Party of One: Unpopular TV Opinions

[proserpina65]

21 hours ago, roamyn said:

Wow, I guess mine really is an UO.  IMHO Rachel was the main problem.  She wasn’t clear what she expected.  He thought they were broken up.  She was whiny, spoiled and slept around.  He was whiny, too, but he didn’t sleep around.

Not an unpopular opinion, but I thought they were both in the wrong, were a terrible couple, and should've stayed broken up.

[andromeda331]

24 minutes ago, Katy M said:

 I never found the age difference creepy, and they were a good couple.  But, I've always loved Chandler and Monica, so I'm glad that happened.  I also thought all (or at least most) of Monica's breakups were the most mature and realistic.  She broke up with Richard because she wanted babies and he didn't.  Even when he begrudgingly offered to have kids, she knew that wouldn't work, and they ended it there instead of dragging on a relationship she knew would never work.  OK, yeah, she and Richard had a little fling later, but they realized fairly quickly again that they couldn't work.She also knew she couldn't stand by and watch Pete kill himself.  She was honest up front, not trying to manipulate him and walked away. In both cases, there was no yelling and screaming.  No playing the blame game.  No cheating.   Ross and Rachel should have taken a lesson from her.  The only one where I would say there were any extra dramatics was with the poet guy.  But, that wasn't that bad and he was being a jerk.

I never found Monica's and Richard's difference in age to be a problem either. They had chemistry and got along well. I loved them together. I love Monica and Chandler too. They were unexpected and had great chemistry. I also love when they ran into Richard again. Chandler was upset but he wasn't jealous. Unlike Ross, he thought Monica should be with Richard because he thought he was better for Monica then he was. That's so different from Ross flipping out every time another man came near Rachel. Chandler wanted Monica to be happy and thought she deserved someone better then he him. Monica of course corrected him in that really great scene. There's also Thanksgiving when she tries so hard to make it a good one for him because she knows he has a problem with it.

[andromeda331]

Ross and Rachel were a couple that tried and failed. But for big reasons. Ross's jealous was ridiculous. Nothing Rachel did or said mattered. He freaked out every time a male who wasn't Joey or Chandler was around her. As if she was totally going to cheat on him. If the "we were on a break" didn't happen it would have been something else sooner. Maybe Rachel sick and tired of his jealousy. Rachel did blow off a lot of their plans before that for work. They just weren't good together. After they break up not much changes except they both become horrible to anyone the other dates. They are toxic and it never really gets fix. Ross never gets over his jealousy issues. Maybe it all steams from Carol cheating on him or low self estimate or what. None of their problems get fixed. He never stops and wonders why he keeps blowing it. Or go to therapy to find out. There's also how many times they could have gotten together and didn't. When Ross was out of relationship Rachel refused to get back together even though she treated his girlfriends like crap. They get drunk and get married. Nothing really comes from it except another divorce. They have a daughter together. That doesn't do anything. So what about Ross showing up at the airport is different? Rachel passes up her dream job to get back together with Ross despite none of their problems being fixed? 

[Katy M]

19 minutes ago, andromeda331 said:

So what about Ross showing up at the airport is different?

The show is over so they don't need any more drama:)

[festivus]

43 minutes ago, proserpina65 said:

Not an unpopular opinion, but I thought they were both in the wrong, were a terrible couple, and should've stayed broken up.

I share most of this opinion the only difference being that I didn't care who was in the wrong. That relationship ruined the show for me. I feel like it took over everything. When that and Smelly Cat are all I can remember from the show when I think about it, that's not good.

[auntlada]

5 hours ago, Wiendish Fitch said:

I loved Monica and Richard's relationship... unfortunately, it was too perfect to last. 

And I never found the age difference creepy, either: Monica was over 21, and it's not like Richard was some gross lech who only chased hot young tail. Hell, I think theirs was one of the better May/December TV relationships.

I loved the relationship, but I think that was mostly because it was Tom Selleck.

