Party of One: Unpopular TV Opinions

[ganesh]

Apparently, it is a UO to expect that viewers have a decent background about gods on a show about actual gods.

[Ambrosefolly]

On 5/30/2017 at 6:12 PM, slf said:

I agree with pretty much every criticism of Selfie but I still kind of enjoyed it and wished it'd gotten a second chance.

My favorite Friend was not one of the core six, it was Janice. I fucking loved Janice.

 

Selfie should have centered around John Cho. I would have loved a crossover with Henry Higgs and the other too soon canceled Don't Trust the B-- 's James Van Der Beek. 

I liked Janice too. Her worst crime was that she had an annoying voice and a few boundary issues. But she also seemed quite preceptive, strong willed and kind. 

[slf]

28 minutes ago, Ambrosefolly said:

Selfie should have centered around John Cho. I would have loved a crossover with Henry Higgs and the other too soon canceled Don't Trust the B-- 's James Van Der Beek. 

I think dividing time between Henry and Eliza was the right way to go but there were so many issues with Karen Gillan as Eliza- the hair/wig, her voice dear god her voice. I liked Gillan in theory but she just didn't click; Cho was great as Henry. Two other major problems were the jokes (which were often not funny) and the episode plots.

29 minutes ago, Ambrosefolly said:

I liked Janice too. Her worst crime was that she had an annoying voice and a few boundary issues. But she also seemed quite preceptive, strong willed and kind. 

Janice was hilarious, confident, and unapologetically her own biggest fan. She could be gullible, like with the Yemen thing, but I loved how she'd shut the guys down. When Chandler was trying to "accidentally" run into her at the grocery store after having scared her off? "One of two things is happening here. Either you're seeing somebody behind my back, which would make you the biggest jerk on the planet. Or, else you're pretending that you're seeing somebody, which just makes you so pathetic that I could start crying right here in the cereal aisle. So like which of these two guys do you want to be?" When she snaps on Ross for whining so much?

Her Fran Drescher laugh was meant to be annoying but it cracked me up every time I heard it, in no small part for the fear it inspired in the guys. Maggie Wheeler was pitch perfect.

[Blergh]

Put me in the Way Overdue, Better Late Than Never Category re Kathy Griffith's Firing from CNN. Is it too much to hope we'll actually get a watchable New Year's Eve Countdown on that network which we once had before they started inflicting her on us?

[Katy M]

On ‎5‎/‎30‎/‎2017 at 4:45 PM, GHScorpiosRule said:

Everyone I know thinks she's the Bees Knees, Cat's pajamas,

LOL, You don't get a lot of "bee's knees" and "cat's pajamas" nowadays.  I think I'm going to try to engineer a comeback.

10 hours ago, Ambrosefolly said:

I liked Janice too. Her worst crime was that she had an annoying voice and a few boundary issues. But she also seemed quite preceptive, strong willed and kind. 

I especially liked when she got to call Ross whiney.

[vibeology]

12 hours ago, slf said:

Janice was hilarious, confident, and unapologetically her own biggest fan. She could be gullible, like with the Yemen thing, but I loved how she'd shut the guys down. When Chandler was trying to "accidentally" run into her at the grocery store after having scared her off? "One of two things is happening here. Either you're seeing somebody behind my back, which would make you the biggest jerk on the planet. Or, else you're pretending that you're seeing somebody, which just makes you so pathetic that I could start crying right here in the cereal aisle. So like which of these two guys do you want to be?" When she snaps on Ross for whining so much?

Her Fran Drescher laugh was meant to be annoying but it cracked me up every time I heard it, in no small part for the fear it inspired in the guys. Maggie Wheeler was pitch perfect.

Preach! The laugh was loud and annoying but otherwise Janice was perfect and way too good for Chandler and the entire group of Friends. I like the six friends well enough, but Janice quickly passed them in maturity and sensitivity. I always loved Janice and was always bothered by the fact that everyone treated her like a problem or a bad person just because she had an annoying voice.

