I don't think anyone posted that Top Shot was the worst show ever.
Oh noes! I used hyperbole!
Maybe no one said "worst show ever" but from a number of the reactions here, you'd think the host of the show kicked their dog.
Television networks, producers, and participants on televisions shows open themselves up for criticism by realizing shows for public consumption. The History Channel, with the advertising they used and the editing of Top Shot created expectations and summarily disappointed many of the folks on this forum.
Where did The History Channel or the production company ever make any sort of promise to the members of THR that the show would live up to their ephemeral and ever-changing expectations?
The History Channel sold the show as a battle of experts. Mike is, by definition and his own proclaiming, an expert. He did not deliver, plain and simple.
He failed. Yes. In rather spectacular form. Or the equipment was faulty. Either way, one extremely poor performance on one stage is hardly indicative of his
not being an expert.
By being on the show, he has made a tacit agreement to public criticism. By making a television show, the History Channel has opened itself up to criticism.
Comic Book Guy: Last night's Itchy & Scratchy was, without a doubt, the worst episode ever. Rest assured I was on the Internet within minutes registering my disgust throughout the world.
Bart: Hey, I know it wasn’t great, but what right do you have to complain?
Comic Book Guy: As a loyal viewer, I feel they owe me.
Bart: For what? They’re giving you thousands of hours of entertainment for free. What could they possibly owe you? If anything, you owe them.
Comic Book Guy: Worst... episode... ever.
Pandering to the lowest common denominator for the sake of entertainment, by policy, is worthy of negative criticism. Editing a show for the sake of whipping up drama and interpersonal conflict, by policy, is worthy of negative criticism. Failing to deliver on the promise of expertise is worthy of negative criticism.
The show is, obviously, geared to whip up some interpersonal conflict. But that's hardly "pandering to the lowest common denominator." I don't even recall them having to bleep any of the contestants for swearing like on a lot of the other shows.
Honestly, if that constitutes your notion of "lowest common denominator" I have to wonder how often you get out. There was hardly any sort of offensive or "lowest common denominator" content in the show.
And again, at no point did they claim Seeklander was an expert with the 1903, and even if he was, it doesn't change the fact that sometimes fate throws a curveball in the middle of a match. I've seen it happen to shooters from beginners to USPSA Grand Masters. Just because someone who's experienced fails at one task doesn't mean they have no experience whatsoever.
If we are all willing to accept sub-standard effort in any arena, we get what we deserve.
It's a tv show for crying out loud. A, most likely, medium-budget shooting competition show built within the fairly well-established structure of the competitive reality show.
It's meant to be watched and enjoyed. If you're so inclined, pick a team or competitor to root for. Or if you don't like the show, don't watch it. But I fail to see what's wrong with a shooting tv show built on a foundation that the average non-shooter will find interesting and/or compelling.