Party of One: Unpopular TV Opinions

[Hiyo]

Quote

Soap operas have been doing that for decades.

Its easier for daytime soaps to get away with that, given that they have more characters than their nighttime counterparts do. A bad recast is much more noticeable and sticks out more in non-daytime shows.

Edited February 28, 2021 by Hiyo

[kiddo82]

Young Sheldon is a really good show with some great performances and I feel like it would get more "peak TV" attention if it wasn't attached to the Big Bang Theory.  (I admit I'm late to the party and am just now catching it in reruns)  For the record, I like The Big Bang Theory too (which I also only ever watched in reruns) but I understand some of the criticisms.  

Edited February 28, 2021 by kiddo82

[Nande]

Deadwood movie was NOT GOOD. I felt like I'd watched a recap for an entire season in 2 hours. 

[Hiyo]

Quote

If Firefly had run for multiple seasons, people would have the same love/hate relationship with it that they have for most long-running shows.

One of the proposed season 2 plotlines was Mal *finally* respecting Inara after she had been gang raped by the Reavers...

Quote

But also, we learned part of Inara's huge secret: she's dying of some terminal disease, which is only vaguely hinted at in one episode. And executive producer Tim Minear explained about one episode that Joss Whedon pitched early on:

She had this magic syringe. She would take this drug. And if she were, for instance, raped, the rapist would die a horrible death. The story was that she gets kidnapped by Reavers and when Mal finally got to the ship to save her from the Reavers, he gets on the Reaver ship and all the Reavers are dead. Which would suggest a kind of really bad assault. At the end of the episode, he comes in after she's been horribly brutalized, and he comes in and he gets down on his knee, and he takes her hand. And he treats her like a lady. And that's the kind of stuff that we wanted to do. It was very dark. And this was actually the first story that Joss pitched to me when he asked me to come work on the show. He said, 'These are the kind of stories we're going to do.'

So, to sum up: Inara gets gang-raped by Reavers, who all die due to her drug use. And this finally convinces Mal to stop slut-shaming her, at least for a while. Kind of glad that episode never got made, to be honest.

Basically she kills off a bunch of Reavers with her poison pussy and then finally Mal stops slut-shaming her. Um, yay?

[Danny Franks]

1 hour ago, Hiyo said:

One of the proposed season 2 plotlines was Mal *finally* respecting Inara after she had been gang raped by the Reavers...

Basically she kills off a bunch of Reavers with her poison pussy and then finally Mal stops slut-shaming her. Um, yay?

Kind of begs the question as to why she'd need an injection to poison her pussy when the show had already established a lipstick that could knock people unconscious. If skin to skin contact is enough to do the job, why would 'brutal gang-rape by psychotic killers' be required?

Oh wait, it's so Mal would pity her enough to stop calling her a whore. Right.

Yeah, it's storyline gems like that which make me glad the show was cancelled.

Edited March 1, 2021 by Danny Franks

[BlackberryJam]

1 hour ago, Danny Franks said:

Kind of begs the question as to why she'd need an injection to poison her pussy when the show had already established a lipstick that could knock people unconscious. If skin to skin contact is enough to do the job, why would 'brutal gang-rape by psychotic killers' be required?

Oh wait, it's so Mal would pity her enough to stop calling her a whore. Right.

Yeah, it's storyline gems like that which make me glad the show was cancelled.

Proving that shows that only have one season are sometimes much, much better because they got cancelled. 

[DoctorAtomic]

Poison Pussy was my junior high disco garage band. 

[Kel Varnsen]

On 2/27/2021 at 4:12 PM, Llywela said:

I feel the need to point out here that although they kept Joss's name on AOS for all 7 seasons, he had basically nothing whatsoever to do with the show beyond helping his brother shape the initial concept. He wasn't involved in the writing or production of the show. He had his name in the credits because the name Joss Whedon is a draw, in effect.

Being run by his brother, the show leaned into a lot of standard Joss tropes, but pulled them off much better than Joss ever did, imo.

Yea you are right. Although he did help write the pilot and get a creator credit. Which means he held some responsibility for my complaints about the team of underdogs also having a ridiculously high skill level.

As fo Jed Whedon, whenever I think of that guy it reminds me of that Simpsons episode where Mr. Burns is making a movie and when he is told that Steven Spielberg is not available he asks for his non-union Mexican equivalent. But in this case I imagine the head of ABC asking for Joss Whedon, and when told he was unavailable asking for an available cheaper equivalent.

[Minneapple]

On 2/26/2021 at 11:23 PM, JimmyJabloon said:

Pre S8- We love GOT because it doesn’t give Disney ending.

Post S8- Where my Disney ending?