[Dee]

I loved that Janice knew Joey hated her and still made an effort to get along with him.

[Blergh]

I can't say I especially liked Janice. However; because the all the regulars had become UNLIKABLE by about halfway through the show's run, it was easy to consider her more likable than the others (at least until the show simply became entirely unwatchable the last few years).  However;  I wondered why she bothered to hang with any of them before I asked myself the same question and decided not to any more.

Edited June 2, 2017 by Blergh
name spell

[NutMeg]

On 5/31/2017 at 6:06 AM, nosleepforme said:

This might be controversial:

 

I have a hard time getting into American Gods. I really want to like the show, because the concept is interesting and because it's by Bryan Fuller who I have adored since Dead Like Me

You're doing better than me, I was all ready and excited for this, and I may not have lasted 15 min. Just because I cannot bear to see

Spoiler

anything done to eyes

, I physically can't. I tried averting my eyes from the screen a few times - no, still there. I gave it a little while longer, nope, still there. And I gave up because I just couldn't take it, even knowing it's CGI. 

[meep.meep]

It turns out that I wasn't waiting for Twin Peaks to come back.

[Wiendish Fitch]

44 minutes ago, meep.meep said:

It turns out that I wasn't waiting for Twin Peaks to come back.

Who was?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

Sorry, that was only frustrated rage at all these damn reboots. Please, someone make them go away!

[kiddo82]

I'm not against reboots on principle (they don't make me like the original any less) but they're more often than not the entertainment version of the monkey's paw.  If you want the original you'd better get a time machine because it's not coming back the same.   

[blueray]

I finally gave in and watched part of game of thrones pilot. Wow that was boring. My husband and I  ended up turning it off halfway through as it wasn't getting our attention. I assume it gets better, but I guess it just isn't my thing.

[bilgistic]

I didn't make it even that far.

[Katy M]

11 hours ago, blueray said:

I finally gave in and watched part of game of thrones pilot. Wow that was boring. My husband and I  ended up turning it off halfway through as it wasn't getting our attention. I assume it gets better, but I guess it just isn't my thing.

I haven't watched the show, but I've read the books, and I find it almost impossible to believe that the show was boring if it follows the books even a little.

[caci]

I was thinking I might like Game of Thrones, so I decided to read the first book.  I found it pretty boring, couldn't get through it, so never bothered with the series.

[Joe]

1 hour ago, caci said:

I was thinking I might like Game of Thrones, so I decided to read the first book.  I found it pretty boring, couldn't get through it, so never bothered with the series.

Out of curiosity, how far did you get? Some people are hooked straight away. Some at "The things I do for love." For me it was the Eyrie. I won't insist you give it another shot, though. :)

[Shannon L.]

I wouldn't have continued watching GOT except that my husband liked it from the first episode and there are so few things that we watch together that I was willing to watch it for some "us" time.  I thought that technically it was great:  sets, costumes, lighting, acting, etc......and I have since become invested in a couple of characters, but I don't miss it and am not anxiously counting down the days before the premiere of the next season.  Of course, since I've seen all of them, I do want to see how it ends and I do have characters I'm pulling for, but we'll get to it when we get to it.  No rush. 

[DittyDotDot]

8 minutes ago, Shannon L. said:

I wouldn't have continued watching GOT except that my husband liked it from the first episode and there are so few things that we watch together that I was willing to watch it for some "us" time.  I thought that technically it was great:  sets, costumes, lighting, acting, etc......and I have since become invested in a couple of characters, but I don't miss it and am not anxiously counting down the days before the premiere of the next season.  Of course, since I've seen all of them, I do want to see how it ends and I do have characters I'm pulling for, but we'll get to it when we get to it.  No rush. 

This is pretty much how I feel about Game of Thrones--although I don't have a husband. The first season I thought was pretty damn good and the technical aspects were even better, but the subsequent seasons have just been okay. At this point, I keep watching just to see how it ends for a couple characters.