[Haleth]

20 hours ago, Katy M said:

The writer's strike was in the 2007-2008 TV season.  Flash Forward ran two years later 2009-2010.

Oops, I guess I misremembered too.  There was some long break in second season that caused ratings to plummet.  I dunno, maybe it was the normal Christmas season break?  When it came back viewers just didn't care anymore.

[Enigma X]

On 3/8/2019 at 5:07 AM, Haleth said:

Oops, I guess I misremembered too.  There was some long break in second season that caused ratings to plummet.  I dunno, maybe it was the normal Christmas season break?  When it came back viewers just didn't care anymore.

Yeah. That's how I remember it, but my memory has proven to be questionable.

Edited March 12, 2019 by Enigma X

[Katy M]

4 minutes ago, Enigma X said:

Yeah. That how I remember it, but my memory has proven to be questionable.

According to IMDB, they had a break from December 3 to March 18. I don't know if it was planned that way, or something happened, but I can definitely see how that would break momentum.

[kiddo82]

10 hours ago, DearEvette said:

I really liked Survivor at first.  It just felt so interesting and different at the time.

But I have to agree that it created a type of template that other reality competition shows and  competitors emulated.  Richard the first winner was a basic asshole but after he won, his duplicity and manipulation was praised and offered up as something cool and inevitable.  You could tell that other shows that came after actively sought that sort of ethic.  And because it seemed like it was rewarded in winning and audience admiration, backstabbing behavior became the norm and became somewhat of a self fulfilling prophecy in that you couldn't seem to win without lying in some way,  I feel like this was something egged on and encouraged by production as well.

This is one of the reasons of all the competitive reality shows, I liked The Amazing Race the best.  I thought it was the one show where you had to rely more on ability, your own strategy and just plain luck over something like and alliance or lies in order to prevail.

This may be an "old lady yells at cloud" moment, but I think reality TV really was at its best when it was in its infancy and the folks going on truly had no template.   As far back as The Real World those first few seasons were pretty interesting before it became about being the most obnoxious/dramatic/outlandish in order to get MTV Famous.   Then you have Survivor and the first few seasons were the same thing.  I always go back to Colleen Haskell before a challenge saying something to the effect of "So it's like a game show" then coming to realization that she was already ON a game show.  They really had no clue what they got themselves into.  I'm sure there were contestants playing to the camera even then but who could really expect in the year 2000 that you could parlay something like Survivor into kind of a career either by making appearances or becoming a professional reality show contestant.  Even now, when you have people going on not necessarily for notoriety but because they're fans or want the experience, they have studied the game and they plan exactly what "type" of player they want to be going in.  It's not completely a bad thing as the game itself has and should evolve, but it feels like everyone shows up to play a role and there's less naivete and authenticity.  (at least as authentic as these thing got even in their early stages).  

[Katy M]

20 hours ago, DearEvette said:

This is one of the reasons of all the competitive reality shows, I liked The Amazing Race the best.  I thought it was the one show where you had to rely more on ability, your own strategy and just plain luck over something like and alliance or lies in order to prevail.

That's how I feel too.  And, yeah, sometimes a team will ask another team if they've found the clue and the team will lie and say no, but to me that's not a big deal. Yes, it's a lie. But, they're playing a game and the other team should know better than to believe.  It's not on the level of deceptions on Survivor and Big Brother.

Having said that, though, the whole point in Survivor is to "outwit and outlast."  People really shouldn't expect those alliances to hold up either.  My mom says Survivor is a game to see who the best liar is.  I more or less agree with that and that's why I don't watch.  But, I wouldn't necessarily think that someone who lies on Survivor is a liar in real life.  Lying is part of the game.  It is the game.

[2727]

One of the main comedic beats of The Big Bang Theory and now Young Sheldon is Sheldon's self-absorption and lack of any noticeable social skills.

I am fine with him being an asshole.

[DrSpaceman]

On ‎3‎/‎7‎/‎2019 at 2:29 PM, Wiendish Fitch said:

I loved Monica and Richard's relationship... unfortunately, it was too perfect to last. 

