Conor Dary wrote:I loved The Avengers too, especially the lovely Diana Rigg, when I saw it in the 60's. But watching it lately it seems pretty dated and a bit silly.
That was its charm! It was very 'contemporary' and goofy.
The Avengers was already ended, and in rerun by the time I first saw it, so I guess it was already "past date." Haven't seen it in forever, but Diana Rigg was and still is, imo, a great beauty. She was the reason I watched the show. I can't even recall anything about any of its plots, other actors, or anything. It was basically the Diana Rigg show, for me. And, I just googled some images of her from that time, confirming I was right about that.
gh wrote:(at this point, though, much as I loved it backin the day The Avengers has about as much substance as The Man From UNCLE)
Which, of course, I also loved. Illya Kuryakin (the blonde Beatle Commie, whoda thunk?!), brilliant! Robert Vaughn got to be a little Shatneresque at times, but the two of them spawned I Spy later, another great show.
Dumb list concept. How can you compare a limited mini-series to a real long run show? Production values are very much limited in the latter, and their goals are not the same. Give credit where it is due when the producers realize that they are dealing with a limited show concept. Patrick McGoohan only wanted to make 12 episodes of "The Prisoner" because in that 12 he said what he wanted to say. The network wanted more so the number was 17. 'Fawlty Towers" was 12 episodes over two seasons. Any more might have resulted in a decline in quality. A show like "Barney Miller" however was able to go on for years. The top of the list appears to be weighted toward more recent shows. Its absurd that a show like "Vikings", all of six episodes, rates so high. I enjoy it, but let's see if it holds up for its run. I love the two seasons I've seen of "Sherlock," but really, two seasons of three shows each! "Homeland" seems to have already "jumped the shark." When my kids were kids I thought "Mr. Rogers' Neighborhood" was great. Who is voting anyway? That's my rant. Of course if I felt this way I didn't have to reply.
not a dumb concept at all. This is the definitive "movie" database with thousands of people voting on their ratings of things. So, while it's not done by experts, it does reflect how the populace as a whole feels, and sometimes ya just gotta live with what people who think differently than you feel.
And there was no attempt to compare shows against each other. This is from their ongoing ratings list, where people assign a value to a show. The "limited mini-series" vs "long run show" had nothing to do with it. It's the impression that the body of work made on the average shlub.
With that set of parameters in mind, it's a rather instructive list methinks.
I think it is interesting. And certainly a good starting point for a discussion. Considering the wide range I was surprised that the list was better than I thought it would be, or at least had quite a few of my favorites in the top 200.
It is interesting and good for conversation starters but the list is also a mess... science documentaries and mini-series lumped together with comedies and HBO dramas? Sorta like ranking the best athletes from all sports (as other threads have attempted)... comparing Breaking Bad with The Beatles Anthology is like arguing the comparative merits of Bob Hayes and Olga Korbut. Fun but not very productive. That being said, I agree that The Avengers was the best series ever. And has anyone noticed that Diana Rigg (Mrs. Peel) is now a major character on Game of Thrones?
Then, too, the bottom of the list is interesting: Toddlers and Tiaras dead last followed by Super Sweet 16, Paris Hilton and Honey Boo Boo... but on the same last page is Oprah and Jay Leno. In my heart of hearts I still embrace the slogan in my old and now misplaced "Couch Potatoes Handbook": There is no such thing as bad TV...
Conor Dary wrote:Is there anyway to search for a title in that thing?
Just go to its IMDB page and see what the average ranking is. That should make it easy to find out its ranking on the list.
And to be high on the list you need to have a few things going for you: --A very dedicated fan base to rank the show very high --Very few people to give it a bad rating
So the shows on premium cable channels are typically going to be watched by people interested in the show. Lots of high ratings for the good shows, and few poor ratings from people not interested in the show. Science documentaries will probably have very few negative reviews, because any reasonably well done science doc will be pretty darn cool. Some of the offbeat cult shows had a rabid fan base, but were not seen by a lot of people. I'm thinking Arrested Development and Firefly.
as to the absence of Connections and Last Place, I'm guessing it's a function of the parsing tool that the compiler used not catching everything that was TV, because if you look at the whole list, it's 2500 deep, going down to things rated 1.8.
at the bottom of the page you can export the file and open it as Excel. From that we can determine that Connections and Last Place, both of which are 7.6s, are behind 900 other shows (plus any other that got missed).