Okay, I'll play. Let's see what people have nominated:
-South Park: I really like South Park, but haven't seen that much of it. That said, I really do like what I have seen.
-Doctor Who: Oh boy...
Okay, first of all, I don't like OldWho. Call me a philistine, call me an uncultured swine, call me a "damn millennial," whatever, I don't care. That's not to say that there isn't some good stuff in this era (probably tired of hearing this, but I'll again point to Caves of Androzani), but they're the exception rather than the rule. The writing is hokey, the effects are hokey, the acting is hokey, and the music...god damn it, the music, the music is TERRIBLE. It's an example of what I call "wallpaper music," where it's just there to drone on. Compare this to NuWho, where there's distinct musical soundtracks that are used in conjunction with key moments in the story. In OldWho, I can't think of a single memorable piece of music outside the title theme.
So, how about NuWho then? Well, for Davies's run, I'd have said unequivovably I would have LOVED Doctor Who. Having since reached the end of Moffat's run, I can only say that I "like" the show. Which is still praise, mind you, but overall, it feels that the writing got less tight under Moffat, even if he could still write excellent stand-alone episodes. And maybe it's because it's been going on for over a decade it just doesn't have the same impact it once did. But even then, with some questionable decisions (the whole gender flipping thing is irksome, even if I love Missy as a character) in recent times, I feel Doctor Who is past its prime.
So, I still like the show. I still watch the show, and when the next season begins, I'll give Jodie Whittaker a chance. But I think it's been much stronger in the past than it is today.
-Blackadder: Seen a bit of this. Quite enjoyable.
-Star Trek: Okay, I'll say it...I think Star Trek is overrated.
I mean, it's okay...but after seeing Season 1-2 of TOS, Season 1-2 of Enterprise, Season 1-2 of TNG, Season 1 of Discovery, and smatterings of DS9 and Voyager episodes, plus every movie bar Insurrection, plus sfdebris's Star Trek reviews...I just don't get it. I mean, I do like Star Trek, I just feel there's so many better sci-fi shows out there that I find its popularity baffling. And that's not even touching on the claims of "Rodenberry's vision" (is it just me, or does the series get better the less Rodenberry has to do with it - see Wrath of Khan for an example) or "hard sci-fi" (Star Trek is extremely soft), plus the fanaticism of the fanbase, as demonstrated with the Kelvinverse and Discovery.
Obviously lots of people love Star Trek, and more power to them, but I can't count myself among them. At the most, I can say that I "like" it.
-Dragonball Z: As a kid, I loved Z. But looking back, I...kinda dislike it. And I think it has to do with the following:
a) Death and consequence are meaningless. Any death, any loss, can be reversed by the Dragon Balls. If a series is free of consequence, it's hard to get invested.
b) It's formulaic as hell. Oh, Vegeta is the most powerful warrior in the universe? Nah, it's Freiza. Oh, wait, Cell's more powerful than Freiza...nup, Majin Buu...no, wait, Beerus...no, wait...ah, fuck it! There's only so many times you can keep throwing in more powerful villains without it getting tiresome, not to mention that it dictates the same strategy to defeat them - get more powerful.
c) I'm not the only one to notice this, but it's pretty much a case of "you're a saiyan or you're useless." To be honest, I find myself really put off by this idea, the idea that your level of worth (because worth in Dragon Ball is almost entirely down to physical strength, unless you're Bulma), is determined by your biology. If I was born as someone other than a saiyan in this world, no matter how hard I tried, I would be physically incapable of matching them, even if they did nothing. And apparently the series is fine with that. Some universes can get away with this - I mean, humans are worse than elves in a lot of ways, but usually have numbers on their side), but nup, it's down to "saiyan or nothing" in this world.
d) Don't know if you noticed but people in DBZ tend to talk really...really...slowly...as...they...fill...out...epi...sodes.
So, yeah. Not a fan.
-Stargate: Oh boy...let's talk about Stargate.
Way back in the ancient days of the 1990s, I watched a film (yes, FILM) called Stargate. And...I enjoyed it, even if I didn't enjoy the Stargate Genesis game (which I sucked at). True, the film has its issues, but even if it isn't outright "good," it was certainly a memorable film that did a good job of setting up its mythology. Mythology that an EU sprung up around to flesh out.
