Party of One: Unpopular TV Opinions

[AntiBeeSpray]

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.

Me too. I didn't mind seeing that in shows. Roseanne was one where I could just relax while watching it. A lot of shows today just make me want to do the opposite.

[Jac]

OOC? 

Out of character.

[galax-arena]

The number of female characters only tells me so much;

Yep. It's not strictly a numbers game. 

 

The fact that it's so difficult for a lot of media to pass the Bechdel Test (although TV shows have an easier time of it since there are more opportunities) whereas it's more difficult for them to fail the reverse Bechdel Test says something, and nothing good. And because I feel like a lot of people misinterpret the Bechdel Test, I'd like to add the disclaimer that 1) the test is not the ultimate arbiter of what makes a piece of media feminist or not. It's possible for media to be feminist and yet fail the test. And 2) The Bechdel Test for that reason is like the BMI: useful when applied to a large group, but just about useless when applied individually. 

Edited September 9, 2014 by galax-arena

[kiddo82]

I don't need a show to have great gender diversity simply for the sake of diversity, particularly if an interesting core cast is already established. I don't think it serves anyone to add a female character to male driven cast who adds no real value to the story. I'm trying to think of a good example. Anyone watch The League? I wouldn't be opposed on principle if they added another female cast member, but it's not necessary either. I think it's about quality over quantity.

[galax-arena]

I think it's about quality over quantity.

Why can't we have both?

 

I said upthread that I don't think people arguing for more diversity are saying that it should come at the expense of well-written characters. But quantity is important as well. The two things don't have to be mutually exclusive.

[Cobalt Stargazer]

The fact that it's so difficult for a lot of media to pass the Bechdel Test (although TV shows have an easier time of it since there are more opportunities) whereas it's more difficult for them to fail the reverse Bechdel Test says something, and nothing good. And because I feel like a lot of people misinterpret the Bechdel Test, I'd like to add the disclaimer that 1) the test is not the ultimate arbiter of what makes a piece of media feminist or not. It's possible for media to be feminist and yet fail the test. And 2) The Bechdel Test for that reason is like the BMI: useful when applied to a large group, but just about useless when applied individually. 

But if the Bechdel test is useless/doesn't work on an individual basis, then are its results when applied to large groups really all that reliable? Because every individual situation is different, no matter how similar the circumstances might be.

 

Why can't we have both?

 

I said upthread that I don't think people arguing for more diversity are saying that it should come at the expense of well-written characters. But quantity is important as well. The two things don't have to be mutually exclusive.

I don't think its mutually exclusive either, but I do think the type of representation any group gets matters. A female Don Draper "type" would IMO be thoroughly excoriated because of the larger implications about women.

[callmebetty]

I think Seinfeld did a great job with the idea of people using the bathroom in very clever ways. From George stripping down to use the toilet.

Or for characters going in or coming out of Jerry's bathroom.

It's not that I focused on that, but after watching so many viewings you remember scenes.

[Portia]

I think Seinfeld did a great job with the idea of people using the bathroom in very clever ways. From George stripping down to use the toilet.

Or for characters going in or coming out of Jerry's bathroom.

It's not that I focused on that, but after watching so many viewings you remember scenes.

You're so right!

 

"I can't spare a square."

[BellaLugosi]

All In The Family did a good job with incorporating the bathroom too, and meal times, housework, and all that stuff. 

[ganesh]

I don't think the nudity in GoT is that excessive.

 

Considering the world, I'm surprised there's not more nudity and vulgarity. I'm surprised there's not more male nudity actually. I'm pro nude, everyone nude. 

 

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

 

Honestly, this was one of the most unique concepts/show universes. This is a really good point about scifi. Not everything has to be A Thing, as I like to say. SciFi is all Trek, BSG, and all these sweeping epics. One can have farce is scifi as much as in everything else.

 

I'll tell you what though, the third season, with Fire and Water, was really exceptional. That was like a graphic novel for tv. They ran out of ideas for a 4th season, but the stretch of episodes on earth where they lived in the house was pretty good farce. Gigerotta as the Pope. Why not? We love her!

[Wiendish Fitch]

I don't hate the unpopular Sixth Doctor. Sure, he could be kind of a jerk, but if I had to travel with a useless, whiny drag like Peri, I wouldn't be a peach, either. It helps that Colin Baker is a great actor (and I love his voice), and I also have the UO that the Sixth Doctor's technicolor nightmare coat was kind of badass. It enhanced his alien nature in the best way.

