Party of One: Unpopular TV Opinions

[Zella]

5 hours ago, sistermagpie said:

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.

Honestly this is what I couldn't stand about House. I refuse to believe nobody tried to toss that bastard off a cliff at least once. LOLOL I didn't find his shtick endearing. I just thought he was an unpleasant asshole and never could get into the show. 

[sistermagpie]

1 hour ago, Zella said:

Honestly this is what I couldn't stand about House. I refuse to believe nobody tried to toss that bastard off a cliff at least once. LOLOL I didn't find his shtick endearing. I just thought he was an unpleasant asshole and never could get into the show. 

I wasn't only thinking of House? But I was totally thinking of House.

[Haleth]

On 8/29/2022 at 4:41 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". 

Either the savior or they get into trouble because they refuse to obey a parent that has pissed them off for some reason.  Chaos ensues.

I'm looking at you, LotR:TRoP.

[DoctorAtomic]

I think it's probably harder for an actor to play a good character compellingly without coming off self-righteous. Dramatically, you still need the good character to fail sometimes, but the character persisting can draw people in. 

[Zella]

15 minutes ago, DoctorAtomic said:

I think it's probably harder for an actor to play a good character compellingly without coming off self-righteous. Dramatically, you still need the good character to fail sometimes, but the character persisting can draw people in. 

Yeah what turns me off with a lot of "good" characters is they're usually some combo of self-righteous, miserable sad sack, or incompetent. Or they just seem to have no layers at all. I think my objection is I often feel like the show is trying to manipulate me into seeing this person as worthy of something that I just don't see, and that sets off my inner contrarian. I don't hate all of the good guys, but I feel like they are rarely particularly well written or interesting. 

Edit: I am thinking particularly of shows like The Walking Dead, which seemed very invested in Rick as somehow the one who should be leading the group. I'm sorry, but Rick was a complete moron who had no business leading anything. I couldn't root for him. 

Edited September 2, 2022 by Zella

[GHScorpiosRule]

1 hour ago, DoctorAtomic said:

I think it's probably harder for an actor to play a good character compellingly without coming off self-righteous. Dramatically, you still need the good character to fail sometimes, but the character persisting can draw people in. 

Raymond Burr’s PERRY MASON!

Jack Lord’s Steve McGarrett!

Compelling good guys who didn’t come off self-righteous or holier than thou. Characters I rooted for and still do!

Yeah, yeah, these characters are from over 40-50 years ago. Okay, more recent than them? Bobby Ewing! Flawed, but honest and not preachy.

Whaaat?

[DoctorAtomic]

There's also compelling drama with a genuine good character, but the system itself is corrupt. Chris on City on a Hill kind of fits in that mold. 

[sistermagpie]

2 hours ago, DoctorAtomic said:

I think it's probably harder for an actor to play a good character compellingly without coming off self-righteous. Dramatically, you still need the good character to fail sometimes, but the character persisting can draw people in. 

2 hours ago, Zella said:

Yeah what turns me off with a lot of "good" characters is they're usually some combo of self-righteous, miserable sad sack, or incompetent. Or they just seem to have no layers at all. I think my objection is I often feel like the show is trying to manipulate me into seeing this person as worthy of something that I just don't see, and that sets off my inner contrarian. I don't hate all of the good guys, but I feel like they are rarely particularly well written or interesting. 

Edit: I am thinking particularly of shows like The Walking Dead, which seemed very invested in Rick as somehow the one who should be leading the group. I'm sorry, but Rick was a complete moron who had no business leading anything. I couldn't root for him. 

I randomly recently re-watched Dirty Dancing, a movie I was never particularly into but liked well-enough, and was really struck how that whole movie turns on the character (and casting) of Baby as a teenaged girl trying to do right.

[bluegirl147]

Even good characters have flaws.  Jack McCoy on Law & Order was what I considered a good guy but he wasn't perfect. Neither was Lennie Brisco.  On the flip side not all bad characters are horrible people.  JR Ewing and Alexis Carrington were considered villains but they sometimes did nice things and genuinely loved their kids.

