Party of One: Unpopular TV Opinions

[Shannon L.]

 

Now that I can do a Friends rewatch on Netflix, I can finally confirm my Friends UO I've held throughout the years: Ross is my favorite of the Friends. I think David Schwimmer was always criminally underrated as a comedic actor, because Ross usually didn't get the best one-liners or the flashy things do to, but he consistently cracks me up.

If I were to sit down and list my 10 favorite physical comedy moments, his scene where he's trying to pull up the leather pants would make my top 5.

[truthaboutluv]

I totally get why many thought Ross was whiny and didn't like him because well Ross was whiny but in my opinion, the crazier Ross got in the later seasons, the more hilarious he was and David Schwimmer always brought it. Honestly I think the annoying Ross/Rachel back and forth is what hurt Ross' character. Everything else he had going on that had nothing to do with that, was comedy gold.

[Janet Snakehole]

I am actually liking Joey a lot more on rewatch, and Chandler less.

But I agree that Ross actually is the funniest.

[Anna Yolei]

Not only that but it always bugs me how people single out Fox for the failure of this show. How many episodes did Fox pay to have produced? If not for the Fox network this show would have probably never even had a pilot made. I mean I doubt ABC or CBS would have even taken a meeting with Whedon so he could pitch his idea of a western in space in the future. That seems like a show that would be destined to failure on any of the 4 major networks no matter how good it was.

As someone that never got past the pilot, it seemed shitty to air the episodes out of order (leaving viewers confused, since the show was serialized), to air the fourth episode as the original pilot and to preempt the ever loving shit outta the show.

Plus, Fox is like a carnivorous hamster eating it's young where it comes to much of their programming. If it's not a hit in three episodes, it's gone. Hell, even the now beloved Family Guy got the axe in its third or fourth season, only to bring it back when ratings exploded on Cartoon Network.

[LeeLeePanda]

My UPO about Firefly is I don't get the love for it.  I tried to watch it, after it's cancellation, in the correct order and after trying the pilot 3 times and either falling asleep, changing the channel and forgetting to change back, or doing laundry during commercials and totally forgetting about it I realized it just couldn't hold my interest.  I tried yet again a few years later based on more people telling me I'd love it and feedback on other actors in it and they were still wrong.  I skipped the pilot and tried some other eps and same thing.  And I don't get what's so great about Nathan Fillion or Jewel Staite(?) or others that seem to garner so much love (I don't hate them either, I just don't get what the big deal is over them).  I love SciFi, in general, just not this.   I'm glad it has it's fans, but I'd hardly say it was cancelled before it's time.  For every show I, or others love, there are plenty of people that do not.  And it's not because we are stupid or don't get it or don't understand or follow things being aired out of order, etc.  They just don't appeal to us/them.

I totally agree. So many of my friends love Firefly. They quote it non stop, post memes on Facebook, ect. I watched the first 4 episodes in order and was underwhelmed. I didn't think it was terrible. It just wasn't the best damn thing ever.

Which leads me to my next unpopular opinion. If I'm not drawn into a show by its 4th episode, I drop it. I take it easy on pilots, because a bad pilot does not always equal a bad show. If I'm still not digging it by episode 4, then it's not worth my time.

[Enigma X]

 

My UPO about Firefly is I don't get the love for it.

But can't that be said for anything that one does not like?

 

I feel that way about Buffy, Angel, Veronica Mars, Mad Men, Big Bang Theory, NCIS (all of them), Supernatural, and I can go on. 

 

My UPO is that not liking Firefly is not a UPO since it was canceled because not many liked it enough to watch it when it was aired. I know that, arguably, that was due to the time slot. Still, the ratings were low.

 

The UPO is actually liking it enough to watch it week to week. (Which I did.) 

[ParadoxLost]

Firefly didn't fail because FOX aired the eps out of order, it failed because the premise was stupid. We don't dress or talk like 1870's pioneers now, why the hell would people 600 years in the future dress like Little House On The Prairie and talk like some dime western intermixed with ramdom Chinese curse words? They can traverse the interstellar void and terraform planets but can't come up with electric lights? Cattle rustling in space? Really? You'd think that vat-grown meat would be a hell of a lot more practical than animals that need feed, living quarters, veterinary care, and that produce waste.

