Party of One: Unpopular TV Opinions

[GHScorpiosRule]

10 minutes ago, DoctorAtomic said:

Setting aside the context, the kids on the Cosby show actually acted liked kids (until they obviously grew up). I think that was a main reason the show was popular. 

Well, except for Olivia--was just too precocious.

So did the kids on Family Ties, and Who's the Boss? And going back even further, the kids on The Brady Bunch? also were relatable as actual kids. I'll never forget Marcia's ugly, and I mean UGLY crying when Carol told her she was no longer going to play Juliet in the school's play because her ego got too big for the part.

[DearEvette]

20 minutes ago, DoctorAtomic said:

Setting aside the context, the kids on the Cosby show actually acted liked kids (until they obviously grew up). I think that was a main reason the show was popular. 

This is so true.  I always feel like you can tell when someone is writing slice of life or taking something from real life vs. what writer room writers think conversations/dialogue sounds like.  It was pretty obvious Cosby used his IRL kids' situations and dialogue in that show.  So it comes off as sounding really authentic and you can relate to it better.  Also one of the reasons I think The Wire is such a quotable show.  Especially the first season since it was mined almost completely from Simon's year long ride-along with the  cops. 

Edited March 19, 2021 by DearEvette

[sistermagpie]

1 hour ago, GHScorpiosRule said:

Well, except for Olivia--was just too precocious.

So did the kids on Family Ties, and Who's the Boss? And going back even further, the kids on The Brady Bunch? also were relatable as actual kids. I'll never forget Marcia's ugly, and I mean UGLY crying when Carol told her she was no longer going to play Juliet in the school's play because her ego got too big for the part.

Maureen McCormick was *great* at the ugly cry and that Juliet one was epic. Also when she and Greg are running for class president and Marcia practices her speech at home and the boys make her cry. 

[DoctorAtomic]

I think Olivia is a symptom of extending the show beyond its shelf life. I meant the peak of the show, say before Theo moved out. 

I still crack up - 'I got made fun of at school because we're rich.' 'Who is we?' I've used that so much. 

[GHScorpiosRule]

15 minutes ago, DoctorAtomic said:

I think Olivia is a symptom of extending the show beyond its shelf life. I meant the peak of the show, say before Theo moved out. 

I still crack up - 'I got made fun of at school because we're rich.' 'Who is we?' I've used that so much. 

Cliff: "Your mother and I are rich. YOU have nothing."

Edited March 19, 2021 by GHScorpiosRule

[Leeds]

On 3/18/2021 at 9:28 AM, Zella said:

I watched a fair amount of The Talk back in the day, and that was my read on her too. I liked hearing her perspective quite a bit more than some of the more outspoken people (here's looking at you, Sharon), but she was so visibly uncomfortable that it made for awkward viewing. 

I've been reading a lot of the behind the scenes stuff about The Talk, and it seems like a) it was a very toxic place, which I always wondered about, and b) Sara Gilbert didn't really have as much control as you'd expect from an executive producer. It wouldn't surprise me if it's true that she really didn't want to be there. 

 

Can I ask where you find the "behind the scenes stuff"?  I don't like to have my id out there.

[Blergh]

Bottom line is that while there have been many programs with protagonists who were fulltime and hands-on parents of infants, toddlers, preteens and youths down the decades, evidently the writers of  Xena, Buffy the Vampire Slayer,etc. evidently could not imagine their protagonists doing the same. Hence,  the shows' PTBs should have either hired writers who COULD imagine making their protagonists believable hands-on parents of those who were not adults or, failing that, just kept their protagonists  childless. 

[Zella]

51 minutes ago, Leeds said:

Can I ask where you find the "behind the scenes stuff"?  I don't like to have my id out there.

Mainly in reporting. Yashar Ali wrote this recently, and it jibes with other behind the scenes things I've read. 

https://yashar.substack.com/p/exclusive-sharon-osbourne-frequently

[FormerMod-a1]

3 hours ago, Leeds said:

Can I ask where you find the "behind the scenes stuff"?  I don't like to have my id out there.

 

2 hours ago, Zella said:

Mainly in reporting. Yashar Ali wrote this recently, and it jibes with other behind the scenes things I've read. 

https://yashar.substack.com/p/exclusive-sharon-osbourne-frequently

Also, the Misc Celeb News thread, the Predator & Prey thread, and The Talk forum.  Although, the first two have talk of lots of things, not just Sharon O and The Talk.  But recent discussions have included her.

[Wiendish Fitch]

On 3/18/2021 at 9:13 PM, GaT said:

The Connor storyline led to the Cordy getting pregnant storyline, & both pretty much ruined the show. Then Whedon decided to hammer the nail in the coffin & came up with the Illyria storyline & that was that.

Joss Whedon doesn't so much hammer the nail into the coffin as he does bolt it, weld it, and then toss it into a tar pit. 

