Once you see a detective show, you basically seen 80% of all detective shows. That's why it seems that there can be nothing to watch, because 80% is basically a rehash, just with different characters and slightly different plots.
Though maybe the most important point of that is that watching TV from different countries will make your viewing more interesting.
You can vary it by focusing on a realistic procedural, or the mystery, or ditch the mystery and just focus on characters. And police shows vary a lot by country; shows from the US, the UK or Norway will be wildly different.
You’ve won me over and to your point you can have a Fr. Brown (1950s Catholic priest detective) and a Dexter (blood splatter analysis turned serial killer).
Now of course the basic premise is always the same good (but conflicted) guy sees bad thing done, investigates, finds bad guys and reconciles one small aspect of world and maybe one small aspect of self discovery.
Heck, most shows have this arc now that I think about it from Sherlock to dr house to those criminal lawyer/police shows.
(I _think_ detective stories specifically choose for the protagonist to want societally-sanctioned retribution. The protagonist then has to publicly demonstrate that the antagonist deserves retribution, rather than take retribution on their own. And the stories also assume that society can and will inflict retribution on the antagonist once the society's rules are satisfied.)
There are other aspects that you're both missing. One is the puzzle aspect: Detective Conan is almost entirely these kind of alibi and murder weapon tricks. There's only so much you can do in 25 minutes to characterize, after all.
The other aspect in common is dealing with the problem of evil, specifically what drives people to the edge, to the ultimate transgression. So often I'll spend more time thinking about the perps than the detectives.
I'm rather embarrassed to admit this, but there it is.
TTTT I have never seen that show though I know what the character looks like. Nowadays I suppose it's on youtube but I don't even care.
I would put myself in that camp - watching soccer just doesn't appeal to me that much, so it all kind of seems the same. But I can very much appreciate the differences to people that enjoy watching the sport, and I think this could be said about nearly any endeavor.
Yep, hence the first sentence of my comment: “I think it comes down to personal taste.” :D
As a result, any given segment of the game is not particularly relevant to the outcome; what's relevant is basically the overall time of possession/goal attempts across the various segments of the game.
Compare that to something like football where the outcome of a given play depends much more overtly on the play the QB decides to run, the skills of the players, how the strengths & weaknesses of the two teams match up, etc. In addition, there's a greater degree to which the plays in a possession build upon each other in order to contribute or take away from a team's ability to score during that possession.
However, I don't think that it completely comes down to personal taste. There can still be areas where the flow of a soccer match can be more samey or less intrinsically exciting than in certain other sports.
For example, soccer doesn't have the same moment to moment, head to head, back and forth of something like tennis or boxing. That's not to say that it completely lacks those moments of conflict; say when a defender is staring down an oncoming striker. However, as far as I am able to tell, they are less dense compared to something like a tennis match where they take up the whole of the playtime.
1. There’s an xkcd for that
2. Simpsons did it
https://thomaspark.co/2017/01/relevant-xkcd/
https://southpark.fandom.com/wiki/The_Simpsons_Already_Did_I...
- Perhaps different things do have a greater or lesser degree to which they lend themselves to deep analysis & enjoyment
- Perhaps engaging in meditative analysis of some interest such as wine is valuable in itself even if it is mostly arbitrary what people choose to analyze.
- Perhaps the decision that wine is worth studying was mostly just an accident of history, but now that it's become part of culture failing to engage with it represents a failure to engage with valuable cultural traditions.
Any of those ideas and others might be worth agreeing or disagreeing with. However, it sometimes feels like people just read the XKCD comic and don't think beyond "wine snobs dumb".
Edit: To be clear, I'm not trying to say that the parent post is doing that. Just that I'm not a fan of how XKCD engages (or more specifically doesn't engage) with some issues.