Party of One: Unpopular TV Opinions

[Raja]

2 hours ago, proserpina65 said:

The point is that passionate fanbases are not necessarily LARGE fanbases and thus are often not enough to keep a show from being cancelled simply because there are not enough of them actually viewing the show.  Passion does not always equal viewing numbers.

But then again it's not advertisers but direct buyers of merchandise from Disney and buying content by subscribing to Disney + that is now important. If you are selling Star Wars merchandise and Star Wars fanatics say no thanks then  you made bad business decisions.

[Anela]

I remember not being sure about the TV show “Hannibal”, with a new person playing Hannibal Lector, just before the show began to air on NBC. Mads Mikkelsen ended up being excellent in the role. 

Edited Tuesday at 03:52 AM by Anela

[Zella]

I actually prefer Brian Cox as Hannibal in Manhunter to either Anthony Hopkins or Mads Mikkelsen. 

[tearknee]

On 9/16/2024 at 10:20 AM, Mabinogia said:

I always roll my eyes at the snowflakes who say something new ruined the original. It's not like when the female Ghostbusters came out (which, if you want a real unpopular opinion, I like at least as much if not better than the original. Certainly better than the sequels) and all copies of the original were destroyed. They both still exist and if you don't like one, don't watch it. 

Humans are so hardwired to placing labels on everything, woke, incel, nerd, etc that we will never be truly united. It is impossible as both sides think they are right and cherry pick moments and stories and random comments to support their version of the truth. 

My UO is that media has destroyed the human ability to actually think. It's not that we are more stupid, it's that we are bombarded with so much contradictory "truth" that is is almost impossible to know what to believe anymore. 

 

replying to what I have bolded.

I concur though, to me, I would describe it as one end of them is tinfoil hat and the other is knight templar.

 

 

 

[proserpina65]

On 9/16/2024 at 2:35 PM, Raja said:

But then again it's not advertisers but direct buyers of merchandise from Disney and buying content by subscribing to Disney + that is now important. If you are selling Star Wars merchandise and Star Wars fanatics say no thanks then  you made bad business decisions.

It's not as important to Disney as not wasting money on what must be a very expensive show to produce if people are not watching it.  Again, passion does not necessarily equal numbers.  Either numbers of viewers or numbers of people buying merchandise from a show they're not watching.

Disney cares about subscribers and if The Acolyte didn't inspire enough people to become new subscribers, then it's not crazy for them to not renew it.

Edited to note that from what I've read in various places, the Star Wars fanbase as a whole wasn't overly enamored with The Acolyte, so I don't think they all count as its passionate fanbase either.

Edited Wednesday at 04:16 PM by proserpina65

[sistermagpie]

1 hour ago, proserpina65 said:

It's not as important to Disney as not wasting money on what must be a very expensive show to produce if people are not watching it.  Again, passion does not necessarily equal numbers.  Either numbers of viewers or numbers of people buying merchandise from a show they're not watching.

Disney cares about subscribers and if The Acolyte didn't inspire enough people to become new subscribers, then it's not crazy for them to not renew it.

Edited to note that from what I've read in various places, the Star Wars fanbase as a whole wasn't overly enamored with The Acolyte, so I don't think they all count as its passionate fanbase either.

One other reasons a network might stick with something, I believe, is if it brings good attention to it--like a prestige show that has a small but passionate fanbase but gets Emmys or critical attention and makes their network associated with a type of quality.

None of which would apply here either, obviously.

[Ohiopirate02]

18 minutes ago, sistermagpie said:

One other reasons a network might stick with something, I believe, is if it brings good attention to it--like a prestige show that has a small but passionate fanbase but gets Emmys or critical attention and makes their network associated with a type of quality.

None of which would apply here either, obviously.

Even then, the shows the network chooses to save are not the most expensive ones to produce. Though the networks of yore would usually give a struggling show a second season at a reduced budget and not cancel one month after the final episode of the first season drops. Streamers are no longer giving shows a chance to find an audience or if the audience the show finds like Prime's My Lady Jane is not the coveted male 18-49 bracket then the show is immediately on the chopping block. I am assuming that is still the most important bracket of TV watchers in 2024 just like it was in 1984. I would love to be proven wrong here.

