Party of One: Unpopular TV Opinions

[proserpina65]

A recent rewatching of House of the Dragon confirmed for me that Rhaenyra is a spoiled, entitled, lying, hypocritical bitch who no more deserves to rule Westeros than does Aegon.

[Ambrosefolly]

10 hours ago, proserpina65 said:

A recent rewatching of House of the Dragon confirmed for me that Rhaenyra is a spoiled, entitled, lying, hypocritical bitch who no more deserves to rule Westeros than does Aegon.

Aemond would have been even worse. He is just like Stannis: too rigid and egotistical. Varys was right about Stannis. The one to blame for this succession crisis wasn't Viserys, but his granddad Jaehaerys for kicking the can down the road. Instead of having set succession laws (which should have put Rhaenys on the throne) he holds a fucking vote that is meant only once.  If he is going to do that, hold a vote every time a monarch dies.  It made the Wakadean wrestling match to secure rulership look rational by comparison. The one vote, not having elections every time a monarch dies. That would have been sort of better, but no one woman would be voted. Either they are too "willful" (which shouldn't a bad quality in a leader) or "soft," which they declare ten seconds after talking about how difficult it is dealing with them. 

Edited December 11, 2022 by Ambrosefolly

[proserpina65]

16 hours ago, Ambrosefolly said:

Aemond would have been even worse.

I don't know if he would've been worse (based solely on the show, never read the book), but he wouldn't have been a good king either.  Rhaenys is about the only one of these characters who might've made a decent monarch.

[anna0852]

Based on the forums here, this opinion is bound to be unpopular: I recently discovered Chicago Fire and I really love it.

[Shannon L.]

Because I've seen a lot of  good comments about it throughout different places on the internet I'll admit that I have never liked A Year Without a Santa Claus. As a kid, I thought the clay animation was way creepier than the clay animation in Rudolph. I don't even think I cared for the story itself.

[sistermagpie]

2 hours ago, Shannon L. said:

Because I've seen a lot of  good comments about it throughout different places on the internet I'll admit that I have never liked A Year Without a Santa Claus. As a kid, I thought the clay animation was way creepier than the clay animation in Rudolph. I don't even think I cared for the story itself.

To be fair, it's probably mostly loved for the Miser Brothers. 

[GHScorpiosRule]

22 minutes ago, sistermagpie said:

To be fair, it's probably mostly loved for the Miser Brothers. 

And the song about believing in Santa Claus--which NEVER fails to make me tear up and cry UGLY tears, while giving me goosebumps.

[Popples]

The Year Without a Santa Claus has the only version of "Blue Christmas" that I can stand. I absolutely loathe the Elvis and Porky Pig covers.

[juno]

Big UO here.

Not a big fan of shipping on a TV show. I think that once the connection between 2 of the stars is created, it is a slow and at times crappy wait to see them get together. Most of the time all the plot lines revolve around the shipping and what will stop them each week from getting together. It is like knowing the ending of a movie and just waiting around until it finally happens.

One of the worst is from the great show Everwood. Early on the shipping between Amy and Ephram was created. For 4 seasons I watched as she mostly treated him like crap. I watched him pass on what I thought was the person he had the most chemistry with and that was Lanie. Plotlines came and went and all to bring them together. It ruined what I thought was a great show.

The worst I have ever seen is Matt and Harriet from Studio 60. The plot just revolved around these 2 for the entire series. It was absolutely cringe worthy after a few episodes.

[DrSpaceman73]

More movie than tv related but it's on tv all the time right now. 

Home alone is overrated. Beyond the plot contrivances for this to happen I find McAuley caulkins ham fisted adult precociousness as an 8 year old and the extreme slapstick nature just annoying.  I can see kids liking it though I've never liked it. 

On 11/14/2022 at 6:09 PM, Mabinogia said:

The only thing I like about Yellowstone is Beth's hair. Kelly Reilly has gorgeous hair. 

I have zero interest in ever watching Dances With Wolves again. I saw it when it was new and didn't care for it. The only Cosner film I can think of that I liked was Bull Durham.

I liked tin cup. 

But generally yeah I can more leave than take kevin costner

[annzeepark914]

On 12/19/2022 at 3:09 PM, Popples said:

The Year Without a Santa Claus has the only version of "Blue Christmas" that I can stand. I absolutely loathe the Elvis and Porky Pig covers.