[Zella]

16 minutes ago, bluegirl147 said:

Even good characters have flaws.  Jack McCoy on Law & Order was what I considered a good guy but he wasn't perfect. Neither was Lennie Brisco.  On the flip side not all bad characters are horrible people.  JR Ewing and Alexis Carrington were considered villains but they sometimes did nice things and genuinely loved their kids.

My biggest problem with a lot of characters that are "good guys" is the writers don't seem to see that the flaws are in fact flaws, which undermines any point in them being flawed. Like with The Walking Dead wherein Rick was a terrible leader, but it was almost presented that anyone who challenged Rick was the bad guy, not someone with reasonable objections. Or Law and Order SVU in which Unstabler is a violent asshole but the show actually seems to think that makes him a good cop and if you oppose him, then you are the problem.

Both characters would have been a lot better if the shows had any sense of self awareness of how the characters actually came across.

I actually do like good characters who are believably flawed, but just in my opinion, that's not something that a lot of shows do well or with any nuance. I am actually watching a Canadian show that does that pretty well now, and it is refreshing. But that's not the norm, IMO.

Edited September 2, 2022 by Zella

[DoctorAtomic]

It's a writing cheat on tv that because someone is good at their job then they're a good character. 

[bluegirl147]

29 minutes ago, Zella said:

My biggest problem with a lot of characters that are "good guys" is the writers don't seem to see that the flaws are in fact flaws, which undermines any point in them being flawed.

I don't think the writers thought Rory Gilmore was flawed.  Or Carrie Bradshaw.  Or Olivia Benson.   But I do.

Edited September 2, 2022 by bluegirl147

[Zella]

19 minutes ago, bluegirl147 said:

I don't think the writers thought Rory Gilmore was flawed.  Or Carrie Bradshaw.  Or Olivia Benson.   But I do.

I've not watched the others, but yes I think the SVU writers have a really weird perception of both Benson and Stabler that does not reflect what a lot of viewers perceive.

Edited September 2, 2022 by Zella

[Lugal]

On 8/31/2022 at 7:34 PM, 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.

Sometimes villains are just there to oppose the hero, but when the villain is a character in their own right, I personally like a little back story on them, to know where they came from and how they got to be this way, even is it does make them a little sympathetic.  Understanding where they came from is not the same as excusing their actions.  A good backstory can make them even more formidable.

[Mabinogia]

20 hours ago, Zella said:

Honestly this is what I couldn't stand about House. I refuse to believe nobody tried to toss that bastard off a cliff at least once. LOLOL I didn't find his shtick endearing. I just thought he was an unpleasant asshole and never could get into the show. 

I used to love the show House but while I did adore Hugh Laurie, I agree that Gregory House was insufferable. The worst character architype to me is the asshole hero. 

23 minutes ago, Lugal said:

Sometimes villains are just there to oppose the hero, but when the villain is a character in their own right, I personally like a little back story on them, to know where they came from and how they got to be this way, even is it does make them a little sympathetic.  Understanding where they came from is not the same as excusing their actions.  A good backstory can make them even more formidable.

I love a good villain backstory, I just don't like when it's used to try to force sympathy, I'm talking about when they just lay it on so thick it becomes laughable. I especially hate when they make it personal. This happens way too much in cop shows. Where the Big Bad has some kind of personal vendetta against our hero cop. It's the Sherlock/Moriarty dynamic that worked back then because it was novel but is now so oversued it's become boring. 

The one nice thing about House was that his Moriarty was disease. That was when the show was good. Then they brought in Volger because every Holmes needs a Moriarty I guess. 

[GHScorpiosRule]

3 hours ago, bluegirl147 said:

JR Ewing and Alexis Carrington were considered villains but they sometimes did nice things and genuinely loved their kids.

But they were villains. They were the bad guys. Just because they loved their children and sometimes did nice things, doesn't negate, that at their core, they were not nice people. Conniving, unethical, blackmailing characters. Underhanded; responsible for ruining people's lives. JR destroyed Sue Ellen; It's a miracle she survived what he did to her and put her through. JR may have loved John Ross, but he wasn't above using his son or his oil shares so he could beat Bobby and get one over up on him.

