Party of One: Unpopular TV Opinions

[paulvdb]

14 hours ago, Enigma X said:

My UO for showrunners, writers (TV, movies, books, plays, etc.), and fans is just because someone (or lots of someones) guessed where your mystery was going does not automatically make the journey to get there boring or bad. There still can be a lot of intrigue, interest, plot between A to Z if creativity is there.

I agree with this. You occasionally hear about showrunners changing the resolution in book adaptations so that readers can still be surprised. This is not necessarily a bad thing, but the new resolution should still make sense with the characters and the story.

Too often shocking twists are primarily shocking because they don't make sense with the characters and story that we've seen up to that time. The fact that viewers can anticipate your shocking twist usually means that it makes sense based on what we've been told so far, not that it is not shocking enough.

[Haleth]

8 hours ago, DoctorAtomic said:

They should have never adhered so close to the books. It went excruciatingly slow and overly detailed 

Yes and no.  Including storylines just because they were in the books made the show a mess, but if the tv writers had stuck more to the book version without trying to streamline the story the plots would have shown a great deal more nuance.  Of course they would have needed twice as many episodes.  I'm thinking of the Sansa marries Ramsey plot condensation, as well as the entire Dorne fiasco.  Things like that.  Much better in the books, purposeful and well thought out.  Something like Dorne should have been completely scrapped for the show.

[Enigma X]

I preferred  the GOT TV changes (except for a few) over the book version. As the books went on, the more off the rails the story became. Another UO, Martin is a great world builder but a goodish writer.

[Spartan Girl]

Xena Warrior Princess was a better feminist show than Buffy the Vampire Slayer ten ways to Sunday. Fight me.

[DoctorAtomic]

Selling the dragon to the guy and then telling him she understands valerian was bamf though. 

[Blergh]

On 5/25/2020 at 10:24 AM, Wiendish Fitch said:

The only season of Boy Meets World I liked was the first season. 

I agree that that was by FAR the best inasmuch as not only were the cool, entertaining but diligently earnest Matthews parents (especially showcasing their own warm bond as happily wed hands-on parents dealing with a sneaky but bungling teen son, a drama king preteen son and a feisty, unintimidated preschool daughter ) far more front and center than in later seasons AND Eric was a somewhat intelligent older brother with a few goofy moments instead of being a goofy,spacey character with only a few intelligent moments. Yes, there were good episodes even to the last season (and Rider Strong and Williams Daniels did excellent jobs throughout even when  the situations and scripts weren't as good as they might have been ) but viewers couldn't count on individual episodes being entertaining or thought provoking as much as the first season. Also, I think the show would have benefited had they kept Cory and Shawn's nemesis (who did show potential for possibly becoming their friend)  Minkus (Lee Norris) to the end instead of just the first season.

Still, even Cory and Topanga at their worst on their shows proved better than Riley at her supposed best  on hers(as also the case of Boy Meets World vs. Girl Meets World).

[Ambrosefolly]

1 hour ago, Spartan Girl said:

Xena Warrior Princess was a better feminist show than Buffy the Vampire Slayer ten ways to Sunday. Fight me.

I loved Buffy, but Xena was probably one of the revolutionary pieces of media that came about. 

[Blergh]

22 hours ago, Ambrosefolly said:

I loved Buffy, but Xena was probably one of the revolutionary pieces of media that came about. 

At least until they had Xena bear a child through a cockamamie chain of weird events by her female arch-nemesis Callisto!  Did they think viewers would defect had Xena had simply opted to have a roll in the hay  with a guy for the purpose of conception (which the Amazons DID do according the original legends)?

Edited May 29, 2020 by Blergh

[Hiyo]

Quote

Selling the dragon to the guy and then telling him she understands valerian was bamf though. 

No, it was a group of bamfs, and not the cute kind, the badass kind. Probably one of my favorite scenes ever.