I think this was the primary impetus for the huge backlash that GoT received. Was it badly written? Yes. It was bad. But anyone who has, like, read a book or watched a TV show could have seen Dany as the villain coming. People actually defended it like there wasn't a great big flashing neon "VILLAIN" sign over her head when she burned the Tarlys as they just stood there. And oh, it would all be okay, and Samwell wouldn't be upset at all by his brother and father being burned to death.

The show had many many issues (even before the final season), but Dany becoming the villain of the piece and Jon killing her is projected a mile away. It was even in her vision! It's "snowing" in the throne room and she goes to touch the throne and she's called away to join Drogo.

 

On 2/27/2021 at 4:12 PM, Llywela said:

I feel the need to point out here that although they kept Joss's name on AOS for all 7 seasons, he had basically nothing whatsoever to do with the show beyond helping his brother shape the initial concept. He wasn't involved in the writing or production of the show. He had his name in the credits because the name Joss Whedon is a draw, in effect.

I would imagine Joss Whedon's name was on the show because it was produced in part by Mutant Enemy, which is his production company. TV shows don't just put names on credits because they're a draw, that stuff is all regulated by the Writers' Guild.

 

[AimingforYoko]

1 hour ago, Minneapple said:

I think this was the primary impetus for the huge backlash that GoT received. Was it badly written? Yes. It was bad. But anyone who has, like, read a book or watched a TV show could have seen Dany as the villain coming. People actually defended it like there wasn't a great big flashing neon "VILLAIN" sign over her head when she burned the Tarlys as they just stood there. And oh, it would all be okay, and Samwell wouldn't be upset at all by his brother and father being burned to death.

I personally was upset because she deliberately targeted civilians, which she never did before. If they had shown her slaughtering Lannister troops after they laid down their arms, that's villainy that would have been seen coming. Showing her tearing ass for the Red Keep after the surrender, absolutely. But to instead purposely raze the city and all the people in it? Nah. Every other person or people she killed, she had a beef with. She had no argument with the commoners.

[scarynikki12]

2 hours ago, AimingforYoko said:

She had no argument with the commoners.

This reminds me of another thing I wish they'd played up: the fact that Dany did genuinely believe that the people of Westeros secretly preferred the Targaryens and were eagerly awaiting their return. We saw that moment when Selmy tells her flat out that, no they don't give you hardly a thought, but they downplayed that she continued to believe the lie. That's why she kept getting frustrated when she returned to Westeros. If it had been given a bit more attention then Dany eventually unleashing Drogon on civilians wouldn't have seemed so jarring.

[callie lee 29]

I really need something else to watch other than The Goldbergs because I cannot fucking stand Beverly Goldberg. This nightmare of a woman spent years infantilizing her children and when she finally woke up to the fact she was going to have an empty nest, bullied her way into a job at the very school where she spent years screaming and belittling the staff to never let her kids feel the consequences of their actions and is shocked they don't want to be besties with her. Of course she got her way, they all apologized, and she gets her way yet again. I need the last episode to end with her being taken out à la Murder on the Orient Express.

[DoctorAtomic]

2 hours ago, scarynikki12 said:

This reminds me of another thing I wish they'd played up: the fact that Dany did genuinely believe that the people of Westeros secretly preferred the Targaryens and were eagerly awaiting their return. We saw that moment when Selmy tells her flat out that, no they don't give you hardly a thought, but they downplayed that she continued to believe the lie. That's why she kept getting frustrated when she returned to Westeros. If it had been given a bit more attention then Dany eventually unleashing Drogon on civilians wouldn't have seemed so jarring.

That's a fair criticism. I think most people that watch TV at a place like this weren't calling bs on Dany being the villain. It was the sloppiness. Something like this - her turning on the common people - could have used a slow burn of a few more hours of the final season. 

There really wasn't anything ooc or to really call bs on. It's just I think it was a letdown that the same plot beats could have been more polished. 

[sistermagpie]

1 hour ago, DoctorAtomic said:

That's a fair criticism. I think most people that watch TV at a place like this weren't calling bs on Dany being the villain. It was the sloppiness. Something like this - her turning on the common people - could have used a slow burn of a few more hours of the final season. 

There really wasn't anything ooc or to really call bs on. It's just I think it was a letdown that the same plot beats could have been more polished. 

Yeah, I totally see the foreshadowing and the logic behind her being a villain. In theory I really like it. But the way it was done made it feel like it was just suddenly going through the motions to be a villain.

[Hiyo]

I never saw Dany as a villain or on a Villain's journey, to me it could have gone either way to be honest...in the last couple of seasons, that's what they wanted to do with her, that's fine, but just like everything else in the last 2 seasons it was all done in a very clumsy and rushed way.

[vibeology]

10 hours ago, sistermagpie said:

Yeah, I totally see the foreshadowing and the logic behind her being a villain. In theory I really like it. But the way it was done made it feel like it was just suddenly going through the motions to be a villain.

