Party of One: Unpopular TV Opinions

[supposebly]

Well, even the most beloved TV shows are hardly life-changing. So, missing out on some is probably not the end to the world. We can't watch it all and we probably shouldn't.

She says on a TV discussion board.😉

I find Jensen Ackles pretty, even charming but with the sex appeal of a 90s Boss advertisement. Which made the Supernatural thread often very tiring to read.

My very unpopular opinion is that he doesn't have much range. He's good in his wheelhouse but until he plays an aging drag queen stranded in small town Finland successfully, I'll stick with my opinion. 

[RealHousewife]

1 hour ago, Mabinogia said:

I loved Ducky, but not enough to keep watching. I also loved Kate, so once she left I lost interest. Abby was great in small doses but I pretty much hated the rest of the characters. 

Well, you've missed out on: 

• NCIS & CSI: basically the same show but one involved the Navy. If you've ever seen any cop show ever you've seen these
• Game of Thrones: boobs and death
• Walking Dead: um, dirt and death? I've actually never seen this one. Zombies aren't my thing. Unless it is the epic 80s teen flick Night of the Comet! 

That's my impression from bits I've seen of NCIS & CSI.

I have never watched Game of Thrones, but I've heard a lot of people bring up the boobs. Is there a reason for it, or is it just to get men to watch?

I did try watching Walking Dead years ago. I have friends who just love it, but I couldn't get into it either. 

[Mabinogia]

26 minutes ago, RealHousewife said:

I have never watched Game of Thrones, but I've heard a lot of people bring up the boobs. Is there a reason for it, or is it just to get men to watch?

My impression of it is...because they can. I think that because it's HBO the producers of GoT think it's edgy to show nudity and swear a lot. I don't have a problem with nudity in television but something about it in GoT felt so tedious. Like, Oh, look they are conducting business in a brothel so that naked boobs can be seen in the background. Sure, why not. For me it was so overused that it had the same effect as if they were all wearing t-shirts, basically, yawn.

I'm sure if you asked the directors they'd give some excuse like "the only weapon women had was their body and blah blah, using their bodies to get what they want, blah blah, all empowering blah blah." but yeah, it was to give men with too much testosterone something to look at where were no battles happening. 

[Zella]

1 hour ago, Mabinogia said:

My impression of it is...because they can.

That's my impression of a lot of HBO shows, including GOT but definitely not limited to it. It's actually a running joke between me and my brother about how much pointless nudity they cram into the first season or so of a show before they finally taper it off slightly. As if in the beginning they're just like "We're HBO! We can do this just because we can!" then it suddenly dawns on them they have a story to tell and maybe they don't have as much time for nudity. 

Boardwalk Empire debuted around the same time as GOT and also featured a lot of nudity and sex, courtesy of brothels and prostitutes, and its own dose of incest, but it never was the blockbuster phenomenon that GOT was, so nobody ever talks about it in there. (And I say this as someone who actually liked GOT and really loved Boardwalk Empire.) Hell, they even featured scenes from real old-timey porn within a scene on an episode of Boardwalk Empire. 

Honestly my biggest pet peeve in those shows is the inequitable distribution of nudity by gender. The male nudity was almost never nudity that you wanted to see. Offhand I can't think of a scene on either show that featured full-frontal male nudity that didn't involve something gross or violent happening.

Edited August 27, 2022 by Zella

[DoctorAtomic]

I take the point, but I tend to think that real life is a lot more nude than everyone leads on vis a vis tv. To be fair GOT, upped it a bit much. I wouldn't use that show as a marker. I find premium channels to have a lack of nudity. I'm one of the three people that watch City on a Hill on Showtime, and there's no nudity. It's preposterous to me. 

And I'm equal opportunity. True Blood was bonkers, but, you want to be on the show, you're going to not have clothes on at some point. 