Cut forward to the 2000s, and this show called "Stargate Universe" comes out. Now, I was aware that Stargate shows had popped up from the film, but I never got to watch them. Still, with SGU I could watch it from the start and...okay, I'll talk about SGU later. But let's cut back to SG-1, where after finishing uni, I bought the entire series on DVD, and decided to watch it. It...um...okay...
Yeah, there's an extrodinary amount of tonal and contextual whiplash jumping from the film to SG-1. SG-1, which not only retcons the original EU, but simulataniously wants the viewer to remember the film, but also forget about it. It wants us to remember that this guy named Ra existed, it wants us to forget that he was not a snake parasite. It wants us to remember that he ruled a desert planet, it wants us to forget that said planet was originally in another galaxy, not 25 light years away. It wants us to remember Ra's guards and their staff weapons, it wants us to forget that they weren't Jaffa. I know that EU works (new ones, post-retcon) have tried to reconcile this, but if one treats SG-1 as a sequel to Stargate, it's a sequel that takes the barebones of the film, but alters them to its heart's content, and sets up an incredibly different tone for itself.
Still, I can admit that SG-1 is indeed a good show, and some early clunkers aside, does a good job for its first eight seasons. If I divorce SG-1 from the film, and treat it as its own thing, then it's a pretty good adventure sci-fi show, with fun writing and good characters, not to mention worldbuilding that's consistent with itself, if not the original lore. Note that I said first eight seasons, because come season 9, I think the show was really losing steam, since the Ori are basically "Goa'uld 2.0," only less interesting, and underutilized. I do put SG-1 in my top ten sci-fi shows, but this is more out of recognition for it being good, even if I can't say I love it.
Also, hyperspace. If you can travel to another galaxy in a matter of weeks, why even bother with a stargate network at all?
So, come Atlantis, which is my least favorite live-action Stargate show. This is, to me, a poor man's SG-1, with the same character archtypes, telling similar stories, only in a setting bereft of what made SG-1 interesting. Part of what made SG-1 stand out (to me) is its use of Earth mythologies as the basis of its worldbuilding. The idea of every goa'uld representing an Earth deity, and the societies spread throughout the Milky Way are indicative of that. The Pegasus humans lack any sense of identity, and the Wraith are...space vampires. That's it. Atlantis does establish its own aesthetic, but it feels like a far more generic version of SG-1. Doesn't help that its first season is the best, and it doesn't get better from there, even if Ronan is fun. I'll also point out that Atlantis feels underutilized, in that unlike SG-1 (where the USAF runs the Stargate Program), Atlantis is a multinational taskforce, but that never really comes to a head. There's no clash of cultures, or international tensions, it's just...bleh. Obviously Stargate is an American show that has American characters, but Atlantis kind of feels like 'international tokenism' As in, let's put some flags on people's shoulders, but keep our archtypes the same.
So finally, Universe - perhaps the most divisive series in the, um, series. I will say that if I had to rank the Stargate shows, it would go SG-1>SGU>SGA>SGI (haven't seen Origins, and only one episode of Infinity, but screw it, it's there). Universe does have a rocky start, but does find its stride in season 2. And while people complain that Universe is perhaps cobbling from Voyager and Battlestar Galactica, it is, to me, thankfully different from SG-1, and not an imitation like Atlantis. It has its own characters, its own setting, its own...everything. Also helps that we have Nicholas Carlyle in it (who tends to be awesome in whatever he's in - hello Rumple), but, yeah. Flawed, but I enjoyed it. And for the complaint that "it doesn't feel like Stargate," again, SG-1 doesn't feel like the movie, but people don't seem to mind that. I'm guessing that's because for many people, SG-1 was their first introduction to the franchise.
So, yeah. Stargate. Like Star Trek, I do "like" you, even if I don't "love" you.
House: If I had to describe House, it would be a bell curve. Starts out decent, peaks around season 4, then declines in quality...sort of. I actually really like House, but beyond Season 4, I think I entered "familiarity breeds contempt" territory. Stories and characters didn't have the same impact they once did. But, yeah, really liked this show.
-Babylon 5: Granted, only seen the first three seasons, but the best sci-fi show ever made, and what Star Trek wishes it could be. 'Nuff said.