 

Here's one heckuva UO:

I had no problem with the Drew and Celia (Shirley Jones) plotline from The Drew Carey Show. I mean that, I really do. Why? Because they were kind of fun together (while it lasted), and for fuck's sake, Drew was over 40 years old! He was a grown-ass, middle-aged man who was plenty able to make his own decisions and give consent! Celia was absolutely not a Mrs. Robinson preying on a young, impressionable man! I mean, we watch older men, in fiction and in real life, date much younger women, why is it so gross and weird when it's the other way around?

[Zella]

16 minutes ago, aquarian1 said:

 

Also, the Misc Celeb News thread, the Predator & Prey thread, and The Talk forum.  Although, the first two have talk of lots of things, not just Sharon O and The Talk.  But recent discussions have included her.

Thanks! I was aware of the latter two threads but not the first. Leah Remini also apparently spilled some tea in her memoir but didn't give the full details. I suspect someone could probably get a book of its own out of all the shit that's gone down on The Talk over the years. 

[kathyk24]

6 hours ago, Blergh said:

Bottom line is that while there have been many programs with protagonists who were fulltime and hands-on parents of infants, toddlers, preteens and youths down the decades, evidently the writers of  Xena, Buffy the Vampire Slayer,etc. evidently could not imagine their protagonists doing the same. Hence,  the shows' PTBs should have either hired writers who COULD imagine making their protagonists believable hands-on parents of those who were not adults or, failing that, just kept their protagonists  childless. 

I think shows have children grow up quickly to avoid the limited hours that children can work. They also can avoid hiring a teacher for one child. My pet peeve is having a character be pregnant later in life when the actress isn't expecting herself. For example Too Close for Comfort Dharma and Greg and Modern Family all used this trope. There are other roles for women other than mother.

[Annber03]

5 hours ago, Wiendish Fitch said:

Here's one heckuva UO:

I had no problem with the Drew and Celia (Shirley Jones) plotline from The Drew Carey Show. I mean that, I really do. Why? Because they were kind of fun together (while it lasted), and for fuck's sake, Drew was over 40 years old! He was a grown-ass, middle-aged man who was plenty able to make his own decisions and give consent! Celia was absolutely not a Mrs. Robinson preying on a young, impressionable man! I mean, we watch older men, in fiction and in real life, date much younger women, why is it so gross and weird when it's the other way around?

I'll agree with you on this one :). I caught some of this storyline when watching repeats of this show on the Laff channel a couple years ago*, and I liked the idea of them both just having a bit of fun together and just rolling with the relationship for however long it lasted. He had an interesting variety of relationships throughout the series-I liked that the physical attraction, while there, obviousy, wasn't the only thing he went for in the women he dated. They usually had something else about them that he liked-a fun attitude/outlook on life, or a no-BS way of talking and dealing with people, or, in the case of Kate, there was that longtime friendship between them, and so on. 

*I have some of the episodes saved on my DVR. I really wish they could sort out the music rights issues with that show, that'd be a fun one to get on DVD someday. 

In other topics, I've been watching the "Get Smart" reruns on the Decades channel each night, and they're at the point in the show's run now where Max and 99 are together and she'll soon be having kids. I know people often talk about the struggles shows have when characters get together in a series, but honestly, I've really been enjoying the episodes that come after Max and 99 get together on the show. There's no major negative change to either of their characters, no major drama for them to deal with. They're still basically the same people they were before they got together, and they're both still out there doing their jobs (and I love that 99 still keeps her job after becoming a wife, and eventually, a mom). I think the show does a good job of balancing their more romantic moments, which are quiet and cute and sweet, with the typical cases and such. The relationship moments aren't intrusive or overshadow other parts of the show, and if their relationship is a major focus of an episode, they tie it into the main storyline in a fun way that works for the characters. 

So yeah. I don't know how unpopular that opinion is, but there ya go. 

[Wiendish Fitch]

14 hours ago, Annber03 said:

In other topics, I've been watching the "Get Smart" reruns on the Decades channel each night, and they're at the point in the show's run now where Max and 99 are together and she'll soon be having kids. I know people often talk about the struggles shows have when characters get together in a series, but honestly, I've really been enjoying the episodes that come after Max and 99 get together on the show. There's no major negative change to either of their characters, no major drama for them to deal with. They're still basically the same people they were before they got together, and they're both still out there doing their jobs (and I love that 99 still keeps her job after becoming a wife, and eventually, a mom). I think the show does a good job of balancing their more romantic moments, which are quiet and cute and sweet, with the typical cases and such. The relationship moments aren't intrusive or overshadow other parts of the show, and if their relationship is a major focus of an episode, they tie it into the main storyline in a fun way that works for the characters. 

So yeah. I don't know how unpopular that opinion is, but there ya go. 

