Home > Altered Geek > The Top 100 – TV Shows – Part 1 – 100-76

The Top 100 – TV Shows – Part 1 – 100-76

cropped-GCR.jpgWe talk TV, do you talk TV… I talk some TV, and now the news don’t touch that dial! That’s right GCRN Fans the NEXT Top 100 is here! This time we are counting down the GCRN’s Top 100 Television Shows. We are all done with the animation countdowns, and now it’s time to GO LIVE! So tune into Part 1 to hear which of your favorite shows ended up as #100 through #76! And as always “UNLEASH THE GEEK IN YOU!”

Geeks

Mike “TFG1” Blanchard

Steve “Megatron” Phillips

Dan “MovieRevolt” Clark

Kevin “OptimusSolo” Thompson

Amanda “HardCandiMandi” Kosowiec

Subscribe to us using iTunes or use any other podcatching client by using:

http://feeds.feedburner.com/GeekCastRadio

Download GCR_TOP100_TV001.mp3

About Steven C. Phillips

Co-Creator @GeekCastRadio | Creator @AlteredGeek | Voice Actor | Podcaster, Husband | Father | Web/Graphic Design | A/V Editor | Geek of Games, Tech, Film, TV

Check Also

Altered Geek – 321 – Geeking Out On Geek Homes

https://api.spreaker.com/v2/episodes/17541333/download.mp3Podcast: Play in new window | Download (Duration: 1:05:19 — 59.8MB) | EmbedSubscribe: Apple Podcasts …

207 comments

  1. Just started listening and I have to defend Briscoe County Jr. That show was awesome and just cause it was only one season doesn’t effect is quality. I only own three TV shows on DVD, and Firefly and Brisco County Jr. are two of them (Sci-Fi Westerns for the win). It’s sillier than Firefly, but has a really good mixture of plot and humor and the lead actors are just great.

    • I’m there with you. I don’t own the show but how aweomse was it to have Bruce Campbell on TV. Especially at that time. I’d love to see him play this character again. After seeing him in the Ash vs Evil dead show he could still do it.

  2. So happy you guys are doing another one of these. Once I heard you were doing another one I got super stoked about getting a chance to see how it turn out. Have to say a few big surprises. The good: Kids of the Hall making the list (love that show), Always Sunny Making the list (although it should be much higher). The Bad: All the hate for Scrubs. Sorry but I love that show, Sports Night being on the list. Really? Where did that come from. Overall though happy with what you have so far. I love you get shows like Saved By the Bell, Andy Griffith and Louie all in one show.

  3. Just started listening and I have to defend Briscoe County Jr. That show was awesome and just cause it was only one season doesn’t effect is quality. I only own three TV shows on DVD, and Firefly and Brisco County Jr. are two of them (Sci-Fi Westerns for the win). It’s sillier than Firefly, but has a really good mixture of plot and humor and the lead actors are just great.

    • I liked Briscoe…. it was just weird that in the middle of the Season the whole dynamic of the show changed. I forget after which ep that happens.

    • I’m there with you. I don’t own the show but how aweomse was it to have Bruce Campbell on TV. Especially at that time. I’d love to see him play this character again. After seeing him in the Ash vs Evil dead show he could still do it.

  4. So happy you guys are doing another one of these. Once I heard you were doing another one I got super stoked about getting a chance to see how it turn out. Have to say a few big surprises. The good: Kids of the Hall making the list (love that show), Always Sunny Making the list (although it should be much higher). The Bad: All the hate for Scrubs. Sorry but I love that show, Sports Night being on the list. Really? Where did that come from. Overall though happy with what you have so far. I love you get shows like Saved By the Bell, Andy Griffith and Louie all in one show.

    • See I remember enjoying Scrubs but haven’t seen it in years. It is a show I’m going to be re watching soon. Thanks for the feedback, glad you are enjoying the show!

    • Sorry but I hate Scrubs almost more than any other television show I have ever watched. Just being honest!

  5. Some random thoughts on the list.
    “Kids in the Hall”- It’s okay, but if I was gonna put a Canadian sketch series,I would’ve probably put either “SCTV Network” or “Bizarre” ahead of it, if more people knew about them,they would’ve been ahead of them. Especially “Bizarre”, which I thought about too late to consider for my list, but yeah, “KITH” is okay, but there’s better sketch comedy on there.

    “Scrubs”- Way too low. It was way ahead of it’s time, challenge many of the notions of comedy, it’s doesn’t the credit it should. It’s this generations “MAS*H”, and I don’t get the panning of it by some of you. It’s way too low, should’ve been Top 50, easily.

    “Whose Line Is It Anyway?”-I had the British version on there, I would’ve brought up, how it really was, essential sketch comedy at it’s barest, literally, improvising, which had not been done more, and that’s why, at least some version belongs on the list. Really, revealing the first drafts of the writing process essentially, and that’s the thing that’s really unique about the series. Really stripping down something that, most people proudly didn’t think could be stripped down.

    “Orange is the New Black”-Too soon, but okay.

    “Home Improvement”-Didn’t make my list, but probably would’ve made send top 100. Um, I actually don’t think it holds up as well now, than it does back then, especially the later seasons. I think when you go back to those post-“Roseanne” shows that were about the more midwest, realist, stand-up influenced shows, “Grace Under Fire” is the one that really holds up better now, but still, I’m glad it’s on there.

    “Knight Rider”-How the hell did this make it? Even if you’re going by nostalgia, I can think of five better cars from the eighties I would’ve put on there before “Knight Rider”. “Magnum”‘s car, “The Rockford Files”, eh, “Miami Vice” holds up better. I don’t get this at all.

    “How I Met Your Mother”-If this show was on, in the ’70s, when “All in the Family” and “The Mary Tyler Moore Show” and “Soap”, and “Good Times” and all those other shows that were really re-imagining what a sitcom could be, then this show would be more respected. I mean, it’s hard to do a nine-season run on a sitcom, with a running storyline that you literally start from the first episode, very bold, very daring, even though, too many can easily mistake this as a “Friends” ripoff, it’s really, shocking how well they did this. A different era and it would’ve gotten more respect.

    “Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.”- Okay, this is bullshit. Shouldn’t be on the list, shouldn’t have considered. Not a good show, at all,-, it’s yeah, this is when it’s clear that some people have TV knowledge and some don’t when crap like this makes it.

    “Sesame Street”-It’s the only kids series that made my list, I’m curious to see if something like “Mister Rogers’s Neighborhood” or something like that makes it though; it’s tough to compare, but there is definitely more than enough reasons why “Sesame Street” needs to be on the list.

    “Supernatural”-I don’t get why people like this show. WTH? It’s a dumber version of “The X-Files”, wth? This and “Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.” people like certain things and therefore they’ll vote for, superhero, supernatural stuff, without regarding quality even within the genre. Yeah, I’m baffled it made the list, much less people defending it.

    “The Adventures of Briscoe County, Jr.”-I don’t remember this show, but when I did my poll on my blog years ago, after polling 100 people, with just Top Ten lists, it did get one vote, so there is a base for it, I’m a bit shocked it showed up here. I do three one-season shows on my list, and yeah, I understand not putting too much stock in length of time, some thing don’t catch on, but this wasn’t one of them. And somebody has to explain to me the appeal of Bruce Campbell, I don’t get it.

    “The Flintstones”-I guess you can argue it’s importance, but I’m a little surprised it showed up here. Let’s not even just compare it to animation, when you think of some of it’s competitors in the genres of a family sitcom where the family’s strange for some reason, up against “The Munsters” or “The Addams Family” or “Bewitched”, in that era, I don’t know, it’s kitsch appeal gets more faint the longer it’s passed in my mind.

    “Saved By the Bell”- Oh c’mon, I know it’s nostalgic but this show is terrible. Just because we remember it fondly, I don’t know if it should be on here.

    “Homeland”-I’m actually a little surprised this one showed up. It’s good, but I don’t rank it as a great series. Even in it’s first season, it’s basically a show with one trajectory and had nowhere to go but down, maybe it’s gotten a rebound lately, but-eh. It’s the same people who did “24” I believe, but that show was always intended to be a season long, only, and then they figured out how to extend it, and “Homeland” is kind of an example why you shouldn’t do that in my mind.

    “Dragnet”-I’m glad the original version made the list, I was afraid the late ’60s one would’ve made it; not that that version, undeserving, but it’s oddly more dated, especially how anti-drug it was, it comes off more comedic. The gritty ’50s version, based on the radio series, definitely holds up better.

    “The Carol Burnett Show”-Way, way, way too low. And it still holds the record for the longest recorded laugh in TV history with the “Gone With the Wind” parody sketch. That alone should’ve put it on the list.

    Overall, eh, I’m nervous about the rest, but it’s not as bad as I worried it would be, so far anyway. Looking forward to the rest of the list.

    • Supernatural is a pretty decent show really, better than most. It’s not The Sopranos or anything, but it isn’t trying to be. It’s funny, the leads are pretty likeable, there are some really good horror moments.

      It does run a bit long, they really are reaching for ideas by season 7 or so, and it’s fan community is really, really fucking crazy, but if you’re looking for an above average popcorn show, you could do a lot worse.

      • I would argue that Party of Five was pretty dang successful with a cast of good looking people as well. Regardless of any opinions good or bad on Supernatural I would say it definitely has a huge following and maybe that alone warrants it getting a spot on the list.

        • Eh, some of the worst shows of all-time have a “following”, that’s- eh, I can’t go that far. Especially today, you know, people forget this now, but we’re in such a horrible time for television because there’s so much of it and, it’s all specialized towards an audience of some kind. A specific, it’s not going out into the ether and see who comes to it, which is new; that was never the case. Before there was three channels and that was it, you watched everything. A show like, “New Girl”, which is basically the center of FOX’s comedy lineup, gets ratings that were a 1/3 of shows that got cancelled ten years ago. Meanwhile, if you check the top most-watched TV broadcasts of all-time list, like the top 50 or top 100 or something, and most of it, what you expect, last episodes of “MAS*H”, “Cheers”, “Seinfeld”, “Magnum, P.I.”, (Yes, the highest rated drama series finale of all-time, is still “Magnum, P.I.”, by a mile btw over every other drama series finale you can think of.) and about twenty Super Bowls, and “Roots” and the “Who Shot JR”, Dallas, etc. etc., and somewhere on that list, like 49th still, or something like that, is an episode of “The Beverly Hillbillies”. Not a special episode, not a memorable episode, not a good episode, a random episode of “The Beverly Hillbillies”, that there is literally no explanation for why it’s has those ratings. Half the damn country watched it that night (And it was about half the country at the time) you watched things ’cause the novelty of a screen in your living room playing stuff, was still fresh. Popularity can make it noted but, I’d hardly call it a warranting reason for a list like this. (And in case you’re wondering, in it’s time, however big you think “Supernatural” is among it’s fans, “The Beverly Hillbillies” was about 25 times bigger, and worldwide too. Seems unbelievable today, but there a huge fanbase for it, that’s Beatle-like almost.) Anyway, I disagree fandom alone that not warrant a spot of a list like this. It shouldn’t anyway.

          As to “Party of Five”, eh, it was moderately successful, although you’re the first person I’ve heard even mention it in fifteen years. It’s been that long since I’ve seen it, and from what I remember it, most of the cast was supposedly kids, (or were supposed to be) and it was primetime soap a la “…90210”, and, yeah, soap operas might be an exception to this rule, although most of the soap operas I can name have at least aged character that’s not exactly the epitome of youth. It’s been too long since I revisited “Party of Five” for me to remember, but I’ll bet there’s a regular that you might be forgetting that doesn’t fit the mold.

          • Interesting you have some done really well thought out responses and love reading them. Unfortunately I think I’ve disagreed with you on every point you’ve made so far. Again I didn’t say fandom or popularity is the end all be all of if a show should make the list. I said it’s one of a dozen components that should be considered. also you say you have no time for personal favorites…I hate to break it to you but Scrubs is clearly one of yours and I’m sorry it’s not funny it’s not genius and it’s not too 100 worthy!

          • Joking with which part?

          • I don’t see how you can say we are in horrible time for TV. Sorry but TV has never been better. It’s a double edge sword I grant you, as with every Breaking Bad, Mad Men, True Detective you get a Real Housewives or Two Broke Girls. But its also never been easier to find great content, and for creators to get that content directly to the people.

            There was a reason why being considered at TV actor was a bad thing, why true cinematic talent didn’t bother with the medium, because you were stuck with a limit amount of networks that had to worry about ratings much more than do today. From production, to acting, to cinematography, writing, the list goes on, the shows today are superior in every way. Shows don’t’ have to be predicable episodic procedurals that only stretch the medium just enough to keep people on board.

            It was unheard of in the pre 2000’s era for a Academy Award Winning Actor’s next big project to be a TV show like it was for Matthew McConaughey. When a young director like Rian Johnson would look to a show like Breaking Bad to stretch his creative muscle as equally as film.

            TV before could never touch film as a tool for artistic expression. It had too many, restrictions, and cooks in the kitchen to let great people be great. Now we live in a world where content creators can have creative control. Does that lead to more specialized content? Sure, but give me specialized over a broad piece of entertainment any day of the week.

    • Thank you for the awesome breakdown.

      The one thing I’ll defend is Knight Rider…. it does deserve to be on the list. You say all the other cars were cooler… really? Could Magnum’s car TURBO BOOST….NOPE! It was shiny nd looked good, but it had no A.I. personality like K.I.T.T. Should Knight Rider have been higher…. in my personal opinion yes, but as far as what we are doing here having in the bottom section of the countdown is an ok place for it.

      As I said in the ep I plan on revisiting Scrubs and seeing if I still laugh at it. Completely agree on Agents of Shit. LOL

      • Oh, I don’t know, just because it had a literal “personality”, it’s hard for me to defend “Knight Rider”. That’s kinda like saying, that “Knight Rider” was better and more interesting than “My Mother the Car”, technically true, but still missing the point. (And yes, just because can talk and do things, more than most cars doesn’t mean it’s better than a regular car. That said, I’ll take the gadgetmobile, you take KITT, and we’ll see who survives the demolition derby. 🙂

        “Scrubs”, is quite genius, especially when you look at it as a modern version of “MASH”. On top of the other innovations, the first person narrative, through a voiceover, the cutaways, etc. (A lot of their ideas get credited to “Arrested Development” even though “Scrubs” was on first, that annoys me a bit too) but really the show is, doctors dealing with the everyday like of seeing sick people all day, through humor and their own psychoses. It’s the same as “MASH”, it’s just not on the level of war, so it’s not aiming there, and yet the show many times, becomes incredibly poignant and emotional despite that. I think it’s very underrated. People ten years from now, and gonna look back and wonder how a network show as inventive as “Scrubs” was, was not a hit show and barely registered and award season and will be dumbfounded by it.

        • If we are talking K.I.T.T. Season 1 or 2 before he lost his molecular bonded shell…. K.I.T.T. wins the derby. If we are talking after that and when the SPM was added well then it’s a toss up. But the Gadgetmobile really? That think would fall apart! Now if you wanna take the General Lee against K.I.T.T. that I could see being a closer battle.

          Thanks for all the great comments!!!

        • Sorry but can’t disagree with you more about Scrubs, absolutely nothing genius about that show…unless you are talking about genius new ways to deliver toilet humor and jokes that are never funny.

          • There may have been hospital humor, but I don’t remember toilet humor, none that wasn’t relevant to the plot. No, the show has thousands of funny moments. It’s definitely stream-of-consciousness in it’s approach, which is also unique to that show, but it’s just flat-out funny-as-hell, but it’s also touching, and frankly some of the most powerful moments in television recently are from “Scrubs”. Every time I watch “Grey’s Anatomy”, all I ever think is it’s “Scrubs” but not realistic. (And, like twenty years late, that show always feel like it should’ve been on after “St. Elsewhere” to me, not “Desperate Housewives”.) No seriously, realistic. Cause it’s humor comes from that first instant of your thought process, and not necessarily what’s said, which is, correct, people do usually work their thoughts and words that way, and it just recognizes it, that in the toughest or most dire or depressing of places and circumstances, sometimes the most childish of gallow’s humor is what you come up with to get through it. Everything’s brilliant about that show. Even the last med school season, which yeah, they probably shouldn’t have done, but if somebody other than me had watched it…; it was funny; it would’ve worked.

