Party of One: Unpopular TV Opinions

[ganesh]

I certainly didn't say he didn't commit offense nor disparage people who have a more direct connection to 9/11. He's a jerk. I just don't think he's that important a person to warrant the outrage I've witnessed. Kim Davis conned the nation and denied legal citizens equal protection under the law. She's an actual criminal. Yes, people can be mad about both. This is an example to me how overall the priorities are out of wack. Don't watch his tv show, don't go to the wings place. It's not like he's on record saying if a woman got pregnant by rape she should be forced to carry the baby to term. I just can't deal. We'd be so so much better off if this fake outrage was directed better.

 

Mary Sue has about as much merit nowadays as Jump The Shark. Next to none. 

[DeLurker]

 

I just don't think he's that important a person to warrant the outrage I've witnessed.

I think anyone who conducted themselves as he did deserves the outrage so the concept of justifiable outrage being tied to the level of importance is not one I understand.

[ganesh]

I think it's quite straightforward to understand given the clear comparisons I've made to more real life societal issues. I just don't think it merits the level of outrage I've seen. Which is why I'm posting this in UO. Everyone can be pissed all they want. 

 

"Dude, that's a jerk move, later for you." "This is the network; we're not airing your special, and good luck getting any gigs in the near future." He's losing financially, so I think he's paying dearly for lying. Beyond that, I find it eyerolling that he's tearing apart the fabric of American society. He's a middling actor at best on a fairly small cable channel. Maybe if he was some A-lister pulling in billions I can buy. If it was a politician, absolutely.

 

It's so easy nowadays to show outrage over social media, message boards, or what have you that things do tend to get overblown and do take on a life of their own.

 

 

This is an apt summation of my point. And this is one example of that. I understand that it's because it's 9/11 that there are a lot of people ticked. My point being, people are justifiably ticked at some garbage like this, but aren't screaming about the first responders getting proper health care, for example. I just think the outrage is wildly misdirected which happens at ton, and I think it's dumb. Which is an unpopular opinion about someone on tv.

[proserpina65]

"Dude, that's a jerk move, later for you." "This is the network; we're not airing your special, and good luck getting any gigs in the near future." He's losing financially, so I think he's paying dearly for lying. Beyond that, I find it eyerolling that he's tearing apart the fabric of American society. He's a middling actor at best on a fairly small cable channel. Maybe if he was some A-lister pulling in billions I can buy. If it was a politician, absolutely.

 

Honestly, most of the reaction I've seen has been more of the "jerk move, later for you" variety.  I haven't really seen all that much outrage.  It's been mentioned, briefly, on a morning news show I watch, and it turned up on a couple of news sites I frequent as a minor item, but it's not gotten the level of attention of something like the Kim Davis crap.  It is a legitimate news item and has gotten about as much attention as it deserves, imo.

[redlaces]

I have never liked the Muppets. Please go away.

[ganesh]

Honestly, most of the reaction I've seen has been more of the "jerk move, later for you" variety.

 

It was clogging my FB feed, so that's where I was coming from. 

[proserpina65]

It was clogging my FB feed, so that's where I was coming from. 

Ah, that makes sense.  I haven't been on FB much over the past few days, and while I imagine there's been some comment on the subject on my feed, I suspect most of my FB friends weren't that worked up about it.  But there are other subjects where that does happen (sometimes I am so grateful to be able to hit the 'ignore' option on certain types of posts), so I understand the feeling.

[Chaos Theory]

I have never liked the Muppets. Please go away.

The Muppets have their charm. I actually love the Muppet version of A Christmas Carol. Like anything else in small doses they have their moments. I am just not sure I am interested in a series.

Edited September 18, 2015 by Chaos Theory

[Bastet]

I have never liked the Muppets. Please go away.

 

I liked the ones on Sesame Street, but that's the last time I had any interest in any Muppets.  And puppets issuing statements about their love lives is just blowing my mind.

[Julia]

I'm from New York. I watched the ruling party in Congress wave the scorched shirt for literally years after they tried to shut down the funds for rebuilding when the dust hadn't completely settled. I'm disgusted by people pretending to be more affected by 9/11 than they really were. I've had plenty of time to get used to it.

