Party of One: Unpopular TV Opinions

[Anduin]

5 minutes ago, Lugal said:

remember when Troy came out and one of the reviews warned of spoilers and then added: Can you really have spoilers for a 3000 year old story?  I think once you get so far out from something, it's less on others not to spoil it for you.

No one tell me what happens in the Epic of Gilgamesh! I'm working my way through cave paintings and should be there in a few years.

[Mabinogia]

13 minutes ago, Lugal said:

I don't mind spoilers, (it's only if I'm in the middle of something that I don't want to be spoiled) and often seek them out because if: 1) I don't have confidence in a creative team I want to make sure this is worth investing my time in

I often do that when the creative team is an unknown for me, or have burned me in the past. Many have. There are very few creative teams/show runners I trust. 

[scarynikki12]

1 hour ago, Anduin said:

No one tell me what happens in the Epic of Gilgamesh! I'm working my way through cave paintings and should be there in a few years.

This reminds me when I was in 9th grade and we watched a tape from when one of the AP English classes filmed an adaptation of Epic of Gilgamesh. The clearest scene that I still recall was one of the seniors pulling a Star Wars and going: "Help me, Utnapishtim. You're my only hope."

Anyway, my position on spoilers is that I always give a show a chance and go in spoiler free. In my experience it's too easy for me to judge a show the wrong way based on a sentence rather than how the scene/episode actually plays out so I try to avoid it. When I lose faith in the show but haven't yet reached the point where I quit I'll start reading spoilers to see if it will be worth it. 

The main point I agree with is that professional entertainment sites should wait at least until the next morning before putting a headline on their site revealing that Odysseus made it home. 

[Mabinogia]

5 minutes ago, scarynikki12 said:

The main point I agree with is that professional entertainment sites should wait at least until the next morning before putting a headline on their site revealing that Odysseus made it home. 

NOOOOOOO!!!!! I didn't get to that part of the centuries old book yet! Next you're going to tell me Romeo and Juliet die at the end! 

I agree with the giving a show a chance first then, if I'm unsure if I want to continue with it, especially if I dislike it due to one character or storyline but kind of like the rest. I'll spoil to see if said character/storyline dies/ends. If so, I'll keep going, but if it is clear that that storyline is the main one or that character is getting more and more prominent I'm out. I have better things to do with my time than to watch a show that is going to annoy me half the time. 

[Ohiopirate02]

4 hours ago, proserpina65 said:

Show specific threads, sure.  But EW's main page SHOULD NOT have spoilers.  It's a general entertainment site covering many forms of entertainment and should save the spoilers for articles, not the contents page.

 

I agree and would argue that EW purposely writes their headlines to spoil.  It is not that hard for their writers to compose attention grabbing headlines that contain zero spoilers.  Other publications can manage this all the time.  Spoilers on your main page is a choice, and not something that just happens.

[sistermagpie]

4 hours ago, BlackberryJam said:

Clearly my opinion is unpopular because I want to know the ending before I go see a film. I despise surprise endings, and surprises period. Not knowing makes me uncomfortable and ruins the experience. I don't enjoy tension. 

I do know other people who feel that way and it makes sense to me. Sometimes it's just easier to concentrate on the story without that specific stress.

Also, back in the day when we watched week by week sometimes people would jump on a spoiler and get all tense about and then when it happened it was nothing like expected anyway. So I at least always preferred to dissect stuff that had actually happened rather than speculate about what the spoiler might mean. 

[DoctorAtomic]

9 minutes ago, sistermagpie said:

Also, back in the day when we watched week by week sometimes people would jump on a spoiler and get all tense about and then when it happened it was nothing like expected anyway.

They didn't do themselves any favors, but this also didn't help Lost either. 

[Annber03]

10 minutes ago, sistermagpie said:

Also, back in the day when we watched week by week sometimes people would jump on a spoiler and get all tense about and then when it happened it was nothing like expected anyway. So I at least always preferred to dissect stuff that had actually happened rather than speculate about what the spoiler might mean. 

