The writing does something truly perplexing sometime in the middle of the second season of Emily in Paris: a storyline twist that is so handy and tonally odd that it nearly seems intentional. Nevertheless, millions of fans were already in line for the following episode after spending the previous week complaining to friends about how awful the show was. Not grudgingly. eagerly. One of the more honest things that viewers of television do is to engage in hate-watching.
Although the phenomenon is not new, it has taken on a new form in the era of streaming. Hate-watching required months of consistent dedication when television was shown on weekly schedules. Now that entire seasons are released all at once, you may watch eight episodes of something you really detest over the course of a weekend, pausing sometimes to send disbelieving messages to pals who are doing the exact same thing in their own living rooms. The experience has evolved into a shared event centered around collective frustration rather than enjoyment, making it social in a way that it was never fully previously.
Regarding what is truly occurring, psychologists have been largely consistent. The fundamental component is schadenfreude, which is the low-grade enjoyment of witnessing characters conduct badly, make terrible choices, or inhabit plots that fall apart when examined closely. Being smarter than what you’re seeing feels nice. Even in imaginary settings, it is satisfying to witness entitled characters being humiliated. Although it’s not very flattering to acknowledge, the research indicates that this is what people actually say when describing their hate-watching behaviors.
The other element that is frequently overlooked is catharsis. Watching television that evokes feelings of low-level fury or moderate disgust is actually liberating; they are stimulating but non-threatening emotions. Sometimes a well-written scene doesn’t generate the same level of engagement as a poorly written scene where a character does something improbable. Even when the logical conclusion would be to stop, individuals continue to watch because of the brain’s reaction to the oddity, the thing that doesn’t fit.
These sorts of engagement are not differentiated by the streaming algorithm. According to the platform’s stats, a viewer who completes three episodes of a show they detest is the same as a viewer who completes three episodes of a show they adore. They have both observed. Data has been produced by both. Both have an impact on the figures that decide whether or not a show is renewed. This is the phase of the hate-watch cycle that leads to very bizarre results: shows that are extensively ridiculed gain enough popularity to be given second seasons, which in turn provide new content for ridicule and keep viewers interested. The creative incentives for streaming services are much trickier than they seem because the loop is self-sustaining.
There is also a social component that is important. On its own, hate-watching is a somewhat pale experience. Hate-watching with a group of friends who have developed a running commentary style or on a Reddit thread with 60,000 people who share your particular grievances turns into something else entirely: a kind of communal entertainment that exploits subpar television as its raw material. The community that develops around analyzing the show almost overshadows the show itself. Regardless of the underlying attitude, such community involvement creates the social media buzz that platforms interpret as cultural relevance.
The risk worth mentioning is the tendency toward a general attitude of disdain, which is easy to recognize if you’ve spent time in devoted hate-watching societies. In moderation, consuming negative media as a pastime is a somewhat safe way to pass the time. It may make real involvement with something you truly appreciate feel relatively flat in larger doses, according to experts who study watching habits. It takes more work than it probably should to overcome the pessimism that becomes the default setting.
