Party of One: Unpopular TV Opinions

[Enigma X]

22 minutes ago, DoctorAtomic said:

I don't think history is boring, but I'm just not too drawn in by the history of celebrities. I'd rather hear about you all tbh.

I can’t speak for everyone, but most regular people would not watch other regular people. There was a show on PBS that did feature regular people with genealogist doing their family trees. It didn’t do so well. I mean the ratings not the show.

[meep.meep]

1 hour ago, Enigma X said:

I (internet) know some of the genetic genealogist who work for the various shows. Before genetic genealogy blew up, it was a small hobby and everyone using it were in the same online groups and virtually nobodies (Cece Moore and Nicka Smith to name a few). We all knew each other. Anyway, they said the show vets celebrities by trying to do their paper genealogy before they even come on the shows to see if they can get anywhere. If they can’t, they will not ask them to appear. Now some celebrities have reached out to the shows.

Yes, I do think that.

[Enigma X]

A celebrity that the BBC's Who Do You Think You Are? decided to not pursue and reason why?

 

Ronnie Wood Who Do You Think You Are? segment axed.

[Haleth]

16 hours ago, Enigma X said:

Anyway, they said the show vets celebrities by trying to do their paper genealogy before they even come on the shows to see if they can get anywhere. If they can’t, they will not ask them to appear.

That is interesting.  Seems like a lot of work to pick a random person and do their genealogy hoping to find something juicy.  What if the celeb isn't interested in pursuing it?  Then again, if approached by a celeb the researchers damn well better find something good.  Either way it's a risk.  (Maybe now the celebs already know of some family lore that might make a good hook?)

[Enigma X]

I would assume, I don’t know, as these shows became more known to celebrities, those who felt like there was something of interest in their family tree probably started reaching out. I have noticed lately that sometimes the hosts says something such as “blah blah came to us wanting to know more about this family mystery.”

Also, for many people into genealogy, we love a mystery. It is quite exciting to work on someone else’s tree if you have reached a temporary bump in your own. I know many have said they don’t care about a strangers family tree, but many pro and amateur genealogist find this fun and not a waste of time.

[proserpina65]

21 hours ago, meep.meep said:

I'd much rather watch geneology shows than those comic book shows (Marvel Universe?).  You get a little history with your prurient celebrity moments.

As someone mentioned above, with the firepower the shows can employ, particularly for African Americans, they can go back further onto people's family trees than most people can searching on their own.  And sometimes what they turn up is fascinating.

Gates did a show with Questlove.  They discovered that his first African ancestor in America was brought over on the Clotilda, the last slave ship, in 1860.  

 

That's all great and I'm glad other people enjoy these shows.  I'd never say they shouldn't exist.  But they do not interest me.  The celebrities involved are almost never anyone who'd draw me in and I find the history info is not enough of a hook.

I do agree, however, that I'd rather watch a genealogy show than a comic book one.

[Zella]

3 hours ago, Enigma X said:

Also, for many people into genealogy, we love a mystery. It is quite exciting to work on someone else’s tree if you have reached a temporary bump in your own. I know many have said they don’t care about a strangers family tree, but many pro and amateur genealogist find this fun and not a waste of time.

Yes I find other people's genealogy every bit as fascinating as my own. I don't actually watch any of the celebrity genealogy shows, but I have helped friends and library patrons with genealogy, and I always get excited when we uncover something interesting or hit a weird roadblock. 

I was asked on here the other day about alternative history because I was a history major in college. And as I said at the time, I don't really give a shit about alternative history. It's never excited me. If that's your thing, it's certainly fine by me, but I just don't care and never have. But genealogy, even if it's someone else's? Yes please! I love seeing even relatively mundane things that encapsulate history. There's a lot of day-to-day history you can pick out of things like census records. And old newspapers are a lot of fun. It also excites me to see broader trends about migration and literary come to life in it. 

