Party of One: Unpopular TV Opinions

[ethalfrida]

"Cheers" is my all time favorite sitcom and I couldn't stand Diane and will always believe that Kirstie Alley's Rebecca saved the show.

Seriously agree with you

[Anna Yolei]

I'm not sure how unpopular this is, but here it goes: It's just tv. I'm willing to give a lot of leeway to people who complain about lack of cultural diversity because they may have a point and a little leeway to complaints that something is out of character, but I don't care if something would or wouldn't happen in real life. If it's entertaining, and well written, that's all I care about. If I cared about whether or not something was realistic, then I would sit back and reflect on my own life or watch the news.

As a black woman, diversity (or lack thereof) doesn't bug me too much. The biggest glaring exception is the soap opera The Bold and the Beautiful, which is set in the Los Angeles fashion scene and it took till 2012 to have an openly lesbian character.

And I too am not bothered by stuff that's not realistic on tv as long as one of the characters kinda ackwoledges this. Again, to reference B&B there was a infamous SL where a guy falls for a woman that was once believed to be his biological sister and way, way before that his daughter (said not!sister-daughter was named Bridget after him and her mother), but all the players involved had the reactions that one would expect people to have in such a situation.

[ribboninthesky1]

I'm not sure how unpopular this is, but here it goes:  It's just tv.  I'm willing to give a lot of leeway to people who complain about lack of cultural diversity because they may have a point and a little leeway to complaints that something is out of character, but I don't care if something would or wouldn't happen in real life.  If it's entertaining, and well written, that's all I care about.  If I cared about whether or not something was realistic, then I would sit back and reflect on my own life or watch the news.

 

I agree with this in theory.

 

The only problem is that so many people take what they see on TV and think it's real life, or that it should be.  That's a lot of what the complaints about diversity stem from, at least.  I think people either aren't aware or don't want to admit that TV informs life as much, if not more than, the reverse.

[ParadoxLost]

I have mixed feelings on Lost. Sometimes I think it is kind of awesome how the writers basically said the Island and all of its secrets were basically a giant MacGuffin that didn't matter and all that really mattered were the characters and their relationships. Other times I think that was more like a giant cop-out and they really couldn't come up with a satisfying way to explain things.

 

I'm firmly in the giant cop out camp.  I'm ok with the island being a giant MacGuffin and only the relationships mattering.  But that was not the story the were telling until the very end.  These guys were in the media constantly teasing that there was some giant mystery to solve and layed easter eggs all through the series.  That's a cheat.

 

I'm the same way with BSG and I still really like BSG, but the cyclons did not have a plan and they pulled the identity of the final five cylons out of their ass.  But part of that is on me too.  It was really clear that they were making it up as they went along in Moore's podcasts (thank you network executive that stopped Dirk Benedict from showing up in the Opera House as God and too bad someone didn't shutdown that Starbuck idea) but I still wanted to believe that they were playing the journey by ear but they had a destination in mind.

[Cobalt Stargazer]

I agree with this in theory.

 

The only problem is that so many people take what they see on TV and think it's real life, or that it should be.  That's a lot of what the complaints about diversity stem from, at least.  I think people either aren't aware or don't want to admit that TV informs life as much, if not more than, the reverse.

OTOH, doesn't the fact that the Only On TV thread exists here mean that there are those who realize that television is not real life? We're making fun of things that happens on TV shows, or at least I am, not going along with it.

[ganesh]

 

These guys were in the media constantly teasing that there was some giant mystery to solve and layed easter eggs all through the series.  That's a cheat.

 

This is what I mean about TPTBs being their own worst enemies. Just because they can use social media doesn't mean they should most of the time. Just being a veteran of watching tv, I wasn't invested in the "mystery" of Lost because I knew it wasn't going to hold up. Not that I'm special. I'm sure others figured that out too. They did the same thing on The Mentalist and pulled the "journey" bs. They're doing the *same thing* on The Leftovers. 

 

I'm the same way with BSG and I still really like BSG, but the cyclons did not have a plan and they pulled the identity of the final five cylons out of their ass.  But part of that is on me too.  It was really clear that they were making it up as they went along in Moore's podcasts (thank you network executive that stopped Dirk Benedict from showing up in the Opera House as God and too bad someone didn't shutdown that Starbuck idea) but I still wanted to believe that they were playing the journey by ear but they had a destination in mind.

 

I don't really have a problem with BSG. It was obvious that the Final Five couldn't be new people introduced to the show, so they were going to have to retcon them. But they made good choices. Similarly, it was kind of a plan, though esoteric. The Cylons wanted to explore what it means to be "human." I'm fine with that. I think the ending they did have in mind, but the getting there was made up. It was ambitious, but I don't think they were pretentious or pompous about the show.

