Per Mad Hatter’s enquiry/challenge, I’ve decided to articulate as best I can why I’ve made a conscious decision not to include Mad Men in my TV rotation, so without further ado:
After about 30 years or so of freebasing TV directly into my brain through my optic nerve, I have learned that it is possible to get into just about any television show if you watch enough episodes. I’ve f0llowed everything from soaps to reality shows, and all it takes is a few regular doses to get yourself immersed in the story and the characters. As such, I’ve had to train myself to be ruthless and cut the fat out of my TV diet at every turn, just to make time for things like family, food and the occasional trip to the bathroom. My criteria are generally on the back end, after having watched the show. I’ll look for weak writing, unlikeable characters, shoddy photography and al that. But to manage the load of what I will be evaluating I have to discriminate on the front end too. That’s right, I’m a seriously prejudiced TV watcher.
- Like most people, if a show looks stupid, stars someone I don’t like, or is aired on NBC, I can write it off right away.
- Then I consider whether a show is going to take me on a journey to a place I want to go. This is the crteria (and the NBC one too, I suppose) that kept me from Friday Night Lights for so long. I had no interest in exploring high school in small town Texas.
- FInally, I measure the hype factor of the show for anything suspicious. If the show is suddenly popular with a multitude of people who are otherwise oblivious to actually great TV (like Dexter, The Wire, Deadwood, even The Sopranos) then that strikes me as suspicious. That strikes me as some kind of fad and I have to give it a pass and see how it settles down.
And now that I’ve got my ducks all in a row here, allow me to sum up by saying that I’ve avoided Mad Men because:
- The casting is a big question mark for me. I’m not one to go looking for big names in the shows I’m watching, many of my favourite shows have actors I’ve never seen before, but a show that appears to be driven by the substance of its performances ought to have a potent cast. So not knowing John Hamm outside of his appearances on 30 Rock doesn’t reassure me that he can carry a show, and after seeing January Jones appearance on SNL… Yeesh! Terrible. I am impressed at the presence of Christina Hendricks, one of the few recurring characters from Firefly, but I would question her ability to carry an entire show.
- I also don’t know if I really care to take a trip back to that era in New York. I can see the appeal to all the aspiring sharks in suits out there, but as a modern slacker with little interest in the heyday of smoking and chauvinism, I can do without it.
- Finally, this show came on like a pandemic. The hype behind it was ridiculous and what was even more strange was that it was coming from people who didn’t even pursue great TV as a hobby. When something gets grabbed onto so fast by so many I’m suspicious of its middle of the road nature, that its so easily digestible by so many because it takes no risks and fails to challenge any viewer’s assumptions. It doesn’t reassure me when somebody tells me their favourite shows are Vampire Diaries and Mad Men, or that Mad Men is the best show on TV and they’ve never watched The Sopranos. Very popular shows are usually the ones that are not so great (Two and a Half Men, for instance) and while Mad Men hasn’t reached that level of “appreciation” I approach it with that kind of caution.
I think that sums things up pretty well. I don’t think that any one of those reasons on their own would be enough to keep me off of Mad Men, and I also don’t think I’ll never watch the show, ever. I do believe that there is a ton of great TV out there, and that I have watched a pretty sizeable chunk of it, and I think I can walk away from the table with a full belly and not regret having missed this fine show from AMC. I’m not saying never, I’m just saying not right now.
My gosh. Well, I agree with you about being picky but Mad Men should be one of the few that gets your vote. I completely agree with you about ‘any’ show ‘getting you’ because you get involved with characters and what not in time.
BUT, I find this strange: “suddenly popular with a multitude of people” is a problem? For me, thats what I need. New TV and New Music I rarely – if ever – am the first to find. With Films, thats a different story – as I read so much about it and talk about it – but TV and Music forces me to rely on other perspectives. If something is good enough, word of mouth will get me soon enough. ‘The Wire’ is incredible – and I only found that show out because so many people were singing its praises.
Mad Men, from the offset looks incredible – the Edward Hopper-like images – simply look stunning (and, I think with the slow pace of the first season, it is these stunning images that keep you involved) but seriously, throw away TV series should be replaced by incredible TV series like this.
Tonight, in the UK, is the first episode from season 4 and I am so excited and, without putting too fine a point on it, the actors are incredible.
I don;t know what else to say – but I feel you have chosen the wrong TV series by choosing ANYTHING else instead of Mad Men during the current TV climate.