Let's face it, Don Adams and Barbara Feldon were just too dang cute together. I normally don't like the trope of "awesome woman marries doofus who is nowhere near her league", but Get Smart made it work. Plus, as you pointed out, there was no contrived drama/Flanderization on either side. See, writers? Being in a relationship doesn't always change people for the worst... or at all. Some people are just who they are, they just have someone to be themselves with.

Good gravy, why is this such a difficult concept to grasp? 

[Blergh]

36 minutes ago, Wiendish Fitch said:

Let's face it, Don Adams and Barbara Feldon were just too dang cute together. I normally don't like the trope of "awesome woman marries doofus who is nowhere near her league", but Get Smart made it work. Plus, as you pointed out, there was no contrived drama/Flanderization on either side. See, writers? Being in a relationship doesn't always change people for the worst... or at all. Some people are just who they are, they just have someone to be themselves with.

Good gravy, why is this such a difficult concept to grasp? 

Agree that they were great working together and even hinting at possibly having romantic trysts between cases but IMO it was a HUGE mistake for Mr. Smart and Miss 99 to actually tie the knot -and Miss Feldon  herself has gone on record concurring. She said she liked the proposal scene (of the two of them in Charlie Chaplin costumes ) but the rest of it just weighed the whole show down. Oh, and while I could get that idea of bungling  Max himself somehow never getting clued in on his wife's actual name, it was bogus that it NEVER got revealed to the viewers with some kind of sound affect covering it up when the minister uttered it during the ceremony . Moreover when 99's mother (who bought their story that they worked for a greeting card company) visited she somehow NEVER uttered her own daughter's given name nor their family's surname- just talked on and on about 'my son-in-law Max Smart' and they kept that up even after the Smart twins were born.

[Annber03]

14 hours ago, Blergh said:

Agree that they were great working together and even hinting at possibly having romantic trysts between cases but IMO it was a HUGE mistake for Mr. Smart and Miss 99 to actually tie the knot -and Miss Feldon  herself has gone on record concurring. She said she liked the proposal scene (of the two of them in Charlie Chaplin costumes ) but the rest of it just weighed the whole show down. 

Oh, that's interesting. I didn't know she felt that way. Eh, I disagree, as noted above, but I can also understand her take on it, too. At least the marriage and kids stuff did happen as the show was already in the process of winding down with its last couple seasons, which I think is part of why I enjoy it more. Had the show lasted beyond five seasons, I could see that stuff becoming more and more of an issue, because long-running shows will often inevitably mess around with that stuff somehow. 

Quote

Oh, and while I could get that idea of bungling  Max himself somehow never getting clued in on his wife's actual name, it was bogus that it NEVER got revealed to the viewers with some kind of sound affect covering it up when the minister uttered it during the ceremony . Moreover when 99's mother (who bought their story that they worked for a greeting card company) visited she somehow NEVER uttered her own daughter's given name nor their family's surname- just talked on and on about 'my son-in-law Max Smart' and they kept that up even after the Smart twins were born.

Ha, yeah, it would've been fun to get her real name at some point :D. And I take your point about it being odd that her family even sidesteps addressing her directly like that, too. But I also kind of like that it remains unknown, too-it's fun to imagine what her real name could be. 

15 hours ago, Wiendish Fitch said:

Let's face it, Don Adams and Barbara Feldon were just too dang cute together. I normally don't like the trope of "awesome woman marries doofus who is nowhere near her league", but Get Smart made it work. Plus, as you pointed out, there was no contrived drama/Flanderization on either side. See, writers? Being in a relationship doesn't always change people for the worst... or at all. Some people are just who they are, they just have someone to be themselves with.

Good gravy, why is this such a difficult concept to grasp? 

Exactly! All of this :D. Romance in and of itself on a TV show isn't the issue-done right it can be fun, beautiful, sweet, etc. And in and of itself, a couple going through dramatic moments isn't a bad thing to explore and can also be done well. Every couple has their ups and downs, after all, and their issues they have to deal with, be it with each other or with other people and situations around them. 

But too many shows seem to make the drama so contrived, instead of something that naturally stems from the characters and the relationship between them or between them and others. And it gets dragged out instead of resolved in an appropriate time and fashion, and it just gets exhausting. 

[Mabinogia]

16 hours ago, Annber03 said:

But too many shows seem to make the drama so contrived, instead of something that naturally stems from the characters and the relationship between them or between them and others. And it gets dragged out instead of resolved in an appropriate time and fashion, and it just gets exhausting. 

A lot of writers don't seem "good enough" to just write a healthy, happy couple. They need to create constant drama, constant misunderstanding or other people coming between them, or misunderstandings about other people coming between them, on a loop, until they drive the show into the ground. 

Hart to Hart was one of my favorite shows because it was based on my all time favorite on screen duo (though movie, not tele) Nick and Nora Charles. These couples had a playful banter and competitiveness that was just so fun to watch. 