[DoctorAtomic]

I thought the whole point of streaming was that smaller, niche shows would have a change to breathe because they're raking it in from subscriptions. So you could still get a final shot at a second season. I mean, D+ ain't hurting for the cash. Come on. 

That's the whole reason I signed up for the streamers. If they're just going with the low tier, ad supported model, and the show isn't selling the ads, then it's no different than the networks. So why am I going to bother checking out a new show? I'm fine just watching movies. 

[Mabinogia]

3 hours ago, DoctorAtomic said:

That's the whole reason I signed up for the streamers. If they're just going with the low tier, ad supported model, and the show isn't selling the ads, then it's no different than the networks. So why am I going to bother checking out a new show? I'm fine just watching movies. 

As so often happens, streamers have become the very structure they were trying to break. I have neither cable nor any streaming services other than free Pluto TV and Amazon Prime because it comes with my Prime membership which I have mostly for the free next day delivery. I might get BritBox at some point because I do love British tele, but I really don't miss cable or the streamers in which I used my friends account but don't care enough about to pay for. 

Honestly, I prefer rewatching older shows now than I do bothering with about 95% of the new shows out there. I watch Ghosts and Taskmaster and that's about all I watch that is new. Pretty much anything else I've liked ended up cancelled so I have basically given up. 

[DoctorAtomic]

That's what's ironic. Cable was billed first as 'no ads!' Then there were ads. Then streaming. No ads! Now all the packages have ad tiers and it's full circle. HBO is selling off a lot of their content to ad supported platforms. 

[Anduin]

36 minutes ago, DoctorAtomic said:

That's what's ironic. Cable was billed first as 'no ads!' Then there were ads. Then streaming. No ads! Now all the packages have ad tiers and it's full circle. HBO is selling off a lot of their content to ad supported platforms. 

Revolutions are so named because they come full circle. Sadly, TV is no exception.

[andromeda331]

10 hours ago, DoctorAtomic said:

I thought the whole point of streaming was that smaller, niche shows would have a change to breathe because they're raking it in from subscriptions. So you could still get a final shot at a second season. I mean, D+ ain't hurting for the cash. Come on. 

That's the whole reason I signed up for the streamers. If they're just going with the low tier, ad supported model, and the show isn't selling the ads, then it's no different than the networks. So why am I going to bother checking out a new show? I'm fine just watching movies. 

So did I. When they first started out it was that way. A lot of shows that never would have made it on TV made it on the streaming channels and for a few seasons. It stinks. We were going to have our own niches. Unfortunately that's over. 

[Affogato]

7 hours ago, andromeda331 said:

So did I. When they first started out it was that way. A lot of shows that never would have made it on TV made it on the streaming channels and for a few seasons. It stinks. We were going to have our own niches. Unfortunately that's over. 

Well, what the short season niches allowed was not paying people. Strikes and so on later, a sign of resistance from the creators, and the executives need to adjust their priorities. Also niche’s compete and what wins are the cheaper and realer ones, reality shows and most true crime type of thing. Anyway, things are changing and when that happens you lose a lot of good shows in the shift. 

[ABay]

14 hours ago, Mabinogia said:

I watch Ghosts and Taskmaster and that's about all I watch that is new.

Taskmaster, Only Connect, Mastermind, University Challenge, sometimes new Pointless or Would I Lie to You or 8 Out of 10 Cats Does Countdown are why I pay for YT premium--notYT TV, but no ads.

[Lugal]

21 hours ago, DoctorAtomic said:

I thought the whole point of streaming was that smaller, niche shows would have a change to breathe because they're raking it in from subscriptions. So you could still get a final shot at a second season. I mean, D+ ain't hurting for the cash. Come on. 