[sistermagpie]

2 hours ago, Lugal said:

Sometimes villains are just there to oppose the hero, but when the villain is a character in their own right, I personally like a little back story on them, to know where they came from and how they got to be this way, even is it does make them a little sympathetic.  Understanding where they came from is not the same as excusing their actions.  A good backstory can make them even more formidable.

The only time it bugs me is when it undermines the way the villain works. This is maybe something that tends to be a more common with horror movies, but there's times where the monster being unknowable is central to how the story works and sequels that think they're making the story deeper or more complex are just actually making it a giant mess. And that's even when they're not woobifying a brutal murderer.

[Zella]

1 minute ago, sistermagpie said:

And that's even when they're not woobifying a brutal murderer.

It's the woobification that gets me. You can explain why someone is the way they are without being emotionally manipulative about it. 

[Crs97]

In the 80’s there was a show called Wiseguy where the hero went undercover to take down the mob in the first season.  He got close to people within the organization, and another character had the best response when he tried to argue that at least they loved their family, something along the lines of “Why would I care that they love their families when they are happy to destroy everyone else’s?”

Edited September 3, 2022 by Crs97

[sistermagpie]

1 minute ago, Crs97 said:

In the 80’s there was a show called Wiseguy where the hero went over over to take down the mob in the first season.  He got close to people within the organization, and another character had the best response when he tried to argue that at least they loved their family, something along the lines of “Why would I care that they love their families when they are happy to destroy everyone else’s?”

I just watched an 80s movie where a guy meets a woman and falls in love with her, all happening within a week. He thinks she's a victim of her Nazi brother, but it turns out she's a big Nazi too (and sleeping with her brother...Nazis are weird like that). So in the end he's tearfully saying how he really loved her and he still does, giving her a gun to kill him if she wants.

And I really wanted to jump into the movie for a some clarification here. You love her....why? You met her 5 days ago and have just found out this about her...why do you still love her? To quote Jerry Seinfeld, "She's a Nazi, George." What about her do you still love? 

And it reminded me of another 80s movie with a similar thing, where there was supposed to be some conflict about how this one white supremecist leader was sometimes so sweet with kids (while also teaching them to be Nazis) and it's so weird how these movies seemed to see a conflict where literally none exists.

[DoctorAtomic]

I think "80s movie" is all the explanation you need.

[janie jones]

9 hours ago, Zella said:

My biggest problem with a lot of characters that are "good guys" is the writers don't seem to see that the flaws are in fact flaws, which undermines any point in them being flawed. Like with The Walking Dead wherein Rick was a terrible leader, but it was almost presented that anyone who challenged Rick was the bad guy, not someone with reasonable objections. Or Law and Order SVU in which Unstabler is a violent asshole but the show actually seems to think that makes him a good cop and if you oppose him, then you are the problem.

Both characters would have been a lot better if the shows had any sense of self awareness of how the characters actually came across.

I actually do like good characters who are believably flawed, but just in my opinion, that's not something that a lot of shows do well or with any nuance. I am actually watching a Canadian show that does that pretty well now, and it is refreshing. But that's not the norm, IMO.

One thing I liked about Crazy Ex-Girlfriend was how you spend the first season or two thinking that Rebecca's actions are kooky TV hijinks, and then it turns out that they were the result of her being mentally unstable, which is exactly what someone would have to be to do a lot of that stuff in real life.

[Haleth]

14 hours ago, Lugal said:

Sometimes villains are just there to oppose the hero, but when the villain is a character in their own right, I personally like a little back story on them, to know where they came from and how they got to be this way, even is it does make them a little sympathetic.  Understanding where they came from is not the same as excusing their actions.  A good backstory can make them even more formidable.

