Party of One: Unpopular TV Opinions

[HazelEyes4325]

1 hour ago, proserpina65 said:

For me, they don't even all have to be likeable in some way, as long as someone on the show is.

I actually don't mind unlikable characters.  In fact, some shows need them.  What I despise is when a show tries to convince me that an unlikable character is someone I should love, all the while giving me more reasons to hate that character (looking at you, AMLT).

[andromeda331]

1 hour ago, HazelEyes4325 said:

I actually don't mind unlikable characters.  In fact, some shows need them.  What I despise is when a show tries to convince me that an unlikable character is someone I should love, all the while giving me more reasons to hate that character (looking at you, AMLT).

I don't understand why shows do that. ONCE did that Regina trying to convince and "tell" us how she bad she had it and get us to feel sorry for her and see her as victim instead of all of her victims while at the same time continuing to show horrifying crimes she committed. Like massacring a village, aligning with her mother to kill everyone or deciding to kill everyone in town because no one wants her to come back to the Enchanted Forest with them. But you know she really is a victim.  Or Carrie on Sex and the City. 

[MadyGirl1987]

7 hours ago, RisenPhoenix said:

I agree. I have a hard time with the idea that "people" can't ever go through difficult times, or bad episodes, or generally act like a-holes when they are in pain. Actual people all have dark marks on their records, times when their behavior was bad. The idea that characters aren't allowed to have the same "dark nights of the soul," is confusing to me. 

A recent example to me was the outcry over Maze's behavior on Lucifer. I hated what the character was doing, but I didn't think it was some crazy, out of character behavior. She's a demon who has never felt emotion in her life who felt abandoned and betrayed by every one of the beings she'd developed feelings for. So she did some super horrible dark stuff, because she's a demon and she fell back on what she knows. And when the chips were down, she snapped out of it and still came through. Just like happens in real life all the time, minus the demon bit.  

People don't always react well to difficulty. The idea that they somehow should have to is lost on me. 

 

3 hours ago, andromeda331 said:

I don't understand why shows do that. ONCE did that Regina trying to convince and "tell" us how she bad she had it and get us to feel sorry for her and see her as victim instead of all of her victims while at the same time continuing to show horrifying crimes she committed. Like massacring a village, aligning with her mother to kill everyone or deciding to kill everyone in town because no one wants her to come back to the Enchanted Forest with them. But you know she really is a victim.  Or Carrie on Sex and the City. 

Preach! I HATE that whenever a protagonist does a bad thing it's shown as they are turning"EVIL!" On the other hand a villians actions will be handwaved as them being "complex" or "hurt." OUAT was the worst with that in regard to the villains, especially Regina. Send guards to try to kill a newborn baby, murder a whole town, rip apart their world and transport the entire kingdom to another world to enslave people? It's all fine, because the man she was going to run off to marry was killed and she was hurt. Snow uses a magic candle to kill Cora, who was going to kill her whole family, and she's "darkened her heart." Ugh!

[Rosiejuliemom]

21 hours ago, HazelEyes4325 said:

I actually don't mind unlikable characters.  In fact, some shows need them.  What I despise is when a show tries to convince me that an unlikable character is someone I should love, all the while giving me more reasons to hate that character (looking at you, AMLT).

I'm not sure if they were supposed to be as unlikable as they came off, but I absolutely loathed all of the main characters of How I Met Your Mother and almost all of the mains on Friends except occasionally Joey & Chandler.

 

Reading the previous posts about OUAT reminded me of just how angry I get when a show takes a great premise and does absolutely nothing with it. If the showrunners/writers were so damn dead-set on making it Once Upon a Regina, could they have at least have her face some lasting consequences or express remorse?

Edited January 30, 2019 by Rosiejuliemom
Extraneous words need to go.

[Katy M]

5 hours ago, Rosiejuliemom said:

I'm not sure if they were supposed to be as unlikable as they came off, but I absolutely loathed all of the main characters of How I Met Your Mother

The only one I liked was Marshall, and sometimes Lily wasn't too bad.  But, my goodness, Ted, Robin, and Barney were all insufferable.