[caci]

25 minutes ago, Joe said:

Out of curiosity, how far did you get? Some people are hooked straight away. Some at "The things I do for love." For me it was the Eyrie. I won't insist you give it another shot, though. :)

I got pretty far into it but found that, more and more, I would put the book down and forget about it.  I can't say I disliked it, but I just lost interest.  Honestly, I don't think it ever gripped me like I expected.  After awhile, I read the last few pages and then gave it away.

[NutMeg]

4 hours ago, caci said:

I was thinking I might like Game of Thrones, so I decided to read the first book.  I found it pretty boring, couldn't get through it, so never bothered with the series.

 

2 hours ago, caci said:

I got pretty far into it but found that, more and more, I would put the book down and forget about it.  I can't say I disliked it, but I just lost interest.  Honestly, I don't think it ever gripped me like I expected.  After awhile, I read the last few pages and then gave it away.

Seems very much like my lack of interest with The Lords of the Rings, way back then, a guy I liked lent me the whole series, and I was really keen on getting into a thousand pages, because that was my thing by then, but I never managed the least interest, and I think I ploughed through quite far, because I kept hoping something would grip me. Nope, never happened :(  

[janie jones]

2 hours ago, Shannon L. said:

I wouldn't have continued watching GOT except that my husband liked it from the first episode and there are so few things that we watch together that I was willing to watch it for some "us" time.  I thought that technically it was great:  sets, costumes, lighting, acting, etc......and I have since become invested in a couple of characters, but I don't miss it and am not anxiously counting down the days before the premiere of the next season.  Of course, since I've seen all of them, I do want to see how it ends and I do have characters I'm pulling for, but we'll get to it when we get to it.  No rush. 

People have commented about the sets, but the sets are the thing I find most bothersome about it.  The first time I saw an episode, I was struck by how cheesy they looked.  I thought it looked like some bad syndicated series from the '90s that I would catch on Saturday afternoons when flipping through the channels.

[Shannon L.]

2 hours ago, janie jones said:

People have commented about the sets, but the sets are the thing I find most bothersome about it.  The first time I saw an episode, I was struck by how cheesy they looked.  I thought it looked like some bad syndicated series from the '90s that I would catch on Saturday afternoons when flipping through the channels.

I wonder if you are reacting to lighting and camera angles or some sort of post production special effect because a lot of the scenes are filmed on location and not sets. 

[Chaos Theory]

I liked the first season of Game of Thrones.   Then I lost access to HBO and decided that I just wasn't interested in watching after that.   Game of Thrones is one of those shows I should like.  Maybe when I was younger I would have.   Now it just seems so overtly dreary.   Plus shows that kill off too many  characters have the same effect on me as shows that refuse to kill of characters at all.    The occasion "shocking death" is a necessary part of an action/fantasy/war shows but Game of Thrones is just.......too much.  Too much of everything.   And not in a good way.

Edited June 11, 2017 by Chaos Theory

[kiddo82]

23 minutes ago, Chaos Theory said:

Plus shows that kill off too many  characters have the same effect on me as shows that refuse to kill of characters at all.    The occasion "shocking death" is a necessary part of an action/fantasy/war shows but Game of Thrones is just.......too much.  Too much of everything.   And not in a good way.

I'm in so much agreement with this you have no idea.  It's the main reason I gave up on 24 as that stunt has such diminishing returns. When you're always on your toes for the shocking twist or death it doesn't catch you by surprise.  You might now know what's coming but you know something's coming.  The best twists truly blindside you.  If a show runner goes to that well too many times it desensitizes the audience.  

Edited June 11, 2017 by kiddo82

[Lugal]

I've been annoyed with the "Anyone can die" trend that's been going on for about a decade now.  Character deaths have to be earned.  The character arc either has to be finished or unfinished in a way that gives weight to the death.  I've seen shows where they kill off characters for shock value, and it ends up leaving a hole on the show.  Lost was one of the worst.  Given the dynamics it was pretty easy to guess which character they were going to kill at any given time.  I remember the producers once said, don't get attached to anyone.  Which made me wonder, then why am I watching?

