I have to be honest, I think entertainment may be one of those things where to some degree the sunk cost fallacy may not be 100% accurate. I mean yes, I see the

I have to be honest, I think entertainment may be one of those things where to some degree the sunk cost fallacy may not be 100% accurate. I mean yes, I see the reasoning behind this: > We all do it. Ever gone to the cinema and stayed to the end of a film you actually loathed 10 minutes in – or watched yet another season of what was once your favourite TV show? But TV shows, films, books, games... they've all got many examples of works which either start out terrible and get much better as they go along or start out fantastic and fall to pieces later down the line. Someone who takes this fallacy seriously all the time wouldn't read/watch Lord of the Rings long enough for the party to leave the shire. They probably wouldn't reach the first dungeon in The Legend of Zelda Twilight Princess (which is sometime after about 2 hours of tutorial content and meandering intros). Hell, TV Tropes has a whole list of works where you have to sit through hours of boring filler before getting to the interesting stuff: https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SlowPacedBeginning https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SlowPacedBeginni... There's also the related idea of a show/work 'growing the beard', where it really picks up later on as the writers/actors/directors/whoever finally get into their stride. So it's not necessarily a fallacy to sit through a tedious or even bad work under the assumption it'll get better, because in quite a few cases, that's exactly what does happen.