[Zella]

18 minutes ago, DoctorAtomic said:

I find premium channels to have a lack of nudity. I'm one of the three people that watch City on a Hill on Showtime, and there's no nudity. It's preposterous to me. 

I know it's not quite the same as a premium channel, but I've watched 3 AppleTV shows this year (of widely varying genres), and I'd just expected them to have edgier sexual content and nudity more in keeping with what I associate with HBO. I was kind of surprised that so far they've been somewhere between network TV and basic cable.

[Cinnabon]

6 hours ago, supposebly said:

Well, even the most beloved TV shows are hardly life-changing. So, missing out on some is probably not the end to the world. We can't watch it all and we probably shouldn't.

She says on a TV discussion board.😉

I find Jensen Ackles pretty, even charming but with the sex appeal of a 90s Boss advertisement. Which made the Supernatural thread often very tiring to read.

My very unpopular opinion is that he doesn't have much range. He's good in his wheelhouse but until he plays an aging drag queen stranded in small town Finland successfully, I'll stick with my opinion. 

I’ve never been a WB viewer, so I guess that’s why I never even knew he existed until recently. And now my reaction is simply YAWN.

Edited August 27, 2022 by Cinnabon

[ABay]

9 hours ago, Zella said:

Honestly my biggest pet peeve in those shows is the inequitable distribution of nudity by gender. The male nudity was almost never nudity that you wanted to see. Offhand I can't think of a scene on either show that featured full-frontal male nudity that didn't involve something gross or violent happening.

Or it's the least attractive male. Minx is the only show I think I've seen where there's (a lot) more male full frontal nudity than female, and the first episode is an extravaganza. So I'm sure there won't be a second season or if there is it will have more female nudity than male.

[Cinnabon]

4 hours ago, ABay said:

Or it's the least attractive male. Minx is the only show I think I've seen where there's (a lot) more male full frontal nudity than female, and the first episode is an extravaganza. So I'm sure there won't be a second season or if there is it will have more female nudity than male.

But the male gaze is more important, doncha know.

[RealHousewife]

Just now, Cinnabon said:

But the male gaze is more important, doncha know.

Yes, everything is for the male gaze. My sister gets particularly annoyed that she can't watch anything with her boyfriend without a bunch of boobs. One time we were all going to the movies and he told her guess what, this has male nudity for you! I forgot what movie it even was, but it wasn't anyone either of us wanted to see naked. 

I know this is more movie talk, but I think that's a big part of why Magic Mike was such a hit. Most skin on television and in film is to make straight men happy. 

[JustHereForFood]

One series where I didn't think that the nudity and sex scenes were gratuitous was Sense8. Every scene felt like it had a reason and considering the theme of the series, it made sense to me to see people in those moments of their everyday lives.

Another series where I see the point was Rome, since at least from my understanding of that time period, people could be very open about their sexual activities. But it eventually fell into the group of other HBO series with lots of nudity and violence.

[RealHousewife]

5 minutes ago, JustHereForFood said:

One series where I didn't think that the nudity and sex scenes were gratuitous was Sense8. Every scene felt like it had a reason and considering the theme of the series, it made sense to me to see people in those moments of their everyday lives.

Another series where I see the point was Rome, since at least from my understanding of that time period, people could be very open about their sexual activities. But it eventually fell into the group of other HBO series with lots of nudity and violence.

One show opinions vary a lot on is Euphoria. I've never watched, but some people love it, think it's no big deal since the actors are adults. But I've heard others like my sister say it's creepy having so much nudity/sex since it's about high schoolers. 

[Irlandesa]

4 hours ago, ABay said:

So I'm sure there won't be a second season or if there is it will have more female nudity than male.

It has been renewed for a second season.

I remember reading that HBO execs used to encourage show runners to up the nudity quotient on their shows.  I can think of so many times where it felt like "we can do it!" 

I don't mind nudity but I do when it feels like it happened because "we can."