This! My frustration was all of a sudden all of the men around Dany were discussing "is she crazy?" "is she evil?" "Targaryens, you know?" "Are you ready to do something about it?"

We didn't really get anything from Dany about the final turn towards burning innocent kids alive other than her looking towards a bell tower while we had so many conversations with Jon and Tyrion about Dany going mad. I think if Dany had talked more about how she was feeling instead of other people talking about how Dany was feeling, it would have been stronger. Of course, the problem there is you also need Dany isolated from others. It's why I bet this will work in the books (except for the part where they clearly are never going to happen) where we can know her thoughts and feelings but you need to be really smart to figure out how to bring it to the screen and D&D aren't and were already checked out and ready to move on. 

[DoctorAtomic]

42 minutes ago, vibeology said:

We didn't really get anything from Dany about the final turn towards burning innocent kids alive other than her looking towards a bell tower while we had so many conversations with Jon and Tyrion about Dany going mad. I think if Dany had talked more about how she was feeling instead of other people talking about how Dany was feeling, it would have been stronger.

That's fair too. As it was said above, she was all in on 'the people welcoming her home,' and you have Semly laying out 'people really don't give a shit who is on the throne', blink and you'll miss it. They missed a good opportunity (at the expense of filming at night I swear I couldn't see half the last season) to get into Dany thinking she deserves the throne, or what governing actually means to 'common people'. 

They did a great (if creepy) job about the people/slaves she *did* actually liberate out in the west or wherever that was, so her buying into people really wanting her to have the Iron Throne isn't unreasonable. 

It's a shame because for one, you have viewers sticking with the show for so long, poring over details and enjoying all the characters, and while you don't make the show based on what the fans want, you drop the ball on some really interesting social commentary that would have taken longer to do in terms of show hours, but I think viewers would have been fine with taking in as part of the final season. 

I didn't necessarily want Jamie to die either, but her and Cersei's ending was just flat. 

Edited March 4, 2021 by DoctorAtomic

[Danny Franks]

On 3/3/2021 at 7:55 PM, Minneapple said:

I think this was the primary impetus for the huge backlash that GoT received. Was it badly written? Yes. It was bad. But anyone who has, like, read a book or watched a TV show could have seen Dany as the villain coming. People actually defended it like there wasn't a great big flashing neon "VILLAIN" sign over her head when she burned the Tarlys as they just stood there. And oh, it would all be okay, and Samwell wouldn't be upset at all by his brother and father being burned to death.

The show had many many issues (even before the final season), but Dany becoming the villain of the piece and Jon killing her is projected a mile away. It was even in her vision! It's "snowing" in the throne room and she goes to touch the throne and she's called away to join Drogo.

The problem is that the showrunners wanted to get it all over and done with, so they rushed to a conclusion without properly setting it up.

Dany as a villain may have been foreshadowed, but it wasn't set up properly at all and she went from saviour of the Seven Kingdoms to tyrannical, would-be despot in the space of a couple of episodes.

Bran taking the throne may well be how GRRM envisaged the series ending, but I'll wager my house on "no one has a better story than Bran the Broken" would not have been the sole rationale for it.

Jon's parentage being utterly inconsequential and not playing into the climax of the story at all seems... just a touch illogical given the series spent years setting up the reveal.

The Night King being so simply dispatched after eight years of "winter is coming" was absurdly disappointing. And it completely missed the point that GRRM was making about the petty venality of human politics - all this squabbling and fighting over the throne meant that no one was paying attention to the true threat. Except that didn't matter, because Jon, Sansa, Arya and Dany sorted that out with a catapulted child assassin.

There were a lot more things that didn't pay off properly, that felt cheap and shoddily written. Because they were cheap and shoddily written.

[sistermagpie]

4 minutes ago, Danny Franks said:

The Night King being so simply dispatched after eight years of "winter is coming" was absurdly disappointing. And it completely missed the point that GRRM was making about the petty venality of human politics - all this squabbling and fighting over the throne meant that no one was paying attention to the true threat. Except that didn't matter, because Jon, Sansa, Arya and Dany sorted that out with a catapulted child assassin.

 

Yeah, it always felt to me like the threats were inverted there. I don't know what GRRM had in mind, but surely the threats went Cersei's scheming<Dany's conquest<Night King's existential threat? Instead he was just something that made Dany resentful that she had to postpone getting to King's Landing herself.

[Danny Franks]

30 minutes ago, sistermagpie said:

Yeah, it always felt to me like the threats were inverted there. I don't know what GRRM had in mind, but surely the threats went Cersei's scheming<Dany's conquest<Night King's existential threat? Instead he was just something that made Dany resentful that she had to postpone getting to King's Landing herself.