 

[DoctorAtomic]

*Even* with that scene, it's clear she had no fucks to give, and it was only going to get worse from there. You go to the whole ocd 'bend the knee' to the scene where she burns the Tarlys for not, it's clear this isn't ending well for anyone. 

[Hiyo]

I thought given the world of GoT, it was an appropriate reaction.

[slf]

Telling, tho, that she only reneged on the deal and killed the masters because the main one kept insulting her. Prior to that she had been genuine in her dealings with him.

[blueray]

An opinion of one but I'm watching seasons of  British Bake Off but I haven't been going in order (not sure why). I'm enjoying it , however I'm coming to the conclusion that I like Noel better than Mel/ Sue. He just more enjoyable to watch and less annoying as the other two. But this maybe because I watched the recent seasons mostly first and now watching the older seasons.

Edited May 28, 2020 by blueray

[slf]

Very low-rated shows that get cancelled aren't being screwed over by their networks. And defending such a show as a cult favorite does it no favors and indicates nothing other than the fanbase is probably annoying. I say this as someone who has liked plenty of small shows that were cancelled after a season or two.

[Wiendish Fitch]

41 minutes ago, slf said:

Very low-rated shows that get cancelled aren't being screwed over by their networks. And defending such a show as a cult favorite does it no favors and indicates nothing other than the fanbase is probably annoying. I say this as someone who has liked plenty of small shows that were cancelled after a season or two.

Tell me about it. I confess that my hands aren't that clean: goodness knows I bitched and moaned for years about how The Critic, one of my favorite shows of all time, was cancelled after two seasons. I will always love The Critic (seriously, a lot of the humor has actually aged too well), but I also came to the realization that maybe it's just as well it was cancelled "before its time". What if it had lasted as long as The Simpsons, and had just gotten stale and tiresome? I don't think I would love it as much then.

The Critic is trapped in amber. Let's keep it that way.*

*So I can head this off at the pass, do not bring up the web-isodes from 2000 to me.  I basically treat them like a disgraced relative and never discuss them if I can help it.

[DoctorAtomic]

The Critic?! It stiiiiiinkksss!

I think 'cult show' gets thrown around way too much. It's like players being voted into the hall of fame. You need like 7-10 years to understand if a show was cult. What the tv landscape was back then, etc. 

 

 

[kathyk2]

6 hours ago, slf said:

Very low-rated shows that get cancelled aren't being screwed over by their networks. And defending such a show as a cult favorite does it no favors and indicates nothing other than the fanbase is probably annoying. I say this as someone who has liked plenty of small shows that were cancelled after a season or two.

I disagree there are many ways a sabotage a new show. First scheduling a new show against the most popular show at that time. For example putting my beloved Reaper in the same time slot as NCIS and American Idol. Reaper didn't stand a chance. Promoting one new show over another and inconsistent scheduling. ABC did this with the Muppets reboot. They took a two month break and then changed the time slot. 

[Ambrosefolly]

6 hours ago, kathyk2 said:

I disagree there are many ways a sabotage a new show. First scheduling a new show against the most popular show at that time. For example putting my beloved Reaper in the same time slot as NCIS and American Idol. Reaper didn't stand a chance. Promoting one new show over another and inconsistent scheduling. ABC did this with the Muppets reboot. They took a two month break and then changed the time slot. 

I agree. Are some great shows given a chance, but only last a season or two. Yes, but there have been several times that the networks really dropped the ball, or maybe my sister or I were really disappointed that we couldn't find our shows before they were cancelled. I remember in the 90s, it felt like Freaks or Geeks was displaced on Saturday nights because of baseball games, and my sister complained that there were pauses in the programming when she wanted to watch Samantha Who,  Pushing Daisies or Maybe It's Me. While Third Rock from The Sun enjoyed a long run, it took a hit when NBC would move it around the schedule as some sort of weapon against other shows. 

[DoctorAtomic]

8 hours ago, kathyk2 said:

For example putting my beloved Reaper in the same time slot as NCIS and American Idol. Reaper didn't stand a chance.

