I was thinking about how “new York” doesn't live up to any of its reputations and why it has the reputation it does.

It's not the coolest place in the world. The coolest city I visited was Berlin. No part of NY is even in the running in the coolest stakes anyway.

It's not a “city that never sleeps”, It goes beddybies at about 12. There's night life of course but it's a different, much less busy crowd. Istanbul and Barcelona are two places where the daytime crowd and night-time are the same intensity till 4 and 3am respectively. They quiet down till 6 and then start up the same again.

As a dangerous place Phnom Penh beats it out easily, but many other places do too…

As a sprawling historical place with green in the centre I choose Athens…

Besides all that New York is a good city; it's interesting, it's big, varied, there's a LOT of stuff to do and see. It's just hugely overrated.
I think I know why: Because for a lot of Americans who never leave the country it represents all that's amazing and cool. It's the “greatest” city they visit in their own country. Which is fair enough. I'm sure to many Aussies that never leave Australia Sydney and Melbourne hold that place for them XD


What other things don't deserve their reputations?

Australia has a reputation for being very dangerous, mainly because of the animals.

I would say that's very overrated if you live in the populated areas like almost ALL Australians. Those make up a tiny part of the landmass but most people live there and they're safe.

If you go out into the wilds though the reputation is more deserved. There are a lot of dangerous and venomous creatures lurking all over the place and they do kill people all the time.

So the reputation is only sort of deserved- The major cities and towns which are the places most people would go are safe.

Katana swords are overrated, especially online.

There's a lot of reasons for it so it's complicated to explain why… But the short explanation is because they're hugely tradition based- Long after fashion and technology advanced well beyond them Japanese went back to using this old, outdated style, that were even MADE in an old, technologically old fashioned way.

But that meant people could acquire relatively recent but real examples of a sword style that's been in use 100s of years.
So replica examples (which were way cheaper to produce than those using the trad methods), were pretty close to real examples and you could get good ones pretty easily.

While European sword styles moved on technologically a LOT faster, so that real versions of older styles of European sword were very rare and expensive (limited to museums and exclusive private collections). Which meant that normal people never got to handle real ones. and replicas were very bad because the people who made them never got to model them on real examples.
-And non-european, non-japanese swords just were not widely available to most people.

So Katana started to get a reputation as amazing because people got to handle good replicas while they never got to handle good versions of many other swords… when the truth is that all swords are pretty much the same, they just fit their own cultural and historical contexts best.

People who tend to rate NYC the highest are those who have never been to any other big city and those who have never even been there and are just listening to the hype.
Dangerous? NYC isn't even the most dangerous US city or even the most dangerous in the tri-state area.

My understanding of the “Katana myth” is that Japan had very lousy iron compared to Europe, so their swordsmiths had to use a very complex method to make the katans workable, using a lot of thin layers of iron.
But this method, while higly skilled, only kept them at the same level of european swords, that were made with better iron.

Both the Katans and New York, though, feature extensively in movies, and I think this is the reason they tend to have a sort of “myth” status.
I've never been either to Berlin or to NY, but certainly I would be more curious to see NY, or San Francisco, just because these are places that I saw so many times in the movies.

Kind of a weird thing to bring up, but I feel like the “Katana is overrated” thing is becoming overrated itself now, at least in a lot of circles I hang out because all I ever hear about how they break against their mighty, mighty zweihander.
Two things, one is a properly made katana is still a sword that can cut flesh, while it won't be able to slice tanks in two like in anime but it still has a pretty sharp edge and can cause massive bodily hard to somebody. The other is I noticed the “swords” they select for these tests are bought at the mall, which is equal to taking two wooden pallets, tying them together and putting on four wheels from a hardware store and declaring it was a Chevy, it is crap with a popular name attached to it.

Anyway, my thing I think is overrated is live action adaptions. I hate them because it feels like at times it is feeding into the delusions that movies are “real”, and that animation is just a junk medium.

marcorossi wrote:
certainly I would be more curious to see NY, or San Francisco, just because these are places that I saw so many times in the movies.

And you'll find out that most movies were filmed in other cities that are somewhat similar to NYC but by no means identical. A good many of them are in Canada which just isn't NYC. It's as bad as the backlot NY City streets used in so many old movies that had streets meet at “T” intersections that don't exist in New York City.