This. I remember how, in some of my fandoms, people would see a promo for an episode of a TV show and immediately start freaking out and making a big to do about what they were so sure was going to happen in the episode, based off a clip of a scene that was, like, 30 seconds to a minute or so long.

And then the episode aired and it didn't play out at all like they thought it would. Because it's not like promos don't splice things together to make certain scenes or snippets of dialogue sound way more dramatic than they actually wind up being, or anything. Which goes back to my earlier point in this discussion about how you can get an idea of what's going to happen in a show or a movie based off a clip or someone telling you what happens or whatever, but that can be an entirely different experience from watching it actually play out on your own time. Because there's always elements that the clip, or the person you're talking to, or the person reviewing the show or movie, will forget to mention, or see differently, or whatever, that you might notice or view differently. 

I also wonder how easy it is to surprise people nowadays - if a show or movie does contain a big twist, they usually have to put some unusual and creative take on it, because there's only so many times you can see stories with twists like, "They were dead all along!" or "It was all a dream!" or "The guy you think you can trust is really the bad guy!" or so on before the novelty wears off.  If you watch enough TV and movies, after a while, you can pretty much start to tell when certain tropes and twists and so on are going to play out, and how they'll play out, much of the time. 

Edited January 11, 2022 by Annber03

[Shannon L.]

Speaking of EW and spoilers, I was just spoiled by their headline and the picture of the big scene.  Ironically, the second half of the title is  "....and why you should never ask him for spoilers."  Seriously, wtf is wrong with "'Cobra Kai' star on his character's big moment and......"etc.?  Personally, I think that in this day and age when people can watch shows at their leisure, I don't think anything about a show needs to be spoiled by a picture of a scene and/or a headline.  There are ways to get clicks w/o it-you just need to use your imagination when writing the headline.  Although, I agree about anything that includes historical facts isn't really a spoiler.

[ifionlyknew]

14 hours ago, Lugal said:

Like The Good Place, which I was unspoiled for, but knowing the twist at the first season, on every rewatch I love picking out new things and different spins on events.

If I am spoiled about something as I watch I do look for clues to see if I would have figured it out without already knowing. 

I came to the Good Place a  year after it first aired and shockingly I had not been spoiled.   It was a show I wasn't originally interested in so I hadn't read anything about it.  And when I did see a headline about it I didn't pay attention to it.  

Thankfully I wasn't a Game of Thrones fan.  I remember the outcry a couple years ago when the finale was spoiled.  

[Bort]

58 minutes ago, Shannon L. said:

Although, I agree about anything that includes historical facts isn't really a spoiler.

Yeah, but while history is history, not every event is well known. Everybody knows the boat sinks in Titanic but not everyone knew about Culloden. So it’s a judgment call for me. Unless you’re watching The Great because that show doesn’t follow actual history at all so knowing it doesn’t spoil you for it.

[Shannon L.]

2 hours ago, kariyaki said:

Yeah, but while history is history, not every event is well known. Everybody knows the boat sinks in Titanic but not everyone knew about Culloden. So it’s a judgment call for me. Unless you’re watching The Great because that show doesn’t follow actual history at all so knowing it doesn’t spoil you for it.

That's a good point.

[Mabinogia]

8 hours ago, kariyaki said:

Unless you’re watching The Great because that show doesn’t follow actual history at all so knowing it doesn’t spoil you for it.

IDK if this is unpopular but I loathe shows/movies/books that use actual people who existed but basically rewrite the history of them. Especially when they put a modern spin on it. Just not my cuppa at all. I love history but I guess I'm kind of a purist about it. 

It actually took me several years to finally watch Titanic because it focused on a made up couple's made up romance and not the actual sinking or a better love story, like the Strausses (who were too old to be "sexy" so I guess they never stood a chance of having a storyline). I am glad I finally watched it for the visuals but I have no interest in the storyline. 

