I think I realized why tonight, during Joe's big speech about the web, Internet and future.
This is equivalent to what Mad Men does when Don does his pitches, for example the slide projector as time machine.
But the writing in the Mad Men version is so much more clear and satisfying.
Its because the tech talk turns a lot of people off. Not because its essential to the plot but because it makes people who dont understand it feel stupid. IMO
Every techie show has a hard ceiling due to this. My fiancee couldnt get into this or silicon valley because of it. At least I think thats the reason because SV is a very funny show, and you dont need to understand tech to enjoy it.
I agree. I think most people (particularly women) see this as a show about 80s computer geeks, while Mad Men was all about handsome men in suits doing presentations in swanky boardrooms. Sexier stuff.
shareThe technical aspect of it did not deter me. I watch (and love) Silicon Valley and other shows (we know which other one) involving computers. It simply was a slow burner.
I think back to when I first saw the commercials for this show before the premiere episode. I am someone who watches a lot of AMC programming and they promoted it heavily, on the network. As the story has been told here, I tuned in due to AMC's reputation for quality shows. I cannot recall whether the plot or premise was interesting to me, alone (or if the commercials, alone, are what got me to watch). To me, it was probably more about trusting AMC.
Anyway, I tuned in, watched the entire first episode, but found it to not live up to my expectations. I simply was not very involved in it; it did not hold my interest well. I always give shows at least three viewings before deciding to bail. I reached the third episode and decided it was not worth watching beyond that.
Fast-forward to just about the start of Season 2, and I cannot recall if I caught an episode that was part of a marathon or what, but I absolutely loved it. I binged it on Netflix just in time for the premiere of S2. My reaction to the first few episodes during my binge was the same - I found it disinteresting. But around episode four (I believe), I was hooked. Had I not continued to watch and given up, I would not be on this board, today.
So, in my personal opinion, I believe it started without that huge pilot that all great shows share. From Breaking Bad, The Walking Dead, Game of Thrones, Sons of Anarchy, True Detective, The Americans, Mr. Robot, Better Call Saul, Stranger Things, etc., every show that I currently watch, began with an epic pilot that grabbed you (and left me either clapping, smiling, or with my mouth wide open). You had no choice but to want to tune in the following week. Halt, not so much.
(And usually the ratings will reflect my experience explained above - if there is a huge drop from viewership after the first episode, to the third, it is because it did not have the aforementioned immediate impact)
I'm a women in my early 30's and I don't understand a lot of the tech stuff but I'm able to follow along and I find it really exciting to watch:)
"Whoa, Summers, you drive like a spaz!"
yeah that's the thing, also the promotional campaign kinda failed. this show is definitely a much more about drama that the tech itself, but still they couldn't just makes all those alien words about techs disappear. most people tend to felt boring for something that just need a little bit more of learning. This is why The Social Network and Mad men works, they didn't do much of the actual techs explanation.
shareIt's very simple. AMC does no promotion. They didn't promote Mad Men or Breaking Bad. Their business marketing model is throwing spaghetti against the wall for a couple years and if it doesn't stick, make a new pot of spaghetti.
shareDisagree. The reason is this is about computers. And computers still aren't sexy. Also, Mad Men had them having sex all the time. Tons of superhot actresses naked all the time etc. That makes good ratings. Halt and Catch is just an entirely different kind of show. I don't even get the need for a comparison here. While I obviously want it to stay on the air, I'm glad they aren't putting stuff like that in just for the ratings. It wouldn't make sense for this setting anyway.
shareThe reason is this is about computers.That makes no sense. If that is the case Mr. Robot would have 300K viewers too. share
But Mr. Robot is hip. It's in the now, not the past and half the cast is super hot females. The tech has almost no relevance in Mr. Robot. It's almost the other way around (in comparison with Halt...).
shareI think it's a demo thing. I did watch the first season of Mr. Robot, then stopped, then went back and the first episode I saw showed a girl getting murdered. I was out of there. Not everyone cares about super hot women and extreme violence which seems to be what is popular in the 18-49 demo which is the only age group TV shows cares about. HACF had no promotion. If you don't watch AMC, aren't on social media all the time, you have no idea it exists and I guarantee there are millions of people who would like HACF just the way it is if they freaking knew it existed.
shareI agree with you. There is definitely the part where Mr. Robot does much better marketing. I like listening to several podcasts and the actors from Mr. Robot were on them. None of the Halt and Catch Fire cast have ever done this. It's too bad. The show deserves a bigger audience.
shareUSA is a marketing machine. They built a network on repeats of NCIS and Law and Order to have some of the best original dramas and they canceled some good ones without batting an eyelash if the ratings were poor and they do keep some stinkers because they make a wad of money. Mr. Robot has to be the most unusual show they have shown and they even promoted it between seasons. Look what it got them - just a little thing called the Emmy. When people mention HACF and the Emmy I laugh my ass off - not that there isn't some fine acting, but they can't nominate a show no one watches. AMC does not believe in promotion at all.
shareAMC does not believe in promotion at all.