And I never found the age difference creepy, either: Monica was over 21, and it's not like Richard was some gross lech who only chased hot young tail. Hell, I think theirs was one of the better May/December TV relationships.

This leads me to another UO: I was never bothered by Drew and Celia's relationship on The Drew Carey Show. I thought they were kind of cute together. No, I'm not saying they had to be together forever, but it was nice while it lasted. 

I don't think it was creepy because of the age difference

It was more so that this was a girl, now woman, he had known since she was a baby, presumably, based on his relationship with her dad and who not only was young enough to be her daughter but actually knew his daughter.  He watched her grow up and now was dating her. 

So its a bit creepy. 

[GaT]

7 hours ago, kiddo82 said:

This may be an "old lady yells at cloud" moment, but I think reality TV really was at its best when it was in its infancy and the folks going on truly had no template.   As far back as The Real World those first few seasons were pretty interesting before it became about being the most obnoxious/dramatic/outlandish in order to get MTV Famous.   Then you have Survivor and the first few seasons were the same thing.  I always go back to Colleen Haskell before a challenge saying something to the effect of "So it's like a game show" then coming to realization that she was already ON a game show.  They really had no clue what they got themselves into.  I'm sure there were contestants playing to the camera even then but who could really expect in the year 2000 that you could parlay something like Survivor into kind of a career either by making appearances or becoming a professional reality show contestant.  Even now, when you have people going on not necessarily for notoriety but because they're fans or want the experience, they have studied the game and they plan exactly what "type" of player they want to be going in.  It's not completely a bad thing as the game itself has and should evolve, but it feels like everyone shows up to play a role and there's less naivete and authenticity.  (at least as authentic as these thing got even in their early stages).  

That was way back before there was Instagram or Twitter & you could watch reruns of shows during the Summer (which is how I watched the first season). Once social media got huge, & people could become famous overnight without any talent, they started to play (and the networks started to cast) certain "types" of people & now that's pretty much all we see on reality shows, the same type of people over & over.

[topanga]

On 3/7/2019 at 8:29 AM, Drogo said:

Flash Forward with Joseph Fiennes?  I really liked that show. 

Me too. I didn't watch it until recently--and that's because John Cho was in it. But it was an entertaining, don't-take-yourself-too-seriously show. 

[Rockstar99435]

3 hours ago, DrSpaceman said:

I don't think it was creepy because of the age difference

It was more so that this was a girl, now woman, he had known since she was a baby, presumably, based on his relationship with her dad and who not only was young enough to be her daughter but actually knew his daughter.  He watched her grow up and now was dating her. 

So its a bit creepy. 

Yep. If Monica, as an adult in her mid-twenties, started dating a random man who was in his 50s, it wouldn't necessarily be weird or predatory of him. But he knew her when she was a small child, watched her grow up playing in his pool with his own children who were her friends, and then started dating her. That's creepy. 

[PepSinger]

On 3/5/2019 at 3:58 PM, truthaboutluv said:

Absolutely agree with that one. Especially as they already ruined my favorite couple from the book for the series. I personally have zero interest in watching how much more awful they can make it. 

It being the couple or the show? Reading book after watching the show, I thought it was an excellent adaptation,

[truthaboutluv]

2 minutes ago, PepSinger said:

It being the couple or the show? 

The couple.

[Haleth]

22 hours ago, Katy M said:

That's how I feel too.  And, yeah, sometimes a team will ask another team if they've found the clue and the team will lie and say no, but to me that's not a big deal. Yes, it's a lie. But, they're playing a game and the other team should know better than to believe.  It's not on the level of deceptions on Survivor and Big Brother.

And on top of that it's a rule that you are not allowed to impede another team.  Sure, teams may conspire to not help one specific team but they can't do anything to slow that team down, like hiding a puzzle piece for example.  Or, as we say in the TAR topics, raaaaace!

