Party of One: Unpopular TV Opinions

[Ohwell]

Laugh tracks don't bother me as long as they aren't LOUD, as some of them are.

[Blergh]

Agree that laugh tracks that aren't too loud are okay- same with background music. Alas, few shows nowadays DON'T have overwhelmingly LOUD laugh tracks/background music that make it next to impossible to hear the joke/dialogue. Also, I hate it when they have guest stars on shows that every single performer is expected to worship and hilariously chortle at every single utterance even though if anyone else said the dialogue, the characters would normally just shake their head or groan. Actually, sometimes a 'feeble chuckle' can be wrought from an otherwise lame line re a costar's dissing reaction that wouldn't happen if were  a costar to guffaw.

[roamyn]

I'm re-watching Cheers, and I must say that having a live studio audience really makes a difference.  It feels more organic.  I think TBBT has a live studio audience, as well.

[ganesh]

14 hours ago, kathyk24 said:

I watched the British version of Life on Mars and while I enjoyed each episode I had no idea how they all fit together.

Sam was literally in all the scenes, so the point was whether it was in his head or actually real. That's why it was important when he "woke up" that he didn't realize he cut himself. 

[Jac]

On 30/09/2017 at 10:24 PM, aquarian1 said:

Laugh tracks don't bother me.

Me either. The only one I have ever found jarring is the one that was tacked on to the first half a dozen or so episodes of Sports Night at ABCs behest. 

[WritinMan]

On 8/20/2017 at 9:04 AM, Miss Dee said:

Well..."let them eat cake" is maybe not the best message for a white woman to go with with millions of people of colour still hurting not only after the events of Charlottesville but more of that shit on the horizon. I see where she's coming from, and she *was* funny, but...yeah. Not the right time, and not her place.

Well...that wasn't the message so.....

[Chaos Theory]

I don't think an animal should ever be on a show unless the show is explicitly about that animal.  You put a dog on a show for five minutes and don't show it every episode safe and sound ten episodes later people are still wondering where that dog is or what a person did with that dog while they are out saving the king of France because the dog is what is important.  Screw the King of France.

[Blergh]

3 hours ago, Chaos Theory said:

I don't think an animal should ever be on a show unless the show is explicitly about that animal.  You put a dog on a show for five minutes and don't show it every episode safe and sound ten episodes later people are still wondering where that dog is or what a person did with that dog while they are out saving the king of France because the dog is what is important.  Screw the King of France.

 I agree with you about that and also re babies and children but, sadly many shows seem fine without bothering to mention where a tiny child may be (or who may be caring for them)- despite them being shown born on the show maybe the immediate episode before.

[Chaos Theory]

40 minutes ago, Blergh said:

 I agree with you about that and also re babies and children but, sadly many shows seem fine without bothering to mention where a tiny child may be (or who may be caring for them)- despite them being shown born on the show maybe the immediate episode before.

With babies there are technical reasons for having them.  On The Blacklist Meagan Boone was pregnant so the show wrote in a pregnancy for her character.  Of course the writers could write in a line or two about her leaving her kid with a babysitter but that only works some of the time because the show is often having her run off for days with Red.   The writers can only waste so much dialog on child rearing when storyline is happening elsewhere.

[orza]

33 minutes ago, Chaos Theory said:

The writers can only waste so much dialog on child rearing when storyline is happening elsewhere.

Agreed. people with crazy job schedules, including overnight travel, manage to find child care that meets their needs or they can't work. Dogs may die or are re-homed. Unless the child or pet is a main character and integral to the current story they can happily live their lives off-screen without a mention every episode.

That also applies to departed characters. Once an actor has exited the show it makes little sense to keep mentioning the character. Let they fade away and move on.

[SmithW6079]

My UO is that if an actress is pregnant in real life, a show shouldn't write her pregnancy in, especially if the show does not generally feature domestic settings, and it doesn't suit the type of show it is. I kind of miss the old days of soap operas when different actors would play the same character (an actor's contractor was up, they got fired, had to take a short leave, whatever), and no one would bat an eye. There was always the announcement, "The role of WHOMEVER is now being played by OTHER ACTOR."

Think of how easy it would make an actress's pregnancy or an actor's stint in rehab -- just bring in someone to temporarily play the character. Then there was always the fun of discussing whether Frank #2 was better than Frank #5 or Ava #1 did a better job than Ava #2. I think in a lot of ways, it stopped outlandish plots and ridiculous ways to write someone off.