[Madding crowd]

My UO is that I don't hate Shopping Channel Hosts and think they have a really hard job. I buy the occasional piece of clothing from QVC because I find it easier than googling through 20,000 red tee shirts but I don't pay much attention to the hosts. I think it takes a lot of skill to have to find something interesting and different to say about the same item over and over. And if they don't talk about their personal life they are called cold and snobby, if they do talk about their life they are considered over sharers and inappropriate. 

[ganesh]

I'm disgusted by people pretending to be more affected by 9/11 than they really were.

 

I hear that. 

[GreekGeek]

The Muppets have their charm. I actually love the Muppet version of A Christmas Carol. Like anything else in small doses they have their moments. I am just not sure I am interested in a series.

The Muppets are OK except for Miss Piggy. Her diva obnoxiousness isn't cute or funny. And did I hear Kermit refer to her as "my wife" in one of the promos? Ugh! I liked it better on the original Muppets series, when he didn't seem that into her.

[Neurochick]

I hear that. 

 

The funny thing is I never even heard of this comedian before his lying scandal broke.  When I heard he lied about being in the Towers that day, I was like, "who is that guy anyway?"

[ganesh]

The League is actually a funny show. I started watching because it was paired with It's Always Sunny.

[andromeda331]

I liked it better on the original Muppets series, when he didn't seem that into her.

So did I. The original Muppets was the best.

[cpcathy]

So did I. The original Muppets was the best.

 

I think The Muppets lost their magic when Jim Henson died.

[Julia]

I think The Muppets lost their magic when Jim Henson died.

 

Aw, but Frank Oz and Caroll Spinney are still alive. Don't get me wrong, I loved Kermit, but Big Bird was the man (bird?) before Kermit got a show. Also, Oscar. QED.

Edited September 19, 2015 by Julia

[UYI]

I guess my UO is that my favorite Muppets are the Muppet Babies. Then again, I've never seen much of the Muppet Show before. 

[Crim]

Let's forget about Marvel, the only superheroes I intensely care about are Buffy and Angel.

 

Which brings me to my unpopular opinion: While it's nice to draw from existing properties and a comic book universe that has existed for several decades, I'd prefer it if network executives tried to create new superheroes/universes instead of adapting known properties.

It would be nice, but it's the popularity of the Marvel movies that led to this ridiculous explosion. There were pretty recent attempts at original superhero shows and some failed (like No Ordinary Family, and The Cape), some had a pretty decent number of episodes before the curtains closed (Heroes... rebooted now, of course). Back in 2001, Birds of Prey was based on a comic in the Batman universe and only got a season, while the very cheesy Mutant X, supposedly original (it was obviously derivative) had 3, got a 4th, but was canceled due to the dismantling of one of the production companies. It was more of a crapshoot. But now taking a risk with an original idea when adapting comics is pretty much printing easy money?

 

My UO is that I would be ok with more comics-based shows, but for less mainstream comics. I am not talking about sheer popularity of a comic series here, just do something less boring, less same-y. (Despite being a Marvel Universe series, maybe Jessica Jones will be it? I'm gonna give it a shot, at least.) But do... dunno, Suicide Risk, do Sex Criminals, do The Wicked + The Divine!

Edited September 20, 2015 by Crim

[Fable]

Now that OUAT is coming back, I'm going to say my UO is that am confused about the Emma/Hook relationship. He was kind of a dick, and now she is in love with him? Really?   Writers do what writers want to, but this makes no sense to me!

[junemeatcleaver]

Seeing a handful of people around the internet grumble about Tatiana Maslany being robbed at the Emmys last night reminded me of something:  I think she's good but not the greatest ever, or is it a grave injustice she failed to win the Emmy.  Girl isn't doing anything to me that Erika Slezak and David Canary didn't do 10,000 years ago in daytime.  Maybe Ms. Maslany is more special because she's on a sci-fi show but I'm not seeing it.

[mansonlamps]

Coming from the Emmy topic, I realize I have an apparently extremely unpopular opinion.  There is not one single person on earth I would watch read the phone book!  