Edited January 11, 2022 by Mabinogia

[Lugal]

23 hours ago, Anduin said:

No one tell me what happens in the Epic of Gilgamesh! I'm working my way through cave paintings and should be there in a few years.

I won't spoil Gilgamesh for you, but Gilgamesh contains spoilers for the Inanna Cycle.

Spoiler

She dies, but...

Spoiler

She comes back

 

 

9 hours ago, kariyaki said:

Yeah, but while history is history, not every event is well known. Everybody knows the boat sinks in Titanic but not everyone knew about Culloden.

Good point, but sometimes I think someone interested in Scottish history is likely to  know about Culloden already.

1 hour ago, Mabinogia said:

IDK if this is unpopular but I loathe shows/movies/books that use actual people who existed but basically rewrite the history of them. Especially when they put a modern spin on it. Just not my cuppa at all. I love history but I guess I'm kind of a purist about it.

I totally get that, I'm the same way, but it's more of a case by case basis.  I don't mind if the historical person is a side character for fictional people either (so long as the story's good) but they have to keep the character of the original person.  I remember a few years ago reading Mike Resnick's story about Teddy Roosevelt fighting the Martians from War of the Worlds.  Historically accurate, nope, but it felt like TR.

[meep.meep]

Teddy Roosevelt is also a character in The Illusionist, because he was head of NYC police.  And he's Teddy, not someone else.

[Raja]

7 minutes ago, meep.meep said:

Teddy Roosevelt is also a character in The Illusionist, because he was head of NYC police.  And he's Teddy, not someone else.

Teddy Roosevelt was also in The Alienist recently. I am not the historian to ask if he was accurate as the NYPD head. 

I do remember catching the famous historical cowboys show up on Bonanza and those 60's westerns and President Grant on The Wild Wild West.

[Mabinogia]

30 minutes ago, Lugal said:

I remember a few years ago reading Mike Resnick's story about Teddy Roosevelt fighting the Martians from War of the Worlds.  Historically accurate, nope, but it felt like TR.

I don't mind it when they go totally off the wall like that. It's like fanfiction. What would Teddy be like if he had to fight Martians. Cool. What would Emily Dickinson be like if she was still in her era but talked like she was from 2020s...meh

[meep.meep]

Gah!  That's what I meant.  Where did I get The Illusionist?  I'd better nip off and write it, cleverly including TR as a major character!

 

[Bort]

1 hour ago, Lugal said:

Good point, but sometimes I think someone interested in Scottish history is likely to  know about Culloden already.

True, but not everyone who watched Outlander watched it because they were interested in Scottish history. I mean, I knew nothing about Culloden until I read the books/saw the show. And as it turned out, when I went to Scotland for work, I made it a point to visit the Culloden memorial.

[sistermagpie]

4 hours ago, Mabinogia said:

It actually took me several years to finally watch Titanic because it focused on a made up couple's made up romance and not the actual sinking or a better love story, like the Strausses (who were too old to be "sexy" so I guess they never stood a chance of having a storyline). I am glad I finally watched it for the visuals but I have no interest in the storyline. 

I remember somebody asking me what I thought about the idea before it came out, the love story on the Titanic etc. And I thought it would be fine as long as they get that the ship is the main character - which is the one thing the movie does seem commited to getting right. It sinks the way it sank, even if other things are made up or - worse - played out totally wrong.

There was a TV movie about the Titanic years ago and it was so much worse this way. They couldn't do the sinking well, so there was all this really annoying soapy stuff (I seem to remember a rape or two, for instance). I remember especially the main rich woman yelling at a woman in the lifeboat with her for bringing her dog, which was on her lap. I was totally on the woman's side! The boats were half empty, the dog sat on her lap so didn't take any room and it's not her fault she looked after her dog more better than the main character looked after her love interest she met on the Titanic! 

But then, it seems like that's one of the challenges of Titanic stories. People always understandably want to point out the social inequality in anachronistic ways, but the whole point of the story is that the ship is so glamorous so stop trying.

