Party of One: Unpopular TV Opinions

[Zella]

Not exactly the same, but there is a fairly early episode that absolutely infuriates me. It involves them going after someone who is in witness protection and the Marshals beg them to butt out because they will blow the case. But Unstabler and Olivia know better than the Marshals. By the end of the episode, a witness and a Marshal are dead, and Unstabler and Olivia both have shocked Pikachu faces when the prosecutor tells them the case the witness was supposed to testify in is blown. But Unstabler somehow thinks the feds are being mean to him. . . .

[partofme]

10 hours ago, Blergh said:

I'd to ask any longterm viewers of Law and Order:SVU if the show has ever depicted a suspect in there crimes suspected by the show's regular detectives as having turned out to have been innocent of the suspicions? 

I haven’t watched in years,  but this used to happen in the early seasons.  I remember Benson and Stabler ruining people’s lives because they mistakenly accused them of being pedophiles. 

Edited April 10, 2022 by partofme

[callie lee 29]

I remember one episode before I stopped watching where Rollins was trying to point this out regarding a music teacher who was gay and was being (turns out wrongly) accused of abusing kids. She kept trying to get the others to realize the mess they were going to make of this guys life. Benson was shocked when the dude didn’t magically accept there apologies and hug it out.

[Blergh]

Let me get this straight: Is what you all are saying is that these detectives on L&O: SVU  in 23 seasons have only made a few mistakes when it comes to branding others as pedophiles, and had their zeal totally trash an investigation that had been totally outside their scope (or jurisdiction)  but    have  NEVER been depicted  as being mistaken re who they believed have been rapists of adults? THAT I find rather incredulous (and I'm glad I dropped the show ages ago-in spite of actually having liked Mariska Hargitay as a person and  performer outside of this particular  long-existing role).

 Yeah, I know. Boo me. 

Edited April 11, 2022 by Blergh

[Ohiopirate02]

15 hours ago, callie lee 29 said:

I remember one episode before I stopped watching where Rollins was trying to point this out regarding a music teacher who was gay and was being (turns out wrongly) accused of abusing kids. She kept trying to get the others to realize the mess they were going to make of this guys life. Benson was shocked when the dude didn’t magically accept there apologies and hug it out.

I remember that episode. Billy Porter played the music teacher.

[partofme]

12 hours ago, Blergh said:

Let me get this straight: Is what you all are saying is that these detectives on L&O: SVU  in 23 seasons have only made a few mistakes when it comes to branding others as pedophiles, and had their zeal totally trash an investigation that had been totally outside their scope (or jurisdiction)  but    have  NEVER been depicted  as being mistaken re who they believed have been rapists of adults? THAT I find rather incredulous (and I'm glad I dropped the show ages ago-in spite of actually having liked Mariska Hargitay as a person and  performer outside of this particular  long-existing role).

 Yeah, I know. Boo me. 

The ones that stand out in my mind are about pedophiles but I'm not an expert on their track record involving regular rapists.   What I remember about and loved about the early seasons was the constant plot twists up until the end of the episode so I have to believe they were mistaken at some point.

[Avabelle]

9 hours ago, Ohiopirate02 said:

I remember that episode. Billy Porter played the music teacher.

I remember it also. It stuck with me as I felt so bad for him.

[Blergh]

10 hours ago, partofme said:

The ones that stand out in my mind are about pedophiles but I'm not an expert on their track record involving regular rapists.   What I remember about and loved about the early seasons was the constant plot twists up until the end of the episode so I have to believe they were mistaken at some point.

I'd like to give you the benefit of the doubt but so far none of their faithful viewers appear to recall ANY episodes in which they actually are shown to have been wrong about someone they believed was a rapist of adults. As I said, if a faithful viewer can recall a single time in 23 seasons that this happened, please share this with the rest of us! 

[proserpina65]

18 hours ago, Blergh said:

I'd like to give you the benefit of the doubt but so far none of their faithful viewers appear to recall ANY episodes in which they actually are shown to have been wrong about someone they believed was a rapist of adults. As I said, if a faithful viewer can recall a single time in 23 seasons that this happened, please share this with the rest of us! 