As I mentioned about keeping shows at bay for fear of getting sucked in to something substandard, I have to maintain a high degree of suspicion and skepticism. When there is a suspicious amount of buzz coming from people who aren’t usually on the cutting edge of television, my spidey sense tells me there’s something weird going on. Show’s like The Wire and Deadwood I found out about through my “usual” channels, trusted sources, and Mad Men just didn’t show up by the same route. It doesn’t mean I blow it off without considering it, it just means that a recommendation has to be weighed on other merits…
Great photography can be such a great reason to watch a show. And you know what shows have great photography? All kinds of them! CSI Miami even has great shooting, but that doens’t make for a great show. I am a fan of art deco and many of the themes you’d find in a show from this time period, but I’d rather take that in through movies like Revolutionary Road and Good Night & Good Luck. TV can hardly be an artistic substitute for the robust nature of a film.
You admiration for the show is duly noted, but I’ve made some great TV choices for the fall, including Friday Night Lights, Dexter and The Good Guys. Come on and join the party!
You knew I was going to be first to comment on this, didn’t you?
Alright: Counter-point…
1. Casting – Sometimes an ensemble can be greater than the sum of its parts. Take LOST or The Office for example. Indeed the casting of Mad Men is intriguing, especially since so much of it revolves around the workplace dynamic.
In Don Draper, Jon Hamm has tapped into the biggest anti-hero this side of Tony Soprano. The guy is so very interesting, a person full of intelligence and charisma…but a full on asshole for reasons beyond the obvious 60′s chauvinism.
Januray Jones admittedly isn’t so hot, but her character is also very unlikable which she manages to tap into nicely.
Christina Hendricks makes good on that little bit of promise she showed in Firefly, with a memorable – though somewhat peripheral character.
You didn’t mention John Slattery, Vincent Kartheiser, or Elisabeth Moss. They likewise came in primarily as unknowns, but all three have taken great strides to create very real (and where the latter two are concerned, complicated) characters. Elisabeth Moss especially stands out as Peggy. Her character has evolved the most on the show, and is probably the one most people pull for.
2. The era… Indeed, 60′s chauvinism and debauchery come up quite a bit. However, the show also plays on the era’s social change, and how “the torch was passed to a new generation”. The stories are intriguing from an adertising standpoint as well, as this was very much the era where ads evolved beyond just printed notices and turned into an artform all their own.
Every once in a while the show will wink at how naive we used to be – a doctor will smoke while examaining a patient, or people will picnic and toss their trash aside – but the overall story seems more interested in the lives of these people and how they navigate this age of amazing upheaval…and from a distance we are able to see that some of them will have an easier time than others.
3. The hype… OK, this I obviously cannot argue (I’m probably fanning the flames). The hype on this show has admittedly been sky-high from the word “go”, but what should we expect when it’s the first show to come from one of the head creative people of The Sopranos?
For a baseline, I consider the best shows I’ve watched to be LOST, The Sopranos, Six Feet Under, Dexter, 30 Rock, The Office, and How I Met Your Mother.
What I *can* tell you is that four seasons in, this show continues to be a very low-boil, with emphasis on complicated characters. many of these people make some very big life mistakes, and then spend months and years searching for redemption.
So? Am I tempting you yet??
Good parry, old chap! But I know something you don’t know… I am not right handed!
1. Despite your persuasive argument, I remain unconvinced about the cast. Office drama doesn’t interest me, possibly because I don’t work in a traditional office, never have, and hopefully never will. I don’t doubt that Hamm’s Draper is an interesting character, as the protagonist it would be hard to advance a show like this otherwise. I just get the impression that his “gift”, the personality/physical trait that sets him apart from his peers and therefore makes him the focal point of the show, would be something I wouldn’t be impressed by. What is it? Good at pitching products we already know became popular? Bedding hot women that aren’t his wife? Come on, I doubt he’s a Tim Riggins or even a Jimmy McNulty.
2. The concept of the show seems to be the best kind of escapism for the older set, a time when things weren’t so complicated. But looking backwards like that doesn’t strike me as something that could offer meaning to the world we live in today other than irony.
3. Sounds like the show deals with series and season-long arcs, which I’ve been pretty turned off about lately, after being burned out by Lost. Watching TV on that kind of scale requires an investment of caring, and I have that in short supply lately, which is likely reflected in my TV choices for this season.
