Party of One: Unpopular TV Opinions

[andromeda331]

3 hours ago, Blergh said:

Yeah, there doesn't even seem to have been a happy time in the first part of either the parental or younger Barone couple's marriages as though each couple got individually randomly  thrown together and only grudgingly had babies which only Marie didn't seem to resent (as incredibly flawed and toxic as she otherwise was).  Frank, Ray and, yes, Debra ALL seemed to be unhappy to have become parents and took out their frustrations on both their spouses as well as the didn't-ask-to-be-born progeny! 

They really weren't. They were all unhappily married to each other and didn't even seem to like each other. Why were they together if they were so unhappy? Why were Ray and Debra even together? 

[Silver Raven]

22 hours ago, CoderLady said:

Me too. There's something deeply satisfying about watching a team of people with various skills and skill levels mobilize to solve a crime. I like British procedurals more than American ones because they seem to be more about the case and less about personal drama between team members -- also less fascination with super-duper serial killers. I really hate those. But otherwise, procedurals are my comfort food.

I'm watching old episodes of "Inspector Lewis" and the show is very much about the personal drama between team members, as well as Lewis's inability to cope with the death of his wife.

[Vixenstud]

2 hours ago, DrSpaceman said:

I actually liked the show.  I would watch it. 

But I never understood its high ratings or accolades.  It wasn't that great.  It was an above average sitcom. 

I never understood why Brad Garrett won Emmys for his role in the show as the brother.  The show won FIFTEEEN Emmys.  I mean, it wasn't that good.

The Middle, also with Patricia Heaton, was a better family sitcom

I thought King of Queens, starring Rays friend Kevin James, was better as well

I have a theory that Raymond took advantage of a lull in the sitcom world to do as well as it did.  it did not have a whole lot of competition at the time in the category.  This was pre-Hulu/Netflix and the explosion of online shows.  It was before or just at the beginning of when HBO and the cable series started putting out original programming.  Sex and the City was on, but not much else with cable.  There were some other good sitcoms at the time, but it was like Frasier and Friends.  Seinfeld went off the air towards the beginning of its run. 

Somehow it beat out Arrested Development once or twice for best sitcom.  Can't explain that.  Its competition though at the time was Will and Grace, Frasier, Friends, Sex and the City, throw in Newsradio and maybe a Just Shoot Me.  Those weren't all at the same time though, those are all at different times over a decade.  There wasn't the number and quality of sitcoms out there like now, IMO

I would put it this way for Raymond :  I watched it at the time when it was on and enjoyed it.  I never sit down and watch reruns of it now, even if I run across it somewhere on TV.

I feel the same way about the Office in terms of the reruns.  I never sit and watch those

*Clutches pearls*

Wow.  For me, this is a classic show and I watch the reruns all the time.  

Now, I do find myself yelling at the screen at Marie because she was a straight up bitch, but Ray was worse....lousy husband and father and so far up Mommy's ass it is no wonder that Debra was always yelling at him.  

King of Queens was great too, I'd put KOQ/ELR in the same boat where being hysterically funny is concerned.

[BuyMoreAndSave]

I have been rewatching some of the "golden age" Simpsons episodes that I haven't seen in years, and I don't think even the classic old Simpsons episodes are really all that funny. I do think they are very well-written and I enjoy watching them. But I don't find myself laughing that much at them. Maybe I'm just too familiar with the Simpsons type of humor? Or that type of humor is dated now?

[meep.meep]

On 2/28/2019 at 1:07 PM, proserpina65 said:

I hated most of those performances, but that's probably because I hate most of those songs.  I will say that the Glen Hansard/Marketa Irglova performance of Falling Slowly was stunningly beautiful, though.  And Tim McGraw's performance of Glen Campbell's I'm Not Gonna Miss You was heartbreaking.  (Possibly an unpopular opinion: that song should've won instead of Glory.)  I think I tend to prefer more minimalist performances rather than overblown ones. 

I liked both of those performances, but I honestly believe that Legend and Common performing Glory was the best musical performance ever on one of these award shows.  There were people in the audience openly weeping.  

And I hate procedurals and don't watch them, but that's why we have so many channels nowadays.  So we can each watch what we want to.

[Anela]

On 2/28/2019 at 5:46 PM, CoderLady said:

True. I can deal with the ones who get caught by the end of a episode but the killers that just keep getting away and coming back over and over season after season are, to me, total crap. I'm really happy to be able to check episode descriptions before I tune in to a show so I can avoid these.

To keep it on topic: this must be an unpopular opinion because it seems like most successful cop dramas eventually get saddled with their own recurring serial killer. Ick.

I hate that, too. I don't like shows that make the FBI and professionals who should know what they're doing, look totally incompetent, over and over. 

I think the only time I've been okay with a criminal coming back, was with two characters on The Closer. One was an arsonist who called her "Just Plain Brenda", and another one, they finally got. He wasn't a constant source of irritation, just popped up occasionally. I hope Amazon still has The Closer. I want to watch it again. 

