What’s the best TV show based on a movie?

C'mon! What about ALICE based on Scorsese's ALICE DOESN'T LIVE HERE ANYMORE (1975) or THE BRADY BUNCH based on YOURS MINE & OURS (1968)?

You know, The Odd Couple shouldn't really count as a candidate in this survey, because it was based the original Broadway play by Neil Simon, not the movie.

MASH wasn't as much a statement against Korea as it was against Viet Nam which was a more current issue at that time. This groundbreaking (for its time) comedy wasn't as much a remake of the film as it was a sitcom on its own merits In the beginning all career military staffers were fools. Hawkeye, played by Alan Alda, and TrapperJohn played by Wayne Rogers,were more slapstick characters more often than they were when Rogers left the show for the entry of BJ Hunnicutt, Mike Farrell. Most of the foolish authority was left up to Majors Frank Burns, Larry Linneville & Margaret "Hotlips" Houlihan. As the series matured the company deftly portrayed all of the human emotions that war evokes including protests, and homesick love and appreciation for the USA. This series was a credit to all those who created it, and those of us who loved and appreciated it. I don't suppose it would play well today with all the right wing sentiment that lives among us. But it was and a is a credit to television's history. How many Snooky shows can say the same? Congratulations MASH. You live forever in our hearts and intelligent minds.

When Henry Morgan came, in an excellent portrayal as the father figure Coronel Potter by Henry Morgan, the stories had more serious stories and a more adult look at war.

I've heard the notion that M.A.S.H. was actually an indirect anti-war statement aimed at the Viet Nam conflict, but since the show was set in an earlier time and war (Korea), the view that it's really about Viet Nam is an intellectually hollow conceit. If you wish to make a point about this or that (whatever this or that happens to be) on a television show, don't draw phony analogies or create vague moral/ethical paralels with an entirely different time and place. You eventually end up twisting your scenarios into knots as you become increasingly desperate to draw those paralels. Ultimately, it never really works. That was clearly the case with M.A.S.H. The supposed analogies between Korea and Viet Nam on that series were always a great deal less than convincing. Bottom line: If the people who wrote M.A.S.H. truly wished to criticize American involvement in Viet Nam, then their series should have been set in Viet Nam, not Korea. But again, I must say that the anti-military attitude of M.A.S.H. made it a profoundly flawed television show.

What about Happy Days, based on American Graffiti?
That would get my vote.

My vote goes to Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea.
I enjoyed it very much, even more than the movie because of Richard Basehart and David Hedison.

No phony analogies or hollow conciet. Those of us who came of age during the Vietnam era fully understood Mash to be an anti war statement againt the Vietnam war. The sentiment and emotions of that era remained strong way after the war ended. The Deerhunter, Full Metal Jacket, Apocolypse Now. Don't critque a culture that you have never experienced.

What about Bewitched, which was loosely based on the movie Bell Book and Candle. This is truly one of my favorites.

Didn't like mash. nothing like when I was in korea. officers had nothing to do with us enlisted men. We had squad tents they had private quarters. They would not give a sh-t what happened to Radar.

Happy Days was a spin off from an episode of Love American Style titled Love and the Happy Days that aired in Feb 1972. American Graffiti was released in 1973. While the fifties nostalgia American Graffiti created did help Happy Days to get its own series, the idea for the show was around before American Graffiti.

Something has to be said for "Highlander", which was good in its own right, and considerably better than the film.

I'm with you William! "Highlander" was a very good TV show and as you said, much better than the movie!!!!!

Anonymous may be surprised to learn that Arthur Miller's play "The Crucible" was based upon the history of the so-called witches of Salem in Puritan times, and Don Seigel's original "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" from 1955 a thinly-veiled critique of the very prevelant McCarthyism of the fifties. That MASH was slamming the Viet Nam war even if it is set during the Korean war is no stretch at all.

All of that said, I voted for "Paper Chase" which I personally preferred to the movie. Still, I would like to have seen "Starman" also on offer as I think it too was a superior television series to the movie, good as the film may have been. It's too bad ABC threw the show away in a poor timeslot with little promotion, and that it is still not available of DVD.

Re: David Savage's comment - THE BRADY BUNCH wasn't so much based on the film YOURS MINE & OURS as it was inspired by it. There's actually a world of difference.