 

Seriously, the Galactica doing the dead drop in the atmosphere and then jumping to hyperspace was one of the awesomest moments of tv ever.

[roamyn]

I'm the same way with BSG and I still really like BSG, but the cyclons did not have a plan and they pulled the identity of the final five cylons out of their ass. But part of that is on me too. It was really clear that they were making it up as they went along in Moore's podcasts (thank you network executive that stopped Dirk Benedict from showing up in the Opera House as God and too bad someone didn't shutdown that Starbuck idea) but I still wanted to believe that they were playing the journey by ear but they had a destination in mind.

I HATED the new BSG !

I think mostly because they made Starbuck & Boomer women. And didn't Boomers get revealed to be a Cylon?

Yes, the original was cheesy. But Jane Seymour was gorgeous (does the woman ever age?), Dirk was fun, Richard was my cutie.

Cone on... how can you not like the tin Cylons saying "By your command"?

ETA: because my phone thinks BSG is a "BAG".

Edited September 7, 2014 by roamyn

[kathyk24]

I'm still bitter over the resolution of the Samantha arc on the XFles. You put Mulder and Scully through hell for nothing? Epic FailChris Carter. I think writers fail to realize that if they create characters that we care about we want to see them be happy. That's why the finale of How I met your Mother stunk, Ted should have lived happily ever after with Tracy.

[DittyDotDot]

I'm fairly lenient when it comes to the X-files mytharc snafus.

As far as I know, it was one of the very first TV shows that even attempted a partially serialized format. So, yeah, I'm not too bothered. Considering it ran 9 years, it stayed fairly consistent for quite a while. Most modern shows can't handle a decent serialized story over such a long time either.

 

I can hardly ever muster the energy to get invested in a long, drawn out mystery that's supposed to span many seasons anymore. They never hold up and are always disappointing to me in the end. I'm usually in it for the characters. The X-files was my first lesson in this. I always enjoyed Mulder and Scully even though I generally hated anything to do with that alien conspiracy.

 

I'm not sure how unpopular this is, but here it goes:  It's just tv.  I'm willing to give a lot of leeway to people who complain about lack of cultural diversity because they may have a point and a little leeway to complaints that something is out of character, but I don't care if something would or wouldn't happen in real life.  If it's entertaining, and well written, that's all I care about.  If I cared about whether or not something was realistic, then I would sit back and reflect on my own life or watch the news. 

 

My general stance is: as long as the characters make sense then I roll with the other nonsense. I tend to point and laugh at things that don't make real-world sense, but as long as there are richly drawn characters to watch I don't really care. I do get annoyed when a show's quality gets so bad that the characters aren't all that interesting anymore and I find myself being distracted by all the nonsense. But I think I'm more annoyed at myself that I keep watching it than I am at the show itself.

Edited September 7, 2014 by DittyDotDot

[Snowprince]

I'm not sure how unpopular this is, but here it goes:  It's just tv.  I'm willing to give a lot of leeway to people who complain about lack of cultural diversity because they may have a point and a little leeway to complaints that something is out of character, but I don't care if something would or wouldn't happen in real life.  If it's entertaining, and well written, that's all I care about.  If I cared about whether or not something was realistic, then I would sit back and reflect on my own life or watch the news. 

I have difficulty watching most cop shows with a straight face because most of them have as much relationship to reality as the Easter Bunny. But I just remind myself, "it's a drama, not a documentary". If I'm entertained, that's all that counts in the end.

Edited September 7, 2014 by Snowprince

[Shannon L.]

 

My general stance is: as long as the characters make sense then I roll with the other nonsense. I tend to point and laugh at things that don't make real-world sense, but as long as there are richly drawn characters to watch I don't really care. I do get annoyed when a show's quality gets so bad that the characters aren't all that interesting anymore and I find myself being distracted by all the nonsense.

 

 

I have difficulty watching most cop shows with a straight face because most of them have as much relationship to reality as the Easter Bunny. But I just remind myself, "it's a drama, not a documentary". If I'm entertained, that's all that counts in the end.

Exactly.  We're watching House right now and I think about every other episode, one of us will say sarcastically "Oh yes--doctors will do that", but we keep watching because so far, we're enjoying the hell out of it.  It's entertaining, the acting is good and we're liking the stories. 

 

I brought it up because I just heard about the show Scorpion (shows you how much entertainment news I read and how often I skip commercials :) and watched the 4:30 minute trailer and am really looking forward to it.  I jumped on the forum to see what the early talk was and there's a lot of this or that wouldn't happen type of talk and it kind of brought me down a little (although, I understand the complaints about the lack of cultural diversity).  Then I thought, heck with it--if its entertaining and the acting is good, I'm in.  I've felt like that with most shows I've watched over the years. 