[Ohiopirate02]

1 hour ago, JustHereForFood said:

One series where I didn't think that the nudity and sex scenes were gratuitous was Sense8. Every scene felt like it had a reason and considering the theme of the series, it made sense to me to see people in those moments of their everyday lives.

Another series where I see the point was Rome, since at least from my understanding of that time period, people could be very open about their sexual activities. But it eventually fell into the group of other HBO series with lots of nudity and violence.

From what I remember about Rome, the vast majority of the sex scenes either advanced the plot or provided character development.  They also provided some great lines for Polly Walker.  

[festivus]

1 hour ago, Irlandesa said:

I don't mind nudity but I do when it feels like it happened because "we can."

Exactly. I remember getting taken to task for saying there were too many boobs in Altered Carbon. 

There were too many boobs in Altered Carbon. It wasn't needed and was distracting. Also the main guy in the first season was terrible. Bland and wooden. Never even watched the 2nd although I like Anthony Mackie. 

[ABay]

Thanks, @Irlandesa. I'm surprised and apprehensive.

[Irlandesa]

23 minutes ago, Ohiopirate02 said:

From what I remember about Rome, the vast majority of the sex scenes either advanced the plot or provided character development.  They also provided some great lines for Polly Walker.  

That was similar for Looking.  Every single sex scene that I recall revealed something about a character or the couple. Although, it doesn't really fit in with this discussion since it was a show about gay men and most (all?) of the nudity was male.

[DoctorAtomic]

39 minutes ago, Ohiopirate02 said:

They also provided some great lines for Polly Walker.  

Nude Polly Walker is always welcome. Criminally underrated actor. Slightly off topic, but if you watched Rome, her facial expression with the massively hung naked guy was classic. 

14 hours ago, Zella said:

I know it's not quite the same as a premium channel, but I've watched 3 AppleTV shows this year (of widely varying genres), and I'd just expected them to have edgier sexual content and nudity more in keeping with what I associate with HBO. I was kind of surprised that so far they've been somewhere between network TV and basic cable.

Original Hulu content seems to be the same. 

Sense8 was excellent in terms of nudity-->plot, and Minx, you kind of have to have it. 

Fundamentally, I think the PG-13 rating really killed adult content, not just nudity. I want to see more shows like Sense8. That wasn't for kids. 

[Bastet]

2 hours ago, Irlandesa said:

I don't mind nudity but I do when it feels like it happened because "we can."

I love that in filming the three-part finale of Battlestar Galactica, they knew there was going to be a video release of the whole thing together, yet in filming at a strip club, didn't do a separate version with nudity for that video release.  When the execs asked, um, why no tits?! the executive producer and director both explained they didn't feel like using up shooting time for no good reason.

[Shannon L.]

The Boys has a lot of frontal male nudity, too.

I could have sworn that I heard somewhere that men weren't shown nude for a long time because the censors wouldn't allow genitalia to be shown on screen.  But, now I can't find anything on it, so maybe I'm misremembering.

[supposebly]

3 hours ago, JustHereForFood said:

Another series where I see the point was Rome, since at least from my understanding of that time period, people could be very open about their sexual activities.

I still remember Marc Antony's exfoliating routine very fondly.

[Cinnabon]

Just saw this:

https://apple.news/Aw_mt6gkYSWSp7AJhlApjQQ

Michael K. Williams pushed for more intimate gay scenes for Omar on The Wire: 'We should go all in'

[ABay]

2 hours ago, supposebly said:

I still remember Marc Antony's exfoliating routine very fondly.

Bless James Purefoy.

[Ceindreadh]

On 8/27/2022 at 8:44 PM, Shannon L. said:

The Boys has a lot of frontal male nudity, too.

I could have sworn that I heard somewhere that men weren't shown nude for a long time because the censors wouldn't allow genitalia to be shown on screen.  But, now I can't find anything on it, so maybe I'm misremembering.