I've never cared for Elvis Presley. But Porkey's cover of Bbbbblue Christmas? I laugh all the way through it, just as I do when the barking dogs are "singing" Jingle Bells 😁. 

[veronicadubois]

An even more unpopular opinion. A Different World was more culturally defining than Fresh Prince and The Cosby Show. The show single-handedly raised the number of black people enrolled in colleges.

[BlueSkies]

Perhaps this isn't an uncommon take but Married With Children was the best show of the last 30 years to hit home with lower middle to working class people.  

 

But anyway that other show Ed O'Neill was on Modern Family looked stupid 

 

 

Edited December 26, 2022 by BlueSkies

[DrSpaceman73]

1 hour ago, BlueSkies said:

Perhaps this isn't an uncommon take but Married With Children was the best show of the last 30 years to hit home with lower middle to working class people.  

 

But anyway that other show Ed O'Neill was on Modern Family looked stupid 

 

 

The middle was a far superior show to married with children in that regard. 

Or even Roseanne, the original at least, and I'm no big fan of hers. 

[Bastet]

4 hours ago, BlueSkies said:

Perhaps this isn't an uncommon take but Married With Children was the best show of the last 30 years to hit home with lower middle to working class people.

 

2 hours ago, DrSpaceman73 said:

Or even Roseanne, the original at least,

Roseanne absolutely nailed it as an exploration of the white working class in America, and the way economic changes - brought about by the destruction of unions and the hit small businesses take in a down economy - played out even in the background over the course of seasons, without needing to be actual plot points each week, was particularly masterful.

Edited December 27, 2022 by Bastet

[BlueSkies]

The Rosie O Donnell show (1997-2002) was pretty good overall.  Especially for its time.  There’s still some good interviews of people she posts or someone posts on her page on YouTube.  
 

Her overall attitude at least outwardly on the show is different than today 

[Wiendish Fitch]

49 minutes ago, BlueSkies said:

The Rosie O Donnell show (1997-2002) was pretty good overall.  Especially for its time.  There’s still some good interviews of people she posts or someone posts on her page on YouTube.  
 

Her overall attitude at least outwardly on the show is different than today 

I sometimes wonder if we were too hard on Rosie O'Donnell. At least she doesn't seem to be doing too badly these days. 

I enjoy the show What We Do in the Shadows, but I hated the last season, and I hope they don't plan on keeping it around for too much longer. I really think they're running out of ideas.

Doctor Who has become a crushing bore to watch, and I feel that they wasted Jodie Whitaker's talent. It feels cheap that they're briefly bringing back David Tennant (I don't love the Tenth Doctor, but that's a UO for another day). 

 

[Bethany]

10 hours ago, Bastet said:

13 hours ago, DrSpaceman73 said:

Or even Roseanne, the original at least,

Roseanne absolutely nailed it as an exploration of the white working class in America, and the way economic changes - brought about by the destruction of unions and the hit small businesses take in a down economy - played out even in the background over the course of seasons, without needing to be actual plot points each week, was particularly masterful.

This is true but another big strength of the original Roseanne was the way they made us realize that at least some of their problems, especially the financial ones, were of their own making.  Not all, by any means, but some.  And that was just so true.  They made bad choices and then they had to live with them.  There was rarely a situation that lasted only for one episode.  They screwed up and it followed them.  Real life.

[peachmangosteen]

Abbott Elementary has had a deep decline in quality this season. I keep hoping it'll pick up but at this point I'm afraid that isn't gonna happen lol.

[Bastet]

7 hours ago, Elizabeth Anne said:

This is true but another big strength of the original Roseanne was the way they made us realize that at least some of their problems, especially the financial ones, were of their own making.  Not all, by any means, but some.  And that was just so true.  They made bad choices and then they had to live with them.  There was rarely a situation that lasted only for one episode.  They screwed up and it followed them.  Real life.

Yes, and it did a great job of showing the institutional barriers and the ignorance due to lack of experience that was the background to their choices, so that some were just plain dumb and they should have known better, but many were poor but what most in the same situation do for lack of knowing any better.  Very realistic.

[Crashcourse]

9 hours ago, peachmangosteen said:

Abbott Elementary has had a deep decline in quality this season. I keep hoping it'll pick up but at this point I'm afraid that isn't gonna happen lol.