[kiddo82]

11 minutes ago, Lugal said:

I remember the producers once said, don't get attached to anyone.  Which made me wonder, then why am I watching?

Exactly.

[andromeda331]

13 minutes ago, Lugal said:

I've been annoyed with the "Anyone can die" trend that's been going on for about a decade now.  Character deaths have to be earned.  The character arc either has to be finished or unfinished in a way that gives weight to the death.  I've seen shows where they kill off characters for shock value, and it ends up leaving a hole on the show.  Lost was one of the worst.  Given the dynamics it was pretty easy to guess which character they were going to kill at any given time.  I remember the producers once said, don't get attached to anyone.  Which made me wonder, then why am I watching?

This yes! Anyone can die doesn't make me want to watch the show. It makes me want to stop watching or never start in the first place. I love when they build to a good character death and I love watching the fallout.

[kathyk24]

I think it's ok to see heroes have happy endings. I loved the X-Files and I wanted Mulder to find his sister I was so mad to find our after putting Mulder and Scully through hell that Samantha had been dead all along. I thought that the last episode of the A-Team should have featured them being proved innocent.

[Katy M]

3 hours ago, nosleepforme said:

character deaths have to be built up to

I don't necessarily agree with that.  Dying suddenly is just life a lot of times.

 

4 hours ago, kathyk24 said:

I think it's ok to see heroes have happy endings.

Not only do I think it's OK.  I prefer it.

[Chaos Theory]

Character deaths are a weird thing with me. I think it less about building them up and more about why they die.    If the death is meaningless and for shock value then I get annoyed.  If a less interesting character kills a more interesting character as a way to get interesting or gain character growth  then I get annoyed.    That being said some death hold a lot of meaning even if they come out of nowhere.  Sometimes they kinda don't.  Like everything else killing off characters is complicated and of it remains complicated then I don't mind as much but not too complicated..  If it gets too easy then I have the same problem.

[vibeology]

14 hours ago, Lugal said:

I've been annoyed with the "Anyone can die" trend that's been going on for about a decade now.  Character deaths have to be earned.  The character arc either has to be finished or unfinished in a way that gives weight to the death.  I've seen shows where they kill off characters for shock value, and it ends up leaving a hole on the show.  Lost was one of the worst.  Given the dynamics it was pretty easy to guess which character they were going to kill at any given time.  I remember the producers once said, don't get attached to anyone.  Which made me wonder, then why am I watching?

This and it's why I quit The Walking Dead. Anyone can die is a good attitude for writers to have when breaking storylines at the start of the season. Sometimes a character's death makes sense or will spur new drama or will signal that the stakes have been raised. It makes sense to kill characters sometimes, but you can't just kill someone every other week and expect that those shocking moments can take the place of compelling story. TWD's habit of killing one black man just to replace him with a similar black man the next week made it very clear to me that they don't care about the build up of the follow through of a death. (You can have either or both but you shouldn't have neither.) When they super botched Glenn's fake death I raged because it was clear they wanted to have a big twitter moment more than they wanted to tell a story that made sense. I didn't even bother watching anything this season because the show had just worn me down. Also, it's clear the "anyone can die" really means anyone but these fan favourites and that bugs me.

3 hours ago, Katy M said:

I don't necessarily agree with that.  Dying suddenly is just life a lot of times.

I get that's real life and sometimes shows do it well, but often the sudden death with no build up is followed with no follow through either and then you're left with a death just to shock the audience. Scandal had a few of those this past season and the show was worse for it. It should matter when a character dies or why bother killing them? I think the few times shows have done sudden deaths well is sadly when they had to because an actor died. It's real for them, for the writers, directors and cast so they can't just kill the character and move on. They include the mourning because they are mourning in real life.