Preach. I wouldn't call Reaper a cult show, but it was a good show with interesting characters and a good storyline. 

I don't know if the networks *purposefully* shit on a show, but more often than not over think.

To the other side though, to be fair, I love Fringe, but I don't know how in the fuck that stayed on as long as it did because there were like 7 people watching and it aired on Friday nights. 

 

[Llywela]

9 hours ago, kathyk2 said:

I disagree there are many ways a sabotage a new show. First scheduling a new show against the most popular show at that time. For example putting my beloved Reaper in the same time slot as NCIS and American Idol. Reaper didn't stand a chance. Promoting one new show over another and inconsistent scheduling. ABC did this with the Muppets reboot. They took a two month break and then changed the time slot. 

Airing episodes out of order is another way networks sometimes sabotage new shows - they get made with continuity and storyline development, because that's what viewers want and expect, but if the episodes aren't aired in order, that development won't make sense to viewers, and so the show is sunk.

[BlackberryJam]

I know Firefly was at a minimum not supported and possibly purposefully tanked.

Edited May 29, 2020 by BlackberryJam

[DoctorAtomic]

I don't know if it was purposefully tanked, but I don't think the network knew what kind of show it was getting and certainly meddled with it. 

[Raja]

20 minutes ago, DoctorAtomic said:

I don't know if it was purposefully tanked, but I don't think the network knew what kind of show it was getting and certainly meddled with it. 

Just networks thinking we have to put the big action and sex forward and any continual story arc was less important. Just about any SF show will have the sexbot episode pushed forward for an example

Now today the sex and action is pushed forward all the way down to the episode itself  instead of the season and many shows and movie open on an action scene and then flash back to the story to keep you from turning elsewhere

[CoderLady]

As I understand it, it's less about the viewers who are getting shows for free than the advertisers who are paying to place ads during a time slot.

Advertisers will pay top dollar to get their ads in front of as many eyeballs as possible. Networks charge up the wazoo for slots during prime time by guaranteeing a certain number of viewers will be glued to their screens. If a show isn't getting enough viewership to justify the high ad prices, they have to either charge less (ain't gonna happen) or move the show to a slot where they can charge less.

If a show isn't earning what the network paid for it, it will keep getting moved around until it finds a spot where it's profitable or it gets canceled. Responding to a viewer campaign to save a show is a gamble for them because there is no guarantee that the interest will translate into a steady stream of those precious eyeballs going forward.

Ok, now that I've said all that about this process, SyFy can kiss my rosy red ass for cancelling Sanctuary, Defiance and Dark Matter. Those were good no matter how much their advertisers did/didn't care.

[GHScorpiosRule]

53 minutes ago, CoderLady said:

Ok, now that I've said all that about this process, SyFy can kiss my rosy red ass

@CoderLady, just wanted to let you know, that I didn't think what you posted was funny, but I just had to choose the laughing emoji for the bolded quote alone!🤣

[janie jones]

1 hour ago, CoderLady said:

If a show isn't earning what the network paid for it, it will keep getting moved around until it finds a spot where it's profitable or it gets canceled. Responding to a viewer campaign to save a show is a gamble for them because there is no guarantee that the interest will translate into a steady stream of those precious eyeballs going forward.

But it seems like that strategy can make things worse.  Like if only 1000 people (to throw out a random number) are watching a show, it'll get moved to another time slot where it can "afford" to only have 1000 viewers.  But if many of those viewers aren't aware that the show was moved, now you're down to 500 original viewers, and and it may not pick up a significant number of new ones in the cheaper time slot, where there aren't a lot of eyeballs to begin with.  It seems like a good way to make an unprofitable show even less profitable. 

[DoctorAtomic]

1 hour ago, CoderLady said:

Ok, now that I've said all that about this process, SyFy can kiss my rosy red ass for cancelling Sanctuary, Defiance and Dark Matter. Those were good no matter how much their advertisers did/didn't care.

With the revolving door at the top of that network, this is an entirely different paradigm. 