Sadly, I agree.  I still really like the show, but this season seems like it's just all over the place.  I still love the kids though.  

[Gharlane]

On 12/27/2022 at 7:23 AM, BlueSkies said:

The Rosie O Donnell show (1997-2002) was pretty good overall.  Especially for its time.  There’s still some good interviews of people she posts or someone posts on her page on YouTube.  
 

Her overall attitude at least outwardly on the show is different than today 

Much like Ellen DeGeneres, she could not mask her true self forever. It was bound to come out sooner or later. 

[andromeda331]

On 12/27/2022 at 6:59 AM, Elizabeth Anne said:

This is true but another big strength of the original Roseanne was the way they made us realize that at least some of their problems, especially the financial ones, were of their own making.  Not all, by any means, but some.  And that was just so true.  They made bad choices and then they had to live with them.  There was rarely a situation that lasted only for one episode.  They screwed up and it followed them.  Real life.

That's one of the reasons I loved Roseanne and the Middle. Mistakes had consequences. A lot shows have characters make dumb decisions or mess up or bad with money but none of it really has any consequences. Both shows half of their financial problems are their own fault. They make dumb decisions or ones that didn't work out. The other half was life. They didn't make a lot of money at their jobs and struggled. They didn't have a degree, or skills, and lived in a small town that limited their options. When they messed up it lasted awhile. I liked Roseanne talking to her daughter Becky after she got upset because her mother wouldn't buy the dress she liked for a school dance. Sure Roseanne wanted too but she couldn't afford it. She does later return her husband's shoes to pay for the dress. But it was either or. It couldn't be both. There's an episode of the Middle where they have to go without TV. They can't afford it. Another episode Mike gets mad because Frankie accidentally bought 200 face cream. She thought it was 20 and he was mad at her. He wasn't. Mike was mad that they couldn't afford to make a mistake like that. 200 bucks put them over and they both had to get a second job to cover it. It's really nice seeing that on TV.

Edited December 28, 2022 by andromeda331

[Mabinogia]

3 hours ago, andromeda331 said:

She thought it was 20 and he was mad at her. He wasn't. Mike was mad that they couldn't afford to make a mistake like that. 200 bucks put them over and they both had to get a second job to cover it. It's really nice seeing that on TV.

Yeah, most sitcoms would milk the "husband is mad at wife's dumb mistake" for all it's worth, which isn't much, it's a stupid plot point that too many shows have done. It was refreshing to see a show have the husband mad at the situation, at the fact that they don't have the luxury of stupid mistakes. I loved The Middle. Patricia Heaton can work my last nerve like nobodies business, but the rest of the cast made up for it and I thought the writing was great. 

[Bethany]

24 minutes ago, Mabinogia said:

I loved The Middle.

Much as I love Everybody Loves Raymond, another Patty Heaton vehicle, it was much more the typical sitcom in that for the most part stuff that happened in one episode didn't really get followed up on later (i.e. Robert was poor in one episode; Debra was 'chronically' late in one episode) they did stuff to be funny, which was fine.  On The Middle they still brought the humour but the writing, to me, was way more consistent in that things that happened in one episode affected stuff that happened in another one.

[Irlandesa]

On 12/27/2022 at 8:50 AM, peachmangosteen said:

Abbott Elementary has had a deep decline in quality this season. I keep hoping it'll pick up but at this point I'm afraid that isn't gonna happen lol.

I didn't love the first season as much as I wanted to as I think talking heads in a sitcom has become a crutch to get laughs.  But my parents were teachers and I love the cast.  Still, I thought it was pretty enjoyable and figured I'd love it more in the second season as I think the second season is usually when everything really starts clicking for me with comedies.

But instead, it hasn't been as good this season. 