So, while you and Simon might play the role of dedicated fans very well, I don’t think there’s room on my plate or more accurately I don’t want to make room. AMC had me and lost me with Breaking Bad, but I’ll be giving them another chance at bat with The Walking Dead.
Last time we met I was but a learner, now I am the master…
1. The workplace drama is more than just office politics, so despite not being able to relate I’d wager that you’d find some of their day-to-day intriguing. The stories also carry over to the personal lives of certain cast members beyond The Drapers…and the way they overlap has provided for some intriguing moments.
As for Don…he’s more than what he seems to be in the ads (pitching campaigns, boozin’, smokin’, whorin’). I’d get specific, but that would spoil things for you. What I will say is that the story of where Don came from, and how he became “Don Draper”, and how he continues to be “Don Draper” is an engaging one.
2. I’m not “the older set” and if someone asked me for escapism, I wouldn’t suggest this show. MM isn’t using the 60′s the same way that The Wonder Years did. Indeed a few touchstones have worked their way into the plot, but by and large the show seems more interested in how American society evolved in that era…and likewise how we continue to evolve.
3. Indeed the show does deal with season-long arcs…but think more Sopranos than LOST or Fringe. It’s not so convoluted that you’d be completely lost if you missed a few episodes, but the stories do piggyback on one another.
There are a few procedural shows that I dig (House, Bones), but procedurals seem all that the networks are capable of lately. Mad Men strikes a nice middle ground of building a long narrative, but allowing us entire chapters of character development to get a breather and some time to have a life.
So as I alluded to below – if I sent ya a few episodes…could you give it 80-120 minutes of your time??
Remember when I said I’d kill you last? I lied.
1. The scenario you’re describing to me makes the show seem like an even more poorly disguised version of a primetime soap opera. Drama at the office, drama at home? None of it meant to be funny? Plotlines revolving around relationships, regrets and betrayals? None of the characters are cops, gangsters, vampires, cyborgs or football players? Uh, doesn’t sound like the show for me.
2. I think if I have to picture Mad Men being allegorical to our present day, it leaves me with an uneasy feeling that there are people out there who wish things were still the way Mad Men portrays them to be. I mean, I don’t mind going back to a time when all men wore hats and whatnot, but the good ol’ days thing angers up the blood.
3. That’s the second time I’ve seen the word procedural used in this fashion. I always attribute it to something else… But if that’s what we call a standalone episode of a show, then yes procedurals are good with me, unless the show can really sweep me up to the point that I blast through a season in a matter of days. I just don’t see that happening here… Besides my desire for serialized vs. procedural is tricky. These days all I’m willing to commit to what’s on in the pre-season is maybe 22 minutes blurbs of The Simpsons – 46 minutes is a bigger commitment for a show that probably won’t move me to either laugh or cry or smack my forehead in disbelief.
I’m sure things will change around when my family heads off back east for a couple months, leaving me and the TV alone with our thoughts. Much will be watched, both movies and TV. And if there’s time after all my returning shows and all the new ones we’re supposed to watch so we can tell people what to see and what to blow off, then maybe I’ll make some time for Don Draper… maybe.
I’m here to chew bubblegum and kick ass…and I’m all out of bubblegum.
It’s no more of a soap opera than The Sopranos, Six Feet Under, or Dexter are soap operas. I wouldn’t say there isn’t any humour to it – I actually tend to laugh out loud at least once an episode. There are indeed relationships, regrets, and betrayals…intriguing ones at that! I could break form and just start spoiling specific details, but then when you watch these events play out, two things wouldn’t happen.
Your mind wouldn’t be blown, and you wouldn’t be forced to say “Shit, Hatter was right”
2. I’m conceding this point, it’s too hard to argue without giving things away.
3. Procedural: A show like House where you know every episode will involve a weird disease, the group thinking they have the answer, the patient getting better, the patient then getting worse, the patient’s condition becoming critical, and House inevitably coming up with the answer in a completely unrelated conversation.
Fun, easily syndicated, and enticing more for the character banter in between.
It’s also fast food TV, which is the reason shows like these dominate the ratings. They’re pridictable, they’re enjoyable, and they’re completely self contained.
Mad Men dores have many stand-alone episodes. Not every one of them needs four seasons worth of backstory to enjoy. You could very easily tear through an entire season of Mad Men over a weekend (cable show = 13 episodes). And indeed, there have been many moments in the 3.5 seasons of the show that have made me laugh, gasp, or wince at what these people are doing with their lives.