If Whedon had NOT gone for a literal 'space western', it might have had a chance.

 

I agree with this.  There are some series summaries that are so off putting to audiences that it doesn't matter the quality of the show, they've got no chance.  Despite liking pretty much everything Whedon had done up to then, I didn't even give Firefly a shot because I had no interest in the literal combination of western in space.

 

Dollhouse is the other one I remember reading about and being floored that anyone thought that was a good idea to even do the pilot.

[ganesh]

If DVRs and online viewing a thing, I think Firefly would have done better. I was already watching Farscape at the same time. I mean, I can't imagine Fringe had any ratings and it was in the same timeslot. 

[Janet Snakehole]

Ok, on the subject of Friends, I kind of sort of prefer Rachel with Joey.

She was more fun and goofy with him instead of sappy and serious with Ross.

........slinks quietly out of the thread, ducking.

[truthaboutluv]

To me the problem with Rachel and Joey is they had zero chemistry. Ross and Rachel definitely got ridiculous the longer the show went on but they actually did have fairly good chemistry in the early seasons in my opinion. 

[galax-arena]

But can't that be said for anything that one does not like?

Not necessarily. I might not personally like something, but understand what others see in it. And then there are some things that I not only don't like, but the popularity absolutely boggles me. Like Frozen. I thought the movie was cute enough, but am absolutely bewildered with the extent of Frozen-mania. I just don't get it. By contrast, I'm not crazy about Avatar: The Last Airbender, but its popularity doesn't mystify me. 

 

I know Frozen is a movie, not a tv show, it's just the best recent example I could think of pertaining to this. 

Edited January 3, 2015 by galax-arena

[Wiendish Fitch]

My Friends UO:

 

I never liked Monica's relationship with Chandler. They brought out the absolute worst in each other (though I can also place the blame on writers Flanderizing them beyond recognition) and I saw little or no chemistry.

 

I vastly preferred Monica's relationship with Richard, age difference be damned (she was over 21, so who cares?). He was patient, sophisticated, and she was at her most likable with him. Honestly, I desperately hoped those two would make it work. 

 

I'm weird and have very weird tastes. I can't even probably articulate what it is that I loved about the show, but I would never consider anyone who didn't care for it to be stupid or not get it. There are so many shows out there that I just don't get the love for either--The Walking Dead for one--so I totally support your unpopular opinion, even if I don't share it.

 

 

I wish more people (especially diehard Firefly fans I've met) could be as mature as you, DittyDotDot.

Edited January 3, 2015 by Wiendish Fitch

[Jipijapa]

Fringe survived where Firefly didn't, for a number of reasons, but one of the reasons is that the head of Fox at the time, Kevin Reilly, reportedly liked Fringe a lot.  (Also, Reilly wasn't around when Firefly was on the schedule, I believe.)

 

Fringe was always in danger of cancellation, but the relationship between Fringe's stakeholders (producers, fans, etc) and Fox was never a poor one.   I can't think of another endangered show on the cancel bubble, where everyone involved did everything right.  The fans trying to save the show had a very positive, creative, reality-based attitude.  The writers and actors kept bringing their "A" game for the most part.  Fox knew they had a ratings albatross on their hands, but still put effort into supporting the fanbase.  At no time did anyone feel like Fox or Warner Bros. was treating the show like garbage. 

 

I guess Firefly fans had a different experience, but then again, I think they were dealing with a different regime at Fox, at the time.

[Kel Varnsen]

Which leads me to my next unpopular opinion. If I'm not drawn into a show by its 4th episode, I drop it. I take it easy on pilots, because a bad pilot does not always equal a bad show. If I'm still not digging it by episode 4, then it's not worth my time.