Edited December 28, 2022 by Irlandesa

[DrSpaceman73]

8 hours ago, andromeda331 said:

That's one of the reasons I loved Roseanne and the Middle. Mistakes had consequences. A lot shows have characters make dumb decisions or mess up or bad with money but none of it really has any consequences. Both shows half of their financial problems are their own fault. They make dumb decisions or ones that didn't work out. The other half was life. They didn't make a lot of money at their jobs and struggled. They didn't have a degree, or skills, and lived in a small town that limited their options. When they messed up it lasted awhile. I liked Roseanne talking to her daughter Becky after she got upset because her mother wouldn't buy the dress she liked for a school dance. Sure Roseanne wanted too but she couldn't afford it. She does later return her husband's shoes to pay for the dress. But it was either or. It couldn't be both. There's an episode of the Middle where they have to go without TV. They can't afford it. Another episode Mike gets mad because Frankie accidentally bought 200 face cream. She thought it was 20 and he was mad at her. He wasn't. Mike was mad that they couldn't afford to make a mistake like that. 200 bucks put them over and they both had to get a second job to cover it. It's really nice seeing that on TV.

This is what I always hated about modern family. I liked modern family but it was very much out of touch from a financial standpoint. 

Mitch constantly was just quiting jobs and no financial consequences. 

Phil buys a car and within a few days realizes it's a mistake 

Towards the end they just buy a failing Maguc shop on a whim because it was Phil's dream job.

The list goes on and on....finances are never a consideration for any decision. I know Jay is rich but the others aren't really

 

[kathyk24]

On 12/27/2022 at 8:59 AM, Elizabeth Anne said:

This is true but another big strength of the original Roseanne was the way they made us realize that at least some of their problems, especially the financial ones, were of their own making.  Not all, by any means, but some.  And that was just so true.  They made bad choices and then they had to live with them.  There was rarely a situation that lasted only for one episode.  They screwed up and it followed them.  Real life.

I think writers enjoy watching poor characters struggle while wealthy characters get away with whatever they want. Sometimes I think writers think poor people have no common sense. On Speechless another great show with a blue collar family their landlord told them they couldn't have a dog. Dylan wants a dog and they get a service dog for JJ who has CP. Their landlord finds the dog and evicts them. An actual poor family wouldn't get a dog because they want to avoid eviction.

[Zella]

55 minutes ago, kathyk24 said:

An actual poor family wouldn't get a dog because they want to avoid eviction.

I don't know that I'd definitely say that's true of all poor people.

I have a friend who was living abroad on a teacher's salary who grew up quite poor and has remained quite poor (we were English majors, so there's an implied vow of poverty LOL) who decided it would somehow be a good idea to adopt a cat, despite her apartment not allowing them, and then also challenge her workplace on policies that are widely known as standard for foreign teachers. Guess who then was absolutely baffled that she lost her job and her visa and her cat and promptly was put on a plane back to the States. 

She's not an unintelligent person, but she has no common sense, and this isn't the only time she's done something like this.

She's recently burned through multiple sales jobs in a matter of months because she basically hates everything about sales but somehow thinks the next one is going to be better or different than the other ones she's quit. 

There are people out there, regardless of socioeconomic class, who are quite oblivious to the concept of consequences or believe they don't apply to them. 

Edited December 29, 2022 by Zella

[Irlandesa]

1 hour ago, Zella said:

There are people out there, regardless of socioeconomic class, who are quite oblivious to the concept of consequences or believe they don't apply to them. 

And often times they don't apply, even to people of a lower socioeconomic status.  Take the cat scenario.  It's also possible that someone who is poor could get away with getting a cat if they live in a building where landlord doesn't really care about anything as long as the rent is paid.  It's more of a pain in the ass (and potentially expensive) to evict someone and advertise their apartment than it is to look the other way when it comes to them having a cat.  Or smoking cigarettes/pot in a non-smoking building.   And a bonus for the landlord is being able to keep the security deposit.

All one has to do is experience the pervasive scent of pot wafting into your smoke free apartment in a smoke free building or hear dogs barking down the hall in a pet-free building to think you can get away with bending some of the rules as well.

Edited December 29, 2022 by Irlandesa

[kathyk24]

On 12/27/2022 at 9:50 AM, peachmangosteen said:

Abbott Elementary has had a deep decline in quality this season. I keep hoping it'll pick up but at this point I'm afraid that isn't gonna happen lol.

I like Abbott Elementary but the writers need to stop piling on Janine. I like her character and I hate how the writers have tried to make her pathetic. I also don't like Barbara as much as last season her attitude in Sick Day turned me off.

[Bethany]

9 hours ago, kathyk24 said:

I think writers enjoy watching poor characters struggle while wealthy characters get away with whatever they want.