[ByTor]

I don't enjoy most TV villains, especially soap opera villains.  I do like my dramas to have an evil character, but I find that for the most part they are written way too over the top to entertain me.  My number one villain I couldn't stand...Kimberly from original recipe Melrose Place.  I think she started off pretty good, but as her arc went on, her deeds just became so ridiculous I ended up doing more eye rolling than anything.

[Gudzilla]

As far as the bathroom thing goes,I just assumed Jack Bauer peed during the commercials.

 

Ganesh, I couldn't agree more about the Fire and Water season, although thanks to season 4 I now refer to my home state (Florida) as 'the part that hangs down'.

[kathyk24]

Amen ChromaKelly! I like Juliette too and think she and Nick are one of the best couples on television. Another character who got dumped on unfairly was Kathy Stabler from SVU I think she was a saint for putting up with Elliott's temper for so long.

[ganesh]

I like that we have a lot of access to information about tv shows, but I think producers have abused that significantly and use it as a crutch to handwave shoddy production and storytelling. Usually it's, there's an article in EW and the actor said the reason why their character did X was Z. Well, if I didn't see that or get that from watching the show, then no, it doesn't matter.

 

It infuriates me way more than it should, but I think my criticism is valid.

 

I don't mind TPTBs using social media to promote a show. They should. But it seems like everything that happens on shows now and you have nearly everyone involved with the show trying to tell you what happened or how you should have watched the show. 

[selkie]

As far as the bathroom thing goes,I just assumed Jack Bauer peed during the commercials.

 

Jack was also smart enough to know that if you actually used a bathroom in CTU, you had a 50/50 chance of dying a horrible death before you got to the sink to wash your hands.

[bilgistic]

My opinion MUST be an unpopular one among the decision-makers at HBO, because I hate the guy that is in Ja'Mie: Private School Girl, its prequel(?), Summer Heights High, and now Jonah from Tonga. I have no valid reason to hate the guy other than his completely punchable face. I tried watching SHH once and it was dreadful. Who keeps giving this guy work??

Edited September 10, 2014 by bilgistic

[Joe]

He's Australian, been poluting our airwaves for several years now. But hey, for all the American nonsense we receive, it's about time we exported some of our rubbish. :)

[Kel Varnsen]

I like that we have a lot of access to information about tv shows, but I think producers have abused that significantly and use it as a crutch to handwave shoddy production and storytelling. Usually it's, there's an article in EW and the actor said the reason why their character did X was Z. Well, if I didn't see that or get that from watching the show, then no, it doesn't matter.

 

It infuriates me way more than it should, but I think my criticism is valid.

 

I don't mind TPTBs using social media to promote a show. They should. But it seems like everything that happens on shows now and you have nearly everyone involved with the show trying to tell you what happened or how you should have watched the show. 

I feel the same way and I am not sure that is so much of an unpopular opinion. I mean if you have to explain a plot line for a show in an interview, or a comic book or or a webgame or some crap like that, it doesn't make your show more interesting, it means you wrote a a shitty script. Going back to the Lost discussion, to this day it still frustrates me that the numbers, probably one of the bigger things on the show, was explained in some stupid web game rather than on the actual show.

[BellaLugosi]

 

I feel the same way and I am not sure that is so much of an unpopular opinion. I mean if you have to explain a plot line for a show in an interview, or a comic book or or a webgame or some crap like that, it doesn't make your show more interesting, it means you wrote a a shitty script.

 

There's also IMO too much of a disconnect between everyone involved. I'll give an example (again) from The Walking Dead.  There was a scene where Glenn drove off from the prison because he was angry about when had happened with him/Maggie and the Governor.  He'd promised Herschel he wouldn't go after The Governor.  They never actually showed where he went in the episode, or even mentioned it.  On Talking Dead, the actor mentioned that they had filmed the scene that showed he was checking traps or something.  But that wasn't shown on the show, and it did cause confusion among people. 