 

[CoderLady]

3 minutes ago, DoctorAtomic said:

With the revolving door at the top of that network, this is an entirely different paradigm. 

 

You're right. Every time someone new crawls into the driver's seat at SyFy, they jerk the wheel into a swerve to show how great they are, and something valuable ends up falling out the back door.

[slf]

3 hours ago, BlackberryJam said:

I know Firefly was at a minimum not supported and possibly purposefully tanked.

Why would a network come up out of pocket, minimum hundreds of thousands of dollars but just as often millions of dollars per episode, to produce a show and then intentionally tank it? The board is fine with this because...? It's a business, the purpose is to make money. Who are these network heads supposedly blowing literally tens of millions a year on shows they're sabotaging and why do they still have jobs?

Edited May 29, 2020 by slf

[Blergh]

4 minutes ago, slf said:

Why would a network come up out of pocket, minimum hundreds of thousands of dollars but just as often millions of dollars per episode, to produce a show and then intentionally tank it? The board is fine with this because...? It's a business, the purpose is to make money. Who are these network heads supposedly blowing literally tens of millions a year on shows they're sabotaging and why do they still have jobs?

Tax loss write-offs, perhaps?

[slf]

10 minutes ago, Blergh said:

Tax loss write-offs, perhaps?

If the argument is that network heads screw over/'intentionally tank' some shows by scheduling them wrong and such then the assumption is those shows would have done well had they been scheduled properly. If they would have done well had they been scheduled properly then they would have made money for the network. How is a tax loss write-off preferable then? (Not to mention having to constantly develop new projects and gaining a reputation for intentionally killing shows?)

Sometimes a show just doesn't appeal to people and it isn't going to matter what time it's scheduled for, especially in the age of dvr and next day streaming.

Edited May 29, 2020 by slf

[DoctorAtomic]

Networks don't actually produce the shows though. 

[BlackberryJam]

Networks have development deals with production companies. So, say they have a deal with Production Company X to produce three shows. If two of those three shows have Nielsen ratings of Y, the production company gets a bonus. A network would then tank a show to avoid paying out a bonus, especially if they think the cost of continuing that show is going to outweigh the the advertising income.

That’s why you hear of Shonda Rhimes having a production deal with Netflix and so on. 

 

[sistermagpie]

19 hours ago, slf said:

Sometimes a show just doesn't appeal to people and it isn't going to matter what time it's scheduled for, especially in the age of dvr and next day streaming.

I assume that when people see the networks as intentionally tanking shows, what it really is is that the network execs just don't think it's a good show so they don't treat it as a show they think people are going to watch. They're not trying to tank it, they think it's going to tank itself or have bad ideas about what to do with it.

[Blergh]

25 minutes ago, sistermagpie said:

I assume that when people see the networks as intentionally tanking shows, what it really is is that the network execs just don't think it's a good show so they don't treat it as a show they think people are going to watch. They're not trying to tank it, they think it's going to tank itself or have bad ideas about what to do with it.

More than one person has let others wear themselves out on their own lines JUST to hear themselves say 'TOLD you so' so why would network execs who'd likely be able to be compensated for the losses via taxes be above doing the same re programs they personally had no use for and would be happy to see get tanked!

[sistermagpie]

10 minutes ago, Blergh said:

More than one person has let others wear themselves out on their own lines JUST to hear themselves say 'TOLD you so' so why would network execs who'd likely be able to be compensated for the losses via taxes be above doing the same re programs they personally had no use for and would be happy to see get tanked!

Sure I think they would absolutely do that, and sometimes there's even more going on, like if the previous person in their job championed a show and they want to make sure that person doesn't look good after they've gone. There's lots of factors that can go into things, but that's more complicated than somebody who loves a show and is sure that it would have been a hit if only an executive hadn't worked out exactly how to handle it to make it a flop because they had a grudge against it.