[Popples]

I think it was Days of Our Lives or As the World Turns where like three actresses were pregnant at the same time. Since the writers couldn't logistically work in all three pregnancies into storylines, they sent the characters to either rehab or some sort of facility where the women were swanning about in bathrobes and holding stacks of towels in front of their abdomens until they came back from maternity leave.

[Bastet]

I think if making a character pregnant wasn't in consideration before the actor playing her got pregnant, it shouldn't suddenly become a storyline just because of that pregnancy.  Baggy clothes, big purses, standing behind things, carrying things, etc. -- yes, the audience can tell the actor is pregnant, but can grasp the concept that the character is not.  Julia Louis-Dreyfus was pregnant twice during Seinfeld, and the audience completely rolled with the fact that Elaine was not.

This "Well, we had to write the pregnancy into the show" thing that crops up as a defense when the pregnancy/baby is a bad storyline is hogwash; no, you chose to.  And if it makes no sense for the character, or drags the show down, that's on you, not the woman playing the character.

[ganesh]

In that vein, I also can't stand the "oh she's so obviously showing and it's taking me out of the scene". If you didn't know the actor was pregnant, it wouldn't have even crossed your mind. This is where you can't suspend your disbelief?

In that vein, I also can't stand the "oh she's so obviously showing and it's taking me out of the scene". If you didn't know the actor was pregnant, it wouldn't have even crossed your mind. This is where you can't suspend your disbelief?

[Chas411]

Greys Anatomy I think is one show that works around pregnancies really well without having to make the character pregnant. Most of the actresses i didn't even know they were pregnant until I heard after they'd given birth.

[Moose135]

2 hours ago, SmithW6079 said:

I kind of miss the old days of soap operas when different actors would play the same character (an actor's contractor was up, they got fired, had to take a short leave, whatever), and no one would bat an eye.

Or the time Samantha wiggled her nose, and they ended up with an entirely new Darren...

[funandfitpt]

I don't know if this is an UO, but I cannot stand Sarah Paulson. Makes it hard for me to watch American Horror Story.

[GaT]

4 hours ago, SmithW6079 said:

I kind of miss the old days of soap operas when different actors would play the same character (an actor's contractor was up, they got fired, had to take a short leave, whatever), and no one would bat an eye. There was always the announcement, "The role of WHOMEVER is now being played by OTHER ACTOR."

All that makes me think of is 60 years old Joan Crawford substituting for her 24 years old daughter Christina on The Secret Storm

[MaryPatShelby]

On 10/5/2017 at 8:13 AM, Chaos Theory said:

I don't think an animal should ever be on a show unless the show is explicitly about that animal.  You put a dog on a show for five minutes and don't show it every episode safe and sound ten episodes later people are still wondering where that dog is or what a person did with that dog while they are out saving the king of France because the dog is what is important.  Screw the King of France.

My unpopular opinion, or maybe unpopular viewpoint is better wording, but I never spend one second wondering where a previously-shown pet is when I watch a TV show. 

[Chaos Theory]

2 hours ago, MaryPatShelby said:

My unpopular opinion, or maybe unpopular viewpoint is better wording, but I never spend one second wondering where a previously-shown pet is when I watch a TV show. 

That is kinda my point.  On more then one show a character may have a pet one season or even feed a stray dog and seasons later people are still making comments about the dog being neglected.  I'm like "wait there was a dog?"    On a new military show "The Brave" a character is shown feeding what I think is a stray dog and several people are more concerned about what the military character did with the stray dog in his absence then the CIA agent he was sent to rescue.  I'm am like "Yeah spend valuable time taking care of a dog that may not even be technically your responsibility and risk the life of a CIA agent that may hold valuable information."    Only mild spoilers so not putting it in spoiler tags.  Put them in if I offend spoiler phobic people.  

Edited October 7, 2017 by Chaos Theory

[Jaded]

This probably isn't unpopular. On the off chance it might be I'll put it here since it has to do with TV pets.

I hated how on 2 Broke Girls they kept that damn horse in the backyard of that apartment they lived in.

[Wiendish Fitch]

The only time in recent memory I gave a  crap about a pet on a TV show was on Brooklyn Nine Nine when the chief's dog Cheddar got loose, because Cheddar is a Welsh Pembroke Corgi, and I friggin' love Corgis. :)

[Enigma X]

3 hours ago, MaryPatShelby said:

My unpopular opinion, or maybe unpopular viewpoint is better wording, but I never spend one second wondering where a previously-shown pet is when I watch a TV show. 