 

So, in that case the writer would have had good intentions to explain it. The director filmed that scene. The editor left it out for time, in favor of something else. No one notices this little plot hole until after the episode airs. To me, everyone shares some blame in that situation.  They should all be in communication. There should be multiple people who are looking at episodes during editing, looking out for those issues. Writers and directors should be keeping in mind the run time of an episode and that if they write or film more than 42 minutes of footage, then they need to account for stuff being cut out. So in this case,  film 2 versions of Glenn talking to Hershel. One where he just leaves all angry, and one where he says he needs to cool off,  he's just going to check the perimeter (or whatever he had said he was doing, I really can't recall).  

 

Maybe I am missing something, but that all seems like common sense to me when doing something like producing a TV show.  It should be more of a team effort than it is. 

[Joe]

 

I don't mind TPTBs using social media to promote a show. They should. But it seems like everything that happens on shows now and you have nearly everyone involved with the show trying to tell you what happened or how you should have watched the show.

I noticed this towards the end of both Buffy and BSG. The writers seemed to spend all their time doing interviews about the show rather than actually making the show. Very cart before the horse.

[merylinkid]

I agree.   if it didn't happens within the confines of the show we see on tv, it didn't happen.   TV is a visual storytelling medium.   If you can't tell your story during the show, you aren't doing your job.   It's entertainment.   It can be arty.   But if you forget what medium you are working with, it doesn't matter how "arty" you are if you present  a good story.   

 

In other words, show don't tell.

[ganesh]

I feel the same way and I am not sure that is so much of an unpopular opinion.

 

Well, I guess not. What burns me is viewers allow it to happen. "Well, they said this in that EW article so I guess that's what it is." No. Do better. 

 

On Talking Dead, the actor mentioned that they had filmed the scene that showed he was checking traps or something.  But that wasn't shown on the show, and it did cause confusion among people.

 

There should be multiple people who are looking at episodes during editing, looking out for those issues.

 

You're proving my point. Because they expect us to pay careful attention to the show, if they have to go on Talking Dead to clarify something, then they failed. If they expect us to be so observant, they should have continuity editors/consultants in turn. 

 

What really gets me is that just a little more effort would fix a ton of these problems. It's amazing how half assed so many shows are. 

[Kel Varnsen]

You're proving my point. Because they expect us to pay careful attention to the show, if they have to go on Talking Dead to clarify something, then they failed. If they expect us to be so observant, they should have continuity editors/consultants in turn. 

 

To take this further, most shows know they have tons of fans who can pick up on every little thing and analyse it like crazy. So why can't they find someone who could do that professionally and make sure that the stories make sense. 

[ribboninthesky1]

I thought that was what script supervisors were for, but maybe they don't talk to the editing team?

 

Before the Internet, and the media behind TV, I think shows could get away with plot holes and inconsistencies because you didn't have pockets of people talking about things.  I'll admit there are times when I read something I never would have caught just watching, and think, "Yeah, that DIDN'T make sense."  Of course, I also have times when certain details bug me, and no one else.  But you'd think that there would be production roles to catch key story gaps, especially if show cast and crew are very active in social media.  Because you know serious fans will call them out on it on Twitter, Facebook, and whatever else the kids are using these days.    

[ganesh]

To take this further, most shows know they have tons of fans who can pick up on every little thing and analyse it like crazy. So why can't they find someone who could do that professionally and make sure that the stories make sense.

 

Shows want that too. Why don't they have people dedicated to making sure everything lines up?

 

Of course, I also have times when certain details bug me, and no one else.

 

That's different than not executing the main precepts of storytelling though. When a character hauls off and punches someone in the face out of nowhere, and there's been no indication they're prone to violence or have been pushed to a point where they're over stressed or boxed in, etc., that's bad storytelling.

 

I suppose that the component of viewers like this is still a small minority. And really, we're still watching the shows, so that's really all that matters to them. I just think you'd want to put out the best product possible. 

[ribboninthesky1]

That's different than not executing the main precepts of storytelling though.

 

It can be, but then sometimes, there are details where *I* think it's an important part of story, and others can handwave it off.  So who's right? Yes, there are very clear instances when there are story gaps, but that's always been the case with TV.  I'm just curious who dictates what are the main precepts.  Is it a case of who yells the longest or loudest? Fans can be obsessive about minutia, does that make them right? 