[Minneapple]

On 1/29/2019 at 6:40 PM, andromeda331 said:

I don't understand why shows do that. ONCE did that Regina trying to convince and "tell" us how she bad she had it and get us to feel sorry for her and see her as victim instead of all of her victims while at the same time continuing to show horrifying crimes she committed. Like massacring a village, aligning with her mother to kill everyone or deciding to kill everyone in town because no one wants her to come back to the Enchanted Forest with them. But you know she really is a victim.  Or Carrie on Sex and the City. 

Often what I see is that writers are trying to redeem a character, but their idea of redemption is way way off. Like they think a character being injured or whatever equals a redemption. That is not a redemption! Nor does a mean parent or a hard background equal a redemption. They also want a quick redemption, so the funny/witty villain can be happy or have a love interest. They don't want to work for it. Or they use good old gaslighting to handwave away the character's actions.

I've seen these ridiculous fake redemptions so many times that I was shocked when they *didn't* redeem Ward on Agents of SHIELD. 

[Blergh]

A Britcom UO: While I thought the intended premise of Vicar of Dibley of a woman cleric becoming the spiritual leader of a church in a tiny, conservative town would have been a marvelous comedy goldmine, the characters and situations were simply too cartoonish and simplistic from Day One to not be considered a self-parody!  What a waste! 

[cpcathy]

I hate this new trend of a cast of a TV show going on interviews and bemoaning how sad they are their show is ending. I don't remember this being a thing until fairly recently. Specifically, shows that have been on a very long time and where the stars have made a LOT of money. You are rich now, either retire or go find some other acting jobs!

[Wiendish Fitch]

28 minutes ago, cpcathy said:

I hate this new trend of a cast of a TV show going on interviews and bemoaning how sad they are their show is ending. I don't remember this being a thing until fairly recently. Specifically, shows that have been on a very long time and where the stars have made a LOT of money. You are rich now, either retire or go find some other acting jobs!

Just once, I'd love to hear an actor say something like,

"Woo! The nightmare ends! I'm an atheist, but I'm going to go ahead and THANK GOD that this show is finally wrapping up! I've been playing the same damn character for a whole generation, and he/she's only gotten dumber and more tiresomely cartoonish as time has gone on! Oh, think I'm being callous and ungrateful? Ask yourself this: would you want to attend high school long, long, long past your teens? It might sound fun, but it would actually  be hellish, because you're getting old, but simultaneously stuck in time while everyone else around you is moving on! And the writers, bless 'em, are sick to death of this show, too! I wish them the best, I hope they can rise above the stale crap feast this show has become! I can't believe I'm finally free! Maybe my years of studying the classics won't have been a waste, if I'm lucky! I can finally spread my professional wings and not play the same loser with the same stupid catchphrase who's middle-aged but still acts like a friggin' teenager! Who knows?! Maybe I can finally do some legitimate theater- THAT'S RIGHT, I SAID 'LEGITIMATE', CRUCIFY ME ALL YOU WANT, BECAUSE I'M FREE, MUTHAF***AS!!!!!"

Edited January 31, 2019 by Wiendish Fitch

[andromeda331]

3 hours ago, Minneapple said:

Often what I see is that writers are trying to redeem a character, but their idea of redemption is way way off. Like they think a character being injured or whatever equals a redemption. That is not a redemption! Nor does a mean parent or a hard background equal a redemption. They also want a quick redemption, so the funny/witty villain can be happy or have a love interest. They don't want to work for it. Or they use good old gaslighting to handwave away the character's actions.

I've seen these ridiculous fake redemptions so many times that I was shocked when they *didn't* redeem Ward on Agents of SHIELD. 

Yes, a lot do that. They want the redemption but don't want to do anything for it. Which doesn't work because it doesn't work that way. Not murdering someone once or just deciding their good without bothering to make up, amends or anything doesn't count. But also its taking away potential for really good storylines. A redemption story done well can be really good to watch. It was fun watching Hook change. He got his revenge (well not really since Rumple didn't die but he didn't learn that until later) but was surprised that he didn't feel like he thought he would. That was the start. He does do a dick move by leaving everyone to die but he comes back and offers up his ship to the heroes, Rumple and Regina to rescue Henry, he helps them out, he has conversation with Regina when she says one of her victims told her villains don't get happy endings Hook points out if that's true then they wasted their lives. He doesn't take the bait when Pan tells him Neal/Bae is still alive and tells Emma even thought he has feelings for her, he apologizes to Belle and they eventually becomes friends, when he and Emma go back in the past Hook punches his past self. It was really great. It was partly for Emma but the seeds had been laid before then. But so many writers skip right on over what could be a really good storyline and have so much potential for quick fix.