[BuyMoreAndSave]

2 hours ago, Anela said:

I hate that, too. I don't like shows that make the FBI and professionals who should know what they're doing, look totally incompetent, over and over.

Honestly though, police incompetency is kind of Truth in Television as they say on TVTropes. I follow true crime and there is a LOT of incompetency from the police and even the FBI. Not to say all police, FBI, etc. are incompetent, but many of them are. Things like somehow losing crucial evidence -- even losing unidentified bodies or body parts! -- improper forensics, messing up procedure so that certain evidence can't be admitted in court, overlooking key pieces of evidence, not listening to people who come forward with evidence, not investigating a certain obvious suspect enough, and so on, happen way more often than people think. Especially the losing evidence part...it's amazing some of the things that get lost.

Edited March 2, 2019 by BuyMoreAndSave

[Chaos Theory]

I think people confuse bad writing and predictable writing.

Over on The Orvile board (which is so NOT a comedy and has gotten really good in season 2) during the a recent 2 part episode almost everyone predicted what was going to happen in part 2.  But it was logical due to several well written storylines.  Don't want to give anything away because...spoilers but the reason everyone was able to predict what was going to happen wasn’t  "Wouldn't it be cool if this crazy thing happened" guesses but instead because "this happened through this episode"  and "this relationship went on over a series of episodes so this will happen"  everyone was able to guess several plot points that actually did happen and it was all done well

And I don't think that is bad writing the exact opposite actually.  I think the idea that writers have the recent habit to shock viewers is bad writing and we have gotten so used to it that logic and long term storylines that make so much sense that we can predict the outcome has become suddenly bad makes me sad.

By the way if you aren't watching Orville give it a chance.  The first few episode are kinda weird but it gets good and the second season is amazing. But NOT a comedy.

Edited March 2, 2019 by Chaos Theory
Edited for clarity

[Annber03]

I haven't seen "The Orville", but I'll agree with the general sentiment of your post. I'm all for a well-done surprise/twist in a show-some writers are really good at knowing how to keep viewers on their toes. 

But yeah, I agree that way too many shows nowadays think they have to have some kind of "shocking twist" or pile on twist after twist after twist or whatnot. At some point it stops being genuinely shocking and feels more convoluted than anything. 

And yes, "predictable" doesn't automatically mean "bad". You can have a general idea of where a story is going and yet seeing how they get to that point can still be compelling in itself. 

Edited March 2, 2019 by Annber03

[2727]

In honor of the new Junior season starting soon:

My favorite Masterchef judge has always been Joe Bastianich. His narrowed lips and silent glares make me laugh.

[DrSpaceman]

22 hours ago, BuyMoreAndSave said:

I have been rewatching some of the "golden age" Simpsons episodes that I haven't seen in years, and I don't think even the classic old Simpsons episodes are really all that funny. I do think they are very well-written and I enjoy watching them. But I don't find myself laughing that much at them. Maybe I'm just too familiar with the Simpsons type of humor? Or that type of humor is dated now?

I still think they are funny.

I think like many things though, you rewatch them so much and your feelings change.  Its kind of like your wife when you are first dating vs. after 30 years of marriage.  Its a different feeling, and you know what is coming, but still meaningful. 

[BuyMoreAndSave]

1 hour ago, DrSpaceman said:

I still think they are funny.

I think like many things though, you rewatch them so much and your feelings change.  Its kind of like your wife when you are first dating vs. after 30 years of marriage.  Its a different feeling, and you know what is coming, but still meaningful. 

That's a really good way of putting it. For a lot of the episodes I forgot most of the content since I haven't seen them in over a decade, but I still know the type of humor of the Simpsons so I can usually predict what the kind of joke will be.

[Jenniferbug]

@Chaos Theory, is The Orville streaming anywhere in the US? I don't even know what channel it's on. 

[Chaos Theory]

8 minutes ago, Jenniferbug said:

@Chaos Theory, is The Orville streaming anywhere in the US? I don't even know what channel it's on. 

It streams on Hulu.  I checked and season 1 and 2 up to current episodes are available.

It on Thursdays on Fox 

Edited March 3, 2019 by Chaos Theory

[Anela]

10 hours ago, Annber03 said:

I haven't seen "The Orville", but I'll agree with the general sentiment of your post. I'm all for a well-done surprise/twist in a show-some writers are really good at knowing how to keep viewers on their toes. 

But yeah, I agree that way too many shows nowadays think they have to have some kind of "shocking twist" or pile on twist after twist after twist or whatnot. At some point it stops being genuinely shocking and feels more convoluted than anything. 

And yes, "predictable" doesn't automatically mean "bad". You can have a general idea of where a story is going and yet seeing how they get to that point can still be compelling in itself. 

I'm so used to twists now, that I hardly ever try to guess what will happen. I think most of the time, the writers don't even know what they're going to do, and that's what can bring about disappointing finales. Or they try to change it up at the last minute, like they did with The Walking Dead, a character that was supposed to be there for a long time. 