Me either unless they were intrical to the plot, and I love animals. So, that is not it.

[kiddo82]

6 hours ago, MaryPatShelby said:

My unpopular opinion, or maybe unpopular viewpoint is better wording, but I never spend one second wondering where a previously-shown pet is when I watch a TV show. 

Oh there are most definitely people who do, however.

Regardings pregnancies/babies.  I'm fine either way.  If a show wants to write it in then great.  Tell me a good story.  If they don't that's fine too.  I remember on Will and Grace 1.0 that they didn't write in Debra Messing's real life pregnancy and after a while it was almost as if they stopped trying to even hide it and you either rolled with it or you didn't.  I can suspend my disbelief to separate pregnant actres from not pregnant character.  And if they do write it in (or just do a baby storyline on their own) I am more than cool with the baby being at grandma's for the better part of three episodes.  Sure, I still like to poke fun at the fact that Rachel Green was a pretty neglectful mother but the show wasn't about the baby.  I don't need to see the baby every two minutes.  It doesn't take me out of anything that the baby's not there any more than the fact that those people never went to work and lived in apartments they could never afford.

Edited October 7, 2017 by kiddo82

[Chas411]

3 hours ago, kiddo82 said:

h there are most definitely people who do, however.

100%. At the Greys board half the discussion goes on where Merediths kids are despite them having no relevance to the plot. 

[Chaos Theory]

3 hours ago, kiddo82 said:

Oh there are most definitely people who do, however.

Regardings pregnancies/babies.  I'm fine either way.  If a show wants to write it in then great.  Tell me a good story.  If they don't that's fine too.  I remember on Will and Grace 1.0 that they didn't write in Debra Messing's real life pregnancy and after a while it was almost as if they stopped trying to even hide it and you either rolled with it or you didn't.  I can suspend my disbelief to separate pregnant actres from not pregnant character.  And if they do write it in (or just do a baby storyline on their own) I am more than cool with the baby being at grandma's for the better part of three episodes.  Sure, I still like to poke fun at the fact that Rachel Green was a pretty neglectful mother but the show wasn't about the baby.  I don't need to see the baby every two minutes.  It doesn't take me out of anything that the baby's not there any more than the fact that those people never went to work and lived in apartments they could never afford.

One of the running jokes on The Blacklist thread is who is taking care of Liz's kid....and her dog?     A dog that i don't think has been seen since the first season. 

[ChromaKelly]

I would be fine with characters being written out in a more natural fashion, like moving or taking a new job. The death rate on TV or people in the 20-40 year old range is pretty high. Not every actor leaving needs a big death scene.

[Blergh]

14 minutes ago, ChromaKelly said:

I would be fine with characters being written out in a more natural fashion, like moving or taking a new job. The death rate on TV or people in the 20-40 year old range is pretty high. Not every actor leaving needs a big death scene.

 Thanks! Yeah, why is it that when a performer leaves a show, either they concoct a blow out death scene for the character or suddenly the character is a 'non-person' who vanishes into thin air with no other character ever mentioning them or even recalling anything about them for the rest of the show's run? Why can't more characters just move away or find another job with at least  being mentioned by other characters from time to time?

[orza]

59 minutes ago, ChromaKelly said:

I would be fine with characters being written out in a more natural fashion, like moving or taking a new job. The death rate on TV or people in the 20-40 year old range is pretty high. Not every actor leaving needs a big death scene.

If the character is left alive but off screen there will always be fans and media reporters who will not let it go and constantly ask the show runners and actor at every opportunity when the character will return to the show. I can understand how people who have moved on don't want to deal with that crap on social media or when giving interviews to talk about their current projects. I can think of several cases where any discussion or articles about the show continue to bring up a departed character years afters the actor's exit from the show. That's boring and annoying for everyone who is interested in the current show not a rehash of ancient history. It there are no plans to bring the character back, make it permanent so everyone can move on.

It some cases the character is killed off to ensure that the actor cannot return because the network just wants him or her gone due to BTS drama, or the actor was fired for cause (cf Charlie Sheen). I'm ok with that. Anyone who made life miserable for everyone else on set shouldn't get a second chance to act out whatever issues they have at the expense of their coworkers.