I don't claim to be a faithful viewer, and I gave up after the first couple of seasons because I couldn't stand Stabler or Benson, but I can't honestly remember seeing more than a few episodes or commercials for episodes that didn't involve pedophiles.  You'd probably have better luck on the forum for SVU.

[Picture It. Sicily]

There was one where Olivia helped send a man to jail for a rape he didn't commit, but the audience didn't have to feel bad for him because after he got out he became a serial killer murdering victims Olivia had helped. 

 

A few years later there was another case where Olivia again put the wrong guy away. Eventually the real rapist struck again with the distinctive MO. Instead of thinking she might have gotten it wrong, Olivia is convinced he had an accomplice and when it was clear it had to be the same guy, SHE ACTUALLY TRIES TO FLOAT THE THEORY THAT RAPIST BROKE OUT OF JAIL COMMITTED THE SAME CRIME AND THEN SNUCK BACK INTO JAIL TO ESTABLISH AN ALIBI. 

Thankfully she was wrong and she had to reckon with the fact that an innocent man went to jail because she browbeat a confession out of him.

This was when I had had it with St. Olivia and stopped watching. I just could not anymore.

 

[Hiyo]

Quote

because after he got out he became a serial killer murdering victims Olivia had helped.

As one does.

Quote

THAT RAPIST BROKE OUT OF JAIL COMMITTED THE SAME CRIME AND THEN SNUCK BACK INTO JAIL TO ESTABLISH AN ALIBI. 

Also as one does.

[Blergh]

So according to those of you who've been watching, the L&O:SVU gumshoes get called out once or maybe twice in 23 seasons for having been wrong about folks they were keen to railroad as having been rapists of adults. Yeah, that sure sounds as though that show is about actual  humans committed to fairness and justice- NOT! Boo me but I'm glad I've long since quit watching!

[Spartan Girl]

It would have been nice if St. Olivia and the squad helped do damage control to fix the lives of the people they wrongfully accused. I know real life doesn’t work that way and that most of the time the ramifications can’t be undone, but still.

[Zella]

3 hours ago, Spartan Girl said:

It would have been nice if St. Olivia and the squad helped do damage control to fix the lives of the people they wrongfully accused. I know real life doesn’t work that way and that most of the time the ramifications can’t be undone, but still.

I think it would require a lack of smugness or willingness to admit wrong that Unstabler and Olivia are not capable of. 

Honestly, I don't really remember Munch or Ice-T ever being as awful as the two main leads. I mainly watched SVU because I was bored and it was on and I liked some of the supporting people, and I wanted to see what a train wreck it would be. I stopped watching after they shit-canned Barba. 

[Leeds]

 

On 4/4/2022 at 5:12 PM, annzeepark914 said:

I don't/won't use GPS. When I need to learn how to get someplace, I Google it and write down the highways I need to use and the side streets I'll cross over. We've had friends using GPS who ended up driving all around the proverbial mulberry bush to get to our house. 

I don't use GPS either (much to the chagrin of my children), but then again I have no idea what "the proverbial mulberry bush" is either.  Do I need a new life?

[Ambrosefolly]

1 hour ago, Zella said:

I think it would require a lack of smugness or willingness to admit wrong that Unstabler and Olivia are not capable of. 

Honestly, I don't really remember Munch or Ice-T ever being as awful as the two main leads. I mainly watched SVU because I was bored and it was on and I liked some of the supporting people, and I wanted to see what a train wreck it would be. I stopped watching after they shit-canned Barba. 

I stopped watching when it became the Olivia Benson show.I didn't hate Benson and Stabler like others, but I was as interested in the rest of the cast as I was with them.  The mothership L&O was better because it seemed there was always a power balance because, amazingly, no one actor had more seniority than others. It often shifted. And there is only so much I can take of people's personal lives in procedures.

