New to the show


It just feels like a high-budget soap opera. It´s not bad imo, it just surprises me it gets so much critical acclaim. I´m only just into season two, so maybe it gets alot better but so far, its just OK for me.

reply

I don't watch much TV but I binged this last year and was enraptured for the entire run of the show. The period atmosphere, the music choices, the rich dialogue and beautiful performances... I can see how one might find some of the plot lines derivative or 'soapy' but for me the execution was pitch-perfect. Definitely one of my favourite drama series' ever.

I would imagine that if it hasn't grabbed you by season 2, it probably isn't for you.

reply

[deleted]

I should be a bit more specific. I wouldn´t say it hasn´t grabbed me. I wouldn´t watch a whole season of something without having some enjoyment for it. I just never got the whole "best show ever" vibe from it that it has been praised with, during and since it aired. I do appreciate many things about the show, I do love the look of it and some of the actors but I wouldn´t consider it one of my favourite shows of all time.

reply

Typically I find period shows interesting. I have to watch part 2 of the last season on either YouTube or DVD.

reply

The show looks much better on blu-ray than on regular DVD.

reply

[deleted]

I agree completely. Though I show got a little weaker with the storylines with Megan.

reply

It is a high budget soap opera, but it gets better. To tell the truth I didn't really start to enjoy it until season 4.

reply

From what I´ve read the middle seasons are the ones that are most highly rated, so I will probably continue with it anyway.

reply

Is there some reason that I'm seeing a lot of people starting to watch Mad Men lately? Did it just become available on a new streaming service? Or was there a new article praising it?

reply

Pretty sure it just hit Netflix in certain regions, at least in mine.

reply

Ah, interesting, thanks.

reply

[deleted]

BillySlater wrote "in certain regions". Netflix offerings can differ depending on where you live.

reply

It became available for free viewing (with ads) on IMDB TV.

reply

Not sure if you'll see this reply, but 8 months later, did you finish it? Did it get better for you?

I loved it.

Yes it was soap-operaish, but the comedy was subtle and well-placed, the John Deer tractor seen unexpected and shocking, Betty was just plain BEAUTIFUL, Sally got cuter by the day, and Joan sure had assets!

It held my interest and kept me watching right up until 11:59pm on Nov. 9, 2020 when it got pulled from Netflix. I had to FF through some scenes in order to finish it. Pretty much any scene towards the end with the neighbor doctor of Don's I skipped; that was such a useless subplot.

reply

Im still on season 3 but I have lost interest for a while.

reply

Mad Men featured a lot of the same scandal-type storylines you might find in a soap or a drama, but I believe it was separated for two reasons.

First, and the lesser reason, is that the writing is just sharper than what you'd find on a soap. The plot might be basic (divorce, infidelity, corporate takeovers, etc.), but the execution is better. The plots feel more organic, less shock value, the characters are more fully-realized, and the dialogue is razor's edge sharp. There are layers all over the place. Also noteworthy: soaps don't "own" plotlines like socio-political backstabbing or affairs. Those are just bare-bones plots, used in high and low art equally. Mad Men has better performers and writers, so I'd say it's more "high" art.

But the BIG reason I think there's a difference is the *why*. Mad Men asks big questions: "What is happiness? Can it be achieved? Who are we? Are people shallow and frivolous, or is there are higher element there?" The big drive of happiness, identity, and the pursuit of both things (very ethereal, intangible things) is what makes Mad Men special and deep. It investigates Truths about the human condition (that ol' chestnut) and uses ad agencies to really highlight how easy it is to get lost in vapid materialism.

Don struggles throughout the show to find himself and to try to achieve happiness. He keeps looking in the wrong places. He can't find himself at the bottom of a bottle. He can't make himself happy by becoming partner in a big-swinging Mad Ave agency or by bedding another "conquest". Can he find himself? Can he ever find happiness? Can he evolve past his materialistic mindset? Will Peggy sink in that same swamp that has ensnared Don?

When looking at soap operas, they aren't "about" stuff like that. They're throwing in divorce and evil twins to make somebody gasp and tune in the next week. They don't engage with big questions. Mad Men does.

Now, if you don't like the show, that's cool. But I don't think it's just a soap.

reply

Well said, ace...though I know it’s been said before, I’ll just add that I find it interesting because it’s a character-driven show and not necessarily a plot-driven project...love ‘em or hate ‘em, and there really isn’t much to love with a lot of these characters, I can’t stop watching; I want to see what happens based on some of the decisions made by each character...

reply

I think most things that are really worth watching are worth watching for the characters, not just the plot. Lord of the Rings is amazing, but it's as powerful as it is because we can relate to Frodo, Sam, Merry, and Pippin - who are really the main characters even though the "big people" are easily mistaken for the main attraction. That's why the Black Riders are still horrifying even after several reads (or viewings) of the material: we feel the dread along with the Hobbits.

reply

I agree completely.

reply

I'd also add that for those who are interested in cultural history of ANYTHING, Mad Men makes an effort to recapture an era in America that has passed. I guess that can apply to anyone with interest in sociology and history in general. Mad Men doesn't make historical references the focal point however but instead layers it into the background and how it affects all the characters. So many other era-based shows use historical events as hooks to carry the story line whereas in MM it serves as part of the tapestry, and you stated the sharp-witted writing puts it well above a lot of contemporary as well as other historical dramas.

reply

You're right. It's not as focused on stuff like the advent of the fax machine. It's exploring more the social and workplace climates and commenting on the human condition and so forth. It's also, I think, throwing a lens onto the modern world by reflecting on the past. We can see how far we've come (workplace harassment being more common/acceptable, Don just chucking the picnic garbage across the park) as well as how far we've got to go (sexual harassment is still too prevalent, there's still a lot of litter), and we can consider how we are going to look in our own retrospectives. Given that, how should we behave now? Should we behave better? Fight for more?

Of course, the central question to the show is its concern with happiness: is it real? Can we achieve it? If so, what then? What makes us happy? As well as bringing up questions of identity and "who am I?" in the bigger scheme of things.

reply

Is this some show that is used to vilify white guys and pass the blame on them when it was actually jewish people that were in these positions doing these things at the time, and still do today? Like instead of making a movie about Harvey Weinstein and casting couch situations, they will hire an everyday all-American jock to play that role (like Patrick Wilson gets the role) and exclude jews from the mess altogether? Is that what this show does? Because when I think ad agency, and New York, and I dont think, see, or feel like Don Draper is a fucking accurate portrayal of that, AT ALL!

reply

I think all races and creeds have corruption within them, none are exclusive, and when trying to portray rot at the heart of the "American Dream" it makes sense to show that coming from a Don Draper type.

You also might want to watch The Graduate, which took a similar stab at middle America and was supposed to feature a real "All-American" homecoming champ, jock, prom king type - blonde and blue-eyed, and all that - but they went with Dustin Hoffman, so your biases there are perhaps not born out by statistics?

Finally, that comment came off really anti-Semitic to me. I don't know if that was your intention, but when you write up a paragraph going on about "the Jews", it doesn't come off good.

reply

They went with Dustin Hoffman? Wow, shocker. Why even use that example? In no fucking way, shape or form is his character coming off as a villain. His ugly ass gets to bang two women way out of his league. Make some god damn sense. No wonder you couldnt get the point I was making. Sheese. This world is doomed

reply