To all, MASH THE TV series was a Leftist/liberal/socialist slant and attack againest the U.S. government. The later years of this program was very telling, if you re-watch any of the shows and concentrate, you can see the socialist slant againest freedom and liberty. It is subtle, but the writers, even came out and bragged about their efforts. Conservative thought was fodder for Larry Gelbart et.al. Allen Alda, ever notice how he got long in the tooth the final three years?

Simply put, how could you possibly leave off "Alien Nation"?

Agreed on "Alien Nation". An excellent program, and again, far superior to a weak film.

One cannot take seriously the views of someone who describes "M*A*S*H" as an attack on the government of the US. (Such people are commonly called a word I can't use here, that refers to those who grovel in front of power.)

Leftist/liberal? Absolutely. Socialist? I think we have a very different understanding of what that word means.

I was never a huge fan of "M*A*S*H" -- perhaps it was the unnecessary and annoying laugh track. The scene where Klinger dresses as the Statue of Liberty and salutes McArthur is one of the great moments in TV comedy, however.

The author of the M*A*S*H novels, Dr Richard Hooker, was not particularly happy about the way the film skewed the story in a left-wing, anti-war direction. Regardless, however you feel, both the film and TV show are, and will likely remain, "significant".

M*A*S*H in a walk. The series actually improved upon the movie. It did stretch credulity the longer it ran, knowing a draftee like Hawkeye would have been out of the service after a two year hitch (not hanging on and getting gray around the temples).

Anonymous probably wasn't around during its original run, but M*A*S*H was most definitely seen as a comment on our involvement in Viet Nam. That it continued after that conflict ended says more about ratings. No one was going to cancel a hugely successful sitcom just because American involvement in Viet Nam ended.

For a bit of background, Joseph Heller wrote "Catch 22." He set the book during WWII, but really based it on his experiences in Korea. And he said he hoped the book would make a comment on America's "next war" - which turned out to be Viet Nam.

Jerry: Just for background "socialism" is an economic system. It's opposite would be "capitalism." Neither one has anything to do with "liberty" or "democracy" which are political - not economic terms. It is possible to have capitalism under a dictatorship (see Nazi Germany) and liberty/democracy under a socialist system (see Sweden). If you're going to try and smear people, at least use the correct terminology.

BTW - has anyone thought of "Bewitched" which was obviously based on the movie "I Married a Witch?"

It may have been "profoundly flawed", Anonymous, but funny as hell even after many repeated viewings

I agree with Chrisy, my choice would have to be The Waltons based on the movie Spencer's Mountain.

MASH and The Odd Couple were the obvious choices but I really liked the Young Indiana Jones Chronicles. I was very sorry to see that in the DVD set they eliminated the character of "Old Indy" who would start and end the stories by talking to kids or museum tour guides about the true stories behind the artifacts/photos/ paintings that they were seeing.

I want to respond to Anonymous : "since the show was set in an earlier time and war (Korea), the view that it's really about Viet Nam is an intellectually hollow conceit." ......
Well, here's the deal. I grew up in the 60s. When MASH was first on TV there would have been NO WAY that any network would have aired that show based in Vietnam. It would have been seen as treason, Period. It was a full 3-4 years after Saigon fell that the first movies even came out, Deerhunter and Apocalypse Now. We take it for granted now that an excellent show like Combat Hospital is based in Afganistan. As for the show itself I'm not a big fan. Canned laughter after almost every Alan Alda line became boring. Harry Morgan though plyed the best character as Col. Potter. And FYI , back in 1970 I saw MASH and Patton together as a first run double feature in a movie theater. That's also how much times have changed.

I voted for The Odd Couple, but I loved Peyton Place. I had forgotten about the series being based on the movie, (which I loved and still do) thanks for the reminder bill engleson, you would think I would have remembered having named my oldest son Ryan, after Mr. O'neil.

Yes, another vote for PEYTON PLACE. I'm too young to have seen the show when first aired but having purchased Part 1 and Part 2 of the show, I'm so hooked that the rest of the series should be put on DVD. So many actors became big names after starring in Peyton Place.