I recently started watching Better Call Saul and while I liked Mike Ehrmantraut on Breaking Bad, when I watched the epi of BCS where they delved into Mike's backstory I was flabbergasted.  No, it did not make him a good guy, but manoman, the layers to that character sure made him more interesting!  (And Jonathan Banks was superb.)

11 hours ago, Crs97 said:

In the 80’s there was a show called Wiseguy where the hero went undercover to take down the mob in the first season.

That was a great show.  And again with Jonathan Banks.  Wasn't Kevin Spacey the bad guy in that?

[AstridM]

1 hour ago, Haleth said:

I recently started watching Better Call Saul and while I liked Mike Ehrmantraut on Breaking Bad, when I watched the epi of BCS where they delved into Mike's backstory I was flabbergasted.  No, it did not make him a good guy, but manoman, the layers to that character sure made him more interesting!  (And Jonathan Banks was superb.)

That was a great show.  And again with Jonathan Banks.  Wasn't Kevin Spacey the bad guy in that?

Mike wasn’t a good guy in BB, either. He was more likable than Walt and Gus, but still a stone cold killer for a drug kingpin. 

[Bort]

16 hours ago, Lugal said:

Sometimes villains are just there to oppose the hero, but when the villain is a character in their own right, I personally like a little back story on them, to know where they came from and how they got to be this way, even is it does make them a little sympathetic.  Understanding where they came from is not the same as excusing their actions.  A good backstory can make them even more formidable.

One of my favorite tv villains is Olivia from 12 Monkeys. She was absolutely heinous but they did a great job of showing how she ended up that way from growing up brainwashed in a creepy cult. It engendered sympathy for the character but without excusing her actions. I absolutely loved Olivia but in a love-to-hate kind of way.

[Raja]

2 hours ago, Haleth said:

That was a great show.  And again with Jonathan Banks.  Wasn't Kevin Spacey the bad guy in that?

Kevin Spacey's Mel Profit was one of the main antagonist in the second story arc while we wondered were our undercover agent Vinnie Terranova could go after everything was set up for his legend in the Steelgrave mob in the first story.

And if Wiseguy could top the initial mob infiltration story. Which I don't think they got close to except when Ken Wahl got injured and we had Tony Denison sub in for him.

Edited September 3, 2022 by Raja

[Mabinogia]

15 hours ago, sistermagpie said:

The only time it bugs me is when it undermines the way the villain works. This is maybe something that tends to be a more common with horror movies, but there's times where the monster being unknowable is central to how the story works and sequels that think they're making the story deeper or more complex are just actually making it a giant mess.

I always think the unknown is far more terrifying than over explaining. Horror movies are a great example. That unseen evil presence stalking your house is chilling but once you see the "monster" it loses some of its power. 

I think it is the same with villains. They are interesting when you don't know why they are the way they are. I have a highly active imagination, so I enjoy trying to piece together their backstory. Unfortunately, that usually means that when I get their backstory I'm horribly let down by it. 

15 hours ago, sistermagpie said:

I just watched an 80s movie where a guy meets a woman and falls in love with her, all happening within a week. He thinks she's a victim of her Nazi brother, but it turns out she's a big Nazi too (and sleeping with her brother...Nazis are weird like that). So in the end he's tearfully saying how he really loved her and he still does, giving her a gun to kill him if she wants.

Was she pretty? Seriously, most movie romances seem to be based completely on "that person is hot, they are the love of my life!" I hate the "I will always love you no matter what you do" trope. That is a perfect example. I don't care how in love with a guy I was, as soon as I find out he's an incestuous Nazi I'm going to question what I ever saw in him in the first place. And if I still love someone like that, I'm going to start questioning what kind of person I am. 

[sistermagpie]

7 minutes ago, Mabinogia said:

I always think the unknown is far more terrifying than over explaining. Horror movies are a great example. That unseen evil presence stalking your house is chilling but once you see the "monster" it loses some of its power. 

Yes, I tend to think the big balancing act of horror is to have enough information that you believe there's an answer, but not enough to get the answer.