As far as swords go, there is a lot of legend, tradition and mystique around them in Japan and Europe. There are all kinds of exaggerated tales of swords doing all kinds of things that real ones can't even if real artifact swords can be pretty amazing as opposed to mass produced replicas. The myths have taken on a life of their own as have the myth busters and the history be damned. XD

Two words: Taylor Swift

Ozoneocean wrote:
I was thinking about how “new York” doesn't live up to any of its reputations and why it has the reputation it does.

Having lived in NYC for 30 years, I can honestly say that it's a nice city, but it does cast an unrealistically long shadow in pop culture. I think it had some particular reputations at some points in American history, but those historical phases are long over. However, NYC really does have two notable superlatives: it has the second largest homeless population in the US, and New York state has the highest wealth disparity in the US.

The Beatles


I used to avoid them cuz I thought it was just boomer music. Then I had to work at this place that basically had Queen, Abba, or the Beatles to listen to. So after I was thourgholy tired of the other 2 I decided to listen to Beatles. They are alright, mid. Eleanor Rigby is pretty good. I don't know why they got so much hype.

bravo1102 wrote:

marcorossi wrote:
certainly I would be more curious to see NY, or San Francisco, just because these are places that I saw so many times in the movies.

And you'll find out that most movies were filmed in other cities that are somewhat similar to NYC but by no means identical. A good many of them are in Canada which just isn't NYC. It's as bad as the backlot NY City streets used in so many old movies that had streets meet at “T” intersections that don't exist in New York City.

As far as swords go, there is a lot of legend, tradition and mystique around them in Japan and Europe. There are all kinds of exaggerated tales of swords doing all kinds of things that real ones can't even if real artifact swords can be pretty amazing as opposed to mass produced replicas. The myths have taken on a life of their own as have the myth busters and the history be damned. XD

A good example, and a pretty famous one by now, for NYC stand-ins in Jason's Love boat, I mean Jason takes Toronto.. Okay joking aside Toronto is a huge stand in for New York for many movies in the 70's and 80's.

A huge disappointing place is the one where I am living in now, Fort Lauderdale. In media it is shown to be this huge place where there always some kind of bikini party always happening, in reality it is a filthy rat hole that is very small, doesn't have much in fun and kind of highly racist.

As for swords, it feels like a different form of nerd fiefdoms arguing whose shows are better.
“My Duncan MacLeod sword is better than your silly InuYasha blade!”
“Ackshulally this is a Bokken from Demon City Shinjuku, and your sword is Fasil's.”
“Feel my AI school girl rage!”

Okay, enough with the dork word theater.

bravo1102:

Yeah, Parts of New Orleans when I was there were very, very dangerous.

marcorossi:

You are right, movies play a massive part.
That's sort of true about Japanese swords but sort of not.
Yes that were made in a way that meant you could extract good iron from iron poor ore (all that Tamahagani iron sands stuff). The “layers stuff” is just them having to fold it to get rid of any pieces of silica slag, most of the time it just mixes it more finely so there are no inclusions big enough to cause weak points.
This method is old and outdated, hundreds of years ago there were more efficient ways invented for doing this

The way katana are made is that the back edge is kept soft and the cutting edge it tempered to an extreme hardness. This again is a very old way of making swords. It means toy can have a harder edge that retains sharpness longer but if you sword hits anything hard is will always take a lot of damage. Enough to totally destroy it if it hit other blade too many times.

Most swords everywhere else moved onto having an all over spring temper, which meant that they can sustain much more battle use. The sharpness will be affected but resharpening is easy.
again the Japanese stuff with it because of tradition. They eventually advanced to more modern methods in the 19th century but in the 1930s they went back to the old ways again due to nationalism

Furwerk studio:

Is a katana its shape or the whole traditional way of making it?
It's the shape. Hahaha! It doesn't matter how it's made. Modern traditional Katana are extremely expensive - not because of quality, but because it's a cultural and legal thing- there are only a few smiths that are allowed to make them and the waiting list is huge. It takes them ages to make because they use the old methods. Even the polishers require years of work to be accredited…
The reality is that any well made sword is as good as another, no matter what culture made it- Thai, Teureg, Afghan, Chinese Indian, Italian. The important thing is they they were made to use in a certain context at a certain time.

bravo1102:

I've got quite a few real historical swords and a couple of replicas and the only real difference is that the real ones are more fragile, not because they're old but because they weren't made to be played with. They're meant to sit in their scabbards for 99.9999% of their life and not be used unless absolutely necessary, while replicas are expected to whack the occasional tree XD