[roamyn]

2 hours ago, orza said:

If the character is left alive but off screen there will always be fans and media reporters who will not let it go and constantly ask the show runners and actor at every opportunity when the character will return to the show. I can understand how people who have moved on don't want to deal with that crap on social media or when giving interviews to talk about their current projects. I can think of several cases where any discussion or articles about the show continue to bring up a departed character years afters the actor's exit from the show. That's boring and annoying for everyone who is interested in the current show not a rehash of ancient history. It there are no plans to bring the character back, make it permanent so everyone can move on.

Oh God, the 'Hotch people'on Criminal Minds are the worst!  They just will.not.let.it.go!

Edited October 8, 2017 by roamyn

[Chaos Theory]

5 hours ago, roamyn said:

Oh God, the 'Hotch people'on Criminal Minds are the worst!  They just will.not.let.it.go!

That was what I was thinking.  Then again I am kinda one of "The Hotch People".  Since Thomas Gibson so very got fired for cause but honestly I am not a fan of MGG and have stayed as long as I did because I have been a fan of AJ Cooke since Higher Ground  but honestly since Gibson left (which again he so very deserved) the show has lost its spark.  

Spoiler

 At least this season they did bring a fitting end to the Hotch story which was basically yeah he ain't coming back.  

Edited October 8, 2017 by Chaos Theory

[Dee]

7 hours ago, orza said:

If the character is left alive but off screen there will always be fans and media reporters who will not let it go and constantly ask the show runners and actor at every opportunity when the character will return to the show. I can understand how people who have moved on don't want to deal with that crap on social media or when giving interviews to talk about their current projects. I can think of several cases where any discussion or articles about the show continue to bring up a departed character years afters the actor's exit from the show. That's boring and annoying for everyone who is interested in the current show not a rehash of ancient history.

Also known as Mickey Milkovich Syndrome.

[proserpina65]

On ‎10‎/‎08‎/‎2017 at 11:47 AM, Blergh said:

 Thanks! Yeah, why is it that when a performer leaves a show, either they concoct a blow out death scene for the character or suddenly the character is a 'non-person' who vanishes into thin air with no other character ever mentioning them or even recalling anything about them for the rest of the show's run? Why can't more characters just move away or find another job with at least  being mentioned by other characters from time to time?

You mean all those characters living in an attic somewhere with Chuck Cunningham?

[ShadowHunter]

On ‎10‎/‎5‎/‎2017 at 5:09 PM, funandfitpt said:

I don't know if this is an UO, but I cannot stand Sarah Paulson. Makes it hard for me to watch American Horror Story.

We can be best friends!

[Katy M]

I never think about where unseen pets or children are on TV shows either.  as much thought as I give to it, I figure they are either in another room, at a friend's house, or a babysitter's.  The only time it ever bugged me was there was a Christmas episode of Everybody Loves Raymond and they were opening presents and not  a kid in sight.  That didn't make sense to me. 

19 hours ago, proserpina65 said:

You mean all those characters living in an attic somewhere with Chuck Cunningham?

Chuck Cunningham was obviously a figment of Richie's imagination.   Same with Carrie's sister on King of Queens.  Although, at least she exited within the first few epis, I think.  Weirder still is when minor children disappear without the family batting an eye.  Like Judy on Family Matters and Brendan on Step by Step.

[Dee]

Unpopular Opinion: 'Bughead' on Riverdale? Absolutely terrible.

[SmithW6079]

12 hours ago, Katy M said:

Chuck Cunningham was obviously a figment of Richie's imagination.   Same with Carrie's sister on King of Queens.  Although, at least she exited within the first few epis, I think.  Weirder still is when minor children disappear without the family batting an eye.  Like Judy on Family Matters and Brendan on Step by Step.

Or Donna's sister on "That '70s Show," who's in only one episode and then never seen again.

[Dee]

Donna actually had two sisters. At least Tina was featured in a episode before disappearing.

[ChromaKelly]

I don't need every mildly entertaining third tier character to become a main character. No, let's not hear more from or explore those characters. Usually the comic relief is fine just having a couple lines a show. Once that character gets expanded, their schtick gets old. Or fleshing out the character makes them boring. My two big examples are Brittany on Glee and Morgan on The Walking Dead.

[ganesh]

I think they expanded Morgan because he's one of the few who could act. Making the 70 minute episode just on him was a huge narrative error. 