 

As for not mixing reality with entertainment, thanks to DVRs, my kids' new mantra is now "Mom, can we please get through an episode of this show without you pausing it for a warning or teaching moment?"  Movies and tv are our main and favorite form of entertainment, so I try real hard to make sure they understand the difference (especially since you can't escape sex and/or violence in almost anything these days.)

Edited September 7, 2014 by Shannon L.

[ethalfrida]

Shannon, it's great that you use that method to keep your kids focused on what's real and acceptable.  That's how my generation watched tv, as a family unit and with "commentary" from the parental portion of said audience. It worked.

[ganesh]

I think writers fail to realize that if they create characters that we care about we want to see them be happy.

 

This was discussed a long time ago. But even though TPTBs created the show and shouldn't tell the story based on what fans want, they actually give up ownership of the characters to the audience to an extent, and TPTBs *do* need to realize this. And they don't. Characters obviously should change, but how many times do they change to fit the plot and then people complain that the character is ruined? A lot. Or they end up Mary Sueing them. It amazes me nowadays how any show doesn't have a bible to consult.

 

I can hardly ever muster the energy to get invested in a long, drawn out mystery that's supposed to span many seasons anymore. They never hold up and are always disappointing to me in the end. I'm usually in it for the characters. The X-files was my first lesson in this.

 

 

Me too. I paid attention. I got robbed and I was mad. That's why when Lost started around I was rolling my eyes. That's why I was able to enjoy BSG. There wasn't a hard and fast plan, clearly, and the show was about searching, literally. There was a fleet of spaceships just rolling around out there.

 

My general stance is: as long as the characters make sense then I roll with the other nonsense. 

 

I'd add ..within the show world. If the world is established, and it doesn't matter what, as long as there is something established, and the characters make sense in that world, then fine. The more you need to have the viewers "buy in," the more you need to do the world building. The Leftovers and Outlander are polar opposites of that. All the [legit imo] criticisms about Leftovers over 9 episodes were addressed in Outlander in 2. 

 

It's baffling to me how seemingly basic stuff about making a good tv show is just ignored.

[ribboninthesky1]

OTOH, doesn't the fact that the Only On TV thread exists here mean that there are those who realize that television is not real life? We're making fun of things that happens on TV shows, or at least I am, not going along with it.

 

Sure, but I'm unconvinced that can be extrapolated to the general viewing public.  I always remind myself that these types of forums are niched, and aren't necessarily representative of the TV audience at large.  

 

My general stance is: as long as the characters make sense then I roll with the other nonsense.

 

I'd add ..within the show world. If the world is established, and it doesn't matter what, as long as there is something established, and the characters make sense in that world, then fine.

 

Agreed.

[Cobalt Stargazer]

Sure, but I'm unconvinced that can be extrapolated to the general viewing public.  I always remind myself that these types of forums are niched, and aren't necessarily representative of the TV audience at large.  

I do agree with you about this, but I would like to think that there are people out there who watch TV while having some kind of grasp on reality, even if they don't participate in forum discussions. I don't believe that there's some generic 'everyone' who feels one way about much of anything.

[ribboninthesky1]

I agree, but I never stated otherwise.  My original post stated "so many people take what they see on TV and think it's real life, or that it should be," not "everyone who watches TV."

[ToxicUnicorn]

Seriously, the Galactica doing the dead drop in the atmosphere and then jumping to hyperspace was one of the awesomest moments of tv ever.

So true.  BSG had one of the longest uninterrupted runs of great episodes that I can remember.  It's one of the reasons I try not to let the ending change my overall opinion of it.  

 

My unpopular opinion about LOST (although maybe not on this thread) is that I didn't mind the flash-sideways stories at all; in fact, I thought the entire concept was pretty clever.  I also (mostly) understood the finale right away and, in hindsight, the flash-sideways parts were by far the best parts of the last season, right down to the closing shot.  It was all the other stories that made me bitter: the ones that were supposed to address the mysteries of the island.  Not because the explanations weren't airtight (although that would have been nice), but because they were so dreadfully written.  I honestly believe I would have been a great deal happier if the writers hadn't tackled the mysteries at all, because what we got made me miserable.  