 

I agree with the overall assertion that shows need to tell their story on screen, not in interviews, podcasts, post-mortems, etc.  As far as I'm concerned, if it's a key plot point or character insight and wasn't shown on the aired show, it didn't happen (and that includes deleted scenes on DVDs).  So I tend to ignore the extraneous stuff.  I think the industry hasn't caught up to viewer expectations, and the fact that they (production cast and crew) are more accessible than ever.  It seems like a balance - adhering consistently to the story you want to tell, balancing abundant viewer feedback, and understanding that social media can be a microcosm of a viewing audience, especially if said audience doesn't have a significant presence in social media.

Edited September 10, 2014 by ribboninthesky1

[Gudzilla]

 

To take this further, most shows know they have tons of fans who can pick up on every little thing and analyse it like crazy. So why can't they find someone who could do that professionally and make sure that the stories make sense.

This would ruin everything great about Under The Dome.........

[ganesh]

It can be, but then sometimes, there are details where *I* think it's an important part of story, and others can handwave it off.  So who's right? Yes, there are very clear instances when there are story gaps, but that's always been the case with TV.  I'm just curious who dictates what are the main precepts.  Is it a case of who yells the longest or loudest? Fans can be obsessive about minutia, does that make them right?

 

I'm talking the big things that are fundamental to proper storytelling. You've got to be able to derive character motivations from what you're watching on the screen. 

 

You have to be able to say. "This show is about ___________." in a pretty succinct sentence or two. Then, based on that there are overall expectations to the story. 

 

This a show about revenge. The main character's wife was killed by someone. Now the main character is hunting him down. Now you can do different and interesting things with those expectations. Maybe the killer himself was killing for revenge, and the show is trying to tell you something about how violence is a cycle. That's fine, but you still know why the guy is being hunted.

 

If you have a show about someone hunting someone down and don't show why, then you don't really have a show. Things like that.

 

Honestly, as trippy as it is, True Detective is a very straightforward show and a good example of what good storytelling is. 

[ParadoxLost]

Honestly, as trippy as it is, True Detective is a very straightforward show and a good example of what good storytelling is. 

 

True Detective needed a really good editor that could cut it down from an eight hour season to a four hour miniseries.  This opinion likely influenced by binge watching the show in one day.  There was nothing happening and redundant scenery chewing a lot of the time.

Edited September 10, 2014 by ParadoxLost

[ganesh]

That's fine. But it was still a straightforward show. And they clearly stated it on the screen at the end. 

 

I think a lot of problems with shows is that TPTBs are more focused on keeping it going and going and going without really stopping and really understanding the show that they have or what it's really about. There's no reason you can't run a show for 5 years and tell multiple self-contained stories. 

 

As shitty as Dexter ended up, they at least tried to do something like this. 

 

The Mentalist was ridiculously bad with this by stringing out Red John for so long. They did such a great job closing the plot in the first three seasons, and there was plenty of more story to tell. They got such a great actor to play "RJ". He was a one off, one episode shot, and he just ooozed a character who we only heard sparingly as a disembodied voice. 

 

But they totally copped out and strung it along way way too long, so in the end, TPTBs just pulled whatever out of their ass to wrap it up and no one was really satisfied. 

Edited September 11, 2014 by ganesh

[islandgal140]

True Detective - I feel like this show was the opposite of the saying 'the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.'  In this show's case I thought the sum of its parts were better than the whole. 

 

Walking Dead - the characterization of Michonne has been a disappointment. I like the actress just haven't been impressed with the material given to her.

 

Fargo - I'm surprised by all the love for this show. It wasn't awful but I don't think it was the marvel that critics claim it to be. Lorne posing as a practicing dentists for how long? was some WTF'ery to me. The show was just okay to me however, I despised the ending for Martin Freeman's character, Lester. It has been a long time since I have actively hated a character that much.  So, I wanted him to be caught, exposed for the human turd stain that he was and become a prison sex puppet passed and bartered around like a blunt. Needless to say I found his apparent demise less than satisfying.

 

Supernatural - I prefer Sam over Dean. Blasphemy, I know. I don't care about Castiel one way or another.  Truth be told, I watch this show now out of habit and love of eye candy as opposed to genuine interest. 

 

I love The Strain, warts, worms, bad wigs and all. Just mindless summer fun.

 

I only really enjoy the first couple of seasons of I Love Lucy. With the exception of the stomping grapes in Italy, Lucy on the train pulling the ER brakes and Lucy trying to pass off a block of cheese as a baby on a plane I hated when they started doing all those damn road trips. Ugh, and those Westchester episodes aren't even worth commenting on.

