Party of One: Unpopular TV Opinions

[Anna Yolei]

Yes, however, when a network airs episodes out of order, confusing the viewers, or plops it down on a night no one watches tv, then cancels it, it's because people who run networks are idiots.

This. It's a running joke now amoung genre fans about how long genre shows will last on Fox. I put ten dollars on Gotham getting the axe before the end of the World Series.

[ganesh]

It's a running joke now amoung genre fans about how long genre shows will last on Fox.

 

Not to be an ass, but now? It's been this way since the late 90s. This underscores how really creative shows just don't have a chance on the broadcast networks. Gotham should be on AMC. 

[amensisterfriend]

- Also I didn't like Luke. He always seemed so grumpy and miserable. And not "charming curmudgeon" but "pissy downer." I grew up with someone like that, and let me tell you, it wears very thin. It is not charming. It makes you walk on eggshells because you never know when a bad mood will land on you. I actually liked Christopher better and I think he and Lorelai would have been good together.

 

I've seen GG about 50 zillion times (I desperately need a life!), and I have serious issues with Luke: I think he's an alarmingly angry, temperamental, boorish, rude, boring, jealous, bitter, ridiculously immature, passive-aggressive, secretive, infectiously negative killjoy. He has some good qualities, of course, but I'm still always shocked at how he's considered by so many fans to be some sort of romantic ideal. And while I've come around on them a bit, I still think Luke and Lorelai worked far better as friends than as a couple with sadly little chemistry or even basic compatibility. I agree with your unpopular opinion that Christopher and Lorelai had far more chemistry and a lot more in common...and they actually looked happy around each other more often than not, while Luke and Lorelai seemed to spend the vast majority of their time as a couple baffled, frustrated and understandably annoyed. 

 

---I don't think the reason Arrested Development failed to catch on with a larger segment of the audience is that it was too smart. Honestly, I think it was too dumb, with a lot of ridiculously juvenile sexual innuendo, dopey slapstick and an obnoxious tendency to repeat the same gags over and over in every episode in the name of "continuity". It had its good points, but I think it's extremely overrated. 

 

---Modern Family is absolutely terrible. I've tried to like it but honestly can't find anything about it to enjoy. 

 

----Shawn Spencer was the worst thing for me about the otherwise really enjoyable Psych. 

Edited October 4, 2014 by amensisterfriend

[Shannon L.]

 

---I don't think the reason Arrested Development failed to catch on with a larger segment of the audience is that it was too smart. Honestly, I think it was too dumb, with a lot of ridiculously juvenile sexual innuendo, dopey slapstick and an obnoxious tendency to repeat the same gags over and over in every episode in the name of "continuity". It had its good points, but I think it's extremely overrated.

I don't think it's over rated because I loved that show, but I have to agree with everything else you said.  Some things were smart, but all in all, it was a silly comedy.  The thing that made it so good was the way the actors played off of each other.

 

While I, too, don't blame a network for cancelling a show, they do it way too early, imo.  There are a few shows (MASH for example) that had horrible first season ratings and the network decided to give them another shot.   Today, if it wouldn't been canceled after half a season and whether you like MASH or not, you have to admit, it was great for the network who gambled on it.  Also, what's up with showing shows out of order?  That's what got Firefly off to such a bad start, iirc.

[amensisterfriend]

but I have to agree with everything else you said.  Some things were smart, but all in all, it was a silly comedy.  The thing that made it so good was the way the actors played off of each other.

 

Oh, definitely. I do actually like the cast a lot and totally agree that there were some clever bits, but I just disagree with the seemingly popular notion that the show was too smart and sophisticated for most viewers to "get" and appreciate :) A few more UOs about Arrested Development:

 

---I didn't especially enjoy Maeby and think her neverending, repetitive one-joke storyline as an underage studio executive was one of the weakest aspects of the show. 

 

---Scott Baio's Bob Loblaw was my favorite minor character of the entire series. He's a major reason why I hold the unpopular opinion of liking the third season more than the first two overall. 

 

----I thought Ron Howard's narration, which seems to get a lot of praise, was obnoxiously excessive and really, really annoying. 

[applecrisp]

My unpopular opinion, the judges on DWTS are way too mean.  On the singing or cooking shows the contestants are trying to get a job in that field so the sometimes harsh criticism may actually help.  On DWTS these people are not going to pursue a career in dance.  