[proserpina65]

The Muppets have their charm. I actually love the Muppet version of A Christmas Carol. Like anything else in small doses they have their moments. I am just not sure I am interested in a series.

I loved The Muppet Show back in the day, and would still watch those episodes given the chance, but the promos for the new show make it look like they've taken everything sweet and charming and funny about the original and thrown it away.  Not watching the new show at all.

Coming from the Emmy topic, I realize I have an apparently extremely unpopular opinion.  There is not one single person on earth I would watch read the phone book!  

I thought I would watch/listen to Alan Rickman read the phone book.  Then PBS ran The Song of Lunch, which was basically 50 minutes of him doing voice over, and I realized I was wrong.

[selkie]

  Girl isn't doing anything to me that Erika Slezak and David Canary didn't do 10,000 years ago in daytime.  Maybe Ms. Maslany is more special because she's on a sci-fi show but I'm not seeing it.

 

John Noble went there on a SF show (Fringe) and never got close to a nomination and I was a lot more impressed with his multiple Walter Bishops than I've been by the Orphan Black clones.  I think it was actually harder to pull off some of those more subtle roles like Anna Torv playing red universe Olivia, who was pretending to be original recipe Olivia in several episodes than making a straight character break from Sarah to Allison to Cosima like Tatiana does.

[ganesh]

Maybe Ms. Maslany is more special because she's on a sci-fi show but I'm not seeing it.

 

To be fair, she is nearly in every scene of the show, and, in the first season, two or three of her were in every scene. So it is an incredible amount of work. The only other show I can think where the main character was in every scene was UK LOM, and that was only 16 episodes. Each character is very distinct as well, you tend to get lose the fact that it's the same person. Then, she sometimes has to play one clone playing another clone on top of that. Whether that translates to high quality acting is a ymmv.

 

Anyways, scifi isn't going to win any Emmys anyway so just being nominated is a win for the genre imo.

 

I think it was actually harder to pull off some of those more subtle roles like Anna Torv playing red universe Olivia, who was pretending to be original recipe Olivia in several episodes than making a straight character break from Sarah to Allison to Cosima like Tatiana does.

 

TM has done that though, on a few occasions. 

Edited September 21, 2015 by ganesh

[GHScorpiosRule]

I loved The Muppet Show back in the day, and would still watch those episodes given the chance, but the promos for the new show make it look like they've taken everything sweet and charming and funny about the original and thrown it away.  Not watching the new show at all.

Ditto. I mean, in one of the promos, I heard Kermit say "hell" and it...traumatized me. (Don't judge me!)

 

Muppets are the one group of characters that I can't wrap my brain around swearing.

[galax-arena]

I think it was actually harder to pull off some of those more subtle roles like Anna Torv playing red universe Olivia, who was pretending to be original recipe Olivia in several episodes than making a straight character break from Sarah to Allison to Cosima like Tatiana does.

Tatiana does the former a LOT on Orphan Black as well because the clones are always impersonating each other. (I think at one point they might have had a clone impersonating a clone impersonating a clone?) Of course, whether one thinks she does it well or not is a different story. I personally think she's excellent at it, but obviously YMMV. 

Edited September 21, 2015 by galax-arena

[Crim]

I like Anna Torv a lot, but I don't agree that her playing the Olivia variations is in the same ballpark. Tatiana playing the clones is the first time I forget it's the same actress, and she does this not with two, but with more and more clones. And I can tell when the clones are pretending to be each other, because their mannerisms and voice/tone is so distinct - yet it is believable that other characters would be fooled because the differences become subdued when the clones are trying to impersonate another. It's a very physical performance and looks effortless. I honestly believe that not many actors could do it (I'm not saying she is more talented than those; she did improvisation, which hones certain skills). It doesn't necessarily mean that it is Emmy-worthy, but it is what it is.

 

The only opinion on Emmys, which I honestly don't care about (I don't watch most of the shows that got awards this year), is that Uzo Aduba did not deserve multiple awards for Crazy Eyes. I understand being impressed back in season 1, but the more she is on screen, the more I see it as her mugging in the exact. same. way. It's like Jack Nicholson playing Jack Torrance in 3 movies and getting 3 Oscars.