To Evie and all the rest of you presumptuous enough to assume that this former Air Force officer doesn't understand the Viet Nam war era, I say BAH! The Viet Namese communists were (ARE) certainly evil and any effort to stop them, initially on the part of the French, and later on the part of the United States, was morally right! You may revere the despicable Jane Fonda all you want, but here's the Bottom line: The television version of M.A.S.H. was an awful program! It was produced and written by people who knew and understood little to nothing about the Viet Nam war! Mind you, and make no mistake about it, I understood, and STILL understand, that particular war very damned well! I lived it! Finally, I re-iterate: the obvious anti-military elements of M.A.S.H. made it a great deal less than outstanding. This fact is so very clear and undeniable that there really is no SERIOUS debate about it!

Also agree that my favorite would be the Waltons based on Spencer's Mountain.

MASH immediately came to mind, but I chose to vote for Young Indiana Jones because I thought that was very well done. Since it hasn't been mentioned though, I'm probably one of the few that enjoyed the Sarah Conner Chronicles based on the Terminator movies. I thought that was also surprisingly well done and really captured the feel of the movies even if 'sized' for TV.

I had to vote for MASH; I was too young to know or care about the war at the time, I just enjoyed the show for what I saw: funny! I still enjoy it.

I voted for Buffy the Vampire Slayer because I am a huge Josh Whedon fan and it was fresh and different at the time. I only mourn that it has kicked off the rash of terrible things that are being inflicted upon us now on TV. I loved Buffy and Angel but the stuff they are churning out now is even too dark and bloody for my tastes.
Does anyone agree? Or am I on my Own?

There are quite a few opinions here, so I'll offer mine. M.A.S.H. was an excellent TV program - so long as one overlooked Alan Alda's numerous anti-war references. Everyone knew he was an anti-war zealot, and of course since he was the star of the show, who's going to stop him from working his views into the scripts? Some of them were believeable - especially comments made by the doctors about losing fine young men to such injuries caused by war - in spite of their best medical efforts to save them. Such general comments are acceptable by everyone. However, Alda's character pushed it to the boundaries, and sometimes beyond. The entire cast was so funny, so outrageous, and so good, that it remains a pleasure to see it in re-runs even today. And for you younger people seeking to tie it to Viet Nam - forget it. It was and will forever remain all about the Korean war. Regardless of was on the minds of Alan Alda and his writers at the time.

Anonymous:

You started out claiming that M*A*S*H couldn't be making a comment about Viet Nam because it was set in Korea. Once that wrong-headed notion was demolished, you shifted your argument to M*A*S*H couldn't be a good show because it disagrees with your position on the military.

Obviously, you are in a minority. You are in a minority here as M*A*S*H has racked up more votes than all of the other series mentioned combined - and by a wide margin.

You were in a minority when M*A*S*H aired as it was consistently among the top rated programs during its long and successful run. Its final episode was the most watched episode of a TV series in history to that point.

It has enjoyed a long and healthy run in syndication.

But being in the minority or holding an unpopular opinion is one of the things that America is all about.

And you are quite correct - there is no debate when one party has a closed mind.

oops I left off The Odd Couple. The TV casting was brilliant.

Always hated MASH TV show! Never liked Alan Alda. I always thought that the show was sluggish and the cast uninspired. MacLean Stevenson was the only funny person on the show. The idea that Gelbart and crew conceived of Groucho goes to war might only have worked with a better Groucho impersonator. I doubt that any modern war would be good fodder for a sit-com. It did not work for me,.. never. Besides the Marx brothers already did it in DUCK SOUP. Why try to redo something that the masters already did right?

Bill...

Why am I being forced to repeat myself? OK, I'll give it another try. I said that M.A.S.H. is set within the Korean war, which, of course, it is. Therefore, at face value, it's about the Korean war. On a purely superficial level, it's about nothing else. However, as I pointed out in an earlier post, I am well aware of the fact that the program was an anti-war statement about the Viet Nam conflict. Which, of course, it is. I also stated that trying to connect Korea to Viet Nam was problematic for the writers. Which, of course, it was. Basically, they had to twist their scenarios into knots to get them to fit their world view. Anyway... None of these facts have anything to do with the main question, which is: was M.A.S.H. a good show? Well, of course it was. Was it funny? Of course it was and still is. Was M.A.S.H. a highly rated program? Again, of course it was. It must have been. After all, the Korean war lasted for 3 years. On M.A.S.H., that particular war played out over 7 years. No one can say that it wasn't popular. Still... the fact that M.A.S.H. is a praiseworthy television program is absolutely meaningless. It has nothing at all to do with my criticism of it. HEAR YE, HEAR YE, ONE AND ALL... Please pay attention! I said that M.A.S.H. offers a naive view of war in general and Viet Nam in particular. Which, of course it does. I also said that M.A.S.H. promoted a great deal of thoughtless anti-military rhetoric. Which, of course, it does. Please allow me to emphatically repeat that point. The show wasn't just anti-war or anti-Viet Nam. It was also plainly anti-military. That attitude is plainly illogical. Therefore, for these reasons it's reasonable to conclude that M.A.S.H. was and remains a profoundly flawed TV program. Which, of course, it is. Finally, if you go back and re-read my posts on this subject, including this one, you certainly will not find a so-called "closed mind." It's just plain silly to suggest such a thing. But that's OK. Much like M.A.S.H., it's often too obvious when someone is wrong. As far as that is concerned, all anyone ever has to do is point it out. Therefore, I just have to say, of course you're wrong.