    • I’ve seen about 15 episodes of “Scrubs” and it lacks something major…intelligence. Yes, there is an entire montage of toilet jokes in one episode. The characters are as dry as the Sahara desert…we have J.D.’s word for it that Kelso is mean, instead of being shown Kelso being mean. The jokes less subtle than a punch in the face…it’s more like being shot in the crotch with an RPG. And most of all, it is far too juvenile…it’s as if it was made for first-graders who giggle every time they hear the word “sex”. To put it in the same category as MAS*H is insane,

      • Having the same premise as MASH doesn’t mean they are comparable in caliber of show. And no I’m not an idiot and don’t just see what’s in the forefront. I understand the subtext it is trying to go for. It doesn’t work. When the majority of the show is a glorified cartoon and then you try to switch gears to what you call subtle drama, which I see their drama as subtle as a 80’s after school special, it doesn’t work at all.

        Just because they are doctors doesn’t make the ridiculous jokes funny. Sorry but Children’s Hospital is far superior at meshing humor into a hospital setting than Scrubs. The show is too much in love with itself.

        • Oh “Children’s Hospital” is a satire of hospital shows and other things, it’s funny, but “Scrubs” was going for something more. And, you know, I’ve bashed live-action shows for being too much like cartoons before, “Malcolm in the Middle” for instance, I always thought was a bit overrated for some for that ’cause it often never did give you a breather into something that was a resemblance of reality, but it works for “Scrubs” because of how it uses the perspectives of the characters and the voice over narration. It’s that approach to instantaneous thought, almost in the improv tradition, but a lot of humor is from the ability to capture that. And that’s realistic to me, we do think that way. We may not always say it, or have it shown visually, but emotionally we do and that’s a tough form of comedy, especially in live-action. If it doesn’t make you laugh, fine, but there’s thing that don’t make me laugh that are funny too. I’m not one that things all comedy needs to make you laugh out loud when it’s structured well, whether it’s “Nurse Jackie” or “Happy Endings” but if it’s a glorified cartoon, it’s because it’s how the characters often perceive the incident and many times it isn’t, and I disagree completely on how well they handled that contrast. I hate using the word “Dramedy”, but “Scrubs” knew exactly when and how to hit you over the head with reality, especially during moments when everything else seemed so outlandish, and that’s…, that’s life in real life, and that’s life working in a hospital too. I buy that this is the emotional feelings that these characters are going through and I found those sharp swings believable. They might not be the most likable characters or the ones we’d rather have as doctors, but I don’t like the idea of Marcus Welby clones either. It might not be the right comedy for everybody, but it’s right for this show and it does it with a good reason and it’s built into the series why it’s done that way and they do it well.

          • Sorry I won’t ever agree with anything positive about Scrubs. The way you describe it its like we watched two different shows. I like shows that meld comedy and drama. Scrubs just had bad comedy mixed with bad drama. In this case two negatives don’t make a positive.

          • Yea, I’m in the same boat. You can defend this until you are blue in the face. I watched the show on multiple occasions and don’t see it the same way you do. Its bad mixed with bad topped with more bad.

    • The big thing with this project is that classic debate of favorite vs best. Based on the lists I received it was about split on how people ranked their movies. Some went the more subjective route by giong based simply on what they like. Because of that we are getting like this episode. Some more of personal favorites like Supernatural or Saved BY the Bell, then those that are argue are better quality shows like Louie, Always Sunny, Homeland, and Andy Griffith. I kind of like it that way to be honest. On a selfish side it makes the record more fun because you get true reactions and surprises, and more importantly I like having a list that represents all sorts of fandoms and critical responses.

      I agree Carol Burnett is way too high. Honestly I probably ranked it too low on my list. Mostly do to the fact I did watch much of it, and like I mentioned its not a show people were able to experience in syndication. Agents of SHIELD was a big surprise to me. No idea people thought of it fondly at all. Saved By The Bell I’m not surprised it made the list at all. In fact I was more worried it would be higher. GCRN tends to show a lot of love to childhood favorites like that, and we are well known for having a super hero bias. Although most of GCRN’s core crew didn’t vote for Agents of SHIELD. Oddly that one wasn’t just on us.

      I could never get into Scrubs. I’ve tried but Zach Braff is like fingernails on a chalk board for me. I don’t buy him as a dramatic actor so every time the show was trying get serious and he was the core it never worked for me. I”m usually open to most tastes in humor but it didn’t work either. I still ranked it on my list because my issues I realize are more of a personal manner.

      I like SCTV but I tend to prefer Kids in the Hall, and think its much more than okay. Similar to why I like Upright Citizens Brigade they are sketch shows that stand on their own more and don’t feel just like lesser versions of SNL. As cliche as it sounds the more alternative style helped shape my sense of humor.

      Also completely disagree on Homeland. I do rank it as a great series. Much of that is due to its amazing first season which I rank as one of my favorite TV seasons of all time. It did keep that plot going longer than it should in seasons 2 & 3, but regained much of its footing i n season 4.

      With Home Improvement I will again disagree. I do feel it holds up, especially compared to shows of similar ilk like Family Matters, Full House of Fresh Prince. Haven’t seen Grace Under Fire since the 90’s so on that front I can’t compare. Maybe its me allowing nostalgia to play too big of a role but watching I still highly enjoy it. Not sayings its an remarkably well written show. The relationships of tthe characters I still find charming. Most of it is because of Patricia Richardson honestly. She plays really well off Tim Allen.

      • Well said on a lot of fronts here Dan, can’t disagree with much here

      • If you want alternative sketch comedy, look up “Bizarre” one day, you’ll really get alternative. Last I checked it’s on Youtube, an for now, it’s the uncensored versions. You see, I saw the first season of “Homeland” and immediately realized half-way through, “Okay, this show can’t last more than two years, tops,” and that to me, as good as it was, although, I wouldn’t rank it as a great series, that really it what killed it for me. It was basically that had nowhere to go. It might have found it later, by abandoning much of that original plot, but when a show, is so heavily based on an initial storyline, these two characters, and is-he or isn’t he a terrorist, I was halfway through the season, already seeing the problems of seasons 2 and 3, and whatever ahead of time, and that’s something that’s such a high degree of difficulty, and frankly, you shouldn’t do it with television…-, Jason Alexander talked about this, in-eh, what’s-his-name’s book, um, Warren Littlefield’s book “Top of the Rock” about NBC’s Must See TV era and it’s dominance for 20 years, and Alexander talked about pitching show ideas nowadays, and he’s be pitching and the guy would say, “Well, what’s gonna happen in season three?” and Alexander would look at him weirdly an answer back “Well, I’ll come in here and ask for a raise, ’cause apparently we’ve had two successful seasons.” He’s right. “Homeland” in many respects should’ve just been a miniseries, and then was made into a series anyway. Sometimes that works, “24” is the best example, but they stuck to the one-season gimmick of the show, and that’s all that they really needed to stick to, “Homeland” was already doomed to me, in that first season. Maybe I just know the formulas so well that I catch it before others, but I was already seeing the problems of that series.

        Yes, “Home Improvement” is better than those shows… (Well, oddly “The Fresh…” holds up better than it shoud but…) but that’s not the shows you compare it to. You gotta remember, the other side of ABC, there was the TGIF lineup, but the other side was the “Roseanne”, side, and that along with a couple other series, started two things, this influx of stand-up comics, sorta creating shows around their lives and characters, “The Cosby Show”, “Seinfeld”, “Ellen”, in particular, ’cause that’s also an ABC series of the time, but also, this focus on, eh, not lower-class, but definitely a middle-America tone and feel of shows. Technically, “Married… with Children” was first with this, but “Roseanne” took the realistic approach, and that’s where “Home Improvement” comes in. Comparing it to “Roseanne”, to “Grace Under Fire”, to “Ellen”, to-eh, “The Jeff Foxworthy Show”, “The Drew Carey Show”, it’s those shows that “Home Improvement” actually fits into. And it does hold up, especially the early episodes, once the kids grew up and they were doing things on “Tool Time” that were clearly stuff that nobody would ever do for their home or on their own, that’s when it loses it for me a bit. That’s where “Home Improvement” falls a bit to me. It’s still a great show, I was actually a bit surprised I didn’t find a spot for it in the end, but even though it was definitely the most popular of those shows at the time, time has sorta changed my perceptions of it, and a couple of those other shows hold up a bit better to me. If this was a Top 200, I would’ve found a spot for it, but ABC at that time, was a bit schizophrenic, kinda like NBC is now, only without the quality series, and you have to kinda separate, they had the kid sitcoms, they had these mid-America/stand-up sitcoms, and they had “NYPD Blue”, and BTW, this is the Disney network. It’s a little weird, but “Home Improvement” belongs in this other category of series and that’s where, I see it slipping a bit as time passes. Just a bit, I can’t stress that enough, narrowing to a Top 100 is hard; I get it.

        And yeah, I’m somebody who has very little use for personal favorites of people, so I’m a bit worried about what some people put on there, but then again, trying to police that, is a-eh, very lonely and often useless quest, so…. except the worst, hope for the best, at least that’s what I’m looking forward to with the rest of this list.

    • You made some very good points, and many I do agree with. I have nothing against Orange is the New Black. I tried to get into and bailed after 4 or so episodes. Regardless of how good it is, it’s too soon for it to be on a top 100 list when there are EASILY 100 shows more deserving. That’s my point with Homeland and some of the other shows.

      Yes, WTF is Knight Rider doing on this countdown?!

      “”Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.”- Okay, this is bullshit. Shouldn’t be on the
      list, shouldn’t have considered. Not a good show, at all,-, it’s yeah,
      this is when it’s clear that some people have TV knowledge and some
      don’t when crap like this makes it.”

      This is the point I made in another comment. Come on. I’m not that old, but I know of shows that were made decades before my time and understand their relevance even if I never watched them.

      • hey you leave Knight Rider alone! It was one of the biggest shows in the 80s for action adventure!!

        • Growing up, I watched it. But I haven’t seen it since, so I can’t speak to its quality. It was a pop-culture hit, but I don’t know that it was a critical success. The theme song, the car, and the premise were a lot of fun though. Still, out of the 80’s shows like this, I would expect to see Miami Vice or Magnum PI above it.

      • Well, to be fair, “Orange is the New Black” is quite good, I’m through the first season and I gotta catch up on the rest so far, but yeah, I thought it was a long way off. Also, it’s always too early to tell with Jenji Kohan, people forget she made “Weeds” before this, which was a great show, but that show, eh, it didn’t get bad, but she can get bored quickly it seems, and suddenly the entire show can change itself multiple times over. I’m hoping the fact that she trapped herself into a literal prison, will help but yeah, “Orange…” is a show I’m a bit weary of putting the all-time great banner on it.

      • I disagree with something being too soon to be on the list just because its recent. We’ll get to this more in the next episode, but to me if your show is great I’m not going to hold off because its only a few years old. Because there are not 100 shows that are easily better than Homeland and Orange is the New Black. I could see tje argument for Homeland but if anything OISTNB should be higher. Its had three seasons, its not like its only half a season in.

        I stay by the fact that TV today is far superior than TV pre 2000. The caliber of acting on down is the best its ever been. The best actors of today will appear on TV when that was never the case before unless it was on SNL or some other sketch show.

        If this was a film list I’d be upset if it was full of current stuff compared to classic stuff. Being a TV list I think its not only expected, but the right call honestly.

  6. Some random thoughts on the list.
    “Kids in the Hall”- It’s okay, but if I was gonna put a Canadian sketch series,I would’ve probably put either “SCTV Network” or “Bizarre” ahead of it, if more people knew about them,they would’ve been ahead of them. Especially “Bizarre”, which I thought about too late to consider for my list, but yeah, “KITH” is okay, but there’s better sketch comedy on there.

    “Scrubs”- Way too low. It was way ahead of it’s time, challenge many of the notions of comedy, it’s doesn’t the credit it should. It’s this generations “MAS*H”, and I don’t get the panning of it by some of you. It’s way too low, should’ve been Top 50, easily.

    “Whose Line Is It Anyway?”-I had the British version on there, I would’ve brought up, how it really was, essential sketch comedy at it’s barest, literally, improvising, which had not been done more, and that’s why, at least some version belongs on the list. Really, revealing the first drafts of the writing process essentially, and that’s the thing that’s really unique about the series. Really stripping down something that, most people proudly didn’t think could be stripped down.

    “Orange is the New Black”-Too soon, but okay.

    “Home Improvement”-Didn’t make my list, but probably would’ve made send top 100. Um, I actually don’t think it holds up as well now, than it does back then, especially the later seasons. I think when you go back to those post-“Roseanne” shows that were about the more midwest, realist, stand-up influenced shows, “Grace Under Fire” is the one that really holds up better now, but still, I’m glad it’s on there.

    “Knight Rider”-How the hell did this make it? Even if you’re going by nostalgia, I can think of five better cars from the eighties I would’ve put on there before “Knight Rider”. “Magnum”‘s car, “The Rockford Files”, eh, “Miami Vice” holds up better. I don’t get this at all.

    “How I Met Your Mother”-If this show was on, in the ’70s, when “All in the Family” and “The Mary Tyler Moore Show” and “Soap”, and “Good Times” and all those other shows that were really re-imagining what a sitcom could be, then this show would be more respected. I mean, it’s hard to do a nine-season run on a sitcom, with a running storyline that you literally start from the first episode, very bold, very daring, even though, too many can easily mistake this as a “Friends” ripoff, it’s really, shocking how well they did this. A different era and it would’ve gotten more respect.

    “Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.”- Okay, this is bullshit. Shouldn’t be on the list, shouldn’t have considered. Not a good show, at all,-, it’s yeah, this is when it’s clear that some people have TV knowledge and some don’t when crap like this makes it.

    “Sesame Street”-It’s the only kids series that made my list, I’m curious to see if something like “Mister Rogers’s Neighborhood” or something like that makes it though; it’s tough to compare, but there is definitely more than enough reasons why “Sesame Street” needs to be on the list.

    “Supernatural”-I don’t get why people like this show. WTH? It’s a dumber version of “The X-Files”, wth? This and “Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.” people like certain things and therefore they’ll vote for, superhero, supernatural stuff, without regarding quality even within the genre. Yeah, I’m baffled it made the list, much less people defending it.

    “The Adventures of Briscoe County, Jr.”-I don’t remember this show, but when I did my poll on my blog years ago, after polling 100 people, with just Top Ten lists, it did get one vote, so there is a base for it, I’m a bit shocked it showed up here. I do have three one-season shows on my list, and yeah, I understand not putting too much stock in length of time, some thing don’t catch on, but this wasn’t one of them. And somebody has to explain to me the appeal of Bruce Campbell, I don’t get it.

    “The Flintstones”-I guess you can argue it’s importance, but I’m a little surprised it showed up here. Let’s not even just compare it to animation, when you think of some of it’s competitors in the genres of a family sitcom where the family’s strange for some reason, up against “The Munsters” or “The Addams Family” or “Bewitched”, in that era, I don’t know, it’s kitsch appeal gets more faint the longer it’s passed in my mind.

    “Saved By the Bell”- Oh c’mon, I know it’s nostalgic but this show is terrible. Just because we remember it fondly, I don’t know if it should be on here.

    “Homeland”-I’m actually a little surprised this one showed up. It’s good, but I don’t rank it as a great series. Even in it’s first season, it’s basically a show with one trajectory and had nowhere to go but down, maybe it’s gotten a rebound lately, but-eh. It’s the same people who did “24” I believe, but that show was always intended to be a season long, only, and then they figured out how to extend it, and “Homeland” is kind of an example why you shouldn’t do that in my mind.

    “Dragnet”-I’m glad the original version made the list, I was afraid the late ’60s one would’ve made it; not that that version, undeserving, but it’s oddly more dated, especially how anti-drug it was, it comes off more comedic. The gritty ’50s version, based on the radio series, definitely holds up better.

    “The Carol Burnett Show”-Way, way, way too low. And it still holds the record for the longest recorded laugh in TV history with the “Gone With the Wind” parody sketch. That alone should’ve put it on the list.

