Maybe I have terrible taste in tv! Gilmore Girls is a top 5 for me, although it’s slipped down over the years, used to be #1 or #2.
I bawled in the finale, which was odd because I spent the whole show laughing otherwise. Same with The Good Place.
I don’t even mind if it’s impossible. Time travel is impossible but I enjoyed Back To The Future.
Most of the stuff in the Indiana Jones franchise is impossible but it’s extremely popular.
But I understand it. The writers of Raiders Of The Lost Ark don’t expect me to just inherently know that the holy grail has magic healing powers… they explain that to me. So I understand why it’s important for Indiana to find it and pour it on his father’s wound and why it’s important to not let the Nazis get it.
If the writers of Schitt’s Creek explained what it actually means to own a town then I would understand the premise. As it is, I don’t understand it. And I don’t enjoy things I don’t understand.
And it would have been SO easy to explain it to the audience. They could have explained it to us in the pilot when they explained it to the family… who didn’t understand it either. But they didn’t.
It’s possible that the fault lies with the editing for cutting out a crucial plot element, and not with the writers, but either way I’m having a hard time with the suspension of disbelief.
It definitely kept getting better and better as it continued… which is the opposite of a typical show’s trajectory. Seasons 2 & 3 were definitely better than season 1.
But here they explain what you own. You own these four buildings or those 12 buildings.
I’m not sure what the family on Schitt’s Creek actually owns. Besides, apparently the motel.
And if they own the motel why can’t they make it less crappy? If they own it aren’t they entitled to the profits? Is the motel precisely breaking even? If it’s turning a profit then they should be getting that profit, right? If not, how are they not going bankrupt?
What about all the other properties?
In the episodes I’ve seen they explain none of this.
They don’t own the motel. Not at first, anyway. Stevie lets them stay there until they can get back on their feet.
Then WTF do they own?!?!
This is exactly what I mean about not understanding the show.
People on Reddit have some theories. https://www.reddit.com/r/SchittsCreek/comments/a72gtb/what_exactly_does_the_rose_family_own_in_schitts/
I feel like they’re trying to do the same plot as Arrested Development but just glossed over all the details that would make it make sense
1 Like
Oh boy, and I thought I was pedantic. 
Remind me to hang out with you guys at the next AO Christmas Party. 
We’re all in this together, you’re one of us
I’ve never given much though to possible parallels between AD and SC.
To me, AD is about terrible people. The main character is the worst of all, only he thinks he’s a good guy, and none of them is really very likable in any meaningful way.
SC is about a family who leans into their (previous) elitism and has to figure out how to be normal, occasionally highlighting how they’re really good people underneath it all. And they are all likable on some level, and I genuinely want good things for them.
Anyhooooo this has prompted me to rewatch the show. Although I might jump over to my favorite episode, Season 6, Episode 2. I don’t think I’ve ever laughed that hard at anything else.
Whaaat? Many of them are likeable and how is the main character the worst of all!?
1 Like
Does it look like a motel that is making a profit?
I can’t imagine that if you own a town you have total control of that town. I mean, if I remember correctly, they have a town council on the show. Also, even if you did have total control, the success of the town depends on the people living there, so it’s in your best interest to keep them happy. I’m pretty sure you don’t become king of a town just because you own it (live in the nicest house for free while the townspeople support you financially). That sounds way more outlandish to me than a family owning a town, being broke, and living for free in the crappy town hotel. I don’t really care enough to look more into it though because I like the show either way.
Michael believes himself to be a good guy but lies to his son, manipulates his family, and there are numerous moments where Ron Howard says things like, “Michael knew he had to do the right thing” and then he does the exact opposite of that. He’s not a good person, he just likes to feel better than everyone.
The characters are likable to the extend that Seinfeld characters are likable. They’re humorous, but they’re bad people. I do not want good things for them, I enjoy watching bad things happen to them.
Well here’s one quote that appears accurate:
That is correct. Which is why they’re stuck in this town, having no other options except the deed to the town that they can’t sell.
I’d have to rewatch it to remember specifics but I thought the main guy was generally OK, certainly not a noble character but human. Some of the others are difficult to defend (his mom for example). I’d imagine it’s difficult to say Buster is a bad person.
And the Seinfeld characters are bad people!? I think they’re just human.
Dunno… my uncle owned a POS hotel and he did quite well for himself. 
And again, if I understood what it meant to “own a town” I could probably get behind it. But it makes no sense to me.