When reading the audience reviews of Psych on ‘Rotten Tomatoes’, we take a look at the ones that make normative and empirical observations. Each audience member has their own views of Psych and make their own observations on the show. Some being more in depth than others.
First, we take a look at the normative route, which most of the audience reviewers took in their review. Commonly, they talked about the lovable characters within the show and how the show is hysterical, or that it is their favorite show of all time, or that it is the best mystery/comedy there is and they can’t wait for the next season. Each review was strictly opinion-based. Most of the audience shares their opinion, stating how they view the show and the actors, however they don’t refer back to it in order to develop an observation more thorough and in depth. They talk about how the show makes them feel and whether they felt the actor fit the role or not, and strictly discuss their personal entertainment rather than what mechanics worked within the show, or referring to specific scenes or moments that highlight the characters development and success of the production team behind it.
However, for the few that make empirical observations, they make reviews that you’d think would be done by the actual critics. They go in depth on the actor and how they fit in their role within the show, referencing moments from the film where they saw a major character development that led to the betterment of the show. Some even go into the shows script, and compare the seasons writing to the other and how the writers developed the comedy and managed to engage even more fun and witty comedy as they went on to later seasons. These observations relate to fact in which one can actual observe while watching, while also engaging in the production behind the show and what goes into making the show do as well as it did.