I totally agree with this. I mean sure people talk about how shows need time to develop and find an audience. But this isn't the 1970's or even the 90's where choices were a lot more limited. I have so many options for really great stuff to watch right now that if you can't grab me after 4 episodes, that is on the writers.

 

Plus, Fox is like a carnivorous hamster eating it's young where it comes to much of their programming. If it's not a hit in three episodes, it's gone. Hell, even the now beloved Family Guy got the axe in its third or fourth season, only to bring it back when ratings exploded on Cartoon Network.

 

The thing about what shows end up on what networks is that it seems to always come down to money on both sides of the table. I remember back when I was in my 20's I was watching a ton of dvd sets of really short lived TV series and a common theme I kept hearing was that the producers went to the network they did, because they offered more money. I think it was the show Action with Jay Mohr where they had an offer from one of the cable channels (Showtime or HBO I think) that would have given them more guaranteed episodes but they went with FOX because the money was better and the chance to be a big hit was there. Same with the Clerks cartoon. Someone on that commentary said that they got an offer from UPN and they recognized that if they went with UPN they probably would have got a full season order. But they went with ABC because it was a chance for more money. So sure Firefly probably could have lasted years on the Scifi network or something, but it would have meant lower budgets for FX, being shot in Vancouver and Whedon not getting the cast and probably the salary he wanted. So in some cases these the producers also share blame for trying to go for the bigger hit.

[Misslindsey]

 

Ok, on the subject of Friends, I kind of sort of prefer Rachel with Joey.

I did too. I thought they had chemistry. I knew they would never let them last though, because of the whole Ross and Rachel thing.

[Lady Calypso]

Ok, on the subject of Friends, I kind of sort of prefer Rachel with Joey.

 

 

I kind of agree with this. At the very least, I can say that I'm happy that they tried the Rachel/Joey pairing, if only because it provided Matt LeBlanc with the best dramatic acting I've ever seen from him. At least, the season 8 arc worked really well. I would have actually been fine if it ended there, because it dealt with unrequited love with a best friend. I didn't hate season 9 with Rachel's supposed love for Joey, but I think that Matt carried that arc more than Jennifer Aniston did. But honestly, Joey's unrequited love arc was the most I liked Joey in the second half of the series. They dumbed him way too much for the second half, so his Joey/Rachel arc brought him to less dumb levels which I liked. 

 

I love David Schwimmer and I liked Ross to an extent; I just didn't like him with Rachel, or with any love interest. I like when he's just with his friends, or when he's at work. Those are the best moments for Ross. 

 

I also find Phoebe my least favourite out of all of them, even more so than Ross and Rachel. I didn't really find her hilarious like the others, although I'll have to now rewatch the series to see if this has changed. 

[Jipijapa]

 

Which leads me to my next unpopular opinion. If I'm not drawn into a show by its 4th episode, I drop it.

 

Sounds like a decent strategy.  My standard M.O. for beginning new shows, is to watch the first or second episode of the second season.  By then, you can assume that the show has become what it is going to be (first seasons, and especially pilot episodes, are extremely misleading).  If I enjoy watching the show, even if I don't know what is going on or who the characters are, I'll continue for a few more and see what develops.  If I like the first few episodes of the second season, I'll backtrack and restart with the first season.

 

As for current shows (which is maybe what you meant), I don't have any hard and fast "number of episodes rule," but if I find myself not watching the show one week or putting it on DVR, that usually means I'm done, and I don't fret about it, hoping it will get better.  I dropped Sleepy Hollow this season and didn't look back.

 

I honestly don't know why one would watch a pilot episode in order to see if one likes a show (unless it's a new show of course)... they're so often containing characters who aren't yet fully fleshed out, actors who haven't figured out their characters yet, cast members who don't wind up sticking around -- and the pilots are either better-made than the rest of the show, or more poorly-made.  They mostly aren't representative of what the shows are going to become. 

Edited January 3, 2015 by Jipijapa

[backformore]

New Year's UO: I would rather stare at my wall for three hours than watch the Rose Parade, no matter the network/commentators.

