Party of One: Unpopular TV Opinions

[orza]

Shows have millions of viewers, but rough ballpark tallies of unique usernames interacting with show runners and writers on social media show that the number of fans active online is a tiny fraction of total viewership, many cases way less than 1%. It's easy enough to avoid exposure to show runners and writers talking about the episodes and it's also easy enough to skip over such post in forum discussions.

I notice in a lot of episode discussion threads that some people have obviously only watched the episode with at best one eye and ear, perhaps because they were too busy live tweeting or on other social media or otherwise distracted. They ask questions indicating they missed major plot points and expository dialog, even whole scenes. Then they go ask the writers to explain what they just saw, or missed in some cases.

Edited July 10, 2016 by orza

[ganesh]

17 minutes ago, orza said:

I notice in a lot of episode discussion threads that some people have obviously only watched the episode with at best one eye and ear, perhaps because they were too busy live tweeting or on other social media or otherwise distracted. They ask questions indicating they missed major plot points and expository dialog, even whole scenes. Then they go ask the writers to explain what they just saw, or missed in some cases.

It's really a huge peeve for me. 

[Minneapple]

1 hour ago, ganesh said:

I don't know. I think it's a sizeable segment of viewership. 

Nah. The people interacting with writers, actors, showrunners, etc., is a tiny fraction of viewership. And if you go on twitter, a lot of the more crazy accounts are just dummy accounts.

I do feel like nowadays, there's so much exposure with the 24/7 news cycle and social media, that creators are more compelled to just *say more stuff* to fill the void. You have after shows, twitter, facebook, tumblr, panel discussions like Comic Con, regular old news media. I love hearing about the creative process and I know the creators love talking about it, but a lot of it seems like talking just to talk. 

[ganesh]

That's a good point too. Just the Entertainment Weekly articles on my news feed alone is like 25 GOT on a Monday. 

[Raja]

17 hours ago, Marsupial said:

"Roseanne" was an excellent show, actually, it was groundbreaking in many ways and not least because it showed actual working-class life in America as no other show has done in my memory. I appreciated the fact that the family's home was a normal middle-class house rather than an unrealistic showplace, and that nobody on the show looked like they were attending a model's convention (Becky was pretty, she was "the pretty one," but she was not depicted as a drop-dead beauty always dressed in the latest fashions). I get really tired of everybody in every American TV show and movie looking perfectly thin, coiffed and Botoxed, living in homes that belong in Architectural Digest, especially when the premise of the show is that they're teachers or police detectives or whatever.

The only other show that did this was "Married with Children," and another of my UOs is that I loved that show, too.

I never heard of "Cow and Chicken"!!! What have I missed?

Back up a bit to a generation before when Norman Lear was at his height with All In The Family.

[UYI]

19 hours ago, Marsupial said:

 

I never heard of "Cow and Chicken"!!! What have I missed?

 

It was on Cartoon Network's Cartoon Cartoon Fridays line up in the late 90's, when I was in elementary school. I never watched it, but I did watch the Powerpuff Girls, who are awesome and always will be. 

[MaryPatShelby]

19 hours ago, Marsupial said:

"Roseanne" was an excellent show, actually, it was groundbreaking in many ways and not least because it showed actual working-class life in America as no other show has done in my memory. I appreciated the fact that the family's home was a normal middle-class house rather than an unrealistic showplace, and that nobody on the show looked like they were attending a model's convention (Becky was pretty, she was "the pretty one," but she was not depicted as a drop-dead beauty always dressed in the latest fashions). I get really tired of everybody in every American TV show and movie looking perfectly thin, coiffed and Botoxed, living in homes that belong in Architectural Digest, especially when the premise of the show is that they're teachers or police detectives or whatever.

The only other show that did this was "Married with Children," and another of my UOs is that I loved that show, too.

 

"The Middle" is good at this too. Yes, generally Patricia Heaton is well-coiffed (but still mom-like imho), but they wear shorts in the summer, winter coats in winter, and casual clothes at home in their very messy house. 