If you can squeeze it in with all that watching you have to do, give it a look. I promise you won’t be sorry. You’ll start to see the deeper story by episode two, and the screw will really start to turn by episode five.
You’ll tell me that i was right somewhere around episode twelve, you’ll be cursing me for being right.
I eat pieces of shit like you for breakfast.
I might concede that it’s no more a soap than Six Feet Under, but The Sopranos and Dexter distinguish themselves with cathartic violence and other graphic elements. I don’t picture Mad Men offering up curveballs of that nature in that it’s trying to preserve reality as a good period piece should. I think we’re going to agree to disagree on that.
Regardless, it’s lifestyle stuff that may or may not grab me. I’m sure it might hold more of interest than Sex and the City would, likely for reasons that ought to be obvious. That it might have me marvelling at the magic TV can weave like The Wire of Battlestar Galactica did might be more of an uphill battle.
You’ve made a great argument, and I’m definitely not unmoved – however, you’re in my house, and I have my pride… In any case, I think the point of this exercize was for you to get a better picture of my TV preferences in general. I think there might be a few answers in there. But let me sum up in the best way for us movie bloggers to understand. My favourite TV shows:
ha ha Hatter, alas, you were not first to comment!
It’s what happens when I start making my way through an epic comment.
Both of y’all had plenty to say. I gotta admit, I’m happy to find that I’ve struck either a nerve or a chord.
This is one of the rare occurrences where Steve and I are on the same page in regards to TV. Most movies we see from similar perspectives but generally not on the boob tube. I have tried, twice now, to get into Mad Men. I watched the first 6 episodes once, but stopped because I was bored. Then I remembered my “The Wire” experience, when I had to re-watch the first season because I stopped after 6 eps because it was too slow, only to get hooked and fall in love with it. I gave Mad Men another go, but alas it failed again. If the only thing I think about when watching a TV show is “I can’t wait for this to end” then it is not a good sign.
Yes it looks great. Yes the actors are good. But when you make me fall asleep on my couch in the middle of the day, TV SHOW FAIL!!!!
When Steve and Brian are in concensus, you know there’s something special going on. We’re movie guys first, but as the bar continues to be raised on the small screen, we’ve been known to divert our attention that way too. We’ve enjoyed Battlestar Galactica together, as well as Dexter, Deadwood, and The Wire. It took a while for me to come around on Friday Night Lights, but it also took Brian a while to come around on The Venture Bros. As far as Mad Men, it just doesn’t seem to have the ingredients to draw us in an keep us. Being on a network like AMC, can it really measure up to the moral depravity of HBO or Showtime?
I think you guys have put yourself into a hole – Mad Men is too shiney and too high on a pedastool that, rather than unwillingly watch something you are instead going the complete opposite way saying you don’t need to watch it at all. “TV, Film and Pop Culture” I thought! Mad Men, at any rate, is important TV at the moment and, as I watched the ENTIRE first season of West Wing (Nb, before and after I hate the west wing) I now, at least, have a bit of ammo in my anti-west-wing argument (on my blog), whereas I think you both (good effort Brian, but the whole first season…) need to watch the first season and decide then.
Like you aid earlier about you get into characters, etc, you have to make a decision at the end of season 1… do you care enough. I watched the first series of LOST too – pretty much back-to-back and at the end of the first season I thought “I know what your doing with your ‘questions’ but alas, I don’t care enough” and I went back to 24 – a series which I watched ALL the series (and the awful movie) because I deemed it better.
Your duty to your listeners is to watch the first series at the very least…
Simon, you are ruthless! Questioning our very nature as Film Cynics? You shake me to my core!
Very well, I had hoped that my opening argument of how any show can be appreciated over a long enough timeline, and I was perfectly happy to build my case without making first-hand value judgements on the show. But it seems that the only way out of this is to dive right in.
I promise nothing. Should a sliver of time open up, I will give it 3 episodes. That’s all I ever give anything, and if it takes longer than that for a show to warm up – or for me to warm up to it, then it’s not the show for me, and probably not a great show to begin with… And believe me, my wrath will be directed squarely at the pair of you if I’ve wasted my time.
OK – tell me this. If I sent you a few episodes on dvd…would you watch them and then make a call?
Dude, that is a trap and you know it! As you probably know by now, I will stretch out acknowledging Brian was right in order to deny him the satisfaction for as long as possible, and I plan to make that my M.O. for Mad Men as well. I’ll get around to it, but not before you’ve moved on to an equally unappealing show.