 

I'm including on my complaints list any reference to Jack's father, the Richard Alpert character, the Man in Black and his seriously unpleasant family.  Not only were those stories sloppily executed (c'mon, some of those sets looked like crap ... the temple, anyone?  The inside of the statue?  The magical stream?  I practically expected the Lucky Charms leprechaun.) but the acting of the people they brought in was terrible, horrible, no good, and very bad.  I am including Allison Janney and Nestor Carbonell on that list, which feels disloyal, but they were such disappointments.  And, to this day, I think Mark Pellegrino is the King of Anti-charisma and I loathe his face.  Worst of all, even the acting of Terry O'Quinn and Michael Emerson (who I adored by then) took vacations in the toilet.  I didn't believe one piece of either of their stories in the last season.  I know they are awesome, so I blame their performances squarely on ... other people.  

 

If I were trying to end on a positive note, I'd sum up by saying the LOST finale held together for me and was perhaps the most tolerable part of a wretched last season.  But I'm not that positive.  Watching the last season of LOST was like trying to eat cake on your birthday, but finding out that someone had dumped a half cup of mealworms into the batter.  I mean, you want to have fun and not be a spoilsport on your birthday, right?  So, you keep trying to eat around the nasty bits and you finally get to the icing, which is a blessed relief.  But, after it's over, you kind of want to punch the bastard who baked the cake in the nuts, because he really did ruin your party.

 

Ok, I'll stop now.  Maybe I'll feel better in another 5 years.

[bosawks]

The finale of both Dexter and How I Met Your Mother has really softened my views of both LOST and Battlestar Galactica; to the degree I feel an affection for them now.

Rationally I know that it really shouldn't but there you go.

[mansonlamps]

I honestly didn't realize this is an unpopular opinion about TV until I started reading the TV Tropes You Hate thread. I have watched TV my whole life and never lamented one time that characters didn't have to go to the bathroom on camera. I don't care that they don't have their period, shave their legs, wax their facial hair, use deodorant, announce that they're taking birth control, fart, burp, wash their floors, clean their toilets or any number of zillions of mundane parts of life that we all experience on camera. I can't imagine why we would want to take up camera time with that stuff when we can all assume it happens in the background.

I do remember years ago reading an article on the Brady Bunch in which the author was mocking that the Brady's never had to go to the bathroom and I was surprised that that person thought the show needed to go there.

[briochetwist]

My biggest pet peeve, people in sitcoms never close the door behind them.  Drives me nuts!

[Cobalt Stargazer]

I do remember years ago reading an article on the Brady Bunch in which the author was mocking that the Brady's never had to go to the bathroom and I was surprised that that person thought the show needed to go there.

Yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeears and years ago, when my sister and I were kids, she loved those Beezus and Ramona books. (A cookie for anyone who also read them.) In one of the books, when Ramona was in class and the teacher was reading the assembled class a story, one little boy interrupted and asked how the main character was able to go to the bathroom if he was running his bulldozer down in a pit all day. The question intrigued the rest of the class so much that the story was forgotten, because all the kids started asking the same thing. I don't know if it's actually the same thing or not, but some minutiae can be just that distracting. :-P

[Brandi Maxxxx]

I would file that under "Acceptable Breaks From Reality".

[BellaLugosi]

 

hose Beezus and Ramona books. (A cookie for anyone who also read them.)

Yum, cookies! Loved those books.

 

I guess an UO is that I don't care if a show is "monster of the week" every single week.  I don't need a season long arc. 

 

Regarding the minutia. if I really love a show, I do think about those things, but I don't complain about them.  I think it's a fun thing to notice but I don't get the constant bitchfest about a show you watch. If a show annoyed me every week, I'd stop watching it. There's more TV out there than I could ever watch in my lifetime. I don't need to watch something that irritates me. An example of this is people complaining about lawns being mowed on Walking Dead.  They shoot on location, what are they supposed to do? I don't want them CGI'ing grass.  And does it really matter? I thought some of it is fun to notice, but some people take it so seriously like it ruins the show for them when they go into a house and everything isn't covered in dust. I'm probably not explaining this well. Basically, this too.

 

I kind of agree. I don't mind viewers being irritated by something incredibly stupid that happens and in such a way that makes no sense. What truly gets to me is the nitpicking. That is, when an episode discussion thread will devolve into pages upon pages of debating something incredibly minor and not that important. And then people will start pulling out their own personal experiences and detailing how they or their husband or their parent or their wife's parents or etc. etc. had a different experience and it just goes on and on. Those are the times when I just want to scream, "it's not that serious..."

 

"I wouldn't do it that way, I wouldn't react in that way, therefore it makes no sense and this show sucks." Argggh! 

 

It amazes me nowadays how any show doesn't have a bible to consult.

I say this all the time too!! I remember listening to a commentary on one of the Halloween movies, and the writer had made a bible on the series because he was just a huge fan.  And I thought, every movie and TV series should do this. On a final and very geeky note, I've been making one for myself on Walking Dead. I'll show myself out.

[Wiendish Fitch]

Re: the "Nobody Poops" trope.