It reminds me of one time I read a forum about a competitive reality show where people voted and every result created elaborate theories about how the show perfectly manipulated the entire audience to get the winner they wanted because if only these few things were adjusted their favorite would have won. It's not always a straight line backward from what happened/how somebody felt about it to what somebody wanted to happen.

[proserpina65]

On ‎05‎/‎27‎/‎2020 at 3:22 PM, Minneapple said:

And the ending of Jon killing Dany to save the world is basically Buffy killing Angel...only Buffy killing Angel was ten thousand times more emotional because it was a much better-written story. And, it was done on a fraction of the GoT budget. 

Eh, I didn't get that much emotion from Buffy killing Angel.  Maybe because I never liked Angel anyway.

On ‎05‎/‎27‎/‎2020 at 4:09 PM, Hiyo said:

Not hints so much as after-the-fact plot points which were retro-fitted into the narrative the show runners wanted for the final season...

See, I disagree completely.  There were hints from the beginning of Season 2 at the gates of Qarth, but since the dragons were still tiny, Dany's threats to burn everyone who turned her away weren't taken seriously.  Nothing about that was retro-fitted.  Nor were her threats to the cities of Slavers' Bay after the fact.  We just didn't mind then because they were slavers, but had she destroyed any of those cities because their leaders were repugnant, thousands of innocent people would've died.  Hell, in Season 6's finale, she was all set to go burn Astapor, Yunkai and Volantis to the ground despite the bulk of the population of the first two cities being slaves.

So there were plenty of hints along the way, but a lot of viewers ignored them because Dany's story was presented as someone overcoming adversity.

On ‎05‎/‎27‎/‎2020 at 6:32 PM, scarynikki12 said:

Based on the conversations I had in real life it's that Dany just had a TON of fans who wanted only good things for her. I'm a big Dany fan too but around season 3 I started seeing her story as a Villain's Journey and that's actually what made me like her more. I didn't actually expect it to happen which is why I'm a rare one who loves how Game of Thrones ended. Before the final season it was me, Bestie 1, and her husband all alone on our island while literally everyone else in our lives was rooting for Dany to be the final ruler and reinstating the Targaryen dynasty with Jon. The three of us agree that the mechanics of the final season were poorly done but the facts of how the story concluded made us happy.

I'd gladly have joined you on that island.  As much as I enjoyed her story, I thought she'd be just as much of a tyrant as her father had been.  Although I didn't think all of the mechanics of the final season were poorly done.  Most of it was pretty good.  It's just that there were very high expectations.

[DoctorAtomic]

35 minutes ago, proserpina65 said:

It's just that there were very high expectations.

But who set them? Every day social media was deluged from TPTBs et al., about how the final season was the best thing ever and they filmed for 60027 cuzilliondy days at night for 25 hours don't you know? They worked so hard so you have to like it or you (us viewers) don't get it!

Showrunners are their own worst enemies.

It's ironic because the show itself has its own words to heed - And any man who must say 'I am king' is no true king at all.'

If they shut their traps and just said 'we worked really hard on the last season and really hope you all like it,' the backlash would have been minimal.

I remember commenting on an FB page about how tired I was of the show and it wouldn't air for another 4 months.

 

 

Edited June 2, 2020 by DoctorAtomic

[Jack Shaftoe]

I love Wynonna Earp. Back when it was in its first season I heard good things about it, then read the synopsis and thought it sounded too silly to even try the first episode. This year I binge watched it and enjoyed it a lot more than I expected. Might have even been for the better because the show has many plot twists and cliffhangers. The dialogue is chock-full of funny one-liners (sometimes even too full but for the most part it works), the characters have lots of depth, the drama is decent. Yes, it's low budget and yes, the plot often makes very little sense when you think about it but if you are looking for early seasons Buffy vibe, the show might be right up your alley.

Personally, I ended up loving Wynonna (the character) more than I ever loved Buffy, I tend to prefer the supporting cast in shows with one obvious lead character. Not here - Wynonna is awesome and the actress who plays her - Melanie Scrofano, is simply sublime. Many of the funny lines that the writers give Wynonna wouldn't work with a mediocre actress but she makes them work somehow.