Ok, I have one.  I loved the first couple of seasons of American Idol because of the talent of the kids competing.  But on the latest versions of competitive reality shows it's all about the judges.  I cannot stand the witty banter among the celebs and their pathetic need for attention at the expense of the contestants.  I think The Voice is the worst but only because it's the only one I've seen more than just the promos.  I believe this goes for America's Got Talent (which annoys me because of grammar too) and all the other talent shows.  Focus should be on the contestants, not the judges.  In any case I don't think big name performers are all that great at finding raw talent.  How many winners go on to have successful careers?  Not many is my guess.

Edited March 9, 2019 by Haleth

[Blergh]

3 hours ago, Haleth said:

  In any case I don't think big name performers are all that great at finding raw talent.  How many winners go on to have successful careers?  Not many is my guess.

 Yeah, even the bad penny American Idol has only had Kelly Clarkson achieve LASTING fame and fortune. My guess is that the audience could only tolerate having someone shoved down their collective throat to want to actually give them a chance to let their actual talents shine- ONCE but has dropped every other 'winner' and contestant from their memory as soon as each season ends. Here's hoping THIS season of the second rendition of AI proves to be the LAST AND that it never, EVER, gets revived again!  Come on, folks, those two years in which the show was GONE were a blissful reminder of the time in which humanity thrived for millennia  before it had ever existed! 

[Ohwell]

9 minutes ago, Blergh said:

Yeah, even the bad penny American Idol has only had Kelly Clarkson achieve LASTING fame and fortune.

Also Carrie Underwood.

[Blergh]

1 minute ago, Ohwell said:

Also Carrie Underwood.

OK, even though Trisha Yearwood might be tempted to debate that, I concede you are correct about her!

 However; two examples out of 17 season winners and how many wannabee contestants does NOT prove   AI a  path to guaranteed lasting stardom for any and all talented folks who want to hitch their wagons to it despite all its hysterical hype claiming that to be the case! 

[Haleth]

48 minutes ago, Blergh said:

OK, even though Trisha Yearwood might be tempted to debate that, I concede you are correct about her!

 However; two examples out of 17 season winners and how many wannabee contestants does NOT prove   AI a  path to guaranteed lasting stardom for any and all talented folks who want to hitch their wagons to it despite all its hysterical hype claiming that to be the case! 

There are also a handful of non winners that are doing well (Jennifer Hudson and Clay Aiken come to mind) but I don't think any other show has come up with a contestant that has hit it as big. I think the difference was the influence of judges who could spot talent (Cowell, Jackson), rather than celebs who were more interested in keeping the spotlight on themselves. 

[Ohwell]

20 minutes ago, Haleth said:

There are also a handful of non winners that are doing well (Jennifer Hudson and Clay Aiken come to mind) but I don't think any other show has come up with a contestant that has hit it as big. I think the difference was the influence of judges who could spot talent (Cowell, Jackson), rather than celebs who were more interested in keeping the spotlight on themselves. 

Yeah, those two non winners, plus Adam Lambert is doing well with the Queen show.  Also, Justin Guarini is doing those Diet Dr. Pepper commercials (Lil' Sweet!) and Broadway.  I can't think of any other non winners though.  

[Katy M]

2 minutes ago, Ohwell said:

Yeah, those two non winners, plus Adam Lambert is doing well with the Queen show.  Also, Justin Guarini is doing those Diet Dr. Pepper commercials (Lil' Sweet!) and Broadway.  I can't think of any other non winners though.  

Katherine (sp?) McPhee was on 2 TV shows, but only sang on one.

Daughtry had his band, but I don't know if they did anything past the first year or so.  I really liked the songs from his first CD, though, so I had to mention him.

[Ohwell]

6 minutes ago, Katy M said:

Katherine (sp?) McPhee was on 2 TV shows, but only sang on one.

Daughtry had his band, but I don't know if they did anything past the first year or so.  I really liked the songs from his first CD, though, so I had to mention him.