J_Scarbrough:

Most assuredly so!

fallopiancrusader:

NYC is a fascinating place and you're very lucky to live there. It's such an expensive city!
I agree that there are historical times a lot of the myths are based on… Like the late 19th century, the 20s and 30s, the dangerous sexy period in the 1970s, the Wall Street era of the 80s…

lothar:

They were of their time. the Beatles spearheaded bringing British mod culture to the USA and changing the music scene from rockabilly to more modern rock-pop. They because the most popular band in the world for that reason (and people ALWAYS mistake “popopular” for “best”). But without that context they don't stand out as much. They ARE good though.

Ever since they broke up I've been hearing about bands being better then the Beatles. Not better than the Rolling Stones, or Led Zeppelin, or the Bay Ctiy Rollers, or Van Halen, but always the Beatles. That's because they were the most culturally significant band on earth at a time when a band could have a global cultural significance. That time ended at some point in the 1980's, so the contest is now over. That in itself would be enough to justify their reputation, even if the music didn't hold up, but there are plenty of highly respected musicians and composers who who will tell you it does and explain why.
For this reason, saying the Beatles don't deserve their reputation is the most long running overrated thing I've encountered.

Coming in a close second, Dyson vacuum cleaners.

bravo1102 wrote:
People who tend to rate NYC the highest are those who have never been to any other big city and those who have never even been there and are just listening to the hype.
Dangerous? NYC isn't even the most dangerous US city or even the most dangerous in the tri-state area.

I enjoyed visiting NYC (in the 90s). Some parts better than others. Tourist locations? Awful. Little Italy? Fun. Broadway? The best. If I ever go back, it will be solely for theater. Oh, and I liked Ellis Island just to trace my own roots.

I didn't feel unsafe there.

That said, Buenos Aires blows NYC out of the water. It's like NYC multiplied in all ways. More flashy. More Italian. More and better street performers. Better food. And more crime. lol

I once read an article years ago that said that contrary to popular belief, bigger cities like NYC and LA aren't nearly as dangerous or crime-ridden as the media portrays them as, and that bigger cities are actually much safer than even most suburban areas . . . my only assumption is because nobody can even afford to live in these cities than rich people, so why would the petty criminals hang around in areas they can't even afford to live?

As far as tourist traps are concerned, last Labor Day weekend, a pair of friends of mine from out of state came to Tennessee to spend the weekend celebrating another friend's birthday up in the Pigeon Forge, Gatlinburg area, then made a quick pitstop here in Knoxville to pay me a visit before they returned home. They were both a little startled by the contrast of how sleepy Knoxville seemed comapred to how hustling and bustling Gatlinburg and Pigeon Forge were, but I explained to them it's because they were up in tourist country up there; those are the cities that are home to such attractions as Dollywood, the Titanic Museum, Ripley's Aquarium, Wonderworks, tons of dinner shows and comedy clubs, among other things, whereas Knoxville is more of a quaint and artsy little town (as a matter of fact, we were voted the second best arts town in America this year).

So yeah, if you're wanting to visit a certain part of town or a state, you're really not going to get the genuine experience if you find yourself in the tourist areas.

German car brands, I have to say.
They're not bad if everything works the way it should, but are they really worth the price? A lot of their popularity comes from the legacies of the names, really, rather than being any more cutting edge or long-lasting than anything from Japan or Korea that is half the price. Certain people over here had better come to terms that we're not in the 1970s/1980s any more. If not for the various joint-ventures between Asian and European manufacturers they may have felt this more strongly.

Camera brands went the same way of letting their complacency make them become irrelevant a couple of decades ago, many of them nowadays, like Rollei, actually being a cheap Chinese manufacturer that just bought the rights to the name from the bankruptcy estate. These great old brands of yore relied on their reputation for too long, failing to keep track on the developments on the market - not exactly failing to innovate, rather than innovating the wrong things, like sticking to an unwieldy two-lenses box design - which ended up giving Japanese producers the boost they needed for their well-deserved worldwide take off.