[SmithW6079]

17 hours ago, Dee said:

Donna actually had two sisters. At least Tina was featured in a episode before disappearing.

Really? I only remember the one -- Tina.

4 hours ago, ChromaKelly said:

I don't need every mildly entertaining third tier character to become a main character. No, let's not hear more from or explore those characters. Usually the comic relief is fine just having a couple lines a show. Once that character gets expanded, their schtick gets old. Or fleshing out the character makes them boring. My two big examples are Brittany on Glee and Morgan on The Walking Dead.

Building on that, no, a show would not be better if it focused on my favorite second- or third-tier character.

[Dee]

54 minutes ago, SmithW6079 said:

Really? I only remember the one -- Tina.

Yep. She also had an unseen older sister named Valerie who was supposed to be around Laurie's age, but by the middle of the first season Donna was retconned into an only child.

Edited October 14, 2017 by Dee

[Neurochick]

I don’t get the appeal of The Deuce on HBO.  I lived in NYC in the 1970’s and it wasn’t that special or that awful.  It just was.

[Misslindsey]

Quote

I don't need every mildly entertaining third tier character to become a main character. No, let's not hear more from or explore those characters. Usually the comic relief is fine just having a couple lines a show. Once that character gets expanded, their schtick gets old. Or fleshing out the character makes them boring. My two big examples are Brittany on Glee and Morgan on The Walking Dead.

I agree. When Glee expanded the Brittany character I kept wondering how she could function on a daily basis. It is why I really could not root for any romantic pairing she was in, because the made her so beyond stupid it felt icky. A couple lines in the background was fine. Making her a main character not so much.

[amaranta]

30 Rock was only okay.  And without Alec Baldwin it might not have been good at all.

Reboots - I don't get it.  Especially when they decide to ignore a last season and pretend that none of those things happened.  They did; we all saw it.

A new Dynasty seems especially unnecessary; the original was iconic 80"s kitsch so I really don't see the point.  Is the well really that dry?

[Dee]

Unpopular Opinion: Almost without fail in most fandoms the most "controversial" characters are almost always, characters of color. And when fans of color want to address the institutional disparity in treatment of those characters, they're immediately stonewalled.

[Katy M]

8 hours ago, amaranta said:

A new Dynasty seems especially unnecessary; the original was iconic 80"s kitsch so I really don't see the point.  Is the well really that dry?

Especially after the Melrose Place fail.  Primetime soaps had a very small window of success.  The mid-80s to the early 90s.  Yes, MP went on to the later 90s, but that was the only one left by that point.  I think there's a reason for that.  I might not know exactly what, but I just don't think it's a genre that will do well again.

[Haleth]

16 hours ago, ganesh said:

I think they expanded Morgan because he's one of the few who could act. Making the 70 minute episode just on him was a huge narrative error. 

RIP Tabitha. <sob>

[Ohwell]

2 hours ago, Katy M said:

Especially after the Melrose Place fail.  Primetime soaps had a very small window of success.  The mid-80s to the early 90s.  Yes, MP went on to the later 90s, but that was the only one left by that point.  I think there's a reason for that.  I might not know exactly what, but I just don't think it's a genre that will do well again.

Agree.  I loved original recipe Dallas and Dynasty, and thought the Dallas reboot was blasphemy and was glad when it got canceled.  I definitely won't be watching this new Dynasty.  No way can they top the epic bitch fight between Crystal and Alexis.

[DearEvette]

3 hours ago, Katy M said:

Especially after the Melrose Place fail.  Primetime soaps had a very small window of success.  The mid-80s to the early 90s.  Yes, MP went on to the later 90s, but that was the only one left by that point.  I think there's a reason for that.  I might not know exactly what, but I just don't think it's a genre that will do well again.

I think that particular recipe of soap is so identified with the times in which they place that trying to reboot them now works against them.  The name recognition isn't an advantage in this case.   And resettling them now just doesn't work.  Also think of how seasoned those original casts were.  They had had impressive bodies of movie and tv work behind them when they came to these shows.  They were able to infuse a lot of gravitas into the soapy camp that made it rise above a bit.  The casts in these shows are barely watchable, their acting is so wooden.  Not mention it just feels stale.

There is still an audience for prime time soaps. Empire was huge ratings hit its first year, the likes of which network tv hadn't seen in 10 or more years.  This is Us is a ratings champ too.  But I think the audience is there but it has to be the right type of soap that resonates in today's cultural climate.