 

I know this show is losing popularity fast, but just wanted to state my opinion as to why the show does not work.  Bruno said some very mean things to Michael Bolten and I thought Wow this guy is not going to do this to earn his keep.  Just wanted to get that of my chest.

[kiddo82]

While I, too, don't blame a network for cancelling a show, they do it way too early, imo.  There are a few shows (MASH for example) that had horrible first season ratings and the network decided to give them another shot.   Today, if it wouldn't been canceled after half a season and whether you like MASH or not, you have to admit, it was great for the network who gambled on it.

I think the biggest difference now is that there is so much competition for viewership that networks don't have time to be patient. When MASH premiered the network could roll the dice and hope that the viewers would come because the landscape was so limited. Now, not only do you have to compete with the other broadcast networks but basic cable, premium cable, and those who prefer to spend their viewing hours streaming either original content or episodes of six year old series that they didn't catch the first time around. The odds are much less that a significant audience will finally find a show with disappointing numbers. It's a shame because I've found that it really takes many shows a good quarter of season to really get going and sometimes an entire season to find themselves.

[ganesh]

The thing that made it so good was the way the actors played off of each other.

 

Next to Veep, this is really the only other show I can think of with such a large cast and incredible timing across the board. That's really what made it so good. 

[kathyk24]

Yes, however, when a network airs episodes out of order, confusing the viewers, or plops it down on a night no one watches tv, then cancels it, it's because people who run networks are idiots.

Or a network will schedule a new show against already popular programs and wonder why no one watched. I think it's nuts to speculate that something will be cancelled after one episode.

[MyAimIsTrue]

---Scott Baio's Bob Loblaw was my favorite minor character of the entire series. He's a major reason why I hold the unpopular opinion of liking the third season more than the first two overall. 

 

Best character name ever!

[ganesh]

I loved his law blog.

[VanillaBear85]

He is quite the mouthful.

[TattleTeeny]

Druscilla, Oz, and Spike are the only characters on Buffy that I found even remotely engaging and funny in that order. I don't really like the show but I did sit through it all eventually to see what all the fuss was about.

 

I like Giles somewhat but that is probably more because of my crush on Anthony Head.

 

I'll see myself out.

I love Spike now and forever and I don't care! Also (and I've said it here before), seasons 6 and 7 of Buffy are my favorite ones, and I say that as someone who watched the show from the premiere episode.

Edited October 6, 2014 by TattleTeeny

[DiamondDoll]

On Scandal, Mellie is the most likable character. I'm actively rooting for her to be done with Fitz and never looking back. Also, Olivia is not a likable character. Plus she's not a style icon and the incessant media hoopla around her style choices makes me dislike her that much more.

 

I loved the first three seasons of The Big Bang Theory. LOVED. Seen every episode at least five times. Season four was tolerable but man, did the show crash and burn hard in season five and have not watched since. I suspect the major reason for this is Mayim Bialik and her character. She's so obnoxious and horrible, I keep wishing someone would drop a house on her and be done with it. If they ever get rid of Sainted Amy, I'll watch the show again.

[Princess Sparkle]

Upon re-watch, I have Thoughts about Gilmore Girls.

 

- As for Rory, I thought Logan was the best of her boyfriends. Dean was probably the nicest (in the beginning. I do not approve of cheating and The Affair made me strongly dislike both of them.) and she and Jess had common interests, but I always felt that Logan pushed her outside of her comfort zone while still respecting her boundaries and was supportive without being suffocating. Boat theft aside, I thought they balanced each other well. Besides, it doesn't hurt that Matt Czuchry has aged well.

Let me pull up a seat at your table.  I really, really thought Logan was Rory's best boyfriend, and I was so disappointed when she turned down his proposal.  And, to be honest, I really hated the way she acted towards him a lot of the time - for example, I HATED how she acted when his father told her she wouldn't be a good journalist (I put the boat theft squarely on her) and really disliked that she was mad me slept with other women when they weren't together.  

 

And yeah, shallowly, Matt Czuchry has aged SO well.  His features somehow got more mature, and yet, he still doesn't look anything close to his age.

[amensisterfriend]

In honor of its return, some unpopular opinions about Supernatural...

 

1) I kind of wish the show had ended 6-7 years ago. How many years can you watch the same two characters whining about the same endless dysfunction?! 