8 minutes ago, Mabinogia said:

Was she pretty? Seriously, most movie romances seem to be based completely on "that person is hot, they are the love of my life!" I hate the "I will always love you no matter what you do" trope. That is a perfect example. I don't care how in love with a guy I was, as soon as I find out he's an incestuous Nazi I'm going to question what I ever saw in him in the first place. And if I still love someone like that, I'm going to start questioning what kind of person I am. 

I think you cracked the code! I mean, seriously, there was nothing else whatsoever to reccomend her, even if I allow that he didn't know she was sleeping with her brother. If I had been in love with this character I'd question myself just finding out that he still liked this woman even a little after finding that out. All he knew in the end was that she was pretty and maybe good in bed.

[JustHereForFood]

On 9/2/2022 at 6:40 PM, Zella said:

Yeah what turns me off with a lot of "good" characters is they're usually some combo of self-righteous, miserable sad sack, or incompetent. Or they just seem to have no layers at all. I think my objection is I often feel like the show is trying to manipulate me into seeing this person as worthy of something that I just don't see, and that sets off my inner contrarian. I don't hate all of the good guys, but I feel like they are rarely particularly well written or interesting. 

On the other hand, sometimes the show obviously tries to make viewers like the bad guy. Sorry, the not bad, just misunderstood (and hot!) guy who just happened to murder or traumatize a bunch of innocent people, but it's ok because reasons. Cole from Charmed, Damon (and then Klaus, FFS!) from Vampire Diaries, Hook and Rumplestiltskin from OUAT, Spike and to some extent Angel from Buffy, Ares from Xena, Gisborne from Robin Hood, etc. Common signs: dresses in black, leather, or both, falls for a good woman who believes she can change hiim through power of love and we end up subjected to seasons of back and forth about what side they will stay on.

I'm not saying I haven't fallen for this trope as a teenager, because I totally did and liked at least half of these characters, it's just that it's so obvious and a cheap stoytelling, IMO.

[kiddo82]

I cannot stress this enough.  No matter how "misunderstood" or "funny" he may be (that second one is certainly in the eye of the beholder), Loki attempted to commit mass genocide, people!

[SmithW6079]

On 9/2/2022 at 8:13 PM, sistermagpie said:

And that's even when they're not woobifying a brutal murderer.

This is why I hate the "vampire is hot and sexy" trope. Vampires are undead killers. Show them as the monsters they are. 

[Zella]

17 minutes ago, SmithW6079 said:

This is why I hate the "vampire is hot and sexy" trope. Vampires are undead killers. Show them as the monsters they are. 

That's why my favorite vampire movie is Near Dark. It's a really unromantic view of what it would be like to be a vampire. 

[sistermagpie]

21 minutes ago, Zella said:

That's why my favorite vampire movie is Near Dark. It's a really unromantic view of what it would be like to be a vampire. 

And Nosferatu. That's a scary vampire movie!

[Annber03]

1 hour ago, sistermagpie said:

And Nosferatu. That's a scary vampire movie!

YES. Scariest-looking vampire I've ever seen in a movie, hands down. 

[Irlandesa]

On 8/31/2022 at 10:11 PM, RealHousewife said:

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 is when debates happen over the sins of the "good characters" and "bad characters" but they're so wholly out of proportion.  Like villain kidnapped and tortured a hero's whole family but hero is equally bad because they hadn't called their family for months or something like that.

I like my villains or "bad guy characters" but I also find myself defending many of the good guy characters even when it's not as popular. 

But when the writers don't see the flaws or their good guys or forget the flaws of the bad guys?  That's rough going.

Edited September 4, 2022 by Irlandesa

[sistermagpie]

9 hours ago, Irlandesa said:

My favorite is when debates happen over the sins of the "good characters" and "bad characters" but they're so wholly out of proportion.  Like villain kidnapped and tortured heroes whole family but hero is equally bad because they hadn't called their family for months or something like that.

I admit, I totally get that. I've tried to think about why it makes so much sense to me. I think because sometimes what the villain is doing is so out there and obviously evil, but the good guy is usually doing something you have to deal with every day so it bugs you the way the villain doesn't. Like I've never had my family held at gunpoint but I have dealt with a co-worker who is condescending or whatever. 