 

(As a Los Angeleno, I have several unpopular opinions about the parade itself, but I'll confine myself to the TV coverage.)

I don't get the appeal of televised parades of any sort. Even as a child, I remember being bored out of my mind as the whole family watched holiday parades on tv.

In person, I have found that the appeal of a Disney world parade is that it's a great time to get in line for popular attractions, as the crowds are all watching the parade.

[supposebly]

 

We don't dress or talk like 1870's pioneers now, why the hell would people 600 years in the future dress like Little House On The Prairie and talk like some dime western intermixed with ramdom Chinese curse words?

 

Oddly enough, that never bothered me. I thought it was hilarious. I'm not sure why. I watched it years after it got cancelled and it's still the only Whedon show that I actually like (plus a few Angel episodes here and there from season 1 and 5. I think that's an unpopular opinion too.)

I think it's all down to the characters. They are fun and they feel real to a point. Well, except for Inara and her "relationship" with Mal. I loved the ship because it was so grungy and felt like a home. I like Sci-Fi but I never liked Star Trek because it always felt so sterile and had this military aspect to it. I think the grunginess of Firefly appeals to me.

I'm not sure how long it would have held up in the long run but for that one season, I think it's a cute show.

Edited January 3, 2015 by supposebly

[CoderLady]

I honestly don't know why one would watch a pilot episode in order to see if one likes a show (unless it's a new show of course)... they're so often containing characters who aren't yet fully fleshed out, actors who haven't figured out their characters yet, cast members who don't wind up sticking around -- and the pilots are either better-made than the rest of the show, or more poorly-made.  They mostly aren't representative of what the shows are going to become. 

 

I see pilots like resumes, which I think is also what the networks do. Pilots are what the show team (showrunners, writers, techs, actors, etc.) present to get the network to commit to hiring them for a long, profitable and successful run both for the team and the network. Both sides are on their best behavior and say what they want the other side to hear, glossing over possible problems and maybe outright lying to get what they want.

 

Lies, exaggerations and poorly articulated expectations are what I think tank shows (and in my experience, new hires) once production actually starts and episodes start airing. Also, once you factor in the changing, unpredictable expectations of advertisers and audiences, I'm surprised any show manages to survive its first season.

 

So to me, a pilot is not just the first chapter of what might be a really interesting story but also a business level promise based on a bunch of wildly uncontrollable, unpredictable and possibly false variables. It's almost as interesting as the show itself. .

[ribboninthesky1]

Sounds like a decent strategy.  My standard M.O. for beginning new shows, is to watch the first or second episode of the second season.  By then, you can assume that the show has become what it is going to be (first seasons, and especially pilot episodes, are extremely misleading).  If I enjoy watching the show, even if I don't know what is going on or who the characters are, I'll continue for a few more and see what develops.  If I like the first few episodes of the second season, I'll backtrack and restart with the first season.

 

This is an interesting strategy, one I'd not thought of before.  But it's related to why I've never understood any show's first season is thought of as the best!thing!ever!  Then again, maybe that's why there is the alleged sophomore slump. 

 

There are TV shows for which I have genuine affection, but once a show ends, it's over for me.  There's not much lamenting, even if I believe a show was cut short.  With all of the options for TV these days, there's always another story with a similar theme to watch. 

Edited January 3, 2015 by ribboninthesky1

[Shannon L.]

 

But it's related to why I've never understood any show's first season is thought of as the best!thing!ever!  Then again, maybe that's why there is the alleged sophomore slump.

It seems like a lot of fantasy type shows have this issue:  Great first season, not as good second. I think it was this thread we were discussing it on--about how we can't understand why a lot of creators don't go in with a multi-season outline/bible that lays out where they want to go with it.  Instead, we get shows like Sleepy Hollow and Heroes that started out with a bang, then left us wondering what happened by the first few episodes of season 2.

 

Personally, I have found very few pilots over the years that have made me an instant fan.  The ones I can recall are:  Designing Women, The Big Bang Theory, Arrested Development.  I'm sure that there were one or two more, but pilots are usually pretty weak, imo.

