Party of One: Unpopular TV Opinions

[kathyk24]

1 hour ago, Bastet said:

I watched SVU for a while way back when, and that was because of their partnership; the actors' close friendship made for a great chemistry between the characters, and Olivia and Elliot were each the only one who'd occasionally call the other on their shit.  But Stabler was a jackass - and a terrible cop, so I'm disgusted they brought him back and gave him his own show - and Olivia seemed better off without a romantic relationship, so unless things have changed drastically in the many years since I quit watching (possible, I'll grant, given the length of time, but my sense is it's unlikely), I don't see how a romantic relationship would work for them.

Beyond that, it's just tiresome to keep saying that heterosexual men and women will inevitably fall for each other if they work together long enough.

Stabler was my least favorite character on SVU due to his temper. Olivia could do much better. I was also very happy that Scotty and Lily from Cold Case never became a couple again because of his temper. The romance between Danny and Lindsay from CSI NY worked because they were friends first.

[Zella]

I never could get over either one of them after the informant episode in which they repeatedly stick their noses in a case that they are begged to stay out of because it involves people under marshal wit sec protection. But they know better because they're Stabler and Benson, so inevitably they end up literally getting people killed and then they act sad and confused about what happened. If I'd been that marshal on the case, they would have had to physically restrained me from throat-punching the both of them.  

[Anduin]

I didn't like Star Wars: Visions. I'm not into animation, Japanese culture, or anime on the whole*, and this in particular rubbed me the wrong way. It was indeed an anime take on Star Wars. But it's like spice in food. Some can be nice, too much really isn't. If you like Visions, good on you. It isn't for me.

*All perfectly valid forms of entertainment. I'm not questioning or criticising their existences, or those who enjoy then.

[ifionlyknew]

15 hours ago, Bastet said:

 

Beyond that, it's just tiresome to keep saying that heterosexual men and women will inevitably fall for each other if they work together long enough.

This.  I have never once wanted Stabler and Benson together.  And I have watched from the very first episode. I always liked the fact they didn't have any romantic feelings for each other.  But now that his wife is dead all of sudden they have the hots for one another?  Lazy predictable writing.

[Blergh]

8 hours ago, ifionlyknew said:

This.  I have never once wanted Stabler and Benson together.  And I have watched from the very first episode. I always liked the fact they didn't have any romantic feelings for each other.  But now that his wife is dead all of sudden they have the hots for one another?  Lazy predictable writing.

Not to mention that  both characters seemed as though they'd be   complete disasters as a romantic partner but would have been better off just staying single and concentrating on the work tasks. Let the union with the late Mrs. Stabler be considered a one-time fluke of him getting incredibly lucky.  Seriously, let both of them stay single trainwrecks.  I can't say I'm not happy I've long since quit watching the show. 

 

[andromeda331]

On 9/24/2021 at 12:47 PM, Blergh said:

Not to mention that  both characters seemed as though they'd be   complete disasters as a romantic partner but would have been better off just staying single and concentrating on the work tasks. Let the union with the late Mrs. Stabler be considered a one-time fluke of him getting incredibly lucky.  Seriously, let both of them stay single trainwrecks.  I can't say I'm not happy I've long since quit watching the show. 

 

Same here. I really liked them and the show in first few years. Then they became so horrible. I really wanted to see them fired and thrown in jail for the many crimes they were committing. Especially Stabler beating up suspects. I was happy when I finally quit. Not a single commercial since has ever made me want to start watching again.

[Spartan Girl]

Smash was better than Glee even though it was cancelled after two seasons, it managed to bow out gracefully before things got too bad.

[Irlandesa]

I know it's a popular "unpopular" opinion but I have such a visceral reaction to how much I hate Benson and Stabler as a romantic duo.

Not only do I not want them to get together, I find myself almost vomiting every time I see the previews centering around them.  And does the L&O franchise advertise anything other than their heaving bosoms?

It pains me so because the original L&O is one of my comfort places and it saddens me what the spinoffs have done.