 

I'm more than okay with it. Hell, I don't want to think about real people taking a crap, why would I want to picture fictional characters doing it? That's one of the reasons the second season of Orange is the New Black turned me off, because they relied waaaaaaay too heavily on scatological humor (I like Daya, but I sure as hell could have done without that episode dealing with her constipation). I know it takes place in prison, and prison is gross, but they really overdid it.

 

Also, real life, when it's not being depressing, is more often than not duller than tombs. TV is entertainment and escapism. Works for me.

[merylinkid]

I like Cris Collinsworth on Sunday Night Football.   I've liked him since his playing days when he made it to the Super Bowl twice and lost twice -- to the 49ers both times.   I think he does a fine job as announcer.   I don't need Edgar R. Murrow, I just like to have fun listening to the game.

[kiddo82]

Asking a real question: It's a UO to like Chris Collinsworth?

[Cobalt Stargazer]

"I wouldn't do it that way, I wouldn't react in that way, therefore it makes no sense and this show sucks." Argggh!

Re this, because I can't stop myself -

 

During season six of Buffy the Vampire Slayer, there were those who said that they felt Buffy's depression arc was realistic and that it made sense that she'd start having sex with Spike in alleyways, and that furthermore it meant she was maturing and growing up by putting aside the "simplistic" idea of good and evil. As someone who has been depressed, I can assure you I did not start banging a serial killer as a way to cope. I do admit to being torn about getting into such detail about the length of grass in a yard or the lack of dust on furniture, but when its something that destroys the entire premise of a show, I don't think it's nitpicking to point it out.

[AntiBeeSpray]

Re this, because I can't stop myself -

 

During season six of Buffy the Vampire Slayer, there were those who said that they felt Buffy's depression arc was realistic and that it made sense that she'd start having sex with Spike in alleyways, and that furthermore it meant she was maturing and growing up by putting aside the "simplistic" idea of good and evil. As someone who has been depressed, I can assure you I did not start banging a serial killer as a way to cope. I do admit to being torn about getting into such detail about the length of grass in a yard or the lack of dust on furniture, but when its something that destroys the entire premise of a show, I don't think it's nitpicking to point it out.

I HATED that season due to that (her screwing Spike)!

 

Couldn't even watch it. I didn't need to see her screw him (at least from the way it seemed) all the time.

[ramble]

As for not mixing reality with entertainment, thanks to DVRs, my kids' new mantra is now "Mom, can we please get through an episode of this show without you pausing it for a warning or teaching moment?" Movies and tv are our main and favorite form of entertainment, so I try real hard to make sure they understand the difference (especially since you can't escape sex and/or violence in almost anything these days.)

I do this all the time as well. I hear a lot of, "we know, we get it, c'mon & push play." I tell them it's my job to use teachable opportunities when they present themselves. The kiddos gripe but I think they're actually okay with it.

My two cents, is that although I may not want to see too much mundane, real life stuff on TV, I fully reserve the right to sometimes complain when I don't see it. It's for my entertainment & sometimes I just entertain myself.

[ganesh]

I honestly believe I would have been a great deal happier if the writers hadn't tackled the mysteries at all, because what we got made me miserable.

 

I don't get why TPTBs just let didn't the multiple interpretations just float out there and felt they needed to define every single thing. I would think the point of any piece of art is that people take away different things from the experience. That's a little high minded for tv, but the concept is similar. Once you put something out there, that's what should happen. To a point. I mean, if you're saying the island on Lost was an alien spaceship, than that's a little off. 

 

If a show annoyed me every week, I'd stop watching it. There's more TV out there than I could ever watch in my lifetime. I don't need to watch something that irritates me.

 

 

I'm doing this with the Leftovers currently. It doesn't annoy me, but it's very sloppy and it could have actually been a good tv show if TPTBs didn't half ass it so much. A show like this though, for example, there's a couple of actors trying to do something interesting with the drivel that they're given. So, if I see they are in something else, I'm going to be more inclined to tune in and see them in a different role. I wouldn't have known about them if I dumped the show. Or, a show is shitty and there's an actor in it that you do like so you watch for them. 

 

Plus, you watch a show that isn't so good, so when other shows come around that are doing it the way it's supposed to be, you appreciate it more. 

[Kel Varnsen]

I think the Buffy ending, destroying the entire town, was prompted by a desire to keep the Kuzuis from re booting the character to something like the original movie.

I remember when that news came out about rebooting Buffy and my unpopular opinion at the time was that I thought a fresh reboot of the character had potential to be interesting.  I mean the final season of Whedon's show was a let down and not very impressive. I read the first storyline of the Season 8 comic book and it was pretty terrible too. I mean there is no real reason to think that Whedon's version of the character is the only one that could be good, the same way there is no reason to think that only one version of Sherlock Holmes can be good.

