Escapist Podcast: 192: 96 Weekly Hours of Binge Entertainment

[The Escapist Staff]

192: 96 Weekly Hours of Binge Entertainment

How much Netflix or Hulu is too much? Is there a limit? Has binge watching and marathon viewing fundamentally changed how media is created and consumed?

An all-star all-guest team of Escapist podcasters answers these questions and more.

Also, we talk about how Conrad is an old man.

Watch Video

 

[Conrad Zimmerman]

It's true. I am an old man.

 

[NinjaDeathSlap]

Holy hell! Professional types are debating my opinions? Score!

It's true. I am an old man.

Hey Conrad (big fan of Fistshark by the way). Your feedback is much appreciated. If you'd like, we could discuss the finer points more over PM's.

 

[Conrad Zimmerman]

Hey Conrad (big fan of Fistshark by the way). Your feedback is much appreciated. If you'd like, we could discuss the finer points more over PM's.

Aw, shucks. Glad you like the show. My inbox is always open.

 

[bdcjacko]

1) I loved Pushing Daisies starring Ronan the Accuser

2) BoJack Horseman is amazing

3) People have been binge watching tv since the invention of the VCR...well at least I have all netflix or hulu does it make it easiser. Now I don't have to buy blank tapes and pre-set the VCR...though does that make fast forward the original ad-block? Hell, I remember the first season of the Simpsons being available on home-video. I never bought it, because I did remember to set the VCR.

Not only did people tape tv show back then and watch when they had time. Networks where known to have blocks or marathon events of shows since at least the early 90's.

Speaking of which, most cable networks now a days only marathon shows. Turn on Food Network right now and they are playing 6 episodes of either Dinners, Drive Ins and Dives or some cup cake show. The Science Network is playing nothing but How it is Made. History Channel is probably marathoning Pawn Stars or some show about hillbillies in the woods. Basically all cable does now is marathon its own shows. I much rather pay Netflix a 3rd of what I would pay for cable to be able to control when those shows are being marathoned.

By the way...I like how when people want to say watching a lot of shows in a row is bad, it is binge watching as opposed to marathoning.

 

[madwarper]

~Wasn't Daredevil great?

No. No, focusing the ENTIRE season on just the Kingpin was simply boring. Which was made all the more disappointing when Stick showed up, mentioned some upcoming war, then was completely forgotten.

The show would have been much more interesting if they had incorporated some monster villain-of-the-week elements.

 

[Conrad Zimmerman]

~Wasn't Daredevil great?

No. No, focusing the ENTIRE season on just the Kingpin was simply boring. Which was made all the more disappointing when Stick showed up, mentioned some upcoming war, then was completely forgotten.

The show would have been much more interesting if they had incorporated some monster villain-of-the-week elements.

I didn't find it boring at all, but I enjoy a slow burn. It provided the show an opportunity to present Kingpin as a more fully fleshed character and less like the generic comic book bad guy. He had a motivation the viewer could identify with, and a genuine pathos rather than evil for evil's sake. You can't get that kind of development when the plot gets distracted by constant intrusion from other characters that aren't going to appear more than once in the series. I wouldn't have minded one or two more villain characters to spice things up, but I'm totally happy with the route they took.

 

[madwarper]

You can't get that kind of development when the plot gets distracted by constant intrusion from other characters that aren't going to appear more than once in the series. I wouldn't have minded one or two more villain characters to spice things up, but I'm totally happy with the route they took.

I disagree.

Having some villains for the superhero to do some superhero shit with wouldn't detract from the Kingpin's slow burn.
They could have included Tombstone and/or Hammerhead.

 

[Conrad Zimmerman]

I disagree.

Having some villains for the superhero to do some superhero shit with wouldn't detract from the Kingpin's slow burn.
They could have included Tombstone and/or Hammerhead.

Well, then you don't actually disagree with me that much.

I wouldn't have minded one or two more villain characters to spice things up

See?

 

[madwarper]

I disagree.

Having some villains for the superhero to do some superhero shit with wouldn't detract from the Kingpin's slow burn.
They could have included Tombstone and/or Hammerhead.

Well, then you don't actually disagree with me that much.

I wouldn't have minded one or two more villain characters to spice things up

See?

I was disagreeing with your assertion that it was a zero sum game, that adding other villains would have automatically meant that Kingpin got less time to develop.

You can't get that kind of development when the plot gets distracted by constant intrusion from other characters that aren't going to appear more than once in the series.

 

[Conrad Zimmerman]

I was disagreeing with your assertion that it was a zero sum game, that adding other villains would have automatically meant that Kingpin got less time to develop.

You can't get that kind of development when the plot gets distracted by constant intrusion from other characters that aren't going to appear more than once in the series.

Right, and I'm saying that I didn't suggest it was a zero sum game, that one or two more villains peppered in might not have done much to damage the pacing and depth and harm my enjoyment of the series. Do you not recognize a concession when you see it?