 

[Danny Franks]

On 9/23/2021 at 11:11 PM, Anduin said:

I didn't like Star Wars: Visions. I'm not into animation, Japanese culture, or anime on the whole*, and this in particular rubbed me the wrong way. It was indeed an anime take on Star Wars. But it's like spice in food. Some can be nice, too much really isn't. If you like Visions, good on you. It isn't for me.

*All perfectly valid forms of entertainment. I'm not questioning or criticising their existences, or those who enjoy then.

Anime has become incredibly popular in the West in recent years, to the point where I see almost constant references to various shows and characters online, but I have to say that I do not get it. At all.

The animation is often very well done, but the characters and stories just feel off to me. I can never feel any emotional resonance or depth to any of it. Even 'anime inspired' shows like Castlevania suffer from the same problems. It all just feels like style over substance to me, with an emphasis on what you see rather than what you hear and feel.

I generally find the characters melodramatic and the vocal tics really uncomfortable to listen to - the big gasps and sighs and high pitched reactions and voices. It all just feels embarrassing to watch.

And, while this is obviously not a crime of all anime properties, the sexualisation of children in some anime is incredibly problematic and no amount of 'she's actually an adult in the body of a fourteen year old' is going to explain it away.

[proserpina65]

On 9/23/2021 at 2:42 PM, Zella said:

I've always thought Unstabler is a lunatic and Benson is an asshole,  and they were my least favorite part of the show when I watched. I guess in a sense they deserve each other, but I also don't want them to be together. The way the writers killed his wife to make room for Benson is really gross. 

They are basically the reason I stopped watching SVU only a few seasons in.  Heck, I was only watching it for Munch, and later Fin, anyway.

[Zella]

2 minutes ago, proserpina65 said:

Heck, I was only watching it for Munch, and later Fin, anyway.

Yeah I mainly watched via reruns and had to eventually give up. The supporting characters like Munch and Fin were much more interesting and likable to me as well. 

[DoctorAtomic]

5 hours ago, Danny Franks said:

I generally find the characters melodramatic and the vocal tics really uncomfortable to listen to - the big gasps and sighs and high pitched reactions and voices. It all just feels embarrassing to watch.

I think anime has always been popular. Maybe the increase in platforms gives more shows. 

I can't watch anime with the english dubs because of the vocal tics. There's a ton that just doesn't translate from the original Japanese which I could only watch when I lived there. I watch with subtitles. There's even some lost in the subtitles too. I can pick up on a little and the subtitle isn't really what they're saying. 

[Jaded]

13 hours ago, Zella said:

Yeah I mainly watched via reruns and had to eventually give up. The supporting characters like Munch and Fin were much more interesting and likable to me as well. 

I think Munch was my favorite character. I was attracted to SVU when it started due to the subject matter and following Munch over after Homicide: Life on the Street ended. Once Munch left which was followed followed by Cragen not long after and then Benson getting promoted the ensemble feeling the show had started to crumble.

[Spartan Girl]

So I know people are upset that Young Sheldon is going to go through with George having an affair. But…I’m not.

Dont get me wrong, it sucks. I hate cheating storylines. But what I’ve liked about the show is that the portrayal of Sheldon’s parents are more nuanced characterizations compared to BBT Sheldon referring to his dad as a cheating drunk. The George we see on Young Sheldon is more complex; he is far from perfect and the marriage is definitely starting to get more strained, but there is not a doubt that he loves his family. Look, life is messy and even mostly good people make bad choices and fuck up. I think it’s ambitious that the show isn’t going to shy away from George’s faults, and if they pull off this story without things getting one-dimensional and trite, then good for them. 

Edited September 29, 2021 by Spartan Girl

[SusanM]

I scanned the Pioneer Woman thread here and realize I may be alone in my liking for her and for her show.  

[DrSpaceman73]

27 minutes ago, SusannahM said:

I scanned the Pioneer Woman thread here and realize I may be alone in my liking for her and for her show.  

My wife loves her and the show. 

[peachmangosteen]

I don't like her but I've made a ton of her recipes lol.

[proserpina65]

I never found Norm MacDonald funny, not on SNL and not in anything else I've seen.  I feel a little bad saying that since he died, but it's true nevertheless.