I also have no interest in Stabler's new L& O show and agree that in light of police corruption in the real world, they should have him join the bain of his previous job, Internal Affairs. 

Edited April 13, 2022 by Ambrosefolly

[Zella]

Just now, Ambrosefolly said:

I stopped watching when it became the Olivia Benson show.I didn't hate Benson and Stabler like others, but I was as interested in the rest of the cast as I was with them.  The mothership L&O was better because it seemed there was always a power balance because, amazingly, no one actor had more seniority than others. It often shifted. And there is only so much I can take of people's personal lives in procedures.

Yes I think the original was the best because of the lack of personal bullshit. It also ruined Criminal Intent, which I initially found really fun but I stopped watching it when it turned into Goren's Mommy Issues and Personal Moriarty. 

I'm not opposed to some personal homelife issues, but I've found that most shows don't know how to do it without being tedious and extra. 

[partofme]

Most of what I remember about early episodes of SVU are the plot twists.

• The one where an eight year old girl had gonnoreah and it turned out her older sister and the sister’s boyfriend had raped her and filmed it
• The one where a husband hired a guy obsessed with his mistress to rape and murder his wife, but the guy after raping the wife in front of the husband decided to let her live and kill the husband instead 
• the one where John Ritter’s character found out his pregnant wife was cheating on him and thought if he cut the other guy’s baby out of his wife he could save his marriage only for his wife to bleed out and find out the baby was his

[Columbo]

I haven't watched SVU in years, and my memory may be a bit hazy. But my main memory of that show was that every episode the suspect was either gunned down in the court room by a grieving family member or friend of the victim. Or the suspect was beaten to a pulp by Stabler.

[Blergh]

So with all the above storylines mentioned, my other UO L&O:SVU is that it sounds too violent and depressing to bother with!

Edited April 14, 2022 by Blergh

[bluegirl147]

3 hours ago, Blergh said:

So with all the above storylines mentioned, my other UO L&O:SVU is that it sounds too violent and depressing to bother with!

Trust me. That is not an unpopular opinion.

[Cloud9Shopper]

SVU has really gotten boring for me, and I do like Olivia and ship her and Elliot. I just haven’t been as interested since they shrunk the main cast and Carisi became the ADA. It was higher quality when characters like Huang, Warner and Cragen were regulars. I even wish Dodds Sr. or Declan (Rollins’ first baby’s father) had stuck around to be main cast. But I love Peter Gallagher from Zoey’s Extraordinary Playlist and Center Stage, and I know he’s been in a host of other things that would’ve made him a solid actor in the regular lineup. 

My real unpopular opinion is that I’m not a fan of L&O: Organized Crime. I just turn off NBC when it comes on unless Liv is crossing over.  

[Columbo]

There's no such thing as a golden age of television. There are good and bad shows in any year. People like to put on nostalgia glasses when it comes to their favourite shows.

 

Also, for truly unpopular opinions. I'd rather watch a procedural than something like The Wire. And I don't mind audience laughter in a sitcom.

[Annber03]

31 minutes ago, Columbo said:

And I don't mind audience laughter in a sitcom.

I don't, either. I've never seen it as a "telling people when to laugh" sort of thing. Perhaps with a laugh track, yeah, that argument can be made, but with a live audience, I see it as no different than being at a play or theater and sharing in the laughter with the audience. And I've said before that far too many people confuse laugh tracks with live audiences. The two things are not one and the same, there is a distinct difference. 

Plus, with some classic sitcoms, sometimes the live audience's reaction to certain memorable moments adds to what makes them memorable. Sometimes it's the gasp from the crowd when someone confesses their feelings, or a long, continuous laughter at an especially hilarious moment, or a cheer from the crowd when a character achieves or gets something they really wanted. 

Can live audiences go over the top with their reactions and applauding and whistling every single time someone comes on stage and whatnot? Sure. And that can definitely get annoying. But there are also moments where a live audience's reaction to what's going on just adds to the special or significant nature of what's happening on screen, too, and that to me just adds to the fun of watching. 