[Shannon L.]

3 hours ago, vibeology said:

This and it's why I quit The Walking Dead. Anyone can die is a good attitude for writers to have when breaking storylines at the start of the season. Sometimes a character's death makes sense or will spur new drama or will signal that the stakes have been raised. It makes sense to kill characters sometimes, but you can't just kill someone every other week and expect that those shocking moments can take the place of compelling story.

It also makes it really hard to care about a show when you're worried about investing in a character when he or she could end up dead at any time.  Like you said, sometimes it needs to happen and it sucks if it's a character you really like, but when you get to a point where you say to yourself "Why do I even bother to watch this?" it's probably been taken a bit too far. 

Having said that, I didn't mind it so much in 24, but it's been so long since I've seen it that I can really explain why (except to say that in comparison to shows like GOT, I don't remember it being anywhere near that bad).

[HunterHunted]

On 6/11/2017 at 9:06 AM, Shannon L. said:

I wouldn't have continued watching GOT except that my husband liked it from the first episode and there are so few things that we watch together that I was willing to watch it for some "us" time.  I thought that technically it was great:  sets, costumes, lighting, acting, etc......and I have since become invested in a couple of characters, but I don't miss it and am not anxiously counting down the days before the premiere of the next season.  Of course, since I've seen all of them, I do want to see how it ends and I do have characters I'm pulling for, but we'll get to it when we get to it.  No rush. 

I like the show well enough, but I kept getting angry about the show winning the Emmy for best drama because more often not it's not the best drama on TV or even the best version of Game of Thrones. I wish I could remember which Hollywood producer explained why GoT keeps winning. Basically it wins because it's the most challenging show to produce on TV. It's got an enormous cast that is simultaneously filming in different countries and sometimes different continents. Having to adjust scripts, watch dailies coming from all over the world, and making adjustments on the fly means that it's a near miracle that it's as good as it is. So I have a better appreciation for the work that goes into making it even if I find it to good and not excellent.

[Chaos Theory]

Honestly there is a line with me for me the only two shows that have broken it are Game of Thrones and Walking Dead.     At least the shows that I have watched.  There may be others that I haven't.  HBO is a weird animal.  

[Kel Varnsen]

2 hours ago, HunterHunted said:

I like the show well enough, but I kept getting angry about the show winning the Emmy for best drama because more often not it's not the best drama on TV or even the best version of Game of Thrones. I wish I could remember which Hollywood producer explained why GoT keeps winning. Basically it wins because it's the most challenging show to produce on TV. It's got an enormous cast that is simultaneously filming in different countries and sometimes different continents. Having to adjust scripts, watch dailies coming from all over the world, and making adjustments on the fly means that it's a near miracle that it's as good as it is. So I have a better appreciation for the work that goes into making it even if I find it to good and not excellent.

So basically it's winning for the same reason that The Amazing Race one all those years in a row. Not that The Race isn't a good show but it is more about the spectacle of it all and the fact that they pull it off that is being rewarded.

[HunterHunted]

51 minutes ago, Kel Varnsen said:

So basically it's winning for the same reason that The Amazing Race one all those years in a row. Not that The Race isn't a good show but it is more about the spectacle of it all and the fact that they pull it off that is being rewarded.

Precisely. So maybe RuPaul's Drag Race or The Voice or Master Chef might have more interesting or compelling seasons, but the logistical nightmare that is The Amazing Race is always going to win because it should be a catastrophe, but it isn't.

[auntlada]

8 hours ago, vibeology said:

This and it's why I quit The Walking Dead. Anyone can die is a good attitude for writers to have when breaking storylines at the start of the season. Sometimes a character's death makes sense or will spur new drama or will signal that the stakes have been raised. It makes sense to kill characters sometimes, but you can't just kill someone every other week and expect that those shocking moments can take the place of compelling story. TWD's habit of killing one black man just to replace him with a similar black man the next week made it very clear to me that they don't care about the build up of the follow through of a death. (You can have either or both but you shouldn't have neither.) When they super botched Glenn's fake death I raged because it was clear they wanted to have a big twitter moment more than they wanted to tell a story that made sense. I didn't even bother watching anything this season because the show had just worn me down. Also, it's clear the "anyone can die" really means anyone but these fan favourites and that bugs me.