 

15 hours ago, Minneapple said:

 And if you go on twitter, a lot of the more crazy accounts are just dummy accounts.

How does one figure out if a twitter account is a dummy account?

[Ohwell]

I'm glad Lin-Manuel Miranda is taking a break from Hamilton because I'm tired of seeing him everywhere.  Unfortunately, he just did a song with J-Lo (another one I'm tired of weeing) but I hope that's the last I see or hear of him for at least six months.

[ganesh]

"I didn't sign up for this." 

I didn't realize that watching a tv show of your own free will came with legal obligations from the showrunners. 

[ChromaKelly]

4 hours ago, Ohwell said:

I'm glad Lin-Manuel Miranda is taking a break from Hamilton because I'm tired of seeing him everywhere.  Unfortunately, he just did a song with J-Lo (another one I'm tired of weeing) but I hope that's the last I see or hear of him for at least six months.

I think you are going to be truly a Party of One with that. I just don't tire of him, and he doesn't seem to have fallen into an Anne Hathaway/Jennifer Lawrence adorable-turned-annoying celebrity.  Disclosure: I'm an unabashed Hamilton superfan.

[UYI]

5 hours ago, Ohwell said:

I'm glad Lin-Manuel Miranda is taking a break from Hamilton because I'm tired of seeing him everywhere.  Unfortunately, he just did a song with J-Lo (another one I'm tired of weeing) but I hope that's the last I see or hear of him for at least six months.

 

Same here. I'm sure he's a great guy, but enough's enough. And to be honest, even though I'm a HUGE political junkie, I'm not all that interested in Hamilton. I'm just...not. 

[Ohwell]

Did I write "weeing"?  Too late to go back and correct it now, lol.

[Minneapple]

8 hours ago, MaryPatShelby said:

How does one figure out if a twitter account is a dummy account?

If you scroll through twitter and you see people spamming actors or writers with the same thing over and over, those are dummy accounts. They can clog up a hashtag really quickly and are so annoying. 

[Julia]

On 7/10/2016 at 5:08 AM, Joe said:

I remember in the last season of Buffy, and then Battlestar Galactica, the writers seemed to spend more time doing interviews than workiing on their scripts. Sounds like the problem has only gotten worse since then.

 

On 7/10/2016 at 9:29 AM, Wiendish Fitch said:

I don't like Joss Whedon, and I'm sick of him being heralded as this pillar of feminism when the characters he tends to favor are cutesy girl-women and utter asshole men. And I think Mal from Firefly is a complete and utter shit, and the same goes for Jayne.

Yeah, I'm thinking Whedon and his entirely unhealthy obsession with manipulating his fans is pretty much patient zero of this nonsense. And his jerk men don't bother me as much as his 'powerful' women wasting away to concentration camp-level BMIs while Jewel Staite played the fat joke who couldn't get anyone to have sex with her.

On 7/10/2016 at 6:47 PM, Minneapple said:

Nah. The people interacting with writers, actors, showrunners, etc., is a tiny fraction of viewership. And if you go on twitter, a lot of the more crazy accounts are just dummy accounts.

I'm not sure where you're getting the assumption that people who engage are insignificant from, but the polling industry extrapolates from far smaller samples.

Edited July 12, 2016 by Julia

[orza]

22 minutes ago, Julia said:

I'm not sure where you're getting the assumption that people who engage are insignificant from, but the polling industry extrapolates from far smaller samples.

The polling and market research industry puts a lot of effort into selecting participants who are representative of the various demographics they are interested in for their surveys. Participant selection criteria is the secret sauce that in large part determines a pollster's accuracy. The same cannot be said for the people on social media. We know nothing about them or even if these are all different individuals or just a small number of people with a lot of sock accounts. They don't represent anyone but themselves so their views and opinions cannot be generalized to a population.