So, I don't have any trouble believing that you can get material out of anyone's family tree. It may not always be a juicy secret, but that doesn't make it any less interesting from a historical angle. 

I went into my own genealogy thinking one side of the family was really colorful and the other side was really boring. Ended up finding a fair number of colorful people on both sides, a lot of family myths that had been handed down that weren't true, and a lot of "boring" people on both sides, but it doesn't make the actual details of their lives any less interesting. I also found what seemed like a rather strong preponderance of murderers, bigamists, and heretics (one side of my family apparently really likes getting kicked out of churches--and it was the side I thought was more boring). 😂

[DoctorAtomic]

That was kind of what I was getting at. Just because you're a celebrity doesn't make your genealogy any more interesting than anyone else. However, I live in the real world, so I understand why you're making a tv with famous people. 

I'd concede that if I took another look, I'm there's at least one celebrity I might be interested in hearing about. On the other hand, they should work on their ads because they're just not compelling. 

[Bethany]

16 minutes ago, DoctorAtomic said:

On the other hand, they should work on their ads because they're just not compelling. 

I find this true for most shows right now!  If they are selecting out the choices pieces designed to tempt in new viewers they've missed the boat with me 9 out of 10 times.

[Spartan Girl]

I don't know if this is unpopular or not, but I wish South Park would just end. Their latest seasons suck, and some of the episodes with Matt and Trey's "both sides" approach have not aged well.

[sistermagpie]

6 hours ago, Zella said:

So, I don't have any trouble believing that you can get material out of anyone's family tree. It may not always be a juicy secret, but that doesn't make it any less interesting from a historical angle. 

 

Yeah, I can't remember too many that I've seen that had anything that would be considered a juicy secret--and maybe that impression partially comes from the fact that the ones that do have them aren't really presented that way, or as any juicier than finding out somebody ran a grocery store in Chicago.  The one I was watching the other night basically uncovered a few rabbis and dairy farmers and someone who returned to Israel and had a grave there. Nothing juicy at all, really. 

[BlueSkies]

6 hours ago, Spartan Girl said:

I don't know if this is unpopular or not, but I wish South Park would just end. Their latest seasons suck, and some of the episodes with Matt and Trey's "both sides" approach have not aged well.

I haven't watched the show since the early 2000s.  But they are both billionaires now I believe under contract.

 

 

I kinda agree with you though.  I thought it was a funny show when it came out and some of their satires of celebrities were pretty funny but it's a dead horse now that show to me 

[BlueSkies]

Pam Anderson is a genuinely kind, sensitive, and intelligent individual 

[kiddo82]

On the whole, I find it's actually easier for me to binge shows that were made for network TV as opposed to shows made for streaming.  Maybe it's just because weekly network shows have a cadence that I'm more conditioned to, especially given that these shows originally had to accommodate commercials.  Streaming shows (or your more prestigious HBO shows) feel like short movies.  That's not a criticism of either, but I just find it easier to digest the network show and be ready for another.  Whereas with the streamer, I need to take a break and get back to it later.

[Irlandesa]

11 hours ago, kiddo82 said:

On the whole, I find it's actually easier for me to binge shows that were made for network TV as opposed to shows made for streaming.  Maybe it's just because weekly network shows have a cadence that I'm more conditioned to, especially given that these shows originally had to accommodate commercials. 

I agree and I can identify two reasons for that.

The biggest reason, for me, is that network television caps their hour-long and 30 minute episodes at approximately 42 minutes and 20 minutes respectively.  Streaming shows, and even premium networks, have episodes that are at least 55-60 minutes.  Sometimes even longer.  Didn't Stranger Things have en episode that went 90 minutes?

Network shows just have no choice but to try and keep their episodes nice and tight.  They're forced to self-edit in a way that premium channels and streaming channels don't need to.  That doesn't necessarily mean all shows with long episodes have bloat but a lot do.

Speaking of bloat, the biggest crime of streaming is this notion of an "8 hour movie" or a "10 hour movie."