    Overall, eh, I’m nervous about the rest, but it’s not as bad as I worried it would be, so far anyway. Looking forward to the rest of the list.

  7. If Agents of SHIELD made it and Daredevil or Flash don’t we riot lol. Am I the only one that never got the appeal of the Andy Griffith Show? I don’t see how it holds up at all. It’s way too simplearly and over simplifies everything.

  8. Some random thoughts on the list.
    “Kids in the Hall”- It’s okay, but if I was gonna put a Canadian sketch series,I would’ve probably put either “SCTV Network” or “Bizarre” ahead of it, if more people knew about them,they would’ve been ahead of them. Especially “Bizarre”, which I thought about too late to consider for my list, but yeah, “KITH” is okay, but there’s better sketch comedy on there.

    “Scrubs”- Way too low. It was way ahead of it’s time, challenge many of the notions of comedy, it’s doesn’t the credit it should. It’s this generations “M*A*S*H”, and I don’t get the panning of it by some of you. It’s way too low, should’ve been Top 50, easily.

    “Whose Line Is It Anyway?”-I had the British version on there, I would’ve brought up, how it really was, essential sketch comedy at it’s barest, literally, improvising, which had not been done more, and that’s why, at least some version belongs on the list. Really, revealing the first drafts of the writing process essentially, and that’s the thing that’s really unique about the series. Really stripping down something that, most people proudly didn’t think could be stripped down.

    “Orange is the New Black”-Too soon, but okay.

    “Home Improvement”-Didn’t make my list, but probably would’ve made send top 100. Um, I actually don’t think it holds up as well now, than it does back then, especially the later seasons. I think when you go back to those post-“Roseanne” shows that were about the more midwest, realist, stand-up influenced shows, “Grace Under Fire” is the one that really holds up better now, but still, I’m glad it’s on there.

    “Knight Rider”-How the hell did this make it? Even if you’re going by nostalgia, I can think of five better cars from the eighties I would’ve put on there before “Knight Rider”. “Magnum”‘s car, “The Rockford Files”, eh, “Miami Vice” holds up better. I don’t get this at all.

    “How I Met Your Mother”-If this show was on, in the ’70s, when “All in the Family” and “The Mary Tyler Moore Show” and “Soap”, and “Good Times” and all those other shows that were really re-imagining what a sitcom could be, then this show would be more respected. I mean, it’s hard to do a nine-season run on a sitcom, with a running storyline that you literally start from the first episode, very bold, very daring, even though, too many can easily mistake this as a “Friends” ripoff, it’s really, shocking how well they did this. A different era and it would’ve gotten more respect.

    “Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.”- Okay, this is bullshit. Shouldn’t be on the list, shouldn’t have considered. Not a good show, at all,-, it’s yeah, this is when it’s clear that some people have TV knowledge and some don’t when crap like this makes it.

    “Sesame Street”-It’s the only kids series that made my list, I’m curious to see if something like “Mister Rogers’s Neighborhood” or something like that makes it though; it’s tough to compare, but there is definitely more than enough reasons why “Sesame Street” needs to be on the list.

    “Supernatural”-I don’t get why people like this show. WTH? It’s a dumber version of “The X-Files”, wth? This and “Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.” people like certain things and therefore they’ll vote for, superhero, supernatural stuff, without regarding quality even within the genre. Yeah, I’m baffled it made the list, much less people defending it.

    “The Adventures of Briscoe County, Jr.”-I don’t remember this show, but when I did my poll on my blog years ago, after polling 100 people, with just Top Ten lists, it did get one vote, so there is a base for it, I’m a bit shocked it showed up here. I do three one-season shows on my list, and yeah, I understand not putting too much stock in length of time, some thing don’t catch on, but this wasn’t one of them. And somebody has to explain to me the appeal of Bruce Campbell, I don’t get it.

    “The Flintstones”-I guess you can argue it’s importance, but I’m a little surprised it showed up here. Let’s not even just compare it to animation, when you think of some of it’s competitors in the genres of a family sitcom where the family’s strange for some reason, up against “The Munsters” or “The Addams Family” or “Bewitched”, in that era, I don’t know, it’s kitsch appeal gets more faint the longer it’s passed in my mind.

    “Saved By the Bell”- Oh c’mon, I know it’s nostalgic but this show is terrible. Just because we remember it fondly, I don’t know if it should be on here.

    “Homeland”-I’m actually a little surprised this one showed up. It’s good, but I don’t rank it as a great series. Even in it’s first season, it’s basically a show with one trajectory and had nowhere to go but down, maybe it’s gotten a rebound lately, but-eh. It’s the same people who did “24” I believe, but that show was always intended to be a season long, only, and then they figured out how to extend it, and “Homeland” is kind of an example why you shouldn’t do that in my mind.

    “Dragnet”-I’m glad the original version made the list, I was afraid the late ’60s one would’ve made it; not that that version, undeserving, but it’s oddly more dated, especially how anti-drug it was, it comes off more comedic. The gritty ’50s version, based on the radio series, definitely holds up better.

    “The Carol Burnett Show”-Way, way, way too low. And it still holds the record for the longest recorded laugh in TV history with the “Gone With the Wind” parody sketch. That alone should’ve put it on the list.

    Overall, eh, I’m nervous about the rest, but it’s not as bad as I worried it would be, so far anyway. Looking forward to the rest of the list.

    • Justin_Washington

      Supernatural is a pretty decent show really, better than most. It’s not The Sopranos or anything, but it isn’t trying to be. It’s funny, the leads are pretty likeable, there are some really good horror moments.

      It does run a bit long, they really are reaching for ideas by season 7 or so, and it’s fan community is really, really fucking crazy, but if you’re looking for an above average popcorn show, you could do a lot worse.

      • Yeah, “Decent”, that’s the word. That’s what annoys me with putting it on here. It’s decent, it’s not in the great echelon of series. No it isn’t a bad show-, (Well, it’s not bad for a CW show, I will need to qualify this) but it’s not great. I wonder about the fans of it, I know some myself, I suspect that A. they haven’t seen some of the better shows before and after it, but especially with horror fans, I have a theory that horror fans will anything horror whether it’s good or bad and react the same way. Hell, there’s a whole film subgenre based on this, grand guignal, horror as comedy. But, as to “Supernatural” the leads, eh, I don’t know they don’t seem interesting to me, I think they’re too pretty boy-ish honestly, Tina Fey has that theory about how “Friends” is the exception and no other TV show has been successful with all it’s main characters being young good-looking people, (I’d argue the British version of “Coupling” is the other exception, but…) it sorta applies here, to me and other than that though, all it ever feels like is a cheesy retread of better shows, and not done with like a nod to those others like, “Monk” for instance. I really don’t see the appeal.

        • I would argue that Party of Five was pretty dang successful with a cast of good looking people as well. Regardless of any opinions good or bad on Supernatural I would say it definitely has a huge following and maybe that alone warrants it getting a spot on the list.

          • Eh, some of the worst shows of all-time have a “following”, that’s- eh, I can’t go that far. Especially today, you know, people forget this now, but we’re in such a horrible time for television because there’s so much of it and, it’s all specialized towards an audience of some kind. A specific, it’s not going out into the ether and see who comes to it, which is new; that was never the case. Before there was three channels and that was it, you watched everything. A show like, “New Girl”, which is basically the center of FOX’s comedy lineup, gets ratings that were a 1/3 of shows that got cancelled ten years ago. Meanwhile, if you check the top most-watched TV broadcasts of all-time list, like the top 50 or top 100 or something, and most of it, what you expect, last episodes of “M*A*S*H”, “Cheers”, “Seinfeld”, “Magnum, P.I.”, (Yes, the highest rated drama series finale of all-time, is still “Magnum, P.I.”, by a mile btw over every other drama series finale you can think of.) and about twenty Super Bowls, and “Roots” and the “Who Shot JR”, Dallas, etc. etc., and somewhere on that list, like 49th still, or something like that, is an episode of “The Beverly Hillbillies”. Not a special episode, not a memorable episode, not a good episode, a random episode of “The Beverly Hillbillies”, that there is literally no explanation for why it’s has those ratings. Half the damn country watched it that night (And it was about half the country at the time) you watched things ’cause the novelty of a screen in your living room playing stuff, was still fresh. Popularity can make it noted but, I’d hardly call it a warranting reason for a list like this. (And in case you’re wondering, in it’s time, however big you think “Supernatural” is among it’s fans, “The Beverly Hillbillies” was about 25 times bigger, and worldwide too. Seems unbelievable today, but there a huge fanbase for it, that’s Beatle-like almost.) Anyway, I disagree fandom alone that not warrant a spot of a list like this. It shouldn’t anyway.

            As to “Party of Five”, eh, it was moderately successful, although you’re the first person I’ve heard even mention it in fifteen years. It’s been that long since I’ve seen it, and from what I remember it, most of the cast was supposedly kids, (or were supposed to be) and it was primetime soap a la “…90210”, and, yeah, soap operas might be an exception to this rule, although most of the soap operas I can name have at least aged character that’s not exactly the epitome of youth. It’s been too long since I revisited “Party of Five” for me to remember, but I’ll bet there’s a regular that you might be forgetting that doesn’t fit the mold.

          • Interesting you have some done really well thought out responses and love reading them. Unfortunately I think I’ve disagreed with you on every point you’ve made so far. Again I didn’t say fandom or popularity is the end all be all of if a show should make the list. I said it’s one of a dozen components that should be considered. also you say you have no time for personal favorites…I hate to break it to you but Scrubs is clearly one of yours and I’m sorry it’s not funny it’s not genius and it’s not too 100 worthy!

          • I assume you are joking lol, but even as someone who didn’t enjoy Scrubs I could see its argument for Top 100. I honestly didn’t realize how critically praised it was until I started doing research. Still not a fan of it, but I do respect it.

          • Joking with which part?

          • Yeah, I’m not in the majority when it comes to believing this is the greatest era of television. That’s not to say that there aren’t great shows, I agree, but I think it’s closer to for every one “Breaking Bad”, there’s about ten “2 Broke Girl$”. Let me give a stat, 1973, Saturday Night Lineup for CBS. 8:00pm, “M*A*S*H”, 8:30pm, “All in the Family”, 9:00: “The Mary Tyler Moore Show”, 9:30pm, “The Bob Newhart Show”, 10:00pm, “The Carol Burnett Show”. You will never get a lineup that good again. Now, here’s the other question I point to, when I see a lineup like that, “Who was the audience that those shows were aiming for?” And the answer to all of them is nobody. Actually that’s wrong, the answer is “Everybody”, and that’s the thing that really makes television unbearable to me nowadays, and why, maybe we have a lot of good shows on TV, but is it a good era of television, and I say no. Because everything is micromanaged to the point, where even great shows like a “Scrubs”, are going to be attracted to only a very particular group of people. The demographics era if you will, and too much of television does this. Not just in content, but even in audience, even to the point where networks are just based around getting that audience of whoever. CW particularly I find obnoxious (although they are getting slightly better) ’cause they usually seems to aim specifically for dumb 13-year-olds and usually takes what could have been a decent idea and then dumbs them down to the point where you’re no longer bringing an audience up to you, you’re going down to them. (That’s actually probably the #1 real reason I would strike “Saved By the Bell”, ’cause lets face it, you didn’t exactly feel like you were getting something substantial out of watching it. It’s sugary cereal, nothing nutritious but you feel filled up) I mean, I get it for a cable network to be doing that, ESPN should just be trying to get sports fans, but a basic network, I don’t even have to pay for? And yeah, every HBO and AMC, and Showtime, there’s ten or twelve TLC’s out there, and it’s not even that it’s reality vs. scripted, even a show “Game of Thrones”, a show I like, but it’s definitely more akin to a specific demographic than other demographics. That’s why I find it frustrating, there’s a lot more good stuff out there, but 20 or 30x more bad stuff too, and even sorting through the good stuff can just be an overload nightmare, and even then, it’s catering to an audience too much usually. There’s a great “A Bit of Fry & Laurie” sketch from the ’80s that I always like, it was in a restaurant, and they were serving a guy who wants to break up BBC, and make UK television more like American cable, and give everybody more of an opportunity to get on television, free to all. Understandable, makes sense, but they soon take his fork away and they bring him back a bag of plastic sporks. This is what you want, a lot of lesser quality programs on many channels, and not one perfectly good working fork. That’s kinda how I see a lot of television these days. Perfectly fine a lot of it, more of it but I also tend to see that I’m swimming through sporks looking for a fork. And as television and movies, I do think there’s a switch in freedom and quality that does indicate that people are moving away from film and to television, although I would argue that that’s as much movies faltering as it is television getting better. There’s more freedom in television, some television now than ever before, but, eh, that’s actually been that way for awhile. Technically there’s nothing on HBO that couldn’t be on network if they put it on at ten o’clock or later, they just aren’t doing it.

            As to favorites, eh, I’m weird, well, if I do have favorites, I won’t admit them. That said, I don’t think of “Scrubs” as a favorite, but I’ve gone on this rant before elsewhere, but I’m not a “favorites” guy, I look at the quality before I ever look at preferences, and it’s cost me a few times, personally but I, I always believe that the distinction that people should make before anything else is between what is “good” and what you “like”, and like, is a bias, so I immediately discard it. The only time like ever comes into play when I’m analyzing is when I honestly have gone through every other piece of analysis, and even then, it’s just a tiebreaker. To me, I want to know why something’s good, tell me you like it, and i tune out, that’s a preference, and you’ll like something regardless of quality, so it means very little to me and I don’t consider, so I when someone bashing something, whether they like it or not, that’s almost indefensible behavior, ’cause quality isn’t really something debatable. I know we pretend it is, but it is determinable and measurable. I mean you can claim “Plan 9 from Outer Space” is better than “Citizen Kane”, it ain’t gonna be true. 95% of analyzing something, pretty much isn’t opinionated or debatable, now when you get to arguing whether “Citizen Kane” is better than “Casablanca” or “The Godfather” or something like, then that 5% of analysis gets a little more interesting, but I don’t consider personal favorites. Sorry, just not how I analyze work. Apparently that’s weird, but I was taught that, I figured everybody else was, until, you know, the outside world heard about it, but… (Shrugs) I’d still argue it better than taking your favorites as preferential over what might be good.

          • You can act like your taste has nothing to do with your analysis all you want, heck you can even actually believe that that’s true. Unfortunately it’s not man. I’m sorry but you can try all you want to say quality is not debatable or personal taste can be removed from your analysis but bottom line is……it’s not and it can’t. Quality is subjective and personal taste always plays a part whether you admit it or not our whether you are doing it subconsciously or not. also numerous times in this discourse on this page you have made comments to allude to the fact that somehow you have a superior skill set, upbringing or intelligence level….those aren’t good habits to get into in these types of debates and commentary just fyi

          • Um, no I don’t buy that. There’s a lot of stuff that’s great that I can’t stand at all a lot of it I actually did put on my list. But, yeah, I strongly disagree with this. If quality was really that subjective than at some point in the last 500 years or so, something would’ve replaced the Mona Lisa at the Louvre. A part, that’s subjective, yeah, but the more I think about it, it matters less and less. I can’t say someone’s untalented even if I can’t stand what they do, when clearly they are. Quality, for the most part, isn’t subjective. That’s like saying that somebody who’s a professional juggler, can’t juggle. No, I can see he can juggle and he’s worked at it for years, you know. How well they use those skills to the best of their ability and towards the piece as a whole, how well does the juggler use his skills, that’s a bit more debatable, but, yeah I get upset when I see people, really embrace the things they prefer or like, over the stuff that’s clearly better and good. To me, that’s a complete reversal on how to analyze quality and that’s just limiting. This is another reason why I say this isn’t a good time for television, especially with so many outlets and shows that, you’re no longer to go and sit and see what’s presented, people just look for the things they are already predisposed to liking. It’s limiting when you do that, but it’s encouraged now to seek out the shows that you’re already supposedly pre-disposed to liking. I find that frustrating and limiting. We don’t all have the same accesses to everything, we’re seeking out what we’re prone to seek out on our own. The fact is, you never know what you’ll actually “like” until you discover it, much less what’s good. I truly do tend to ignore my personal taste. How successful, I am, I think overall I’m pretty good at it. Doesn’t mean I haven’t occasionally rewatched a “California Dreams” when no one’s looking, but still, I’m not looking at it as something I like to watch anymore, so that’s an improvement.