[Jack Shaftoe]

Quote

And his jerk men don't bother me as much as his 'powerful' women wasting away to concentration camp-level BMIs while Jewel Staite played the fat joke who couldn't get anyone to have sex with her.

I think Firefly is extremely overrated but Jewel Staite's character did have sex. In fact, the only scene with Kaylee that I remember clearly is a flashback of her having sex in the engine room of the ship.

But yes, Joss Whedon as pillar of feminism is something I find hard to understand, even though I like some of his work a lot.  And funnily enough, the more overt (or should I say, preachy) the feminist message in Buffy became, the more it was undermined by the terrible execution.

[proserpina65]

On ‎07‎/‎10‎/‎2016 at 3:22 PM, caci said:

My UO is that I didn't like Roseanne and thought it was pretty overrated, esp. as the show progressed.

I liked the early seasons, but after about season 2 or 3, I lost interest.

[proserpina65]

On ‎07‎/‎11‎/‎2016 at 7:48 AM, Raja said:

Back up a bit to a generation before when Norman Lear was at his height with All In The Family.

My UO is that I never thought All in the Family was funny.  Although I did love The Jeffersons, so there's that, I guess.

19 hours ago, ChromaKelly said:

I think you are going to be truly a Party of One with that. I just don't tire of him, and he doesn't seem to have fallen into an Anne Hathaway/Jennifer Lawrence adorable-turned-annoying celebrity.  Disclosure: I'm an unabashed Hamilton superfan.

Party of Two, at least.  I can't stand him, and I've never actually seen him perform.  I'm just sick of seeing his face/hearing his name every-bloody-where.  Much, much worse than AH or JW for me.

Edited July 12, 2016 by proserpina65

[Julia]

17 hours ago, orza said:

The polling and market research industry puts a lot of effort into selecting participants who are representative of the various demographics they are interested in for their surveys. Participant selection criteria is the secret sauce that in large part determines a pollster's accuracy. The same cannot be said for the people on social media. We know nothing about them or even if these are all different individuals or just a small number of people with a lot of sock accounts. They don't represent anyone but themselves so their views and opinions cannot be generalized to a population.

And yet I would argue that people on the internet are more representative of the affluent millennials that advertisers are looking for than people with landlines who answer the phone when they don't recognize the number are of the public in general.

[orza]

2 minutes ago, Julia said:

And yet I would argue that people on the internet are more representative of the affluent millennials that advertisers are looking for than people with landlines who answer the phone when they don't recognize the number are of the public in general.

What data is there to support that? One would need to design and conduct a survey of a representative population of internet users to collect that data.

[Julia]

Well, Pew is supposed to be pretty good with data.

[orza]

Based on the titles, I don't see any studies there showing the relationship between internet usage and tv viewing habits or documenting the actual demographics of fans interacting with writers on Twitter. Judging by some fan interactions social media, it would seem that many of those fans are immature and poorly educated and not affluent, well-educated millennials.

But one can be surprised. I have often assumed some forum posters going on and on about their TV crushes and ships were were overwrought, teenagers and then they casually mention visiting colleges with their teenage children or doing stuff with the grandkids. Apparently, it's a thing for middle-aged women to carry on like 15-year-olds.

In any case, networks have their own market research departments for a reason because gut feelings based on casual observations on a very small number of overinvested fans on the internet cannot be trusted.

[Marsupial]

Quote

Apparently, it's a thing for middle-aged women to carry on like 15-year-olds.

I blame Twilight.

[ABay]

Good for them. Good for them for upsetting other people's ideas about their right to have and express sexuality.

And my other UO for the day: While it is not the national treasure the Colbert Report was, I actually enjoy the Late Show. 

[Neurochick]

My UO is that I don't mind Gabby on Chicago Fire.  To me it's an interesting switch that the favorite female on a show isn't a generic white, blue eyed blonde.   Sometimes the real searing hatred of her makes me feel uncomfortable.  It's like people want to see female characters on a TV show, but when one shows up, they tear them down.  I just don't get it.  