[Annber03]

3 minutes ago, Anela said:

I think most of the time, the writers don't even know what they're going to do, and that's what can bring about disappointing finales. 

Bingo. I don't blame writers for leaving some wiggle room here and there when creating their stories, of course-I like to write myself, so I'm well aware of how a story can end up in a wildly different place than what you'd originally planned. And with the TV business being as unpredictable as it can be in regards to network interference or cast changes or whatever, obviously it makes sense writers don't want to get too locked down into anything, just in case. 

But yeah, sometimes you really get the feeling some of these writers are just winging it. That might work okay in some shows/genres, but with others...not so much. 

[DearEvette]

On 2/25/2019 at 10:55 PM, festivus said:

My UO is that I don't give a shit about award shows. Genre shows are rarely recognized and I watch some that have wonderful writing and acting that I know is as good as the stuff that does get nominated. I've also read stuff so many times about Oscar voters that say they didn't bother to watch all the movies or performances that were nominated. How do you have an informed vote if you haven't seen everything? I also just don't enjoy watching people give speeches. It's nice for them that they get their moment and all but I don't care about watching it. Also, the fact that Andre Braugher hasn't won five straight Emmys for his portrayal of Captain Holt on Brooklyn Nine-Nine tells me enough. He is brilliant.

(I won't lie though that I love seeing the next day what people wore)

I agree with this a lot.  Like a lot of people for years I'd always taken the Oscars/Emmys at face value i.e. that they really did try to reward excellence.  But as I've gotten older I see how mediocre so may of the winners are or in the case of Emmys seeing actors and shows that continue to get awards year after year after they've peaked and already gone downhill while some really great lesser known shows/actors never even get noticed, I and I realize it is mostly about money, influence and power and quality might be a lucky accident.  I don't typically watch live, preferring to get the highlights.  I did watch the Oscars this year because I was rooting hard for Regina King and Ruth Carter.  And I do admit, I did love watching the major fuck up of the La La Land/Moonlight debacle unfold in real time. 

On 2/28/2019 at 5:46 PM, CoderLady said:

True. I can deal with the ones who get caught by the end of a episode but the killers that just keep getting away and coming back over and over season after season are, to me, total crap.

I hate these types of Villains.  I call them the 'Energizer bunny' villain.  One of the main reasons I can't bring myself to watch Killing Eve.

My one exception is Doug Judy, the Pontiac Bandit on Brooklyn 99.  It wouldn't feel like a season of B99 without a Doug Judy episode or a twisty Halloween episode.

[Morlock]

On 3/1/2019 at 12:43 PM, roamyn said:

Everybody Loves Raymond... I don’t get it.  Marie is passive aggressive, Robert & Ray are dolts, Debra whines abt everything, the father’s an ass.  Only Amy seems normal.

And why are Debra & Ray even married?  They don’t seem to love each other and they fight all the time.

Marie is pretty classic European matriarch. I grew up with a grandmother and mother like her. Will refuse all offers of assistance even be offended by it and then complain that no one is helping her and how she must do everything herself - even though no one cares if she does those things or not!! I can't watch the show because of her. 

Frank Barone is also pretty classic old school male. He just wants to be left alone with his sandwich and beer. He really doesn't care about all the drama going on around him. 

Debra, I always got the impression that she felt she married down instead of up. She doesn't fit in. She wants more from life. Hence her constant anger at everything and everyone around her. There was one episode where even the kids kept saying "Is mommy yelling again?" I also thought Patti Heaton looked a lot better before she started the plastic surgeries. 

Ray and Robert are both idiots. Ray is clueless and somehow just got lucky with Debra but had no idea what to do with her once he "won" her. Robert is even more clueless. 

The kids are forgotten about by everyone - including the writers!

Edited March 3, 2019 by Morlock

[WritinMan]

On 2/28/2019 at 8:43 PM, roamyn said:

Everybody Loves Raymond... I don’t get it.  Marie is passive aggressive, Robert & Ray are dolts, Debra whines abt everything, the father’s an ass.  Only Amy seems normal.

And why are Debra & Ray even married?  They don’t seem to love each other and they fight all the time.

Always hated this show. I've had people say to me that it's because I'm not married with children. No, I hate it because it's a shitty TV show.

[DrSpaceman]

17 minutes ago, Morlock said:

Marie is pretty classic European matriarch. I grew up with a grandmother and mother like her. Will refuse all offers of assistance even be offended by it and then complain that no one is helping her and how she must do everything herself - even though no one cares if she does those things or not!! I can't watch the show because of her. 

Frank Barone is also pretty classic old school male. He just wants to be left alone with his sandwich and beer. He really doesn't care about all the drama going on around him. 

Debra, I always got the impression that she felt she married down instead of up. She doesn't fit in. She wants more from life. Hence her constant anger at everything and everyone around her. There was one episode where even the kids kept saying "Is mommy yelling again?" I also thought Patti Heaton looked a lot better before she started the plastic surgeries. 