[Kel Varnsen]

3 hours ago, Cloud9Shopper said:

My real unpopular opinion is that I’m not a fan of L&O: Organized Crime. I just turn off NBC when it comes on unless Liv is crossing over

Law and Order organized crime pretty much killed my interest in Law and Order as a whole. I tried to watch the first season and got half way through before realizing it was boring and stopped. Then this season my wife and I would rewatch SVU which we had watched for years but there were so many cross overs and links to Organized crime that we eventually just stopped watching that too.

39 minutes ago, Columbo said:

There's no such thing as a golden age of television. There are good and bad shows in any year. People like to put on nostalgia glasses when it comes to their favourite shows.

I generally just hate the phrase Golden Age of TV. Since it seems like for the current version people have been using it since at least since the Sopranos came out. But that was 1999, and TV shows as a regular thing have only been around since the mid 1940's. So how can something be a Golden Age when it is about 30% of the entire time TV shows have been around.

[Columbo]

42 minutes ago, Annber03 said:

I don't, either. I've never seen it as a "telling people when to laugh" sort of thing. Perhaps with a laugh track, yeah, that argument can be made, but with a live audience, I see it as no different than being at a play or theater and sharing in the laughter with the audience. And I've said before that far too many people confuse laugh tracks with live audiences. The two things are not one and the same, there is a distinct difference. 

Plus, with some classic sitcoms, sometimes the live audience's reaction to certain memorable moments adds to what makes them memorable. Sometimes it's the gasp from the crowd when someone confesses their feelings, or a long, continuous laughter at an especially hilarious moment, or a cheer from the crowd when a character achieves or gets something they really wanted. 

Can live audiences go over the top with their reactions and applauding and whistling every single time someone comes on stage and whatnot? Sure. And that can definitely get annoying. But there are also moments where a live audience's reaction to what's going on just adds to the special or significant nature of what's happening on screen, too, and that to me just adds to the fun of watching. 

Have you seen those YouTube videos where the audience laughter is taken out of sitcoms like Friends or The Big Bang Theory to prove some weird point that those shows aren't as obviously as funny as enlightened shows like the office or arrested development (even though I laughed just as much at friends as I did at The Office)?

There's been a kind of weird elitism when it comes to studio audience sitcom. As though it's shameful to laugh because other people are laughing or whatever. To me whether you do your sitcom in front of an audience or in a documentary format it doesn't matter. What matters is making sure the story and the characters work. Because if they don't work the audience won't laugh or enjoy your sitcom.

[Annber03]

1 minute ago, Columbo said:

Have you seen those YouTube videos where the audience laughter is taken out of sitcoms like Friends or The Big Bang Theory to prove some weird point that those shows aren't as obviously as funny as enlightened shows like the office or arrested development (even though I laughed just as much at friends as I did at The Office)?

I've heard of them, yeah! Haven't seen them, though, for the very reason you note. "Frasier" had an audience and it's just as funny to me as sitcoms like "The Office" or "Community" are. People who turn up their noses at shows with a live audience are ruling out a lot of classic sitcoms that featured them, and which seemed to do just fine for themselves with a live audience. 

I agree with you that the audience, or lack thereof, is not what makes or breaks a comedy. Both types of sitcoms have their merits and their place in the comedy world. One is not automatically better than the other. 

[Bastet]

I used to work (way behind the scenes) in the entertainment industry, so out-of-town guests frequently asked I use my connections to get them into tapings at the last minute, and sometimes I went along, so I've experienced more sitcom tapings than the average viewer.  Yes, people laugh more often and louder than they would at home, and it's obviously less genuine with each take, but it's not fabricated or forced to begin with, just exaggerated.

As much as I hoot and holler at my TV when watching football - and that's a lot, as my cat will attest - I go on even more when I'm attending a game; it's a natural reaction to seeing something in person.  At a show taping, there does clearly seem to be a sense of obligation that also influences the degree of reaction, but that doesn't mean there's nothing organic about it.