Oops, how could I forget Daughtry?  I guess it's because I haven't heard about them in a while.  I love that group and I've got all of their CDs.  

I also forgot about McPhee.  I don't know how much she's performing now since she married David Foster.  

[Katy M]

1 minute ago, Ohwell said:

Oops, how could I forget Daughtry?  I guess it's because I haven't heard about them in a while.  I love that group and I've got all of their CDs.  

I also forgot about McPhee.  I don't know how much she's performing now since she married David Foster.  

See, you keep remembering more people.  Maybe it's not as bad as you think:)

I remember saying when it started that they should have only had the competition once every 4 years like the Olympics.  And then really back the heck out of the winner doing all they could to make him/her a superstar.  But, since most of the winners fizzle out fairly quickly and they not only have AI every year, but now have copycats, nobody can get excited about finding the next "star."

[Bort]

Daughtry is still around. He was opening for Nickelback last year. 

Tamyra Gray also has had a decent Broadway career. 

[GaT]

2 hours ago, Haleth said:

I think the difference was the influence of judges who could spot talent (Cowell, Jackson), rather than celebs who were more interested in keeping the spotlight on themselves. 

I used to watch AI, but haven't in a long time. I saw the Carrie Underwood season, & I remember at some point early in the competition Simon Cowell saying something to her about how he thought she would win & become a really huge star.  He was able to pick her out right away, his talent spotting ability is impressive.

[Mabinogia]

I wonder how many of AI's "successes" are successful because of AI or if they would have been successful anyway because they're actually talented. Since a lot of them seem to be successful as something other than pop singers, I'm thinking they would have found success without the show. 

[Katy M]

20 minutes ago, Mabinogia said:

I wonder how many of AI's "successes" are successful because of AI or if they would have been successful anyway because they're actually talented. Since a lot of them seem to be successful as something other than pop singers, I'm thinking they would have found success without the show. 

When it comes to becoming successful in an area of the performing arts, it's part talent and part opportunity.  There are a lot of talented people who never get a big break.  And there are some fairly famous people who don't actually seem all that talented in their career of choice.  So, I doubt anyone who was on AI who then got some breaks from it would deny that it helped, or assume they would have made it some other way.

[GaT]

38 minutes ago, Mabinogia said:

I wonder how many of AI's "successes" are successful because of AI or if they would have been successful anyway because they're actually talented. Since a lot of them seem to be successful as something other than pop singers, I'm thinking they would have found success without the show. 

16 minutes ago, Katy M said:

When it comes to becoming successful in an area of the performing arts, it's part talent and part opportunity.  There are a lot of talented people who never get a big break.  And there are some fairly famous people who don't actually seem all that talented in their career of choice.  So, I doubt anyone who was on AI who then got some breaks from it would deny that it helped, or assume they would have made it some other way.

The show probably gave them the exposure they needed & they wouldn't have necessarily have gotten it, or it might have taken years to get it. The one break seems to be really important in show business, I've heard the saying that a lot of them best actors in Hollywood make their living waiting tables. They just never got the right part or caught the attention of someone who could help them.

[Bort]

3 hours ago, GaT said:

I used to watch AI, but haven't in a long time. I saw the Carrie Underwood season, & I remember at some point early in the competition Simon Cowell saying something to her about how he thought she would win & become a really huge star.  He was able to pick her out right away, his talent spotting ability is impressive.

I remember that and what was funny is that in the first season, Kelly Clarkson flew under their radar for much of the early rounds but once they’d weeded out the flotsam, Cowell had her pegged to win as well.

[Silver Raven]

7 hours ago, Katy M said:

Katherine (sp?) McPhee was on 2 TV shows, but only sang on one.

Daughtry had his band, but I don't know if they did anything past the first year or so.  I really liked the songs from his first CD, though, so I had to mention him.

Daughtry has five US Billboard 200 top ten albums, including their latest, "Cage to Rattle".

David Cook has been on Broadway in Kinky Boots, and will be returning to the show in July.