[kathyk24]

I think female characters get held to tougher standers than male ones do. Male characters can be good at everything yet a competent female gets called a Mary Sue. For example look at the reaction to JJ vs the reaction to Reid.

[ganesh]

I don't think that's a UO though. That's the problem with tv in general.

[Chaos Theory]

12 hours ago, kathyk24 said:

I think female characters get held to tougher standers than male ones do. Male characters can be good at everything yet a competent female gets called a Mary Sue. For example look at the reaction to JJ vs the reaction to Reid.

I think it's just easier to write a "strong male character" then a "strong female character". Less of (Hell next to none) of a political mine field of what makes a strong male character while their is pages and pages of debate of female characters.

I get it we all have our favorites but I never understood people are so hard on female characters and let worse written male characters go.

Edited July 18, 2016 by Chaos Theory

[ribboninthesky1]

To bring up an earlier, related conversation in the thread, I also think female actors are held to higher performance standards.  It's much more common for me to read that "X actress can't emote/act" when there are a fair share of wooden men out there who get the "the character is stoic/traumatized/brooding therefore it's subtlety" pass. Tom Hiddleston as The Night Manager, for example.  I chuckled when I read he was nominated for an Emmy.  Not saying he can't act, but The Night Manager didn't exactly showcase his talent.    

[Chaos Theory]

This sort of fits with the conversation.  I think Wynona Ryder did an amazing job on Stranger Things.  "Frantic  Mother" is a tough roll to play an not subtle and I thought she pulled it off well bit apparently I am in the minority.

[ABay]

Oh, dear lord, The Night Manager. Not just dull and soporific but relentlessly so. I made it through half of the first episode, woke up, and felt that the nap was a better use of my time than watching any more.

[atomationage]

1 hour ago, ribboninthesky1 said:

there are a fair share of wooden men out there who get the "the character is stoic/traumatized/brooding therefore it's subtlety" pass

I would cite Jeremy Allen White on the US version of Shameless as a great example of this problem.  The actresses that played opposite him were always blamed for their performances against this block of wood.  I think this is also an UO.   I haven't watched the show in 2 years. 

[truthaboutluv]

I may not think he is as great as some make him out to be but I cannot blame him for Karen and the weak performance of actress who played her. I thought that Jeremy showed played of emotion in his scenes with her because it always seemed like Lip was the one more invested in Karen than her in him. She was blank faced and lacking any reaction most of the time. And funny, her fans used the "stoic, subtlety" pass for her while I just saw a mediocre actress. 

[Chas411]

Quote

My UO is that I don't mind Gabby on Chicago Fire.  To me it's an interesting switch that the favorite female on a show isn't a generic white, blue eyed blonde.   Sometimes the real searing hatred of her makes me feel uncomfortable.  It's like people want to see female characters on a TV show, but when one shows up, they tear them down.  I just don't get it.  

Normally I'd agree with a lost like this only that I think Gabby is truly awful and the shows propping of her shows how little they care of the characters reception. I also find her generic blonde costar Sylvie to be just as unlikeable so there's that. I liked Shay and Chilli who they cast aside like spare parts. 

[allyw]

7 hours ago, truthaboutluv said:

I may not think he is as great as some make him out to be but I cannot blame him for Karen and the weak performance of actress who played her. I thought that Jeremy showed played of emotion in his scenes with her because it always seemed like Lip was the one more invested in Karen than her in him. She was blank faced and lacking any reaction most of the time. And funny, her fans used the "stoic, subtlety" pass for her while I just saw a mediocre actress. 

Wasn't Karen the blonde from season 1 & 2? Because I thought she did a capable job...now the brunette actress who replaced the other brunette in season 2 was absolutely shit. Her line reading was atrocious and was only on par with the actor who played Ian.

[Haleth]

I guess it's an UO that I really liked The Night Manager and thought Hiddleston was yummy.  (Or maybe it was Mallorca and Jed's wardrobe.)  In any case Olivia Colman certainly earned her Emmy nomination.