Ray and Robert are both idiots. Ray is clueless and somehow just got lucky with Debra but had no idea what to do with her once he "won" her. Robert is even more clueless. 

The kids are forgotten about by everyone - including the writers!

Much of this I agree with

Though I would add :

The writers and those who made the show were at least very upfront, the show wasn't about the kids, the kids were not going to be the focal point of the show

I did like how at one point they go back in time and show how Ray and Debra ended up living across the street from his parents. It showed how it was really HER idea and Ray even warned her it was a bad move, she wanted the house anyway, so she pretty much has herself to blame for the situation. 

[tribeca]

I guess my UO is I love Raymond and it still makes me laugh.  I am definitely the Robert of my family. 

[Anela]

26 minutes ago, Morlock said:

Marie is pretty classic European matriarch. I grew up with a grandmother and mother like her. Will refuse all offers of assistance even be offended by it and then complain that no one is helping her and how she must do everything herself - even though no one cares if she does those things or not!! I can't watch the show because of her. 

Frank Barone is also pretty classic old school male. He just wants to be left alone with his sandwich and beer. He really doesn't care about all the drama going on around him. 

Debra, I always got the impression that she felt she married down instead of up. She doesn't fit in. She wants more from life. Hence her constant anger at everything and everyone around her. There was one episode where even the kids kept saying "Is mommy yelling again?" I also thought Patti Heaton looked a lot better before she started the plastic surgeries. 

Ray and Robert are both idiots. Ray is clueless and somehow just got lucky with Debra but had no idea what to do with her once he "won" her. Robert is even more clueless. 

The kids are forgotten about by everyone - including the writers!

My mum loved that show, because she could relate to Debra, and my grandmother was just like Marie, to her. She once told my mum, when she was young, that her sons could never do any wrong. 

1 minute ago, tribeca said:

I guess my UO is I love Raymond and it still makes me laugh.  I am definitely the Robert of my family. 

So am I. 

[Morlock]

9 minutes ago, DrSpaceman said:

Much of this I agree with

Though I would add :

The writers and those who made the show were at least very upfront, the show wasn't about the kids, the kids were not going to be the focal point of the show

I did like how at one point they go back in time and show how Ray and Debra ended up living across the street from his parents. It showed how it was really HER idea and Ray even warned her it was a bad move, she wanted the house anyway, so she pretty much has herself to blame for the situation. 

Yeah that is true. And to be honest I did like that the kids weren't a core part like they were in other family based sitcoms of the past. It just seemed odd at times too, sometimes you didn't even see them. I think the kids being so young as well also limited story options for them even if they wanted to go down that path. 

I remember that ep, it was hilarious. Debra was so optimistic about it all and loved the possibilities and support! I think Raymond and Robert knew their mother all too well! 

[Chaos Theory]

I don’t think British shows are necessarily better then American shows.   Most Americans only see the Best of British Tv.   There are probably twice as many clunkers that never even come close to Americans eyeballs.

[truthaboutluv]

26 minutes ago, Chaos Theory said:

I don’t think British shows are necessarily better then American shows.   Most Americans only see the Best of British Tv.   There are probably twice as many clunkers that never even come close to Americans eyeballs.

Agreed. But what I will say, and it may be a case of cost, not having the big studios, etc. like in America but I do like that the Brits seem to know when to let a show go, far more than in America.

Shows can be very popular in Britain and they still end after three, maybe four seasons. In the U.S., networks just see advertising dollars and so long after a show needs to be put to rest, they're sometimes still plugging along because the ratings are still decent.

[Chaos Theory]

2 minutes ago, truthaboutluv said:

Agreed. But what I will say, and it may be a case of cost, not having the big studios, etc. like in America but I do like that the Brits seem to know when to let a show go, far more than in America.

Shows can be very popular in Britain and they still end after three, maybe four seasons. In the U.S., networks just see advertising dollars and so long after a show needs to be put to rest, they're sometimes still plugging along because the ratings are still decent.

I think it is also a matter of season long episode count.   At least for Network TV shows run into the 20 episode count.  They even call 10-12 episode shows "limited series".  British season run that long.   Which is also probably (in large part) why Netlix, Hulu, and Amazon have been able to break through into the "good tv" market because they write more condensed episode seasons.  

[Mabinogia]

9 minutes ago, Chaos Theory said:

I think it is also a matter of season long episode count.   At least for Network TV shows run into the 20 episode count.  They even call 10-12 episode shows "limited series".  British season run that long.   Which is also probably (in large part) why Netlix, Hulu, and Amazon have been able to break through into the "good tv" market because they write more condensed episode seasons.  

I do think shorter seasons have a lot to do with quality because you can tell a cleaner, tighter story in 10 eps than in 20. Lost suffered greatly from both running too many seasons and seasons being quite long. They ended up with a lot of pointless filler. It doesn't show as much in comedy because they tend to be little stories each ep. But for a show like Lost, or Manifest which are telling a long arc, the shorter seasons make for a better show. 