There was allegedly a 'Mull of Kintyre' rule used by the British Board of Film Classification which wouldn't allow any penis on screen that had a greater angle from the vertical than the Mull of Kintyre on maps of Scotland.

This may or may not be true, but you'll never hear the song again without thinking about it.  (you're welcome!)

[Dancingjaneway]

I HATE when there are kids in a sci-fi show. Most of the time all they do is whine, scream, cry & act like brats. If they aren't all of the above then they are the "savior" or "special one". It drives me NUTS. It's a big reason why Invasion sucked so hard. Just once I want an alien/sci-fi show where the kids are just in the background & there is no "savior". 

[Zella]

6 hours ago, Dancingjaneway said:

Just once I want an alien/sci-fi show where the kids are just in the background

I'm not an avid sci fi person, but I did recently watch For All Mankind, and this was one of my major complaints about the direction of the show in recent seasons. It seems to think of itself as a family saga just as much as it is science fiction/alternative history, but holy hell, I do not care about any of the main characters' children or what they are up to, but the show seems to really think I should.

I actually do enjoy the core group of adult characters introduced in the first season, but the 2nd generation characters are not only much less interesting as characters, but also the writing for them is so soapy. I don't mind continuing to watch the show, but I will probably peace out when they finally either fully kill off or sideline their original cast. 

[Danny Franks]

On 8/27/2022 at 5:28 PM, JustHereForFood said:

One series where I didn't think that the nudity and sex scenes were gratuitous was Sense8. Every scene felt like it had a reason and considering the theme of the series, it made sense to me to see people in those moments of their everyday lives.

I'll be forever thankful to Sense8 for helping me realise that it's not weird to either be, or be attracted to, a trans person.

When I was younger I lazily bought into the 'trans people are weird and make me uncomfortable' line of thinking. I'd never knowingly met a trans person, or even seen one in any context other than situations like in Trainspotting, where Begbie is hooking up with a woman, only to realise they have a penis. Essentially, they were the punchline to an insecure joke.

But after just a couple of episodes of Sense8 I came to terms with the fact I found Jamie Clayton attractive and it was fine. She's a hot woman (although if I still think she's hot when she plays Pinhead in the Hellraiser remake, I'll be concerned).

It should be required viewing for anti-LGBTQ people because it forces you to see them as people, to empathise and really care. No one who watched that show could fail to love Nomi/Amanita and Lito/Hernando as relationships and as characters.

Edited August 29, 2022 by Danny Franks

[proserpina65]

On 8/24/2022 at 2:38 PM, Zella said:

Though I've watched enough Danish TV and movies to conclude that even otherwise average-looking people in Denmark all seem to have exquisite cheekbones and a vague air of sophisticated menace.

Apparently Danes are just naturally incredibly good looking.  (Making mental note to move to Denmark.)

On 8/24/2022 at 8:11 PM, JustHereForFood said:

I can't for the life of me figure out the appeal of Bradley Cooper, Ryan Gosling, Jensen Ackles or Idris Elba.

Blasphemer!  lol.

On 8/25/2022 at 1:52 AM, Zella said:

Patrick Stewart is living proof that there's nothing wrong with going bald. Though one of my favorite things about British TV from the 70s is how many times a young Patrick Stewart with (fake) hair pops up as the villain. 

Sejanus!

On 8/25/2022 at 9:36 AM, bluegirl147 said:

I've never been one to go for really buff men. With that being said I will be watching Magic Mike 3 when it comes out. 

Channing Tatum does absolutely nothing for me.  None of the men in the Magic Mike movies do.

On 8/25/2022 at 2:30 PM, JustHereForFood said:

OK, also Hugh Jackman, but who doesn't love him?

Me.  I like him as an actor and he seems like a good person, but he doesn't do it for me.  I get why other women find him attractive, though, which is more than I can say for some alleged heartthrobs.