 

I love and loved Skyler from Breaking Bad and Betty from Madmen.

 

New Girl - I hate CeCe and Schmidt as a couple. Like them individually. I think Cece is arguably one of the most beautiful women on tv right now. 

 

Six Feet Under - decent series, one of the best series finale sequences that I have ever seen but I still found the show to be a bit of a snooze overall.  Love Frances Conroy but shit was Ruth annoying as fuck! Claire was my second fave character after David but gawd did I hate her art school drama and friends. 

 

Truth about me - I could live off of old reruns from shows from days gone by like All in the Family, Married with Children, The Jeffersons, Good Times (before James' death) Roseanne (pre-lottery win) , Sanford & Son, Mama's Family, Simpsons, etc., and not be bothered with current primetime outside of a couple of shows.

Edited September 12, 2014 by islandgal140

[Mulva]

Supernatural - I prefer Sam over Dean. Blasphemy, I know. I don't care about Castiel one way or another. Truth be told, I watch this show now out of habit and love of eye candy as opposed to genuine interest.

That's not blasphemy to me. I stopped being a Dean fan around S4, and I never cared that much about Castiel.

I don't hate reality show or think that they portend the end of civilization. If you don't like them, don't watch them. I'll make an exception for the kiddie exploitation shows - every adult involved in them should be horsewhipped.

I really like Clara on Doctor Who. She's upbeat, pleasant, polite to everyone, and doesn't screech. In short, she's the Anti-Amy.

Edited September 15, 2014 by Mulva

[Wiendish Fitch]

I really like Clara on Doctor Who. She's upbeat, pleasant, polite to everyone, and doesn't screech. In short, she's the Anti-Amy.

 

 

Yay, another person who prefers Clara to the monumentally annoying, useless, and overrated Amy! I am not loving this season of Doctor Who, because they're trying to make Clara the Meg Griffin of the show (the Doctor constantly mocks her looks, Madame Vastra viciously rakes her across the coals for imagined sins). Seriously, why does everyone despise her now? And why does Steven Moffat keep trying to imply that Amy was superior? If I asked before, I've asked a million times: what the ever-loving hell did Amy do that was so wonderful?? And don't say "look good in a miniskirt"!

[Misslindsey]

 

I am not loving this season of Doctor Who, because they're trying to make Clara the Meg Griffin of the show (the Doctor constantly mocks her looks, Madame Vastra viciously rakes her across the coals for imagined sins).

Me too. I hate the doctor mocking Clara's looks. I do not think I can see Nine, Ten, or Eleven mocking Rose, Martha, Donna, or Amy's physical appearance. Hell, I do not think Eleven mocked Clara's looks. I hated the constant nose jokes that Rory had to endure too.

[merylinkid]

 

I'll make an exception for the kiddie exploitation shows - every adult involved in them should be horsewhipped.

I might go that far, but I think it should be automatic grounds for losing custody in a divorce proceeding.   

[allyw]

Homeland- Hated Carrie and Brody and felt if the tptb had stuck to their original plan of killing Brody in season one and continuing with the second marine that it would've been a better show. Also didn't hate Jessica.

 

Twisted- Enjoy the first half of twisted and gave up one the show about episode 2 or 3 (can't remember which) in 2b though I did watch the finale and hated myself for doing so. Hated Jo and felt like she was pushed to the forefront simple because she's white and for that reason alone, I'm glad it was cancelled. Also hated how entitled she was especially when it came to Danny not returning her feelings in 1A which brings me to my next point.

 

Why when character A has a crush on character B, character B has to return their feelings especially if character A is "homely"? Why does character B needs to "grow up" and see the awesomeness of character A? Why can't character B simply not be attracted to character A?

 

To bring this back to Twisted, I thought when Rico confessed to liking Jo and having her not return his feelings, that the show was going to draw a parallel with Jo liking Danny and him not returning her feelings which would've been great but instead got the #Jo's always been the one crap.