2) If they cut the seemingly widely beloved "angst" by about 90% and replaced it with the moments of joy and fun to which the post-S3 writers seem so averse, the show would be a million times better to me.

3) Jensen Ackles is fine, but not in the Best Actor Ever category he's often placed in by fans, and the growly, heavy smoker Batman voice he suddenly acquired around Season 4 is laughably ridiculous to me 

4) Sam wasn't so much "ruined" as that he was never a well defined character to begin with 

5) I never cared about Castiel or his alleged epic bromance with Dean and think the actor is mediocre at best

6) I loved Bela. I actually think in many ways that the third season, which most fans seem not to like much, was the best. 

7) I loved the myths and urban legends of the early years way more than the "bigger" stories about heaven and hell and an endless series of apocalypses 

Edited October 8, 2014 by amensisterfriend

[truthaboutluv]

1) I kind of wish the show had ended 6-7 years ago. How many years can you watch the same two characters whining about the same endless dysfunction?!

 

 

Not sure if this is unpopular or not but after watching many a good show fall to the wayside, I have come to the conclusion that frankly no show needs to go past 6, maybe 7 seasons. I feel like there's a reason the standard contract actors sign for a series is 6 seasons. I just feel that after 6 seasons you've likely told all the stories you need to tell with these characters and it's time to let them move on. Especially when it's a series with the regular 22-24 episodes a season. That's a lot of damn shows and I just feel that by that point the writers get less and less creative and that's when the crazy, half-assed storylines start coming and the quality just keeps dropping. 

Edited October 8, 2014 by truthaboutluv

[topanga]

In today's world, I think procedurals like the Law and Order franchise are the only ones that can keep going for 10+ years and still produce quality shows. On those shows, there's a revolving cast and not much emphasis on character development, so the show doesn't get bogged down with relationship drama, UST, etc.

 

How did shows like Gunsmoke and Bonanza do it?  And maybe the Big Valley? All of these shows were on over a dozen years.

[ganesh]

There was no competition and probably only 4 other shows on. 

 

I think the 22 episode season has long since been obsolete. I think it's actually detrimental for actors because they get typecast for future roles, and that isn't their fault. I think it's also bad on the skills to play the same character for so long. I could see how an actor might come to hate the character. 

 

I know I talk about the UK model too much, but the shows don't run long, and the actors end up playing tons of different roles on different shows. The guys from Sherlock are in like a million different things, for example. Anyone who plays the Doctor on Doctor Who doesn't it do it for that long. Even Tennant, probably the most famous one of the modern era, has done a ton of shows since his run.

 

I think the cable shows are getting it right. Jon Hamm is always going to be associated with Draper, but he's still been able to do a variety of roles in the interim between seasons and he doesn't seem 'stuck'. 

[Kel Varnsen]

How did shows like Gunsmoke and Bonanza do it?  And maybe the Big Valley? All of these shows were on over a dozen years.

I imagine that a big part of it was there was no fandom for shows like there is today. Not to mention the concept of recording a show and watching it over and over again (or even watching it if you missed it) wasn't possible either. So only the most dedicated fans could have seen every episode of Gunsmoke, especially on first run. If you caught it on reruns it was a lot more difficult to keep track of which season you were watching. If you did catch every episode first run and wanted to talk about story issues you had or continuity errors, you were pretty much stuck talking to your friends and co-workers. And most of them probably thought you were the guy who thought way too much about Gunsmoke.

 

All this means of course writers could get away with a lot more. Especially when it came to things like recycling plot lines, dropping plots or characters or just general plot holes or continuity errors.

Edited October 8, 2014 by Kel Varnsen

[Bastet]

I may not watch much television now, but I've watched quite a lot over the course of my life.  In all that viewing, among shows that lasted more than five or six seasons, I can name only two - Cagney & Lacey and Seinfeld - that I enjoyed all the way to the end.  The rest of my long-running favorites - and that's a long list - are shows I only liked through the fourth, fifth or sixth seasons.

[blueray]

I may not watch much television now, but I've watched quite a lot over the course of my life.  In all that viewing, among shows that lasted more than five or six seasons, I can name only two - Cagney & Lacey and Seinfeld - that I enjoyed all the way to the end.  The rest of my long-running favorites - and that's a long list - are shows I only liked through the fourth, fifth or sixth seasons.

I've noticed this too. Most long running shows (live action) lose something during or after season 7. Not that they don't still have good episodes but there is fewer of them then earlier seasons the further you go in the show.