[proserpina65]

10 hours ago, Dancingjaneway said:

I HATE when there are kids in a sci-fi show. Most of the time all they do is whine, scream, cry & act like brats. If they aren't all of the above then they are the "savior" or "special one". It drives me NUTS. It's a big reason why Invasion sucked so hard. Just once I want an alien/sci-fi show where the kids are just in the background & there is no "savior". 

I do make an exception for the kids on Resident Alien because their interactions with Harry are damned funny.

[DoctorAtomic]

1 hour ago, Danny Franks said:

I'll be forever thankful to Sense8 for helping me realise that it's not weird to either be, or be attracted to, a trans person.

"That's the first time he's called me 'my daughter'."

[SVNBob]

20 hours ago, Dancingjaneway said:

Just once I want an alien/sci-fi show where the kids are just in the background & there is no "savior". 

Most of Star Trek: TNG would seem to apply here...with the major exception of Wesley Crusher, of course. 

But the Enterprise-D was designed as a ship with families aboard, so there's children in some crowd shots, mentions of or scenes at the school facilities, etc.  And there's Picard's early difficulty in dealing with children, which mellows by the end.

There are a handful of episodes that do feature children (other than Wesley) in a prominent role based on the story of the episode.  And when this happens, they're typically normal kids.  They may be dealing with unusual issues, but the adults around take care to still treat them as children while attempting to resolve the problems.  Very few "savior" stories.

[Browncoat]

12 hours ago, SVNBob said:

Most of Star Trek: TNG would seem to apply here...with the major exception of Wesley Crusher, of course. 

But the Enterprise-D was designed as a ship with families aboard, so there's children in some crowd shots, mentions of or scenes at the school facilities, etc.  And there's Picard's early difficulty in dealing with children, which mellows by the end.

There are a handful of episodes that do feature children (other than Wesley) in a prominent role based on the story of the episode.  And when this happens, they're typically normal kids.  They may be dealing with unusual issues, but the adults around take care to still treat them as children while attempting to resolve the problems.  Very few "savior" stories.

Only "Rascals", but that doesn't really count, because the "children" were Picard, Guinan, Ro, and Keiko in child form.  And the kids did a great job acting like their adult counterparts.

[proserpina65]

1 minute ago, Browncoat said:

Only "Rascals", but that doesn't really count, because the "children" were Picard, Guinan, Ro, and Keiko in child form.  And the kids did a great job acting like their adult counterparts.

I love that episode so much that I can't bring myself to delete it from my dvr.

[Bort]

3 hours ago, Browncoat said:

Only "Rascals", but that doesn't really count, because the "children" were Picard, Guinan, Ro, and Keiko in child form.  And the kids did a great job acting like their adult counterparts.

There’s the episode where Picard gets stuck in the turbo lift with the science fair winners. 

[SVNBob]

16 hours ago, Browncoat said:

Only "Rascals", but that doesn't really count, because the "children" were Picard, Guinan, Ro, and Keiko in child form.  And the kids did a great job acting like their adult counterparts.

There's a lot more TNG episodes featuring children than just that one.  I mean, Alexander, Worf's son is in that one, and he'd been in several episodes before that.  Molly, Keiko's daughter, was also in that one, and she was born in 10 Forward in a different episode.

But agreed that the child actors they hired were very believable in their portrayals of established characters.

13 hours ago, kariyaki said:

There’s the episode where Picard gets stuck in the turbo lift with the science fair winners. 

That's another good one, with Picard and the children just one of four or five different plots in the episode; the birth of Molly O'Brien I mentioned above another.   And there are several more episodes with children.

There's a first season episode where about half a dozen Enterprise children, including Wesley, are kidnapped and held on a planet.   That one kind of has Wesley in a "savior" position in two different ways, as the people on the planet are treating all the children as saviors due to plot, and Wes is the oldest of the kidnapped children, so he's their de facto leader.  (Also of note, two of Wil Wheaton's siblings play other kidnapped children in this episode.)

