Quote:
Originally Posted by passingbat
Because you're looking at it from a narrow viewpoint; your view only and ignoring the wider critical analysis.
There are several shows that are widely acknowledged to be excellent, but they don't appeal to me. I don't say they are over-rated, just because I don't like them. Because they have overwhelming positive reviews, I trust that they are good but they just aren't my cup of tea. So a TV channel that shows such shows is a good one; it just isn't one that appeals to me. I don't go calling it over-rated, because it clearly isn't if it's showing a bunch of highly regarded shows. I don't like sports, but it would be clearly ridiculous to call the sky sports channels over-rated, just because I don't have any interest in sports!
Personally I look at the wider picture, not just my own personal preferences, when assessing whether a channel is 'over-rated'.
|
Fair enough PB, I see your point. For the money spent, the hype around it and the amount of repeats on the channel I still see SA as over-rated though.
I will still use my own opinion to make a decision and not really rely on the general consensus of critical analysis though. I will give you a couple of examples why:
The 50 Shades of Grey trilogy of books has a 4 star rating on Amazon, the five Twilight books receive 4.5 stars, The Hunger Games trilogy scores 4.5 stars. If someone was to try and sell me these as great pieces of literature, I would (a) fall about laughing and (b) call that package over-rated too. Equally, the box sets of the film adaptations of Hunger Games and Twilight both have over 4 stars reviews on amazon. If all these films launched as the blockbuster highlights on a new all singing, all dancing, exclusive film channel, I would call that film channel over-rated as well.