[kiddo82]

14 hours ago, Minneapple said:

Often what I see is that writers are trying to redeem a character, but their idea of redemption is way way off. Like they think a character being injured or whatever equals a redemption. That is not a redemption! Nor does a mean parent or a hard background equal a redemption. They also want a quick redemption, so the funny/witty villain can be happy or have a love interest. They don't want to work for it. Or they use good old gaslighting to handwave away the character's actions.

I've seen these ridiculous fake redemptions so many times that I was shocked when they *didn't* redeem Ward on Agents of SHIELD. 

I haven't revisited Angel in a while but I always liked that there was this undercurrent that he could never be truly redeemed.  Yes, we were allowed to like him as a character and he was allowed to not have to be miserable or apologetic all the time, but his slate was never going to be wiped clean.  The series ended the only way it should have, not with his ultimate salvation from his curse, but with him going down fighting for it. 

 

Spike, on the other hand,...

Edited February 1, 2019 by kiddo82

[Anela]

On 1/27/2019 at 12:59 PM, Blergh said:

  Somewhat along those lines, there are times a character  will say/ do things that other characters on the show express a POV re an MO that seems TOTALLY contrary to what I  as a viewer have 'gotten' via watching what was depicted- and there have been times( in my non Previously TV life )I've expressed a POV contrary to the show's 'party line' and gotten a 'how dare you THINK differently than what the other characters, the show itself has said why so-and-so did such-and-such'. Excuse me for actually attempting to use my brain instead of just letting myself be spoon fed. 

I've had that happen over things like TV shows, but more recently over a fraud who is leading a new fad. I wrote out a long comment, but deleted it, because I've been wound up enough over the past week, and am not feeling well. Not in the mood to deal with any potential lurking fans of this guy. I could, I'm just not feeling well, and I've had enough of them. They sound like cult members.

21 hours ago, Blergh said:

A Britcom UO: While I thought the intended premise of Vicar of Dibley of a woman cleric becoming the spiritual leader of a church in a tiny, conservative town would have been a marvelous comedy goldmine, the characters and situations were simply too cartoonish and simplistic from Day One to not be considered a self-parody!  What a waste! 

We loved that show in my family. :) Unfortunately, my dad occasionally compares me to the ditzy blonde, when I do something that makes him laugh. 

[Anela]

On 1/29/2019 at 2:50 PM, RisenPhoenix said:

I agree. I have a hard time with the idea that "people" can't ever go through difficult times, or bad episodes, or generally act like a-holes when they are in pain. Actual people all have dark marks on their records, times when their behavior was bad. The idea that characters aren't allowed to have the same "dark nights of the soul," is confusing to me. 

A recent example to me was the outcry over Maze's behavior on Lucifer. I hated what the character was doing, but I didn't think it was some crazy, out of character behavior. She's a demon who has never felt emotion in her life who felt abandoned and betrayed by every one of the beings she'd developed feelings for. So she did some super horrible dark stuff, because she's a demon and she fell back on what she knows. And when the chips were down, she snapped out of it and still came through. Just like happens in real life all the time, minus the demon bit.  

People don't always react well to difficulty. The idea that they somehow should have to is lost on me. 

I have plenty of personal experience with this, and have personally dealt with hypocrites who were awful, and got me where I am now, but I was blamed for all of it. That's a big part of why my attitude is pretty bad now. They got away with it, and the people who enabled them are stunned when I don't want to be around them. I still get attacked over lies that were spread about me. I went from having a mostly happy family life (at least), to a nightmare that always seems to resurrect at some point. I'm still me, but a very scuffed version of who I used to be. 

[andromeda331]

On ‎1‎/‎31‎/‎2019 at 9:54 PM, kiddo82 said:

I haven't revisited Angel in a while but I always liked that there was this undercurrent that he could never be truly redeemed.  Yes, we were allowed to like him as a character and he was allowed to not have to be miserable or apologetic all the time, but his slate was never going to be wiped clean.  The series ended the only way it should have, not with his ultimate salvation from his curse, but with him going down fighting for it. 