[TattleTeeny]

I'm confused as to why people get so bent out of shape if a show's protagonist is a bad person who does bad things. It seems like many people are under the impression that show creators expect viewers to love anyone who's a main character, and that by having that main character be bad, the creators are saying, "we condone anything this person does because it's cool and morally correct!" Sometimes shows are about bad people, and we are SUPPOSED to find their actions bad as well!

Edited July 19, 2016 by TattleTeeny

[ribboninthesky1]

13 hours ago, Haleth said:

I guess it's an UO that I really liked The Night Manager and thought Hiddleston was yummy.  (Or maybe it was Mallorca and Jed's wardrobe.)  In any case Olivia Colman certainly earned her Emmy nomination.

Nah, I don't think that's unpopular.  Hiddleston got good critical buzz (which presumably led to the Emmy nom), and it was the role that really got the Bond buzz going. Until it all came crashing down due to his personal life.

For my part, the series was all (beautifully shot) style but little substance. I would have been fine with that, except the reason I tuned in was because Hiddleston was supposedly so good in it.  At least I got Olivia Colman and great cinematography out of the deal.     

[Minneapple]

11 hours ago, TattleTeeny said:

I'm confused as to why people get so bent out of shape if a show's protagonist is a bad person who does bad things. It seems like many people are under the impression that show creators expect viewers to love anyone who's a main character, and that by having that main character be bad, the creators are saying, "we condone anything this person does because it's cool and morally correct!" Sometimes shows are about bad people, and we are SUPPOSED to find their actions bad as well!

Usually it's because the show doesn't treat them as a bad person who does bad things. They excuse the behavior or sweep it under the rug. I'm aware that there are exceptions. 

[Chaos Theory]

18 hours ago, TattleTeeny said:

I'm confused as to why people get so bent out of shape if a show's protagonist is a bad person who does bad things. It seems like many people are under the impression that show creators expect viewers to love anyone who's a main character, and that by having that main character be bad, the creators are saying, "we condone anything this person does because it's cool and morally correct!" Sometimes shows are about bad people, and we are SUPPOSED to find their actions bad as well!

TV is often about emotional connection and a lot of people have a tough time and resent forming one with "bad people" especially bad people who spend half what is ultimately a six,seven, eight season long series rising to unfathomable heights before they fall

[DangerousMinds]

On 7/10/2016 at 4:48 PM, ganesh said:

I don't know. I think it's a sizeable segment of viewership. 

Apparently a lot of people out there have LOTS of free time. Time to watch (and it seems in many cases, rewatch) and search out TPTB on social media.

Edited July 20, 2016 by DangerousMinds

[TattleTeeny]

Good points, but no one is commanding anyone to like the protagonist. I'm just tired of reading the equivalent of "How dare the show runners imply that's its perfectly OK to do this thing that Character X did!" when no one's implying anything like that, and the thing that Character X did was done precisely because Character X is an asshole and the show was made to deliberately convey that; bad people do bad things, man--what's so hard to get about that? Just because the bad person is a main player in a show, it doesn't mean we're expected to approve of his or her actions, and I suspect that a lot of what people interpret "excused behavior" is in the eye of the beholder--and even if the show is trying to say, "yeah, but he really has a heart of gold so it's OK!" so what? We don't have to agree (plus, if that whole ambiguity thing is done well, it makes it interesting! I think of Shane in The Walking Dead as a good example of this, and Spike--though I LOVED him--from Buffy as an example of a misstep). 

I'm probably not making sense (and for that I am blaming the absolutely ridiculous UnREAL forum).

Edited July 20, 2016 by TattleTeeny

[Chaos Theory]

TattleTeeny I have my own issues.  I've given up on the OUAT forum for this reason.  Why one character is deserving of redemption and another is not.  Tired of it.  Still I do understand why some people don't like antihero narratives.  