Edited October 8, 2014 by blueray

[Bella]

My UO: I hate Jennifer Garner's voice. Hate it.

[Anna Yolei]

In today's world, I think procedurals like the Law and Order franchise are the only ones that can keep going for 10+ years and still produce quality shows. On those shows, there's a revolving cast and not much emphasis on character development, so the show doesn't get bogged down with relationship drama, UST, etc.

How did shows like Gunsmoke and Bonanza do it? And maybe the Big Valley? All of these shows were on over a dozen years.

Gunsmoke had the network's CEO as it's biggest fan. According to some special on Gilligan's Island, the latter was canceled in spite of its decent ratings to keep the former around. The next day after said CEO left CBS, Gunsmoke was canned.

[ganesh]

So basically, how the SciFi network is run, except CEOs are in and out every other year.

[selkie]

For me, it's often after season four that it all starts to fall apart. Seems like the showrunners and writers at that point have run out of ideas that are both good and somewhat original and have to start recycling or revisiting  the stuff they though wasn't good enough for an episode back in season 2.

 

ER managed to avoid this by having a pretty heavy cast churn. And by George Clooney leaving the show early on so we were spared any more of the excruciating Doug/Carol romance. Clooney is a very good actor, but Doug Ross was a horribly written stock character- #27- rebel and bad boy with heart of gold- and that Clooney made him likeable to many (though not me)  is a measure of his acting skill.

[2KllMckngBrd]

My UO: I hate Jennifer Garner's voice. Hate it.

Well then I will be making reservations for 2. 7:30. Please be sharp! And I hate, that I hate her voice. B/c she is a completely likeable person, and a really good actress. But I cannot stand that one octave below helium thing she has going on.

 

I also feel the same way about Nicholas Cage and Owen Wilson. They have this affected way of speaking that makes me want to go pluck my eyebrows. When I hear eithers voice I start to question if I should even have a tv in my house. They also both come across as so damned weird. I don't know if I can even explain it. But I just always feel like they are one bad day from taking out a city block.

[Snowprince]

Voices. Fran Drescher, Rosie Perez, Melanie Griffith....that is all.

[gator12]

Arrow:  Olivier, they should kill that character off and start over.  

All the CW show with their fan pandering. 

Edited October 9, 2014 by gator12

[amensisterfriend]

Arrow:  Olivier, they should kill that character off and start over.

 

Yes! I loathe Oliver Queen. I'm always actively rooting for his archenemies :) Even more unpopular? While the writing is at fault as well, I think the actor who plays Oliver is absolutely awful. And even MORE more unpopular: I dislike Oliver even more than I dislike the widely reviled Laurel. 

[Chas411]

 

And even MORE more unpopular: I dislike Oliver even more than I dislike the widely reviled Laurel.

Most unpopular of all: I loathe Felicity Smoake - I loathe the fan pandering that both her and the Oliver/Felicity ship received and I especially loathe how the shipper fans seem to have projected their dislike of Laurel onto Katie Cassidy and seem intent on making her out to be some psychopathic diva.

[ribboninthesky1]

I gave up on Arrow in the first season, primarily because of Stephen Amell's inability to emote.  That so many went in on Katie Cassidy when the LEAD was awful just confirmed I was watching a different show, and it was time to move on. That, and all the love for Felicity, who annoyed me as much as Thea.

 

Well then I will be making reservations for 2. 7:30. Please be sharp! And I hate, that I hate her voice. B/c she is a completely likeable person, and a really good actress. But I cannot stand that one octave below helium thing she has going on.

 

I recently watched a clip from a Jennifer Garner interview, and I was surprised that her voice register seemed lower.  Maybe she was sick or something...

[ganesh]

I would question whether any show is going to bring anything new to the table after 50-75 episodes. That's still 5-6 years of show if you're going on cable. There's nothing wrong with that. 

[Gudzilla]

UO ?  I liked Justin Hartley better as green arrow.

[gator12]

UO ?  I liked Justin Hartley better as green arrow.

He was the better Green Arrow but the CW saw the success of Christopher Nolan Batman trilogy and decide to take their new show Arrow in that dark direction or try too imo. I haven't read the comic book so I don't know if Green Arrow is supposed to be so bland with little to no emotion. The actor is just bad and the fan pandering is not good writing. 