 

Spike, on the other hand,...

Its really nice when that happens. With some characters that's exactly how it should be. That's one of the reasons I love Eliot on Leverage. He did some bad stuff in his past. Wetwork and jobs that went way over the line which including killing of innocent people. He admits that he'll never be clean of that. No matter how many good things he does since then (including cutting off the head of Al Qaeda in Yemen) and he really has since joining the Leverage crew and he has changed it won't changed anything. He accepts it and he's probably right. He and the three other criminals guys on Leverage end working together with the one non-criminal person to help people. At first its because they worked together to get back at the person who hired them to steal plans and screwed them over and try to kill them. After that one job they end up with enough money to retire but don't want to. So they decide to keep working together but helping people by conning bad people and taking them down. But by second season they want to keep doing that. Partly to keep working together but mostly just helping people got under their skin. They liked it. They want to keep helping people because they found out they really liked helping people.

[bmasters9]

Another possibly unpopular one I have: The Streets of San Francisco (that 1972-77 ABC police/detective series w/the late Karl Malden as Lt. Mike Stone, Michael Douglas as Insp. Steve Keller [1972-76], and the late Richard Hatch as Insp. Dan Robbins [fifth-and-final-season, 1976-77]) has been the only one of all of Quinn Martin's series (all of those that I have tried; I have tried at least three) to pay off with a generally satisfying experience across practically all of its 119 episodes (120 if you count the two-hr. pilot); I think this is owing in large part to the Academy Award-winning actors who played the lead men from 1972-76 (Karl Malden and Michael Douglas). This isn't to discount Richard Hatch in his one and only season there (because his season did have some fine episodes); only to say that it was Malden and Douglas who really brought the goods.

Edited February 7, 2019 by bmasters9
Number of Quinn Martin series I have tried

[MissAlmond]

I haven't really watched or cared about the actual Super Bowl for years.  I'm just here for the food.  

Edited February 2, 2019 by MissAlmond

[Rosiejuliemom]

28 minutes ago, MissAlmond said:

I haven't really watched or cared about the actual Super Bowl for years.  I'm just here for the food.  

I can't watch football anymore, so I stick to the Puppy Bowl.

[andromeda331]

20 minutes ago, Rosiejuliemom said:

I can't watch football anymore, so I stick to the Puppy Bowl.

I love the Puppy Bowl! I watch it every year.

[Ambrosefolly]

On 1/31/2019 at 12:48 PM, cpcathy said:

I hate this new trend of a cast of a TV show going on interviews and bemoaning how sad they are their show is ending. I don't remember this being a thing until fairly recently. Specifically, shows that have been on a very long time and where the stars have made a LOT of money. You are rich now, either retire or go find some other acting jobs!

 

I think it is a crock of shit to make them look authentic. I loved the people at my other jobs and in one case, really liked the job, but sometimes it is good to move on. I have no doubt they will miss the cast and crew dearly, especially if you have been on the show for years but at the same time, you have been on the show for YEARS.

[MissAlmond]

On ‎1‎/‎31‎/‎2019 at 11:48 AM, cpcathy said:

I hate this new trend of a cast of a TV show going on interviews and bemoaning how sad they are their show is ending

The medium used is new, not the talking about being sad a show is coming to an end.  In the past glory days of TV Guide, they would have been the chosen outlet for such interviews.  Heck, back in the days of The Big Three and network chiefs held all the power, they used to bluntly tell TV Guide why they fired an actor.  

Edited February 3, 2019 by MissAlmond

[ganesh]

Actors aren't going to really trash a show though. That's not going to help them for future jobs. Even on a bad show, it's still steady work. 

[biakbiak]

I don’t think it’s that new. Cheers and Seinfeld did a shit ton of interviews and specials. Even MASH a lot of the cast did a lot of media about the ending.

Edited February 3, 2019 by biakbiak

[Bastet]

My UO as an animal lover is that the Puppy/Kitten/Dog/Cat Bowls aren't anything I enjoy watching.  I'm a huge football fan, so I'm watching the Super Bowl with pretty much any match-up (a Cowboys/Patriots game is the only horrifying scenario I would skip altogether), but I can't watch more than a few minutes of the animal bowls during commercials/when they're aired against programming other than the game. 