That's the whole reason I signed up for the streamers. If they're just going with the low tier, ad supported model, and the show isn't selling the ads, then it's no different than the networks. So why am I going to bother checking out a new show? I'm fine just watching movies.

The streamers, like a lot of online businesses, started out by going for market share, so if something brought in more subscribers they would keep it, even if it was losing money.  Then they realized that they weren't actually making a profit on that business model, so the shift, and that's why we keep seeing prices going up and ads filtering in.

[proserpina65]

23 hours ago, DoctorAtomic said:

I thought the whole point of streaming was that smaller, niche shows would have a change to breathe because they're raking it in from subscriptions.

The whole point of streaming is to make money for the service.  If a niche show encourages enough people to subscribe, that's giving them what they want.  If not, they are more inclined to cancel it, especially if it costs a lot of money to produce.

In other words, the streaming business is a business.

Edited Thursday at 05:13 PM by proserpina65

[Spartan Girl]

I don’t give a crap about the Menendez brothers, and they don’t need another miniseries about them—especially by Ryan Murphy. I also roll my eyes at this newfound renaissance woobifying him. They were abused? Okay. They’re still murderers. I’ll save my sympathy for child abuse victims that don’t have the options and advantages they did.

[Blergh]

I apologize  in advance to any bona fide abuse survivors and/or victims and by no means am belittling or disbelieving their ordeals and I most certainly believe that each single claim needs to be carefully listened to and evaluated with a fine-toothed comb then acted upon by the authorities without flinching regardless of what others might feel about the accused or alleged victims. The following changes nothing about that.

I recall all too well how the Melendez brothers were caught on tape attempting to bribe a potential witness into perjuring herself and bragging that they had "snowed half the jury"so they hoped to snow the other half. IOW, IMO if they were capable of paying someone to perjury herself and to "snow" jury members then I don't put it past them to have slandered their late parents after having their original alibis of having gone to the movies got proven false. 

Please keep in mind ,there are  countless cases of genuine abuse victims who have been denied justice and have been abused all over again by corrupt officials. They are the ones whose stories need to be told so justice can belatedly prevail NOT the Melendez Brothers yet again.IMO rehashing those two's claims needlessly drags genuine victims further down.

 

 

[Mabinogia]

9 hours ago, Blergh said:

Please keep in mind ,there are  countless cases of genuine abuse victims who have been denied justice and have been abused all over again by corrupt officials. They are the ones whose stories need to be told so justice can belatedly prevail NOT the Melendez Brothers yet again.IMO rehashing those two's claims needlessly drags genuine victims further down.

THIS! And given all the other stuff about these murderers, I wouldn't be surprised if the "abuse" amounted to daddy not giving them the car they wanted. That is to say, they have lied and cheated and manipulated far too much for me to believe their allegations when the people they are accusing can't defend themselves because their accusers murdered them. 

Of course, see Ryan Murphy's name attached, the truth really doesn't matter. He's just a tabloid hack with a bigger budget. He uses real people to tell fictional stories. 

[tearknee]

I think Christie Downs--and others such as her--might *loathe* the way these brothers--and those such as the Columbine gunmen--get fucking groupies because it enables the minimization in popular memory of people such as her mother. 


My mom put me (and my brother, but he was always secondary to mom) in a talent and modelling agency when we lived in AZ. Her plan for my childhood and ultimate future was not mine. J McCurdy's book title remains ever-green for me.

[Palimelon]

Quote

Of course, see Ryan Murphy's name attached, the truth really doesn't matter. He's just a tabloid hack with a bigger budget. He uses real people to tell fictional stories. 

Ryan Murphy does seem to ignore the truth more than others when it comes to telling his stories.

[Wiendish Fitch]

I have learned to avoid anything with Ryan Murphy's name attached to it. Even the first installment of Feud left me cold.

[Palimelon]

I liked Feud, but was definitely there more for the acting and set pieces than the story.

American Horror Story has it's moments, but even as an anthology, Murphy and Co. can't sustain a one-and-done season and usually fumble it at the end.