[Wiendish Fitch]

4 minutes ago, proserpina65 said:

I never found Norm MacDonald funny, not on SNL and not in anything else I've seen.  I feel a little bad saying that since he died, but it's true nevertheless.

Beat me to the punch. Sorry, but I never found Norm MacDonald funny, either. His voice and delivery irritated me.

[bilgistic]

He was a horrifically misogynistic, abuse-apologist piece of shit. Him dying doesn't change that. Normalize not sainting shitty people just because they died. He can rot.

[Gharlane]

On 9/9/2021 at 5:35 PM, SmithW6079 said:

For a year, I've been dreading the 20th anniversary of 9/11. Not so much for the emotional pain (which there is), but for the orgy of 20th-anniversary 9/11 grief porn we're being subjected to this week. Replay after replay of the planes hitting the Twin Towers; of people panicking; of the Towers' collapse; the "where are they now" interviews, all trying to find new ways to rip open the scab of healing. It's not so much that we shouldn't "never forget," but TV seems to want to ensure that we never heal. 

Unfortunately, we seem to have forgotten in only 20 years. 

 

On 9/10/2021 at 10:38 PM, andromeda331 said:

I always watch the 9/11 The Filmmakers one I bought years ago. French filmmaker and brothers Jules and Gedeon Naudet who had been filming a rookie firefighter in NYC and ended up filming 9/11. One brother caught one of the only images of the first plane hitting the tower. He had followed firefighters out to check a gas leak when they heard the plane over head. He goes with them to the World Trade Centers and captures what was going on inside. His brother got the ones from the firehouse and on the street. It was really well done. There's about 20 minutes of what they filmed before that day. Mostly cooking, because most of the few fires they were called out on weren't anything big. That part can be hard to watch knowing what was coming. They don't often show it on TV which is why I bought a copy. 

Why don't they ever play that one any more?

 

On a semi-related note,  I was watching some 9-11 programs on one of Discovery's family of channels and did not appreciate them cutting to their garbage programming and the continual popups for same shows. Nothing like hearing someone talking about how their loved one died and it cutting to "On this week's new ep of  `I was a 300 pound mail order bride`...". 🤬

[SmithW6079]

1 hour ago, Gharlane said:

Unfortunately, we seem to have forgotten in only 20 years. 

I disagree. Every year, we trot out the video footage, we replay the stories over and over. We did forget were the lessons we should have learned. We forgot how to be united.

[proserpina65]

22 hours ago, Gharlane said:

Unfortunately, we seem to have forgotten in only 20 years. 

The only thing I seem to notice being forgotten in 20 years is that NYC wasn't the only place that was attacked.  There was some mention of the Pentagon in all the anniversary stuff I unwillingly saw, but damned little of it.

[Jaded]

16 hours ago, proserpina65 said:

The only thing I seem to notice being forgotten in 20 years is that NYC wasn't the only place that was attacked.  There was some mention of the Pentagon in all the anniversary stuff I unwillingly saw, but damned little of it.

That's like Hurricane Katrina anniversaries. When it's talked about or mentioned on TV New Orleans is usually the only place mentioned. It did a lot of damage to South Mississippi too.

[Spartan Girl]

I do not give a flying baker’s fuck about House of the Dragon. I don’t care who’s in it, how pretty the costumes are, or even if it will turn out better than its predecessor. I. Am. Done.

[DoctorAtomic]

I read about it, and it just doesn't hold interest. That iron really isn't hot any more. 

[Wiendish Fitch]

Popular opinion: Blue's Clues was an adorable show, and Steve Burns was a good host.

Unpopular opinion(s): I've never wondered or cared why Burns left the show. Acting is, when all is said and done, a job. You are free to quit a job if you want to. Burns quit, I never suspected it was for any negative or scandalous reason, and I'm quite frankly tired of how he feels the need to trot out the explanation of why he left every 5-10 years.

Dude, you quit, and plenty of people weren't wondering why. You haven't committed any real crimes (to the best of my knowledge), you don't appear to be dying, so I for one was never worried. You're fine, we're fine, it's all fine, so stop justifying why you left. 

