The original post: /r/television by /u/MCJokeExplainer on 2026-04-13 13:31:07+00:00.
Really enjoyed this from longtime Chicago Tribune critic Nina Metz. I’ve been thinking a lot about how this feels like a really traditional TV show from a bygone era (with, of course, some modern conventions), and you don’t get a lot of shows like that anymore. It’s interesting to see Metz connect that to broader trends in media consumption.
I think this chunk kind of sums it up:
Yes, the characters and their connections are important. But “The Pitt” is a snapshot of their worklife on one day, there’s only so much interpersonal drama the story can support. If viewers want more, there are 22 seasons and counting of “Grey’s Anatomy” for the watching.
That’s not what “The Pitt” is doing, and applying this kind of fandom energy to it is screwy.
I think it’s happening because some viewers don’t know how to watch a show like this, because they have no real experience with it. I have to assume they grew up primarily watching streaming shows that were written as puzzles to be solved, with a narrative culminating in winners and losers.
Has that warped expectations? Or how younger generations engage with storylines?
Here’s one observation I saw:
The problem with most critical thinking today — whether watching TV or movies or reading books or whatever — is that most people think good creators are trying to deliver answers, when they’re really just posing interesting open-ended questions. This doesn’t necessarily mean they aren’t guiding your feelings and emotions toward certain possibilities or themes, but merely that you should never feel settled in one perspective.