[supposebly]

 

But it's related to why I've never understood any show's first season is thought of as the best!thing!ever!

 

I really can't think of any show that I watched where that would apply. I would say, generally, second seasons tend to be objectively better. Examples would be: Supernatural, X-files, Farscape, Stargate SG-1, maybe Eureka.

 

Except for BSG or Alias. The first and second season were one of the consistently best TV I've ever watched. Third season started a decline for both shows IMO. Coincidentally, they are also shows with outstanding pilots. If you consider the miniseries of BSG a pilot.

[ribboninthesky1]

For me, I don't expect pilots to be perfect.  But pilots are the introduction to the show, and if it doesn't pique my interest, flaws and all, I've no qualms about moving on.  The days of a handful of TV is long gone, and to me, any viewer expectation of "hang in there, it'll get better" is unreasonable.  Nothing wrong with giving a show several episodes to find its footing, but I think moving on if the pilot doesn't spark an interest is valid as well.  I don't have allegiance with producers, writers, or actors, even if I've enjoyed their past work, so I don't feel obligated to give a show a chance if I'm not feeling it.    

 

I really can't think of any show that I watched where that would apply. I would say, generally, second seasons tend to be objectively better. Examples would be: Supernatural, X-files, Farscape, Stargate SG-1, maybe Eureka.

 

Which makes sense to me, since the show has had time to work out its kinks and settle on the narrative.  Though I have a pet peeve of important plot points established in a first season being ignored, forgotten, or retconned in later seasons.  TV shows are very often works in progress, which is fine to a degree. Cue the show bible!

 

On a related note, I perceive a correlation between shows whose first seasons were highly praised, and the number of episodes in said season.  I don't believe that's a coincidence.  

[Kel Varnsen]

For me, I don't expect pilots to be perfect.  But pilots are the introduction to the show, and if it doesn't pique my interest, flaws and all, I've no qualms about moving on.  The days of a handful of TV is long gone, and to me, any viewer expectation of "hang in there, it'll get better" is unreasonable.  Nothing wrong with giving a show several episodes to find its footing, but I think moving on if the pilot doesn't spark an interest is valid as well.  I don't have allegiance with producers, writers, or actors, even if I've enjoyed their past work, so I don't feel obligated to give a show a chance if I'm not feeling it.    

I am the same way. If you can't convince me in three or four episodes that the show is worth watching, I can pretty easily find something else. There is also so much other good stuff out there, that for the most part there is no looking back. For example a few years ago I gave the first 4 or so episodes of Fringe a chance when it came out because I loved Alias and Lost. But it never really grabbed me in those episodes. I heard later on it started to get good but I just didn't have the time to catch up and couldn't be bothered.  The only show I am glad I rode out a bad string of early episodes was Parks and Recreation, although if that last episode of the first season hadn't been awesome I probably would have never came back.

 

Personally, I have found very few pilots over the years that have made me an instant fan.  The ones I can recall are:  Designing Women, The Big Bang Theory, Arrested Development.  I'm sure that there were one or two more, but pilots are usually pretty weak, imo.

 

My two favourite pilots of all time were probably Alias and Deadwood. Alias was so action packed the first episode could have easily been a stand alone movie with some minor tweaking. Deadwood was so good because it established all of the major characters and most of the first season storylines without tons of crappy exposition. The fact that those shows and there writers were able to bring it makes me a lot less forgiving when other shows can't.

[ganesh]

As much as I don't like the series, I have to say the Lost pilot was pretty good.

[ParadoxLost]

Except for BSG or Alias. The first and second season were one of the consistently best TV I've ever watched. Third season started a decline for both shows IMO. Coincidentally, they are also shows with outstanding pilots. If you consider the miniseries of BSG a pilot.

 

The biggest problem with Alias is that they had the mentality that they were critically acclaimed and should have more viewers so they kept rebooting the show so new viewers could jump in.