I get exhausted by "will they/won't they" couples, be they potential couples who can't quite get together or established couples who constantly have obstacles thrown in their path. Life is exhausting enough, I don't need my tv to wear me down too. I loved Castle, at first, but OMFG just enough with the constant obstacles. It didn't help that I really didn't care about Castle and Beckett as a couple so while everyone was supposedly rooting for them to hook up I was rooting for them to stay as far apart as possible. lol

[Annber03]

53 minutes ago, Mabinogia said:

I get exhausted by "will they/won't they" couples, be they potential couples who can't quite get together or established couples who constantly have obstacles thrown in their path. Life is exhausting enough, I don't need my tv to wear me down too. I loved Castle, at first, but OMFG just enough with the constant obstacles. It didn't help that I really didn't care about Castle and Beckett as a couple so while everyone was supposedly rooting for them to hook up I was rooting for them to stay as far apart as possible. lol

From what I've heard about that show, it also didn't help that there was all the behind the scenes mess with the actors (though didn't a lot of that come after their characters got together? Fans of the show, feel free to correct me on the details if needed). 

But yeah, "will they/won't they" can be a touchy thing to deal with, because a) most of the time it's going to be a "They will", so it's not like there's much of a debate there. It's less a "will they/won't they" and more just a, "When are these two crazy kids gonna get together?"

And b) it can get dragged out so long. If a show is going to do that little dance with a potential couple, I do think there's a sweet spot in terms of how long to let it simmer before finally going through with it (or not going through with it, if the story goes that route). 

Edited March 22, 2021 by Annber03

[Mabinogia]

6 minutes ago, Annber03 said:

And b) it can get dragged out so long. If a show is going to do that little dance with a potential couple, I do think there's a sweet spot in terms of how long to let it simmer before finally going through with it (or not going through with it, if the story goes that route). 

This is so true. The dance can be fun for a little while, but I think show runners see how much fans are enjoying the push pull and don't realize that just because they like it now, doesn't mean they want it to last forever. I love pizza, that doesn't mean I want to eat nothing but pizza all the time for the rest of eternity with no hope of ever having ice cream. I like to know there is some ice cream coming just when I've gotten tired of the pizza. (like I could ever get tired of pizza! But I do love me some ice cream so...) Great. Now I'm hungry. 

I personally like growth in my shows, even silly little sitcoms, I like the characters and their relationships to evolve. I think that is far more interesting than a revolving door of angst. 

[DoctorAtomic]

I think that's the point right there - writers aren't good enough to write relationships. I don't know what that says about them though. Relationships take work, and you can write ups and downs episode to episode. 

[Annber03]

41 minutes ago, Mabinogia said:

This is so true. The dance can be fun for a little while, but I think show runners see how much fans are enjoying the push pull and don't realize that just because they like it now, doesn't mean they want it to last forever. I love pizza, that doesn't mean I want to eat nothing but pizza all the time for the rest of eternity with no hope of ever having ice cream. I like to know there is some ice cream coming just when I've gotten tired of the pizza. (like I could ever get tired of pizza! But I do love me some ice cream so...) Great. Now I'm hungry. 

You've made me hungry, too :D. 

The history between the characters also needs to be more of a factor and consideration when deciding how long to wait until finally getting them together. If they've just met when the show first starts-just started working together, just started hanging out-then yeah, it makes sense to take a couple seasons or so before going there, because you need to give the characters and their relationship time to develop and grow, and let them get to know each other well enough to where they feel comfortable taking that next step, and it feels like a natural progression for them.

(Of course, if it's a character who's known for jumping into hookups or relationships despite barely knowing someone, or a character who's really hesitant/reluctant to get romantically involved, for whatever reason, despite knowing and possibly being interested in someone, then naturally you adjust accordingly based on those characters' histories and behaviors and such.)

But if the characters already have an established history when the show starts, and there already is some level of interest there, then it doesn't necessarily need to take as many seasons to get them together. Not unless there's a really good reason why they haven't gone there yet. 

Quote

I personally like growth in my shows, even silly little sitcoms, I like the characters and their relationships to evolve. I think that is far more interesting than a revolving door of angst. 

Agreed. It doesn't even need to be dramatic growth, but yeah, just something that indicates, by the time the show ends, that they're in some way changed and different from how they were when we first met them. Plus, it makes rewatching more fun, too, when you can track those changes and that character development and such :D. 

[Mabinogia]

1 hour ago, Annber03 said:

The history between the characters also needs to be more of a factor and consideration when deciding how long to wait until finally getting them together. If they've just met when the show first starts-just started working together, just started hanging out-then yeah, it makes sense to take a couple seasons or so before going there, because you need to give the characters and their relationship time to develop and grow, and let them get to know each other well enough to where they feel comfortable taking that next step, and it feels like a natural progression for them.

True, and it can be fun to watch a relationship grow from a first meeting to a full blown romance. Though this leads to one thing I absolutely despise. The couples who hate each other when the first meet but grow to love one another or the (usually) man-child character who "grows up" because of the love of a good woman. I hate watching relationships that are almost as much parent/child or mentor/mentee than romance.