I get that's real life and sometimes shows do it well, but often the sudden death with no build up is followed with no follow through either and then you're left with a death just to shock the audience. Scandal had a few of those this past season and the show was worse for it. It should matter when a character dies or why bother killing them? I think the few times shows have done sudden deaths well is sadly when they had to because an actor died. It's real for them, for the writers, directors and cast so they can't just kill the character and move on. They include the mourning because they are mourning in real life.

I was never a big West Wing watcher, but my favorite episodes are the ones after John Spencer died.

[proserpina65]

On ‎06‎/‎12‎/‎2017 at 4:12 PM, HunterHunted said:

I like the show well enough, but I kept getting angry about the show winning the Emmy for best drama because more often not it's not the best drama on TV or even the best version of Game of Thrones. I wish I could remember which Hollywood producer explained why GoT keeps winning. Basically it wins because it's the most challenging show to produce on TV. It's got an enormous cast that is simultaneously filming in different countries and sometimes different continents. Having to adjust scripts, watch dailies coming from all over the world, and making adjustments on the fly means that it's a near miracle that it's as good as it is. So I have a better appreciation for the work that goes into making it even if I find it to good and not excellent.

It's only won Outstanding Drama Series twice, but as one of those wins was for Season 5 (the worst GOT season), I don't entirely disagree with you.  Now, had it won for Seasons 3 & 4, it would be dueling pistols at dawn.

[ByTor]

On 6/12/2017 at 11:57 AM, vibeology said:

Also, it's clear the "anyone can die" really means anyone but these fan favourites and that bugs me.

Like Daryl...no way no how is he going anywhere ever.

[Chaos Theory]

My major issue with Game Of Thrones is that it is in the Drama category which is my category and I think there are far far far better drama's out there and when two actresses get nominated for best supporting actress and neither Holly Taylor or Alison Wright who had stand out performances season 4 on The Americans got nominated I felt peeved on their behalf.     

[Haleth]

I think many Emmy voters confuse spectacle with quality.  Or maybe they just want to join the bandwagon.  I like GoT well enough, but it isn't anywhere close to being the best show on tv.

[vibeology]

There are absolutely ways that GoT is the best show on TV. I don't think it's the best written or the best acted, though both have their moments. I do think the "spectacle" counts. The direction episode to episode is movie quality. The effects are wonderful. The costumes, hair and makeup are all cinema level achievements. You look at the battle scenes and the way they are edited and they always do a great job tracking the story and maintaining suspense. The music is basically a character itself at times. Even something as simple as location scouting on this show is amazing; I know where they film these scenes but I never see a shot of Croatia and think I'm anywhere other than Westeros. They took a mythical world and made it real. And yes, the multiple shooting locations across several countries makes doing the show hard and means the EPs are really pushing to maintain that quality over the course of each season. And the people who vote for Best Drama aren't just actors. They are the people who work behind the scenes and understand just how hard it was to film the Battle of the Bastards, for example. They appreciate the visual and audio details because they do that work in their own lives.

I do get annoyed at the acting nominations because for the most part the actors are the weakest part of the show, but in terms of winning overall, I get it. A show is more than it's actors. All of that other work, the work of building an entire world, is impressive enough that I can't ever get mad to see it win. That win isn't about Emilia Clarke, its about a dedicated crew who basically work non-stop to put together a show that is visually sumptuous.

[Katy M]

1 hour ago, Haleth said:

I think many Emmy voters confuse spectacle with quality.  Or maybe they just want to join the bandwagon.  I like GoT well enough, but it isn't anywhere close to being the best show on tv.