Edited March 10, 2019 by Silver Raven

[Archery]

9 hours ago, Ohwell said:

Also Carrie Underwood.

And Fantasia Barrino.

[GaT]

3 hours ago, Archery said:

And Fantasia Barrino.

And Kellie Pickler

[Blergh]

OK, I concede AI had more folks become stars than I had originally thought but that is NOT the same as every single 'winner' of every season becoming a permanently stratospheric star. IOW, the rate at best seems to be a one in four shot rather than batting a thousand. And, what's more THAT doesn't take away that IMO it was (and is) a very annoying show that would have deserved to have had crickets from Day One instead of so many folks  getting constantly needlessly  whipped into a frenzy by all its self-important tripe hype!

[Haleth]

All those successes from the earlier years prove my point that such shows were better when producers judged the talent rather than celebrities. 

[Bort]

If Kelly Clarkson hadn't been such a big star from the first year, American Idol might very well have petered out. 

[Ohwell]

14 hours ago, Archery said:

And Fantasia Barrino.

I wanted to forget about her.

11 hours ago, GaT said:

And Kellie Pickler

And her too.

[meep.meep]

On 3/9/2019 at 11:20 PM, Blergh said:

OK, I concede AI had more folks become stars than I had originally thought but that is NOT the same as every single 'winner' of every season becoming a permanently stratospheric star. IOW, the rate at best seems to be a one in four shot rather than batting a thousand. And, what's more THAT doesn't take away that IMO it was (and is) a very annoying show that would have deserved to have had crickets from Day One instead of so many folks  getting constantly needlessly  whipped into a frenzy by all its self-important tripe hype!

You have it backwards.  American Idol has produced stars.  Winning doesn't guarantee you become a star,   The other shows haven't produced stars.  Closest is Cassidy Pope from The Voice who has had some country music hits, thanks to Blake Shelton working his tail off to promote her.

[truthaboutluv]

On 3/10/2019 at 8:26 AM, Haleth said:

All those successes from the earlier years prove my point that such shows were better when producers judged the talent rather than celebrities. 

This exactly. Yes Simon, Paula, Randy and Ryan all became household names because of the show and there were people who watched for Simon's snark but at the end of the day, the show truly was about the contestants and viewers rooting for and supporting their favorite.

Another thing that I think really helped Idol in those years was their having one season a year. And that was to the insistence of Simon, again, another smart call by him. Because of course, when the show's ratings blew through the roof, FOX and others saw dollar signs and many were pushing for two seasons a year. But Simon was adamant that one season was best to one, not make viewers burn out from the show and two, allow the winner time to really try and make something of their win. 

Whatever one thinks of Idol today and trust me I have no interest in this ABC reboot, especially since all the money ABC blew on it means DWTS has gotten screwed over, the show really did put a stamp on pop culture and without its success, the slew of lesser versions like The Voice would not have existed. And I do think they legitimately tried to find real stars or at least help individuals have a real career. And many did as has been listed above. 

The Voice is the true disposable crap and it's ridiculous in my opinion that that show has multiple Emmys. The multiple seasons a year is all the proof one needs for how little investment they have in developing these performers and helping any of them establish a legitimate career. The show is all about the judges and their careers. Because Blake Shelton and Adam Levine sure got massive boosts from it. Shelton especially was the forgotten man in country music before The Voice. 

On 3/10/2019 at 9:23 AM, kariyaki said:

If Kelly Clarkson hadn't been such a big star from the first year, American Idol might very well have petered out. 

I doubt it. The ratings were too huge and the show had become too much of a pop culture phenomenon. Not to mention that Kelly didn't really explode until her sophomore album. The first album did good but it was her Breakaway album with songs like Since You've Been Gone that truly sent Kelly into pop superstar territory. And that didn't happen until about the fourth season of Idol.

[Raja]

And now the Grammy's chose Fantasia to close their tribute to Aretha Franklin special. I  guess the third American Idol still has some life past that three year window of hits that is all that most pop music stars get.