Maybe it's because I am no longer a Harlequin reading 14 year old girl but I don't want a "fixer upper" romance, I want to watch fully developed adults fall in love and grow together, not one growing up because of the other. 

[StatisticalOutlier]

On 3/18/2021 at 7:25 PM, kieyra said:

Because kids on TV are boring unless they’re written with unlikely 30-year-old dialogue coming out of their mouths. 🙂

I've been watching reruns of The Patty Duke Show and Father Knows Best on FETV for the past couple of months, and the kids are fantastic in both shows.  Especially Patty Duke, and the kid who played her little brother, Ross.  Some of the plots are rather strained, but the dialogue among the family members always seems completely natural. 

[Danny Franks]

11 hours ago, Mabinogia said:

I get exhausted by "will they/won't they" couples, be they potential couples who can't quite get together or established couples who constantly have obstacles thrown in their path. Life is exhausting enough, I don't need my tv to wear me down too. I loved Castle, at first, but OMFG just enough with the constant obstacles. It didn't help that I really didn't care about Castle and Beckett as a couple so while everyone was supposedly rooting for them to hook up I was rooting for them to stay as far apart as possible. lol

I was really invested in Castle and Beckett, for a long time. I thought the actors had amazing chemistry, and the writing of them in the first couple of seasons was really good. Both actors sold the hell out of these burgeoning, unexpected and increasingly deep feelings. But the writers just couldn't sustain it.

Once they started looking for reasons to keep them apart instead of just writing the natural evolution of the relationship, it all started to go wrong. Misunderstandings, road block love interests, actively lying to each other, sudden bouts of 'I forgot I ever felt anything for you and can't read you at all' when it was convenient.

It's symptomatic of a problem I have with 'will they, won't they' couples as a whole - writers who spend all their creative energies on figuring out different reasons to have them not get together, stringing audiences along for multiple years while also having to come up with A plots of the week, are unlikely to have much left in the tank when it comes to writing an actual relationship.

Because the A plots are hackneyed by that point, so all that's left is the relationship, but you've written four or five years of these people getting to know one another without actually getting together so... what's left to write? Domesticity and the mundanity of life together, which can be good but it's scary, especially for procedural writers. So we usually just get more silly drama and misunderstandings. You know, like Beckett secretly being married the entire time - that was the point at which I just said, "no. I'm done." I never watched another minute of the show, and haven't watched any old episodes again either.

9 hours ago, DoctorAtomic said:

I think that's the point right there - writers aren't good enough to write relationships. I don't know what that says about them though. Relationships take work, and you can write ups and downs episode to episode. 

Some writers are. The Brooklyn Nine-Nine writers have done an amazing job of writing Jake and Amy as a central plotline to the show. And they've done it almost completely without manufactured drama or any of the manipulation that a lot of TV couples seem to engage in. They've just written a relationship that built naturally and kept going - when it was time for them to get together, they did. When it was time for them to get serious, they did. When it was time for them to get married, they did. You know, like real people.

But it does seem like a lot of TV writers buy into the bullshit concept that you can't let a couple get together because it will make the audience stop liking them. Perhaps if those writers didn't spend years building their entire show around the tension of whether two people will have sex or not, it might be easier to rely on being able to write a successful relationship.

[Spartan Girl]

I feel like I’m the only one in the world that just wants The Simpsons to end. There were people on the forum that actually were happy it’s getting two more seasons, saying that it should never end because it’s “comfort TV” and part of “American culture.” 

My response:

NO SHOW should last forever, okay? I would rather have a show that gives us some years of entertainment and either goes out on top or knows when to step out when the quality declines. If they can finally pull the plug on something like Keeping Up with the Kardashians, then they can end The Simpsons.

Edited March 23, 2021 by Spartan Girl

[Crs97]

33 minutes ago, Spartan Girl said:

 

I feel like I’m the only one in the world that just wants The Simpsons to end

 

I have never seen the show nor wanted to, and I was its target demographic when it started.  I can’t explain why, but I have never been even remotely interested.

[Danny Franks]

I'm old enough to remember The Simpsons hype - Do the Bartman, t-shirts, action figures, SNES and Mega Drive games etc. It was crazy. And yes, I did love it when I first watched. There was something incredibly fun and fresh about the show and I have fond memories of watching it on Saturdays at 6pm, when Sky One aired a double bill.

I haven't sat down to watch an episode of The Simpsons now in what must be almost twenty years. The quality dropped so steeply that it became embarrassing to watch at some point - I'd say somewhere around that musical episode, which was apparently in season nine and was fucking awful.

Should it end? I have no idea what the viewing figures are like, but I find it hard to believe there are still enthusiastic, loyal viewers. It just feels like very lazy, easy to watch television and, with the amount of syndication, ninety percent of the time people will be watching episodes they're very familiar with already. Is there really any need for new episodes?