That's how it always played to me. He made a big deal about the ambitions and grasping of the likes of Renly, Cersei and Littlefinger. He even has them explicitly dismiss the threat from beyond the Wall, leaving the Nights Watch to face it alone. Tyrion, who is often a sympathetic voice, is just as bad because he's schooled in southern politics and cynicism.

The bluff, straightforward northerners are the ones who see clearly, who even have awareness of the real danger as their house motto. In the show, we had seven seasons of "winter is coming" then almost instantly, "... aand it's gone."

I'm certainly not one of those people who holds GRRM up as a visionary writer who transformed the fantasy genre - I think he used a lot of clever tricks to fool people into believing he was writing something that was more than your average fantasy epic - but he's definitely aeons ahead of the pair in charge of Game of Thrones.

Edited March 4, 2021 by Danny Franks

[DoctorAtomic]

59 minutes ago, Danny Franks said:

Jon's parentage being utterly inconsequential and not playing into the climax of the story at all seems... just a touch illogical given the series spent years setting up the reveal.

Again, it's suffers from not giving it its due. The whole plot with Varys could have been way more exciting with more time. He was sending out messages about who Jon actually was, but we never saw much of that. 

I don't mind about the Night King being dispatched like that because it gave Theon absolution and it was awesome. Plus a lot of people did die and the wall fell, so I think that was as much as you could do with that. It's just it was THE PLOT of the final season, and there wasn't enough there there to sustain the season. All the other Dany stuff could have made for a richer season. 

46 minutes ago, Danny Franks said:

I'm certainly not one of those people who holds GRRM up as a visionary writer who transformed the fantasy genre - I think he used a lot of clever tricks to fool people into believing he was writing something that was more than your average fantasy epic - but he's definitely aeons ahead of the pair in charge of Game of Thrones.

To be fair, at the time, all fantasy books were basically Lord of the Rings. He broke the mold in terms of not every series has to be a trilogy and there could be a lot of 'playing in your world.' You'll see the Wheel of Time (which was completed but because of the same dragging out, the author died before) is similarly laid out. With all the descriptions of the food and the rides here to there. I'd give him credit for making fantasy more character driven, but I think he bought too much into his BS and you do have to finish the story. 

I don't buy the books because I learned my lesson with the Wheel of Time (25 years). 

 

 

[Danny Franks]

7 minutes ago, DoctorAtomic said:

To be fair, at the time, all fantasy books were basically Lord of the Rings. He broke the mold in terms of not every series has to be a trilogy and there could be a lot of 'playing in your world.' You'll see the Wheel of Time (which was completed but because of the same dragging out, the author died before) is similarly laid out. With all the descriptions of the food and the rides here to there. I'd give him credit for making fantasy more character driven, but I think he bought too much into his BS and you do have to finish the story. 

I don't buy the books because I learned my lesson with the Wheel of Time (25 years). 

There were other writers too, who were creating longer stories - Raymond E. Feist and David Eddings spring to mind, although they broke their epics into different four of five book series - and while Robert Jordan was only a few years ahead of GRRM, I do think he was very influential on a lot of GRRM's thinking. 

The main difference being that Jordan had the entire series planned out and even had the last paragraph written and locked away in his desk drawer for twenty years, while GRRM clearly doesn't plan anything more than a vague outline and has only a loose idea of how the series is going to end (he's admitted this himself).

Both needed better and more ruthless editors, and to stop getting distracted with worldbuilding and adding side plots. But Jordan at least wrote, averaging a book every two years until he fell ill. GRRM has released two ASOIAF books in the last twenty years. Fortunately I'm long past caring how the series ends, thanks to D&D fucking up the show so badly.

[Mabinogia]

My biggest issue with how GOT ended was a feeling of "really, that's it?" As someone said, it's like they just wanted to get it over with. I think, because in the beginning they had the books as a road map, detailed with every little bump, the first few seasons were amazingly detailed and rich. But then there were no more books and though they may have gotten a quick synopsis of how GRR planned on ending it, they didn't have that rich detail to pull from. So they just kind of went "ah, fuck it, Dany's evil, Arya kills the Big Bad and Bran is somehow now king. Deal with it." Had it been their story from the beginning it might not have seemed so jarring or had they had the completed book series to pull from it might not have seemed so jarring but the first few seasons were basically written by a different author, the books author while the last season was written by the show runners making it basically a different story.

[JimmyJabloon]

Brooklyn Nine Nine was way better with fox. NBC shouldn't have taken it up if they weren't gonna give them enough episodes. Now they try to cram everything in those few episodes and it just doesn't work. 

 

Also the show just looks so much more blue now. 

 

I'm kinda glad they're ending with 8th season.

[Ubiquit0us]

On 3/1/2021 at 7:11 AM, Hiyo said:

One of the proposed season 2 plotlines was Mal *finally* respecting Inara after she had been gang raped by the Reavers...