I can't say whether they enjoy doing that or not but let's be honest it is a reflection of real life.  I've got a friend who is very well to do because she comes from wealth and she's always on about "money can't buy happiness" etc etc as if she's come to this amazing conclusion that the rest of us have somehow never realized.  But here's the thing - she has never had to struggle to pay the rent, put food on the table or known what it's like to go to work everyday and do a job you hate because, basically, you have no choice.  She really can get away with whatever she wants - hate your boss?  Quit your job.  Drive too fast and lose your license? Take ubers and taxis.  And so on.

Anyway all that said, I'd rather watch a show that depicts the struggles people really have as long as, assuming it's a sitcom, they can do it in a way that makes me care about the characters and the situation but also can make me laugh and enjoy my time with these people.

[Zella]

15 minutes ago, Elizabeth Anne said:

I can't say whether they enjoy doing that or not but let's be honest it is a reflection of real life.  I've got a friend who is very well to do because she comes from wealth and she's always on about "money can't buy happiness" etc etc as if she's come to this amazing conclusion that the rest of us have somehow never realized.  But here's the thing - she has never had to struggle to pay the rent, put food on the table or known what it's like to go to work everyday and do a job you hate because, basically, you have no choice.  She really can get away with whatever she wants - hate your boss?  Quit your job.  Drive too fast and lose your license? Take ubers and taxis.  And so on.

Anyway all that said, I'd rather watch a show that depicts the struggles people really have as long as, assuming it's a sitcom, they can do it in a way that makes me care about the characters and the situation but also can make me laugh and enjoy my time with these people.

I had some friends who were like this in grad school. They came from very well-to-do backgrounds, and the disparity in worldview was sometimes striking to me. They were perfectly lovely people, but I remember one fall they asked me what I did for the summer. I told them I worked. Where did I travel? I didn't travel anywhere. Oh well we summered at my family's vacation house. (They used summered as a verb. I felt like I was trapped in an Edith Wharton novel by this point.) And I tried to say that was nice and just move on, but they kept telling me I should have talked to them and I could have summered with them. And I'm sure that was a genuine invitation. But the idea that I actually had to, you know, work during the summer for money and didn't have disposable income for summering was quite foreign to them. I was ready to shank them by the end of that conversation. My family never vacationed, let alone summered. There wasn't the money for that, and they're not the only people I've met who just seem to blithely assume that everyone has the money to travel.

Edited December 29, 2022 by Zella

[bluegirl147]

I grew up watching soap operas and usually the families that were working class with not a lot of money were "from the wrong side the tracks".  

Going further back than Roseanne you had Alice and One Day at a Time.  Both shows featured people who didn't have a lot of money.  

1 hour ago, Elizabeth Anne said:

Anyway all that said, I'd rather watch a show that depicts the struggles people really have as long as, assuming it's a sitcom, they can do it in a way that makes me care about the characters and the situation but also can make me laugh and enjoy my time with these people.

Agreed.  Watching a show where the characters have believable lifestyles and finances that match their circumstances is much more enjoyable to me than watching people with a fabulous wardrobe and house without the funds to pay for it.  That was one of my biggest complaints about SATC.  Carrie Bradshaw lived in NYC with a designer wardrobe without struggling (until late in the series when she got a book deal) to makes ends meet. 

On HIMYM there was a lot of talk about Lily having such a fabulous wardrobe on a Kindergarten teacher's salary.  They ended up giving her huge credit card debt which was very realistic. 

[BlueSkies]

22 hours ago, andromeda331 said:

That's one of the reasons I loved Roseanne and the Middle. Mistakes had consequences. A lot shows have characters make dumb decisions or mess up or bad with money but none of it really has any consequences. Both shows half of their financial problems are their own fault. They make dumb decisions or ones that didn't work out. The other half was life. They didn't make a lot of money at their jobs and struggled. They didn't have a degree, or skills, and lived in a small town that limited their options. When they messed up it lasted awhile. I liked Roseanne talking to her daughter Becky after she got upset because her mother wouldn't buy the dress she liked for a school dance. Sure Roseanne wanted too but she couldn't afford it. She does later return her husband's shoes to pay for the dress. But it was either or. It couldn't be both. There's an episode of the Middle where they have to go without TV. They can't afford it. Another episode Mike gets mad because Frankie accidentally bought 200 face cream. She thought it was 20 and he was mad at her. He wasn't. Mike was mad that they couldn't afford to make a mistake like that. 200 bucks put them over and they both had to get a second job to cover it. It's really nice seeing that on TV.