Agree with some folks: Highlander, Alien Nation, Stargate SG-1, Topper.
Never could stand MASH.

I really enjoyed mash to let you people know a real mash unit is pretty much like it show there on tv butwith more milatery discapline lets say the humer is still there the wacky people are still there I had to spend a week in a mash unit one summer as a reservist my favorite is 12 O' clock high bought the whole set of dvds

As the daughter of a WWII Army Vet who was in school during the 60's I voted for MASH because it was a great TV show. Anonymous I softly suggest vigorous excercise for the as you say to deal with obvious whatever you perceive that to be. I am saddened that the only blog I have experienced up to this time as a dare I say it "liberal forum" of opinions of movies tv etc. has now been exposed to political divisions of our times..as only one group being right & all others wrong..up until this time most of us I am sure have expressed our views without trying to impose our beliefs & perceptions on others..I personally believe that is the most dangerous thing I have seen in the current times..jmo & oh yeah one of my cousins did 3 tours of duty in the Air Force in Vietnam, another cousin's son did 2 stints in Iraq...so besides my dad who has passed now we're pretty "Pro Military" & think they like MASH also..

I enjoy the give and take on this site. And of course, there is nothing wrong with offering a difference of opinion regarding anything under the Sun. This includes politics. That's what sharing opinions are all about. Moreover, when a film or television show delves into social and/or political issues, then those subjects are fair game. Of course, it goes without saying that it's OK to disagree, even vehemently. Disagreement can promote thought and discussion. We often learn from others in this manner. So have at. Hit me with your best shot. Just remember, if I disagree with you, I will give as good as I get. There is just one thing I don't understand... Why are so many posts so poorly written that they're not just difficult to decipher, they're often IMPOSSIBLE to decipher?! If you truly wish to make a point and be understood, your writing should be sharp and clear. Why should anyway care about your opinion if you don't care enough to make it understandable? Use a dictionary. Use correct punctuation. Use capital letters when you start a sentence. Surely you learned all this in grade school, didn't you? Frankly, it's not unlike trying to read a long dead language. And to tell you the truth, I'm really not an expert in ancient Sanskrit!

Re: "Why are so many posts so poorly written that they're not just difficult to decipher, they're often IMPOSSIBLE to decipher?!"

On this point, at least, we are in complete agreement. Although (at the risk of starting another debate, which is NOT my intent) I have to admit I find it a little disconcerting to see so many choose to either identify themselves by use of some silly (and sometimes offensive) nickname or, as in your case, to not identify themselves at all. Perhaps that's just the newspaper columnist in me, though; I've spent a career putting my name on my opinions for all the world to see. (The newspaper I work for, in fact, has a policy that it will not print letters to the editor that are unsigned; the publisher's feeling is that we are willing to put our name behind what we say, so others should as well.)

Mr. Small...

The reason I call myself "Anonymous" is very simple. As a working writer I have no desire to risk the wrath of current and/or future clients. At the same time, as you and others well know, I'm very opinionated (mind you, there's nothing wrong with that as long as your arguments are cogent). And like yourself, I offer my thoughts because I'm interested in what others have to say in response. Heck, isn't that what this site is all about: everyone's opinion?