[WritinMan]

1 hour ago, Spartan Girl said:

I do not give a flying baker’s fuck

 

So is that 13 normal fucks?

Edited October 7, 2021 by WritinMan

[andromeda331]

On 10/4/2021 at 12:15 PM, Gharlane said:

Unfortunately, we seem to have forgotten in only 20 years. 

 

Why don't they ever play that one any more?

I don't know.  I wish they would. I did recently watch the documentary they made on the November 13 Paris Attacks on Netflix. Its really good too.

[kathyk2]

I don't mind reboots of older shows. I enjoyed the newer version on Fantasy Island on Fox. There is a generation of tv viewer who are too young to remember the original show so this is new material. There have been multiple versions of Law and Order and NCIS on television so why not new Night Court or the Wonder Years.

[Annber03]

And even for those who have seen the originals, reboots can be a good way to see how a show like that would fare in a more modern setting/world. What would be different, what would be the same, all that sort of thing. 

It's also so funny to me how people complain about reboots and remakes and wonder why Hollywood keeps making them...and yet many still wind up checking them out and watching them anyway. There's your answer right there, people. So long as there's an audience for this stuff, networks will keep making these kinds of shows. It's that simple. 

[DoctorAtomic]

I think the fair criticism is that with all the platforms available for original content, the reboot seems kind of lazy. I'm not inclined myself to check out reboots because I'm digging in all my services looking for something new. 

[LexieLily]

At least for me, one of the reasons remakes/reboots are iffy at best is there's a significant chance it won't live up to the original show, and to an extent that it actually ends up tainting in a way the original show. And that's not even getting into what a wonky spinoff can do to the source material...

Looking at you, Girl Meets World (Boy Meets World)

Edited October 8, 2021 by LexieLily

[DrSpaceman73]

8 hours ago, DoctorAtomic said:

I think the fair criticism is that with all the platforms available for original content, the reboot seems kind of lazy. I'm not inclined myself to check out reboots because I'm digging in all my services looking for something new. 

It is lazy and often just is trying to capitalize off nostalgia for the original.  

I don't watch any of them. I think the new wonder years is an interesting idea just because to see it from the perspective of a different marginalized culture is at least a good twist that could be insightful. Most though are just trying to squeeze out some final ratings and money from an idea whose time was in the past. 

On the other hand though, one of my favorite shows ever, star trek TNG, falls in this category, so it's not like it can't be done. 

[Minneapple]

On 10/2/2021 at 3:08 PM, SusannahM said:

I scanned the Pioneer Woman thread here and realize I may be alone in my liking for her and for her show.  

I've watched her show a few times and it's OK. I get it, she has a staged quasi-reality thing going on with the ranch and all. The thing is that her recipes are great and always always work for me. Her pizza crust is my staple pizza crust.

[ifionlyknew]

1 hour ago, DrSpaceman73 said:

It is lazy and often just is trying to capitalize off nostalgia for the original.  

I take it on a case by case basis.  Sometimes I think it's a good idea but the execution is flawed.

I was looking forward to the Murphy Brown reboot because I thought it would be fun to see how the characters had changed with the way the news business had changed.  It didn't live up to the original but I didn't think it was  horrible.

Will & Grace didn't want the characters to have changed.  They went so far as to rewrite the original series ending.  

Having not watched the Roseanne reboot until it became the Conners this is my prime example of good idea but poor execution.    Things look the same. They kinda sound the same but it's not the same.   I don't miss Roseanne, the actress or the character but I do miss what she represented.  She was the glue that kept it all together. They missed a good opportunity to show that yeah it sucks beyond belief when you lose a wife/mother/sister but you need to go on and you need to make things better for those still there.   Adding Katey Sagal as Louise might help.  

I didn't hate the Dallas reboot but what was the point of bringing it back if you were going to ignore the enormous history of the show and spotlight new characters the audience didn't know and didn't care to know?