16 minutes ago, truthaboutluv said:

But what I will say, and it may be a case of cost, not having the big studios, etc. like in America but I do like that the Brits seem to know when to let a show go, far more than in America.

Yep, American studios/networks do tend to bleed a show dry before letting it go. It's always a double edged sword for me. I want my favorite shows to last forever because they are so good, but most of them are so good because they don't last. I tend not to like popular shows that go on for years. I think my tastes just run slightly odd, so I get into the weird shows that can't find an audience and get cancelled early. 

I imagine it is very very hard to resist the money networks and studios throw at these show runners though. I can't say that I would have the artistic integrity to turn down $10,000,000.00 for one year's work. Of course, if I'd already made several million from my show I might. I will never see that much money, so I can't say how addicting it would be.

[ganesh]

17 minutes ago, Mabinogia said:

But for a show like Lost, or Manifest which are telling a long arc, the shorter seasons make for a better show.

As much as I think Lost was a total mess, when TPTBs did agree on an actual end to the show, the quality was better because they had to focus on wrapping up a lot. 

[truthaboutluv]

41 minutes ago, Mabinogia said:

I tend not to like popular shows that go on for years. I think my tastes just run slightly odd, so I get into the weird shows that can't find an audience and get cancelled early. 

I imagine it is very very hard to resist the money networks and studios throw at these show runners though. I can't say that I would have the artistic integrity to turn down $10,000,000.00 for one year's work. Of course, if I'd already made several million from my show I might. I will never see that much money, so I can't say how addicting it would be.

Yup, all of this. I think I wrote this before in this very thread that for me, no show should go past 6 seasons, especially if it's a network show that has 22-24 episode seasons.  I'm sorry, at that point you're looking at 132-144 episodes total.

That is more than enough time to tell some great stories, show enough character development, cover a myriad of issues/topics/tropes and finally wrap up the characters' stories in a satisfying way. I love the show Mr. Robot but honestly, I was perfectly fine when they announced the fourth season would be the last because that was the timeline Sam Esmail decided from the start, for the story. 

Same with Bates Motel, where I thought the writers were very smart to have had a clear plan and road map for the show and stuck with it. One critic, after the series finale aired, said that the 10 episodes, five season structure meant that it was 50 episodes of strong, solid and tight storytelling that never veered too far off course. Because there was no time to. 

Edited March 4, 2019 by truthaboutluv

[Annber03]

1 minute ago, truthaboutluv said:

Same with Bates Motel but I thought the writers were very smart to have had a clear plan and road map for the show and stuck with it. One critic, after the series finale aired, said that the 10 episodes, five season structure meant that it was 50 episodes of strong, tight storytelling that never veered too far off course. Because there was no time to. 

Yes. That show did a great job with its setup and structure. Yeah, when the end came, it was sad, because the show was something to look forward to each spring and all that good stuff. But I'm really happy that it got to end on its own terms and go out on such a strong note. 

[andromeda331]

1 hour ago, ganesh said:

As much as I think Lost was a total mess, when TPTBs did agree on an actual end to the show, the quality was better because they had to focus on wrapping up a lot. 

I agree. Season two was bad because they were trying to just do episodes and stretch things out like other shows. It didn't work and they started to lose fans. So they decided to start working towards an ending starting with season three. Although there were still problems. But it really worked. The episodes were better because they were heading towards something and gave themselves three seasons to wrap up the show. That was really a great idea and I do think other shows should do that especially those types of shows.

[ABay]

The 4th season of Lost was the best, imo, because it was short with less filler (and lots of Ben. I miss that scheming bastard).

[Blergh]

Re Lost: I regret that I didn't just stop watching at the end of Season One when The Hatch lit up rather than  having wasted my time going into the middle of Season Three- and have absolutely zero interest in either seeing the last few eps or even rewatching any of what I DID see again!  I think had they just stuck with (what appeared to be  the initial premise) of all these folks from different walks of life having to survive the aftermath of a plane crash with no chance of contact with the outside world much less help, THAT would have been a MUCH better show than the total flake field it wound up becoming,IMO!

Edited March 4, 2019 by Blergh

[Enigma X]

My Lost UO is that even though I hated the most of the last season and the final episode, it is still one of my top 10 shows ever.

[proserpina65]

On ‎03‎/‎02‎/‎2019 at 8:14 PM, DearEvette said:

hate these types of Villains.  I call them the 'Energizer bunny' villain.  One of the main reasons I can't bring myself to watch Killing Eve.

This is exactly the reason I probably won't be watching season two of Killing Eve, even though I mostly enjoyed season 1.

[SmithW6079]

On 3/2/2019 at 8:42 AM, Chaos Theory said:

I think people confuse bad writing and predictable writing.