[Zella]

3 hours ago, Raja said:

Teddy Roosevelt was also in The Alienist recently. I am not the historian to ask if he was accurate as the NYPD head. 

I really enjoyed The Alienist and I like Brian Geraghty, the actor who played Roosevelt, when he was on Boardwalk Empire, but I felt like his depiction of Theodore Roosevelt was the weakest part of the show. The real Roosevelt certainly did hold that position in the NYPD during the 1890s, but as divisive as he was then and now, if nothing else, he was a really dynamic, energetic presence.

I don't think you could be in a room with the real guy and not be very aware he was there, but I felt like he came across as having all the presence of a sleepwalker on sedatives on the show. Other than one scene I can think of, he seemed like he was just there, and I was bewildered why they bothered including him if he was just going to be that dull. 

I've not watched it in years and don't remember enough to speak of its accuracy otherwise, but there's a miniseries from the 90s where Tom Berenger plays Roosevelt about the Rough Riders, and they at least got the exuberant part of his personality down pat. I could see that guy depicted there having as varied of a life as Theodore Roosevelt did IRL. Not Geraghty's Roosevelt. 

Edited January 12, 2022 by Zella

[Haleth]

13 hours ago, Mabinogia said:

IDK if this is unpopular but I loathe shows/movies/books that use actual people who existed but basically rewrite the history of them. Especially when they put a modern spin on it. Just not my cuppa at all. I love history but I guess I'm kind of a purist about it. 

I'm with you, Mab.  I love historical fiction but kind of cringe if the characters interact with real historical figures, or even worse, if the story is a fictionalization of a real person's life.  Not to say it can't be great, but it often bothers me if a writer plays fast and loose with words and actions of someone who really lived.  (Books annoy me more than tv shows.)

[scarynikki12]

I don't mind some historical exaggeration if it's meant to show how an event was huge drama for those involved. I compare it to how we all have memories of major drama from our lives but that same drama really only had an effect on us and didn't matter to anyone not involved. 

I tend to mind when history gets changed/exaggerated to make things more dramatic only for the real story to eclipse what gets shown. Sometimes it's because they think their audience won't buy the real drama, sometimes it's due to a lack of talent, or sometimes it's just plain laziness but it always annoys. 

[BlackberryJam]

I didn't even watch Rome when it was airing, but I spoiled it for a group of people when I revealed that Brutus killed Caesar on the floor of the Senate. I was told that there was no way that could happen because Brutus wasn't even a main character. (Also, "you don't even watch the show, Jam, how could you even guess what's going to happen?") But ...okay.

Maybe an unpopular opinion, but I did not feel even slightly bad about spoiling that historical event which has also been popularized by a Shakespeare play that was a mandatory read my sophomore year in high school. 

In fact, I reveled in being vindicated. 

[Bort]

What if it’s a satire, though? Because The Great isn’t changing history for soapy drama, it’s being outrageously satirical. And it comes off as really hilarious as a result. I can be a purist too but in this case, the artistic flair highly entertains me.

[proserpina65]

On 1/10/2022 at 5:23 PM, BlackberryJam said:

Clearly my opinion is unpopular because I want to know the ending before I go see a film. I despise surprise endings, and surprises period. Not knowing makes me uncomfortable and ruins the experience. I don't enjoy tension. 

I take it you don't care for mysteries, then?

 

[proserpina65]

2 hours ago, kariyaki said:

What if it’s a satire, though? Because The Great isn’t changing history for soapy drama, it’s being outrageously satirical. And it comes off as really hilarious as a result. I can be a purist too but in this case, the artistic flair highly entertains me.

That's fine if it's something people enjoy.  I wouldn't but I don't have to like everything.

[BlackberryJam]

20 minutes ago, proserpina65 said:

I take it you don't care for mysteries, then?

 

I love mystery. Thriller is annoying

[SmithW6079]

On 1/10/2022 at 8:58 PM, Mabinogia said:

Next you're going to tell me Romeo and Juliet die at the end! 