[GHScorpiosRule]

2 hours ago, ifionlyknew said:

I didn't hate the Dallas reboot but what was the point of bringing it back if you were going to ignore the enormous history of the show and spotlight new characters the audience didn't know and didn't care to know?

I did hate it. It was a FUCKING INSULT to the original and the original characters, and the history of the show.

Cynthia what'sherface should have just created her own show about Skeletor and her family issues that had nothing to do with the Ewings, Southfork, or DALLAS (the original show). Because that character, and her mother, were NEVER on the original show. A show I watched from Day ONE to the end.

I didn't think they could ruin Cliff any more than the original had, but this hack managed to do it. And making Bobby's son, BOBBY'S son, a douchetastic PRICK of the first order didn't help.

Why no. I'm not bitter at all. Whatever would give you that idea?

Edited October 8, 2021 by GHScorpiosRule

[ifionlyknew]

3 minutes ago, GHScorpiosRule said:

I did hate it. It was a FUCKING INSULT to the original and the original characters, and the history of she show.

I recently did a complete re watch of the original.  And as I was watching the last season I was thinking why did they leave James out of the reboot.  And I would have liked to have known what happened to Michelle Stevens.  They really did screw up the opportunity to revisit the Ewings and Barnes again.

[Blergh]

On 10/7/2021 at 10:33 PM, LexieLily said:

At least for me, one of the reasons remakes/reboots are iffy at best is there's a significant chance it won't live up to the original show, and to an extent that it actually ends up tainting in a way the original show. And that's not even getting into what a wonky spinoff can do to the source material...

Looking at you, Girl Meets World (Boy Meets World)

Yep! It's sad  on GMW that the only three BMW characters who improved or progressed were semi-regulars /one-shots on both shows ( Minkus, Harley and Tommy [T.J.]).  with most of    the BMW regulars who appeared regressing or getting debased ( Cory, Topanga, Shawn, Eric and Jack) and the show  meanly trashing and   dissing others (Mr. Feeny and Angela). 

Oh, and it didn't help that instead of the protagonist (BMW's Cory) being average but likable and learning about how to make his/her way in the world , GMW's protagonist Riley was a spoiled,meddlesome brat who almost always got worshiped as being wonderful and perfect  while manipulating her little world to revolve around her- even at the expense of her supposed besties' progress (Maya, Farkle and Lucas).

 

Edited October 9, 2021 by Blergh

[JustHereForFood]

4 hours ago, ifionlyknew said:

I take it on a case by case basis.  Sometimes I think it's a good idea but the execution is flawed.

I was looking forward to the Murphy Brown reboot because I thought it would be fun to see how the characters had changed with the way the news business had changed.  It didn't live up to the original but I didn't think it was  horrible.

Will & Grace didn't want the characters to have changed.  They went so far as to rewrite the original series ending.  

Having not watched the Roseanne reboot until it became the Conners this is my prime example of good idea but poor execution.    Things look the same. They kinda sound the same but it's not the same.   I don't miss Roseanne, the actress or the character but I do miss what she represented.  She was the glue that kept it all together. They missed a good opportunity to show that yeah it sucks beyond belief when you lose a wife/mother/sister but you need to go on and you need to make things better for those still there.   Adding Katey Sagal as Louise might help.  

I didn't hate the Dallas reboot but what was the point of bringing it back if you were going to ignore the enormous history of the show and spotlight new characters the audience didn't know and didn't care to know?

Will&Grace and Dallas weren't reboots, though. They were revivals/continuations. I haven't seen new Roseanne, but my understanding was that it's also a continuation of the original and not a reboot.

[kathyk2]

12 hours ago, ifionlyknew said:

I take it on a case by case basis.  Sometimes I think it's a good idea but the execution is flawed.

I was looking forward to the Murphy Brown reboot because I thought it would be fun to see how the characters had changed with the way the news business had changed.  It didn't live up to the original but I didn't think it was  horrible.

Will & Grace didn't want the characters to have changed.  They went so far as to rewrite the original series ending.  