Let me see the question was; What is my favorite TV. series based on a movie? How about Topper from the late '50's. starring Leo G. Carroll,who was great as the title character (much more convincing that Roland Young was in 1937 movie); and Ann Jefferies and Robert Sterling playing the ghosts, George and Marion, certainly as well as Cary Grant and Constance Bennett had; but I was just a kid then, and did not discover the movie version until TCM's premier showing in the early 90's. So what do I know. But this is an unrefutable fact; or maybe it is just my opinion.
But wait, we need to use this blog to air our political biases and personal values aside from whatever charm and entertainment value a movie /TV show might have for us. So her goes...
Topper obviously was a up tight capitalist (afterall he was a banker; maybe even an early Archie Bunker) and the "ghosts" who taunted him obviously enjoyed expressing their hedonistic lifestyle, so popular with knee jerk liberals, at a bewildered Topper's expense--literally and symbolicly.
This whole program was a cleverly disguised attempt by the producers and writers to promote their own liberal agendas through the new medium of TV --trying to show up the utltraconservative values which were under attack by Reds and fellow travelers so active in our country at that time.
This same conflict, of course, had been evident in the late 1930's as New Dealers were constantly undermining basic American values of free enterprize and rugged indiviualism under the vailed pretext of protecting civil rights of workers, farmers and the elderly through the expanision of federal governmental power.
Well, so much for looking at a relatively entertaining TV program of bygone days in terms of a political-sociological (sociologic--is there such a word) dicotomy (oops, is this spelled correctly?),which will never be resolved much less discussed intelligently by open minded Americans --"under the Sun"!
(Should this term be capitalized because it refers to the god to which the ancient Egyptians believed?) You got me.

I nominate Peyton Place. It was adult in it's story telling. The show was so popular, it was on televison three evenings a week in prime time. The cast which included Dorothy Malone, Babara Parkinns, Ed Nelson and others was stellar. The beautiful theme music by Franz Waxman was used with the tiles against the background of the church tower. For me this was the first prime time soap opera that made an impact.

I voted for the Paper Chase as I loved both the movie and TV shows and wanted to see more and I don't as a rule trust lawyers - so normally I’d never watch it - so that's pretty impressive.
Buffy, the vampire slayer, Fame, Voyage to the bottom of the sea and Highlander are very strong options.
MASH - I'd watch from time to time but not regularly. The rest I did watch most of the time. Now most of the comments about MASH seem to be about the wars and that's fine - My reason for not watching MASH was I don't like comedy and I see nothing funny about war. But filming the show as a antiwar comedy makes sense. Mostly because being antiwar it would get the publics support and being a war based show would have many victims of wars support it as they could connect to a story line. So the shows needed to be comedy to lighten things up.
Buffy the vampire slayer is easily the most improved show over the movie. The show was first rate - the movie not so much. My favorite show of the series was the musical - but I love musicals anyway. I just liked the way the musical was shot.
Highlander's movie was strong - not perfect but fun - so was the TV shows - it was going to have a very hard time connecting with the movies fans but it did.
Fame - the original that is was heart pounding, and exciting at the theater - the TV show nearly as good but the TV show’s tended to have messages attached - not that I’m complaining. A good message will connect with an audience. What Killed Fame I think was the actor that played Bruno’s father dying. After that the show worked very hard to stay afloat but seemed to of lost some of it’s warmth and heart. Death does that. But I’m glade they didn’t try to substitute a different actor as Bruno’s dad. I think they made the right choice there and they let the audience grieve with the cast and crew.

RE: " As a working writer I have no desire to risk the wrath of current and/or future clients."

I am also a working writer and people know what they get when they hire me. The day I start trying to hide who I am or what I believe in because I'm afraid of how others will react is the day I start looking for a new line of work.

And the only episode I recall off the top of my head (granted, it's been a while since I watched my DVDs of the series straight though; guess I'm going to have to do so again at some point if this pointless debate is going to continue) in which Hawkeye tries talking someone out of re-enlisting is the episode in which Klinger says he's going to re-enlist because his wife has been unfaithful to him. And the rationale Hawkeye uses is NOT that the military is bad, but rather that Klinger is simply over-reacting to bad news from home and about to do something he'll only regret later since Klinger has never been happy in the service to begin with. That's a far cry from "the military is not a decent place to be"; indeed, when I served in the military I knew of a number of occasions in which airmen were advised against re-enlisting by their commanding officers for just that very reason.