[Wiendish Fitch]

 

7 minutes ago, Danny Franks said:

I'm old enough to remember The Simpsons hype - Do the Bartman, t-shirts, action figures, SNES and Mega Drive games etc. It was crazy. And yes, I did love it when I first watched. There was something incredibly fun and fresh about the show and I have fond memories of watching it on Saturdays at 6pm, when Sky One aired a double bill.

I haven't sat down to watch an episode of The Simpsons now in what must be almost twenty years. The quality dropped so steeply that it became embarrassing to watch at some point - I'd say somewhere around that musical episode, which was apparently in season nine and was fucking awful.

Should it end? I have no idea what the viewing figures are like, but I find it hard to believe there are still enthusiastic, loyal viewers. It just feels like very lazy, easy to watch television and, with the amount of syndication, ninety percent of the time people will be watching episodes they're very familiar with already. Is there really any need for new episodes?

Same here.

The Simpsons has become like an aging athlete that won't retire; oh, it was comforting and even inspirational at first how long they'd been around, but they've shot the moon, overstayed their welcome, and now it's just embarrassing.

Please, for the love of god, put this past its prime show out of its misery once and for all so we can remember its glory years without flinching. 

[Hiyo]

Seasons 3 through 9 of The Simpsons are some of my favorite TV ever. Season 10 was when the show started to decline for me, it was very hit or miss. I did keep watching on and off after that, and gave up on the show sometime in the mid-2000s.

It is def time for the show to call it a day. I would have thought they would have after hitting the 700-episode milestone, just to say they reached it, but I guess the show is still somehow making a profit?

Edited March 23, 2021 by Hiyo

[DrSpaceman73]

I don't think it's an unpopular opinion at all to want the simpsons to end. 

I think most all diehard fans who were kids/ young adults at it's peak we will say around the first ten years it was on realize the show is just in now for the money, it's a cash cow.  

I never watch 'live' anymore but will go back and watch on the steaming services occasionally. It has its moments but is just an average show anymore. 

[Kromm]

I guessed in another topic it was probably a decade since I'd last seen a NEW Simpsons episode, and I'm debating now with myself of it might have actually been longer, but I also realized even if I did, it was definitely a Treehouse of Horror episode, and doesn't count the same.  Other than a Treehouse episode, it's very possible I might not have watched a new Simpsons since Bill Clinton was President. 

[WinnieWinkle]

My husband is a fan of Two and Half Men so I've seen way more episodes than I want to - not sure if this is an unpopular opinion or not but Alan is written as a cheapskate who never gets any sex.  Ok just how many relationships/one night stands does a Hollywood writer think the average guy is going to have?  Most seasons at least half, if not more, of the episodes have Alan either involved with someone or having a one night stand with someone yet the other half of the episodes talk like Alan hasn't been with a woman since the Mammoths walked the land. 

[DrSpaceman73]

2 minutes ago, WinnieWinkle said:

My husband is a fan of Two and Half Men so I've seen way more episodes than I want to - not sure if this is an unpopular opinion or not but Alan is written as a cheapskate who never gets any sex.  Ok just how many relationships/one night stands does a Hollywood writer think the average guy is going to have?  Most seasons at least half, if not more, of the episodes have Alan either involved with someone or having a one night stand with someone yet the other half of the episodes talk like Alan hasn't been with a woman since the Mammoths walked the land. 

You're right.....but it's chuck lorre.  I have no expectations for his shows from a writing standpoint. 

[Blergh]

3 hours ago, Spartan Girl said:

I feel like I’m the only one in the world that just wants The Simpsons to end. There were people on the forum that actually were happy it’s getting two more seasons, saying that it should never end because it’s “comfort TV” and part of “American culture.” 

My response:

NO SHOW should last forever, okay? I would rather have a show that gives us some years of entertainment and either goes out on top or knows when to step out when the quality declines. If they can finally pull the plug on something like Keeping Up with the Kardashians, then they can end The Simpsons.

Yeah, even I Love Lucy only produced six seasons of original shows  and IMO, I  don't think there are 31 watchable The Simpsons episodes much less 31 seasons worth of them! 

[Katy M]

3 hours ago, Spartan Girl said:

I feel like I’m the only one in the world that just wants The Simpsons to end. There were people on the forum that actually were happy it’s getting two more seasons, saying that it should never end because it’s “comfort TV” and part of “American culture.” 

My response:

NO SHOW should last forever, okay? I would rather have a show that gives us some years of entertainment and either goes out on top or knows when to step out when the quality declines. If they can finally pull the plug on something like Keeping Up with the Kardashians, then they can end The Simpsons.