Re: the "Nobody Poops" trope.

 

I'm more than okay with it. Hell, I don't want to think about real people taking a crap, why would I want to picture fictional characters doing it? That's one of the reasons the second season of Orange is the New Black turned me off, because they relied waaaaaaay too heavily on scatological humor (I like Daya, but I sure as hell could have done without that episode dealing with her constipation). I know it takes place in prison, and prison is gross, but they really overdid it.

 

I am ok with not seeing everything that people do on TV either. I mean at the very best we see about 15 hours of a TV character's life over a whole year, even less for characters on sitcoms or on cable shows. That is about 0.2% of their whole lives.  So based on that I am totally ok with not wasting time seeing people on the toilet. I mean if you filmed a random 0.2% of my life over a year it is possible you might not see me in the bathroom either.

[Shannon L.]

Yeah, I'm tired of seeing scenes of men talking while at the urinal.  Taking a conversation into the bathroom is one thing, but I'm perfectly fine with not seeing them peeing.  Same thing with seeing someone sitting on a toilet. 

[Jac]

I'm not sure how unpopular this is, but here it goes:  It's just tv.  I'm willing to give a lot of leeway to people who complain about lack of cultural diversity because they may have a point and a little leeway to complaints that something is out of character, but I don't care if something would or wouldn't happen in real life.  If it's entertaining, and well written, that's all I care about.  If I cared about whether or not something was realistic, then I would sit back and reflect on my own life or watch the news.

I ten do to agree with this point but at the same time I get excited when I see a character with a disability, especially if the person has a disability that isn't a plot point because it is really rare to see myself reflected on screen. I think it is important for children in particular to be able to see themselves reflected on screen.

[FormerMod-a1]

I think it's just as easy to show people talking about work, dates, kids, etc while doing dishes or making dinner or dusting or what have you as it is to show while sitting on the couch or drinking coffee.  There are many ways to acknowledge the "boring" parts of life, without highlighting them or making the scene about them.  Some sitcoms do this, I do remember scenes in kitchens while people cook, or scenes with people folding laundry - just little things.  Again, the scenes aren't about the chore, but the activity is still there.  Even with the bathroom, just showing someone walking out of the bathroom, even in the background - again, you don't need to see them using the toilet to acknowledge that it gets used.

 

That said, I generally don't care that much about it.  It won't kill a show for me or anything and I really don't think about it while watching.

[GHScorpiosRule]

Okay, heeeere's mine (donning the flak jacket, helmet and face mask)...

 

I never watched Lost.Never had any desire to watch it, didn't care about, didn't want to hear about and resented that my friends would give my the bug-eyed look of how can You NOT watch and LOOOOOOVE this show?! Easy, I watch something else. Don't care for all the squeeing over Lost Easter eggs in shows I DO watch--well, according to those that watched Lost would say it was so...Again, don't care.

 

And as a straight female, person of Color, I admit, I don't look to see if a show has diversity or that women are 'represented' when deciding to watch a show. I watch to be entertained, and if stars actors I like or love. One of my favorite shows used to be Person of Interest. I say used to, because it is no longer the show that it was promised to be in its first season: a show about two broken characters (yeah, they're men, so what?), and to watch how they redeemed each other, independently or together, I didn't care. I love Jim Caviezel, and all I knew of Michael Emerson was the psychotic serial killer who stalked Lindsay in The Practice.  At first I didn't recognize Caviezel in the promos...I hadn't even planned on watching it until I heard his name. That was all it took for me.  And then when the showrunners added in Shahi and Acker, two actresses I loathe and despise and who I don't think can act to save their lives, and whose characters have overtaken the show and its original premise, to say that I am disappointed and miffed is putting it lightly. They weren't needed, the show wasn't broke; it didn't need to be fixed. It was great with the core 4: Reese, Finch, Lionel and Carter. Okay five, including Bear.

I'm still watching for Caviezel; once he's gone, then so am I. I'm NOT a fan of Sci-Fi, and this show is bound and determined to totally embrace that, by having the stupidass MACHINE become a sentient being, also taking over the show. Hey, I'm happy for all those who watch this show and love this aspect of it. I'm not one of them.  I am normally easily pleased. This was my show, in that Reese was Batman without the cape and cowl. 

 

I can't understand why show runners these days can't write women well or do shows that have women as the leads.  Say what you will about Original Charlie's Angels, but they didn't need no man saving them...and I also had Cagney and Lacey to watch, and I remember watching Police Woman, but can't recall if Dickinson ever needed to be saved by man, either. Men weren't brought into the show for "balance", so I don't see why shows I watch, which, okay, have males in the leads, and it's working, why women have to be brought in to show "balance" or whatever. If Nolan and Plageman had such a hardon for Shahi and Acker, should've given them their own damn show.