[Shannon L.]

 

I loved The Muppet Show back in the day, and would still watch those episodes given the chance, but the promos for the new show make it look like they've taken everything sweet and charming and funny about the original and thrown it away.  Not watching the new show at all.

I loved The Muppet Show, The Muppet Movie, The Muppets Take Manhattan and The Muppets Christmas (Thanksgiving?) Special.  We're going to start watching the new Muppet Show, but I expect it to get old real fast.

 

I thought Adam Samberg was embarrassingly bad during his monologue last night (didn't watch the show because I don't want the majority of nominees), but I do love Brooklyn 99 and agree that he's getting really handsome. 

[selkie]

I'm behind on Orphan Black- about two episodes past meeting Tony- and while TM is definitely talented and hardworking, I think she's not quite managing to overcome some clunky scripts and directing that is telling her that, hey, Helena is simply not enough of a caricature of an insane person and there must be more (non-Uzo Aduba) crazy eyes on the next take.

Edited September 21, 2015 by selkie

[MaryMitch]

Ditto. I mean, in one of the promos, I heard Kermit say "hell" and it...traumatized me. (Don't judge me!)

 

Muppets are the one group of characters that I can't wrap my brain around swearing.

 

I just watched a PBS biography on Jim Henson; apparently he said "goddamn" once and it shocked everyone. He's probably spinning in his grave over Kermit saying "hell"!

[Pollock]

Tatiana playing the clones is the first time I forget it's the same actress.

This so much! She's incredible for that. To be honest, and boy did I love him, there is always a part of me that was saying when watching Fringe : boy, is Noble good or what? I was still seeing the (phenomenal) actor. When I watch Orphan Black, I never see the actress. Never. I just see her characters. That's what is making her performance Emmy worthy to me.

[andromeda331]

The only opinion on Emmys, which I honestly don't care about (I don't watch most of the shows that got awards this year),

Me too. I really don't care who wins or who doesn't.

[Crim]

there is always a part of me that was saying when watching Fringe : boy, is Noble good or what? I was still seeing the (phenomenal) actor.

It was the same for me, but even worse. I sure had UOs about that show back on TwoP. Watching Fringe was an interesting experience because of it. With people being exposed to so much (international) media, I usually don't think perspective is much of a factor anymore. And maybe it isn't, maybe it's just personal, but from the first episodes of Fringe, I was floored by Anna Torv's acting, while others called her too cold, too remote, and thought she should emote more. Meanwhile, while I understood Noble's acting choices, I found Walter Bishop tiresomely over the top, saved from caricature by having multiple facets... all larger than life. Actually, it's the same thing that bothers me about post-season 1 Crazy Eyes. They are Full On Crazy/Kooky All The Time, off the charts mental issues, always different. The actors might as well be playing androids or aliens. "But they are crazy, and not medicated". Yeah, ok. If there is an attempt at nuance, I just don't see it. Though that's where a director should come through. The performances we see are not just the result of an actor's talent - unless that is the limitation, of course, as is often the case.

[DearEvette]

Seeing a handful of people around the internet grumble about Tatiana Maslany being robbed at the Emmys last night reminded me of something:  I think she's good but not the greatest ever, or is it a grave injustice she failed to win the Emmy.  Girl isn't doing anything to me that Erika Slezak and David Canary didn't do 10,000 years ago in daytime.  Maybe Ms. Maslany is more special because she's on a sci-fi show but I'm not seeing it.

 

i love Orphan Black and think Tatiana deserves recognition.  But I agree with this.  I get that she is doing multiple characters but if you think about it, so do people like, say,  Key and Peele.  There is a psychological sleight of hand at work, imo, when considering Tatiana's work because all her characters are on the screen at the same time.  And not to diminish the work she does, but we are further aided in their differentiation by very clear visual cues with hair/make-up.  But other actors esp. sketch comedy actors disappear inside multiple other personas very convincingly.  And when they are recurring characters they manage to create an expectation of who that character is in the same way Tatiana does. For instance, when I see Jordan Peele's 'Meegan' I know exactly who I am looking at and what to expect and she is very different from his Wendell Sanders character.  If they were in  scenes together over time I'd probably begin to see them as entirely separate people from their actor.  So yeah, Tatiana is talented but she's not doing anything that a lot of other actors aren't capable of she just has the right venue to showcase it.  Doesn't mean she isn't good, just also doesn't mean she is automatically better.