Having not watched the Roseanne reboot until it became the Conners this is my prime example of good idea but poor execution.    Things look the same. They kinda sound the same but it's not the same.   I don't miss Roseanne, the actress or the character but I do miss what she represented.  She was the glue that kept it all together. They missed a good opportunity to show that yeah it sucks beyond belief when you lose a wife/mother/sister but you need to go on and you need to make things better for those still there.   Adding Katey Sagal as Louise might help.  

I didn't hate the Dallas reboot but what was the point of bringing it back if you were going to ignore the enormous history of the show and spotlight new characters the audience didn't know and didn't care to know?

 

12 hours ago, ifionlyknew said:

I take it on a case by case basis.  Sometimes I think it's a good idea but the execution is flawed.

I was looking forward to the Murphy Brown reboot because I thought it would be fun to see how the characters had changed with the way the news business had changed.  It didn't live up to the original but I didn't think it was  horrible.

Will & Grace didn't want the characters to have changed.  They went so far as to rewrite the original series ending.  

Having not watched the Roseanne reboot until it became the Conners this is my prime example of good idea but poor execution.    Things look the same. They kinda sound the same but it's not the same.   I don't miss Roseanne, the actress or the character but I do miss what she represented.  She was the glue that kept it all together. They missed a good opportunity to show that yeah it sucks beyond belief when you lose a wife/mother/sister but you need to go on and you need to make things better for those still there.   Adding Katey Sagal as Louise might help.  

I didn't hate the Dallas reboot but what was the point of bringing it back if you were going to ignore the enormous history of the show and spotlight new characters the audience didn't know and didn't care to know?

I loved the Murphy Brown reboot. The bond between Murphy and Avery was wonderful. I was so happy that they didn't make Avery a conservative just to argue with her. 

[Spartan Girl]

15 minutes ago, kathyk2 said:

 

I loved the Murphy Brown reboot. The bond between Murphy and Avery was wonderful. I was so happy that they didn't make Avery a conservative just to argue with her. 

And the dog! Loved that sweet little dog!

[Irlandesa]

1 hour ago, kathyk2 said:

I loved the Murphy Brown reboot. The bond between Murphy and Avery was wonderful. I was so happy that they didn't make Avery a conservative just to argue with her. 

I did too and it highlighted the issues that some reboots have.  Shows are brought back and they make sure to keep the old cast because of nostalgia.  Yet, in the end, it's often something new that works the best.  That's how I felt about The Murphy Brown revival.  The best part of the show was the new stuff--the relationship between a mother and son with the son trying to establish a separate identity from his mother.

 

[callie lee 29]

I'm definitely in the minority as I don't mind reboots or revivals. For the most part I've watched both versions of the ones mentioned here and truthfully don't see much of a difference between the originals and the remakes (whatever your want to call it). Most that were ridiculous the first round are ridiculous the second round, if they were poorly written and/or one-note originally, they are again. And I don't necessarily mean this as a criticism. I the first Dallas, but for the most part is was fluffy bullshit. I watched the second time and it was still fluffy bullshit. Fun, but still ridiculous. 

[Ohiopirate02]

On 10/8/2021 at 1:15 PM, JustHereForFood said:

Will&Grace and Dallas weren't reboots, though. They were revivals/continuations. I haven't seen new Roseanne, but my understanding was that it's also a continuation of the original and not a reboot.

Both Will and Grace and Roseanne were a hybrid reboot/revival.  Both of them flat out ignored the final season of the original run when they restarted.  So in Roseanne, Dan Connor never died.  The show also got cute and wrote in a character so both actresses who played Becky got a role. In Will and Grace, all of the character development that happened in the final season of the original run was wiped out along with the children of Will and Grace.  

[JustHereForFood]

5 hours ago, Ohiopirate02 said:

In Will and Grace, all of the character development that happened in the final season of the original run was wiped out along with the children of Will and Grace.  

Personally, I regularly thank all the Gods I don't believe in for this.

[DearEvette]

Regarding Reboots/revivals:

On 10/8/2021 at 8:50 AM, ifionlyknew said:

I take it on a case by case basis.  Sometimes I think it's a good idea but the execution is flawed.

Agreed.  This is my take is all depends.