Now, that they have to turn that mix of reactions to different takes into a laugh track can make for an awkward result, yes, but that's a post-production issue unevenly handled, not a reason to declare the entire concept inferior.

Edited April 17, 2022 by Bastet

[Irlandesa]

1 hour ago, Columbo said:

Have you seen those YouTube videos where the audience laughter is taken out of sitcoms like Friends or The Big Bang Theory to prove some weird point that those shows aren't as obviously as funny as enlightened shows like the office or arrested development (even though I laughed just as much at friends as I did at The Office)?

I haven't seen those but that's kind of ridiculous.  The rhythm of "taped before a live studio audience" shows have the "hold for applause" built into them that turn into just awkward silence without it there.  Of course it's going to be less funny. 

I enjoy single camera sitcoms but they don't make me laugh out loud as much as "live before a studio audience" shows do.  Laughter is contagious.

[Hiyo]

Unpopular opinion: I never liked The Office. Both versions.

[Columbo]

The Office, especially the American version, really stretched credibility in terms of how they used the documentary format. Especially later in the season.

[Irlandesa]

48 minutes ago, Columbo said:

The Office, especially the American version, really stretched credibility in terms of how they used the documentary format. Especially later in the season.

Yeah.  I didn't want to get into this since we were talking laugh track but I think the "mockumentary" is an overused trick and is the single camera way of bonding with the audience at home that a laugh track usually provides in "live" situations.  It's where the talking head can look at the camera and roll their eyes so you can see what they're "really" feeling or to say the opposite of what they said in action with other characters.  The Office, Modern Family and even the celebrated Abbott Elementary all use it. I'm so over it.

Edited April 17, 2022 by Irlandesa

[Anduin]

7 hours ago, Columbo said:

There's no such thing as a golden age of television. There are good and bad shows in any year. People like to put on nostalgia glasses when it comes to their favourite shows.

I said much the same in another thread the other day. There's good and bad in every era. But as time goes on, we remember the good and forget the bad.

On the other hand, maybe in some years there's more good. I dunno.

[SVNBob]

37 minutes ago, Anduin said:

There's good and bad in every era. But as time goes on, we remember the good and forget the bad.

Well, you know what they say:

You take the good; you take the bad.  You take them both, and there you have....

[Avabelle]

I don’t like Abbott Elementary - it’s just too earnest and full of lessons. Brooklyn nine nine did this too and while I get why shows like to teach the audience a lesson I don’t like it. I’m not watching tv for that reason. 

[Hiyo]

I don't know, I feel like some lessons should be taught. And some need to be.

[Kel Varnsen]

4 hours ago, Anduin said:

I said much the same in another thread the other day. There's good and bad in every era. But as time goes on, we remember the good and forget the bad.

On the other hand, maybe in some years there's more good. I dunno.

I would bet that if you could give every show some kind of rating based on how good it was, the yearly average would probably stay the same year over year. I mean sure in say the 70's you didn't have shows at the level of something like Breaking Bad or 30 Rock. But at the same time they also didn't have the kind of crap that TLC or MTV currently producing. So it all kind of evens out. 

[Columbo]

54 minutes ago, Kel Varnsen said:

I would bet that if you could give every show some kind of rating based on how good it was, the yearly average would probably stay the same year over year. I mean sure in say the 70's you didn't have shows at the level of something like Breaking Bad or 30 Rock. But at the same time they also didn't have the kind of crap that TLC or MTV currently producing. So it all kind of evens out. 

The 70s seemed a pretty good decade for sitcoms like M*A*S*H and The Mary Tyler Moore Show plus other shows.

 

In fact, The Mary Tyler Moore Show is probably one of the most significant shows of all time imo. Ushered in a more character focused comedy compared to the gag filled writing of 60s sitcoms.

[DrSpaceman73]

5 minutes ago, Columbo said:

The 70s seemed a pretty good decade for sitcoms like M*A*S*H and The Mary Tyler Moore Show plus other shows.