Over on The Orvile board (which is so NOT a comedy and has gotten really good in season 2) during the a recent 2 part episode almost everyone predicted what was going to happen in part 2.  But it was logical due to several well written storylines.  Don't want to give anything away because...spoilers but the reason everyone was able to predict what was going to happen wasn’t  "Wouldn't it be cool if this crazy thing happened" guesses but instead because "this happened through this episode"  and "this relationship went on over a series of episodes so this will happen"  everyone was able to guess several plot points that actually did happen and it was all done well

And I don't think that is bad writing the exact opposite actually.  I think the idea that writers have the recent habit to shock viewers is bad writing and we have gotten so used to it that logic and long term storylines that make so much sense that we can predict the outcome has become suddenly bad makes me sad.

By the way if you aren't watching Orville give it a chance.  The first few episode are kinda weird but it gets good and the second season is amazing. But NOT a comedy.

Yes to all your post. Contrary to much of the opinion over there, I don't think "The Orville" is an "average to bad" show; I think it's quite good, and I'm really tired of all the "this episode of 'The Orville' was just like this episode of 'Star Trek' or whatever my favorite SF show is.'" In fact, I'll go further -- I think Seth MacFarlane is a multi-talented man, not only as an actor but as singer and animator and producer. I think that he, as an artist, is expanding his capabilities with "The Orville," instead of just staying lowbrow with the likes of "Family Guy" or the "Ted" movies. I think some people just like to shit on whatever he does because it's Seth MacFarlane and "his humor is sophomoric." I think he's a wonderful singer, and he's not hard on the eyes, either.

[andromeda331]

3 hours ago, Enigma X said:

My Lost UO is that even though I hated the most of the last season and the final episode, it is still one of my top 10 shows ever.

Mine too. I miss talking about the different theories and wondering after each episode. It was so much fun and so crazy. The twists were fun. I'm sill amazed that no one took what worked from the show and learned from the mistakes to make a really awesome show.

[Wiendish Fitch]

Because this Friends UO of mine bears repeating:

Ross and Rachel were a horrible couple.

Whether or not they were "on a break" is completely irrelevant. I think they should have stayed broken up, because they were utterly toxic together. If emotional maturity were water, between the two of them, they didn't have enough to fill a toothpaste cap. Throughout that tiresome, idiotic "WE WERE ON A BREAK!" saga, all they cared about was being right, not about being happy. People make mistakes in relationships, big mistakes sometimes, and if you want to stay together, you have the choice either owning to being wrong (looking at you, Ross), or forgiving and moving on (Rachel, honey, you reading this?). Ideally a couple would do both, but neither Ross nor Rachel did that (proof that even the fictional world isn't ideal). Ross and Rachel were like a "how not to" guide to dating, and it never felt like they really grew or learned from the whole ordeal.

For God's sake, Chandler and Janice had a healthier relationship! At least they had the good judgment to end it once and for all when they realized they had no future together!

[Shannon L.]

1 hour ago, SmithW6079 said:

Yes to all your post. Contrary to much of the opinion over there, I don't think "The Orville" is an "average to bad" show; I think it's quite good, and I'm really tired of all the "this episode of 'The Orville' was just like this episode of 'Star Trek' or whatever my favorite SF show is.'" In fact, I'll go further -- I think Seth MacFarlane is a multi-talented man, not only as an actor but as singer and animator and producer. I think that he, as an artist, is expanding his capabilities with "The Orville," instead of just staying lowbrow with the likes of "Family Guy" or the "Ted" movies. I think some people just like to shit on whatever he does because it's Seth MacFarlane and "his humor is sophomoric." I think he's a wonderful singer, and he's not hard on the eyes, either.

As much as I hate Family Guy and didn't care much one way or the other about the I Saw Your Boobs song at the Oscars, I actually agree with this.

[andromeda331]

2 hours ago, Wiendish Fitch said:

Because this Friends UO of mine bears repeating:

Ross and Rachel were a horrible couple.

Whether or not they were "on a break" is completely irrelevant. I think they should have stayed broken up, because they were utterly toxic together. If emotional maturity were water, between the two of them, they didn't have enough to fill a toothpaste cap. Throughout that tiresome, idiotic "WE WERE ON A BREAK!" saga, all they cared about was being right, not about being happy. People make mistakes in relationships, big mistakes sometimes, and if you want to stay together, you have the choice either owning to being wrong (looking at you, Ross), or forgiving and moving on (Rachel, honey, you reading this?). Ideally a couple would do both, but neither Ross nor Rachel did that (proof that even the fictional world isn't ideal). Ross and Rachel were like a "how not to" guide to dating, and it never felt like they really grew or learned from the whole ordeal.

For God's sake, Chandler and Janice had a healthier relationship! At least they had the good judgment to end it once and for all when they realized they had no future together!

God yes! They were horrible together. I do agree they both cared more about being right then being happy. Ross could have gotten back together with Rachel if he owned up admitted what he did. But he couldn't and wouldn't. Rachel could have forgiven and moved on but she couldn't and wouldn't. They were toxic together and even worse as exes. The way they both treated each other's new boyfriend and girlfriend. They were so horrible and acted like jackasses but then when it was over. They were very much those exes who couldn't handle the other moving on and did everything they could to destroy those relationships. But once it was over especially Rachel was nope, they couldn't get back together. She didn't want to be with him but didn't want him to move on with someone else either. Nope had to be single and miserable. 