It's probably for pretty much the same reasons that open-source programmes can surpass the ones they were initially modelled on - although I have to say they're often overrated, too. It's bad enough if a small team of hired programmers can't keep their fingers off anything they had accidentally done a great job on at their original attempt (see Photoshop, possibly), but if everyone gets invited to help creatively disimproving that thing you'll get Gimp. Don't mention Gimp in my earshot! Seriously, it takes me twice as long to do anything now than it used to, to the point of being so thoroughly unusable for some previously simple things that spending good money on software looks attractive again, proving you just can't win and should be glad that programmers can't update your pencil and paper as well.

Now I don't want to play down what all these really smart people achieved - I wouldn't be able to do anything with computers at all without them! - I'm just saying that any situation that's “We're too successful and famous to have to bother listening to you” vs. Too many cooks… is bound to produce overrated end results one way or another, in that my user's enthusiasm for them, er, might be somewhat more moderate than some computer geeks' enthusiasm tends to be.

PaulEberhardt wrote:
German car brands, I have to say.

Interesting about German car brands.
The main ones are BMW, Audi, Mercedes, and Porsche that we get in Australia.
All are considered premium and or luxury brands.

I don't drive so my experience isn't direct but I've had many friends with BMWs and they were often pretty expensive to fix, but stayed quite valuable even so.

With Cameras the only ones I've used consistently are Canon and Fuji (Canon from the film days), two old Japanese brands. Always had good experiences with them but I recently tried a brand new Canon that someone had and it was all light plastic and felt very tacky. It didn't function that well either.

So BRANDS tend to be overrated just because people put too much store in the brand name, only to have the company get lazy and not live up to the quality or style anymore. Instead they put more effort into promoting the brand image.
I'll make a new post on crap brands bellow.

Overrated brands
Brands are not really a reliable metric for quality no matter the reputation. They're only a starting point, you still have to investigate the actual product. So all brands are overrated.
But here are a few that get special mention.

Apple-
Apple have gone up and down a LOT over the years. Generally they try to stay good quality so they can usually be pretty reliable to produce decent things, but they have failed many times and been overrated because people are so invested in the brand image they they support it and forgive it no matter what.

Examples of overrating: terrible late 90s computers, under-performing imacs, programs like itunes and quicktime being arse, overpricing of computers and phones that didn't line up well with the competition, badly made Bluetooth keyboards that don't last well (I went through SOOoo many).
More successes than failures though.

Samsung-
They built themselves into a good brand with a lot of hard work and had some amazing stellar products and original ideas that were copied by competitors - the Note brand phone and tablets being a very cool one which Apple eventually copied with their ipencil on the ipads. Their TVs are also usually very good.
BUT, they have this terrible instinct to do bizarro copies of other people's products- When the iphone came out the original Samsung Galaxy brand Android phones were made to look almost exactly like iphones. Including the stupid home button and the terrible proprietary cable connector! I think even many of their apps were designed to look the same. They were rightly sued over that.

I've bought many great phones, tablets, ear-buds, and the best computer I've ever owned from Samsung, but that instinct to try and copy stuff always undermines them and makes them introduce crap features. Their “Bixby” assistant is a great example.

Every modern luxury clothing brand -Yves Saint Laurent, Balenciaga, Coco Chanel, Louis Vuitton etc
These companies used to be about style and quality of product, that is what created their brands as a centrepiece but they were all eventually brought out by crappy companies that only care about the money the brand name specifically brings in, the products are largely meaningless now.
Hence you see the BRANDS being promoted by terrible celebs and basically in any way possible and being applied to ANYTHING, so they're less than worthless now.
In that if you have something new with one of those premium brandings it is no longer a sign of taste or style, it's the opposite: It indicates you lack style or don't understand the concept.
-If you have something old or antique though from them than that product will probably still be very good and stylish though.

A lot of brands have this “buying up” issue.
Harley Davidson I remember in the 80s and 90s had this issue when the bikes were synonymous with crap.

Traditional values. At least where I live. And by traditional values, I mean streets being named after the same 7-10 people everywhere. You can go to the smallest village with 7 streets total and at least 4 of the streets will be named after the same people. Who were national historical figures or famous authors long ago and such. Just in the capital, 20 streets/roads are named after the same poet (and he's not even famous for being a poet, he was a radical, a revolutionary who happened to write lots of angry political poems). Why should anyone even try to stand out anymore if the only famous people that matter lived a hundred or two hundred years ago? Fragile nationality much…?

Star Wars. At this point, there is more bad Star Wars than good, and most of it is god-awful.

