s True Detective.
Season 1’s disdainful and darkly magnetic interplay between Woody Harrelson and Matthew McConaughey as they attempt to track down a myseriously denomic serial killer presented an epic foray into televised murkiness and vile human evil.
However, season 1’s finale disappointed me greatly. To be let down so harshly by a show that once promised me so much killed all allegiance to the series, unlike many other people, so I was quite willing to turn my back season 1’s vestigial memory. And this I have done as I appear to be one of the few people who believes Season 2 of True Detective is actually better than Season 1.
Once again, the collective audience, typically close-minded and fetishisizing repetitiveness, generally does not like Season 2 because it is nothing like Season 1. The current Season 2 employs a larger, ensemble cast and concerns a modern, urban beast: the denom of avarice and human opportunism. The show takes place in Los Angeles and mimics the film noir methodology of many previous cinematic offerings that glimpsed into the dark underbelly of this city and its snapshots of corruption and civic malevolence.
And the show’s imagery captures the soul of this town more than most others.