Even if a network show has an ongoing story, they usually respect the episodic structure.  Each episode is about something and is crafted to deliver something.  Given their episode orders, they also almost have to have side stories or episodes that don't focus on the main mystery.

Again, streaming shows deal with bloat.  They feel like every episode has to be about the "main story" even if the main story isn't enough story to fill the episode order.

And it becomes a drag so that a show with 22 episodes from a network is easier to binge than an 8 episode show with 60 minute episodes from a streamer.

And I think it's just going to get worse since we're getting trained on the streaming model.   It's why I always appreciate a show like Bosch, on Amazon Prime, or Leverage: Redemption on Freevee that held to a 45 minute episode even though they could have gone longer.  And even though they followed some stories throughout the season, every episode felt structured and about something. I'm grateful for streaming shows that act like they're network in terms of structure.

 

 

Edited February 20, 2023 by Irlandesa

[Kemper]

It seems like “Harry Potter” - the original and sequels - is on one channel or another every weekend. Lately it has been the Sci-Fi channel. A franchise that I loved is no longer one I would ever want to watch again.

The same with “Bones” (although not a show I ever watched regularly). It is marathoned on a couple of channels. At least the seemingly 24/7 showing of Law and Order SVU seems mostly relegated to the USA Channel.

[Gharlane]

On 2/13/2023 at 11:28 AM, DoctorAtomic said:

I think they were mad about the purgatory theory because it was actually a solid explanation. 

It's more likely the producers of LOST who thought they were sooo clever with eventually revealing the show takes place in some sort of Purgatory freaked out when people immediately guessed it and scrambled to find another solution, eventually returning to the original plan.

[Spartan Girl]

On 2/19/2023 at 4:38 PM, Kemper said:

It seems like “Harry Potter” - the original and sequels - is on one channel or another every weekend. Lately it has been the Sci-Fi channel. A franchise that I loved is no longer one I would ever want to watch again.

Harry Potter will always hold a special place in my heart, despite everything, but yeah, it doesn't need to be on every weekend.

Honestly, sometimes it really does feel like tons of movies are on repeatedly. The schedules need to switch it up.

[Bethany]

1 minute ago, Spartan Girl said:

Honestly, sometimes it really does feel like tons of movies are on repeatedly. The schedules need to switch it up.

Last year it seemed like the two original Ghostbuster movies were on some channel or another almost every day.  Now it seems they just show endless reruns of Big Bang Theory instead.

[ABay]

3 hours ago, Gharlane said:

It's more likely the producers of LOST who thought they were sooo clever with eventually revealing the show takes place in some sort of Purgatory freaked out when people immediately guessed it and scrambled to find another solution, eventually returning to the original plan.

I agree they freaked out and changed the initial idea. I disagree that the island was purgatory. I think the flash sideways world was purgatory or limbo. The island was real and what happened there, happened there. Ben, Hurley, and the characters who left on the plane went on to live their lives and eventually went to purgatory/limbo where they joined the ones who died earlier on the island. Time isn't linear in the other place so Kate, for example, didn't die before Jack.

[Grrarrggh]

4 hours ago, Spartan Girl said:

Harry Potter will always hold a special place in my heart, despite everything, but yeah, it doesn't need to be on every weekend.

Honestly, sometimes it really does feel like tons of movies are on repeatedly. The schedules need to switch it up.

Here's an unpopular opinion: I HATE the Harry Potter films. They suck IMO. 1 and 2 were so-so, from then on they were horrible. I do wonder how many fans love and defend them just because they've seen them a bajillion times since they were teenagers or younger. 

[Mabinogia]

41 minutes ago, Grrarrggh said:

Here's an unpopular opinion: I HATE the Harry Potter films. They suck IMO. 1 and 2 were so-so, from then on they were horrible. I do wonder how many fans love and defend them just because they've seen them a bajillion times since they were teenagers or younger. 