I’m honestly not that familiar with Roseanne but Married With Children dealt with it in its own way.

 

This is still some of the most hilarious stuff to me 

 

 

[DrSpaceman73]

This always bugged me about shameless as well. Early on at least when the show was good and not just a ridiculous parody of itself.  Whenever one of them managed to get a step up to try and climb out of poverty they'd mess it up badly. The implication was that they brought the poverty on themselves, perpetuating that view of lower class by the upper/middle class. 

As far as the cliche 'money can't buy happiness', while that is true it can buy peace of mind. I didn't grow up poor but I grew up I think with the typical middle class american situation where a short loss of job or income had serious consequences. I'm lucky enough now where that is not true and I dont constantly worry about money. No debt. It's incredibly different and lower stress. And it does put decisions in a different perspective. It makes relationships and life just easier. 

[Spartan Girl]

The Tiny Tim in Mr. Magoo’s Christmas Carol was the most annoying version of the character ever. Shut the fuck up about your stupid razzleberry dressing!

[Blergh]

28 minutes ago, Spartan Girl said:

The Tiny Tim in Mr. Magoo’s Christmas Carol was the most annoying version of the character ever.

 

Does that include the 1960's novelty performer who billed himself as Tiny Tim?

[Bastet]

10 hours ago, DrSpaceman73 said:

As far as the cliche 'money can't buy happiness', while that is true it can buy peace of mind. I didn't grow up poor but I grew up I think with the typical middle class american situation where a short loss of job or income had serious consequences. I'm lucky enough now where that is not true and I dont constantly worry about money. No debt. It's incredibly different and lower stress.

Exactly.  Study after study has shown that making enough money to be financially secure -- knowing the bills will be paid each month and with enough in savings to cover emergencies and a few luxuries -- buys some degree of happiness, in that it relieves what is otherwise a chronic source of stress.  So, peace of mind, as you said.  But accumulating wealth on top of that comfort level does not yield a corresponding increase in one's measure of happiness. 

(On the flip side, it's also consistently shown that among those who do have wealth, using some of it to help others does cause an increase in happiness.)

[GreekGeek]

17 hours ago, Spartan Girl said:

The Tiny Tim in Mr. Magoo’s Christmas Carol was the most annoying version of the character ever. Shut the fuck up about your stupid razzleberry dressing!

In fairness to him, he was played by another cartoon character named Gerald McBoing-Boing, who elsewhere "spoke" solely in sound effects. 

But has there ever been a Tiny Tim who seemed like a real child and not a plot device to melt Scrooge's cold heart?

[Spartan Girl]

9 minutes ago, GreekGeek said:

In fairness to him, he was played by another cartoon character named Gerald McBoing-Boing, who elsewhere "spoke" solely in sound effects. 

But has there ever been a Tiny Tim who seemed like a real child and not a plot device to melt Scrooge's cold heart?

I’d argue that the Muppet and Disney versions pull him off better than other versions, but yeah.

[juno]

On rewatch of The Unicorn, a cancelled show with a great cast including Walton Goggins. I noticed a few things about this show. I think they were trying to go the Cougar Town route where they started with a widowed man out there in the dating world. They seemed to be trying to move on from the initial premise and move into a family comedy route like Cougar Town. They failed unfortunately.

The other thing I noticed was that Betsy Brandt had great chemistry with Walter and it seemed that they were going to go in the direction where Walter and her would get together in season 3 (that didn't happen). They needed more of her because she was one of the best actresses in the show and brought a new great dynamic to the show.

Edited December 31, 2022 by juno

[Zella]

Just an FYI but his name is Walton, not Walter. 

[juno]

23 minutes ago, Zella said:

Just an FYI but his name is Walton, not Walter. 

Thanks, I made the change.

[Blergh]

OK, IMO unless it's done as a deliberate self-spoof, it's bad enough when shows have protagonists living FAR higher on the hog than they possible could in the real world.

However, what's worse is when shows put the proverbial wolf at protagonists' doors and have them openly wail about their livelihood and lifestyles being in danger due to job/income loss- yet keeping them continually spending monies like water without any kind of consequence.