            As to alluding to being more intelligent, I’m not trying to. I just come off like that sometimes, I’m told. Yeah I wish I had something better to respond there, but (Shrugs) it comes with the MENSA card, what can I tell ya? No, I’m kidding about that, but I am trying not to do that and to listen intently to everyone else’s perspective, but I often don’t agree, and I try to explain why. That’s about it.

          • Except your Mona Lisa argument doesn’t work because its as much about the history of the piece and who made it , as it is as the quality of the product of why its there. As speaking with a brother in law who goes to Yale for an Art doctorate I can tell you artists often have very bad things to say about many famous artists and their work that appear in museums. (it doesn’t get annoying at all)

            Being a professional doesn’t in turn make you great or good at what you do. Rob Ryan has been a professional defensive coordinator for decades now, I’m pretty comfortable in saying his pretty awful at his job. No matter what your status, history, or occupation you still need to execute.

            Maybe its due to text as that can cause cloud someone’s true intentions, but You’ll do yourself a huge favor in life if you realize that everyone doesn’t have to think, absorb, debate, or determine the exact way you think they should.You talk about limiting, and that mindset will only go to limit your own perspective. I didn’t read, watch, or listen to reviews to reinforce my stance or disregard others. I tend to enjoy learning how others process films, and the reason they like or dislike something. Their opinions won’t change mine usually, but I also won’t disregard it either. I love your thoughts, your reviews are great, and well thought out, but they aren’t gospel. Nor are mine by any stretch of the imagination. No one’s opinions are, when someone acts like they are that’s when they lose me.

            I look at a documentary like Leviathan. I personal love it, and feel its a great doc for reasons I won’t go into, but I also realize people are going to hate it for good reason. I don’t see how anyone can walk out of that movie and say this is in fact the true score of what this movie is. Because what unbreakable facts are you biasing that off of.

            What are the non debatable elements you use to determine the exact quality of a show. is it providing the audience with what they want? Is it creating a show that anyone can enjoy any episode? Is it ignoring the audience and creating a show that will only appeal to a specialize few? Is it creating a show before its time? Creating a show of its time? Is there an exact pacing scale someone should follow? Can’t be too quick, or too long? What’s the right or wrong way to use your dialog? How much humor should it have?
            .
            There are perceived great movies that Roger Ebert doesn’t like,and perceived bad ones that he does. Same for every critic, and everyone person. I’d hate to live in a world where Rotten Tomatoes has two scores 100% or 0% because we now have objective blue print to review media. Just sounds really boring to me. But that’s a subjective opinion I grant you .:)

          • This!!

          • I think I did pan “Leviathan”, but eh,- look I get what you guys mean in the general consensus, but on a personal perspective, eh,…. If you’re not going to go out and defend every perspective one has on something, I-eh, it doesn’t hold up. Look, I know people disagree about The Mona Lisa, I’m one of them, but A. the point still holds, historical context is apart of how you analyze a work too, and to some extent opinions are subjective, some more than others, but, I don’t understand, at all, treating them that way. If you’re not gonna go out on a limb, and really analyze everything about something if you can, then, what are you doing, just passively observing? Eh, you know, I understand that some aren’t gonna accept, see or appreciate something the ways I will, but I don’t like of idea of not promoting my perspective, and anybody else doing the same thing for that matter. I genuinely don’t think it’s good that people allow they’re subjective opinions to be the main basis for how they analyze art, of any kind, and I definitely think that it’s worth exploring and promoting my process. It doesn’t preclude disagreement by the way, just a higher level of it. It’s not assumption, either, you do have to prove one is talented. I’ve panned every Shane Carruth, ’cause I’m convinced he’s not capable of creating, an actual human character for instance (or tell a story that doesn’t involve all the characters unknowingly controlled by things outside themselves). If he can change my mind on that I’ll be ecstatic, but I’m not assuming anything, prove one’s talented and then I’ll look at how that talent is used. As to analyzing art mathematically, well,… yeah, it’s not necessarily mathematical, but I do disagree with that scene in “Dead Poets Society” where Robin Williams makes everybody tear up the part of the book about analyzing authors that way. Not that one has to prefer Shakespeare over Frost or whoever, you should still, understand where people come from with how they come to that conclusion. If anything, I find it makes it even easier to criticize and pan stuff that is otherwise generally accepted. I don’t know how you guys started misinterpreting what I’ve been writing as anything more than spirited debates and analysis, just because i analyze it differently, and because it’s my perspective, I think you need to present it as, one’s own gospel almost…-, okay, not gospel, that’s a terrible word to use there, but as assured as possible. I’m presenting an argument, and I’m looking for the defense to present a better or more convincing one. That’s all, I’m looking at the evidence and trying to read it, and you can read it differently than me, then, show me how to read it better. Even still, it’s-, you know to go back to “Leviathan”, eh, understand why some might disagree, I get, but just accepting. It’s your truth that you see it one way. This above all, to thy own self be true, it should be presented as truth, from you, it’s how you see it. That’s why I always present my perspective that way.

            As to analyzing from an archaic perspective, eh, you know, that’s the thing, it’s not archaic a perspective, it’s just not the perspective of television. I mean, it’s not new, I doubt that people who loved John Wayne movies cared about “The Brady Bunch”, but it’s overly prevalent, and especially with all the availability of other outlets, it’s causing television to not be television. That’s what I’m more skeptical of, with all these shows and ways of viewing them, it’s not-so much that it’s analyze differently than before, but it’s analyzed in a way that’s, simply not television. It’s easier to avoid bad shows, it’s also easier to miss good ones, and frankly neither of those are actually good. There’s plenty of bad television that’s ingrained in our culture and mind that’s secondhand verbiage now, hell, I just mentioned one of them. And that’s a part of television, is seeing everything available, that’s just not happening anymore. We didn’t watch a lot of those shows because we liked them, we watched them ’cause they were what’s on, and a big part of it too. That’s the real reason I don’t like the micromanaging of series towards demographics, especially today, it shouldn’t be just that easy to avoid. Television at it’s core is supposed to be all-encompassing, and that’s not what it’s becoming, now it’s, literally everybody watching their own thing on their own computers. I mean, yes there’s more freedom (Although Jack Benny had just as much freedom as Louis C.K. has now in his time and there’s a few other exceptions.) but the focusing in on demographics, that’s what’s narrowing about it, even more than the availability of other viewing options (Although I’m only begrudging accepting those just apart of the world at large now too). I get it from a business perspective to lean towards some more than others, but especially on network television, it shouldn’t be this obvious about it. And I’d argue that because some channels offer freedom for artists, doesn’t mean that’s greater either; in some ways it’s much more difficult to be going after everybody possible and getting that while creating great television. As great as it is that we are getting great shows now, we got great shows in the past too and terrible ones then and now as well, but now it’s not more limiting than ever to an audience. Despite the great shows, I find that, that makes television and in many ways, us, a lot more worst off than we used to be. That’s why when television industry as a whole nowadays, I don’t see us progressing as others do. I’m not saying I wouldn’t be avoid watching “Keeping Up with the Kardashians”, but it should honestly, be harder to avoid it than it is.

          • You really come off as someone who thinks his own shit doesn’t stink. I went to your site, checked out your reviews and they are fine, they aren’t as good as you think they are. All I see you say is give evidence and your reviews are nearly all opinion on how things should be made the way you want. That and jesus christ dude paragraphs are your friend and not every review needs to be war and piece. A little less rambling would go a long way. Honestly man you come off as a person that needs to get over himself. You are not on a higher plain then everyone else. You just get way too high on your own supply.

          • That’s not necessary. I’m all for debate and disagreement. Personal attacks like this are taking things in a direction that is not needed. If you want to disagree with someone fine,but it’s not that difficult to be civil about it.

          • I guess I’m not understanding what you are saying. Correct me if I’m wrong but what I gather from your thoughts is there is a definitive answer to whether a product is good or bad. And those that don’t agree with that answer are only doing so because they let personal biases get in the way.

            I’m not saying opinions don’t require evidence, just that two people can watch a movie or TV show, and provide equal evidence of what it is good or bad.

            Look at your Shane Carruth example. You are starting with a subjective opinion that a movie is required to have a human character at its center. I’m sure you can provide evidence of why that’s important, as I good indicating why that has no impact on what the movie is actually accomplishing. If you need that in your films I get that, but what I
            get from what your saying is that in order to argue the quality of Primer I would have to argue it has a human character at its center, because that’s the determining factor of why it’s good or bad.

            The reason we are misinterpreting what you are trying to say is because you speak as your opinion as fact, or like you have some uncanny ability we all don’t and that’s why you think the way you do. You have talent for sure, but you’re not alone in that.

            You may not realize but you come at viewpoints as if someone needs to perceive or evaluate something the same way you do, like the quality of TV today. You say provide evidence but I’ve yet to see you give evidence of why TV is better back then than today beyond TV doesn’t fit into the format you prefer, or networks don’t work the way you think they should. If they don’t fine, if that’s the way you want things I get it. But it’s
            not the way things have to be. You keep speaking about quality of something, yet I have to see how a show’s demographics impacts its quality. You aren’t following through with your own requirement.

            For me the bottom line is with TV today the talent is better at all fronts. The heights of TV today are greater than before, and we are able to create TV that is equal to that of film on every level. That wasn’t the case before. TV felt like TV because it wasn’t as well
            produced, didn’t have the same level of acting talent, and was beholden to ratings. Yes there is garbage, and yes it could easy for great TV to get lost in the shuffle, as has always been the case. Personally I prefer living in a world where I don’t have to watch TV based on a specific day and specific time. It would be impossible for me to watch anything if that was the case. My questions is how much greatness is there. And how high does that greatness go. Awful stuff will be forgotten and go away like it always does. It’s not like the 70’s was void of bad movies, but its look at with such regard because of the amount of great movies and just how great those movies where. That’s what I see with today. A time where its impossible just to keep up with how much great stuff there is. Not an issue when everything at a specific day and time it was on.

            You may think differently, or have different expectations of what TV should do. I respect that and would never state you have to have the same expectations that I do.

            However, It’s as if you unwilling to realize that the way you prefer things are not fact, or completely objective. You act as if you evidence is fact, you ask for something better but it’s impossible when you unwilling to acknowledge the evidence you are using to determine the quality of something may be evidence that has no impact on someone’s view point. You attack a Shane Carruth movie based on what you expect from a film. Great love seeing how you interpret movies and what you wish to get out of them. If his film doesn’t met those expectations then feel free to explain why. My issue is your expectations are your expectations. don’t need a human character at the center of my film to enjoy it. I enjoy movies that aren’t character driven and can appreciate films trying a different approach.

            What I gather from your responses though is that a viewpoint like that is not valid. And it’s only because I’m a casual viewer who doesn’t have the ability you do to perceive film. Maybe that’s not your attention, and I don’t think it is. But based upon the evidence you are providing that appears to be what you are arguing.

          • Okay, after two days before my computer finally started working again, I’ve long forgotten what I was planning to write in response, (Although I’m probably gonna end up turning the “horrible time for television” reaction/comment into my own blogpost eventually, and I’m definitely not signing off that because it’s more well-produced now, some of it, means TV’s better overall now) but yes, I think there is some misinterpretation of my thoughts going on, and yes, I tend to present my opinions as facts, ’cause that’s how I was taught to present them and argue them. That said, I also don’t think much of a fan perspective, so I do disregard it immediately usually. To me, not only does it play off as bias, which it is, but it often leads to a narrowing of one’s perspective and honestly I see more bad in that perspective than good and find it better to take a look at work outside of that perspective, and usually through a more educated prism. To me, there’s a distinct difference between “like and good” and too often, I see it confused for each other, and often the like completely dominant over the good, and I just disagree with that approach, if for no other, than I just don’t buy that art is as subjective as some say. It kinda feels like saying, “This turning on of the camera and recording of people acting and performing is equal to this other turn on of the camera and recording of people acting,” as, somebody who’s a film school graduate and does still occasionally work in the industry, I know for a fact that’s not true and there’s so much more to it, so when I see people treat it them as though they are and it’s only preference that distinguishes them, I see it as an affront to be completely honest. Maybe that’s why I seem more combative than I’m trying to be, but it doesn’t come off right in my mind.

            Okay, I didn’t say I hated Carruth ’cause I’m against a non-human main character, I said, “He’s not capable of it”, there’s a difference. I won’t get too into all my theories on Carruth, but basically the way he uses the symbolic and tonal touches of his films and his outright refusal to create characters that actually are characters and not just people under others’ controls under others’ control or whatever-the-hell, make me believe that he uses though these techniques as a way of hiding the fact that he can’t create a human character or a typical story for that matter. Like I said, maybe his next film will prove me wrong, but two films in nine years and basically it’s like he never passed the first lessons of screenwriting, but someone gave him the advanced Final Cut Pro to use. I mean, Malick never has a traditional narrative either but he could easily do one if he wanted to, but Carruth, I don’t think he does and that’s why I’ve heavily panned both his films…. and my Carruth rant goes on from there, and I’ll save that for another time.

          • But by being so focused on presenting your point as fact, you don’t seem to be listening or in this case reading the point I’m making.

            I don’t’ really care what you think if Shane Carruth. My point regarding your Shane Carruth criticism was that you were basing your argument on something you feel a movie has to have tobe good. My point is who is to say that is a requirement, or a movie can’t be good without that. As there are many critics, who I can only assume have an education like yours, who feel differently than you do. So if we are to use your argument that greatness of quality is without subjectivity than those who disagree with you are flat out wrong.

            And that’s my issue. You are so caught up on the idea that you are above bias that you refuse to see how truly bias you are. You’re so caught up on the fact that you come at things from a higher perspective, what you don’t realize is you sound more narrow minded than anyone. Your entire argument on TV is based on your idea of the way TV should act. That is not the case. You don’t make the rules because you went to some school for a film degree. Sure you have tools to review something, but those tools have been sharpened based on your personal taste and preferences. Yes in order to state something is good or bad you need to provide objective evidence, but the final formation of that opinion will still be effected by personal taste.

            If you wan’t to continue to think its not fine, but all I need to do is read your thoughts on something to see how you prove my point for me. I enjoy doing so anyways, so its a win win.

          • This is the biggest problem with your entire argument…you say “Television at it’s core is supposed to be all-encompassing.” …Ummm, says who? See you are working under this artificial construction that there are rules to what TV is and is not supposed to be. Just because you want everyone to be forced to watch the same shows every night and eliminate any show that doesn’t appeal to the ENTIRE family or doesn’t have at least something for each age/race/gender/maturity level/intelligence level/personal taste does not mean that’s how everyone views TV. What is wrong with someone knowing that they really really really enjoy science fiction, and therefore seeks out and watches a variety of science fiction programming? How is that somehow dumbing them down or lessening the quality of said programming that they are watching?

            I understand the nostalgia for wanting a day, like days gone by where the entire family gathers around the ONE TV set in the living room after dinner and bonds over a good wholesome program. There’s nothing wrong with you liking that or longing for that…but that doesn’t mean that any other way people value or view television outside of that notion is wrong or evil. You keep saying that people are narrowing their vision because they let the fact that they ‘like’ something shape their opinion of it…yet your vision of television and what purpose it serves is more narrow than anything else presented in this entire discussion.

            It absolutely blows my mind how you think you aren’t letting your personal taste, opinions and upbringing etc play into which shows you are saying are ‘good’ and ‘bad’ quality. Remember, we aren’t talking extremes here. No one is saying California Dreams or Beverly Hills 90210 is as high quality as E.R. or All in the Family. But for the hundreds of shows that fall in between those two extremes, there is not right or wrong answers as to how they should be ordered. You could take into account things like actors, directors, writers, longevity, ratings, awards, spin-offs, or a number of other objective pieces of information, but when it comes down to it, the difference between your #76 selection and your #77 selection is most likely almost 100% subjective and based on personal opinions.

          • You’re grading television today off an archaic principal. People don’t consume their media the same way they did in the 70’s and we have many more networks to choose from. If you were to suddenly limit the amount of networks to what it was in the 70’s you’d have just as good of lineups now as then.