[VanillaBear85]

For me, I don't expect pilots to be perfect.  But pilots are the introduction to the show, and if it doesn't pique my interest, flaws and all, I've no qualms about moving on.  The days of a handful of TV is long gone, and to me, any viewer expectation of "hang in there, it'll get better" is unreasonable.  Nothing wrong with giving a show several episodes to find its footing, but I think moving on if the pilot doesn't spark an interest is valid as well.  I don't have allegiance with producers, writers, or actors, even if I've enjoyed their past work, so I don't feel obligated to give a show a chance if I'm not feeling it. 

I absolutely agree with this. If I don't find the plot and/or characters at least semi-interesting in the pilot I will likely stop watching the show. It doesn't even have to be a "great" pilot, just something I find reasonably interesting and I can see myself becoming invested in (if I am not already) after the pilot.

[Haleth]

I remember watching the pilot for BSG when it first came out and thought it was terrible.  Only after many years (I believe the show was in its final season) and reading so many comments about how it was the greatest thing ever did I give in and watch the first (real) episode.  Manoman, I was hooked.  I thought the first episode faaaaaar surpassed the pilot.  It left me breathless and obsessed with watching the whole series.  It was the only time I've ever paid to watch a show online.

 

The Lost pilot was one of the greatest hours on television ever, but I don't think that is much of an UPO.

[Shannon L.]

For some reason that I really can't explain I'm pickier about comedy pilots than I am the hour long shows, whatever their genre might be.  I'm also more willing to give the hour longs a few more viewings to see if it gets better than I am comedies. 

[Athena]

For some reason that I really can't explain I'm pickier about comedy pilots than I am the hour long shows, whatever their genre might be.  I'm also more willing to give the hour longs a few more viewings to see if it gets better than I am comedies. 

 

I am similar. It's not surprising because with most comedies, you either like it or you don't. Humor is a very personal thing and if it can't make you laugh, smile or entertain you in a couple of episodes, there's less of a chance it will one or two seasons down the line. With hour long dramas or ("dramadies") or genre shows, the serialized nature and plots can change over time.

[DittyDotDot]

In general, I think pilots are terrible. There's only a handful of shows that I consider their pilots to be good episodes in their own right. I think it's the nature of them feeling like they need to introduce us to not only the characters and the universe in one massive info dump, plus make it the most exciting thing ever. It's just too much, IMO. I think when shows pull back from the attention grabbing explosions and shocking cliffhangers and such, their pilots are better episodes. I'm usually patient with new shows and will give them time to find their legs. I can walk away in the first season, but find if I invest in two seasons, I'm usually in it till the end. I'm really easily suckered some times.

 

I don't like watching shows out of order though, I have to start with the first one. I always worry I missed something, otherwise and/or that my perception is changed by seeing what comes after first.

 

 

On a related note, I perceive a correlation between shows whose first seasons were highly praised, and the number of episodes in said season.  I don't believe that's a coincidence.  

 

I totally agree with this. In general, shows that have entire seasons praised as, apposed to a handful of random episodes, generally are shorter-run seasons. The shorter seasons usually are tighter and more concise stories that seem to build on each other. I guess it all depends on the serialized nature of the show, though.

[ByTor]

But the one Internet posting habit that drives me irrationally nuts is when people write "I has a sad" when something happens on screen that they deem unfortunate. "I have a sad" would be annoying enough, but "I HAS"?! Ugh...flames on the side of my face hate. I warned you guys this wasn't rational :)

Sounds like my irrational hatred of "I can't with"...just how would one "with"?

 

This is such a pet peeve of mine. The more other characters clunkily remark on how gorgeous/brilliant/generally awesome a given character is, the more likely my contrarian inner 11-year-old and I are to think of all the reasons said character is really not so great at all :)

For people who watched Six Feet Under I have two words...Brenda Chenowith. Homely as hell IMO, but every man who even glanced at her wanted to sleep with her.

[Chaos Theory]

My Unpopular opinion is that i don't think pilots are terrible.  They are never the best of the series but they are not always horrible either.  I loved the pilot of Buffy, Breaking Bad  and Battlestar Galactica.  There are probably others as well that I thought were good that I can't think of.  That being said there are horrible pilots that make good shows like Spartacus but I don't automatically think a pilot will be bad.