[Katy M]

I can understand Rachel not wanting to get back together with someone who doesn't think they cheated when you think they did. I'm not taking sides on the "We were on a break" argument, just saying that it would be incredibly hard for her to trust someone who, in her eyes, cheated on her, but won't admit it because he thinks he's completely innocent in the matter.  It would definitely cause massive trust issues.

But, then she absolutely should have forgiven him in a friends way and not tried to undermine every relationship he ever had.  And, not had sex with him when Chandler and Monica got engaged.  

I guess what I'm saying was whether he meant for it to or not, Ross's actions and Rachel's interpretation of them killed the relationship and they should have just made a clean break and moved on. 

I never liked them as a couple anyway.  They didn't seem to have much in common and the entire basis of their relationship seemed to be Ross's high school crush.

[Wiendish Fitch]

25 minutes ago, Katy M said:

I can understand Rachel not wanting to get back together with someone who doesn't think they cheated when you think they did. I'm not taking sides on the "We were on a break" argument, just saying that it would be incredibly hard for her to trust someone who, in her eyes, cheated on her, but won't admit it because he thinks he's completely innocent in the matter.  It would definitely cause massive trust issues.

But, then she absolutely should have forgiven him in a friends way and not tried to undermine every relationship he ever had.  And, not had sex with him when Chandler and Monica got engaged.  

I guess what I'm saying was whether he meant for it to or not, Ross's actions and Rachel's interpretation of them killed the relationship and they should have just made a clean break and moved on. 

I never liked them as a couple anyway.  They didn't seem to have much in common and the entire basis of their relationship seemed to be Ross's high school crush.

Oh, 100% agreed. I think Ross was definitely in the wrong in regards to the break-up, but that doesn't justify Rachel constantly sabotaging his future relationships. And you're right, she was absolutely not obligated to get back together with him (I wouldn't have if I were in her place), but she should have just forgiven him and moved on. Just because Ross was a douche didn't mean she had to be. No, I'm not saying Rachel had to take the high road 'cause she's a girl, I'm saying it because someone had to, and Ross sure as hell wasn't.

Break-ups happen. Either get back together, or don't. Do not string them along, undermine their relationships, make an ass of yourself, etc.

And I never understood what Rachel saw in Ross, anyway. I think it's a little pathetic that he carried the torch for her looooong past their high school days (ugh, did he still feel this way when married to Carol?). And Rachel got together with him just because she found out he was going to be her prom pity date 10 years ago? That's... just sad.

Edited March 5, 2019 by Wiendish Fitch

[andromeda331]

2 hours ago, Katy M said:

I can understand Rachel not wanting to get back together with someone who doesn't think they cheated when you think they did. I'm not taking sides on the "We were on a break" argument, just saying that it would be incredibly hard for her to trust someone who, in her eyes, cheated on her, but won't admit it because he thinks he's completely innocent in the matter.  It would definitely cause massive trust issues.

But, then she absolutely should have forgiven him in a friends way and not tried to undermine every relationship he ever had.  And, not had sex with him when Chandler and Monica got engaged.  

I guess what I'm saying was whether he meant for it to or not, Ross's actions and Rachel's interpretation of them killed the relationship and they should have just made a clean break and moved on. 

I never liked them as a couple anyway.  They didn't seem to have much in common and the entire basis of their relationship seemed to be Ross's high school crush.

1 hour ago, Wiendish Fitch said:

Oh, 100% agreed. I think Ross was definitely in the wrong in regards to the break-up, but that doesn't justify Rachel constantly sabotaging his future relationships. And you're right, she was absolutely not obligated to get back together with him (I wouldn't have if I were in her place), but she should have just forgiven him and moved on. Just because Ross was a douche didn't mean she had to be. No, I'm not saying Rachel had to take the high road 'cause she's a girl, I'm saying it because someone had to, and Ross sure as hell wasn't.

Break-ups happen. Either get back together, or don't. Do not string them along, undermine their relationships, make an ass of yourself, etc.

And I never understood what Rachel saw in Ross, anyway. I think it's a little pathetic that he carried the torch for her looooong past their high school days (ugh, did he still feel this way when married to Carol?). And Rachel got together with him just because she found out he was going to be her prom pity date 10 years ago? That's... just sad.

Oh, I agree Rachel didn't have to take him back. I don't think she should have either and I tend to fall on the other side of they were on a break. But during that time which was basically one day he slept with someone else, hide it from her and wouldn't admit to it. Why would anyone take someone back who does that? But no that doesn't mean either one should be sabotaging future relationships. If they were going to continue to be friends or more likely remain friends with the same group which means they'll have to hang out together a lot. They both needed to let it go and move on. 