Though of course that's different from things that are written in a hypocritical way, where the heroes really are more like the villains than they think, like, for instance, those police shows where they're abusing people left and right.

[MadyGirl1987]

11 hours ago, Irlandesa said:

My favorite is when debates happen over the sins of the "good characters" and "bad characters" but they're so wholly out of proportion.  Like villain kidnapped and tortured heroes whole family but hero is equally bad because they hadn't called their family for months or something like that.

I like my villains or "bad guy characters" but I also find myself defending many of the good guy characters even when it's not as popular. 

But when the writers don't see the flaws or their good guys or forget the flaws of the bad guys?  That's rough going.

I can see you watched “Once Upon a Time” as well, huh. It was crazy how much of that happened in the show. 

[Irlandesa]

Just now, MadyGirl1987 said:

I can see you watched “Once Upon a Time” as well, huh. It was crazy how much of that happened in the show. 

Ha.  Nope. (Maybe some of the first season but not when things allegedly got heated in fandom). 

But see, it's a thing!

[Mabinogia]

3 hours ago, sistermagpie said:

I've tried to think about why it makes so much sense to me. I think because sometimes what the villain is doing is so out there and obviously evil, but the good guy is usually doing something you have to deal with every day so it bugs you the way the villain doesn't. Like I've never had my family held at gunpoint but I have dealt with a co-worker who is condescending or whatever. 

That is certainly part of it. It's like how I can watch Game of Thrones despite all the horrible people and violence but can't watch Sons of Anarchy. One is fantasy, one is far too close to reality for me. 

Another part of it, for me, is that I'm not supposed to look up to the villain. I like watching them because they are fun, but I don't go around thinking "OMG I wish I was more like that genocidal maniac Loki!" But I should be thinking "OMG I wish I was more like that heroic Captain America!" So Cap is, by virtue of being a role model, held to a higher standard. Is it fair? No. But nothing about human nature is fair. 

Personally I don't like either of them. I'm a Tony Stark kind of gal. He's not exactly a good guy, he's done some unethical things, but when it comes down to it, he is a hero. 

I guess I like my heroes with a bit of an edge and my villains with a little bit of heart. I hate things that are clearly black and white. Life is full of many shades and that is always more interesting than black and white. 

[DoctorAtomic]

20 hours ago, JustHereForFood said:

Gisborne from Robin Hood,

Counterpoint - Richard Armitage. 

[JustHereForFood]

3 hours ago, DoctorAtomic said:

Counterpoint - Richard Armitage. 

That's the version I meant 😄.

[ABay]

Get off! He's mine!

[DrSpaceman73]

On 9/3/2022 at 8:04 AM, Haleth said:

I recently started watching Better Call Saul and while I liked Mike Ehrmantraut on Breaking Bad, when I watched the epi of BCS where they delved into Mike's backstory I was flabbergasted.  No, it did not make him a good guy, but manoman, the layers to that character sure made him more interesting!  (And Jonathan Banks was superb.)

That was a great show.  And again with Jonathan Banks.  Wasn't Kevin Spacey the bad guy in that?

Hank was like that too.  At the beginning I thought he was the clichéd middle aged white guy douche cop, macho and self righteous. 

By the end......that guy was awesome! Right up until the end of ozymandias, as he died telling Walt how he always has to be the smartest guy in the room but also is incredibly naive. 

[Zella]

1 hour ago, DrSpaceman73 said:

Hank was like that too.  At the beginning I thought he was the clichéd middle aged white guy douche cop, macho and self righteous. 

By the end......that guy was awesome! Right up until the end of ozymandias, as he died telling Walt how he always has to be the smartest guy in the room but also is incredibly naive. 

Hank's journey was one of my favorite parts of Breaking Bad. His final scene has always given me chills.