Let's just say you should hold off on sending them a wedding present. 😉

[meep.meep]

6 hours ago, Haleth said:

I'm with you, Mab.  I love historical fiction but kind of cringe if the characters interact with real historical figures, or even worse, if the story is a fictionalization of a real person's life.  Not to say it can't be great, but it often bothers me if a writer plays fast and loose with words and actions of someone who really lived.  (Books annoy me more than tv shows.)

So not big fans of Young Indiana Jones?  I remember when it came out, the producers suggesting that kids watch it to learn history!

[Blergh]

9 minutes ago, meep.meep said:

So not big fans of Young Indiana Jones?  I remember when it came out, the producers suggesting that kids watch it to learn history!

IMO, It was more accurate (and less dogmatic re interpretations) than Voyagers! (1982)  which is somewhat like saying a snail could outpace a barnacle! That's the most positive thing I can conjure!

BTW, the latter show had the 'star' (one Meeno Peluce- the half- brother of future Punky Brewster star Soleil Moon Frye) tell viewers to read more about the events depicted in the library! 

[Katy M]

7 minutes ago, Blergh said:

IMO, It was more accurate (and less dogmatic re interpretations) than Voyagers! (1982)  which is somewhat like saying a snail could outpace a barnacle! That's the most positive thing I can conjure!

BTW, the latter show had the 'star' (one Meeno Peluce- the half- brother of future Punky Brewster star Soleil Moon Frye) tell viewers to read more about the events depicted in the library! 

I was 9/10 when Voyagers was on.  I remember loving it, but can't remember any specific episodes, but I know they did put Moses in the water because he was off to the side.  A whole year of show and that's the one scene I remember.

[SmithW6079]

I used to enjoy the show "Voyagers." Plus it had the beautiful Jon-Erik Hexum, who died tragically. I'm a sucker for time travel and history. 

Having said that, I pretty much despise most historical dramas because they play so fast and loose with the truth. (Although, if it's played for laughs, then I'm mostly OK with it, like "Upstart Crow," a comic retelling of Shakespeare's life.)

[Mr. Sparkle]

2 hours ago, Blergh said:

(one Meeno Peluce- the half- brother of future Punky Brewster star Soleil Moon Frye)

I was today years old when I found out they are related. 

[Mittengirl]

5 hours ago, BlackberryJam said:

5 hours ago, proserpina65 said:

 

I love mystery. Thriller is annoying

I see books listed in those two genres and have long wondered what the difference is - level of violence/scariness?

[Irlandesa]

6 minutes ago, Mittengirl said:

I see books listed in those two genres and have long wondered what the difference is - level of violence/scariness?

I think it's less about violence and more scariness I think.  You can have a mystery without the "edge of your seat" aspect of thrillers.  Think Agatha Christie, for example.  Detectives are rarely under threat.

Thrillers often involve impending danger. 

 

[DearEvette]

I always consider Mystery where the plot/story is centered on solving a puzzle.  Can be a crime or a murder or a theft.

Thriller otoh doesn't necessarily need to have anything solved, per se.  A Crime doesn't have to have happened or violence doesn't have to be present or overt but there does need to be a sense of menace or the need to stop stop something bad from happening.

Mystery/Thriller is when they converge.

[Ohiopirate02]

5 minutes ago, Mittengirl said:

I see books listed in those two genres and have long wondered what the difference is - level of violence/scariness?

In a mystery, the protagonist and reader is attempting to solve a crime and does not know the perpetrator until the denouement.  Mysteries are written in either first person or a very close third person narration.  The whole purpose of a mystery is to read and find out whodunit.

Thrillers do not have this constraint.  In a thriller, the protagonist and reader can know the big bad in the first chapter.  You can have head hopping in a thriller and even get a peek into the villains head.  Thrillers usually end when the villain is neutralized.  But that is not a requirement.

They are closely related genres, but mysteries are more rigid in their storytelling.  