I appreciate the promotion of "adopt, don't shop" and that these shows lead to most of the featured animals getting adopted, and I particularly applaud the Dog Bowl (only a couple of years old) and the Cat Bowl (new this year), featuring adult companion animals - who face much greater odds than their young counterparts in finding homes - but I just don't enjoy the shows as programming.  All the stupid music and announcing!  It's so unbearably lame.  Put on mute, just watching animals frolic is enjoyable for a time, but the programs themselves simply annoy me in spite of the cute critters.

[biakbiak]

9 minutes ago, Bastet said:

Put on mute, just watching animals frolic is enjoyable for a time, but the programs themselves simply annoy me in spite of the cute critters.

Also, YouTube exists and you can watch animal videos 24-7/365.

9 minutes ago, Bastet said:

Put on mute, just watching animals frolic is enjoyable for a time, but the programs themselves simply annoy me in spite of the cute critters.

Also, YouTube exists and you can watch animal videos 24-7/365.

[ratgirlagogo]

13 hours ago, bmasters9 said:

has been the only one of all of Quinn Martin's series (all of those that I have tried; I have tried at least three) to pay off with a consistently satisfying experience across practically all of its 119 episodes 

What are your also-rans?

[bmasters9]

Just now, ratgirlagogo said:

What are your also-rans?

Cannon and The Fugitive.

[ratgirlagogo]

5 minutes ago, bmasters9 said:

Cannon and The Fugitive.

I haven't watched The Fugitive since it was first on, I think.  But I've been on a Cannon kick in the last six months and I have to say I'm really enjoying it.  Although I think my extreme fondness for William Conrad plays a large role in that.  I love the whole "fat-man-of-action" thing the show has going on.  He doesn't just win fights, he's scuba diving, he's scrunching up into old abandoned mine shafts, he's escaping from overturned exploding Lincoln Continentals, etc.   And he has a car phone!

[bmasters9]

On 2/3/2019 at 6:11 AM, ratgirlagogo said:

I haven't watched The Fugitive since it was first on, I think.  But I've been on a Cannon kick in the last six months and I have to say I'm really enjoying it.  Although I think my extreme fondness for William Conrad plays a large role in that.  I love the whole "fat-man-of-action" thing the show has going on.  He doesn't just win fights, he's scuba diving, he's scrunching up into old abandoned mine shafts, he's escaping from overturned exploding Lincoln Continentals, etc.   And he has a car phone!

You've made some good points there! I think the reason why Cannon has been the also-ran to me is because it has seemed to be so much slower than The Streets of San Francisco; Streets has been veritably fast-paced, and I can very much enjoy practically any one of the episodes there and not get bored, whereas it seems that with Cannon (at least IMO), a 50-min. episode there feels like two hours, seemingly languid as it is.

Edited February 7, 2019 by bmasters9

[Blergh]

On 2/2/2019 at 4:26 PM, MissAlmond said:

I haven't really watched or cared about the actual Super Bowl for years.  I'm just here for the food.  

 

  Me either! I think I'll just watch other things- then 'Net surf when it's over to get the basic gist so I won't be totally ignorant when folks at work attempt to bombard me tomorrow about the game, the Half Time Show and the commercials! Who would have imagined anyone would have CARED about the half-time show or commercials when they first started the Super Bowl way back when?

Edited February 4, 2019 by Blergh
about face

[ganesh]

The Superbowl wasn't "boring". 

[topanga]

14 hours ago, ganesh said:

The Superbowl wasn't "boring". 

I agree. I was very impressed by both defenses. The Rams’ offense sucked, however. 

[Katy M]

3 minutes ago, topanga said:

I agree. I was very impressed by both defenses. The Rams’ offense sucked, however. 

Yeah, it was more that this was a defense game than an offense game.  The only problem with that is that what everybody usually wants to see is an offense game because scores are generally more exciting than stops.

[ganesh]

What it was, was people getting a game they weren't expecting involving a team most people don't like. So of course, it sucks and it the worst thing ever. Not that they were forced to watch.

[Minneapple]

44 minutes ago, topanga said:

I agree. I was very impressed by both defenses. The Rams’ offense sucked, however. 

It may have been because their superstar running back inexplicably sat on the bench for most of the first half. Whatever led to that decision, plus whoever called the plays for the Rams did no favors for a young quarterback who may have felt nerves playing in his first Super Bowl. 