 

My UPO is that not liking Firefly is not a UPO since it was canceled because not many liked it enough to watch it when it was aired. I know that, arguably, that was due to the time slot. Still, the ratings were low.

 

 

Firefly's rating were low because Fox didn't advertise it AT ALL.   I have seen people who have watched it since it went off the air who have LOVED IT who never even heard of it when it was on the air.  These were the people who could have save it if Fox had bothered to advertise it.   THIS I blame on FOX.   Fox never bothered to even try to sell the show and then complained when no one watched it.    They have done this before and they have done it after.   Fox has terrible history of publicity for shows that are not instant hits.  

Edited January 4, 2015 by Chaos Theory

[scarynikki12]

I know a lot of people who had that experience with Firefly.  They all found it years after the cancellation and all of them completely loved it.  Sometimes it was a case of simply not knowing it ever existed and sometimes it had to do with a generally negative view of the WB and anything/anyone associated with it, but everyone I know in real life has loved it since they found it.  I know the only reason I knew it existed when it was on the air was due to my vow to watch everything Whedon ever makes as a thank you for Buffy, as I don't remember a single bit of advertising on Fox's part (not saying they didn't run ads just that I never saw any). 

 

I do think it's fun when someone new discovers it because the conversation is always the same:

 

Person: OMG!  I just found the most amazing show!  It's called Firefly, have you heard of it?

Me: Yep.

Person: How?  I didn't even know it existed.

 

And repeat.  Now, to be fair, a lot of these people discovering and loving Firefly are in their twenties, and therefore too young to watch it when it was on the air, but I do think that the minimal advertising from Fox hurt the shows chances of finding the age appropriate audience that would have kept it on the air beyond a single season.  Look at how devoted Firefly fans are to this day.  There are countless booths and panels at comic conventions around the country and the 10th anniversary panel at Comic Con a couple years ago was the the hardest one to get into.  That's some serious fan love that Fox could have tapped into if they'd made more of an effort.  It is a shame that social media wasn't really a thing back then because I think that would have saved Firefly, though I hate the idea of the fans doing all the work instead of the network.

 

Moving on, since we are in the UO thread, one of mine is that I think Dollhouse is one of Whedon's best shows, second to Buffy in terms of my personal love and to Angel as a creative piece.  I completely understand why it wasn't popular and I agree that Dushku was miscast as Echo, but I think it was just brilliant and I love rewatching it. 

[ribboninthesky1]

The premise of Dollhouse was very interesting, but Dushku was too much of a miscast for me to overlook.  I much preferred Miracle Laurie, and thought she would have been a better fit as the lead.  That said, I appreciate the show introducing me to the yumminess that is Enver Gjokaj.  I also didn't have a problem with Dichen Lachman's portrayal of Sierra. 

Edited January 4, 2015 by ribboninthesky1

[merylinkid]

Firefly was hard to find when it was on.    I always turned on SciFi channel (they still did SciFi in those day.  Then remembered it was on Fox.   And I LOVED the show.   So if I had trouble remember which channel it was on, there was no hope for the casual viewer finding it and falling in love.

[LeeLeePanda]

Speaking of prematurely canceled shows: I was a huge fan of Pushing Daises when it was airing. That being said, I don't think it would still be entertaining or good if it got past 3 seasons. I loved how dark and twee it was, but I think that would have gotten old after a while.

Also, I think it would have lasted if it had 1. A shorter episode order(since it was so expensive to produce) and 2. An expiration date. I think it would have worked really well as a limited run series.

On a different note, I never hated Marley on Glee. I actually kinda liked her, though she certainly wasn't a favorite character. I liked that she was awkward and shy, but kinda started to find herself towards the end of her run.

[Misslindsey]

 

On a different note, I never hated Marley on Glee. I actually kinda liked her, though she certainly wasn't a favorite character. I liked that she was awkward and shy, but kinda started to find herself towards the end of her run.