At last, someone who doesn’t watch Mad Men… like me!
To be honest, I don’t really have any of those fancy explanations on why not, I simply don’t have the time or willingness to watch any TV show with any consistency. The last TV show I (faithfully) paid attention to was the first season of Prison Break and Heroes which were back to back. I was still in college so I had time to burn.
Where were you when I was taking a two man pounding from Simon and the Hatter? Man, those guys love this freakin’ show! Looks like you’ve done a great job in removing TV from your optic diet – which makes sense to me. I don’t see how you can blog as much as you do, watch as many movies as you do and still keep up with what’s on in primetime. Good job at straightening out your priorities! I’m still spreading myself out thin… like butter scraped over too much bread.
My uncle made me watch two episodes — I didn’t care for it. Although Christina Hendricks is GORGEOUS!!! I am so happy to say that the only TV I actually watch is Family Guy, sporting events and when I can, South Park. That’s about it…and I am glad for it.
Keeping the TV diet light is a great way to have enough time for blogging and movie watching – I suppose I cut out the basics like sleep and basic hygiene to have enough time for TV. Christina Hendricks is easy on the eyes, but Hatter’s been saying her character really isn’t all that central, which removes her as a reliable draw to the show. I have a weird respect these days for South Park, but I just can’t watch Family Guy anymore – possibly because of the way it was portrayed by South Park.
Nah, Family Guy has still got it. There is no way I could keep up with my movies if I watched all this crap they put on TV. It all looks like junk to me. And Henrdicks will be in movies soon enough….yum yum!
She seems like she would have been a good fit for The Avengers movie, having worked with Joss Whedon before. Time will tell where she pops up.
Show creators use her sporadically. There have been episodes that focus on her quite heavily…there have been others where she’ll have two lines.
That said, her character is undeniably a presence on the show.
I could tell you why, but it works better if you see for yourself
(See what I did there?)
Sneaky sneaky. None of the “go for the throat” tactics of our dear friend Simon. But downplaying Hendricks’ involvement might have weakened your case…
I know i’m going to regret this recommendation – you’re going to go in wanting to hate it and then come out hating it and you’ll blame me!
Fair enough with three episodes, but visually it is stunning in every sense of the word.
A TV recommendation vendetta is a tough mark to bear, Simon. But if you were worried about poisoning my impressions from the get-go, you might have considered a softer approach, like sending me a box of chocolates with Mad Men: Season 1 at the bottom of it… Besides, you’re confusing me with Brian. I’m the open minded one, the cool one, the handsome one… It’ll get a fair shake, if and when it happens.
I felt like I was the only person NOT watching this and NOT caring. I also have a very long list of shows that I enjoy and watch religiously, and I can barely manage those into my time-slot. This is the kind of show where in five years if people are still saying it was great and own all the box sets, I’ll sit down and watch it in one viewing, but it’s not like Justified was for me where the score of it’s ad had me already attached.
@ Heather… I can understand not wanting to watch week-to-week if you already have a full slate. There are a lot of good shows I’ve just never had time for (Breaking Bad comes to mind, even keeping up with Dexter has been hard).
That said, those extra shows beyond the full slate are usually what I suggest for summertime watching…y’know, when most of the good stuff is in re-runs, and the rest is all reality TV?
Like I’ve been saying over and over in this post, give the show a look sometime. You can thank me later.
I’m a full season behind on Dexter and I hate myself for it! Breaking Bad is another one I feel like I should be watching but don’t really know where to begin. It’s hard to attach to new shows, but I won’t forget about Mad Men. As I said, if it lasts and continues to receive positive buzz I’ll give it a go one day.
Exactly! When the fever has cooled and I can easily get my hands on someone’s box set that they never watch anymore, that’s when I’d jump on it. Not sure I’m there with you on Justified, I gave it 4 episodes and then let it go, but I hear exactly where you’re coming from.
[...] Steve states why he doesn’t watch the latest TV fad Mad Men (The Film Cynics) [...]
I must say, Steve, I am very impressed with your ability to talk yourself out of giving any show a chance, over-hyped or not, based on:
1) Not knowing the cast/seeing one of them on SNL and being unimpressed. Really? That’s it?
2) Lack of desire to watch chauvinistic men smoking and drinking…wait, you’ve seen Deadwood right?