[ganesh]

The OL wasn't doing Goff any favors either. The Pats were rushing 4 and 5 mostly. 

[andromeda331]

On ‎2‎/‎2‎/‎2019 at 11:59 PM, Bastet said:

My UO as an animal lover is that the Puppy/Kitten/Dog/Cat Bowls aren't anything I enjoy watching.  I'm a huge football fan, so I'm watching the Super Bowl with pretty much any match-up (a Cowboys/Patriots game is the only horrifying scenario I would skip altogether), but I can't watch more than a few minutes of the animal bowls during commercials/when they're aired against programming other than the game. 

I appreciate the promotion of "adopt, don't shop" and that these shows lead to most of the featured animals getting adopted, and I particularly applaud the Dog Bowl (only a couple of years old) and the Cat Bowl (new this year), featuring adult companion animals - who face much greater odds than their young counterparts in finding homes - but I just don't enjoy the shows as programming.  All the stupid music and announcing!  It's so unbearably lame.  Put on mute, just watching animals frolic is enjoyable for a time, but the programs themselves simply annoy me in spite of the cute critters.

I'm glad they added the Dog and Cat Bowls too. Yes, older pets need good homes too. My dad and I adopted a seven year old dog from the Humane Society, we had been looking for an older dog for almost a year (our last dog died two years ago ). As cute as puppies are neither of us are in good health to keep up with a puppy. But an older dog would be perfect and the one we have is perfect. She's been an awesome dog. Watching her change since coming into our home. Her last owners were awful to her and kept her in a cage most of the time. She was so afraid to be petted and now happily comes up and put her head on your knee or under your arm to let you know she'd like to be petted. She saw the backyard and almost didn't even know what to do with so much space to run around in. Now? No problems she runs around like she owns it. Because she does. I think for now on we are always going to be adopting older dogs from the Humane Society.

Edited February 5, 2019 by andromeda331

[proserpina65]

On ‎02‎/‎03‎/‎2019 at 1:59 AM, Bastet said:

I appreciate the promotion of "adopt, don't shop" and that these shows lead to most of the featured animals getting adopted, and I particularly applaud the Dog Bowl (only a couple of years old) and the Cat Bowl (new this year), featuring adult companion animals - who face much greater odds than their young counterparts in finding homes - but I just don't enjoy the shows as programming.  All the stupid music and announcing!  It's so unbearably lame.  Put on mute, just watching animals frolic is enjoyable for a time, but the programs themselves simply annoy me in spite of the cute critters.

I enjoy them more as entertaining background.  Same as Too Cute on Animal Planet.

A friend and I did watch the Cat Bowl Saturday night.  It was cute, but the stories made me tear up a lot.  My friend said she'd never seen me cry that much.  (Clearly she doesn't remember seeing The End of The Affair in the theater with me.)

On ‎02‎/‎04‎/‎2019 at 2:50 PM, Katy M said:

Yeah, it was more that this was a defense game than an offense game.  The only problem with that is that what everybody usually wants to see is an offense game because scores are generally more exciting than stops.

Defense does win championships, after all.

Edited to note that what I saw was boring as shit, but that's how I feel about American football in general anyway.

Edited February 5, 2019 by proserpina65

[proserpina65]

16 hours ago, andromeda331 said:

I'm glad they added the Dog and Cat Bowls too. Yes, older pets need good homes too.

I particularly appreciated that some of the cats were special needs as well.  (The dogs might've been too, but I didn't watch that one.)

[Shannon L.]

Speaking of the Super Bowl, my UO is that the commercials were better this year than in the previous few years.  There were a few of them that made me laugh or say "cool" or  "aww".....

[Raja]

On 2/4/2019 at 11:50 AM, Katy M said:

Yeah, it was more that this was a defense game than an offense game.  The only problem with that is that what everybody usually wants to see is an offense game because scores are generally more exciting than stops.

Except for cover cornerbacks just about everything almost all defensive Hall of Famers where known for is now outlawed 

[meep.meep]

Is it an anagram?  Do I need to shuffle the words?  Do you want to buy some commas?

[woodstock]

Two UO re: Arrow

I'm indifferent about Felicity and Oliver having a baby. This show has become such a mess; the star couple having a baby won't make up for the lame story-lines and bad writing.