I haven't watched an episode since the '90s.  I did watch the movie just because my bf at the time wanted to go.  I watched half of an episode last Sunday.  No real reason.  Just thought I would (well actually I thought I would watch a whole epi but couldn't). Anyway, I noted that now Homer was a teenager in the '90s insted of the late '60s.  This changes everything:)  Otherwise, I don't care if it's on or not.  I've managed not to watch it for like 20 years whether it's on or not.  If others are watching and getting enjoyment, good for them.

[Hiyo]

“but it's chuck lorre.  I have no expectations for his shows from a writing standpoint.”

Hey now, he did write episodes for M.A.S.K.! 😉

[Crs97]

14 hours ago, Mabinogia said:

Maybe it's because I am no longer a Harlequin reading 14 year old girl but I don't want a "fixer upper" romance, I want to watch fully developed adults fall in love and grow together, not one growing up because of the other. 

I always thought Monica and Chandler were written well during Friends.  They were good friends that you could imagine falling in love.  They both had faults, but they grew together and actually worked through things.  I loved when everyone told Chandler Monica would be mad at his attempts to clean the apartment, and she told him she appreciated the effort and didn’t want him to have to deal with her idiosyncrasies.  Even after they got together, they were an interesting pair.

[GHScorpiosRule]

I have discovered that I prefer movies--whether they are biopics or not, to be shown in a linear fashion. I find I get confused and taken out of the scenes because I'm trying to figure what just happened, and doing a lot of "huh?" especially when the movie doesn't provide a tag.

Both biopics of Billie Holiday, and now of Aretha Franklin have used this style. Opens up with 1967, then it's flashback to 1954 (which was okay), but it then jumped to 1963, then back to 1967 (I think), then back to 1954, and on and on.

Maybe I just don't have the intelligence to keep up with this style of movie-telling.

[kieyra]

21 minutes ago, GHScorpiosRule said:

I have discovered that I prefer movies--whether they are biopics or not, to be shown in a linear fashion. I find I get confused and taken out of the scenes because I'm trying to figure what just happened, and doing a lot of "huh?" especially when the movie doesn't provide a tag.

Both biopics of Billie Holiday, and now of Aretha Franklin have used this style. Opens up with 1967, then it's flashback to 1954 (which was okay), but it then jumped to 1963, then back to 1967 (I think), then back to 1954, and on and on.

Maybe I just don't have the intelligence to keep up with this style of movie-telling.

I like fractured-timeline narratives when it's done really cleanly. The Firefly episode "Out of Gas" was an episode where (in my opinion) it was done well. Haunting of Hill House was a little messier but overall used it to great effect. 

The Fosse/Verdon miniseries, on the other hand, left me absolutely baffled. That one seemed like it should have been linear. 

I dislike serial shows where the whole schtick is flashback/current/flashforward. (This is Us comes to mind.) I think I blame Lost for this. 

[DoctorAtomic]

Lost has a TON of issues, but the reveal it was a flashforward was brilliant - Kate. We have to go back. 

[kiddo82]

14 minutes ago, kieyra said:

I like fractured-timeline narratives when it's done really cleanly. The Firefly episode "Out of Gas" was an episode where (in my opinion) it was done well. Haunting of Hill House was a little messier but overall used it to great effect. 

The Fosse/Verdon miniseries, on the other hand, left me absolutely baffled. That one seemed like it should have been linear. 

I dislike serial shows where the whole schtick is flashback/current/flashforward. (This is Us comes to mind.) I think I blame Lost for this. 

The first season of Damages did the whole "this is where we are now/let's take a look at how we got here" to perfection, IMO.  I didn't find the subsequent seasons as interesting, however.  Same with The Affair.  I feel like they had varying degrees of success with messing with the time line.

[ifionlyknew]

10 minutes ago, kieyra said:

The Fosse/Verdon miniseries, on the other hand, left me absolutely baffled.

I was completely lost.  I knew who they were but I had a hard time distinguishing what time period they were in in any given scene.

11 minutes ago, kieyra said:

I dislike serial shows where the whole schtick is flashback/current/flashforward. (This is Us comes to mind.)

I don't mind that.  At least I can figure out if it's present or past.  Same with Young Rock.  When  you are dealing with kids it's easier to figure out what time period they are showing because of the kid's ages.

 

[kieyra]

1 minute ago, ifionlyknew said:

I knew who they were but I had a hard time distinguishing what time period they were in in any given scene.

YES. You had to carefully scrutinize Fosse's hairline and even that didn't always help. Neither did the title cards like: "88 Days till [Name of musical whose year of origin I don't know anyway]". 

[ifionlyknew]

2 minutes ago, kiddo82 said:

The first season of Damages did the whole "this is where we are now/let's take a look at how we got here" to perfection, IMO

I watched that first season on DVD. Finished it in one day. It was so good. It was like watching a very well written novel. But it was on subsequent viewings of that first season that I actually understood everything. 

 

7 minutes ago, kiddo82 said:

Same with The Affair.  I feel like they had varying degrees of success with messing with the time line.