3) Comparisons to ultra-mainstream sitcom stink like Two And A Half Men, and references to people who “don’t know TV.” You do realize that last season Mad Men averaged a whopping 1.8 million viewers right? And, ratings dropped 24% for the new much-hyped season premiere over last years. Wow, the mainstream is falling all over itself to tune in to such bubble-gum programming clearly aimed at the lowest common denominator. Mad Men, the new Nickelback…of tv.
Have I given it away? Yes I am a giant Mad Men fan. And no, I haven’t watched the Sopranos.
Welcome to The Film Cynics, Andrew!
That’s exactly how I like my comments: Thoughtful, fair and not a trace of sarcasm.
1. I remembered another movie I’d seen January Jones in the other day: Anger Management. Soak that one in and tell me what you think then.
2. Hey, I’m not saying that the chauvinism and drinking is a push factor, it’s just not a pull. While Deadwood might have some of the same elements, it enriches it with the promise of violence and gunplay. Not to mention that instead of being set in a posh office, it’s in a frontier town constantly threatened by the looming presence of death and danger.
3. And yes, the association between 2 1/2 Men and Mad Men might not have been fair, but it does illustrate my interest in watching the show. But its not the number of people watching, its who’s watching. That their ratings have been slipping is a surprise, but that there is still a strong following for the show among people I know is even weirder. That Mad Men can be so unpopular on a large scale but watched by so many on a small scale causes me to be suspicious.
Note to Steve: Hatter is relentless. He’ll keep coming at you like b.o. from that valet that entered Seinfeld’s car.
“I have learned that it is possible to get into just about any television show if you watch enough episodes.”
Love this line. I’ve said a similar thing about music. You could hate, hate, hate rap music, but if you were stuck at a job where they played the Top 40 station non-stop, you’d eventually find yourself liking a song or two (or more). Exchange country in there, or whatever genre, and it still applies. Familiarity may breed contempt, but it also breeds Stockholm Syndrome…
Nice comment turnout here (see point A). I’m not a watcher, either (though I plan to eventually), so I have nothing else to add here.
Yeah, no freakin’ kidding! The man’s like virus – tenacious, relentless and prone to creating a whole bunch of mucus.
Isn’t that just the case that you can just fall into liking something after being exposed to it for too long. It’s the reason I have to get on the defensive when my wife turns on her shows like Big Brother or So You Think You Can Dance. Too much viewing time and I might get swallowed up by a reality hole.
Yeah, this kind of posting was bound to get someone’s ire up, particularly MH’s. Just taking a page out of the 31DBB…
I don’t think I could ever like reality tv, no matter how often it’s played in front of me.
That’s exactly what reality TV wants to you think… and when you least suspect it: WHAM! You’re suddenly talking to your co-workers about last night’s Big Brother elimination.
It could happen to you!
*Sigh*
Season four of this show has been so very splendid, and just as the screen goes to black at the end of every episode…I shed a solitary tear for a cynical Victorian who doesn’t know what he’s missing.
See, now you’re too late. The fall season has begun and I’ve already filled my new show quota before the week’s even done. Even if I were to play it while I’m sleeping, it would never be able to cram into our very regimented Cynical viewing schedule. And to think, Mad Men beaten out by a show starring Jim Belushi… sad, sad.
[...] a brief update on our ongoing Mad Men beef, we talk about the top 5 Worst TV [...]
[...] PostsWhy I don't watch Mad Men (41)Top 5 Fridays | Legends of the Fall (27)Top 5 Fridays | Best Batmans (18)Are you going to see Avatar [...]
Just came back to this thread and re-read the comments… and i thought that with THE WIRE, David Simon argued with the HBO bigwigs that they had to watch four episodes before making a decision and, when they did, they were sold … but initally after one episode… nothing.
How is the MAD MEN viewing going?
Good question, Simon! To the best of my knowledge, Brian has not started trudging through the show. As for me, I made no such foolish commitment to watch a show that I said I didn’t wanna watch… That being said, however – it turns out the first 2 or 3 seasons of Mad Men are available to watch on the Canadian version of Netflix. Perhaps when I’m done with The Pacific (which I have to watch in its entirety before this Sunday’s show) I’ll make some time for Don Draper.
[...] don't hear enough hype and propaganda every week? Have a listen to our radio promo! Popular PostsWhy I don't watch Mad Men (44)Top 5 Fridays | Legends of the Fall (27)Are you going to see Avatar 1.5? (24)Top 5 Fridays | Best [...]