Basically feel the same about Star Trek.

sleeping_gorilla wrote:
Star Wars. At this point, there is more bad Star Wars than good, and most of it is god-awful.

Basically feel the same about Star Trek.

It's like that with any franchise. Once it grows past the original creators a bunch of well meaning no talents will come in and make crap.
I feel that way about superhero movies.
And Star Trek fans are well aware of how overblown some Star Trek is. ST:TOS just wasn't that fantastic. Some episodes were, but some were garbage. ST: Disco has some really weak seasons not just episodes. The seasons were only twelve episodes long, it only FEELS like it was 30-40 episodes. It dragged. Single hour Episodes felt like six hour marathon binges.
“Just end already.”
“You're only fifteen minutes in–”

As far as German cars:

Just ask a mechanic. I worked in a garage. German cars are over engineered and over-priced. Porsche is the exception but it is NOT a daily car. You don't drive it to work. Weekend jaunts, but it is very delicate.
And Volkswagen are well known as a mechanic's nightmare. Parts are expensive and they have the worst maintenance record of any car. VWs have that quirky reputation so owners are more willing to invest time and effort to keeping them running.
It's the same with Harley Davidson. Bikers know it's one hour of maintenance for every hour riding but that reputation of riding a Hog. Practically every other guy in tank units I served in were bikers. I really wish I knew a lot less about them so I could be tempted to get one as I get past middle age but a resounding “NO!”

Just like Nostalgia Critic; that show has been bad almost three times as long as its been good . . . it also doesn't help that it came to light several years ago just what an asshole not only Doug Walker is, but how unprofessional, spiteful, and vengeful the higher-ups at Channel Awesome really are.

That being said, as much as I was a huge Nostalgia Critic fan back in the old days, even though, I had such a huge problem with his fanbase: they would basically take everything he said about a movie as the Gospel, not taking into consideration that A) What he said was opinion, not fact, and B) Nostalgia Critic is just a character who exaggerates Doug's real opinions on a movie. Even so, for a while, you couldn't watch clips from certain movies on YouTube without a bunch of comments saying things like, “This movie sucks! Nostalgia Critic said so!” You couldn't get people to give certain movies an honest watch to get them to form their own opinions on it; they just took whatever NC said and that was their opinion as well.

It's like that with any franchise. Once it grows past the original creators a bunch of well meaning no talents will come in and make crap.
I feel that way about superhero movies.
And Star Trek fans are well aware of how overblown some Star Trek is. ST: TOS just wasn't that fantastic. Some episodes were, but some were garbage. ST: Disco has some really weak seasons not just episodes. The seasons were only twelve episodes long, it only FEELS like it was 30-40 episodes. It dragged. Single-hour Episodes felt like six-hour marathon binges.
“Just end already.”
“You're only fifteen minutes in–”

As much as I love TOS, I agree that it took a turn in the third season and the last episode was its worst. I have been watching “Center Seat” with Gates McFadden and it is going through every series with a lot of interviews I haven't seen before. Gene Roddenberry was a visionary, but clearly a pain to work with. The Next Generation had a few great seasons once he was pushed out. DS9 was good, but I was checked out when Voyager started and TNG had been going for 15 years.

I've ranted about it many times. Battlestar Galactica was a boring snore fest. I have never made it past the 6th episode “Water”. A tank explodes and they can't figure out how the Cylons attacked them, it feels like three hours of talking until these idiots finally suggest that it may have been an act of sabotage. That's the first and only thing that happened after 6-7 hours of episodes. I fell asleep several times and had to rewind, just to discover I had not missed anything, nothing happened.

Then there are all of these imitators that followed, such as the V reboot, Fallen Skies, Ascension, Andor. Even Walking Dead and Picard followed the model of hours and hours of nothing followed by an absurd, unbelievable, uneventful twist.

We have 3 people in a locked room, one of them appears to be dead, and neither of us is the killer. Who could be the killer? (Saw)

bravo1102 wrote:
And Volkswagen are well known as a mechanic's nightmare. Parts are expensive and they have the worst maintenance record of any car. VWs have that quirky reputation so owners are more willing to invest time and effort to keeping them running.