"The Bonding", where a boy's mother dies on an away mission at the start of an episode, making him into an orphan, but not alone.

And there's still several others.  And for the most part, the kids are portrayed as normal, average children...maybe somewhat smarter than those of present-day, but that's due to them living in a more advanced society where there's lots more to learn and know.

[Lugal]

On 8/29/2022 at 1:41 AM, Dancingjaneway said:

I HATE when there are kids in a sci-fi show. Most of the time all they do is whine, scream, cry & act like brats. If they aren't all of the above then they are the "savior" or "special one". It drives me NUTS. It's a big reason why Invasion sucked so hard. Just once I want an alien/sci-fi show where the kids are just in the background & there is no "savior".

I think it goes back to the beginnings of TV scifi since it was regarded as a "kid's genre" (which even if that were true, several generations of those kids have grown up) so they had to have a self insert character for the kids watching to identify with.  The problem however, was most kids didn't identify with the kid character.  Did any kid watching TNG identify with Wesley?  With my friends and me, playing TNG at recess, we usually wanted to be Data or Riker.

[Mabinogia]

6 hours ago, Lugal said:

With my friends and me, playing TNG at recess, we usually wanted to be Data or Riker.

I was always Beverly Crusher. 1) because I had a crush on Pickard and 2) I'm a sucker for a redhead. Q would be my second choice (I've adored John De Lancie from my misspent youth watching soaps) and Data would be a very, very close 3rd. 

Despite being almost exactly Will Wheaton's age, I was not a fan of Wesley. I didn't hate him the way a lot of fans did, he was just there for me. 

I never cared if a show had a character I could "identify" with. I actually prefer characters that are nothing like me; or are the me I wish I was. 

[Zella]

28 minutes ago, Mabinogia said:

I never cared if a show had a character I could "identify" with. I actually prefer characters that are nothing like me; or are the me I wish I was. 

Same. Most of my favorite characters are nothing like me, and honestly, I wouldn't want to be around most of them. LOL What works for me as a character is very different from qualities I actually like in people I have to deal with on the regular. 

[Mabinogia]

1 hour ago, Zella said:

What works for me as a character is very different from qualities I actually like in people I have to deal with on the regular. 

That is so true. I would not want to know most of my favorite characters in the real world. I rarely pick a favorite character based on how good a person they are. Most of my favorites are not the heroes of their particular show, but are the funniest or the most sarcastic, or wittiest, or the ones with the best personal style, or prettiest (yeah, I'm shallow, I know it, I've learned to embrace it). 

I think because I surround myself with friends who are the people who are good and nice and fun and kind I don't gravitate towards that in fiction, because I don't need it, I have the real thing. So I gravitate, in fiction, towards character I wouldn't expose myself to in life because it's safer to know them in fiction where, if they get too much, I can just turn them off and walk away. 

I find that I do stay away from characters that are like the RL people who annoy me, which is why I've come up with that theory. 

[Zella]

31 minutes ago, Mabinogia said:

That is so true. I would not want to know most of my favorite characters in the real world. I rarely pick a favorite character based on how good a person they are. Most of my favorites are not the heroes of their particular show, but are the funniest or the most sarcastic, or wittiest, or the ones with the best personal style, or prettiest (yeah, I'm shallow, I know it, I've learned to embrace it). 

I think because I surround myself with friends who are the people who are good and nice and fun and kind I don't gravitate towards that in fiction, because I don't need it, I have the real thing. So I gravitate, in fiction, towards character I wouldn't expose myself to in life because it's safer to know them in fiction where, if they get too much, I can just turn them off and walk away. 

I find that I do stay away from characters that are like the RL people who annoy me, which is why I've come up with that theory. 

Yes my favorite characters are usually very witty and conniving, so they're almost always bad guys. And it's not even in a way that I'm whitewashing or in denial about their villainy or condoning it.