Basically she kills off a bunch of Reavers with her poison pussy and then finally Mal stops slut-shaming her. Um, yay?

Wow, in light of Joss Whedon's recent woes... just wow.

[DoctorAtomic]

17 hours ago, Danny Franks said:

But Jordan at least wrote, averaging a book every two years until he fell ill. GRRM has released two ASOIAF books in the last twenty years.

The Wheel of Time finale really fell flat for me, last paragraph not withstanding. That didn't actually bother me. So 25 years of reading the series just isn't going to fly. 

[Crs97]

My teenager, after absorbing every Brandon Sanderson book ever written, is now barreling his way through Wheel of Time.  We got him the complete set for  Christmas.  So far he is loving it (on book six I think) while anxiously awaiting Sanderson’s next offering.  I don’t read this genre so it is so much fun to see it discussed here and actually know a little about it!

[BlackberryJam]

I don't like sitcoms. I don't like Parks and Rec and for the life of me can't distinguish jokes/memes about that show from ones about The Office. I firmly believe it's the same damn show.

I loathe every single thing about The Big Bang Theory.

I hated Seinfeld. 

I watched How I Met Your Mother under protest and holy fuck was that show stupid with a pile of stupid and unlikable characters. Speaking of that, oh, hi Friends or as called it, "People who spend all their time lying to each other."

Schitt's Creek? DON'T CARE.

I Love Lucy? No, I didn't. I didn't even barely tolerate Lucy. 

MASH makes my eye twitch.

I just do not like sitcoms. I don't like the format, the laugh tracks, the cheap, easy, predictable jokes. 

[topanga]

2 hours ago, BlackberryJam said:

I don't like sitcoms. I don't like Parks and Rec and for the life of me can't distinguish jokes/memes about that show from ones about The Office. I firmly believe it's the same damn show.

I loathe every single thing about The Big Bang Theory.

I hated Seinfeld. 

I watched How I Met Your Mother under protest and holy fuck was that show stupid with a pile of stupid and unlikable characters. Speaking of that, oh, hi Friends or as called it, "People who spend all their time lying to each other."

Schitt's Creek? DON'T CARE.

I Love Lucy? No, I didn't. I didn't even barely tolerate Lucy. 

MASH makes my eye twitch.

I just do not like sitcoms. I don't like the format, the laugh tracks, the cheap, easy, predictable jokes. 

My only comment is about your indifference towards Schitt's Creek. Does "Don't Care" mean you've never seen an episode and don't want to see one? It might be true that you'd watch an episode then come back here to post "I hated that episode," but I encourage you to try it. Not that I think everyone has to love it--appreciation of comedy is quite subjective.  But I was also very indifferent until a few friends encouraged me to watch it. No one said, "THIS IS THE BEST SHOW EVER," which immediately makes me dislike a show sight-unseen. But my friends' cajoling made me curious, so I ended up watching it and enjoying it.  I appreciated the lack of a laugh track. I also hate them. 

So what shows do you like? And do you like any comedies? e.g. British comedies, comedy-dramas (like The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel), or comedy-mysteries (like Castle or Psych). 

 

My UO (I think it's unpopular): I'm a 40-something year old woman who likes a lot of teen shows: right now my favorite is All-American on the CW, and I loved the Saved by the Bell reboot. Back in the day, it was Veronica Mars (I was in my 30s then). 

 

 

[Wiendish Fitch]

3 hours ago, BlackberryJam said:

I hated Seinfeld. 

MASH makes my eye twitch.

I hated Seinfeld, too. I will grudgingly admit that I really like the library episode, but that's only because of Philip Baker Hall as Bookman ("You have 7 days, Seinfeld... THAT'S ONE WEEK!").

You'd have to pay me to watch MASH, and I doubt anyone would be willing to meet my price.

Edited March 5, 2021 by Wiendish Fitch

[kiddo82]

34 minutes ago, topanga said:

My UO (I think it's unpopular): I'm a 40-something year old woman who likes a lot of teen shows: right now my favorite is All-American on the CW, and I loved the Saved by the Bell reboot. Back in the day, it was Veronica Mars (I was in my 30s then). 

I'm 38 and I've been watching the new Are You Afraid of the Dark?  I was actually bummed to find out it's more a mini series than an anthology series.

[Annber03]

39 minutes ago, kiddo82 said:

I'm 38 and I've been watching the new Are You Afraid of the Dark?  I was actually bummed to find out it's more a mini series than an anthology series.

That reminds me that I still need to catch up on the last couple episodes in the new one. I've been enjoying that, too, it's nice to have it back. Though I agree with you that it'd be nice to have the proper anthology series itself again, too.

[Shannon L.]