 

In fact, The Mary Tyler Moore Show is probably one of the most significant shows of all time imo. Ushered in a more character focused comedy compared to the gag filled writing of 60s sitcoms.

Mart Tyler Moore as a person and in the industry qas one of the most important people in tv history. Her production company mtm also transformed tv in the 80s in addition to her show

[sistermagpie]

12 hours ago, Columbo said:

Have you seen those YouTube videos where the audience laughter is taken out of sitcoms like Friends or The Big Bang Theory to prove some weird point that those shows aren't as obviously as funny as enlightened shows like the office or arrested development (even though I laughed just as much at friends as I did at The Office)?

 

That's so silly, especially since by taking the audience out you're basically removing a character in the moment. So yeah, the actors are going to look silly standing there as if they're waiting for a laugh when in fact they're waiting for the laugh to stop. Doing something in front of an audience is a different experience. 

Quote

In fact, The Mary Tyler Moore Show is probably one of the most significant shows of all time imo. Ushered in a more character focused comedy compared to the gag filled writing of 60s sitcoms.

And holds up really really well!

Edited April 17, 2022 by sistermagpie

[DrSpaceman73]

It's always sunny did an episide where they were taking video of their moms and creating a sitcom out of it by adding a laught track.  It's called old lady house. It's actually well done and pretty thought provoking on how a laugh track changes the tone. 

[Columbo]

Daniel Day Lewis is not a great an actor as everyone thinks he is and I think he knows it. He's great at playing people from a certain time period because he'll spend ages obsessively researching everything about that era until you're convinced when you see him on screen that he actually built a time machine and traveled back to that era. But that's all he seems to play. I'm much more impressed with actors who are a bit more versatile. Who can do both comedy and drama. Who takes a chance on an iffy script and elevates it with their acting skills. Who don't need to be their character to play their character because they are confident enough in their abilities to pull it off and they have faith that the audience will believe in the movie or TV show.

[Zella]

I really like Daniel Day-Lewis and give him credit for not appearing to use method acting to be an excuse to be an asshole to people (ala Jared Leto). But after reading some stuff about him, I think that he has some really severe emotional issues and is just sort of a fragile person in general, and I've often wondered if the way he obsessively disappears into characters is more some sort of defense against dealing with his own issues than just any great devotion to the craft or realism. 

[bluegirl147]

10 hours ago, Columbo said:

Daniel Day Lewis is not a great an actor as everyone thinks he is and I think he knows it. He's great at playing people from a certain time period because he'll spend ages obsessively researching everything about that era until you're convinced when you see him on screen that he actually built a time machine and traveled back to that era. But that's all he seems to play. I'm much more impressed with actors who are a bit more versatile. Who can do both comedy and drama. Who takes a chance on an iffy script and elevates it with their acting skills. Who don't need to be their character to play their character because they are confident enough in their abilities to pull it off and they have faith that the audience will believe in the movie or TV show.

I remember when Rainman came out and all the praise was being heaped on Dustin Hoffman for how well he played his role. I can't remember which reviewer it was (could have been Ebert) who said Tom Cruise was being overlooked because he was just playing a regular guy.  And I think that is true.  I've heard lots of actors say it's  harder to play someone who is just a normal person and not a crazy/fantasy/over the top character.  For decades people have debated who the better actor is Al Pacino or Robert DeNiro.  I choose DeNiro because he does dramatic roles as well a comedic roles.   Pacino is a great actor but I always think that is Pacino playing whoever he is playing.  

[Hiyo]

Here is a good old story:

Quote

Dustin Hoffman has long been known as one of method acting’s most earnest exponents. A showbiz story involves his collaboration with Laurence Olivier on the 1976 film Marathon Man. Upon being asked by his co-star how a previous scene had gone, one in which Hoffmann’s character had supposedly stayed up for three days, Hoffmann admitted that he too had not slept for 72 hours to achieve emotional verisimilitude. “My dear boy,” replied Olivier smoothly, “why don’t you just try acting?” (Hoffman subsequently attributed his insomnia to excessive partying rather than artistry).