I did love the first one because I loved seeing the world I'd only read about come to life. I liked the second and I think third. I kind of stopped watching them when the kids stopped wearing uniforms and just looked like any other school kids, which is a weird reason to stop, but it just felt less magical. I haven't seen the final 3 or so movies. I don't even know which ones I've seen. I just remember finding the beginning of the first movie quite enchanting. 

[Popples]

4 hours ago, Grrarrggh said:

Here's an unpopular opinion: I HATE the Harry Potter films. They suck IMO. 1 and 2 were so-so, from then on they were horrible. I do wonder how many fans love and defend them just because they've seen them a bajillion times since they were teenagers or younger. 

Thank you! I can't stand the third one because that's when they completely changed the layout of Hogwarts and the films started to become visually dark. In the books so much is described with bright, vivid colors and the films are just various shades of gray.

[Crs97]

I don’t know if this is unpopular, but it needs to be said:

Richard Harris was ten times the Dumbledore that the other actor was.

[kathyk24]

6 minutes ago, Crs97 said:

I don’t know if this is unpopular, but it needs to be said:

Richard Harris was ten times the Dumbledore that the other actor was.

An unpopular opinion would be thinking that Michael Gambon was better as Dumbledore. 

[andromeda331]

I liked the first two Harry Potter movies. I didn't like the third one and really had no interest the rest of the movies. Or ever reading the books. I will never understand the decision to put Harry in the care of his aunt and uncle who clearly hated him and treated him like shit every day of his life. How did he turn out as well as he was by the first book?

13 hours ago, Spartan Girl said:

Harry Potter will always hold a special place in my heart, despite everything, but yeah, it doesn't need to be on every weekend.

Honestly, sometimes it really does feel like tons of movies are on repeatedly. The schedules need to switch it up.

Yes like Smokey and the Bandit and Back to the Future. I love Back to the Future movies but it doesn't need to be on all the time.

[Gharlane]

10 hours ago, Grrarrggh said:

Here's an unpopular opinion: I HATE the Harry Potter films. They suck IMO. 1 and 2 were so-so, from then on they were horrible. I do wonder how many fans love and defend them just because they've seen them a bajillion times since they were teenagers or younger. 

I hate Hairy Pooter, especially because everyone now tries to rip it off for their own (I'm looking at YOU, "CANCELLED!" [™ TVwoP]).

[sistermagpie]

13 hours ago, Popples said:

Thank you! I can't stand the third one because that's when they completely changed the layout of Hogwarts and the films started to become visually dark. In the books so much is described with bright, vivid colors and the films are just various shades of gray.

I only ever saw the first two movies, but I remember a friend talking about the third one and from her description it seemed like they forgot to explain a pretty major plot point. When I asked her about it it seemed that yes, they did. Seemed like the movie was praised for what it looked like but failed at part of the genuinely good mystery reveal in that book.

That said, I had a lot of unpopular opinons about those books at the time that I now feel really vindicated for. They're more popular now, it seems.

[Zella]

1 hour ago, sistermagpie said:

That said, I had a lot of unpopular opinons about those books at the time that I now feel really vindicated for.

I didn't read them until I was in my mid-20s, so my reading experience was very different as an adult than most of my peers, who mostly read them as kids. I've learned I can't really talk about the books or movies with most people because I enjoyed them for what they were but hardly considered them ground-breaking literature, but so many people act like you're ruining their childhood if you criticize them. I saw so many plot holes and internal contradictions. I was also coming off being a TA for a grad program when I read them/watched the movies, and all I could think about was how atrocious the pedagogy was at Hogwarts. 😂😂😂

Edited March 4, 2023 by Zella

[Lugal]

I was in my mid-twenties when I read the books as well.  I remember the phenomenon going on, and saw the first two movies and thought they were OK.  I remember when my boss brought his kid's gradeschool class to the store and read from the latest book.  Then a friend and my sister and a few others recommended the books and they were fun enough at the time, but not some beloved thing I would reread years afterward.  I guess my unpopular opinion was that I'm indifferent to them.