 

Scandal- Olivia is my favorite character and while I don't think Kerry is the best actress, she's certainly not the worst ever. I dislike Jake because I've always found Scott Foley to be extremely bland and I'll never root for him and Olivia after he spied on her and used that information to "date" her. Also grabbing her by the throat was freaking repulsive and Fitz being an ass doesn't make him look any better for her. And Mellie is not Fitz's victim. She did everything she could to help get him elected because she wanted to be in the white house her damn self. I was also hoping that Fitz would slap her back when she did it because her lover chose his political career over her. If she's so damn unhappy then file for divorce but that would actually mean for her to do something instead of pontificating about how she gave up her law career and had kids for him.

 

True Blood- I really enjoyed Sookie and Bill in season  one but the characters got progressively worst each season with Bill getting a tad more interesting during season 5. Also disliked Eric and his portrayer acting sucked (no pun) and Pam was only good in small doses. And her and Tara were probably one of the worst couple I've ever seen on that show which is saying a lot since TB was rifed with horrible couples. 

 

Day of Our Lives- Can't remember the last time I watch but whenever I did, I hated Ej and Sami for the fact that he raped her once himself and then got the doppelganger to pretend to be Rafe and sleep with Sami and no matter how tptb ignore that it's still rape and I refuse to support that shit.

 

GH- I never saw Brenda in her heyday. only in some of her returns so maybe that clouds the way I view her; but I found her to be irritating and thinks that Vanessa Marcil is a terrible actress. I've never liked Sam and thought it ridiculous that she turned out to be Alexis long lost daughter. Also didn't like teenage Kristina; never saw the young adult one.

 

OLTL: Hated Natalie and nothing can ever make me like a character who intentionally puts herself in a danger just so a man could save her and sees that they belong together. Melissa Archer was also a horrible actress. And I thought that Michael Easton had more chemistry with Renee Goldsberry and Kassie Depaiva (sp?) than he did with her.

 

Random UO: I don't watch any show if it has two white male as leads. Why? Because as a black woman, I don't need a show to have a black female character, but I need for it to have some diversity and two white males ain't it even if one of them have a mental illness or some other disease.

 

I don't believe that network hates any of their show. If they did then the show wouldn't be on air in the first place. There are way too many pilots film every year for some exec to pick up a show to series or renew one that they hate especially if the latter has shitty ratings. The execs are there to make money for their respective network and sometimes they make horrible decisions and that may make them incompetent but not evil.

 

Rabid shipping and anti shipping are the same damn thing. I've seen fans go just as hard for a couple as the ones who hate such couple. And I think it's sad how some that's always seemed to be overlooked when being discussed.

 

The Wooby-fying of any character but especially the bad boy and its mostly done in favor of a couple. For whatever reason, the bad boy has to "become good" and the "good girl" has to be twisted into a pretzel and if anyone object to them then they are judgemental and a hater. TPTB doesn't seem to understand that if a character has to change who they are to be a part of a couple then they shouldn't be together. And I would have no problem if such characters got together if the story was written for the "good character" to recognize that he /she is making terrible a decision instead of them having "tru luv" that the world just don't understand.

Edited September 16, 2014 by allyw

[ganesh]

I don't believe that network hates any of their show.

 

May I introduce you to the Fox network? They, of the airing episodes out of order to confuse viewers, and of the dumping on the Friday night?

[BellaLugosi]

I think there are executives that want shows to fail, shows they had nothing to do with bringing on board.  I've heard lots of interviews where people will say that a new exec came in and moved their show or messed with it, sabotaging it.  I don't doubt it either.  I don't know if I'd call it "hate" but I don't think they always have the best interests of the network or the viewers in mind when they make some of their decisions. 

[Popples]

OLTL: Hated Natalie and nothing can ever make me like a character who intentionally puts herself in a danger just so a man could save her and sees that they belong together. Melissa Archer was also a horrible actress. And I thought that Michael Easton had more chemistry with Renee Goldsberry and Kassie Depaiva (sp?) than he did with her.

 

A thousand times YES!!! I stopped watching OLTL a few years before it was canceled, and Natalie and her shenanigans was the main reason why. I was shipping John and Evangeline before I even knew there was a term for it and COULD. NOT. STAND. Natalie.

[TiffanyNichelle]

allyw, I agree with your Twisted and Scandal thoughts (though I am an Olitz shipper and I didn't want Fitz to slap Mellie back). I dropped Twisted when it came back for the second half of the season and I saw that the #poorJo stuff was going to get even worse, not better. With Scandal, I originally liked Jake when I thought he was just going to be a super creepy guy but they've been working hard to make him the "good guy" and he's overstayed his welcome. Ugh, go away Jake.