Again, and hopefully for the last time, your entire argument is based not on fact but on your own prejudices or pre-conceived notions or whatever you want to call them. You can argue the point until you're blue in the face - I suspect from the tone of your constant keyboard pounding that you're fully prepared to do just that - but as I said before, your saying so doesn't make it so.

And for what it's worth I happen to know a LOT of self-proclaimed conservatives who happen to love MASH.

"No mention of the Fugitive?"

No. that would be a TV series that was turned into a movie. This thread about the opposite, movies that were turned into TV series.

The Fugitive TV series was not based on any movie, but was, in fact, based on a real life murder story involving a Cleveland Doctor named Sam Shepard who went to jail for killing his wife. Many believe he was unjustly imprisoned. His conviction was later overturned (after The Fugitive TV series had been launched on ABC).

At the risk of rasing Anonymous' ire I would like to remind people that to talk about movies and politics are one thing, but to attack a person who wrote simply because of their skills with a key board or a dictionary is below the belt.
Not the function of this forum either!!!!!

My votes go to Topper, the Ghost and Mrs. Muir, and the Highlander. The cast for the TV version of Topper were perfect, including Neil, the dog. The movie was cute, but the TV Kirbys were more sophisticated and more affectionate, perhaps because Robert Sterling and Anne Jefferies. Both Roland Young and Leo G. Carroll were equally "dumbfounded"; however, Lee Patrick was NEVER as "ditsy" as Billie Burke. Hope Lange brought more warmth than Gene Tierney to the role of Mrs. Muir, and Adrian Paul was MUCH more effective as the Highlander Duncan McCloud than Christopher Lambert was in the Highlander movie. If it weren't for Sean Connery, the Highlander movie would have been a sleeper.

I make this entry twice because I want Mr. Small to be encouraged that he is appreciated and he should know that he has fans for his effort and his views. Regarding Mr. A, when one who can't seem to empathize or sympathize with others, he is at times diagnosed by professionals with disorders including Asperger's Syndrome or may even be called a Sociopath. Anonymous doesn't seem to be able to understand or validate the feelings or views of others. Poor thing probably keeps a lot of guns under his bed in preparation for being attacked by Liberals. His birth was likely the result of a sperm donation from Ann Coulter.

Interesting that you would call anyone obsessive. Silly perhaps, but it did fit. As for writing it twice, it was insurance that it would be seen so it might get a rise out of you. Intolerant? When you were so dismissive and rude of the opinions that were in opposition to yours calling them illogical, intellectually hollow and incapable, you should have seen some people who would not take you seriously. You write as if all of your commentary is profound and void of error. Silly lies in the eye of the beholder. Ann Coulter is probably spinning in her armchair for she has a sense of humor.

Enough I have better things to do than to continue sparring with an egotistic mass that has so much hot air he could blow up Japan. But you keep going. Evidently you are fixed on seeing your own name in print. Get a life.

Anonymous: I completely understand your point of view. Anyone who takes the duty and sacrifice of the military to heart and views MASH in that light could well have issues with the fact that there was a distinct lack of support for the necessity of war in the writing that is somewhat inconsistent with my own experience of military people in general - they joke, they gripe but beneath it all they believe in that what they're doing is necessary and serves a higher cause.

That said, the show was about a camp of officers that were doctors/surgeons in civilian life, whose upbringing might have tended more toward higher-education and liberal the liberal politics of the institution than heartland values and conservatism of other officers. People whose profession requires a level of self-assurance that often cheats over the line into an infallibility of judgement complex where non-medical matters are concerned.

It is for this reason that I never particularly liked Hawkeye's character - he was the most irreverent. Was it for laughs? Sure. Was it also a soap box? maybe and if so that's kind of rude - after all we weren't tuning in to be lectured. Is it possible part of it had to do with the actor portraying the part's personal feelings on the matter? I've often wondered.

But the bottom line is this - Ignoring the occasional preachy moments, Mash was a truly entertaining and funny show.

Thinking of this topic puts me in mind of the West Wing. A democratic machine, but I'm hard pressed to think of an issue they didn't show both sides of on general principle, in any of the episodes I watched.

Bravo Ken !! If a movie or a TV show does not entertain me I simply don't watch it. I also respect that it may entertain someone else. My husband and I have very different tastes generally speaking in what we enjoy watching, that doesn't make either one of us right or wrong. We are mature enough to respect that we each have the right to our own individual likes and dislikes.