[truthaboutluv]

Interesting to read these comments because I remember watching the Pilot of Arrow and being so bored, mostly because I found the lead so uninteresting and pretty much passing on it. So I was actually surprised when it seemed to be such a hit on CW, even spawning the spin-off with The Flash.

[ParadoxLost]

I didn't particularly care for Firefly when it first aired.  It had its moments and is not a bad show (it was cancelled before I ever came around that far) but I don't think it failed to catch on because of episode order or whatever other reasons are bandied about for its demise.  There is just such a thing as being too literal with Space Western.  Given how fond I am of most of the cast in other things and Whedon's other shows, even I find it baffling that I'm not a fan.

Edited October 10, 2014 by ParadoxLost

[janie jones]

In today's world, I think procedurals like the Law and Order franchise are the only ones that can keep going for 10+ years and still produce quality shows. On those shows, there's a revolving cast and not much emphasis on character development, so the show doesn't get bogged down with relationship drama, UST, etc.

 

How did shows like Gunsmoke and Bonanza do it?  And maybe the Big Valley? All of these shows were on over a dozen years.

Well on top of everything else everyone else said, Bonanza also did not have emphasis on character development, and the only relationship drama was when whoever one of them was engaged to that day was in peril.  It was a procedural.

[ToxicUnicorn]

5) I never cared about Castiel or his alleged epic bromance with Dean and think the actor is mediocre at best

 

I agree with this.  My understanding is the actor is a very popular tumblr sensation, but I haven't seen anything in his acting that explains it.

[Sara2009]

There are a lot of Tumblr sensations that I don't get, and Darren Criss is number one on that list for me. He's a mediocre singer and actor, and his facial expressions are embarrassing.

[DittyDotDot]

Misha Collins is a funny and goofy guy that engages the fans and makes them feel special. I wouldn't say he's a great actor, but I'm not sure you need to be one to be popular on social media.

[Bruinsfan]

7) I loved the myths and urban legends of the early years way more than the "bigger" stories about heaven and hell and an endless series of apocalypses

While I definitely agree with you here, I do think that original format for the show had a limited shelf life. A season-and-a-half or so of episodes dealing with urban legends was fine, but by Season 10 you'd have "The Winchester Bros vs. the Mexican Pet" or  Dean and Sam investigating lethal mixtures of soda and Pop Rocks.

[Misslindsey]

My Arrow UO is that I do not care for Laurel or Felicity. I can usually take them both in small doses, but Felicity is getting more and more screen time, along with Laurel getting a more prominent storyline. I dread the Felicity origin story, because I do not care that much. I actually prefer Thea, and think she is more interesting than both Felicity and Laurel, but she doesn't get that much to do, or whatever she does is over in a few episodes.

[Wiendish Fitch]

I prefer Picard to Kirk. People always get mad and ask me why. Let's see, serious, commanding, cultured badass, or hammy, horny, aging frat boy who can't even… talk… at the… same rate as… the… average… human being? Yeah, I know who I'm choosing and why!

[Taylorh2]

Wiendish Fitch: I agree with you 100%. Captain Kirk put the 'cheese' in CHEESY! lol

[ABay]

I will say this, and only this, in defense of Kirk--Shatner had very pretty eyes.

[blueray]

I would say Sisko may be my favorite or Janeway. All I know is both know how to kick ass.

 

But between Picard and kirk, I agree Picard is a much better captain than Kirk. At least he cares what happens to his redshirt crew.

[HalcyonDays]

I think Benjamin Sisko is the best Star Trek captain (closely followed by Picard), and Deep Space Nine the best Trek, hands down.

[ribboninthesky1]

Watching the latest episode of The Amazing Race reminded me of something.  I'm far, far from an animal activist, but I've never found the episodes where the racers have to interact with animals for a task entertaining.  There seems to be this sentiment that animals = very good episode, supposedly because the racers are usually out of their element. I always feel like the animals get the raw end of the deal.  It's no secret that all of these tasks are staged, so it's not like the racers are really interacting in a way that's culturally inherent or natural to the country's landscape.  Then again, I'm half-watching the season as it is, so maybe I'm just fatigued with the show overall.  I'm watching more out of habit than genuine interest.

[amensisterfriend]

I strongly prefer the first 4-5 seasons of the US version of The Office to the UK version. This elicits a certain amount of horror and disgust from many people I know in real life :) 

Edited October 16, 2014 by amensisterfriend