Plus, it has the best portmanteau couple name ever - WayHaught. 🙂 The second half of season 3 is sub-par and season 4 has been delayed for years now, unfortunately but overall, the show was such a pleasant surprise for me.

[Hiyo]

Portmanteau couple names make me cringe.

[Silver Raven]

1 minute ago, Hiyo said:

Portmanteau couple names make me cringe.

psh. Portmanteau is so 20th century.  It's shipper name now.  😄

 

[DearEvette]

26 minutes ago, Hiyo said:

Portmanteau couple names make me cringe.

I tend to agree.  There is a preciousness about the whole thing.  I will admit, though when one is clever or funny.  For instance, even though the official couple name of Choi and Sexton from Chicago Med is 'Chexton'. I found the alternative one funny:  Sextoi

[Annber03]

Yeah, my biggest issue with portmanteaus is that many of my favorite ships don't really lend themselves all that well to good ship names :p. Either their names are too short to where it seems pointless to smush them together, or there's just not really a creative enough name for them. 

I do agree that the whole "name smushing" thing in general is a bit goofy-it just reminds me too much of the whole "Brangelina" thing. I prefer to just use people's actual individual names and leave it at that. But I do agree there can be some clever and amusing portmanteaus out there, yes, and if people don't take them too seriously, then I'm cool with it. 

[Shannon L.]

Not a fan of the name smashing either, but I'll take it any day over that phase the country want through a decade or more ago with the "Mc" nicknames.  "McDreamy"?  Ugh.

[Ambrosefolly]

I think there is still value in 22 episode seasons. Not every show should have it, but it isn't the worst thing in the world, even with shows that have year or multi-year storylines. The advantage is that you can get to know individual characters, even recurring ones,  and you can have a huge cast without feeling bloated or taking away from the main storyline. I think the reason Deep Space Nine is so well remembered is because it took advantage of both episodic and long story format with the 22 episodes per season. I think it served the show well that it did episodic in the first seasons and then focused on long term story until the end, so both sets of the show runners were right. It helped build relationships, did world building with future players in Dominion War like Cardassia. As much as I like Stranger Things, every time they introduce a new character, it feels like they are taking valuable real estate from character established earlier. 

Edited June 7, 2020 by Ambrosefolly

[paulvdb]

On 6/6/2020 at 9:02 PM, Hiyo said:

Portmanteau couple names make me cringe.

I generally don't like them, but there are some exceptions. WayHaught was already mentioned. I like that one.

Another one that I like is not technically a portmanteau because it combines the first two letters of both characters' names. but how can you not use that as a shipper name when they spell LoVe? I don't actually ship Veronica and Logan, but they have one of the best name-combining shipper names.

I don't watch Chicago Med, but I like Sextoi as a shipper name. The alternative Chexton is just another generic portmanteau shipper name that does nothing for me.

As far as I'm concerned, I prefer to just write both characters' names. Especially because I watch so many shows that half the time it takes me at least 5 minutes to figure out which characters' names are smushed together.

[festivus]

Shipper names: Make it clever and if you can't just do the Mulder/Scully thing. Who decides these things anyway? Two I really hated were Olicity and Ichabbie. No. Follie and Crabbie please. lol.

 

LoVe was truly the greatest shipper name.

[DoctorAtomic]

This all sounds like way too much work. 

[Popples]

4 hours ago, paulvdb said:

I don't watch Chicago Med, but I like Sextoi as a shipper name. The alternative Chexton is just another generic portmanteau shipper name that does nothing for me.

Sextoi is hilarious; I have a terrible feeling someone's child is or is going to be named Chexton.

[peachmangosteen]

I hate them too but, yea, there's some good ones. I am rolling over Sextoi and WayHaught.

I despise this couple, but another good one in the vein of LoVe is CIN for Ciara and Ben on Days of Our Lives.