 

I loved the first season. Thought the different viewpoints of the same events was well done. But the following seasons didn't live up to that first season.

[kiddo82]

7 minutes ago, ifionlyknew said:

I watched that first season on DVD. Finished it in one day. It was so good. It was like watching a very well written novel. But it was on subsequent viewings of that first season that I actually understood everything.

It's been on my list to rewatch for a while.  I haven't seen it since I binged it many moons ago before I watched season 2 "live."  

Also agree about the first season of The Affair vs the following seasons.  

Edited March 23, 2021 by kiddo82

[DearEvette]

36 minutes ago, kieyra said:

I like fractured-timeline narratives when it's done really cleanly. The Firefly episode "Out of Gas" was an episode where (in my opinion) it was done well. Haunting of Hill House was a little messier but overall used it to great effect. 

Yeah, I don;t mind when it is done well and the viewer can follow the story-telling even when it is not linear.  As long as you know where you are in the story and it adds to the suspense/cohesion and finally a great, revelatory denouement then it is great.  I think the very first episode of This is Us did it so very well, and generally it was easy to follow. But over time it became a little to precious.  And even got confusing (imo) at times.

The Witcher, otoh, did it and it was confusing until you finally start putting two and two together <insert JPG of confused woman doing math problems, LOL> and going... oh, so it is different timelines?  Ok. 

Good Trouble plays with it but it  jumps around and cross cutting scenes from stuff that happens in the same day or even the same week.  The non-linear storytelling in that show is just annoying.

and finally, I had to peace out after two episodes of the CBS new version of The Stand.  The non-linear storytelling in that one jwas a) disorienting and b) ruined story momentum, imo. 

[Llywela]

1 hour ago, GHScorpiosRule said:

I have discovered that I prefer movies--whether they are biopics or not, to be shown in a linear fashion. I find I get confused and taken out of the scenes because I'm trying to figure what just happened, and doing a lot of "huh?" especially when the movie doesn't provide a tag.

Both biopics of Billie Holiday, and now of Aretha Franklin have used this style. Opens up with 1967, then it's flashback to 1954 (which was okay), but it then jumped to 1963, then back to 1967 (I think), then back to 1954, and on and on.

Maybe I just don't have the intelligence to keep up with this style of movie-telling.

I don't think it has anything to do with lack of intelligence. It's more about a) the quality of the writing, and b) the level of involvement you wanted to bring to your viewing experience. I mean, if you sit down to watch what you thought was going to be a laid-back hour or two of entertainment and instead end up having to do mental gymnastics just to figure out what's going on, that's a sign that either the writers haven't done the best job or that the particular show/movie isn't what you needed on this occasion - and more than likely both!

Edited March 23, 2021 by Llywela

[GHScorpiosRule]

2 minutes ago, Llywela said:

I don't think it has anything to do with lack of intelligence. It's more about a) the quality of the writing, and b) the level of involvement you wanted to bring to your viewing experience. I mean, if you sit down to watch what you thought was going to be a laid-back hour or two of entertainment and instead end up having to do mental gymnastics just to figure out what's going on, that's a sign that either the writers haven't done the best job or that the particular show/movie isn't what you needed on this occasion - and more than likely both!

No, I want what I'm watching to make sense. I don't mind if shows/movies do flashbacks, or flash forwards, but if they jumble it all up together where I'm watching one scene, and following it, wanting to know what happens next, and the next scene goes in a flash back, but then doesn't resume or move on from the scene I was watching, but to another year, how am I supposed to stay with it. It just takes me out of it altogether because I don't know what's going on now. It's like whiplash.

[DrSpaceman73]

I think sometimes they used fractured timelines to try and make the stories seem more interesting or nuanced when in fact it just makes it more confusing. 

[Irlandesa]

Oooh, we're talking in media res--the uncreative crutch of story telling when TPTB don't trust an audience to stick around until the most exciting thing happens so they start with the most exciting thing and then flash back to show how they got there. 

I was watching a Hallmark mystery movie that employed that technique this past weekend even though it's already a long running mystery movie series with an invested audience.  There was zero need to start with the explosion; especially since the explosion happens "in real time" about twenty minutes into the movie. 

It's not always bad.  There have been some brilliant uses of it.  For instance, the image of a shlubby Walter White standing in the New Mexico desert in tighty whities with a Winnebago behind him worked because it was such a unique image/situation.  It was also not the most exciting thing to happen in the pilot.  But most of the time, they show action thinking that action, in itself, is intriguing.  It's not. 

38 minutes ago, Llywela said:

b) the level of involvement you wanted to bring to your viewing experience.

I agree with this.  There are some shows where time jumping doesn't make sense and others where I'm okay with it.  I think Fosse/Verdon was both of these for me.  IIRC, there were visual clues to the time jumps (like a color palette or something like that) and I had no trouble following along. That doesn't mean I thought it was the best way to tell that story, though.  It felt unnecessarily clumsy.