I never really liked their relationship or understood it. Ross had a crush on her all these years? Its one thing if its a high school crush but he still felt that way years later? That's weird and why? He hadn't seen her in years and only knew her then. He didn't know the person she was when she joined their group. Was he still in love with her when he was married to Carol? It doesn't make sense and sounds weird.  I don't know why Rachel fell for him since it only came from learning he would take her to prom? Ah, that's nice but why does she want to date him now? They are very different and have nothing in common. So why? I liked Chandlor and Monica they came out of nowhere and was an accident but then when from there. 

[kiddo82]

2 hours ago, Katy M said:

I guess what I'm saying was whether he meant for it to or not, Ross's actions and Rachel's interpretation of them killed the relationship and they should have just made a clean break and moved on. 

I've said it before and I'll say it again, in hindsight, the place to "break" the Ross and Rachel coupling would have been when she flew to London to stop his wedding to Emily then couldn't bring herself to do and congratulated him instead.  (one of my all time favorite non-comedic moments of the series.)  It actually would have provided a nice bit of closure to the relationship.  ("and that, my friend, is what they call, 'closure.'")  He was moving on and she was ready to accept it.  He still could have said her name at the alter, they still could have gotten married in Vegas, and they still could have had Emma since being in love is not necessarily a prerequisite to any of those things.  The only difference would have been no more will they/wont they for the rest of the series since they both would have realized they were donzo with the whole thing.  

[andromeda331]

14 hours ago, kiddo82 said:

I've said it before and I'll say it again, in hindsight, the place to "break" the Ross and Rachel coupling would have been when she flew to London to stop his wedding to Emily then couldn't bring herself to do and congratulated him instead.  (one of my all time favorite non-comedic moments of the series.)  It actually would have provided a nice bit of closure to the relationship.  ("and that, my friend, is what they call, 'closure.'")  He was moving on and she was ready to accept it.  He still could have said her name at the alter, they still could have gotten married in Vegas, and they still could have had Emma since being in love is not necessarily a prerequisite to any of those things.  The only difference would have been no more will they/wont they for the rest of the series since they both would have realized they were donzo with the whole thing.  

I would have liked it if they just did that and that was the end of the relationship for good. They were a perfect example of a TV couple that they should have broken up and remained broken up. They tried but didn't work out and ended badly. They didn't have anything in common and had become toxic exes. They could have just ended it with Ross getting married and Rachel going to congratulate and but their relationship to bed once and for all. It would have been great way to close the book on Ross and Rachel and they could finally put to bed a storyline that dragged on forever.  So many shows never do this. Carrie and Big would have been a great one to just end because they were toxic and there were so many red flags. Sometimes who you think is the one doesn't end up being the one. Or on Gilmore Girls they give Rory and Dean a very good closure scene in the last episode of season three when she shows him a catalog for him and Lindsay to pick something out for a wedding gift. It was a great closure scene. She was going off to Yale and he was getting married and going off to college. Nope, they destroy that by bringing Dean back next season still in love with Rory even though he gets married, hanging out with her after Lindsay tells him not to, and of course the affair. They could just end it and have the characters move on. Which would be great. Instead they never do and end up making things worse.

[DearEvette]

On 3/3/2019 at 9:15 PM, truthaboutluv said:

up, all of this. I think I wrote this before in this very thread that for me, no show should go past 6 seasons, especially if it's a network show that has 22-24 episode seasons.  I'm sorry, at that point you're looking at 132-144 episodes total. 

I'd actually go lower and say five seasons is a sweet spot. 

And also I came across an article today that I fully agree with.  Some shows should only run for one season

the author name checks several series, but Big Little Lies is the main one for me.  I thought it was a perfect one season show.

[truthaboutluv]

Just now, DearEvette said:

I'd actually go lower and say five seasons is a sweet spot. 

And also I came across an article today that I fully agree with.  Some shows should only run for one season

the author name checks several series, but Big Little Lies is the main one for me.  I thought it was a perfect one season show.

Absolutely agree with that one. Especially as they already ruined my favorite couple from the book for the series. I personally have zero interest in watching how much more awful they can make it. 

[ShadowHunter]

I liked Friends when it was on. Watched the whole 10 seasons. Now I never watch it anymore.  I think The King of Queens was a better show. 

[LeeLeePanda]

On 3/4/2019 at 1:31 PM, andromeda331 said:

Mine too. I miss talking about the different theories and wondering after each episode. It was so much fun and so crazy. The twists were fun. I'm sill amazed that no one took what worked from the show and learned from the mistakes to make a really awesome show.

My unpopular opinion: I loved the series finale. I actually got teary eyed at the end. Then again, it aired the week my grandmother died, so the thought of everyone meeting again in heaven was poignant to me. 

[ganesh]

If it's an anthology type show, then I don't have a problem with them keeping it going if people are watching it. I'm not a huge Walking Dead fan, but I don't see any reason to end it. You can keep that going for a while, swapping in new characters as older ones die or wander off or whatever. 

If you're telling a Lost type of show, you need to start with an end date. You'll go through the first or second season and tell the story, then it's, now what?

Forever was a good one season show. I thought Journeyman could have gone on a little more, but it was a self-contained show. 

Something like Life on Mars (UK) always would have a limited series.