[allyw]

 

May I introduce you to the Fox network? They, of the airing episodes out of order to confuse viewers, and of the dumping on the Friday night?

 

I watched Almost Human last season and it was aired out of order but I never thought it was done because they hated it. The first few episodes after the pilot were terrible and I think that in their fucked up mind, they thought they were giving it a shot by airing the "better" episodes first.

 

 

 

I think there are executives that want shows to fail, shows they had nothing to do with bringing on board.

 

I can see this being an issue with an exec's ego getting in the way but it wasn't what I was thinking about when I made my post. It was mostly about Fringe and how everyone accused Fox of hating it when the show was greenlighted and remained on air for 5 seasons under the same exec while being low rated.

 

 

 

A thousand times YES!!! I stopped watching OLTL a few years before it was canceled, and Natalie and her shenanigans was the main reason why. I was shipping John and Evangeline before I even knew there was a term for it and COULD. NOT. STAND. Natalie.

 

I liked John and Evangeline too but my main problem was how Natalie was written as a victim needing to be rescued. As a woman that shit pisses me off. Like why couldn't they still do the triangle (afterall it was a soap) but write her better.

 

 

 

allyw, I agree with your Twisted and Scandal thoughts (though I am an Olitz shipper and I didn't want Fitz to slap Mellie back). I dropped Twisted when it came back for the second half of the season and I saw that the #poorJo stuff was going to get even worse, not better. With Scandal, I originally liked Jake when I thought he was just going to be a super creepy guy but they've been working hard to make him the "good guy" and he's overstayed his welcome. Ugh, go away Jake.

 

Me wanting him to slap her back is because I'm tired of seeing women on tv slapping men because they are upset with them and I hated when Olivia did it in the pilot too.

 

I agree with you on Jake, him spying on her wasn't the issue for me but that he actually took that information and used it to date her was beyond creepy and then on top of that, they had Olivia being A-okay with it and of course no mention of him grabbing her by the throat by her or any other character as if that's suppose to be normal.

[ganesh]

I think there are executives that want shows to fail, shows they had nothing to do with bringing on board.  I've heard lots of interviews where people will say that a new exec came in and moved their show or messed with it, sabotaging it.  I don't doubt it either.  I don't know if I'd call it "hate" but I don't think they always have the best interests of the network or the viewers in mind when they make some of their decisions.

 

This is basically the m/o at the SciFi channel for over a decade. There's incredible exec turnover, so when it happens, the longer running shows usually get canned by the end of the year. It's laughable now because you read articles about "how the network is back" and there's all these shows in development. Who cares? They sure don't. 

[islandgal140]

 

Day of Our Lives- Can't remember the last time I watch but whenever I did, I hated Ej and Sami for the fact that he raped her once himself and then got the doppelganger to pretend to be Rafe and sleep with Sami and no matter how tptb ignore that it's still rape and I refuse to support that shit.

 

So much this!!! My confession is that at one point I was a big time Ejami fan, even after the rape. I finally turned on the couple after EJ kidnapped his own daughter and made Sami think she was dead. I stopped watching years ago but only after it became clear that the show was again toying with the idea of putting them together as a true love forever type couple. I started watching again this season when I heard both Alison and James  were leaving the show (yippeee!!!) and Kate and Sami were teaming up to take EJ and Stefano down.  

 

I wish soaps were more about friendship, family, businesses, intrigue, sex, money, murder and mystery than supercouple true love angst.

 

I love Walking Dead but it is an incredibly repetitive show. I feel like the same thing happens over and over again. Group finds a safe spot, shit goes down, place no longer safe, group is splintered during their escape and spends the season just missing each other until they don't. I wish the show would start filling in some blanks about what happened to the military, the government, the situation in other states/countries, or even the physiology of the zombies or the zombie virus itself. I don't need the show to explain its origins or even solve the problem - just build the world up a bit. Even a few throw away lines would go a long way for me right now. My fave episode was the CDC one because it widened the small world the group existed in. 

 

I was one of the 2 people actually shocked to find that Sophia was in the barn. I literally gasped. Never for a moment thought they wouldn't find that little girl alive and well living in a log in the forest somewhere because yeah, she was a little girl and I didn't expect the show to go there. One of my fave reveals.