[ganesh]

Yeah, but TM is putting in a ton more work than K&P simply because there is more show time. Additionally, each multi-clone scene takes a really long time to shoot. I give her credit for strictly the endurance.

 

Can others do it? She auditioned and got the role, and she's the one doing it. They must have recognized something in her. That's the thing with scifi that's missed I think. The actors are just as good as anyone else, but they are asked to do a lot more imo. Take any show, like Farscape, or Atlantis, or B5, where you have main characters who are in full makeup/costume that takes several hours to prepare, then you have a 12 hour shooting day. Even something like LOM where there aren't really any traditional scifi elements to it had JS in every scene for 60 min episodes because that was the show concept.

 

I mean, those of you who watch OB. You cannot even tell there's only one person in a multiclone scene. While the concept is not new, I think they've taken it to another level. 

 

I didn't even know the Emmys were actually on until I came in here Monday morning anyway either. 

[SmithW6079]

I don't know if this is a UO, but it's a rant: I hate when TV channels get created with a theme, and then a few years later, they can't sustain their niche so they become generalized channels that air reality shows 24/7. There was a time when A&E and Bravo actually aired shows about the arts; History aired shows that delved into history; SyFy was once science fiction (although to their credit, there seem to be more SF shows on that channel, but also a fair amount of wrestling and "B" movies [with the exception of the "Sharknado" trilogy, a cinematic tour de force]). HGTV once showed you how to decorate your home (even on a budget!) or create your garden; now it's about real estate real estate real estate -- flip your home! buy your home! renovate your home! in seven days or less.

TV Land is the latest example. They were started as a throwback to the "old" days of sitcoms, when multi-camera and canned laughter were comforting. Now, they're cancelling those shows -- "Hot in Cleveland" (although I stopped watching that early on; couldn't stand the Betty White character) and just recently, "The Exes," which was amusing, harmless fluff about three divorced men and their landlady/divorce attorney -- and introducing awful "edgy" "comedies" like "Impastor," which is unfunny and full of unlikable people.

If every channel airs reality shows, what's the difference among them?

Edited September 23, 2015 by SmithW6079

[MaryMitch]

I don't know if this is a UO, but it's a rant: I hate when TV channels get created with a theme, and then a few years later, they can't sustain their niche so they become generalized channels that air reality shows 24/7. There was a time when A&E and Bravo actually aired shows about the arts; History aired shows that delved into history; SyFy was once science fiction (although to their credit, there are seem to be more SF shows on that channel, but also a fair amount of wrestling and "B" movies [with the exception of the "Sharknado" trilogy, a cinematic tour de force]). HGTV once showed you how to decorate your home (even on a budget!) or create your garden; now it's about real estate real estate real estate -- flip your home! buy your home! renovate your home! in seven days or less.

 

TV Land is the latest example. They were started as a throwback to the "old" days of sitcoms, when multi-camera and canned laughter were comforting. Now, they're cancelling those shows -- "Hot in Cleveland" (although I stopped watching that early on; couldn't stand the Betty White character) and just recently, "The Exes," which was amusing, harmless fluff about three divorced men and their landlady/divorce attorney -- and introducing awful "edgy" "comedies" like "Impastor," which is unfunny and full of unlikable people.

 

If every channel airs reality shows, what's the difference among them? 

 

And "TLC" used to be "The Learning Channel"!

 

My alternative for The History Channel is their alternate channel "H2"; it's not all history, but it's closer than its parent network.

 

For TV Land - I don't know how a network wasn't able to make money showing old shows; there's definitely a market for that (see how successful Cosy and MeTV are!), and the shows are probably pretty cheap. But the older shows generally run longer - a typical 1950s hour show had 50 minutes of content - so TVLand cuts the shows mercilessly to squeeze more commercials in. As a contrast, MeTV will time compress a show to get about 2-1/2 minutes more commercials for an hour show, but they leave in all the scenes.