I couldn't care less about any of the different awards shows, or the actual awards.   You rarely if ever see nominations for movies or TV shows that aren't popular.  If there's a movie that's badly written, badly directed, and badly acted, and everybody hates it (why wouldn't they?), but they have the most amazing make up, or special effects, they ought to be considered for that.  Or, if it's badly writtern, but it's beautifully directed, then that should be taken into account. Or it's a horrid story, but one of the actors just acts the heck out of it.  You get my point.  I feel like it's a popularity contest, and I feel like the individual categories aren't taken individually. Now, that said, I can see how a superior script would be more apt to bring out superior acting and directing and so forth.

[Blergh]

Totally agree, Katy!  I can't help but think that "Breaking Bad" and "Veep" ,etc. got a good part if not all their Emmy noms due to how hyped they were. My dislike and disinterest re both these shows has not been in the least guilted or moved by said noms.

[Chaos Theory]

I will disagree about Breaking Bad for several reasons.  The acting, writing, and directing were all superb.  You go to the invividial site of the show and it is still active even now.  People discussing characters motivations and when and  how someone did or didn't cross a line.   There are very few shows where you can hold long conversations with people years after a show ends and still gain insight about the show.

That being said I do understand that it was never going to be to everyone's taste.  For one not everyone likes an anti hero narrative.  Add to that it is violent and deals heavily in the drug trade.   So in my opinion there wasn't a major character that didn't deserve to win an award....at least once.  

Edited June 15, 2017 by Chaos Theory
Clarity....and probably grammar.

[scarynikki12]

If it helps, the actual recipients of the awards for Best Drama, Comedy, TV movie, etc., are the producers.  The award is really Best Producers but that doesn't sound as important.  So, with that in mind, a show like Game Of Thrones winning makes sense for the reasons mentioned above about the value of all the behind the scenes factors and the producers are in charge of all of that.

[Lugal]

On 6/12/2017 at 1:39 AM, nosleepforme said:

I think it depends on the show. Lost was a drama about survival at heart, so it makes sense that anyone could die at any point. However, I do feel like many shows use character deaths just as a cheap opportunity to rise the stakes without having earned it. There needs to be storytelling value to the death, character deaths have to be built up to and they have to be dealt with afterwards as well. It always drives me crazy when characters die and they're forgotten within three episodes.

I like Vikings, a show set in a violent era and I think only four of the characters the show started with are still standing.  I think they handled the deaths well.Ragnar had visions of his daughter for some time after she died and Ragnar's death set the whole last few episodes in motion.

Lost failed because they never really seemed to make it count.  They teased up the death of a character in the first season, which many guessed would be Boone, and it was and it gave a great chance to develop his sister Sharon, which they started to do until she was killed a few episodes later, and then both were promptly forgotten.

The way it was handled on Lost brings up another problem I have is when writers try to prove they're smarter than the audience (where they admitted they would change things if the audience guessed right).  In the age of the internet, that isn't possible, since the audience is collective, and they'll always be someone out there who knows something the writers don't.

[janie jones]

40 minutes ago, scarynikki12 said:

If it helps, the actual recipients of the awards for Best Drama, Comedy, TV movie, etc., are the producers.  The award is really Best Producers but that doesn't sound as important.  So, with that in mind, a show like Game Of Thrones winning makes sense for the reasons mentioned above about the value of all the behind the scenes factors and the producers are in charge of all of that.

The problem is that Best Production and Best Drama are very different things.  So if a show wins the Best Drama award because it is the best-produced drama, then there's really a disconnect with others' expectations that the actual best drama will win.  It almost seems like these should be two different categories (despite any technical awards shows might get).

[ennui]

I watched The F  Word last night. I don't like this kinder, gentler Gordon Ramsay, so helpful. Instead of "this chicken is undercooked," I want to hear "YOU COULD HAVE KILLED SOMEONE!"