[Cloud9Shopper]

Not every show needs to be rebooted, or should be. Even if it was popular in its era. Sometimes it’s best to just enjoy shows for what they were and rewatch it, or move on to one of the other endless options on streaming. Just like not every show needs to go on forever and ever. I like SVU but it really hasn’t been worthwhile to watch since S17 or so. (IMO, of course.)

At the same time, while I do rewatch things. I don’t get people who seem fixated on only one show. “I’m on my 4400th rewatch; I just keep starting over when I finish!” Please go outside. Read a book. Find something new to watch. I really don‘t need a play by play of an episode you’re watching for the tenth time in as many months. 

Edited September 10, 2022 by Cloud9Shopper

[Zella]

1 hour ago, Cloud9Shopper said:

At the same time, while I do rewatch things. I don’t get people who seem fixated on only one show. “I’m on my 4400th rewatch; I just keep starting over when I finish!” Please go outside. Read a book. Find something new to watch. I really don‘t need a play by play of an episode you’re watching for the tenth time in as many months. 

Yeah I'm not quite that bad, but I do rewatch stuff quite a bit and have sometimes gotten so obsessed with something I've watched it two or three times in a row or reviewed certain episodes like a conspiracy theorist scrutinizing the Zapruder film, looking for Easter eggs. But I don't advertise it because I know it's not normal. LOL

[kiddo82]

I will rewatch certain things but I also realize that shows that were produced 20+ years ago weren't meant to hold up to the scrutiny of multiple viewings.  I'll hand waive mild to moderate continuity errors or out of character moments as long as I enjoy the show overall.  I'm less forgiving of newer shows.  

[Zella]

2 minutes ago, kiddo82 said:

I will rewatch certain things but I also realize that shows that were produced 20+ years ago weren't meant to hold up to the scrutiny of multiple viewings.  I'll hand waive mild to moderate continuity errors or out of character moments as long as I enjoy the show overall.  I'm less forgiving of newer shows.  

I'm not usually looking for errors so much as details. My inner English major is bored and needs something to analyze. LOL 

[Mabinogia]

I have a terrible memory so I often rewatch favorite shows. The one bright spot in having a bad memory is that often I've forgotten a lot of the show so it's semi-new to me. lol 

I think, with rewatches, the worst I ever was, it was in high school when I watched The King and I every day after school until I could recite every line, which was kind of the point of the constant rewatching, I was learning the script for...who knows why, it was just something I wanted to do at the time. I was a weird teenager. Thanks to my terrible memory I really don't remember any of it, though I do still know most of the songs. Music is the one thing I don't forget. I can go decades without earing a song and still know the lyrics when I hear it again. 

[Annber03]

3 hours ago, Cloud9Shopper said:

Not every show needs to be rebooted, or should be. Even if it was popular in its era. Sometimes it’s best to just enjoy shows for what they were and rewatch it, or move on to one of the other endless options on streaming. Just like not every show needs to go on forever and ever. I like SVU but it really hasn’t been worthwhile to watch since S17 or so. (IMO, of course.)

At the same time, while I do rewatch things. I don’t get people who seem fixated on only one show. “I’m on my 4400th rewatch; I just keep starting over when I finish!” Please go outside. Read a book. Find something new to watch. I really don‘t need a play by play of an episode you’re watching for the tenth time in as many months. 

Ha, yeah, I do love to rewatch my favorite shows, but I still manage to find other things to watch as well, both old and new. Watching one thing over and over and over again would just get a little old after a while, you need some variety. 

Agreed on the reboot thing, too. I've always felt that reboots/revivals made the most sense for shows that have been off the air for at least ten years or more, 'cause you've had enough time to properly miss the show/characters/cast and whatnot, so it'd be like revisiting an old friend. It seems pointless to reboot things that ended just a few short years ago. 

Even then, though, still, I agree, it is okay for some things to just, y'know, end. No story can possibly last forever, there needs to be a natural stopping point eventually. It's to the point where it makes series finales seem less significant, because chances are good we'll probably see these characters again in a few years anyway. I kind of miss the days when a series finale and a goodbye actually felt meaningful, like it really was the end of something special.