 

[Hiyo]

Quote

Daniel Day Lewis is not a great an actor as everyone thinks he is and I think he knows it. He's great at playing people from a certain time period because he'll spend ages obsessively researching everything about that era until you're convinced when you see him on screen that he actually built a time machine and traveled back to that era. But that's all he seems to play.

He has done some rather great contemporary roles, like In the Name of the Father.

[Shannon L.]

25 minutes ago, bluegirl147 said:

I remember when Rainman came out and all the praise was being heaped on Dustin Hoffman for how well he played his role. I can't remember which reviewer it was (could have been Ebert) who said Tom Cruise was being overlooked because he was just playing a regular guy. 

I'm not sure if I would feel the same way now if I watched Rainman and Mississippi Burning again, but at the time, I was even more impressed with Gene Hackman and was hoping he'd win the Oscar over Dustin Hoffman for this exact reason. 

[Columbo]

23 minutes ago, bluegirl147 said:

I remember when Rainman came out and all the praise was being heaped on Dustin Hoffman for how well he played his role. I can't remember which reviewer it was (could have been Ebert) who said Tom Cruise was being overlooked because he was just playing a regular guy.  And I think that is true.  I've heard lots of actors say it's  harder to play someone who is just a normal person and not a crazy/fantasy/over the top character.  For decades people have debated who the better actor is Al Pacino or Robert DeNiro.  I choose DeNiro because he does dramatic roles as well a comedic roles.   Pacino is a great actor but I always think that is Pacino playing whoever he is playing.  

Tom Cruise did some interesting acting work, especially before the year 2000.  I don't know if it was the couch jumping incident and the focus on his Scientology stuff or the fact that some of his more serious movies didn't gel with the critics but most of his movies have been safe blockbuster type films.

[bluegirl147]

11 minutes ago, Columbo said:

Tom Cruise did some interesting acting work, especially before the year 2000.  I don't know if it was the couch jumping incident and the focus on his Scientology stuff or the fact that some of his more serious movies didn't gel with the critics but most of his movies have been safe blockbuster type films.

I do agree before the couch jumping incident he was very good in some roles.  Born on the Fourth of July.  Jerry Maguire.  And one of my favorites, Collateral.    The only two movies since the couch that I have watched is the forgettable Knight and Day and Tropic Thunder in which if you didn't know it was him  you wouldn't know it was him. I have no interest in the blockbusters.

24 minutes ago, Shannon L. said:

I'm not sure if I would feel the same way now if I watched Rainman and Mississippi Burning again, but at the time, I was even more impressed with Gene Hackman and was hoping he'd win the Oscar over Dustin Hoffman for this exact reason. 

I'm always impressed when the Oscar goes to someone not playing a real person. Those roles seem to dominate award season.   And a lot of them do deserve to win but I liked when Sean Penn won for his role in Mystic River and Jeff Bridges won for Crazy Heart. 

[sistermagpie]

6 hours ago, bluegirl147 said:

I remember when Rainman came out and all the praise was being heaped on Dustin Hoffman for how well he played his role. I can't remember which reviewer it was (could have been Ebert) who said Tom Cruise was being overlooked because he was just playing a regular guy.  And I think that is true.  I've heard lots of actors say it's  harder to play someone who is just a normal person and not a crazy/fantasy/over the top character.  For decades people have debated who the better actor is Al Pacino or Robert DeNiro.  I choose DeNiro because he does dramatic roles as well a comedic roles.   Pacino is a great actor but I always think that is Pacino playing whoever he is playing.  

That performance of Gene Hackman's was always a huge favorite of mine and I agree, I'd have loved if he won instead. I mean, it's not so much that people do imitations of DH in Rainman but that there's just not really much difference between the imitations and the role for much of the movie. (Unlike say, imo, Leonardo DiCaprio in Gilbert Grape.)