            Yes it’s a flooded market so you will get garbage TV, but it’s really easy to avoid. I don’t get how you say it’s hard to fine the great stuff. I tend to just click a button, and boom great TV.

            I mean I long gave up on cable and still have access to all the best shows in TV now. I don’t care what networks catered to what demographic, that doesn’t then diminish the fact that there is more great TV than ever before. You say you only argue based on quality yet you ignore the fact there is no debate that the talent involved with TV today is far superior than ever before. That TV never came close to the heights that it does today. You argue that TV is more micromanaged, that’s just not true. Okay CW caters to a certain audience. Great, that’s a tiny piece of the TV landscape. Other networks like FX, AMC, HBO, Showtime, etc… give content creators nearly full control.

            You seemed consumed with this idea that television is lesser than before because it’s only directed towards a certain audience, yet then on the same hand argue that when you review a show you only review based upon its quality. How do those points not contradict one another? How can you say on one hand your personal taste doesn’t impact your view point, and then use an element like a show’s viewership as a gauge to judge the overall quality of a show or the medium itself? Does 2001 lose points because if you were to show that to an audience of 100 people only 25 of them on a good day would actually like it? How does being liked by more people make a show better or worse?

            TV, Movies, or any form of art isn’t a cut and dry business. Analyzing a TV show is not akin to analyzing the blueprints of building or a mathematical
            equation where opinion is null and based solely in fact. No matter how great a critic someone is or how well versed in a topic someone is personal taste plays a factor, especially when you consider something like comedy which is hugely subjective. To act like your opinion towards (the show of the episode I guess) Scrubs is not affected by your personal taste is plainly untrue. Just because you find it humorous does not make it fact, nor does me not finding it funny make that in fact true.

            To assume quality of art is not debatable is then to assume there
            is a right or wrong opinion towards a given property. There are critics who have well-formed reviews of Pulp Fiction which completely bash the film with legitimate grievances, and then there are those that sing its praises as one of the best of all time. Both which bring up equal valued points. Yes there are extremes like arguing the worst movie of all time against one of the greatest,

            To disregard someone else’s opinion that differs than yours as that’s just them allowing their personal bias to get in the way, where I don’t do that cause I only look at facts is odd to say the least. Yes there are extremes or arguing the greatest of all time verse the worst, but at the end of the day to assume your perception of a given property is not effected by your own personal bias is either you not realizing or unwilling to admit it.

            Look at some like sports that has quantifiable factors like stats, metrics, etc.. that should give a black and white picture over the quality of player. Yet the greatest coaches and players of all time can’t clearly define how great a player Eli Manning truly is. So how someone can say there are non-debatable factors that determine the quality of an art form to me is a really does nothing more than limit the way you able to experience it.

          • Dangit! Dan had way more time than I had to form my response and said every single thing I was thinking in a much better way. This is getting weird and unusual but I 100% agree with Dan on every point here

          • That Scrubs is automatically a personal choice. Though I’m not a fan I think there is merit in ranking it based on critical response.

          • I don’t see how you can say we are in horrible time for TV. Sorry but TV has never been better. It’s a double edge sword I grant you, as with every Breaking Bad, Mad Men, True Detective you get a Real Housewives or Two Broke Girls. But its also never been easier to find great content, and for creators to get that content directly to the people.

            There was a reason why being considered at TV actor was a bad thing, why true cinematic talent didn’t bother with the medium, because you were stuck with a limit amount of networks that had to worry about ratings much more than do today. From production, to acting, to cinematography, writing, the list goes on, the shows today are superior in every way. Shows don’t’ have to be predicable episodic procedurals that only stretch the medium just enough to keep people on board.

            It was unheard of in the pre 2000’s era for a Academy Award Winning Actor’s next big project to be a TV show like it was for Matthew McConaughey. When a young director like Rian Johnson would look to a show like Breaking Bad to stretch his creative muscle as equally as film.

            TV before could never touch film as a tool for artistic expression. It had too many, restrictions, and cooks in the kitchen to let great people be great. Now we live in a world where content creators can have creative control. Does that lead to more specialized content? Sure, but give me specialized over a broad piece of entertainment any day of the week.

          • “but we’re in such a horrible time for television” You are literally the first person I have come across with this viewpoint… I’m baffled on this one

      • I am a fan of Supernatural but honestly Seasons 1-5 were the best. Seasons 6-8 are terrible. Seasons 9+ have been going strongest IMO since Season 5. That being said, I think Season 11 is a bit much. I love the show but I think it’s time to put this puppy to bed after this Season end it.

    • Thank you for the awesome breakdown.

      The one thing I’ll defend is Knight Rider…. it does deserve to be on the list. You say all the other cars were cooler… really? Could Magnum’s car TURBO BOOST….NOPE! It was shiny nd looked good, but it had no A.I. personality like K.I.T.T. Should Knight Rider have been higher…. in my personal opinion yes, but as far as what we are doing here having in the bottom section of the countdown is an ok place for it.

      As I said in the ep I plan on revisiting Scrubs and seeing if I still laugh at it. Completely agree on Agents of Shit. LOL

      • Oh, I don’t know, just because it had a literal “personality”, it’s hard for me to defend “Knight Rider”. That’s kinda like saying, that “Knight Rider” was better and more interesting than “My Mother the Car”, technically true, but still missing the point. (And yes, just because can talk and do things, more than most cars doesn’t mean it’s better than a regular car. That said, I’ll take the gadgetmobile, you take KITT, and we’ll see who survives the demolition derby. 🙂

        “Scrubs”, is quite genius, especially when you look at it as a modern version of “M*A*S*H”. On top of the other innovations, the first person narrative, through a voiceover, the cutaways, etc. (A lot of their ideas get credited to “Arrested Development” even though “Scrubs” was on first, that annoys me a bit too) but really the show is, doctors dealing with the everyday like of seeing sick people all day, through humor and their own psychoses. It’s the same as “M*A*S*H”, it’s just not on the level of war, so it’s not aiming there, and yet the show many times, becomes incredibly poignant and emotional despite that. I think it’s very underrated. People ten years from now, and gonna look back and wonder how a network show as inventive as “Scrubs” was, was not a hit show and barely registered and award season and will be dumbfounded by it.

        • If we are talking K.I.T.T. Season 1 or 2 before he lost his molecular bonded shell…. K.I.T.T. wins the derby. If we are talking after that and when the SPM was added well then it’s a toss up. But the Gadgetmobile really? That think would fall apart! Now if you wanna take the General Lee against K.I.T.T. that I could see being a closer battle.

          Thanks for all the great comments!!!

        • Sorry but can’t disagree with you more about Scrubs, absolutely nothing genius about that show…unless you are talking about genius new ways to deliver toilet humor and jokes that are never funny.

          • There may have been hospital humor, but I don’t remember toilet humor, none that wasn’t relevant to the plot. No, the show has thousands of funny moments. It’s definitely stream-of-consciousness in it’s approach, which is also unique to that show, but it’s just flat-out funny-as-hell, but it’s also touching, and frankly some of the most powerful moments in television recently are from “Scrubs”. Every time I watch “Grey’s Anatomy”, all I ever think is it’s “Scrubs” but not realistic. (And, like twenty years late, that show always feel like it should’ve been on after “St. Elsewhere” to me, not “Desperate Housewives”.) No seriously, realistic. Cause it’s humor comes from that first instant of your thought process, and not necessarily what’s said, which is, correct, people do usually work their thoughts and words that way, and it just recognizes it, that in the toughest or most dire or depressing of places and circumstances, sometimes the most childish of gallow’s humor is what you come up with to get through it. Everything’s brilliant about that show. Even the last med school season, which yeah, they probably shouldn’t have done, but if somebody other than me had watched it…; it was funny; it would’ve worked.

    • I’ve seen about 15 episodes of “Scrubs” and it lacks something major…intelligence. Yes, there is an entire montage of toilet jokes in one episode. The characters are as dry as the Sahara desert…we have J.D.’s word for it that Kelso is mean, instead of being shown Kelso being mean. The jokes less subtle than a punch in the face…it’s more like being shot in the crotch with an RPG. And most of all, it is far too juvenile…it’s as if it was made for first-graders who giggle every time they hear the word “sex”. To put it in the same category as M*A*S*H is insane,

      • AGREE WITH YOU 100%!!!!!! Well put sir!

      • Oh, I think you’ve simplified the show too much. Kelso is shown as being mean, but he’s not a single-mindedly mean character, it’s also part of his job, and apart of his approach to medicine, and it’s like, I would compare him and Dr. Cox to-eh, the Berenger and Defoe characters in “Platoon” almost. (I know, easy comparison since McGinley was in “Platoon”, but it’s the obvious comparison) As to the jokes, um, again, I disagree. A. most of them are funny, and B. they’re juvenile, because they’re doctors and it’s the counter-reaction to having that kind of job and responsibility, especially for the younger doctors, the titular “Scrubs”, and what I particularly admire about the show, is how those big obvious, over-the-top jokes, that, yeah there’s a bit of “Family Guy” and other kinda not-so-subtle approaches humor to them, but they’re so big you end up seeing the great subtlety in the drama that comes from it on the other side. When things do hit them like a ton of bricks in real life, they don’t shy from it. And yes, the comparisons to “M*A*S*H”, are absolutely legitimate; it is essentially the same premise, doctors dealing with constant putting people together through childish humor and pranks, using comedy to deal with reality. No, it is on the level of a “M*A*S*H” unit in the Korean War, but it’s also not trying for that, it’s trying for the level of somewhat precocious obnoxious youth doctors out of med school, working at a regular second-tier hospital that gets eventually gets torn down by the end of the series. Yeah, they’re not going through a war, so yeah, they’re humor might be a little more juvenile, having not been jaded by something like that. This is why I think it’s also more realistic than most hospital drama series. It’s not aiming as high as “M*A*S*H” smartly, but it more-than-hits it’s mark where it’s aiming and that’s why it’s such a strong show. I think you guys see the show in front of you and whatever it is, being tuned out to it by something that doesn’t hit you on the surface, but the greatness of the series is how there is so much more going on then just the humor in the forefront.

        • Having the same premise as MASH doesn’t mean they are comparable in caliber of show. And no I’m not an idiot and don’t just see what’s in the forefront. I understand the subtext it is trying to go for. It doesn’t work. When the majority of the show is a glorified cartoon and then you try to switch gears to what you call subtle drama, which I see their drama as subtle as a 80’s after school special, it doesn’t work at all.

          Just because they are doctors doesn’t make the ridiculous jokes funny. Sorry but Children’s Hospital is far superior at meshing humor into a hospital setting than Scrubs. The show is too much in love with itself.

          • Oh “Children’s Hospital” is a satire of hospital shows and other things, it’s funny, but “Scrubs” was going for something more. And, you know, I’ve bashed live-action shows for being too much like cartoons before, “Malcolm in the Middle” for instance, I always thought was a bit overrated for some for that ’cause it often never did give you a breather into something that was a resemblance of reality, but it works for “Scrubs” because of how it uses the perspectives of the characters and the voice over narration. It’s that approach to instantaneous thought, almost in the improv tradition, but a lot of humor is from the ability to capture that. And that’s realistic to me, we do think that way. We may not always say it, or have it shown visually, but emotionally we do and that’s a tough form of comedy, especially in live-action. If it doesn’t make you laugh, fine, but there’s thing that don’t make me laugh that are funny too. I’m not one that things all comedy needs to make you laugh out loud when it’s structured well, whether it’s “Nurse Jackie” or “Happy Endings” but if it’s a glorified cartoon, it’s because it’s how the characters often perceive the incident and many times it isn’t, and I disagree completely on how well they handled that contrast. I hate using the word “Dramedy”, but “Scrubs” knew exactly when and how to hit you over the head with reality, especially during moments when everything else seemed so outlandish, and that’s…, that’s life in real life, and that’s life working in a hospital too. I buy that this is the emotional feelings that these characters are going through and I found those sharp swings believable. They might not be the most likable characters or the ones we’d rather have as doctors, but I don’t like the idea of Marcus Welby clones either. It might not be the right comedy for everybody, but it’s right for this show and it does it with a good reason and it’s built into the series why it’s done that way and they do it well.

          • Sorry I won’t ever agree with anything positive about Scrubs. The way you describe it its like we watched two different shows. I like shows that meld comedy and drama. Scrubs just had bad comedy mixed with bad drama. In this case two negatives don’t make a positive.

          • Yea, I’m in the same boat. You can defend this until you are blue in the face. I watched the show on multiple occasions and don’t see it the same way you do. Its bad mixed with bad topped with more bad.

    • The big thing with this project is that classic debate of favorite vs best. Based on the lists I received it was about split on how people ranked their movies. Some went the more subjective route by giong based simply on what they like. Because of that we are getting like this episode. Some more of personal favorites like Supernatural or Saved BY the Bell, then those that are argue are better quality shows like Louie, Always Sunny, Homeland, and Andy Griffith. I kind of like it that way to be honest. On a selfish side it makes the record more fun because you get true reactions and surprises, and more importantly I like having a list that represents all sorts of fandoms and critical responses.

      I agree Carol Burnett is way too high. Honestly I probably ranked it too low on my list. Mostly do to the fact I did watch much of it, and like I mentioned its not a show people were able to experience in syndication. Agents of SHIELD was a big surprise to me. No idea people thought of it fondly at all. Saved By The Bell I’m not surprised it made the list at all. In fact I was more worried it would be higher. GCRN tends to show a lot of love to childhood favorites like that, and we are well known for having a super hero bias. Although most of GCRN’s core crew didn’t vote for Agents of SHIELD. Oddly that one wasn’t just on us.

      I could never get into Scrubs. I’ve tried but Zach Braff is like fingernails on a chalk board for me. I don’t buy him as a dramatic actor so every time the show was trying get serious and he was the core it never worked for me. I”m usually open to most tastes in humor but it didn’t work either. I still ranked it on my list because my issues I realize are more of a personal manner.

      I like SCTV but I tend to prefer Kids in the Hall, and think its much more than okay. Similar to why I like Upright Citizens Brigade they are sketch shows that stand on their own more and don’t feel just like lesser versions of SNL. As cliche as it sounds the more alternative style helped shape my sense of humor.

      Also completely disagree on Homeland. I do rank it as a great series. Much of that is due to its amazing first season which I rank as one of my favorite TV seasons of all time. It did keep that plot going longer than it should in seasons 2 & 3, but regained much of its footing i n season 4.

      With Home Improvement I will again disagree. I do feel it holds up, especially compared to shows of similar ilk like Family Matters, Full House of Fresh Prince. Haven’t seen Grace Under Fire since the 90’s so on that front I can’t compare. Maybe its me allowing nostalgia to play too big of a role but watching I still highly enjoy it. Not sayings its an remarkably well written show. The relationships of tthe characters I still find charming. Most of it is because of Patricia Richardson honestly. She plays really well off Tim Allen.

      • Well said on a lot of fronts here Dan, can’t disagree with much here

      • If you want alternative sketch comedy, look up “Bizarre” one day, you’ll really get alternative. Last I checked it’s on Youtube, an for now, it’s the uncensored versions. You see, I saw the first season of “Homeland” and immediately realized half-way through, “Okay, this show can’t last more than two years, tops,” and that to me, as good as it was, although, I wouldn’t rank it as a great series, that really it what killed it for me. It was basically that had nowhere to go. It might have found it later, by abandoning much of that original plot, but when a show, is so heavily based on an initial storyline, these two characters, and is-he or isn’t he a terrorist, I was halfway through the season, already seeing the problems of seasons 2 and 3, and whatever ahead of time, and that’s something that’s such a high degree of difficulty, and frankly, you shouldn’t do it with television…-, Jason Alexander talked about this, in-eh, what’s-his-name’s book, um, Warren Littlefield’s book “Top of the Rock” about NBC’s Must See TV era and it’s dominance for 20 years, and Alexander talked about pitching show ideas nowadays, and he’s be pitching and the guy would say, “Well, what’s gonna happen in season three?” and Alexander would look at him weirdly an answer back “Well, I’ll come in here and ask for a raise, ’cause apparently we’ve had two successful seasons.” He’s right. “Homeland” in many respects should’ve just been a miniseries, and then was made into a series anyway. Sometimes that works, “24” is the best example, but they stuck to the one-season gimmick of the show, and that’s all that they really needed to stick to, “Homeland” was already doomed to me, in that first season. Maybe I just know the formulas so well that I catch it before others, but I was already seeing the problems of that series.