Edited July 20, 2016 by Chaos Theory

[Neurochick]

On 7/18/2016 at 5:50 PM, Chas411 said:

Normally I'd agree with a lost like this only that I think Gabby is truly awful and the shows propping of her shows how little they care of the characters reception. I also find her generic blonde costar Sylvie to be just as unlikeable so there's that. I liked Shay and Chilli who they cast aside like spare parts. 

My problem is I really don't get WHY she's so awful.  Seriously, I don't get it. 

And if the character is awful, shouldn't the hate be directed at the writers.  I read shit like, "I hope she dies," shit like that makes me feel uncomfortable, like I wonder what's really behind the hate. 

[izabella]

To me, Gabby is awful because they've turned her into a Mary Sue.  She didn't start out that way, but she is now.

[atomationage]

13 minutes ago, Neurochick said:

I read shit like, "I hope she dies," shit like that makes me feel uncomfortable, like I wonder what's really behind the hate. 

I give up on forums for shows that I like when I read stuff like that.  Sometime it does seem like there's something else behind the hate.  On another show, filmed in Canada, I think one actor got a lot of hate because he played a character people didn't like on a different series.  I don't watch any of the "Chicago" shows anymore.   It was interesting to see the locations when they first started out.  

[Chas411]

She bugged me from the start. in my opinion she was always a Mary Sue she just came into the forefront moreso as the show went on. Her crush on Matt was annoying but not nearly as annoying as her crappy treatment of him he minute they began dating. 

She butts into everything and never hestitates to make a self righteous speech no matter how hypocritical she may sound. 

to top it all off every character goes in and on about how amazing she is, how she's the heart of the firehouse etc and from what I can see she's not. She's just the queen bee who runs things. 

I find they female firefighters of Fire to be pretty lame though. I loved Shay who they killed off for nothing more then shock factor. I liked Sylvie but I preferred Chilli (name aside) and hated that she literally ended up being a prop to Sylvie who I now can't stand and I'm certain episodes has beaten Gabby on the Mary Sue scale.

Edited July 20, 2016 by Chas411

[Minneapple]

5 hours ago, TattleTeeny said:

Good points, but no one is commanding anyone to like the protagonist. I'm just tired of reading the equivalent of "How dare the show runners imply that's its perfectly OK to do this thing that Character X did!" when no one's implying anything like that, and the thing that Character X did was done precisely because Character X is an asshole and the show was made to deliberately convey that; bad people do bad things, man--what's so hard to get about that? Just because the bad person is a main player in a show, it doesn't mean we're expected to approve of his or her actions, and I suspect that a lot of what people interpret "excused behavior" is in the eye of the beholder--and even if the show is trying to say, "yeah, but he really has a heart of gold so it's OK!" so what? We don't have to agree (plus, if that whole ambiguity thing is done well, it makes it interesting! I think of Shane in The Walking Dead as a good example of this, and Spike--though I LOVED him--from Buffy as an example of a misstep). 

I'm probably not making sense (and for that I am blaming the absolutely ridiculous UnREAL forum).

A lot of times what happens is that the bad character does bad things and then...suffers no consequences for their bad actions. And since this is fiction we're talking about, actions should have consequences. If they don't, then the writers are sort of implying that they do condone what the bad character is doing. 

If you're referring specifically to Rachel on UnREAL this week, the issue there is not that the writers condone Rachel's actions, and it's not that we're expected to approve of what she did. It's the way they framed the narrative. She got a black man shot by a police officer and the whole thing was framed as "yes, but how does this affect the white lady." 

[TattleTeeny]

Eh, she's a main character, of course it was--plus, she's crazy as hell! I am hoping to see more about Darius; the season sis still going so maybe it's coming later. I'm done discussing Unreal--too much deliberate obtuseness in that forum, and I don't want to see it in this one, which is much better and more interesting.

Edited July 20, 2016 by TattleTeeny

[atomationage]

I thought the purpose of an UO forum was to express your unpopular opinion without having to be rebutted with the same things posted in the thread for whichever show.