Me too. I liked her too. I liked that she was a bit different and not a 2.0 version of old characters like some of the new characters were. My UO is that I hated the idea that they were going to do all NYC for the half of a season. I never minded the NYC/McKinley split. I also, hated the idea that a show about a glee club would completely abandon that whole premise. I do wish the writing was better all around, especially if it was consistent to the characters, but for so much of Glee it was like TPTB were throwing ideas at a wall to see what sticks. 

[Kel Varnsen]

The premise of Dollhouse was very interesting, but Dushku was too much of a miscast for me to overlook.  I much preferred Miracle Laurie, and thought she would have been a better fit as the lead.  That said, I appreciate the show introducing me to the yumminess that is Enver Gjokaj.  I also didn't have a problem with Dichen Lachman's portrayal of Sierra. 

It is funny, Dollhouse was one of the other shows I was thinking of, when I mentioned above that airing episodes out of order isn't always just the network's fault. I watched the first four or five episodes of dollhouse, and yes it Fox that aired the series out of order. But at the same time, Whedon and his writers wrote those episodes and the plots were terrible. They were like plots cribbed from bad 80's action movies. But I never heard anyone take responsibility for how crappy they were. 

[Wiendish Fitch]

I couldn't get into Dollhouse, I found the premise too repellant. I agree that Eliza Dushku is an extremely limited actress. As a supporting player who shows up now and then? Fine. As the star who has to carry a show? No. Sorry, but she just doesn't have the chops.

[blueray]

I couldn't make it past the pilot of Dollhouse, but I think it was the premise I turned out not to like.

[LydiaMoon1]

Dollhouse had a premise? What was it? I never could figure it out, so I just stopped watching.

[Kel Varnsen]

I agree that Eliza Dushku is an extremely limited actress. As a supporting player who shows up now and then? Fine. As the star who has to carry a show? No. Sorry, but she just doesn't have the chops.

Which probably explains why she has only done voice work and guest starring roles since Dollhouse was cancelled.

[galax-arena]

As the star who has to carry a show? No. Sorry, but she just doesn't have the chops.

For me, it’s not just the lack of leading star charisma or general ability to carry a show, but the very premise of Dollhouse - with Echo inhabiting different personalities/personas from ep to ep -  demanded an actress with a much higher skill level than Eliza. I didn’t find her that awful in Tru Calling, but Dollhouse? Yeah, no.

 

When I watched Orphan Black for the first time, it really drove home for me how subpar Eliza’s Dollhouse acting was by comparison.

[ribboninthesky1]

I could only make it through a few episodes of Orphan Black, but I thought Tatiana Maslany was excellent.  She effortlessly blows Eliza Dushku out of the water, and who knows...maybe Dollhouse would have lasted longer with an actress of her caliber in the lead. 

 

Frankly, I've never been all that impressed with any of Whedon's favored actors.  

[Chaos Theory]

I am probably going to get tossed of the message boards for this because apparently this is a very UO but I don't understand the great love for Game of Thrones.  Yes it is a great show but it is not the best show in the history of television.  I have seen plenty of shows that I think are better,  Breaking Bad,  Hannibal,  Orphan Black and hell The Americans is ALMOST as good as Game of Thrones.   I get that it is a good show with shocking moments that you can talk about forever but I am not sure it is a consistently great show like the ones I have mentioned.    

[opus]

OK, deep breath. I've never seen an episode of Mad Men, The Walking Dead, Breaking Bad, Game of Thrones, The Wire, Orange is the New Black, Dr. Who, Homeland, The Wire, True Blood, Dexter, or Modern Family. I have, however, seen every episode of Whitney.

[Quof]

Gary, I thought we were separated twins until you said Whitney.  Who, or what, is Whitney?

[truthaboutluv]

I am probably going to get tossed of the message boards for this because apparently this is a very UO but I don't understand the great love for Game of Thrones.

 

 

lol, doubt you'll get tossed.  And if it makes you feel any better, I've never watched one episode and have zero desire to. Just not interested one bit.