I enjoy witty people IRL, but I don't actually like being around schemers in person. But in fiction, scheme and plot all you want! It's the fastest way to my heart. LOL 

Even when I was a kid, I just really liked characters who were entertaining but morally questionable. I loved Skeletor but was super unimpressed with He-Man. 

It was really eye-opening to me a couple of years ago when my stepmother mentioned there was some character that she liked rather well for a villain, and I was like, "Wait you mean you don't usually root for the bad guy?" "No." And then we both got really quiet because I suppose the opposite viewpoint hadn't occurred to either one of us as someone's default setting. 

I think one of my other issues is I like characters who genuinely love what they do. But the good guys are almost always such sad sacks. The bad guys at least seem to enjoy their jobs! On the flip side, I don't much care for stories when they work extra hard to make the villain sympathetic and likable. 

Edited September 1, 2022 by Zella

[Raja]

2 hours ago, Mabinogia said:

Despite being almost exactly Will Wheaton's age, I was not a fan of Wesley. I didn't hate him the way a lot of fans did, he was just there for me. 

I never cared if a show had a character I could "identify" with. I actually prefer characters that are nothing like me; or are the me I wish I was. 

Any kid of the same age who was watching Wesley Crusher on a do anything you wish planet as he proceeded to play tag would rightly be disgusted with the young man.

[Mabinogia]

31 minutes ago, Zella said:

I think one of my other issues is I like characters who genuinely love what they do. But the good guys are almost always such sad sacks. The bad guys at least seem to enjoy their jobs! On the flip side, I don't much care for stories when they work extra hard to make the villain sympathetic and likable. 

OMG yes! Give me a villain who revels in their villainy and I'm in love. 

I grew up watching soaps. I think it may have affected my preferences a bit. Even when I played with my Barbie's it wasn't Barbie and Ken riding off into the sunset to live in their Malibu Beach house. It was Barbie 1 pushing Barbie 2 off the cliff to get steal Ken for herself but then cheating on him with GI Joe because, who wouldn't? 

My issue with most heroes is they are always so self-righteous.

Sadly, a recent trend has been in giving villains these backstories to explain why they are bad and try to make the audience sympathize. I don't want a sympathetic villain, I want an unapologetic badass who does whatever it takes to get shit done. Just not in real life. 

ETA: It's funny because, my avatar is Hilary Booth from one of my favorite shows of all time Remember WENN. They recently did a zoom reunion of the cast and created, Rupert Holmes. And he said, of Hilary, "I hope she's the villain people love to hate". My reaction... "What, was she supposed to be some kind of bad guy in the show? She was my favorite! I just loved to love her." I clearly have poor villaindar. lol

Edited September 1, 2022 by Mabinogia

[Zella]

15 minutes ago, Mabinogia said:

Sadly, a recent trend has been in giving villains these backstories to explain why they are bad and try to make the audience sympathize. I don't want a sympathetic villain, I want an unapologetic badass who does whatever it takes to get shit done. Just not in real life. 

YES!!!!!

With the show I'm watching now, one character warns another about trying to work with the resident villain: "he will spin you like a top." And that's a pretty solid summation of what I like in an antagonist.

[RealHousewife]

Speaking of villains . . .

I've noticed people oftentimes prefer the bad boy/bad girl with a heart than the good guy/girl who's "holier than thou." Not entirely sure what that is. Maybe when you see some good in a person others don't see, you want to root for them to be their best, and if there's a good character who's revered and still does all sorts of bad things, it's like oh please. 

My favorite characters are those who are a mix. I've dabbled in acting, and playing a super straight-laced character is BORING. But if a character is just rotten to the core, I don't love that either. I want to like you. I like a character that's kind of a mess but means well. 

[ABay]

It annoys me that the characters who are witty, sarcastic, and smart are almost always the villains. Why can't good guys be smart and funny? Maybe this is why I like Leverage--sometimes bad guys make the best good guys.