 

And yes, I realize that I am in the minority about this and am perfectly fine with it.

Edited September 8, 2014 by GHScorpiosRule

[MyAimIsTrue]

Yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeears and years ago, when my sister and I were kids, she loved those Beezus and Ramona books. (A cookie for anyone who also read them.)

 

I'll take a peanut butter cookie, please!

[ganesh]

To be fair to OITNB, the constipation plot wasn't the actual story per se, it was about Daya's mother figures. Her real mother, who was largely absentee and her prison mother, who she has known as a mother longer than her own mother. It was more of a framing device. And there's a spoiler as to why she was constipated in the first place, so it wasn't like, 'hey, let's to do this' out of nowhere. 

 

Honestly, though, I think it would be kind of funny and real if a character was like, "we have to get to the airport and stop them now!" Can you wait 1 minute? I have to take a huge piss. 

[DittyDotDot]

Yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeears and years ago, when my sister and I were kids, she loved those Beezus and Ramona books. (A cookie for anyone who also read them.)

 

I read them, loved them and wished my life could be as zany as Ramona's...I'm more of a pie girl, but will take a peanut butter cookie, please!

[ribboninthesky1]

I can't understand why show runners these days can't write women well or do shows that have women as the leads.  Say what you will about Original Charlie's Angels, but they didn't need no man saving them...and I also had Cagney and Lacey to watch, and I remember watching Police Woman, but can't recall if Dickinson ever needed to be saved by man, either. Men weren't brought into the show for "balance", so I don't see why shows I watch, which, okay, have males in the leads, and it's working, why women have to be brought in to show "balance" or whatever. If Nolan and Plageman had such a hardon for Shahi and Acker, should've given them their own damn show.

 

And yes, I realize that I am in the minority about this and am perfectly fine with it.

 

I understand what you mean, and I've had similar thoughts in general.  I think there's a valid argument for showing women, in varied roles, on TV, but the "balance" premise gets the side-eye from me.  And it's ironic that, in some ways, women were more effectively written 20-30+ years ago than they are now.  

[GHScorpiosRule]

And it's ironic that, in some ways, women were more effectively written 20-30+ years ago than they are now.  

 

 

Exactly. That's what I was trying to say, but couldn't come up with the words. They were in my head, but I couldn't figure out what words to use to explain. Thanks ribboninthesky1.

[galax-arena]

I ten do to agree with this point but at the same time I get excited when I see a character with a disability, especially if the person has a disability that isn't a plot point because it is really rare to see myself reflected on screen.

I can’t speak for Shannon L., but I think that that’d fall under the diversity umbrella.

 

Men weren't brought into the show for "balance", so I don't see why shows I watch, which, okay, have males in the leads, and it's working, why women have to be brought in to show "balance" or whatever.

I think it’s a false equivalency because men and women don’t operate on a level playing field to begin with. Why shouldn’t balance be a legitimate consideration when women are so underrepresented compared to men? And I don’t think anyone arguing for more balance/representation is saying that it should come at the cost of having the character be well-written or competently acted. It’s not an either/or situation, or it shouldn’t be. When that one dude wrote an article complaining about the lack of men on Orange is the New Black, I rolled my eyes not because “omg it’s not the story they chose to tell” - which is an argument I hate because it’s often used to explain the lack of diversity in a lot of other shows, and it’s like, no shit that’s the story they chose to tell and that’s what people are criticizing; it’s about as insightful a rebuttal as saying that the sky is blue - but because men dominate the TV show landscape to begin with, so I can’t exactly weep on their behalf that they don’t have this one show pandering to them.

 

I’m not gonna watch a POC-led or female-led show (or both!) if it’s boring or I don’t like the actors in question, because yeah, I watch television for entertainment. I tried watching OITNB but stopped because I just couldn’t get into it. But I find the whole diversity vs entertainment juxtaposition to be such a false dichotomy. It’s possible to have both. Maybe POI has suffered as a result of those two new characters - I can’t stand Amy Acker so it’d certainly ruin a show for me - but I’d like to think that that has more to do with how those two particular characters are written, or their actresses, as opposed to girl cooties.

Edited September 8, 2014 by galax-arena

[ChromaKelly]

I don't hate Megan on Mad Men, or Juliette on Grimm, or Skylar on Breaking Bad. I'm really weary of page after page of hate heaped on the lead's wife/girlfriend, and also sometimes on the actress. It borders on misogynistic at times.