1 hour ago, topanga said:

But I was also very indifferent until a few friends encouraged me to watch it. No one said, "THIS IS THE BEST SHOW EVER," which immediately makes me dislike a show sight-unseen. But my friends' cajoling made me curious, so I ended up watching it and enjoying it.  I appreciated the lack of a laugh track. I also hate them. 

My daughter, husband and I didn't even make it through the first episode of Schitt's Creek.  We couldn't understand why people were raving about it.  A few months later, I saw  people on Twitter discussing it and a few of them mentioned that you have to give it about 4 episodes.  Then, my son decided to watch it and, after binging it, said "Mom...you have to watch this. It's hysterical".  I told him I'd give him 4 episodes (for me, it started to pick up on episode 2).  Now, it's up there with one of my favorite all time comedies.  I think reigning Roland a little helped, although he's still my least favorite character.  I also encouraged our daughter to give it a few episodes and she ended up binging it and getting through it faster than I did.

[Annber03]

Yeah, sometimes it takes just the right time/mood/whatever to finally get into a show. And of course, it's totally understandable and logical to start checking out a show with its pilot-I like to do that, too-but sometimes the best episodes to draw someone into a series aren't the pilot, or even in the first season, but latter ones. I know that's been the case with my mom sometimes, she'll start watching a show and not be drawn in right away, and then she'll catch an episode that comes later in the series and boom, suddenly she's hooked. 

Edited March 6, 2021 by Annber03

[kiddo82]

49 minutes ago, Annber03 said:

Yeah, sometimes it takes just the right time/mood/whatever to finally get into a show. And of course, it's totally understandable and logical to start checking out a show with its pilot-I like to do that, too-nut sometimes the best episodes to draw someone into a series aren't the pilot, or even in the first season, but latter ones. I know that's been the case with my mom sometimes, she'll start watching a show and not be drawn in right away, and then she'll catch an episode that comes later in the series and boom, suddenly she's hooked. 

Pilot episodes for me are notoriously bad.  I don't mind exposition--I mean, we need it--but it feels extra clunky and unnatural in pilots.  There's no short hand between the show and the audience at that point.  And then the subsequent episodes rehash all that for the people just catching up so shows don't really hit their stride until episode 5 or 6.  This is of course a complaint for the dark ages when shows hoped to air 22 episode seasons.  I feel like the age of streaming and on demand has at least rectified that because there's usually a way to start from the beginning.  Remember the days of getting into a show mid way through its first season, or a few seasons in, and having to wait sometimes years to see the early episodes in reruns?  Peak TV, for all my complaints, does seem to have better pilots because the seasons tend to be shorter, even on broadcast, and there's more competition so they better grab your attention right away.

As for Schitt's Creek, I'm in the "like/not love" camp.  It had some moments for me but the sum of the parts (the entire cast is great) felt like it should have added up to more than the whole that we got.  

Edited March 6, 2021 by kiddo82

[Annber03]

I've generally had pretty good luck with pilots-for me, if I'm interested enough in a show to sit down and watch its first episode, I'm probably going to stick around for at least the first season, if not longer. And most of the shows I've liked, either ones I started watching from the beginning or ones I came to check out midway through their run or after they finished, I've liked their first episodes. They aren't always perfect, no, for the very reasons you note, but there's still enough there to enjoy. 

I do wonder sometimes, though, with shows I came to either late in their runs or after they finished, if I would've gotten into them had I watched their first episodes when they originally aired. 

[Hiyo]

Quote

As for Schitt's Creek, I'm in the "like/not love" camp.

I'm in the "Why do people even watch this? It's not that funny" camp.

[Danny Franks]

1 hour ago, Hiyo said:

I'm in the "Why do people even watch this? It's not that funny" camp.

That's what I felt about Parks & Rec. Then I was told "oh, you can't just watch the first episode, you need to watch the whole first season." So I did. Still not funny. Then I was told "oh, the first season isn't that good, you need to get into the second one."

Sliding scales of 'this will get good, I promise' are things I don't really have time for.

Regarding Seinfeld, it's not just the show that I don't find funny, but Jerry Seinfeld himself. His stand up bits are fucking painfully bad. Is that the joke? Is he supposed to be bad at his job? Julia Louis Dreyfus is hilariously funny, of course, but certainly not enough to make me watch that show.

Edited March 6, 2021 by Danny Franks

[Hiyo]

Quote

Sliding scales of 'this will get good, I promise' are things I don't really have time for.

Lol I guess it depends on the show, and how much time a person has to invest in it. I mean, I will totally tell people to slog through the first 2 seasons of Star Trek: The Next Generation, or the first seasons of Melrose Place and Dynasty (the original), but I can understand if people still aren't interested.