        Yes, “Home Improvement” is better than those shows… (Well, oddly “The Fresh…” holds up better than it shoud but…) but that’s not the shows you compare it to. You gotta remember, the other side of ABC, there was the TGIF lineup, but the other side was the “Roseanne”, side, and that along with a couple other series, started two things, this influx of stand-up comics, sorta creating shows around their lives and characters, “The Cosby Show”, “Seinfeld”, “Ellen”, in particular, ’cause that’s also an ABC series of the time, but also, this focus on, eh, not lower-class, but definitely a middle-America tone and feel of shows. Technically, “Married… with Children” was first with this, but “Roseanne” took the realistic approach, and that’s where “Home Improvement” comes in. Comparing it to “Roseanne”, to “Grace Under Fire”, to “Ellen”, to-eh, “The Jeff Foxworthy Show”, “The Drew Carey Show”, it’s those shows that “Home Improvement” actually fits into. And it does hold up, especially the early episodes, once the kids grew up and they were doing things on “Tool Time” that were clearly stuff that nobody would ever do for their home or on their own, that’s when it loses it for me a bit. That’s where “Home Improvement” falls a bit to me. It’s still a great show, I was actually a bit surprised I didn’t find a spot for it in the end, but even though it was definitely the most popular of those shows at the time, time has sorta changed my perceptions of it, and a couple of those other shows hold up a bit better to me. If this was a Top 200, I would’ve found a spot for it, but ABC at that time, was a bit schizophrenic, kinda like NBC is now, only without the quality series, and you have to kinda separate, they had the kid sitcoms, they had these mid-America/stand-up sitcoms, and they had “NYPD Blue”, and BTW, this is the Disney network. It’s a little weird, but “Home Improvement” belongs in this other category of series and that’s where, I see it slipping a bit as time passes. Just a bit, I can’t stress that enough, narrowing to a Top 100 is hard; I get it.

        And yeah, I’m somebody who has very little use for personal favorites of people, so I’m a bit worried about what some people put on there, but then again, trying to police that, is a-eh, very lonely and often useless quest, so…. except the worst, hope for the best, at least that’s what I’m looking forward to with the rest of this list.

        • I have not seen or honestly heard of Bizzare but I’ll surely check it out. Again doomed is a strong word for Homeland. Season 2 and 3 weren’t amazing, but I wouldn’t call them doomed or awful. At times even with their issues they were quite good, but didn’t have the same impact as season one. Also disagree with the notion you can’t do that with TV. I hate the idea of putting any type of perimeters that TV has to be one way or another. That mindset is why TV was such a secondary medium for such a long time. Creators and Networks were too unwilling to break from formula or create shows that may isolate audiences. You can never achieve greatness if you are worried about leaving audience members behind. One reason I enjoy Louie so much. He pays little attention to the say you are ‘supposed’ to make TV.

          I don’t think you were alone in the worry regarding season 2 and 3 of Homeland. At time time of the first season release that was the biggest question I saw people asking, was how can the sustain this for multiple season. Honestly, that’s not something I at all care about all that much when I’m enjoy the season I’m watching. Especially today when series will end after two seasons because that was the original plan from the beginning. Also completely okay if a show switches directions completely

          Regarding Home Improvement. I don’t think it was not aimed at nearly the same audience as Roseane or Married…with Children at all. They may have been representing the same culture and they both revolve around stand-ups, but tonally and the type of comedy are not very similar.

          To me I compare to who those shows were directed at. If you did a venn diagram of the audiences of Fresh Prince, Full House, Roseanne, Home Improvement, etc.. I almost guarantee that Prince & Full house would share much more of a same audience with Home Improvement than Roseanne or Married…with Children. I don’t disagree Roseanne is a better show, I just never considered it in the same ilk as Home Improvement.

          Regarding personal favorites, everyone’s list is guilty of it one way or another. Some more than others, but no matter how acclaimed or well knowledge someone is personal taste still plays a huge part.

          • Agree 100% with Dan again oddly enough 🙂

          • Okay, I might have done something wrong by posting those Youtube Clips, eh, sorry about that, can’t seem to get rid of them. Meant to just the site’s page, not the videos. Sorry about that.

          • I have no idea what this post is in reference to…?

          • I believe it was regarding Bizzare . My assumption is he was going to show some clips of the show.

    • You made some very good points, and many I do agree with. I have nothing against Orange is the New Black. I tried to get into and bailed after 4 or so episodes. Regardless of how good it is, it’s too soon for it to be on a top 100 list when there are EASILY 100 shows more deserving. That’s my point with Homeland and some of the other shows.

      Yes, WTF is Knight Rider doing on this countdown?!

      “”Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.”- Okay, this is bullshit. Shouldn’t be on the
      list, shouldn’t have considered. Not a good show, at all,-, it’s yeah,
      this is when it’s clear that some people have TV knowledge and some
      don’t when crap like this makes it.”

      This is the point I made in another comment. Come on. I’m not that old, but I know of shows that were made decades before my time and understand their relevance even if I never watched them.

      • hey you leave Knight Rider alone! It was one of the biggest shows in the 80s for action adventure!!

        • Growing up, I watched it. But I haven’t seen it since, so I can’t speak to its quality. It was a pop-culture hit, but I don’t know that it was a critical success. The theme song, the car, and the premise were a lot of fun though. Still, out of the 80’s shows like this, I would expect to see Miami Vice or Magnum PI above it.

          • You are missing ONE big one that unfortunately I don’t think we are going to see that trumps them all! 🙁

      • Well, to be fair, “Orange is the New Black” is quite good, I’m through the first season and I gotta catch up on the rest so far, but yeah, I thought it was a long way off. Also, it’s always too early to tell with Jenji Kohan, people forget she made “Weeds” before this, which was a great show, but that show, eh, it didn’t get bad, but she can get bored quickly it seems, and suddenly the entire show can change itself multiple times over. I’m hoping the fact that she trapped herself into a literal prison, will help but yeah, “Orange…” is a show I’m a bit weary of putting the all-time great banner on it.

      • I disagree with something being too soon to be on the list just because its recent. We’ll get to this more in the next episode, but to me if your show is great I’m not going to hold off because its only a few years old. Because there are not 100 shows that are easily better than Homeland and Orange is the New Black. I could see tje argument for Homeland but if anything OISTNB should be higher. Its had three seasons, its not like its only half a season in.

        I stay by the fact that TV today is far superior than TV pre 2000. The caliber of acting on down is the best its ever been. The best actors of today will appear on TV when that was never the case before unless it was on SNL or some other sketch show.

        If this was a film list I’d be upset if it was full of current stuff compared to classic stuff. Being a TV list I think its not only expected, but the right call honestly.

  9. Some random thoughts on the list.
    “Kids in the Hall”- It’s okay, but if I was gonna put a Canadian sketch series,I would’ve probably put either “SCTV Network” or “Bizarre” ahead of it, if more people knew about them,they would’ve been ahead of them. Especially “Bizarre”, which I thought about too late to consider for my list, but yeah, “KITH” is okay, but there’s better sketch comedy on there.

    “Scrubs”- Way too low. It was way ahead of it’s time, challenge many of the notions of comedy, it’s doesn’t the credit it should. It’s this generations “M*A*S*H”, and I don’t get the panning of it by some of you. It’s way too low, should’ve been Top 50, easily.

    “Whose Line Is It Anyway?”-I had the British version on there, I would’ve brought up, how it really was, essential sketch comedy at it’s barest, literally, improvising, which had not been done more, and that’s why, at least some version belongs on the list. Really, revealing the first drafts of the writing process essentially, and that’s the thing that’s really unique about the series. Really stripping down something that, most people proudly didn’t think could be stripped down.

    “Orange is the New Black”-Too soon, but okay.

    “Home Improvement”-Didn’t make my list, but probably would’ve made send top 100. Um, I actually don’t think it holds up as well now, than it does back then, especially the later seasons. I think when you go back to those post-“Roseanne” shows that were about the more midwest, realist, stand-up influenced shows, “Grace Under Fire” is the one that really holds up better now, but still, I’m glad it’s on there.

    “Knight Rider”-How the hell did this make it? Even if you’re going by nostalgia, I can think of five better cars from the eighties I would’ve put on there before “Knight Rider”. “Magnum”‘s car, “The Rockford Files”, eh, “Miami Vice” holds up better. I don’t get this at all.

    “How I Met Your Mother”-If this show was on, in the ’70s, when “All in the Family” and “The Mary Tyler Moore Show” and “Soap”, and “Good Times” and all those other shows that were really re-imagining what a sitcom could be, then this show would be more respected. I mean, it’s hard to do a nine-season run on a sitcom, with a running storyline that you literally start from the first episode, very bold, very daring, even though, too many can easily mistake this as a “Friends” ripoff, it’s really, shocking how well they did this. A different era and it would’ve gotten more respect.

    “Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.”- Okay, this is bullshit. Shouldn’t be on the list, shouldn’t have considered. Not a good show, at all,-, it’s yeah, this is when it’s clear that some people have TV knowledge and some don’t when crap like this makes it.

    “Sesame Street”-It’s the only kids series that made my list, I’m curious to see if something like “Mister Rogers’s Neighborhood” or something like that makes it though; it’s tough to compare, but there is definitely more than enough reasons why “Sesame Street” needs to be on the list.

    “Supernatural”-I don’t get why people like this show. WTH? It’s a dumber version of “The X-Files”, wth? This and “Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.” people like certain things and therefore they’ll vote for, superhero, supernatural stuff, without regarding quality even within the genre. Yeah, I’m baffled it made the list, much less people defending it.

    “The Adventures of Briscoe County, Jr.”-I don’t remember this show, but when I did my poll on my blog years ago, after polling 100 people, with just Top Ten lists, it did get one vote, so there is a base for it, I’m a bit shocked it showed up here. I do have three one-season shows on my list, and yeah, I understand not putting too much stock in length of time, some thing don’t catch on, but this wasn’t one of them. And somebody has to explain to me the appeal of Bruce Campbell, I don’t get it.

    “The Flintstones”-I guess you can argue it’s importance, but I’m a little surprised it showed up here. Let’s not even just compare it to animation, when you think of some of it’s competitors in the genres of a family sitcom where the family’s strange for some reason, up against “The Munsters” or “The Addams Family” or “Bewitched”, in that era, I don’t know, it’s kitsch appeal gets more faint the longer it’s passed in my mind.

    “Saved By the Bell”- Oh c’mon, I know it’s nostalgic but this show is terrible. Just because we remember it fondly, I don’t know if it should be on here.

    “Homeland”-I’m actually a little surprised this one showed up. It’s good, but I don’t rank it as a great series. Even in it’s first season, it’s basically a show with one trajectory and had nowhere to go but down, maybe it’s gotten a rebound lately, but-eh. It’s the same people who did “24” I believe, but that show was always intended to be a season long, only, and then they figured out how to extend it, and “Homeland” is kind of an example why you shouldn’t do that in my mind.

    “Dragnet”-I’m glad the original version made the list, I was afraid the late ’60s one would’ve made it; not that that version, undeserving, but it’s oddly more dated, especially how anti-drug it was, it comes off more comedic. The gritty ’50s version, based on the radio series, definitely holds up better.

    “The Carol Burnett Show”-Way, way, way too low. And it still holds the record for the longest recorded laugh in TV history with the “Gone With the Wind” parody sketch. That alone should’ve put it on the list.

    Overall, eh, I’m nervous about the rest, but it’s not as bad as I worried it would be, so far anyway. Looking forward to the rest of the list.

  10. Kids of the Hall is one of my all time favorite sketch comedies. Made me a Dave Folley for life, reason why I watched Newsradio.

  11. Justin_Washington

    If Agents of SHIELD made it and Daredevil or Flash don’t we riot lol. Am I the only one that never got the appeal of the Andy Griffith Show? I don’t see how it holds up at all. It’s way too simplearly and over simplifies everything.

    • I’ll be the first with torches and pitchforks to the riot party!!!! With Andy Griffith yes it was simple, but wasn’t that the point at the time? Give everyone Simple life lessons? Having it this early in the countdown is fine with me. Thanks for listening!!

    • Yea I think you are alone on Andy Griffith lol but not alone with your first sentence!!

  12. How can Mike say Homeland should be lower and he has never saw it? How is that possible? That comment had me stratching my head. So far I’m happy with what’s been on the list. Except for Agents of Shield. That’s not even one of the best 100 shows of today let alone ever. Also Orange is the New Black should be much higher. Top 50 easy.

    • Compared to shows I have seen versus ones I haven’t. That’s what I meant when I said Homeland should be lower.

      • That something I don’t understand what you mean either. What makes you think Homeland should be lower?

        • I made my personal Top 100 to submit for the overall GCRN list out of shows I’ve actually seen. Even if I’ve only seen a few episodes of said show. Then I ranked them as far as where I thought they deserved to be. So for me any show I haven’t seen deserves to be lower than one I have So Homeland never made my list, because I didn’t think I could accurately rank it, yet, Saved By The Bell did make my list. On my list it was at 65. So That was my thought process. That clear things up?

          • I’ve listened to lists where people announce the criteria they had for making their lists, and I think that may be something to think about in the future. And to emphasize that the countdowns are the GCRN Favorite X so people don’t get so upset about the picks. Just a thought. I, for one, enjoy the discussions, and a lot of people probably do enjoy that aspect more than anything.

          • the list is specifically not suppose to be the “Favorite” it is about the best, or it should be. Yea we usually do go over the ‘criteria’ we all have for making the lists but with doing 25 episodes per podcast we had to streamline a bit for times sake.

          • With 29 people apart of the project we can’t really speak for everyone. The project was presented as the Best Shows of All time,and some clearly allowed personal taste to play a bigger factor than others.

    • Surely people involved in the rankings would at least know of some of these shows and understand how critically-acclaimed they are from reading about or hearing about them? And age isn’t an excuse. You had to have heard of I Love Lucy, The Honeymooners, The Twilight Zone even if you’ve never seen them. I’ve never seen Homeland either. Yet I know it is one of the top shows out there right now based on critical acclaim. I am fine with it being on the list and its placement because I think even though it has gotten a lot of acclaim, it’s too soon to say whether it will have staying power. Hence, why Agents of Crap should not be on this list. Arrow. Love the show. The first two seasons were gold, IMO. But it missed the cut because there are easily 100 other shows more deserving, IMO.

  13. Kids of the Hall is one of my all time favorite sketch comedies. Made me a Dave Folley for life, reason why I watched Newsradio.

  14. Awesome that this is happening to say off the bat. Enjoyed the episode and the discussion. Some did have some issue so far with the countdown. Saved By the Bell is an okay kids show or whatever you want to call it. Does not deserve to be in a conversation with great tv shows.I am glad you did include animation. Some of the favorite shows right now are animated tv shows. Archer, Bojack, Rick & Morty, are easily some of the best stuff I watch. I never got The Flintstones. It had some visual gags sure. Not much more. The humor in KIDS IN THE HALL is, for the most part, purely unexplainable, and sometimes it’s actually subtly disturbing–an experimental sort of comedy that best fits in the “either you get it or you don’t” category. When watching KITH with a group, the viewer response will invariably be split: one half will be teary-eyed from laughter while the rest of the gang will be hopelessly confused or frustrated, making condescending statements like “I don’t see how you think this is funny!” . I think its good enough for top 100. 76 is a tad high. Maybe 90’s would be better off. Homeland is spell-binding, packed with enough twists and turns to keep even a seasoned mystery writer wondering. Superb acting and a script that manages to avoid the usual clichés. Kudos to the writers! I found myself debating the civil liberties vs. national security issues that are so artfully posed each week.Claire Danes, Damien Lewis and Mandy Patinkin inhabit their characters.The producers also refrained from populating the cast with impossibly beautiful people who are unlikely candidates for clandestine operatives. The performances are nuanced and exquisitely wrought.They raise serious questions about the sacrifices both personal and physical that are required in the world of espionage, and the political consequences of using “heroes” for cynical ends.