[Kel Varnsen]

I agree that a fresh look at Buffy could be great.  Just not by the people that made the original movie.

I don't know I would wait and see before writing it off, they couldn't do any worse than some of the crap that was season 7 (or the season 8 comic).  For that matter who would have ever thought that the guy who wrote the script for that terrible Alien Resurrection movie could make the Buffy character interesting.

[Jac]

I can’t speak for Shannon L., but I think that that’d fall under the diversity umbrella.

For the most part I would agree but I have seen complaints, more about mental illness than physical disability that mental illness is OOC. It drives me insane and it is really disheartening and I don't even have a mental illness so I can't imagine what it is like for people with mental illness to have to read complaints like that.

Edited September 8, 2014 by JacquelineLHope

[Shannon L.]

 

OOC

OOC? 

 

I can understand complaints about lack of people with disabilities.  I do think many shows have a lack of diversity and I have no problem with people who have issues with that, it's the other stuff that people look at and say "well, that could never happen, so I'm not going to watch it." Commenting or rolling your eyes is one thing, but dismissing it altogether and not giving it a shot--well, I don't get it.  You could be cheating yourself out of some enjoyable entertainment. 

[ribboninthesky1]

I think it’s a false equivalency because men and women don’t operate on a level playing field to begin with. Why shouldn’t balance be a legitimate consideration when women are so underrepresented compared to men? And I don’t think anyone arguing for more balance/representation is saying that it should come at the cost of having the character be well-written or competently acted. It’s not an either/or situation, or it shouldn’t be.

 

I don't know that it's about being against female representation, though.  If we're talking false dichotomy, I don't think it has to be either/or in that you're actively seeking it in the shows you watch/you expect TPTB to deliver it, or you're against it. I think it depends on factors like the show itself and how it implicitly or explicitly regards women, the genre, etc.  For example, if there was a traditional soap opera that primarily featured male characters, I have hard time believing there would be a legitimate need for balance when women are traditionally well-represented in the genre (or whatever is left of it, at any rate). 

 

As it relates to TV these days, the "women are so much more underrepresented compared to men" argument kind of falls apart.  I thought I'd read an article last year about the percentage being something like 55/45 in favor of men.  There's room for improvement, of course, particularly with genres, but it's not this vast chasm that seems implied.  In terms of diversity, there's bigger fish to fry, even within female representation itself - white vs non-white female characters.     

Edited September 8, 2014 by ribboninthesky1

[Bastet]

The number of female characters only tells me so much; having women among the main characters is one thing, but having female characters who are more than appendages to their male counterparts is the real hurdle a TV show has to jump to be worth my time.  If her function is just to advance/thwart or decorate the story of a man, I'm not interested.  If the television landscape as a whole wasn't so pathetic on the gender front, I might be fine with an individual show in which women were largely absent, sidelined, embodied sexist clichés, etc. if it otherwise entertained me.  I used to be.  But it has been too many years now with too little progress, and I'm just tired of it. 

Edited September 8, 2014 by Bastet

[Gudzilla]

More of my UO's

 

It may be harsh/wrong  but anyone who says "The island was purgatory" loses a little bit of respect from me.

 

I don't think the nudity in GoT is that excessive. I don't remember if it was here or another forum but I saw someone complain about nudity in a brothel scene being unecessary. (If not there then where?)

 

I think most shows should learn how to show diversity (race/gender/orientation) by watching Spartacus.

 

Lexx was one of the best sci fi shows of all time.

[janie jones]

Some sitcoms do this, I do remember scenes in kitchens while people cook, or scenes with people folding laundry - just little things.  Again, the scenes aren't about the chore, but the activity is still there.  Even with the bathroom, just showing someone walking out of the bathroom, even in the background - again, you don't need to see them using the toilet to acknowledge that it gets used.

I had no idea that it bothered people that TV shows don't show people using the bathroom.  I kind of feel like if shows made a point of showing people going to the bathroom, it would kind of be like if when my husband asks me what I did today, I included a count of how many times I peed.  I don't tell him because it isn't relevant.  But I do agree that it wouldn't be too distracting to have people happen to be doing some of these things, which I feel like I do see from time to time. 

[Bastet]

Some sitcoms do this, I do remember scenes in kitchens while people cook, or scenes with people folding laundry - just little things.  Again, the scenes aren't about the chore, but the activity is still there.  Even with the bathroom, just showing someone walking out of the bathroom, even in the background - again, you don't need to see them using the toilet to acknowledge that it gets used.

 

I'm not bothered by the absence of things like this, but I really appreciate it when it's included.  It's one of the many things I like about Roseanne, one of the first shows I remember routinely having characters doing mundane, daily tasks in the background, while talking, etc.