How much connection/enjoyment/feels I had about the original?  If I never watched, only causally watched or disliked the original I may be more inclined to give the reboot a try especially if is a true reboot with new cast or if the approach to the material sound interesting. This was the case with Battlestar Galactica (2004) and Queer Eye on Netflix.  I might even catch the new new Battlestar Galactica.  Also, I cannot lie but the new Fresh Prince of Bel Air looks really fascinating.

But if I LOVED the original or feel that it is a little too iconic to update then I am much more wary.  Also the casting will play a part in my interest.  I only saw 10 minutes of the new Dallas to know it was a no go for me.  Even if I hadn't seen it, I would not have watched a Dallas reboot (or Dynasty either) they definitely fall in the too iconic/should just be left alone category.  And even though I was no huge fan of Sex and the City, it falls in the category of .. just let the show die already.  Meanwhile I am a hardcore Leverage fan and when I heard Leverage was coming back I was happy.  And the reboot has not disappointed in the least. 

[Bastet]

39 minutes ago, DearEvette said:

But if I LOVED the original or feel that it is a little too iconic to update then I am much more wary. 

This was me with the Cagney & Lacey reboot that didn't go.  There are a zillion cop shows out there, and I have no interest in 99% of them (because they normalize, justify, and even glorify police misconduct, and often have a gratuitous, exploitative approach to violence, particularly against women).  C&L is among the handful I've loved (although, of course, it was not without its problems), and it was a milestone that went through a lot to get and stay on the air, settling into an award-winning chemistry and honesty the network had to get out of the way of.

Inject into the tired cop show landscape a show centered around a partnership between two women with different motivations and MOs in addition to their shared experiences and with an explicitly feminist viewpoint about crime, police response, and the squad dynamics affecting women in a paramilitary organization?  Yes, please.  Delve deeper into intersectionality than was done in the '80s?  Yes, PLEASE. 

But call them Christine Cagney and Mary Beth Lacey?  No thanks.  Just create a new show rather than trading in, since these issues are hardly unique to the fictional version of NYPD's 14th precinct; they're everywhere.  Let C&L stand.  When you get "Isn't this just a retread of Cagney & Lacey?" bullshit from entertainment media, fire back against the notion women are so interchangeable that any two of them paired up as police partners inevitably leads to the same stories.

[Raja]

3 hours ago, Bastet said:

This was me with the Cagney & Lacey reboot that didn't go.  There are a zillion cop shows out there, and I have no interest in 99% of them (because they normalize, justify, and even glorify police misconduct, and often have a gratuitous, exploitative approach to violence, particularly against women).  C&L is among the handful I've loved (although, of course, it was not without its problems), and it was a milestone that went through a lot to get and stay on the air, settling into an award-winning chemistry and honesty the network had to get out of the way of.

Inject into the tired cop show landscape a show centered around a partnership between two women with different motivations and MOs in addition to their shared experiences and with an explicitly feminist viewpoint about crime, police response, and the squad dynamics affecting women in a paramilitary organization?  Yes, please.  Delve deeper into intersectionality than was done in the '80s?  Yes, PLEASE. 

But call them Christine Cagney and Mary Beth Lacey?  No thanks.  Just create a new show rather than trading in, since these issues are hardly unique to the fictional version of NYPD's 14th precinct; they're everywhere.  Let C&L stand.  When you get "Isn't this just a retread of Cagney & Lacey?" bullshit from entertainment media, fire back against the notion women are so interchangeable that any two of them paired up as police partners inevitably leads to the same stories.

The poor thing about updating Prime Suspect and Cagney and Lacey is that society changed. You no longer had the first generation women to rise from ordinary police patrol duties to leadership in general detective squads. So what was the point of the show beyond trying to put out a current counterfeit  name?

[proserpina65]

15 hours ago, Raja said:

The poor thing about updating Prime Suspect and Cagney and Lacey is that society changed. You no longer had the first generation women to rise from ordinary police patrol duties to leadership in general detective squads. So what was the point of the show beyond trying to put out a current counterfeit  name?

Exactly.  I mean, yeah, some of the issues haven't changed in all that time, but some of them have.