[selkie]

Yeah, ok. If there is an attempt at nuance, I just don't see it. Though that's where a director should come through. The performances we see are not just the result of an actor's talent - unless that is the limitation, of course, as is often the case.

 

Back when Sopranos was on the air, there was an Edie Falco scene that just floored me. Carmela is sitting at the dining table sorting mail or paying bills or something and Tony comes in after a night's work in play.  Not a word was said, but through body language and facial expression, it is clearly communicated that Carmela has a very good idea of what Tony has been up with, doesn't like it but  does not want to talk about it right now, so Tony better already be making plans to make it right with her as she just keeps on going through envelopes.  

 

That kind of thing is nuance done beautifully and the power of the moment comes in its seeming simplicity. Having Carm yelling angrily at Tony for being late would have been in character but would have been a lot less interesting exploration of their relationship.

[giovannif7]

But the older shows generally run longer - a typical 1950s hour show had 50 minutes of content - so TVLand cuts the shows mercilessly to squeeze more commercials in. As a contrast, MeTV will time compress a show to get about 2-1/2 minutes more commercials for an hour show, but they leave in all the scenes.

At least one of the "oldies" channels is also elimnating the closing credits, which is driving me crazy when I recognize an actor in an episode and want to check out their name. I've noticed that it happens on The Avengers, My Favorite Martian, The Dick Van Dyke Show and several others. I thought eliminating credits went against broadcast regulations, which is why we get sped-up credits being squeezed into a tiny portion of the screen as the next program is beginning on so many other stations/networks. But it's been going on a while and I haven't heard any other complaints about it.

[kassygreene]

This is where IMDB Becomes Your Friend.  If you have enough details about the episode, like season & episode number, or even original air date, you can find it on IMDB and expand the cast list for that episode.  It's a little time consuming, but easier on my eyes and my primary mouse finger then pausing tiny font credits as they go by (yes, I watch a lot of stuff online).  It also helps tremendously when you are trying to learn the name of a Hey! It's That Guy! actor.

[kiddo82]

You know when you're with a group of friends? And there are two people in the group who are closer with each other than the rest? And they have this way of tellings stories together that feels kinda exclusive and is just one big inside joke that no one else really gets? That's how I feel when Jimmy Fallon and Justin Timberlake are together. I like them well enough when they're separate. They're both very talented and they seem like nice guys but I don't find their banter all that entertaining.

[SmithW6079]

And "TLC" used to be "The Learning Channel"!

I forgot that you used to be able to learn from TLC, before it became the Morbidly Obese Freakshow Channel. Edited September 23, 2015 by SmithW6079

[UYI]

I don't know if this is a UO, but it's a rant: I hate when TV channels get created with a theme, and then a few years later, they can't sustain their niche so they become generalized channels that air reality shows 24/7. There was a time when A&E and Bravo actually aired shows about the arts; History aired shows that delved into history; SyFy was once science fiction (although to their credit, there seem to be more SF shows on that channel, but also a fair amount of wrestling and "B" movies [with the exception of the "Sharknado" trilogy, a cinematic tour de force]). HGTV once showed you how to decorate your home (even on a budget!) or create your garden; now it's about real estate real estate real estate -- flip your home! buy your home! renovate your home! in seven days or less.

TV Land is the latest example. They were started as a throwback to the "old" days of sitcoms, when multi-camera and canned laughter were comforting. Now, they're cancelling those shows -- "Hot in Cleveland" (although I stopped watching that early on; couldn't stand the Betty White character) and just recently, "The Exes," which was amusing, harmless fluff about three divorced men and their landlady/divorce attorney -- and introducing awful "edgy" "comedies" like "Impastor," which is unfunny and full of unlikable people.

If every channel airs reality shows, what's the difference among them?

 

I never thought in a billion years that GSN would get to a point where starting up a rival game show channel (BUZZR) would be necessary. But here we are.