I will miss Curtis.

[SmithW6079]

On 2/4/2019 at 2:50 PM, Katy M said:

Yeah, it was more that this was a defense game than an offense game.  The only problem with that is that what everybody usually wants to see is an offense game because scores are generally more exciting than stops.

On 2/5/2019 at 2:58 PM, proserpina65 said:

Defense does win championships, after all.

At the 12-second mark. 😀

[proserpina65]

On ‎02‎/‎13‎/‎2019 at 1:13 AM, SmithW6079 said:

At the 12-second mark. 😀

I love that commercial for so many reasons, and that's one of them.

[Chaos Theory]

I don’t know how unpopular it is but I need to get it off my chest.  I don’t give a crap what adults do on reality tv shows.  If you want to do stupid human tricks .  Or girls/boys with biggest boobs it all falls into free speech with me and anyone who wants to watch it the same thing.

My issue is with ones that focus on kids.  By the nature of being kids they have no free speech and rely on their parents to look out for their best interest.   Since the makers of these programs have gone out of their way to make sure none of these people are labeled as “actors” their is zero protection for kids growing up with a camera being shoved in Their face.

[proserpina65]

I'm fine with not seeing/hearing about Christy's kids on Mom.  I don't mind Roscoe, but if Violet dropped off the face of the earth, I'd celebrate never having to see her again.

[Morlock]

I'm a bit odd as in  I don't watch much TV now myself but my wife loves a lot of these shows so I sometimes sit and watch them with her. So if you are about to say "If you don't like them, don't watch" that is why! 

The heavier stuff..

* Medical dramas - Organ harvesting is a popular theme. For once I would like to see the grieving parents say no and stick to it. Then sue the hospital for trauma. As the hospital ALWAYS pressure them! 

* PC Propaganda - They aren't even creative about this anymore. The characters just make speeches totally unrelated to the story. It is so flimsy and poorly done. 

* LGBTIQ - Every show has to have this theme. 

The lighter stuff..

* When established characters talk about an interest just because it is flavour of the month. They have never shown interest in it before though.

* When historical based dramas use modern morality and politics. The characters really just playing dress up now as opposed to a realistic setting. 

Edited February 25, 2019 by Morlock

[Archery]

My Oscars UO:  The Academy Awards broadcast needs song performances.  Without the musical numbers, they could just put out a glossy magazine and be done with it.  Here's the list of nominees.  Here's the winner.  Here's the text of his/her speech.  Here's a photo gallery of all the fashion.  It's the songs that make the Oscars into a variety/entertainment show (the category it's always nominated for at the Emmys).  Otherwise, it's just a bunch of people you'll never meet naming other people you don't know and don't care about.  

[festivus]

My UO is that I don't give a shit about award shows. Genre shows are rarely recognized and I watch some that have wonderful writing and acting that I know is as good as the stuff that does get nominated. I've also read stuff so many times about Oscar voters that say they didn't bother to watch all the movies or performances that were nominated. How do you have an informed vote if you haven't seen everything? I also just don't enjoy watching people give speeches. It's nice for them that they get their moment and all but I don't care about watching it. Also, the fact that Andre Braugher hasn't won five straight Emmys for his portrayal of Captain Holt on Brooklyn Nine-Nine tells me enough. He is brilliant.

(I won't lie though that I love seeing the next day what people wore)

[Anduin]

1 hour ago, festivus said:

My UO is that I don't give a shit about award shows. Genre shows are rarely recognized and I watch some that have wonderful writing and acting that I know is as good as the stuff that does get nominated. I've also read stuff so many times about Oscar voters that say they didn't bother to watch all the movies or performances that were nominated. How do you have an informed vote if you haven't seen everything? I also just don't enjoy watching people give speeches. It's nice for them that they get their moment and all but I don't care about watching it. Also, the fact that Andre Braugher hasn't won five straight Emmys for his portrayal of Captain Holt on Brooklyn Nine-Nine tells me enough. He is brilliant.

(I won't lie though that I love seeing the next day what people wore)

I don't care either. In fact, I remember when the modern Battlestar Galactica won a Peabody Award. That's nice, but I've never heard of the Peabody Award before, or in any context not involving BSG. For all I know, one of the producers called a friend and got them to create an award specifically for the show.