Maybe that could be a whole new thread: "No, seriously, the show gets good at this point!" lol

[Irlandesa]

This discussion of "it gets good later" brings up a possibly unpopular opinion in this day and age---It's okay to NOT start at the beginning of a series. 

People used to start a show mid-run all the time.  They'd catch an episode or two one night or they'd see it in syndication and start watching.  And if it was in syndication, unless they caught the first episode, they had to watch the whole series from the point where they began watching before they could see the beginning of the show.  Ratings would rise as more people would find a show--people who didn't see the show from the beginning.  Couldn't see it from the beginning.  TV viewers were able to figure shows out even if they were heavily serialized so I don't know why there's this modern day pressure that we all need to start from the beginning? 

On a personal level, I find this to be especially true with sitcoms. If a show comes together in Season 2--great--but before I try to power through a season that might not be working for me, I'd rather be told which two or three episodes are their funniest/best constructed episodes.  In a sitcom, it shouldn't matter how well I know the characters, I should be able to watch those randomly selected episodes and flat out enjoy them for what they are.  And if I do enjoy the episodes, I'm far more likely to power through a first season of a show trying to figure itself out than I am if I'm unsure if my disinterest is because a show is figuring itself out or if it's just not my cup of tea.  99% of the time, watching the "best" episode will give me that answer.

 

Edited March 6, 2021 by Irlandesa

[Annber03]

1 minute ago, Irlandesa said:

On a personal level, I find this to be especially true with sitcoms. If a show comes together in Season 2--great--but before I try to power through a season that might not be working for me, I'd rather be told which two or three episodes are their funniest/best constructed episodes.  In a sitcom, it shouldn't matter how well I know the characters, I should be able to watch those randomly selected episodes and flat out enjoy them for what they are.  And if I do enjoy the episodes, I'm far more likely to power through a season of a show trying to figure itself out than I am if I'm unsure if my disinterest is because a show is figuring itself out or if it's just not my cup of tea.  99% of the time, watching the "best" episode will give me that answer.

This is pretty much my point from earlier, but said much better :D. Yeah, I've come into quite a few shows midway through their run and seen episodes out of order, and yet I still had no problem getting invested. Many of those shows are now favorites of mine.

I think you make a good point, too, that some types of shows tend to lend themselves well to this kind of discovery better than others. Sitcoms are indeed perfect for this, as are procedurals, because they generally don't have overarching storylines, so it's easier to just jump in at any point. I think that's a big issue nowadays when it comes to people trying to get into certain shows-so many series are so serialized and plotted out, to where coming in midway through just won't work as well (for most people, anyway, there may well be some who don't have a problem with doing that). Add in the fact that a lot of people are very intent on not spoiling themselves and that makes it harder, too-if you don't like spoilers, then, yeah, you're going to have a particularly hard time coming into a show halfway through its run. 

[Hiyo]

Well, it helps that these days it's easier to catch up with shows without watching them from the beginning, as you can read about the show's history via sites like Wikipedia or check out episode summaries on other websites...that wasn't always an option back then.

But yeah, offering select episodes (like in the case of TNG) or a starting point within the season (like Melrose Place) is a good option so people don't waste time watching a whole season of bad, they can probably fill in the blanks themselves via the internet.

Quote

so many series are so serialized and plotted out, to where coming in midway through just won't work as well

In those cases, it does help to understand the dynamics and history between the characters.

[Irlandesa]

1 hour ago, Annber03 said:

I think that's a big issue nowadays when it comes to people trying to get into certain shows-so many series are so serialized and plotted out, to where coming in midway through just won't work as well

I am going to argue that's actually a weakness of how many shows are written these days as opposed to the nature of the shows.  I know more people than you'd think who started watching Breaking Bad mid show.  That's a show with a very clear serialized arc but each episode is still constructed to stand on its own even when the first scene resolves a cliffhanger and the final scene offers a new one. 

And night time soap operas in the past had people starting to watch them in the middle of their runs. 

(And sorry I missed your earlier post @Annber03.  I agree.)

56 minutes ago, Hiyo said:

In those cases, it does help to understand the dynamics and history between the characters.

I definitely think it adds to the experience of watching it but I still think I could recommend an episode of a drama/dramedy  like The Sopranos, Mad Men, Crazy Ex-Girlfriend and a person would know, based on that ep, whether or not it's a show they'd like.  Understanding a show on a deeper level will come with watching the show.

Maybe I should try that with Schitt's Creek.  I've seen a few episodes from various seasons and it didn't really grab me.  Is there one or two episodes that I should watch? 

Edited March 6, 2021 by Irlandesa

[Annber03]

14 minutes ago, Irlandesa said:

I am going to argue that's actually a weakness of how many shows are written these days as opposed to the nature of the shows.  I know more people than you'd think who started watching Breaking Bad mid show.  That's a show with a very clear serialized arc but each episode is still constructed to stand on its own even when the first scene resolves a cliffhanger and the final scene offers a new one. 

