Party of One: Unpopular TV Opinions

[ganesh]

My UOs today are that the Jane and Lisbon pairing on The Mentalist was not "natural" just because TPTB said so on social media. It was a plot device because the show was winding down and they didn't really have many other ideas and figured why the hell not. I'm not a shipper, and I don't like the show enough to care, but "natural" is a pile of BS.

 

I'm of the mind that it's irrelevant what actors, showrunners et al., say in social media about the show; if it's not on the screen, it doesn't count. Showrunners use social media far far too much on many shows as a supplement to the aired episodes. I think the viewing of a show is greatly affected if one has the outside comments in the back of their mind.

 

To that end, I think it's hilariously ridiculous that TPTBs on TWD had to come out and say that Daryl isn't gay [see what I did there?]. For one, way to marginalize some of your viewers by telling them they don't count. For the other, I haven't seen anything on the screen that tells me what his sexuality is either way. So, sorry, TPTBs, but nope. 

[Shannon L.]

Sometimes, I think it's  nice to be almost completely ignorant of entertainment and social media.  I mean, I'll be loving a show, then, one day, I'll think "I wonder what others are saying about it" and jump online to one of these types of boards and end up shocked:  "What?  Why don't they like this?  Damn, what's wrong with me that I don't care....Wait!  The actor/producer/writer said what?!  Oh man, I didn't need to hear that because now I'm going to have a sour feeling when I watch the show again and I don't want to because I'm loving it!"  It's like when we were watching Chuck on Netflix and I mentioned how much I liked the character of Casey.  My husband responded with "Did you hear what Adam Baldwin said about...." and I immediately cut him off with "I don't want to know!!  Nope--don't even say it!"

[Rick Kitchen]

I have to laugh that nobody has tried to come up with a ship name for Peeta and Katniss on the Hunger Games because they would either be Peenis or KatPee.

[truthaboutluv]

They have. Peeniss was thrown around quite a bit when the first film was coming out but most fans of the couple realized how awful that sounded and instead opted for Everlark as the ship name. Incidentally, true to their personalities, Jennifer Lawrence and Josh Hutcherson were totally in favor of Peeniss.

Edited December 4, 2014 by truthaboutluv

[Beezel]

Everlark sounds like some shady off brand bottled water.

Edited December 4, 2014 by Beezel

[Anna Yolei]

My UO on show bitching (which may truly be a UO on forums like these) is that it is ok to hold your own opinion and snark, but some people just take it to a fanatical level that sucks even the joy of snarking out of a show. I have stopped visiting so many forums (even ones where I hold the same negative opinions as the other posters) because it becomes clear that some viewers get a high off of criticizing the show, the actor, the writing, etc...no matter what is produced each week. They also start to form this "my way or the highway" attitude (but never take that highway). This whole attitude straddles the line of being confrontational because they start to judge other posters on their opinions.

 

Since I believe that I don't own people, and we all have a right to our opinions, I remove myself from those forums.

I've seen this a lot in Star Trek fandom, but the worst comes from a guy from one of the major Trek boards that has posted on multiply occasions that he had no qualms around flaming people to make them respond, then tattle to the mods to get them warned or banned to shut them up, just to make it seem like people hate the new Trek movies and get Paramount to make his vision of Trek.

 

...to put it very, very mildly, this guy has more issues than National Geographic.

 

Then, there was the guy that spent nearly the entire run of Enterprise to review and diss on the show. It wasn't like he was rude about it (most of the time), but it was more like a "Why bother?" thing. I mean, sure I hate watched 7th Heaven and the first three seasons of Secret Life of the American Teenager, but I didn't go posting reviews on fan sites detailing its epic fail and expect that I'd get any kind of positive response for my "wisdom." Nor did I ever expect either show to actually become watchable.

[Anna Yolei]

I use portmanteaus because they’re convenient in fandom discussions. Yes, they sound silly a lot of the time, but I’m lazy, and the latter wins out. It’s not really a big deal. A lot of the fighting over ship names within fandom is dumb - it shouldn’t be such srs bsns - but the use of the ship names themselves? Meh. Don’t care.

This. I'd seen this in anime fandom well before it took off with Bennifer back ten years ago, so it was easy to keep using that.

 

My favorite was for ATWT's Paul Ryan and Meg Synder*, who began on TWOP as Peg, then became Maul as their relationship grew increasing toxic.

 

*Bonus was when Meg married Paul, making her officially Meg Ryan. The show even had a line where she introduces herself as Meg Synder, then corrects herself with teh excuse that she wasn't used to being married. Even more funny knowing the real Meg Ryan got her start on the show some thirty years before!

[BizBuzz]

...to put it very, very mildly, this guy has more issues than National Geographic.

 

heh

 

I am so stealing this.

[potatoradio]

 

Sometimes, I think it's  nice to be almost completely ignorant of entertainment and social media.  I mean, I'll be loving a show, then, one day, I'll think "I wonder what others are saying about it" and jump online to one of these types of boards and end up shocked:  "What?  Why don't they like this?  Damn, what's wrong with me that I don't care....Wait!  The actor/producer/writer said what?!

 

That's totally happened to me, too. I posted about how funny I thought Tracy Morgan was and received quite the education in terms of "don't you know what an anti-gay bigot he is?" Well, no, I didn't. Like another poster mentioned, I don't consider whatever actors post or tweet or do in their personal lives to be an extension of their performance on a particular show, so, even if I did keep up on that stuff, which I don't unless I happen to be stuck in a long supermarket line and decide to skim OK! and People as I wait, I can credit people with a funny performance. 

 

I'm probably one of the guilty ones for being OTT snarky on some shows. I get ticked quickly if a show starts pandering to the lowest common hackneyed plot denominator or cheap stereotypes or lazy, inconsistent character development -- my therapist tells me this is healthy anger management? My other choice is writing my anger on rocks and throwing them at people? Oh, wait, no that's throw them in the RIVER....well, anyway, yes, sarcasm is the lowest form of wit and all, but I swear I snark because I care and hurt on the inside when I get suckered into a show and it just goes all kinds of wrong.

 

"Calzona" from Grey's Anatomy made me hungry every time I read it. I think it's kind of interesting (in a slightly disturbing manner) that the relationship almost becomes its own character when given a name. 

 

 

[ganesh]

I don't consider whatever actors post or tweet or do in their personal lives to be an extension of their performance on a particular show, so, even if I did keep up on that stuff, which I don't unless I happen to be stuck in a long supermarket line and decide to skim OK! and People as I wait, I can credit people with a funny performance.

 

That's different. Actors can tweet about what they want, but if they're putting out hateful garbage, I'm out. It's 2014 and people need to grow up. 

 

We had this this whole thing on different sites off FB about Orson Scott Card when Ender's Game came out as a movie. No one will dispute that it's a sci fi classic book, but the guy was on the board of some hate group that spends money for anti-marriage equality garbage. Sorry dude. Not seeing the movie, not buying any of your books. I have to draw the line on that. 

 

The movie didn't do well enough to warrant a sequel and there's tons of books in that series.

[ribboninthesky1]

I've seen this a lot in Star Trek fandom, but the worst comes from a guy from one of the major Trek boards that has posted on multiply occasions that he had no qualms around flaming people to make them respond, then tattle to the mods to get them warned or banned to shut them up, just to make it seem like people hate the new Trek movies and get Paramount to make his vision of Trek.

 

...to put it very, very mildly, this guy has more issues than National Geographic.

 

Wha....??  He actually admitted that? That's a whole different stratosphere of obsession. 

[2KllMckngBrd]

Sleepy Hollow was over-hyped to begin with, and I suspect the weak plotting, which was present from the beginning, is just easier to perceive in its 2nd season.  I can understand the "hey, it's TV, and I'll just go with it" perspective, but I don't understand why something like weak writing, which was always there, is suddenly the big elephant in the room that media and sundry are highlighting.   

 

I've heard about marginalization of some (most?) of the black characters, and that seems to be a valid concern.  But then I have the HUGE UPO in always disliking Ichabod Crane and his dynamic with Abbie Mills.  It's why I've never really tuned into the second season.  I watched the "Mama" episode, since that focused primarily on Abbie and Jenny, the two characters and relationship I cared most about.  To date, no reason to watch the other episodes since the show's focus, from season one, episode one, was Ichabod Crane's personal drama, and probably always will be.  Maybe I'm just crazy, but after binge-watching most of the first season, the Apocalypse stuff seemed like a red herring to me.        

I discovered Sleepy Hollow on hulu almost a month ago. From all the chatter about it online, and on twitter I was curious. B/c it's not really a "hit", or all over entertainment media, I wondered why so popular on social media. I half binge watched and caught up to the current, midseason finale, 2 dys ago. I like the show, and did not go back and read the twitter feeds or forums till I was caught up, which helped. I think UO(s) or not...complaining about a show completely changing focus, and/or in essence pulling a "bait and switch" of/on the actual "stars" of the show, is valid criticism. What drifts into silliness, is "shipping" certain characters, stars or not, and saying show has "jumped the shark" when it doesn't happen.

 

 

 

I do not care that Beth died on TWD. I understand it sucks when your favorite character dies on a show it has happened to me but this is getting crazy. A petition s going around to bring her back on the show. I guess some of her fans do not realize this is not the type of a horror show where you can be brought back to life.

I personally don't give two shits about this particular death b/c I never liked the character, but the actress and character has a very large fan base, I'm just not in it. So I can understand missing, or wanting, your fave back. What I don't understand is petitions, and outrage that someone "died". Like most shows that involve lots of danger, and death, we all know certain characters are "safe". Even in the zombie apocalypse there are certain folks you know aren't scheduled to be going anywhere unless the actor wants out, or the series is ending. But on show like TWD you know everyone else is, and will be fair game. I personally thought it was going to be 1 of my faves that died. I had prepared myself and was braced for it. UO: it is gonna happen. Get over it and move on.

 

 

 

I have to agree with you, and I'll go one step further: My UO is that Angel was the much better show, and has held up much better on rewatch.

I think Angel holds up better for me b/c it seems, and feels, less age specific. W/Buffy there's only so much HS teenage angst I can take. It was still an outstanding, and groundbreaking show. Just not necessarily something that you want to relive on weekly basis. And UO: I like Michelle Trachtenberg, but was never really sure about the whole Dawn "thing".

[ribboninthesky1]

I discovered Sleepy Hollow on hulu almost a month ago. From all the chatter about it online, and on twitter I was curious. B/c it's not really a "hit", or all over entertainment media, I wondered why so popular on social media. I half binge watched and caught up to the current, midseason finale, 2 dys ago. I like the show, and did not go back and read the twitter feeds or forums till I was caught up, which helped. I think UO(s) or not...complaining about a show completely changing focus, and/or in essence pulling a "bait and switch" of/on the actual "stars" of the show, is valid criticism. What drifts into silliness, is "shipping" certain characters, stars or not, and saying show has "jumped the shark" when it doesn't happen.

 

I thought it was a legitimate hit, based on the first season ratings.  I don't care enough to verify, though.  My point wasn't to dispute whether the criticism was valid (in general, that's a slippery slope).  But as far as the bait and switch, or who the actual star(s) of the show are - I guess that's a matter of perception.  Mind you, I'm referring to the first season, but to me, the show always centered on Crane and his personal drama.  Abbie is the female lead, but her story, even her history, was tied to Crane's - it wasn't really her own. And the latter half of the season just emphasized that, IMO.  There were no high stakes regarding the apocalypse, because most things tied back to Crane.  This was all present in the first season. 

 

I didn't really hear or read such criticisms, though, until well into the 2nd season.  I guess people gave the showrunners the benefit of the doubt, and thought they would change course?  Which isn't unreasonable, but that's a different thing than bait and switch or the show changing focus in the 2nd season.  That's where my UPO comes in - I've not read much criticism about the show that didn't apply to the first season, save the marginalization of existing supporting black characters, and maybe the Katrina stuff.  But even then, she wasn't much use in the first season, or even her brief time being released from Purgatory at season's end.  From what my niece tells me, she's still relatively useless, so...status quo?

[supposebly]

 

I've not read much criticism about the show that didn't apply to the first season, save the marginalization of existing supporting black characters,

Agreed. Maybe it's my inner grump showing when I get annoyed when a show gets so hyped and shipped early on. I just think there wasn't a drop in quality, it was clear very early on that they didn't have a good plan as to how this apocalypse should work, confined to a small place with two characters they struck gold with and a few more they really never knew what to do with. I don't think it's all just in season 2. People said it's just that crazy, but I thought it's just that bad.

 

I gave up on it after it turned out the headless horseman, supposedly one of the horsemen of the apocalypse, lost his head (hah!) because was a love-sick puppy. If the horseman of the apocalypse is so unimpressive, I do not expect anything from the rest of it.

 

Sleepy Hollow makes and made Supernatural's season 5 apocalypse look good. And that's not an endorsement although I never thought it was as bad as many people found. I guess that's my unpopular opinion number 2 in this post.

[Enigma X]

I don't really understand what "overhyped" means when in reference to audience viewership. Audience viewership, in my opinion, can't overhype a show (my UO). Viewers watch it and like or dislike it. Now a critic or fan can overhype a show, but I don't think that happened with Sleepy Hollow.

 

No one hyped the first season. It was a surprise hit, and viewers liked it. Therefore, many viewers watched it week after week. That popularity from first season can't be reversed because some (not all) fans don't like it anymore. Now, I see just as much blind love as I do as irrational hate for the show. 

[ganesh]

I personally don't give two shits about this particular death b/c I never liked the character, but the actress and character has a very large fan base, I'm just not in it.

 

I think they killed her off because they just didn't know what else to do with the character. It's not a "natural" character death to me than it is poor creativity. "Well, we have to kill someone off." Not necessarily. The "hostage" exchange could have been done without a hitch to show that there's still some organized society left in the world. If you're killing off a character in order to generate new material for other characters, I think you're doing a poor job. 

 

My UO to this type of thing is that GOT is practically farce with how many character deaths they have. Yes, stupid people tend to die because they're stupid, but lots of times people do get lucky. It can get silly after a while. 

 

 

There were no high stakes regarding the apocalypse, because most things tied back to Crane.  This was all present in the first season.

 

I'm not really seeing much difference between S1 to the middle of S2, where I am now. It's not a character study show. It never was. The problem is, by now, I've seen Crane et al., react and thwart the bad guys' plans a little too often. The good guys need a few victories in there. The narrative complacency can cause viewers to look for other things that weren't intended to be there. 

[AshleyN]

My UO on show bitching (which may truly be a UO on forums like these) is that it is ok to hold your own opinion and snark, but some people just take it to a fanatical level that sucks even the joy of snarking out of a show.

 

I stopped visiting the Arrow forum because the Laurel/Katie Cassidy hate just got too out of control. And I don't even like Laurel, nor do I think Cassidy is particularly good in the role, but the fanatical hatred directed toward both the character and (especially) the actress got to the point where it was honestly kind of disturbing to me.

 

It also got to the point where it seemed to swallow all discussion of the show in general, so the forum mostly became a huge pile of bitterness, and since I was still enjoying the show, it just wasn't any fun for me to read.

 

Which I guess leads to my unpopular opinion (which I think is only really unpopular here - it seems to be the consensus most other places I visit online): I still really like Arrow. Well, Season 3 has been a little disappointing in it's lack of plot movement so far (which will hopefully pick up with this week's episode), but I still mostly enjoy it on a week to week basis. And I loved Season 2, full stop. Aside from a couple of less-than-stellar midseason filler episodes, I really don't see this supposed huge drop in quality in the back half of the season. I think the Deathstroke arc featured some of the best material the show has ever done*, and I'm not sure there was another show on TV that offered me as much pure enjoyment as that show did throughout the course of the season.

 

*And I'm not sure that some of the struggles the show is having this season can't be at least partially attributed to the fact that they're still recovering from the loss of Manu Bennett, who brought so much goddamn presence to every single scene he was in.

Edited December 7, 2014 by AshleyN

[Mulva]

 

I think Angel holds up better for me b/c it seems, and feels, less age specific. W/Buffy there's only so much HS teenage angst I can take. It was still an outstanding, and groundbreaking show. Just not necessarily something that you want to relive on weekly basis. And UO: I like Michelle Trachtenberg, but was never really sure about the whole Dawn "thing".

I agree, and I think its partly because that by S5 on Buffy the characters had changed and grown apart so much there was precious little friendship left and no reason for them to all hang out together constantly.  The Angel characters all worked together, so it made sense for them to still be together even after the personal arguments and rifts, because Angel Investigations and later, W&H was their jobs.

[ribboninthesky1]

I don't really understand what "overhyped" means when in reference to audience viewership. Audience viewership, in my opinion, can't overhype a show (my UO). Viewers watch it and like or dislike it. Now a critic or fan can overhype a show, but I don't think that happened with Sleepy Hollow.

 

No one hyped the first season. It was a surprise hit, and viewers liked it. Therefore, many viewers watched it week after week. That popularity from first season can't be reversed because some (not all) fans don't like it anymore. Now, I see just as much blind love as I do as irrational hate for the show. 

 

I tend to read social media largely written by/targeted to black women.  Sleepy Hollow S1 was definitely hyped up, primarily because of Abbie.  I also distinctly recall the praise of SH on the TWOP Race and Ethnicity thread, particularly as a counterpoint to Scandal (I guess the bloom somewhat fell off the rose with Olivia Pope).  I also read most of the TWOP forum during the first season.  And while I always liked Abbie the character, I didn't see the what most of the fans seemingly did regarding her dynamic with Crane.  I also distinctly recall seeing links to mainstream sites praising the show after the season one finale.  I know what I read last season, so I'll just disagree on the matter of what's been hyped, especially since I know I didn't state any correlation to viewership, and never disputed the show's popularity. 

 

Agreed. Maybe it's my inner grump showing when I get annoyed when a show gets so hyped and shipped early on. I just think there wasn't a drop in quality, it was clear very early on that they didn't have a good plan as to how this apocalypse should work, confined to a small place with two characters they struck gold with and a few more they really never knew what to do with. I don't think it's all just in season 2. People said it's just that crazy, but I thought it's just that bad.

 

Right? For what it's worth, that's the point I was making about the "It's just TV, and I'll go with it" perspective.  I've watched my share of shows where I knew full stop it wasn't well-written, but I liked actors' chemistry or storyline in spite of that.  And that's fair and fine.  It's entertainment.  But this maelstrom of critique for season 2 like it's a total 180 is interesting to read, especially since I've read some opinion that it's due to the change in lead showrunner(s).  And then, there's this little gem that seems to confirm what we're both thinking, supposebly.

Edited December 7, 2014 by ribboninthesky1

[DittyDotDot]

I stopped visiting the Arrow forum because the Laurel/Katie Cassidy hate just got too out of control. And I don't even like Laurel, nor do I think Cassidy is particularly good in the role, but the fanatical hatred directed toward both the character and (especially) the actress got to the point where it was honestly kind of disturbing to me.

 

It also got to the point where it seemed to swallow all discussion of the show in general, so the forum mostly became a huge pile of bitterness, and since I was still enjoying the show, it just wasn't any fun for me to read.

 

I also avoid the Arrow boards and have done so since mid-S1. I didn't realize there were so many people whining about the perceived loss in quality or that any other discussion went on there other than how horrible Katie Cassidy is.

 

I just got caught up on Arrow yesterday and I agree the show hasn't dropped in quality. In my mind, they seem to be doing the same stuff they've done since day one--flashbacks of Oliver in a bad wig (however that has improved greatly since S1); friends and allies die in the past only to show up as foes and super-villains in the present; lots of motorcycle chases and arrow shooting; seems like status quo to me.  I think this ties back to knowing what a show is and having realistic expectations when sitting down to watch it. I enjoy the show well enough, but I also don't sit down to watch it thinking it's gonna be something more than it is.

[Misslindsey]

 

I stopped visiting the Arrow forum because the Laurel/Katie Cassidy hate just got too out of control. And I don't even like Laurel, nor do I think Cassidy is particularly good in the role, but the fanatical hatred directed toward both the character and (especially) the actress got to the point where it was honestly kind of disturbing to me.

I agree, and I do not like Laurel and think Cassidy is way better at playing the bitch than a Laurel like character. Though the writing for Laurel never was too great. I do not visit the Arrow forum that much either (sometimes I do read the spoilers), but I got tired of, major UO here, all the Felicity love. I like the character well enough, but do not think everything she does or says is so great. Nor do I care about Olicity moments.

 

My UO is that I think "jump the shark" get thrown out entirely too much. Just because a show has a bad episode or story line does not mean it jumped the shark. Also, what might be perceived shark jumping to one person, probably isn't to another.

[ganesh]

What's worse is when a show "officially jumps the shark." Especially when it's a show about zombies or dragons. 

[amensisterfriend]

My major Arrow UO (though I stopped watching it) is that I dislike Oliver more than I dislike Laurel. And I think the actor who plays Oliver is just as bad as the actress who plays Laurel. I'm also totally on board with those who don't 'ship Oliver/Felicity....actually, I was actively rooting against them getting together :) 

[Cobalt Stargazer]

What's worse is when a show "officially jumps the shark." Especially when it's a show about zombies or dragons. 

 

I'm not sure what this means. Is it not possible for any show to take that one step too far, even if the subject matter is fantastical? Take The X Files, for instance. Maybe it wasn't about zombies or dragons, but I don't think it can be disputed either that aliens might not actually exist or that the show became a convoluted mess by the end.

[ganesh]

It means when people say, "well, this show has officially jumped the shark." It's usually something fairly mundane on a show that requires a high suspension of disbelief. Typically, people misuse the term

[Shannon L.]

ganesh, I thought it meant the point in which a show became bad enough that it never really got better--in fact continued to get worse and that people misused the term by making it all about one moment.  But, I could be wrong.

[ganesh]

No, that too.

[bmoore4026]

Don't know if it belongs here or in the Holiday movie section but I don't like It's a Wonderful Life.  In fact, I loathe it.

 

As a kid, I didn't like it because it was on all the time and bored the ever loving piss out of me.

 

As an adult, I hate it because everyone, everyone uses George.  And he's a pushover, too.  If I were his guardian angel, I wouldn't have shown him a world were he didn't exist.  I would have told him "Get in your car, leave Frostbite Falls (or whatever the hell that town was named), and do not look back.  Do not look back.  They have played you like a deck of cards your whole life; they're not worth it.  You're what?  33?  34?  You're still in your prime, George.  Leave that Podunk Junction of a town and start over.  See the world, like you've always wanted.  And don't worry about Mr. Potter.  I know a guy, his name is Ezio Auditore.  He can make what happens to Mr. Potter look like an accident.  And screw Mary.  She's the worst of the bunch.  Yeah, yeah, you had four kids with her.  But she's had it in for you since you were twelve.  She's not right in the head!"

[kiddo82]

If I were his guardian angel, I wouldn't have shown him a world were he didn't exist.  I would have told him "Get in your car, leave Frostbite Falls (or whatever the hell that town was named), and do not look back.

Haha! Oh Bullwinkle.

And for the record, I agree 100% with the entire assessment.

[Wiendish Fitch]

I don't think incest is funny, hot, titillating, or great TV. I think incest is absolutely disgusting. It's sick, unnatural, and the physical and psychological consequences have been proven numerous times over. I've always hated Flowers in the Attic, because all those sequels, prequels and midquels with pretty, dainty blondes on the covers? Yeah, hate to disappoint everyone, but a more accurate representation of inbreeding can be found in Deliverance. Hell, the infamous X-Files episode "Home" is more accurate. I never 'ship siblings, children with their parents, whatever. When I read about "Bro-yay" speculation about the guys from Supernatural, I have to shake my head in wonder.

Edited December 8, 2014 by Wiendish Fitch

[ganesh]

I don't like The Nutcracker. I don't know what the hell a sugarplum is. I just don't get the whole thing. 

[LydiaMoon1]

My major Arrow UO (though I stopped watching it) is that I dislike Oliver more than I dislike Laurel. And I think the actor who plays Oliver is just as bad as the actress who plays Laurel.

I could never get into Arrow long enough to like or dislike anyone.  The "acting" done by most of the actors on that show is so bad.  It's like watching nickelodean or those cheesy pre-teen Disney shows. Geez. They make Saved by the Bell look like Masterpiece Theatre.

[GHScorpiosRule]

I could never get into Arrow long enough to like or dislike anyone.  The "acting" done by most of the actors on that show is so bad. 

 

And this is why I stopped after two? three episodes in the first season. The acting was horrendous.

 

That said, I have friends who have told me to "give it a chance" because of the villains that were appearing. Yeah, well, those villains aren't Arrow villains. The more I read and was told, a good CHUNK of them are from BATMAN'S Rogue Gallery--Harley, Royal Flush Gang, R'as Al Ghul...who's next, The Joker? And I just blah, blah my friends who say, that these characters are DC characters. They are Batman's foes. And this show was trying too hard, in my opinion, to make Ollie/Arrow into Bruce/Batman, which no. There is just one.  I don't know why they did it. Because they couldn't do a Batman series?  I'm sure Arrow has plenty of his own villains.

 

I did watch a couple of this season's episodes (mainly due to The Flash because I am enjoying that show, even though Barry just acts and sounds like Wally West, but he's young, and maybe he'll get a bit more serious) but the acting of Amell is still so very wooden. He may be a great guy in real life, but his acting leaves a lot to be desired for me.

 

Then again, I just may be a wee bit biased. Just take a look at my avatar. Hee.

[Princess Sparkle]

I don't think incest is funny, hot, titillating, or great TV. I think incest is absolutely disgusting. It's sick, unnatural, and the physical and psychological consequences have been proven numerous times over. I've always hated Flowers in the Attic, because all those sequels, prequels and midquels with pretty, dainty blondes on the covers? Yeah, hate to disappoint everyone, but a more accurate representation of inbreeding can be found in Deliverance. Hell, the infamous X-Files episode "Home" is more accurate. I never 'ship siblings, children with their parents, whatever. When I read about "Bro-yay" speculation about the guys from Supernatural, I have to shake my head in wonder.

 

That's why I LOVE that one episode of Supernatural where Dean finds out people ship he and Sam and he says something like "They know we're brothers, right?  That's just sick!"  Because that should be the exact reaction.

[ChromaKelly]

My UO on show bitching (which may truly be a UO on forums like these) is that it is ok to hold your own opinion and snark, but some people just take it to a fanatical level that sucks even the joy of snarking out of a show.

 

Yes. Sleepy Hollow is getting like that. I'm finding myself not enjoying discussing the show because the talk has become so negative. It's a goofy show, let's snark on it, not pick apart every single thing.

[LeeLeePanda]

My UO on show bitching (which may truly be a UO on forums like these) is that it is ok to hold your own opinion and snark, but some people just take it to a fanatical level that sucks even the joy of snarking out of a show.

Yes. Sleepy Hollow is getting like that. I'm finding myself not enjoying discussing the show because the talk has become so negative. It's a goofy show, let's snark on it, not pick apart every single thing.

I agree 100%! While I agree that it's not as tight as it was last season, I don't think the quality of the show has gone down as much as others say. Its tiresome to go to some boards and see people obsessively repeating the same tired quotes (crane family drama, struggle witch, ect) over and over, instead of actually discussing the show.

Which brings me to another unpopular opinion. I hate it when people say "This isn't the show I signed up for". You didn't sign up for anything! You are not required to continue watching a show if you no longer enjoy it! It's the same with people who say they are suffering through a show. If you continue to watch a show you hate, that's on you, not the writers, tbtb, whatever.

[LydiaMoon1]

You are not required to continue watching a show if you no longer enjoy it! It's the same with people who say they are suffering through a show. If you continue to watch a show you hate, that's on you, not the writers, tbtb, whatever.

Ironically, the same can be said of discussion boards.

[Cobalt Stargazer]

When I read about "Bro-yay" speculation about the guys from Supernatural, I have to shake my head in wonder.

 

 

That's why I LOVE that one episode of Supernatural where Dean finds out people ship he and Sam and he says something like "They know we're brothers, right?  That's just sick!"  Because that should be the exact reaction.

 

I read a Firefly fanfic once where the characters were sitting around reading fic based on the show (don't ask), and River threw one of the stories across the room and said, "Are they kidding? He's my brother."

[ganesh]

Yes. Sleepy Hollow is getting like that. I'm finding myself not enjoying discussing the show because the talk has become so negative. It's a goofy show, let's snark on it, not pick apart every single thing.

 

I'm up to 2.7, so I thought I'd check in the boards to see if I'm missing anything in the episodes. There were several pages about how men were checking out the wife because she was in tight clothes, but no one ever looks at Abby. Because she's black and the show marginalizes black characters. I was rather wtf? 

[LeeLeePanda]

QUOTE

You are not required to continue watching a show if you no longer enjoy it! It's the same with people who say they are suffering through a show. If you continue to watch a show you hate, that's on you, not the writers, tbtb, whatever.

Ironically, the same can be said of discussion boards

What, and miss all the batshit insanity? The crazy is strong on some boards ;) Edited December 8, 2014 by LeeLeePanda

[topanga]

I'm up to 2.7, so I thought I'd check in the boards to see if I'm missing anything in the episodes. There were several pages about how men were checking out the wife because she was in tight clothes, but no one ever looks at Abby. Because she's black and the show marginalizes black characters. I was rather wtf?

Yes, these are some of the louder and more emotional comments, but the marginalization of POC of the show is real. Even cast members have commented on it.

 

 

Ironically, the same can be said of discussion boards.

 

What, and miss all the batshit insanity? The crazy is strong on some boards ;)

 

For me, I just don't have anyone to talk to about the shows I watch *sniff* 

[FormerMod-a1]

Ironically, the same can be said of discussion boards.

Exactly, which is why some people have commented they stopped reading certain forums.

[ABay]

That's why I LOVE that one episode of Supernatural where Dean finds out people ship he and Sam and he says something like "They know we're brothers, right?  That's just sick!"  Because that should be the exact reaction.

 

I read a Firefly fanfic once where the characters were sitting around reading fic based on the show (don't ask), and River threw one of the stories across the room and said, "Are they kidding? He's my brother."

 

Simon and Simon are not brothers in real life, but only on television. </Cartman>

[ribboninthesky1]

This is surely a UO but I hate the way ABC keeps airing shows with great plots going in but are simply Grey's Anatomy clones instead.  They have some great workplace dramas that could be wonderful but they just degenerate immediately into sex and women being stupid in love and sex. They had a show set in a MASH in Afghanistan. That should have been brilliant.  It was Grey's Anatomy in a war zone.  Scandal is Grey's Anatomy in the political service in Washington.  They even had one about a long term space mission that could have been great but the characters were, once again, sex-obsessed, everybody seemed to be either an ex or crushing on someone. It's like all women are juvenile and boy crazy and the men are all sexy hunks enjoying the bounty.  I mean there can be some of that but it's really OTT with it and the women just seem so silly.  Grey's is a hit. I get it. Not all workplace drama needs to follow that formula. 

 

I giggled at "the men are all sexy hunks enjoying the bounty." Anyway, I know what you mean.  I never watched Grey's Anatomy, but was a fan of Scandal.  I welcome female leads being complex, but "professionally competent with personal life in crippling, at times death-spiraling, shambles" isn't complex to me.  Unfortunately, I think we're beyond lead characters, male or female, who are relatively well-adjusted.  I'm not sure TV writers know how to write such a character, and I can already hear the verbal minority declaration of "boring!" or "can't relate to/connect with said character."  So, mileage varies. 

 

Plus, on Scandal, I grew weary of people constantly dressing Olivia Pope down like she made them do bad things or make poor decisions, save Quinn (who, ironically, did it the least).  And even more unpopular, Fitz was often treated the same, and I was tired of it all.  No one on that show is inherently good, which was fine by me, but I was over the martyrdom of certain characters, particularly Mellie. I didn't sign up (ha!) for the Mellie show, so I kept it moving. 

Edited December 8, 2014 by ribboninthesky1

[merylinkid]

The reason Scandal, MASH in Afghanistan all seem derivate from Grey's Anatomy is they are all done by Shonda Rimes.   Not sure what hold she has over TPTB that she keeps getting tv shows, but whatever it is must be some really damaging stuff.   I watched Grey's for a while, but then realized I was watching high schoolers with scalpels.   I was out.   I have never watched anything else by her on principal.   

[Minneapple]

And this is why I stopped after two? three episodes in the first season. The acting was horrendous.

Honestly the acting on Arrow has become much better since the first season. Stephen Amell was so wooden back then I was afraid of sawdust flying all over the set. And oh Lord the voiceovers didn't help matters. And the acting still isn't all that awesome. But for a CW comic book show, it's fine now.

 

But yes. I also tend to avoid both the Sleepy Hollow and the Arrow forums because of the over the top hatred for Laurel and Katrina. And I'm not even all that fond of these characters, and I can handle snark with the best of them. But reading paragraphs-long diatribes about how these characters are the center of suck for these shows...well, it's just too much.

 

Not sure what hold she has over TPTB that she keeps getting tv shows,

Her shows are popular and get a lot of buzz?

Edited December 9, 2014 by Minneapple

[DearEvette]

Yes. Sleepy Hollow is getting like that. I'm finding myself not enjoying discussing the show because the talk has become so negative. It's a goofy show, let's snark on it, not pick apart every single thing.

 

One of the things I lament on the SH boards is the fact that we can't really pick apart the mythology of the show because it isn't enough of it there anymore.  At this point in S2 we should be endlessly discussing theories & figuring out what's coming next, but it is hard because the mythology of the show has been slim pickings this season.  So the only thing left is to voice frustration.

 

But I agree, it is no fun to be on a board where the aura is negative.  For me this is analogous the The Scandal boards.  Ironically, I think this season is the best it has been since S2 on a lot of levels, but it feel like people seem only interested is hating Liv & Fitz and LOVING how AWESOME!! Mellie is.

 

Which brings me to my UO (or maybe not) but kinda like the near universal loathing some characters seem to engender (I am looking at you Laurel on Arrow) I don't understand the tongue baths some really rather awful characters seem to get. 

 

Mellie is one of them.  She is just a terrible creature yet so many people think she is just the best.

Juliette on Nashville.  Granted she has become a bit softer this season and not as awful, but man, S1 & S2 I thought she was just such a bitch who did such destructive things and yet people forgive her everything.

And while I generally like Felicity on Arrow (or did when I watched it), I don't think she it the best thing to ever walk the earth.  When the actress showed up on The Flash, the near universal Orgasm that occurred over every little eye blink was baffling.  In fact, I thought she was a walking, talking actor tic.

[Anna Yolei]

For me, Melle is interesting and hilarious solely because of the actress in the role. I agree she's not a great person, but then the term "good guy" is relative when discussing a show where half the main characters are murderers.

[ganesh]

Yes, these are some of the louder and more emotional comments, but the marginalization of POC of the show is real. Even cast members have commented on it.

 

Yes, but not every single scene in every episode is about that. In the same episode, Abbie was being labeled a "nursemaid for Katrina" despite the fact that she singlehandedly broke into the bad guys lair, collected and stole key evidence, and then came up with the idea to legally storm the place and retrieve the artifact they needed, earning respect from her boss who wasn't so thrilled about her and Crane from the start. That's not a bad days work.

 

Even legit gripes about a show can spin out of control. Which is part of my point when I say: What is the show actually, rather than what you want it to be?

[Cobalt Stargazer]

Even legit gripes about a show can spin out of control. Which is part of my point when I say: What is the show actually, rather than what you want it to be?

 

Let me preface this by saying that I don't watch Sleepy Hollow, so I don't have an opinion about it one way or the other. But as this relates to television as a whole, is part of your point that legitimate gripes shouldn't be aired because they might turn into bitching? Because "bitching" only happens when someone starts out by trying to make an actual point, and that usually relates directly back to what a TV show is.

 

The best example I can think of is during season six of BTVS, when some viewers were saying that it made sense that Buffy would start doing the dirty with Spike, and that it meant she was becoming an adult by discarding the black and white ideals of the earlier seasons. Perhaps not surprisingly, many of these people seemed to be Buffy/Spike shippers, who also turned on Buffy for not returning Spike's feelings and telling her friends that they were in a "relationship". I'm going to leave it alone as to whether or not that's something she should have been proud of, but the point is, the show was never about embracing gray morality. And my issues with Buffy as a character aside, I refuse to get mad because she "led Spike on" and didn't trumpet it to everyone who would listen that she was having anything to do with him. YMMV.