Among others, Parenthood (2010-2015) had its patriarch Zeek having sunk his retirement funds on a worthless investment (and having had zero fiscal sense his entire working life) yet somehow he and his wife Camille stayed in their gigantic Berkley mansion with its huge yard until after his fatal health setbacks,they finally decided to move to a much smaller. .house. Then Adam lost his own job at a shoe company then tried to revive a defunct recording studio with his younger brother Crosby before it went belly up- yet insisted that his elder daughter Haddie go to her dream university at Cornell saying 'we'll MAKE it work' despite both he and Crosby having  growing families and relatively large houses to provide for with their incomes seemingly quickly evaporating ! Oh, and  any time anyone dared to say that it better to dream other dreams when their original dream had busted their supposed budgets (and threatened their dependent families' livelihoods), the show was sure to depict the dissenters as naysaying bummers instead of their arguments having any validity.

Edited December 31, 2022 by Blergh

[DrSpaceman73]

3 hours ago, Blergh said:

OK, IMO unless it's done as a deliberate self-spoof, it's bad enough when shows have protagonists living FAR higher on the hog than they possible could in the real work.

However, what's worse is when shows put the proverbial wolf at protagonists' doors and them openly wail about their livelihood and lifestyles being in danger due to job/income loss- yet keeping them continually spending monies like water without any kind of consequence.

Among others, Parenthood (2010-2015) had its patriarch Zeek having sunk his retirement funds on a worthless investment (and having had zero fiscal sense his entire working life) yet somehow he and his wife Camille stayed in their gigantic Berkley mansion with its huge yard until after his fatal health setbacks,they finally decided to move to a much smaller. .house. Then Adam lost his own job at a shoe company then tried to revive a defunct recording studio with his younger brother Crosby before it went belly up- yet insisted that his elder daughter Haddie go to her dream university at Cornell saying 'we'll MAKE it work' despite both he and Crosby having  growing families and relatively large houses to provide for with their incomes seemingly quickly evaporating ! Oh, and  any time anyone dared to say that it better to dream other dreams when their original dream had busted their supposed budgets (and threatened their dependent families' livelihoods), the show was sure to depict the dissenters as naysaying bummers instead of their arguments having any validity.

Not a tv show but the movie this is 40 is much like this as well. 

They have a huge house. 

He is paying for his dad's.....everything 

She runs some clothing boutique where an employee is stealing 

He is trying to be a record producer or some such thing and decides to have some obscure artist he loves but barely anyone else knows go on tour

How many bad financial and career decisions can one couple make? 

Edited December 31, 2022 by DrSpaceman73

[Crs97]

Spending money they don’t have without any repercussion annoys me almost as much as the thin beautiful woman who only eats crap, and a lot of it, without ever having a weight issue.  I’m looking at you, Lorelei Gilmore, on both counts!

[DXD526]

This drove me crazy with Grace on Will & Grace, who was always talking about how much she loved things like pizza and nachos and fast food, yet she weighed about 95 pounds soaking wet. To me that screams 'eating disorder', though it was never addressed.

Add Jane of Rizzoli & Isles to the list. She ate nothing but unhealthy, fattening food, and was a stick figure. The really ridiculous thing was, even when she was supposedly pregnant, she was still a stick figure!

[Anduin]

I have one about the British archeology show Time Team. You see, each episode would start off with John and his team doing a scan of the area to be investigated. He'd show the results to the actual digging team, and indeed the host. He'd say, "There's a dark patch over here, and a magnetic anomaly over there." And everyone would talk it up out of proportion!

The host would come back to him later and almost accuse him of promising a full Norman castle. No! He saw a dark patch and a magnetic anomaly, that's all. It's a wonder he never snapped at them. "Focus on what I say, not what you want to find!"

Furthermore, regular guest Francis Pryor often seemed to come up with some big theories, and then almost bend the evidence to fit. That's the wrong way of going about any kind of investigation. And yet, he's a full on professor of archeology with many publications to his name.

It was a good show, I should really check out the revival. But those two elements always annoyed me.

[Sarahsmile416]

On 11/27/2022 at 2:02 PM, BlueSkies said:

I've tried more than once to get into that series but I just couldnt 

Same.  I tried because I really love Parks and Rec but I realized after the first season of the aforementioned that the reason I loved Parks and Rec was because the main characters were generally speaking, nicer and easier to root for.