It's not hard to read and watch, but it does take something away from the experience as it was intended. Many filmmakers preferred dubbing to subtitling for that reason -- Alfred Hitchcock said that a film "loses 15% of its impact when it's subtitled and 10% when it's well dubbed." (And that's not even getting into Italian films like 8½ where everything is dubbed in every version.) The fact that we can read doesn't change the fact that reading a translation of what was said is a somewhat different experience from understanding what is said.
The ideal thing, of course, is to learn more languages, but since I haven't done that all I can do for the most part is choose between two flawed options, dubbing and subtitling. I prefer subtitling but I feel it's arguable that good dubbing creates a more enveloping experience. It's very much the same argument that's made about subtitles vs. translation at the opera.
Well, there's a difference between predicting what the network will do and predicting that something won't become a hit. Arguably it's just evidence that NBC does very strange things.
Now, I think you can counter-argue that the critics were wrong because the show did not flop: it didn't do great but it did decently in the post-Office slot. I'm not puzzled, personally, by NBC picking it up; I'm puzzled that they thought it had the potential to be a big hit.
But if you want to argue that there's no proof the outsourcing theme is what turned people off, I'll accept that. And I'll also agree that the fact that the show didn't become a hit is not proof that NBC had no reason to think it would be. But there you go -- if a counter-intuitive decision pays off, they're geniuses, but it didn't pay off.
I thought of The Prisoner as a miniseries and didn't really put it in the same category with a continuing show like TWD. But if the distinction doesn't hold, well, then, sure.
It's Gregory Peck; the razor bit is from the then-recent movie Spellbound.
Getting fired from a show that was completely built around her.
Probably. Buffy season 1 will never have the same impact that it did when nobody was expecting anything good of it. Its writing is calculated on the basis that the audience's expectations are low and that it can confound and surprise us, which it did. You could say that even if we watch Buffy from the beginning we're not seeing it the way the creator intended if we think it's going to be good.
I think it's different with Buffy; there's nothing wrong with the first season overall except the low budget and some weak episodes (but every season had them). However I admit that watching the first season as a unit on a DVD set it may not be as effective as it was at the time, watching it week by week and seeing how interesting and daring the mix of styles was becoming. So I don't know that I'd tell someone to start Buffy with the first season, particularly if they're more used to the style of '00s TV.
No need to be sorry. I like plenty of stuff other people don't like and vice versa; if nobody disagreed I'd be doing something wrong...
I'm pretty sure young people are smarter than you give them credit for.