 

I don't think Walking Dead has been as good or riveting since the season Shane was killed. Boy may have been unhinged but he sure as hell made the most sense out of all these fools and quiet as it has been kept all the group members seemed to move closer to the Shane way of thinking as the seasons have progressed, especially Rick. Sure no one is maiming people to throw to the walkers as they make their get away (poor Otis) but everyone is learning you can't be a bleeding heart and you have to made some tough calls that may not be morally correct.

 

I want to watch the Tudors but I cannot stand the sight of Jonathan Rhys Meyers. I don't know what it is about him but I have an irrational hatred for him.

 

After watching The Office UK I find the Office USA unwatchable. Same thing goes for Being Human. Does that make me a snob?

 

I hated April on Parks and Recreation. I didn't think she was funny or cute. She was a bratty immature bitch.

 

I could not stand all the Jerry hate on Parks and Recreation. It darkened an otherwise wonderful show. Tom, whom I liked otherwise, seemed to be the worst offender to me. Just once I wanted Jerry to haul off and punch him dead in the face.

Edited September 16, 2014 by islandgal140

[Misslindsey]

 

After watching The Office UK I find the Office USA unwatchable. Same thing goes for Being Human. Does that make me a snob?

I always think I am weird because I liked both the UK and US versions of The Office and Being Human. I thought after the first season of each (more so The Office) they were their own versions, which I liked. There are characters, plot points, and story lines that I like on each.

[callie lee 29]

 GH- I never saw Brenda in her heyday. only in some of her returns so maybe that clouds the way I view her; but I found her to be irritating and thinks that Vanessa Marcil is a terrible actress. I've never liked Sam and thought it ridiculous that she turned out to be Alexis long lost daughter. Also didn't like teenage Kristina; never saw the young adult one.

 

OLTL: Hated Natalie and nothing can ever make me like a character who intentionally puts herself in a danger just so a man could save her and sees that they belong together. Melissa Archer was also a horrible actress. And I thought that Michael Easton had more chemistry with Renee Goldsberry and Kassie Depaiva (sp?) than he did with her.

 

I can't get with you on Vanessa Marcil (I saw her since the beginning, and even though she could be a colossal, narcissistic idiot, I still loved her! But I completely agree about Sam. I have watched her since her first scene and I truly don't think there has ever been a scene that I have liked her in. Ever. Poor Alexis, saddled with two waste's of daughters (the youngest was a baby when I bailed, hoped she turned out ok).

 

Natalie made me turn off the remote whenever she came on a scene. When they hooked her up with John (?) and her never-ending whining and his brooding (seriously, I worried for the actor at times. You know when you're a kid and your mom says don't make that face or it'll get stuck like that- that was my concern)!! Of course, while Michael Easton had chemistry with Renee Goldsberry I think that was mostly her since it never seemed to be repeated on his end.

[ganesh]

I want to watch the Tudors but I cannot stand the sight of Jonathan Rhys Meyers.

 

Oh, he's terrible in it. But the other actors are pretty good. It might be something to binge on a crappy day. James Fain is great, and Henry Cavil is way way better than JRM.

[DittyDotDot]

After watching The Office UK I find the Office USA unwatchable. Same thing goes for Being Human. Does that make me a snob?

 

I don't find them unwatchable necessarily, but I prefer the British versions by far. Okay, maybe the US version of Being Human is almost unwatchable, but I watched quite a bit of the US version of The Office and enjoyed quite a bit of it. I don't think I'll ever understand the need to remake shows like this. Why wouldn't SyFy just get the rights to air the British version of Being Human rather than produce their own crappy version of it? I'm obviously missing some key element here.

[ganesh]

Don't forget Life on Mars. The USA version completely missed the point. 

 

It's not that the UK version of anything is better. It's that there has to be an American version. It just seems stale to me. Episodes really sends this up.

 

Some shows do work better in the UK format: short season order, for example. On UK shows, actors aren't tied to the show for 5 years. They might only have the 8 episode commitment. 

[scarynikki12]

I want to watch the Tudors

 

You should.  The pilot has naked Henry Cavill.  That alone is worth a watch (he has a VERY nice ass).  Plus, there's some honest to goodness great acting, including JRM after Henry starts going nuts (we just suffered until the crazy began).  The story's shit but makes for a good drinking game.