Better Mid Than Meh.

Thoughts about good, entertaining shows and those that fall short of that level. Not everything has to be great.

In the days before the New Year arrived, in the cozy confines of a house fending off the dark and (semi) cold December days, I was devouring television episodes.

Lots of crossing off lists, lots of prep for posts here and even some freelance work. Oh, and also watching for joy, just to watch. The episodes were going down like Moravian sugar cake.

But not everything worked. And sometimes that’s more of a disappointment than a shrug — specifically if the show has at least enough going for it that it drags you to the end, if not kicking and screaming than mumbling and reluctant.

I think that’s a very specific kind of series, and we’re seeing a lot of them lately and they are not so easy to differentiate, while also clearly having different values.

Let’s start with “The Madness” (kind of appropriate) on Netflix, a limited series I slow binged (Jason Snell reference!) and felt increasingly disappointed as I did.

“The Madness” would have passed the Two Episode Test, no doubt. But conveniently, it started making disappointing decisions immediately after. The series was created by Stephen Belber, the playwright, author and screenwriter who, in this instance, is gifted the magnetic presence of star Colman Domingo (and a strong cast) to make his limited series pull your eyes from other options.

It certainly starts strong — controversial, educated black man Muncie Daniels, a familiar figure on CNN and Ivy League professor, looks to be getting framed for the brutal murder of a white supremacist out in the woods. Belber’s initial premise clearly has merit — Muncie is smart enough to know that in the eyes of a lot of cops a black man on the run from a crime is already guilty, even when he’s not. And so “The Madness” begins as an epic escape, with all eyes on Muncie.

Unfortunately, as mentioned, by the third episode “The Madness” has devolved into conspiracy theory hectoring to the audience but also tacitly playing in that world, as Muncie (and the audience) are convinced that billionaires are controlling everything and corporations are assassinating people and covering up the evidence to fuel market growth and so on and so on.

That’s fine — there’s enough strands of truth in the premise to poke at it, but once Muncie — like all poorly done characters in poorly done series — starts making a succession of terrible decisions that worsen his fate, it’s hard to not bail. I tried, several times, but Domingo is great in the role, the pacing is fast, etc., yet as a viewer you fall into all the dumb holes the show digs for itself and, by the end (yes, I watched it all) the last couple of episodes are bordering on hate watching, I thing I don’t do.

(OK, well, for clarity, I did hate watch “Disclaimer” but that’s because I was stunned that with so much talent at work something so truly bad could emerge).

“The Madness” mostly fits a pattern of viewing I’ve been interested in a lot lately — smart, escapist fare with lots of action, well-developed characters and (in other shows, not this one) a peek into an international culture I’m mostly unfamiliar with.

So, let’s talk about fine lines: Why hold something up to lofty (or, fine, Mid-level) expectations and then get mad when it doesn’t achieve that? Fair question. Almost every series, even the truly great ones, have weak spots and issues that must be addressed and accepted. But you do that because said show is great.

Mid shows become Meh shows when they aim a little higher and fail — and the blame isn’t on the ambition, but on the execution. I liked Netflix’s “Black Doves” a whole lot better than “The Madness” because the implausible elements were wrapped in a show where I expected implausible moments and, secondarily, those moments weren’t completely stupid.

In “The Madness,” the goal seems to be greater than the content — a lecture on technology, billionaires, racism, internet-fact acceptance, etc., except that at no point does “The Madness” wink at you in a kind of confessional, this is a fun topic but it’s also a bit out there for entertainment sake. Instead, it states pretty clearly, this is important work.

But it’s not. It’s just disappointing.

Last year fellow TV critic and friend James Poniewozik wrote a much discussed column on “Mid” (see: modern slang) television and he certainly nailed a lot of truth about the big picture of what what happens when Platinum Age television expectations and Peak TV/streaming volume leads to shows that are, well, just good.

My own definition of Mid and the slightly less good Meh are, obviously, colored by what I go in looking for in the first place.

For example, check out the series I loved in 2024 (not necessarily from 2024 as I say in the post):

---

On that list you’ll find a number of series I watched expecting to be Mid but entertaining and many ended up actually being much better than that because they were expertly done, achieved something grander than mere entertainment, surprised on numerous instances and ended up being delightfully more elevated than expected (“A Shop For Killers” on Hulu and “The Frog” on Netflix come to mind).

Netflix, as you probably know, specializes in this kind of programming and many of its shows were on my Best Of list (others that weren’t were also quite enjoyable but just didn’t make the cut).

One of those series that did make it, Netflix’s “The Diplomat,” is nearly a perfect example, slotted next to “The Madness,” on how to do it right rather than getting it wrong. Both aspire to be really good. Both take big swings and tackle big subjects and inject action into the larger character-driven stories.

But, yeah, only one truly nails it. That doesn’t make “The Diplomat” great, but it makes it must-see.

“A Shop For Killers.”

On my list you’ll also see an Honorable Mention category that includes Amazon Prime’s “Citadel: Honey Bunny” which nobody will confuse for top tier television but it showed a world rarely seen (travelogue bonus!) and was made to be enjoyed, not made to be great. Same with “Furies,” the French action series on Netflix — it’s so much fun but also really ridiculous, but you never get a sense that it ever wanted to be more than what it was.

Thus, not disappointing.

Maybe the trick here is to know when to bail. Hate watching is a waste of time and I hope there won’t be a lot “Disclaimer” type massive misfires in 2025, but the harder call is something like “The Madness.” I should have given up, but didn’t.

(“What difference do you think you can make? One single man in all this madness.”)

I will try to hone that understanding. But not everything is so clear cut — I mean, if Hulu’s “The Tyrant” had more than four episodes I would have definitely bailed because even though the series had everything I was looking for in escapism it also made absolutely no sense in a kind of hilarious way that I could tolerate for four episodes but no more.

I believe we’re in a time where there are going to be a lot of “Mid vs. Meh vs. Oh Gods No” series and I will, as always, try to steer you (and me) in the right direction as I curate what’s worth watching out there for you.