[roamyn]

On 1/11/2022 at 9:46 AM, ifionlyknew said:

If I am spoiled about something as I watch I do look for clues to see if I would have figured it out without already knowing. 

I came to the Good Place a  year after it first aired and shockingly I had not been spoiled.   It was a show I wasn't originally interested in so I hadn't read anything about it.  And when I did see a headline about it I didn't pay 

I haven’t seen all of The Good Place yet (only a few into S3), and I’ve been able to avoid spoilers so far.  Thankfully.

[Irlandesa]

3 hours ago, Ohiopirate02 said:

In a mystery, the protagonist and reader is attempting to solve a crime and does not know the perpetrator until the denouement.

Not necessarily.  Sometimes the mystery can be the motive.

[ribboninthesky1]

I don't hate watch shows.  There's so much content available these days to choose from (arguably TOO much content but another opinion for another day). If I like a show, I'll keep watching.  If I don't, I won't.  I can't imagine watching a show where I hate/strongly dislike the lead/leads.  

[Annber03]

Same. Life's too short to spend time on something I genuinely can't stand. 

[DoctorAtomic]

Word.

[kathyk24]

3 hours ago, Annber03 said:

Same. Life's too short to spend time on something I genuinely can't stand. 

Hate watching also makes it difficult for viewers who still enjoy the show. It's difficult to always explain why you like something when everyone else says it's sucks.

[Annber03]

19 minutes ago, kathyk24 said:

Hate watching also makes it difficult for viewers who still enjoy the show. It's difficult to always explain why you like something when everyone else says it's sucks.

Exactly. I've no issue with criticism in and of itself, no show is perfect, after all. I can think of and find flaws in shows I like, too, both big and small. And there's seasons and episodes and storylines that are weaker than others, and all that sort of thing. 

But yeah, when you're sitting here still generally enjoying something and everyone else is just going on and on and on about how much they hate this or that about it and they can't seem to find a single positive thing to say about it, it definitely dampens the conversation. I've said before that if I ever got to a point with a show where I literally could not find a single good thing to say about it anymore, for me, that would be a sign it's time to move on. 

Edited January 16, 2022 by Annber03

[Irlandesa]

4 hours ago, ribboninthesky1 said:

I don't hate watch shows

The thing about hate watching is that there's usually something about the show that even the hate watchers enjoy.  

My example is Smash.  Such an infuriating show but I loved the music and I loved Megan Hilty. 

So yeah, shows that I universally hate, I don't watch.  But sometimes,  a show has already trapped me.

[Hiyo]

I dunno, sometimes hatewatching can be fun, if done right. Me and some friends get together and hatewatch Emily in Paris, where we just snark out loud at the show while watching. We usually have wine and good snacks when we do, and have a good time doing so.

[Haleth]

5 hours ago, Annber03 said:

I've said before that if I ever got to a point with a show where I literally could not find a single good thing to say about it anymore, for me, that would be a sign it's time to move on. 

I can't tell you how many shows I've dropped with only one episode to go.  Sometimes it takes that long to decide hate watching isn't even fun anymore.  Latest one was Yellowstone.  I finally came to the realization that there was nothing entertaining about those horrible people.  (But I'm loving 1883.)

[Danny Franks]

10 hours ago, Annber03 said:

Same. Life's too short to spend time on something I genuinely can't stand. 

If it's something that's bad in a very funny way, I might watch it just to laugh at it, but if I actually hate the show I'm switching off.

I've never really had a problem breaking from shows that I've stopped enjoying (usually because the writing has gone into the toilet) - E.R., Castle, Arrow, Game of Thrones, Sleepy Hollow etc - I'm pretty good at just forgetting they exist and completely checking out of any sort of fandom.

[Enigma X]

If people want to hatewatch, to each their own. It is the hatewatchers who bully their way onto forums such as these that I don't get. They make it impossible for those of us who like the show or those with genuine constructive criticism to do so without being bombarded with snark. There are forums on here I just stopped going to though I still love the show because of this.