    A lot of talk about two things for me have no impact on a show. First being ratings. A show being popular does not make it good. Two and a Half Men is one of the most popular shows but its god awful. Please god don’t make it on the list. The other being Emmy’s or awards. The people who vote on the Emmy’s are well known just to pick the same people every year just because they like them. Long after shows have past their prime they will get nominated because the actor or actress did something good in their past, or just plain habit.

    One thing that caught me ear was the honest reaction you all have. I like that you’ll call something out if you don’t think it belongs on the list, which yes is a little weird too since its your list, though as mentioned you had a lot of people contribute.

    Any chance you’ll do like a listener or fan vote list? That would be cool to see.

  15. How can Mike say Homeland should be lower and he has never saw it? How is that possible? That comment had me stratching my head. So far I’m happy with what’s been on the list. Except for Agents of Shield. That’s not even one of the best 100 shows of today let alone ever. Also Orange is the New Black should be much higher. Top 50 easy.

    • Compared to shows I have seen versus ones I haven’t. That’s what I meant when I said Homeland should be lower.

      • That something I don’t understand what you mean either. What makes you think Homeland should be lower?

        • Yes Mike, you need to elaborate on this one cause we are all baffled here

        • I made my personal Top 100 to submit for the overall GCRN list out of shows I’ve actually seen. Even if I’ve only seen a few episodes of said show. Then I ranked them as far as where I thought they deserved to be. So for me any show I haven’t seen deserves to be lower than one I have So Homeland never made my list, because I didn’t think I could accurately rank it, yet, Saved By The Bell did make my list. On my list it was at 65. So That was my thought process. That clear things up?

          • I’ve listened to lists where people announce the criteria they had for making their lists, and I think that may be something to think about in the future. And to emphasize that the countdowns are the GCRN Favorite X so people don’t get so upset about the picks. Just a thought. I, for one, enjoy the discussions, and a lot of people probably do enjoy that aspect more than anything.

          • the list is specifically not suppose to be the “Favorite” it is about the best, or it should be. Yea we usually do go over the ‘criteria’ we all have for making the lists but with doing 25 episodes per podcast we had to streamline a bit for times sake.

          • With 29 people apart of the project we can’t really speak for everyone. The project was presented as the Best Shows of All time,and some clearly allowed personal taste to play a bigger factor than others.

          • Can’t you look at the acclaim and response a show received and conclude it should be on the list or not. My question though is way automatically say it should be lower because you haven’t seen it.

    • Surely people involved in the rankings would at least know of some of these shows and understand how critically-acclaimed they are from reading about or hearing about them? And age isn’t an excuse. You had to have heard of I Love Lucy, The Honeymooners, The Twilight Zone even if you’ve never seen them. I’ve never seen Homeland either. Yet I know it is one of the top shows out there right now based on critical acclaim. I am fine with it being on the list and its placement because I think even though it has gotten a lot of acclaim, it’s too soon to say whether it will have staying power. Hence, why Agents of Crap should not be on this list. Arrow. Love the show. The first two seasons were gold, IMO. But it missed the cut because there are easily 100 other shows more deserving, IMO.

  16. Agents of Shield? AGENTS OF SHIELD! What is that all about. Agent Carter I could see. Agents of SHIELD is not as bad as people say but no way should be on this list. My prediction for the top 10: 10. Game of Thrones. 9. Daredevil 8. The Sopranos. 7. 24. 6. The Walking Dead. 5. Seinfeld. 4. Mad Men. 3. I Love Lucy 2. Breaking Bad. 1. MASH.

    • People hate on AOS way too much. Same with Gotham. People watched the first few episodes, didn’t like them, and then went on to assume the shows didn’t get better when they did. Season 2 of Gotham has been great, and for my money is the best Superhero show on TV right now.

      • I agree S2 of Gotham has been far superior than Season 1!

      • I agree Gotham has gotten better. Lets not go crazy though. Arrow and Flash are still way better. Arrow has rebounded strong this season and could be the best season yet if all works out right.

      • Sorry I have stayed with AOS and its not been good at all. Its gotten better but it being better only makes it average.

      • Gotham S2 has been on par with the best superhero shows on TV, including past seasons of Arrow. I find myself eager to see the next episode. They’ve weaving the storylines very tightly. To say it is possibly the best superhero show on TV right now…you may be right. Sure, I love Arrow…it’s doing better this season so far. Flash…it’s still doing well. But Gotham is killing it.

    • Even as a lover of Walking Dead it does not deserve top 10. Top 50 Maybe. Its a fun show but lets not go crazy. The rest I agree on. Although All in the Family should be there some place.

  17. Awesome that this is happening to say off the bat. Enjoyed the episode and the discussion. Some did have some issue so far with the countdown. Saved By the Bell is an okay kids show or whatever you want to call it. Does not deserve to be in a conversation with great tv shows.I am glad you did include animation. Some of the favorite shows right now are animated tv shows. Archer, Bojack, Rick & Morty, are easily some of the best stuff I watch. I never got The Flintstones. It had some visual gags sure. Not much more. The humor in KIDS IN THE HALL is, for the most part, purely unexplainable, and sometimes it’s actually subtly disturbing–an experimental sort of comedy that best fits in the “either you get it or you don’t” category. When watching KITH with a group, the viewer response will invariably be split: one half will be teary-eyed from laughter while the rest of the gang will be hopelessly confused or frustrated, making condescending statements like “I don’t see how you think this is funny!” . I think its good enough for top 100. 76 is a tad high. Maybe 90’s would be better off. Homeland is spell-binding, packed with enough twists and turns to keep even a seasoned mystery writer wondering. Superb acting and a script that manages to avoid the usual clichés. Kudos to the writers! I found myself debating the civil liberties vs. national security issues that are so artfully posed each week.Claire Danes, Damien Lewis and Mandy Patinkin inhabit their characters.The producers also refrained from populating the cast with impossibly beautiful people who are unlikely candidates for clandestine operatives. The performances are nuanced and exquisitely wrought.They raise serious questions about the sacrifices both personal and physical that are required in the world of espionage, and the political consequences of using “heroes” for cynical ends.

    A lot of talk about two things for me have no impact on a show. First being ratings. A show being popular does not make it good. Two and a Half Men is one of the most popular shows but its god awful. Please god don’t make it on the list. The other being Emmy’s or awards. The people who vote on the Emmy’s are well known just to pick the same people every year just because they like them. Long after shows have past their prime they will get nominated because the actor or actress did something good in their past, or just plain habit.

    One thing that caught me ear was the honest reaction you all have. I like that you’ll call something out if you don’t think it belongs on the list, which yes is a little weird too since its your list, though as mentioned you had a lot of people contribute.

    Any chance you’ll do like a listener or fan vote list? That would be cool to see.

    • I agree that just because a show has good ratings and/or awards doesn’t make it good. However, it should be part of the discussion. When trying to rate shows its important to bring in objective facts to provide why a show should be higher, lower, or not on the list at all. Emmy’s like all award shows have their issues for sure, but they do mean something.

    • I agree with most of what you are saying but 100% DISAGREE with your take on critical acclaim/ratings etc. Should it be the only thing looked at or considered…absolutely not. Should it alone be enough to get something on the list, most times no. However, it very much should be a component of how you break down shows. There is something to be said for a show that is actually watched and talked about and part of the water cooler conversation. A show is made to be watched and if its the ‘most watched’ show of its time or a majority of its seasons than that should count for something in a project like this. And regardless how biased you feel emmy’s or golden globes are it still is worth bringing up. I view it as less important than ratings but again these are only 2 of 6 components I considered when shaping my list and attempting to be as objective as possible. I’ll address this more in the next episode’s intro if possible!

      • I can see you point on the awards, but how does being talked about make a show good or effect the quality of the show? Is Vincent van Gogh not a great artist because no one talked about him at the time? Your show should speak for yourself. Being popular or getting high ratings rarely has anything to do with how good a show is. Baywatch was one of the most watched shows in the 90’s and probably ever. Would you put that on the list? Look at as show like Spaced. Was not talked about much at the time in the US. A lot of people still haven’t seen it in fact. But it is amazing show full of people who are now major stars. Would you not count that because it didn’t win awards or was talked about at the water cooler as you say. Even though if you go back an watch it now you can see how brilliant it is. Also ratings and being talked about aren’t one in the same. I remember everyone talking about Firefly but the ratings were awful. Then you have a show like JAG that had huge ratings, no one talked about it, and everyone has pretty much forgotten it. I can point to show after show that was popular but not good or memorable so that’s why I don’t think that should count for anything when rating shows like this.

        • I think we are arguing extremes here. I don’t think anyone would say an average show with great ratings is deserving or a great show with bad ratings is not deserving of being on the list. For me the first and biggest thing I looked at was quality of the show. How great did it get. Then I considered things like impact, influence, and at times popularity. It wasn’t a huge factor but if a show had an impact on pop culture because of its popularity that is a positive.

          • Right that’s my point. I think you are having trouble separating one of many contributing factors and THE only contributing factor. IN my mind Ratings should very much be one of the many components considered. Why? Mainly because is cold hard numbers. You say it should be based on quality…yes but quality after a certain point is the most biased component you can consider. None of us were alive in 1950 (or most of us I assume) so who are we now really to judge those shows accurately? Ratings and Awards can help with that. Even if you rewatch every episode, it may not resonate with our generation because we are watching it after the fact, and in a completely different environment. Ultimately any show put out there is put out there to ‘succeed’ and success by television standards IS ratings. It would be the equivalent of not using statistics when trying to judge a baseball player that no one living ever saw in person. Thats a terrible example but with time I could come up with a dozen better ones. Again is a minor contributing factor but how successful a show was (TV Networkds Standard of success), how much it was watched (any tv shows goal) and how much it was part of the popular culture of the time should 100% be a part of the discussion in the creation of a list such as this!

          • So let me ask you a question. You have Show A. Show A came out in the 1950’s at the time wasn’t well regarded, didn’t win awards, but now looking back on it it was ahead of its time and an overall great show. You then have Show B. Show B is a show you personally don’t like now watching, but has won awards and had high ratings. Which show would you put over the other?

          • I would need to know how Show A and Show B rate in the other half dozen criteria/aspects I look at when judging its overall worth.

          • That makes sense. I still feel it should be a factor. Shows are often popular because who is in them or because they appeal to a large audience. Jay Leno had huge ratings because his jokes were bland and easy. When he left no one really cared. Letterman though was unique and broke new ground. Never got close to him in the ratings. When Letterman left it was a big deal. because those who loved him really loved him.

  18. Agents of Shield? AGENTS OF SHIELD! What is that all about. Agent Carter I could see. Agents of SHIELD is not as bad as people say but no way should be on this list. My prediction for the top 10: 10. Game of Thrones. 9. Daredevil 8. The Sopranos. 7. 24. 6. The Walking Dead. 5. Seinfeld. 4. Mad Men. 3. I Love Lucy 2. Breaking Bad. 1. MASH.

    • Good predictions. Well have to see how close you are!

    • Solid choices! I think 3 of those for sure will be Top 10 – But the list has been unpredictable so far! Agree with you on Agents of Shield 100%!

    • People hate on AOS way too much. Same with Gotham. People watched the first few episodes, didn’t like them, and then went on to assume the shows didn’t get better when they did. Season 2 of Gotham has been great, and for my money is the best Superhero show on TV right now.

      • I agree S2 of Gotham has been far superior than Season 1!

      • I agree Gotham has gotten better. Lets not go crazy though. Arrow and Flash are still way better. Arrow has rebounded strong this season and could be the best season yet if all works out right.

      • Sorry I have stayed with AOS and its not been good at all. Its gotten better but it being better only makes it average.

      • Gotham S2 has been on par with the best superhero shows on TV, including past seasons of Arrow. I find myself eager to see the next episode. They’ve weaving the storylines very tightly. To say it is possibly the best superhero show on TV right now…you may be right. Sure, I love Arrow…it’s doing better this season so far. Flash…it’s still doing well. But Gotham is killing it.

        • out of them all though The Flash is the best so far.

          • Flash is very strong. I finished ep 5, so I am still catching up. King Shark was awesome. It and Gotham are very close for me. Gotham has been a total surprise though. I am glad I stuck with it when I wanted to drop it and my wife insisted we keep watching. It is definitely the most-improved show.

          • eh its hard for me to get over some of the cheese and the terrible dialogue/writing…we still are watching it for some reason though

          • Terrible writing??? You are kidding right? The Flash as a character is supposed to be light hearted and upbeat, and fun. Until something dire happens to him or his family. I say this because there’s meant to be a bit of cheese in there, and it’s a good thing that there is. At least it’s not 90s cheese lol

    • Even as a lover of Walking Dead it does not deserve top 10. Top 50 Maybe. Its a fun show but lets not go crazy. The rest I agree on. Although All in the Family should be there some place.

  19. NIce! This made my long trip into work so much better. I cannot get enough of countdowns especially when I don’t have to read anything lol. I hope to see some of my favorite shows make the list. Firefly, Battlestar Galactica, Arrow, The Simpsons, South Park, and Community.

  20. Why is Louie so low? The humor is of the best kind – dry and effective, and Louie faces some real problems that are common for all of us at one point – aging and going through tough (but hilarious) changes in life… Seeing THAT from Louie’s point of view is particularly interesting… The show itself is refreshing in the sea of mediocre popular boringness that we see today on TV and has only gotten better. Its way better than Modern Family. More people just need to see it.

    My other issue is that Whose Line is it Anyway? is on this list. The UK version was much better and even that its just an above average improv comedy show that just got famous cause it was on TV.

  21. NIce! This made my long trip into work so much better. I cannot get enough of countdowns especially when I don’t have to read anything lol. I hope to see some of my favorite shows make the list. Firefly, Battlestar Galactica, Arrow, The Simpsons, South Park, and Community.

  22. Isn’t this a nice
    surprise. Didn’t realize this was happening and next thing I know look at my
    iphone and have a gem waiting for me. I like this format more. Getting right to
    it and 25 entries per episode make more sense for me. Plus I’m weird and like
    long podcasts. Now the list itself. Hard to say anything about some of the
    older shows. Anything pre late 70s is off my radar. I do have to back up Scrubs
    though. What’s with the hate? I get not everyone’s comedy style is the same but
    Scrubs was a damn fine show. Yes the ABC
    seasons were a huge step down but that’s the same with a lot of shows. I’m glad
    it made the list and it’s at a good spot.

  23. Isn’t this a nice surprise. Didn’t realize this was happening and next thing I know look at my iphone and have a gem waiting for me. I like this format more. Getting right to it and 25 entries per episode make more sense for me. Plus I’m weird and like long podcasts. Now the list itself. Hard to say anything about some of the older shows. Anything pre late 70s is off my radar. I do have to back up Scrubs though. What’s with the hate? I get not everyone’s comedy style is the same but Scrubs was a damn fine show. Yes the ABC seasons were a huge step down but that’s the same with a lot of shows. I’m glad it made the list and it’s at a good spot.

  24. A lot of fun so far. Did not expect all the love for Golden Girls. Never liked anything about that show at all. Not geeky enough for me lol.

  25. Why is Louie so low? The humor is of the best kind – dry and effective, and Louie faces some real problems that are common for all of us at one point – aging and going through tough (but hilarious) changes in life… Seeing THAT from Louie’s point of view is particularly interesting… The show itself is refreshing in the sea of mediocre popular boringness that we see today on TV and has only gotten better. Its way better than Modern Family. More people just need to see it.

    My other issue is that Whose Line is it Anyway? is on this list. The UK version was much better and even that its just an above average improv comedy show that just got famous cause it was on TV.

    • Oh its better than an average improv comedy show. I’ve gone to a bunch and most improv shows are garbage to be honest. Unless you have a well known group that is well regarded and well trained. On a format stand point yes its basic improv. But quality was its very good. It has some of the best improvers in the business.

  26. Isn’t this a nice
    surprise. Didn’t realize this was happening and next thing I know look at my
    iphone and have a gem waiting for me. I like this format more. Getting right to
    it and 25 entries per episode make more sense for me. Plus I’m weird and like
    long podcasts. Now the list itself. Hard to say anything about some of the
    older shows. Anything pre late 70s is off my radar. I do have to back up Scrubs
    though. What’s with the hate? I get not everyone’s comedy style is the same but
    Scrubs was a damn fine show. Yes the ABC
    seasons were a huge step down but that’s the same with a lot of shows. I’m glad
    it made the list and it’s at a good spot.