[DearEvette]

On 3/10/2019 at 8:26 AM, Haleth said:

All those successes from the earlier years prove my point that such shows were better when producers judged the talent rather than celebrities. 

I totally agree with this.  Kelly Clarkson, Jennifer Hudson, Clay Aiken, Fantasia, Carrie Underwood, Daughtry, Jordin Sparks, Kellie Pickler, Kat McPhee and Adam Lambert are the only ones I can think of who've had some measurable and somewhat lasting success.  And they all were on the show when Randy, Paula and Simon.  I can't think of anyone after Adam Lambert who has really made it big.  And wasn't his season the last of the original three?

When the show premiered, most viewers had no idea who Simon and Randy were.  And yeah, even though Randy used the word 'pitchy' like it owed him rent, there was a sense that they were really judging for talent and really knew what they were talking about.  Even as the original three became celebs themselves that sense of the show& judging still being about the singers, never changed imo. 

As soon as the judges became the focus of the show, the judging calibre went down and we had to suffer through the antics of a Nikki Minaj/Mariah Carey feud, Jennifer Lopez' ginormous salary and Ellen DeGeneres' fad casting.  I didn't even watch the show after season 8 and all I heard about were the celebrity judges.  I can't even name a contestant after that.

Also, if I am not mistaken, out of all the 'we'll catapult you to a job in this area of entertainment' reality shows out there, AI has been the most successful overall?  Maybe RuPaul's Drag Race comes the closest because it has raised the profile of drag overall and has resulted in some of the performers on that show being able to command better bookings in a rather niche industry and even allowed some of them to cross over into mainstream celebrity (Shangela was in an Oscar nominated movie and got to walk the Oscars red carpet in full drag). 

Project Runway:  I can only think of Christian Siriano as the biggest runaway success. 

America's Next Top model: has some successes but none have become huge names.  YaYa Dacosta has a pretty successful tv acting career and some well received indie films.  Eva Marcille has dome some movies and was on Young and The Restless for awhile

The Apprentice: Welp, we got Omarosa.

[Bort]

Oh, there’s also that American Idol constestant that won an Oscar for Dreamgirls. Jennifer Hudson. 

[Katy M]

11 minutes ago, LucindaWalsh said:

UO: I don't think characters have to show growth, or change over the course of a show. It's okay to stay in character the entire time, good or bad character. 

Yes, thank you.  especially in a sitcom.  If your characters all grow into reasonable, mature adults, that's not going to be much of a show.

[2727]

7 hours ago, Katy M said:

Yes, thank you. Especially in a sitcom. If your characters all grow into reasonable, mature adults, that's not going to be much of a show.

That's one of the criticisms of The Big Bang Theory --that the four main guys have matured too much over the years. 

Okay, but I think in this case it would have been even weirder if they were all still single guys in their 40s who hung out together every night. I am fond of the characters and that would have made me sad for them. (I would also suggest that they're still perfectly nerdy and not all that mature.)

[Katy M]

17 minutes ago, 2727 said:

That's one of the criticisms of The Big Bang Theory --that the four main guys have matured too much over the years. 

Okay, but I think in this case it would have been even weirder if they were all still single guys in their 40s who hung out together every night. I am fond of the characters and that would have made me sad for them. (I would also suggest that they're still perfectly nerdy and not all that mature.)

It's actually funny, because I had BBT in mind when I made the comment.  That people complain that the characters haven't matured or grown, especially Sheldon.  But, I tend to agree with you. They've grown a bit and their circumstances changed while retaining the essential parts of their characters that make them sitcom characters.

[Bort]

My criticism with the Big Bang Theory is that I don't find it very likely that these married guys would still be wearing the same dorky wardrobe that they wore when they were single. At the very least, their wives not wanting them to wear superhero t-shirts/belt buckles/ratty hoodies when they were out in public.

[tribeca]

My UO Friends

As much as I adore Paul Rudd I wanted phoebe to be with David.