[Annber03]

7 minutes ago, ABay said:

It annoys me that the characters who are witty, sarcastic, and smart are almost always the villains. Why can't good guys be smart and funny? Maybe this is why I like Leverage--sometimes bad guys make the best good guys.

I can think of some good guy characters from my favorite shows that fit that description. That's a large part of why I like them. They're not perfect good guys, mind, they have their flaws like anyone else, but they're good people overall. 

There are villains I definitely like, in an "I love to hate them" sort of way, but I still lean towards liking characters that are generally good. Again, not perfect, nor would I want them to be perfect, but still good. 

[Hiyo]

Quote

It annoys me that the characters who are witty, sarcastic, and smart are almost always the villains.

Veronica Mars is a nice exception to that rule.

[Ambrosefolly]

11 hours ago, RealHousewife said:

Speaking of villains . . .

I've noticed people oftentimes prefer the bad boy/bad girl with a heart than the good guy/girl who's "holier than thou." Not entirely sure what that is. Maybe when you see some good in a person others don't see, you want to root for them to be their best, and if there's a good character who's revered and still does all sorts of bad things, it's like oh please. 

My favorite characters are those who are a mix. I've dabbled in acting, and playing a super straight-laced character is BORING. But if a character is just rotten to the core, I don't love that either. I want to like you. I like a character that's kind of a mess but means well. 

And this is my problem with actors. While I believe that actors wouldn't like some of the rotten to the core characters in real life, for them there is something cathartic about a character that gets to indulge in all of their baser instincts. So if they had their choose, they would go for the villain.

That is why I appreciate someone like Amy Adams, because as quotes this is how sees those types of characters:

"I think that I've always been attracted to characters who are positive and come from a very innocent place. I think there's a lot of room for discovery in these characters and that's something I always have fun playing."

So on paper they super straight laced, but she adds depth the characters. Which is why she has been able to expand the types of characters she plays. 

[sistermagpie]

6 hours ago, ABay said:

It annoys me that the characters who are witty, sarcastic, and smart are almost always the villains. Why can't good guys be smart and funny? Maybe this is why I like Leverage--sometimes bad guys make the best good guys.

One thing I sometimes get very tired of is where you have someone--often a lead (usually a white guy) who's rude and insulting to everyone--but you know that just means everyone loves him because underneath he cares. That's not how real life works if you're not conditioned to like abusive relationships.

[RealHousewife]

9 hours ago, ABay said:

It annoys me that the characters who are witty, sarcastic, and smart are almost always the villains. Why can't good guys be smart and funny? Maybe this is why I like Leverage--sometimes bad guys make the best good guys.

I think this is one reason I really liked Seth Cohen on The OC. He was considered a dork, but he was actually a super cute, charming, and funny character. (I do think his looks were downplayed though.) But his character was fun. 

6 hours ago, Ambrosefolly said:

And this is my problem with actors. While I believe that actors wouldn't like some of the rotten to the core characters in real life, for them there is something cathartic about a character that gets to indulge in all of their baser instincts. So if they had their choose, they would go for the villain.

That is why I appreciate someone like Amy Adams, because as quotes this is how sees those types of characters:

"I think that I've always been attracted to characters who are positive and come from a very innocent place. I think there's a lot of room for discovery in these characters and that's something I always have fun playing."

So on paper they super straight laced, but she adds depth the characters. Which is why she has been able to expand the types of characters she plays. 

Correct, the actors I know all enjoy being bad more. I mean if you're generally a decent person who tries to be nice, at least the villain you get to practice your craft more.

An actor can definitely do a lot with a straight-laced character, but I agree with ABAY that sadly oftentimes villains are written to be the witty, funny ones. It's why both actors and the audience are often drawn to them over the good guy. When it comes to a good girl character, I like for them to at least be a little troubled. To each his own though.