  27. Isn’t this a nice surprise. Didn’t realize this was happening and next thing I know look at my iphone and have a gem waiting for me. I like this format more. Getting right to it and 25 entries per episode make more sense for me. Plus I’m weird and like long podcasts. Now the list itself. Hard to say anything about some of the older shows. Anything pre late 70s is off my radar. I do have to back up Scrubs though. What’s with the hate? I get not everyone’s comedy style is the same but Scrubs was a damn fine show. Yes the ABC seasons were a huge step down but that’s the same with a lot of shows. I’m glad it made the list and it’s at a good spot.

  28. I wonder with this being a geek top 100 TV list where other Joss Whedon shows will fall if Agents of Shield made the cut. Is Dollhouse top 50? Firefly would have to be Top 10. Buffy too even. Although I always preferred Angel.

  29. I was confused on so many levels. I am in awe of what is to come.

  30. I wonder with this being a geek top 100 TV list where other Joss Whedon shows will fall if Agents of Shield made the cut. Is Dollhouse top 50? Firefly would have to be Top 10. Buffy too even. Although I always preferred Angel.

  31. I was confused on so many levels. I am in awe of what is to come.

  32. Had to put this here. Once of my favorite Srubs moments.

  33. Had to put this here. Once of my favorite Srubs moments.

  34. I’m enjoying the countdown. The addition of Amanda is welcome to the countdowns, even though I often disagree with her picks. 🙂

    I think the list is shaping up nicely so far. I’m disappointed at the placement for Andy Griffith. That is easily one of the most respected TV hits, and a pop culture icon. Oh, and what’s the hate for Scrubs? I understand it is quirky and some people don’t like that style of humor (just like I don’t like The Office), but I was surprised that no one on the panel seemed to like it.

    By the way, some picks are just pure head-scratchers. I mean, Supernatural as a #1 TV show? And what is Agents of Shi! doing on this list? Maybe this should have been called a Geek Top 100 TV shows? Some shows aren’t appealing to me, but I still ranked them because they were relevant, ground-breaking, critically-acclaimed, are pop-culture icons, etc.. For instance, I don’t like M.A.S.H., but I expect it to be on this list, and it should be. Agents of Shield doesn’t deserve to be on a list that isn’t more specific (e.g., Top 100 Sci-Fi or Fantasy). Saved by the Bell…I think there are easily 100 shows more deserving. At least some people had the sense to rank Bob Newhart, Carol Burnett, and other classic shows that are still watchable today. In a few years, I doubt anyone will care about what happened on Agents of Shield. Supernatural seems like a decent show. I have seen the first few episodes, but it is not a top ten, top 20, or top 100 show. X-Files and even shows like Buffy or Angel were more relevant, critically-acclaimed, and resonant in pop culture and are more deserving to be on this list.

    I noticed that I did not rank The Golden Girls on my list, and that was an error. I’m glad others ranked it. Again, not a show I watched, but I knew of it and believe it deserves a spot here.

    Looking forward to the next podcast!

    • You need to watch Supernatural into it a while before making judgment. Seasons 1-5 and 8-11 are great. Seasons 6-7 are utter garbage. It has lasting power and better than some I’ve seen show up so far. It should be in the Top 50 at least.

    • To clarify no one had Supernatural at their number one spot. Amanda said it was her favorite show, but didn’t list it as number one however. Someone did list it as number 2.

      I don’t disagree that many did allow personal biases to get in the way, and there are shows in the countdown that aren’t in the right spot for sure.

      To be fair I didn’t require people to provide a reasoning for their list. It’s hard enough to make one. Maybe if we did it would cause some to look at it differently. My hope was by getting a bigger pool personal taste would be less and less a factor. I think for the most part that happened with some side effects. Like with you and Golden Girls it can be easy to forget a show. So what tends to happen is the shows people are passionate about almost always make the list. While others they didn’t see, had little exposure to, or are unaware of are easily left off. In that case many of the classic shows that aren’t talked about today.

      I’ll say things change as the list goes on, and for the most part there are only a handful of shows that made the final list i think are 100% not worthy of the top 100. AOS being one of them.

      • Still, you understand my point. #2 or #1…anyone voting Supernatural that high obviously is voting based on personal favorites or bias. And that is fine if that is the intent of this list. I also made out a list as one of the contributors, so I know it is difficult to fit everything in or not leave shows out. I do like the discussions regarding the shows and seeing some surprises. It’s all in good fun, honestly.

        As for shows today being better…yes, production values and the quality of the writing is better in many respects, but I am surprised to hear you make a blanket statement about TV now being better than TV before 2000. What shows were able to do with their limited budgets by creating memorable characters and stories despite their low budgets makes them even more of an achievement, in my opinion.

        • To discount modern shows, length of programming and the type is also a bias. So to each their own. There were shows that are going to be biased on the list and there are going to be ones that aren’t. By pooling them together it makes it so the bias more or less leaks out. Had Supernatural NOT been at #2 on a list, it wouldn’t have made the Top 100 which it most certainly should. Not saying it deserves the #2 spot overall but the point is overall they counterbalance bias with more official results once the pool is collected.

          Yes smaller budgets have increased but so have the quality of shows. Do we get shows overall that are poor by design, yes but the quality shows more than outweigh the non-quality programs.

          When making the list, it gets quite daunting trying to select only 100. Then again when making it your most memorable and favorite shows are going to be remembered for the list first. Followed by the ones you cared less for. I knew of some and forgot them in an honest mistake which may have impacted more of my 50-100 range but predominately my list consists of shows I actively watch or have watched in the past even to some small degree.

        • Yes I 100% agree placing something like Supernatural that high is based more on personal taste than overall quality.

          I’m not saying all TV is better than before, or than I didn’t have classic TV shows in my Top 25, 10, or 5, because I did.

          But overall yes I do feel TV is much improved. Its more than just production for me. its the quality of talent on all phases. TV of the past was stuck with episodic story telling that limited its scope and thematic depth. Sure there are exceptions like M*A*S*H ect… but overall you could never get something the caliber of The Sopranos (which I realize was pre 2000), The Wire, Breaking Bad, or True Detective. As we talked about in this episode something like NYPD Blue was looked at as edgy and true to life. Not that its a requirement for a TV show, but if I’m watching a cop drama I’m much more impressed with something like The Wire that does feel almost too close to real life.

          Similar with acting and directing talent. Being a TV director is actually beginning to mean something. Looking at True Detective someone like Cary Fukunaga can shape 8 hours of TV to fit very extraordinary cinematic vision to create what was basically an extended film. Some of the best actors are choosing to be on TV rather than getting placed there because their careers in film is over. TV actor used to be a negative, now TV actors are often more respected than most film actors.

          To summarize the highs are higher and more often. I’m not saying great TV didn’t exist previously, but as someone who prefers film over TV I always saw it as a lesser medium. To me that’s not the case now. In the 70’s, 80’s and 90’s the gap between the quality of film and TV could fill the grand canyon. Today they are on par with one another.

          I understand we also live in a world with every rich or redneck family has a reality TV show, but I find it rather easy to ignore all of that. We have some of the worst TV ever I grant you and some of the best. You, take the good, you take the bad, … I feel like I heard his from some place before.

  35. You need to watch Supernatural into it a while before making judgment. Seasons 1-5 and 8-11 are great. Seasons 6-7 are utter garbage. It has lasting power and better than some I’ve seen show up so far. It should be in the Top 50 at least.

  36. To clarify no one had Supernatural at their number one spot. Amanda said it was her favorite show, but didn’t list it as number one however. Someone did list it as number 2.

    I don’t disagree that many did allow personal biases to get in the way, and there are shows in the countdown that aren’t in the right spot for sure.

    To be fair I didn’t require people to provide a reasoning for their list. It’s hard enough to make one. Maybe if we did it would cause some to look at it differently. My hope was by getting a bigger pool personal taste would be less and less a factor. I think for the most part that happened with some side effects. Like with you and Golden Girls it can be easy to forget a show. So what tends to happen is the shows people are passionate about almost always make the list. While others they didn’t see, had little exposure to, or are unaware of are easily left off. In that case many of the classic shows that aren’t talked about today.

    I’ll say things change as the list goes on, and for the most part there are only a handful of shows that made the final list i think are 100% not worthy of the top 100. AOS being one of them.

    • Still, you understand my point. #2 or #1…anyone voting Supernatural that high obviously is voting based on personal favorites or bias. And that is fine if that is the intent of this list. I also made out a list as one of the contributors, so I know it is difficult to fit everything in or not leave shows out. I do like the discussions regarding the shows and seeing some surprises. It’s all in good fun, honestly.

      As for shows today being better…yes, production values and the quality of the writing is better in many respects, but I am surprised to hear you make a blanket statement about TV now being better than TV before 2000. What shows were able to do with their limited budgets by creating memorable characters and stories despite their low budgets makes them even more of an achievement, in my opinion.

      • To discount modern shows, length of programming and the type is also a bias. So to each their own. There were shows that are going to be biased on the list and there are going to be ones that aren’t. By pooling them together it makes it so the bias more or less leaks out. Had Supernatural NOT been at #2 on a list, it wouldn’t have made the Top 100 which it most certainly should. Not saying it deserves the #2 spot overall but the point is overall they counterbalance bias with more official results once the pool is collected.

        Yes smaller budgets have increased but so have the quality of shows. Do we get shows overall that are poor by design, yes but the quality shows more than outweigh the non-quality programs.

        When making the list, it gets quite daunting trying to select only 100. Then again when making it your most memorable and favorite shows are going to be remembered for the list first. Followed by the ones you cared less for. I knew of some and forgot them in an honest mistake which may have impacted more of my 50-100 range but predominately my list consists of shows I actively watch or have watched in the past even to some small degree.

      • Yes I 100% agree placing something like Supernatural that high is based more on personal taste than overall quality.

        I’m not saying all TV is better than before, or than I didn’t have classic TV shows in my Top 25, 10, or 5, because I did.

        But overall yes I do feel TV is much improved. Its more than just production for me. its the quality of talent on all phases. TV of the past was stuck with episodic story telling that limited its scope and thematic depth. Sure there are exceptions like MAS*H ect… but overall you could never get something the caliber of The Sopranos (which I realize was pre 2000), The Wire, Breaking Bad, or True Detective. As we talked about in this episode something like NYPD Blue was looked at as edgy and true to life. Not that its a requirement for a TV show, but if I’m watching a cop drama I’m much more impressed with something like The Wire that does feel almost too close to real life.

        Similar with acting and directing talent. Being a TV director is actually beginning to mean something. Looking at True Detective someone like Cary Fukunaga can shape 8 hours of TV to fit very extraordinary cinematic vision to create what was basically an extended film. Some of the best actors are choosing to be on TV rather than getting placed there because their careers in film is over. TV actor used to be a negative, now TV actors are often more respected than most film actors.

        To summarize the highs are higher and more often. I’m not saying great TV didn’t exist previously, but as someone who prefers film over TV I always saw it as a lesser medium. To me that’s not the case now. In the 70’s, 80’s and 90’s the gap between the quality of film and TV could fill the grand canyon. Today they are on par with one another.

        I understand we also live in a world with every rich or redneck family has a reality TV show, but I find it rather easy to ignore all of that. We have some of the worst TV ever I grant you and some of the best. You, take the good, you take the bad, … I feel like I heard his from some place before.

  37. “Someone had Scrubs at number 10??”

    I’M SPARTACUS!

    But seriously, for its first eight seasons this was a terrific show with a ton of memorable and diverse characters, even the bit players. Not to mention it found great use for Tara Reid, Michael J Fox, Heather Graham and Brendan Fraser. It walks a fine line between hilarious and tragic in the same half hour slot. I ranked it so high partly out of personal preference and the fact that it remained consistently throughout its first run.

    I had no issue with Zach Braff here as this was the first thing I had ever seen him in, so I was in on the ground floor.

    Thoroughly enjoyed this episode, and am really looking forward to the rest.

    The debate about critical acclaim vs personal preference will always be there, but for me I left off some of the big hitter shows of the last ten-fifteen years purely because I haven’t seen them. I didn’t want to skew the list by adding shows purely because I felt I had to.

    Keep up the great work!!

    • And you’re certainly getting that. It’s been really fun so far, and Amanda definitely adds a great dynamic to the podcast.

  38. “Someone had Scrubs at number 10??”

    I’M SPARTACUS!

    But seriously, for its first eight seasons this was a terrific show with a ton of memorable and diverse characters, even the bit players. Not to mention it found great use for Tara Reid, Michael J Fox, Heather Graham and Brendan Fraser. It walks a fine line between hilarious and tragic in the same half hour slot. I ranked it so high partly out of personal preference and the fact that it remained consistently throughout its first run.

    I had no issue with Zach Braff here as this was the first thing I had ever seen him in, so I was in on the ground floor.

    Thoroughly enjoyed this episode, and am really looking forward to the rest.

    The debate about critical acclaim vs personal preference will always be there, but for me I left off some of the big hitter shows of the last ten-fifteen years purely because I haven’t seen them. I didn’t want to skew the list by adding shows purely because I felt I had to.

    Keep up the great work!!

    • I did not expect Scrubs to get the hate that it did. I did have it on my list, even though its not my favorite show because I do know there is acclaim out there for it. For some reason Zach Braff is nails on a chalk board for me, and I honestly don’t know hwy.

      The creating of the list is always a debate. Do you put shows on there you haven’t seen just because they have acclaim? I can see the argument both ways on that. When I made my list the biggest thing I looked at was how great was your show. So things like number of seasons or year of release didn’t come into play that much. In a way I designed it as if I was releasing it as a stand alone article. So maybe a show I’m not well versed in may be higher due to other factors, While something like The Office which is one of my all time favorite shows doesn’t make my top 20 because I realize quality wise, importance wise, impact wise, its not has high as something like All in the Family.

      At the end of the day its more of an exercise to get good discussion on a podcast and in the forums or post. Which I feel is happening so I’m happy with it so far.

      • And you’re certainly getting that. It’s been really fun so far, and Amanda definitely adds a great dynamic to the podcast.

  39. I can honestly say that I had no problem in NOT placing The Cosby Show on my list. Even if Cosby hadn’t turned out to be a monster, I wouldn’t have placed it in the top 100. I found it more preachy than enjoyable.

    My goal wasn’t to single out Cosby. There were just at least 100 shows I found more entertaining, and I also managed to avoid ranking such alleged “classics” as The Brady Bunch, Mork & Mindy, Gilligan’s Island, and most if not all of ABC’s TGIF lineup. #DidIDoThat?

    Now Cosby’s live albums were gems. The stand-up performances that originated the Fat Albert character were among my favorites.

    • I think you commented on the wrong post. Love the feedback though, even if I strongly disagree with your take on The Cosby Show

      • I was replying to Mike’s dread over the placement of the Cosby Show, which was literally within the first five minutes of the podcast.

        Tangentially, I was the one who put Carol Burnett at #1. I’m really glad I did now, considering where it placed.

  40. I can honestly say that I had no problem in NOT placing The Cosby Show on my list. Even if Cosby hadn’t turned out to be a monster, I wouldn’t have placed it in the top 100. I found it more preachy than enjoyable.

    My goal wasn’t to single out Cosby. There were just at least 100 shows I found more entertaining, and I also managed to avoid ranking such alleged “classics” as The Brady Bunch, Mork & Mindy, Gilligan’s Island, and most if not all of ABC’s TGIF lineup. #DidIDoThat?

    Now Cosby’s live albums were gems. The stand-up performances that originated the Fat Albert character were among my favorites.

    • Yeah i still love best of… with buck buck and the water bottle and all that!

    • I think you commented on the wrong post. Love the feedback though, even if I strongly disagree with your take on The Cosby Show

      • I was replying to Mike’s dread over the placement of the Cosby Show, which was literally within the first five minutes of the podcast.

        Tangentially, I was the one who put Carol Burnett at #1. I’m really glad I did now, considering where it placed.

Leave a Reply to TFG1Mike Cancel reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: