Party of One: Unpopular TV Opinions

[Raja]

34 minutes ago, Kel Varnsen said:

My understanding is that changed because of the Soviet teams, such as hockey. Basically if you were an elite level hockey player you were in the army. But your army job was to play hockey. So it basically made you a pro player. If that was allowed it would be hard to say that pro players from other countries wouldn't be allowed.

That along with shoe and apparel contracts for top athletes in non professional league sports being nod and wink "models"  

[DoctorAtomic]

17 hours ago, Annber03 said:

There are some shows that may have a limited lifespan due to the type of story they're telling, and then there's some where it's okay if they last a decent amount of seasons. 

**cough*Lost*cough**

 

[Hiyo]

You could add Prison Break to that cough.

Edited July 10, 2021 by Hiyo

[JustHereForFood]

19 hours ago, janie jones said:

I don't care how many seasons it goes as long as they quit while they're ahead or quit when the original idea has come to a logical end.

I agree with this. Some shows have potential to keep going, sometimes even with different characters, but some have a logical ending and can become stale if they continue past that.

Also regarding endings: I don't like it when the showrunners don't know whether the show will get another season by the time they shoot the season finale. This ends badly if they leave the finale with a cliffhanger and the show is cancelled without proper resolution, or if the opposite happens - the season finale looks like it could be the series finale, but then it gets renewed anyway. Ideally, I would like it if they always knew at the start of the season that it will be the last. I guess this is not so unpopular.

[Browncoat]

2 minutes ago, JustHereForFood said:

the season finale looks like it could be the series finale,

See also the first season of Heroes.

[Lugal]

For me it's simple: I want as many season to tell the story, whether it's three seasons or three episodes.  Some shows can do multiple stories with different arcs each season, and some episodic show can go longer, but when it feels like they've run out of stories to tell, they should end it.

[Blergh]

5 hours ago, Lugal said:

For me it's simple: I want as many season to tell the story, whether it's three seasons or three episodes.  Some shows can do multiple stories with different arcs each season, and some episodic show can go longer, but when it feels like they've run out of stories to tell, they should end it.

Someone should have told The Simpsons that at least 20 years ago! 

[Cherpumple]

On 7/8/2021 at 7:17 AM, Haleth said:

This may not be true anymore (though I can't think of another sport), but the equestrian events are the only ones in which men and women compete together.  That alone makes it interesting to me.

This year the swimming competition is debuting a mixed medley relay (4 people per team, each person swimming a different stroke) that will include two men and two women on each team. It's been done at other competitions over the past few years, but not yet at the Olympics. I'm super excited to watch it and see what strategies are used, since each team gets to choose which person swims each stroke. It sounds really cool!

[JimmyJabloon]

On 7/8/2021 at 9:12 PM, Kel Varnsen said:

Cricket matches can take days right? How would they be able to do that and have a multi-country tournament that wraps up in 2 weeks?

Twenty twenty format of cricket only takes about 3 hours. 

[JimmyJabloon]

The short lived discussion reminds me. I actually don’t mind that pushing daisies ended in 2 seasons. I liked the show, but still.

[meep.meep]

On 7/9/2021 at 6:46 PM, supposebly said:

My magic number is 5 seasons. Regardless of number of episodes. Most shows seem to become repetitive and their characters become their own caricatures after that.

I think that at that point most shows have lost their original creative team - if a show is successful, they are recruited to make money for someone else.  Or it could be the curse of George Clooney's ER contract - instead of negotiating a big salary increase after the first season, he worked out his five year contract at the original salary, but then left for much greener pastures.

[Hiyo]

In Clooney's case, back then, TV was seen as a step down from movies, so for him greener pastures meant becoming a movie star. Things are a bit different today.

[Ohiopirate02]

 

15 minutes ago, meep.meep said:

I think that at that point most shows have lost their original creative team - if a show is successful, they are recruited to make money for someone else.  Or it could be the curse of George Clooney's ER contract - instead of negotiating a big salary increase after the first season, he worked out his five year contract at the original salary, but then left for much greener pastures.

I don't think it's about the money, but the material.  Some actors don't want to play the same character for more than 3 to 5 years.  It's gets repetitive and boring after a certain point especially on shows like ER which had no end date in sight. Some actors want the consistent paycheck and a stable work place, others want variety.  

If a show does have a need for all of the original actors to stay the course, then they need to have a clear plan with how many seasons at the start.  That way, they can lock all of the actors into contracts long enough for their vision to be realized.  

[ifionlyknew]

1 hour ago, icemiser69 said:

In the case of Three's Company, it was probably the second or third episode.  That series got real repetitive, real fast.  I have no clue how that series lasted as long as it did.

It wasn't called jiggle tv for nothing.  And there wasn't a lot of competition.  It was mostly network shows.  Cable was just starting and most people watched what was on ABC, CBS and NBC.

[DoctorAtomic]

1 hour ago, Ohiopirate02 said:

Some actors want the consistent paycheck and a stable work place, others want variety.  

You have to know as an actor, with a good team around you, that you're going to be getting consistent work if you want variety. You could also negotiate a reduced appearance per season so you can work on other things too. Or really only focus on short seasons to free up time for other projects. 

A tv show employs a lot more people than just the cast and the directors. So if you're running a show and you want it to go 20 years, why not? I mean, L&O is on constantly forever, but they were hiring from NYC pool so those actors could get their cards - which meant guild health insurance. 

[Irlandesa]

3 hours ago, Hiyo said:

In Clooney's case, back then, TV was seen as a step down from movies, so for him greener pastures meant becoming a movie star. Things are a bit different today.

Clooney had also put in quite a few years on TV in mostly unsuccessful shows (although he did guest/or do recurring on some established shows.)  Hell, he was in TV long enough to do TWO shows called ER.  One a sitcom. The other a drama. 

From what I remember reading, his plan all along was to do five seasons and leave.  He knew if it was going to do movies, that was his time.

TV series back then also tended to be 9 or 10 months of filming because they were cranking out 22-24 episodes a year in the US.  There are still shows that do that many episodes but it's much rarer than before.  There was far less flexibility to do other guest roles or movies while doing TV.  With many series in the 8-10 episode range, there's more opportunity to try other things.

[DoctorAtomic]

These 8 to 13 episode seasons are really still fairly new imo comparatively, which is why you see more 'movie stars' on tv.

[DoctorAtomic]

Those shows also had upwards of 25 minutes of actual show rather than 19-20 now because of all the commercials. So it may seem like the show is better because you're putting in an extra scene. That's a lot of character building that's left on the table nowadays. 

I don't know if there's as much of a 'reset' with the characters as there is now either. 

Taking away the material back then that obviously isn't right (making fun of minorities, etc.), shows were really PG 13 and not watered down. 

Obviously, Three's Company centered around sex jokes. Jack and Larry were supposed to be hounds, but even on something like Mary Tyler Moore, you're not really getting a Sue Ann character on tv today. Beyond the sex jokes, they were going out drinking all the time or at lunch (which I've revived you're welcome). I don't think you're going to see much of that. Or even a Johnny Fever character. 

Edited July 13, 2021 by DoctorAtomic

[JustHereForFood]

I am perfectly fine with how TV is today. In fact, there are so many shows that I would like to watch, that I have to skip some of them, even though they are probably great. That is not to diss old shows, they were a reflection of their time and can be informative in showing how some social attitudes changed. 

The only complaint I sometimes have is that I would welcome back more episodic shows.

[DoctorAtomic]

There's certainly much more choice now. I was more just commenting on broadcast sitcoms. Just based on statistics, there's probably more good shows than there ever were. And it's ok for a show to be good. It doesn't have to be either transformative or garbage. 

Streaming platforms do give more flexibility to a show in that they aren't constrained to a time limit. 

[Irlandesa]

1 hour ago, JustHereForFood said:

The only complaint I sometimes have is that I would welcome back more episodic shows.

I miss well constructed multi-cam sitcoms--laugh track and all. It seems like very few people know how to do them well these days. 

I like single cam sitcoms but the ones I rewatch are usually those that are going to have the "laugh with the audience" laugh track.

[proserpina65]

On 7/9/2021 at 6:31 PM, Wiendish Fitch said:

My UO is that I don't consider shows that run for three seasons "short-lived". 

Maybe "moderately-lived"?

Obviously that's defined by fans of whatever show who'd hoped it would run for a decade or more.  Most shows don't really need that many seasons to be honest.

[andromeda331]

On 7/12/2021 at 12:13 PM, Hiyo said:

In Clooney's case, back then, TV was seen as a step down from movies, so for him greener pastures meant becoming a movie star. Things are a bit different today.

Yeah, I wasn't really wasn't surprise when he left for movies. He was getting a lot of roles and popular might last well make the most of it. You never know when its going to end.  But I like his TV roles better then his movies.

[Avabelle]

I hate Clooneys movies - I don’t think I’ve ever seen him in a good one that I thought was engaging. I include all the award nominated ones in that.

[ifionlyknew]

I like a lot of Clooney's movies. Three Kings. The Ocean's movies.  Michael Clayton.

To each his own.

I do not like Johnny Depp movies. The only one I did like was Nick of Time.  He usually plays some outrageous character and in Nick of Time he played a regular guy.

[Crs97]

Good Night and Good Luck should have taken every Oscar.

[partofme]

I used to like Clooney in this show that was on NBC in the early 90's called Sisters.  But I've never seen ER and I can't remember if I've ever liked any of his movies, none of them are memorable.  I don't like the Oceans Eleven series.

[Zella]

I really like George Clooney in Coen Brothers movies because he plays so much against type in them. 

[DoctorAtomic]

20 minutes ago, Zella said:

I really like George Clooney in Coen Brothers movies because he plays so much against type in them. 

#PaterFamilias

[Zella]

5 minutes ago, DoctorAtomic said:

#PaterFamilias

#DapperDanMan

[ratgirlagogo]

8 hours ago, Zella said:

#DapperDanMan

#Fop

[LilWharveyGal]

I'm LilWharveyGal and I approve this message.

[Zella]

As much as I love O Brother Where Art Thou and his Everett McGill, I also have to give a shoutout to his character in Burn After Reading. I'm not sure who is dumber in that movie--him or Brad Pitt (the Coen Brothers have called them "dueling idiots")--but I quote them both on the regular. LOL

Edited July 17, 2021 by Zella

[SmithW6079]

On 7/11/2021 at 10:46 AM, JimmyJabloon said:

The short lived discussion reminds me. I actually don’t mind that pushing daisies ended in 2 seasons. I liked the show, but still.

I think my objection to "Pushing Daisies" ending after two seasons was that, if I recall, they'd introduced a couple of open-ended storylines to be resolved in season 3.

Seeing the mention of Don Knotts brings to mind my UO: I never thought he was funny in anything. Whether he was Barney Fife or Mr. Furley, I found him to be creepy and decidedly unfunny. 

Another UO: while I enjoyed "Schitt's Creek" when it was on, I have no desire to watch any of it again. Once was enough.

Edited July 17, 2021 by SmithW6079

[Wiendish Fitch]

2 hours ago, SmithW6079 said:

Seeing the mention of Don Knotts brings to mind my UO: I never thought he was funny in anything. Whether he was Barney Fife or Mr. Furley, I found him to be creepy and decidedly unfunny. 

Completely agree.

This reminds me: with or without Don Knotts, I could never stand The Andy Griffith Show or Three's Company. 

[DrSpaceman73]

Andy Griffith show I never got the appeal of either.  

But even worse, you ever hear Andy Griffith's stand up act?  My Lord.....low standards in the pre Lenny Bruce days. 

[Zella]

I like the Andy Griffith Show okay--have fond memories of watching it as a kid--but I actually think he was better at drama than comedy. His performance in A Face in the Crowd freaked me out and made it hard for me to watch him in anything light-hearted or humorous for years. And even with his comedy stuff, I think he's better when he's allowed to have a little more bite. I love his bad guy character in Rustler's Rhapsody. 😂

[Wiendish Fitch]

7 hours ago, Zella said:

I like the Andy Griffith Show okay--have fond memories of watching it as a kid--but I actually think he was better at drama than comedy. His performance in A Face in the Crowd freaked me out and made it hard for me to watch him in anything light-hearted or humorous for years. And even with his comedy stuff, I think he's better when he's allowed to have a little more bite. I love his bad guy character in Rustler's Rhapsody. 😂

Oh my God, I think A Face in the Crowd is Andy Griffith's finest hour. There aren't enough adjectives in a thesaurus to describe his performance as folksy, cunning, sociopathic, demagogue-in-the-making Larry "Lonesome" Rhodes. To all the young 'uns, if you only see one movie from the 1950s, make it A Face in the Crowd. It's a film that, unfortunately, will never age or cease to be relevant.

Griffith was actually more convincing when he played evil. I'm sorry, but the dude did not have a friendly face; he had those mean little eyes, and that Grinch-like smile that went on for way too long.

Edited July 18, 2021 by Wiendish Fitch

[peachmangosteen]

14 hours ago, SmithW6079 said:

Another UO: while I enjoyed "Schitt's Creek" when it was on, I have no desire to watch any of it again. Once was enough.

Same. But then, I never rewatch anything.

[Wiendish Fitch]

1 minute ago, peachmangosteen said:

Same. But then, I never rewatch anything.

I only rewatch lighthearted stuff (Daria or the first few seasons of Red Dwarf, for instance). Breaking Bad was a great show, but I hate the idea of rewatching it. 

[Raja]

20 minutes ago, Wiendish Fitch said:

I only rewatch lighthearted stuff (Daria or the first few seasons of Red Dwarf, for instance). Breaking Bad was a great show, but I hate the idea of rewatching it. 

I see Breaking Bad always listed among the greatest of all time but mid way through season 4 after giving the first of Better Call Saul a chance it hasn't been all that to me. It might be more stylized than Gilligan's other criminal shows but I am just working through them as I wait for other new content to come along.

[peachmangosteen]

I started Breaking Bad late and then I just gave up on it. It just wasn't that good to me lol.

[Irlandesa]

For the most part, I only rewatch shows if they're on TV.  I have so many unopened TV DVDs of series that I thought I'd rewatch but never got around to.

That means I rewatch Law & Order (constantly--I'd probably even stream that damn show I love it so much), Frasier, Monk...etc.  A Breaking Bad rewatch is intimidating to me as well because, unlike some of the other shows I rewatch on TV, it's not a procedural. There's the pressure to keep watching whereas with other shows if I miss an episode, I miss an episode.  But if AMC is doing a marathon and I happen to stumble upon a third or fourth season episode, it's hard for me to walk away. 

But this makes it really hard for shows on streaming services because I will binge them in a day and a year and a half later, when a new season comes out, it's hard for me to remember what happened the previous season. That's one benefit of a network TV show that airs one episode a week.  Episodes can sink in more and the break isn't that huge.

Edited July 18, 2021 by Irlandesa

[DearEvette]

4 hours ago, peachmangosteen said:

Same. But then, I never rewatch anything.

Agreed.  There are tons of stuff I loved but will not re-watch the whole series again.

Regards Breaking Bad, I adored that show but do not have the intestinal fortitude to watch the whole thing.  But... own the whole series and will watch a couple of key episodes just because they are standouts and deliver visceral satisfaction.

I tend to do that with a lot of my favorite shows that have ended, especially dramas.

About the only shows that I have re-watched over and over are more on the light side and I consider them "comfort" shows, like Leverage, Eureka or Misfits (first three seasons)

[Haleth]

20 hours ago, peachmangosteen said:

I started Breaking Bad late and then I just gave up on it. It just wasn't that good to me lol.

I started watching Breaking Bad last year and mostly have been enjoying it.  It is certainly unlike anything else on tv, the writing and acting are superb, but it wasn't something I could watch every night so I occasionally took breaks from it.  A couple nights ago I turned on the back end of the last season and got hooked again.  The last few episodes are going to be like a freight train.  (My son tells me Better Call Saul is even better.)

[Nicmar]

On 7/13/2021 at 5:19 AM, icemiser69 said:

There was that one time when one of John Ritter's testicles put in an appearance.   

Those were the short shorts days, and any dude back in those days knew how hard it was to keep his horsey (and all of it's body parts) in the corral.   Tighty whities weren't always so tighty.   For some I am sure they weren't so whitey, which is rather gross if you think about.  They started out that way but (butt) didn't end up that way.

TBH, I think television was a lot better back then more so than it is now.  They were much simpler times.  Yes, there were some pretty horrible things going on back then in the real world, but those were the pre-internet days, and I do think in many ways the pre-internet days were so much better than the current era where so many people don't have any down time to relax.  They have the constant need for stimulation that the internet provides.   In some cases an addiction.  People would talk to each other back then, now many prefer to text.   Human, face to face interaction was much more of a thing back then, less so now.  That change isn't a good thing.

I remember that episode! 

[Anduin]

I know there are some very good reasons not to like Jeff Bezos, but I can't make myself hate him. He's funding a Lord of the Rings TV show and just flew to space and back. If I had a zillion dollars, I would do the same thing! Maybe I short start a patreon. Fund my oligarchal lifestyle.

[Llywela]

5 hours ago, Anduin said:

I know there are some very good reasons not to like Jeff Bezos, but I can't make myself hate him. He's funding a Lord of the Rings TV show and just flew to space and back. If I had a zillion dollars, I would do the same thing! Maybe I short start a patreon. Fund my oligarchal lifestyle.

I wouldn't mind him doing those things, if only he paid his taxes first! It isn't much to ask. The rest of us stump up our taxes, and we can afford it far less.

[Anduin]

16 minutes ago, Llywela said:

I wouldn't mind him doing those things, if only he paid his taxes first! It isn't much to ask. The rest of us stump up our taxes, and we can afford it far less.

That's true enough. While he does things that I would do, he also does things I don't think I would do. Of course, I'll never get the chance to find out. Ah well.

[ratgirlagogo]

5 hours ago, Anduin said:

I know there are some very good reasons not to like Jeff Bezos, but I can't make myself hate him.

 

20 minutes ago, Llywela said:

I wouldn't mind him doing those things, if only he paid his taxes first! It isn't much to ask.

Since he did acknowledge that all his overworked and underpaid workers are the ones who paid for this commercial boondoggle that, unlike the NASA spaceflights, will yield absolutely no scientific anything - maybe the "change" that he said happened to everyone in space will make him improve his labor practices.

https://www.vice.com/en/article/bvzp8w/jeff-bezos-thanks-workers-who-pee-in-bottles-for-paying-for-his-space-trip