And night time soap operas in the past had people starting to watch them in the middle of their runs. 

(And sorry I missed your earlier post @Annber03.  I agree.)

Oh, that's okay :)! No worries. 

But wow, that's rather interesting to hear that about shows like "Breaking Bad". From your description, though, that does explain how many fans can jump in like that.

And a very good point about soaps, too! That's true-hell, even daytime ones, people can drop in and out and still have a general idea of what's going on and get sucked in :p. 

[JimmyJabloon]

I watched season one of schitt's Creek and I liked it. Not love, but like. But still I couldn't bother to watch season 2. Dunno why. 

 

Parks and rec for me only got good in s3. Love watching s3-5. Rest is just meh. Also Leslie was really annoying.

 

My UO for sitcoms is- I have no problem with laughtracks. I just tune them out. 

 

I couldn't sit through the office.

 

Watched the IT crowd because of the hype. Didn't live up to it. Had funny moments and a few funny episodes. But that's it. Didn't get why people were acting like it's the best thing ever.

 

[kiddo82]

1 hour ago, JimmyJabloon said:

My UO for sitcoms is- I have no problem with laughtracks. I just tune them out.

 

Laugh tracks don't both me either.  I understand why some find them old fashioned or off putting but I don't find myself distracted by them.

[Hiyo]

I really don't give a shit about Harry and Meghan. Yes, the British media and Royal Family did them wrong, but you're in the US now, which is a much more forgiving environment. Move on already and focus on your pivot to being Hollywood establishment types and forget all the shitty people in the past.

[Shannon L.]

3 hours ago, JimmyJabloon said:

My UO for sitcoms is- I have no problem with laughtracks. I just tune them out. 

I do, too. 

I think the reason Schitt's Creek works for me is that while the family can be very stuck up  because of the wealthy lifestyle they were raised in, as the series goes on, they grow, they learn and you realize that under all of what seems to be shallowness are people who are kind and actually do care.  They're not being mean, but clueless.  Because of that, I've grown to care about them.  The towns people, while simple, aren't stupid and have enough warmth, kindness and patience to deal with them and I like that, too.  The whole show is not only funny, imo, but charming.

But, I understand, too, that comedy is subjective. For ex. I hated that people were saying that anyone who didn't like Arrested Development weren't smart enough to get it.  I loved Arrested Development (the network seasons only--don't get me started on the Netflix seasons), but I would never suggest it to my dad. He's far from stupid--it's just not his style.

[BlackberryJam]

16 hours ago, topanga said:

My only comment is about your indifference towards Schitt's Creek. Does "Don't Care" mean you've never seen an episode and don't want to see one? It might be true that you'd watch an episode then come back here to post "I hated that episode," but I encourage you to try it. Not that I think everyone has to love it--appreciation of comedy is quite subjective.  But I was also very indifferent until a few friends encouraged me to watch it. No one said, "THIS IS THE BEST SHOW EVER," which immediately makes me dislike a show sight-unseen. But my friends' cajoling made me curious, so I ended up watching it and enjoying it.  I appreciated the lack of a laugh track. I also hate them. 

So what shows do you like? And do you like any comedies? e.g. British comedies, comedy-dramas (like The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel), or comedy-mysteries (like Castle or Psych). 

I don’t like sitcoms. Not dragging you specifically here, because the responses that follow do the exact same thing. I don’t like sitcoms, so why should I bother trying them? People do this same thing when I say I don’t like cats. Cats make my skin crawl. Cats make me hyperventilate. I feel about cats the way many people feel about spiders. People always say to me, “You’d like my cat, it’s not like a cat at all.” But it IS. All cats are exactly like cats.

I am not going to waste 1, 2, 3 hours of my l life on something I have a track record of not liking. There are thousands of scripted TV shows available to me. I watch plenty of them. It just drives me nuts when people assume I’m going to like it if I just try it, try enough of it, try some more of it, keep trying it until they are satisfied with my attempts. The only person I really pressure into watching different shows is MomJam and that’s because I’m sick of hearing her talk about Hope and Liam and Steffy and Finn and Brooke and Ridge and Victor and Nikki and Sharon and Nick....Pandemic has been hard on her.

I did watch the first couple of seasons of Castle because Fillion is a charm factory, but it got boring. Couldn’t make it through one episode of Psyche.

[WinnieWinkle]

49 minutes ago, Shannon L. said:

I loved Arrested Development (the network seasons only--don't get me started on the Netflix seasons), but I would never suggest it to my dad. He's far from stupid--it's just not his style.

This was Modern Family for me.  I had people around me raving about this show and I admit when I watched it I laughed but still and all it just wasn't for me.  As you say about your dad, not my style.