[laffytaffy997]

 

Seeing a handful of people around the internet grumble about Tatiana Maslany being robbed at the Emmys last night reminded me of something:  I think she's good but not the greatest ever, or is it a grave injustice she failed to win the Emmy.  Girl isn't doing anything to me that Erika Slezak and David Canary didn't do 10,000 years ago in daytime.  Maybe Ms. Maslany is more special because she's on a sci-fi show but I'm not seeing it.

 

 

This is probably unfair for me to complain about because I've never actually watched Orphan Black, so I'm not going to argue if she is the greatest or not, but I do get tired of people TALKING about how she is the greatest. I understand that people love her and think she needs to be recognized more and that's fine, but anytime I read any article, blog, or post about awards, they always mention how it is this great injustice that she was never been rewarded with anything. Even if the article isn't even about her! It can get very annoying, so much that it makes me not want to watch Orphan Black! Tons of actors never get rewarded for their work and I know it sucks for their fans, but that is just the way it is. Trust me, there are several shows and actors I wished had been rewarded that never did, so I get it.

 

Orphan Black is on my list of shows I want to eventually watch. So who knows, maybe after I watch it, I'll come back with my tail between my legs and be like "You guys were right. She deserved every award ever!"

[Blergh]

OK, I'll throw this left-fielder out for laughs and giggles but. ..

 

 I like it more when Dr. Ruth talks about topics besides sex! I mean, she gets nice and explicit,etc. but IMO she's led a very interesting life and has had a far wider range of studies and human  interactions besides sex alone but very few programs seem interested in hearing any other aspect of her life or POVs and it's too bad. Regardless of anything else, I find it intriguing that despite having had to leave her hometown of Frankfurt when she was only 10,   living many places since  then, and learning 3 new languages, Dr. Ruth has NEVER lost that German accent and I'm entertained by her giggle even if its not always for the right reasons on her part.

[ribboninthesky1]

This is probably unfair for me to complain about because I've never actually watched Orphan Black, so I'm not going to argue if she is the greatest or not, but I do get tired of people TALKING about how she is the greatest. I understand that people love her and think she needs to be recognized more and that's fine, but anytime I read any article, blog, or post about awards, they always mention how it is this great injustice that she was never been rewarded with anything.

 

I do think Maslany is immensely talented, based on the episodes I've seen (about 6 from season one).  Still, I know what you mean here.  I like who I like, but the TV social media cause célèbre gets very old, very quickly.  I've always maintained that acting talent is soooo subjective, and it's why I've never cared about award shows, who's "snubbed," who's "deserving" or not, etc. I understand why actors care, but as a viewer, I couldn't care less.  If I like an actor AND the show, I'll continue to watch.      

[Kel Varnsen]

I do think Maslany is immensely talented, based on the episodes I've seen (about 6 from season one).  Still, I know what you mean here.  I like who I like, but the TV social media cause célèbre gets very old, very quickly.  I've always maintained that acting talent is soooo subjective, and it's why I've never cared about award shows, who's "snubbed," who's "deserving" or not, etc. I understand why actors care, but as a viewer, I couldn't care less.  If I like an actor AND the show, I'll continue to watch.      

Yea back when Bryan Cranston was winning all his emmy's for Breaking Bad and Jon Hamm wasn't to me it seemed like both were excellent actors, probably equally as good, so I always just figured that a big part of it was (especially for the first win or 2) that Cranston had worked in Hollywood longer probably knew more people who might be voting, and that probably at least in some way worked in his favour. So in that kind of respect I don't think winning or not winning is any real assessment of who is the better actor.

[ganesh]

No, it's not. Typically, an actor like Hamm gets the award in the final season/post series more as a reward of the entire body of work than being the best actor *that year*. Which, I don't know why they just don't create and award for that.

 

SciFi isn't going to win any mainstream awards any time soon. Primarily ^ they don't know enough people because working in scifi is small. Frankly, I think good scifi, and OB is good, is too smart sometimes and people just miss it. 

 

I think it's been a good time for scifi, BBCA alone has been supportive of some rather weird shows. I wish Farscape was around in this climate.