I believe it is because they really are a network of quality programming.So are they are a network full of hubris? Selling, marketing and promotion are part of any successful business. Ask anyone on Halt and Catch Fire.  As I've said numerous times, they got lucky with MM & BB, but now they think everything they air has poop that doesn't stink? I have heard nothing about The Killing except it probably had to to with the bottom line. It was a stellar show.
And I am crossing my fingers to get a chance to work on BCS after some meetingsCongrats on that! BCS is a stunning show. share
This is a bad argument. Mr. Robot is just as niche as this show, and has gotten way way way more promotion than this show. For almost all of the second season, it averaged under 700k viewers despite bombarding you everywhere you go and being nominated (winning several) for numerous awards.
You're comparing two ratings losers that shouldn't be on the air and saying one is better. They're both losers, and HACF is a million times better show than Mr. Robot, no matter what the idiots at the Academy think. Mr. Robot would be dead and buried after season 2 if it hadn't been nominated for an Emmy in the Drama category. LOLUSA again.
AMC correctly gets and likes this show. They're burying the losses in The Walking Dead's wins. Suits is the flagship original show for USA, and it has terrible ratings too. There's nothing to prop up Mr. Robot in that way. Season 3 should most definitely be its last.
When you make a comparison like this, make sure you're comparing a winner to a loser and not a loser to a loser. This is like comparing the last and next to last team, and determining which one has better coaching. No one cares about either, because they should both be irrelevant to any real conversation.
My web series:
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLece-1eaMHaC3K1xH64WtED1tMTRYWLL7
There's a fair amount of hot sex in HACF, too, and there is Lee Pace as far as a super hot actor. Not all viewers are interested in seeing super hot women, not to mention there was little nudity in MM, and no actual nudity.
I agree it's a different type of show, but has a very similar intelligence in the writing and acting MM did. A lot of subtlety, and you have to pay close attention to really appreciate it, same as with MM; that's what's so lacking in most shows, and is what I look for.
Sure, Lee Pace is superhot too, but HACF just doesn't have the intense sexual overtones Mad Men lived for. Half the episodes were about Don Draper sleeping with whomever. The same is really not true for HACF.
shareNo, it doesn't, and thank god for that. Much as I love MM, I did get annoyed with Dons repetitious sleeping with one woman or another throughput the entire series. The only thing that made it bearable to me, after several seasons of it, was the women he chose showed either his occasional evolution, or, mostly, devolution.
shareWhile I was and still am a huge Mad Men fa, HACF is the ONLY other show I care about.
One of my Mad Men friends from the MM board recently said he'd heard HACF is the "spiritual child of Mad Men." I hadn't heard that before, but it's certainly true IMO.
I LOVE the writing, and acting, in HACF. To me it's satisfying as MM was, especially after seeing the entirety of this season. It's superb TV, in the way that precious few are,
I still don't understand why it hasn't caught fire except in a small, but avid and almost cult-like way, given the unusually high quality.
Mad Men was the first show in the "prestige" TV era. So it was getting award nominations (and wins), which kept it on the air when ratings said it shouldn't be. This show is living in the middle of the "prestige" era, so while critics love it, there are just to many great TV shows & it just hasn't been able to break through and get the nominations needed to keep it on the air.
shareIMO, Mad Men created the "prestige" TV era, although others could argue it began with The Sopranos, which I personally couldn't get into, but that's just me, as I'm not into mob stuff.
Do you really think there are a lot of great TV shows? I don't, but that may be because of what I'm looking for in a TV show is something relatively specific. I watched the first episode of Breaking Bad, and lost interest. I watched I think the first season of Downton Abbey and lost interest. Likewise many other shows, which IMO were good, but not great, and didn't hook me in like HACF did, not by a long shot.
Ultimately I think what I'm looking for, what hooks me, is a show that has a lot of meat on its bones, a lot of layers and subtlety that requires and rewards multiple viewings in order to fully get it. That was true of Mad Men, and is also true of HACF. I've watched and enjoyed, to a degree, other shows, but none other than these two shows have given me this.
I actually found "Mad Men" harder to understand -- both in terms of advertising, but especially in dramatic terms; it tried too hard to be clever; "Halt and Catch Fire" is much more emotionally gripping and relatable and successful, in that sense. I barely know anything about computers, but repeated viewings yields greater comprehension, as with "Mad Men."
share1. Its a different era. There are way more TV shows than there were before, way more creative ideas and long form stories being told. When Mad Men started, with The Wire finishing up, it and Breaking Bad were the two "prestige shows". And that was it.
2. Mad Men didn't have great ratings either. Much better than HACF, but it wasn't like a total mainstream success as maybe its critical response would lead you to believe.
3. Mad Men was a better show. I like HACF, and its similar in the vain that its about the relationships of the characters more than the subject (ad agency or tech boom) and is carried by the acting. But MM was a more well written and more complete TV show.