This is exactly what I was thinking of. I could name countless examples from people I know, some of which I can hardly believe myself.
The thing is, the T2 and T3 transporters by VW really were very reliable and sturdy and relatively easy to repair, and a Mercedes Diesel built before the mid-Nineties would last a lifetime if properly cared for. They did build good cars a very long time ago; no reputation comes from nothing. It's just that they've changed their lines of production since, in favour of, as you say it spot-on, over-engineering the hell out of everything in an effort to cover up all the botched jobs underneath.
For me, that's just an impression, mind. My Hyundai has never caused me any real trouble in many years of service, and in every traffic jam I get to perversely enjoy driving past all the broken down VWs (not kidding - I sometimes count them according to type just to fight boredom).
The weirdest thing about this is, my trusty steed in fact uses a licence-built VW engine design - apparently Hyundai is just a lot better at making this thing work and stay in one piece.

—–

Star Trek and Star Wars… don't get me started! I can't really comment about the newest series because I'm too cheap to pay for a Netflix account, but what I've seen from the trailers is part of the reasons why.
The best newer Star Trek film I've seen was the fan-made “Renegades”, which worked for me because it isn't like modern Star Trek at all in some ways - and I'm not even saying it's a great story; it just has a decent number of very cool plot parts and scenes and somehow manages to find this fickle balance between new ideas and while staying mostly true to the characteristic ST vibes. I'm pretty sure Paramount quickly saw to pushing it back underground, because they'd never have been able to be a match for this kind of competition. Someone's suddenly better at building warp engines than Zephrem Cochrane, because Scotty has been pensioned off long ago - do I sniff a slight parallel here?
Star Wars, to me, has always been a story that was told to the end by the third movie. It was an epic story with an epic reputation - the only space epic, and the only one on that level of quality when it first came out, really (which was true for the first VW transporters, too), and on that reputation they could apparently build how many more movies on? Gotta ask my students. They've watched them all, because they're still in the long process of learning how to tell the good stuff from the other 90% Sturgeon's Law demands.

Overrated? Oh yes! Totally so, at least nowadays. They might not be, if they had known when to stop, and that's true for both.
The main reason for these franchises to be able to go on is their bonus of having had a huge impact when they were new and having always been around as part of everyone and their grandma's childhood since (literally so).
And Indiana Jones, too, to add a random example from many possible ones. Actually, I'd even say that franchise has always been a bit overrated from the start, as it's too over the top and unbalanced to be what I'd consider a top-notch plot. This said, the first two are nevertheless fun to watch.

"Serious“ adult animation.
I often keep hearing over and over, and bloody over, about how good mature, adult grown up animation for serious adults will forsake violence, swearing and bloodshed because it isn't seen as ”adult“ enough, which is fine, that's something.
But honestly all I see is just Sitcoms stuck on ”special episode mode“ through out their run and it is so, so overrated and honestly doing damage to animation just as bad as ”cartoons are for kids“.

I bring this up because I had the Simpsons on in the background while cleaning the place up occasionally and they were going through the years, and for some reason my brain is just calling up memories of shows like Fish Police, Capitol Critters, Duckman and Family Dog which lead me to wonder, was the Simpsons really the edgy, ”shocking" show or was it the overrated safe edgy show of the area with shows with more teeth, or at least more entertaining to watch.

This one may piss you off, but I think south park is kinda overrated.

I'm not particularly a fan of adult animation anyway; I find that more often than not, most of the focus goes into the shock value over anything else, and usually for no other reason than, “Hur-hur, look what we can get away with in a cartoon!”

Flintstones and Jetsons were prime time sitcoms. Just because 1960s sitcoms were pretty childish doesn't mean they weren't intended for adults. Then came real adult cartoons of the 1970s like Fritz the cat and TV's forgotten classic Wait till your Father gets home.
Adult cartoons are definitely examples of Sturgeon's Law. Ninety percent are crap. The Simpsons and South Park both have their moments of pure satirical genius and are not over rated but under appreciated. They both go over the heads of Ninety percent of the audience just like a corollary of Sturgeon's Law dictates. Ninety percent of every thing is crap and Ninety percent of the audience can't tell the crap from the good stuff, but Ninety percent think they're the ten percent who can. The numbers from the studies supporting this are closer to 85%.

60s sitcoms weren't childish, it's just that back then, the television industry had what they called Practices the network was constantly scrutinizing that show over any slight implications that two single men living together in the same apartment were gay, hence why they mandated so many elements, such as that infamous opening narration, “Can two divorced men share an apartment without driving each other crazy?” Not to mention both men having active dating lives, although Felix spent the entire series trying to reconcile with his ex-wife.