9 hours ago, Gharlane said:

I hate Hairy Pooter, especially because everyone now tries to rip it off for their own (I'm looking at YOU, "CANCELLED!" [™ TVwoP]).

Oh yeah, Magic School (real creative name there) which my friends and I called Blogmorts*a completely original creation in no way inspired by a certain series of books or movies.

[sistermagpie]

2 hours ago, Zella said:

I didn't read them until I was in my mid-20s, so my reading experience was very different as an adult than most of my peers, who mostly read them as kids. I've learned I can't really talk about the books or movies with most people because I enjoyed them for what they were but hardly considered them ground-breaking literature, but so many people act like you're ruining their childhood if you criticize them. I saw so many plot holes and internal contradictions. I was also coming off being a TA for a grad program when I read them/watched the movies, and all I could think about was how atrocious the pedagogy was at Hogwarts. 😂😂😂

Oh yeah, I was an adult so didn't have any childhood associations with them at all. But found them fascinating to talk about because while they sometimes work really well at what they're doing, they're so messy in so many revealing ways!

[kathyk24]

I have some unpopular opinions about Law and Order SVU. I like Olivia Benson although I agree Noah is unnecessary. I like Rollins but I hate the older responsible sibling dumb younger sibling troupe. I hated Stabler and I think Fin deserved a spinoff. I think Carisi makes a better cop than DA.

[stewedsquash]

On 1/26/2023 at 8:30 AM, DrSpaceman73 said:

This is us lack subtlety. It did wack you over the head with its emotionally and had to be sure you didn't miss it. Explicitly stating things that often weren't necessary. 

It was like a very special episode from the 80s every week. 

That is exactly it, all of this above. I figured it out and left the show three episodes into the second season. I knew why I left but others couldn’t understand why I dropped it cold turkey. If I had been able go say what’s in your post I am sure they would have gone Ooooooooohhh I get it.

[Grrarrggh]

3 hours ago, kathyk24 said:

I have some unpopular opinions about Law and Order SVU. I like Olivia Benson although I agree Noah is unnecessary. I like Rollins but I hate the older responsible sibling dumb younger sibling troupe. I hated Stabler and I think Fin deserved a spinoff. I think Carisi makes a better cop than DA.

I only watched a series or two with Rollins. They ruined her character with all those pregnancies. Talk about the perfect time for SVU to really show it was willing to tackle genuine issues and the whole team completely whiffed and failed.

[JustHereForFood]

On 3/4/2023 at 6:17 PM, Zella said:

I didn't read them until I was in my mid-20s, so my reading experience was very different as an adult than most of my peers, who mostly read them as kids. I've learned I can't really talk about the books or movies with most people because I enjoyed them for what they were but hardly considered them ground-breaking literature, but so many people act like you're ruining their childhood if you criticize them. I saw so many plot holes and internal contradictions. I was also coming off being a TA for a grad program when I read them/watched the movies, and all I could think about was how atrocious the pedagogy was at Hogwarts. 😂😂😂

I've read the books at the ages 11-16, so I was just the right type and I loved them. But I certainly like to nitpick on some stuff, because there is a lot of inconsistencies.

The logistics behind teaching at the school are so messed up. There's one teacher for every subject, whether it's a subject that everyone has to learn with several lessons in a week or a selective. I guess some teachers take some good drugs to be able to teach all of that, or they use time-turners.

Also, how many students are there? There's 8 of them in Harry's year and house, which means 32 in his year if they are sorted evenly. I give them 40 if there's fewer people in Gryffindor. That means about 280 kids in total, unless Harry's year is unusually small. There were about 600 of us in my school and Hogwarts was made to look much bigger than that.

[Zella]

16 minutes ago, JustHereForFood said:

I've read the books at the ages 11-16, so I was just the right type and I loved them. But I certainly like to nitpick on some stuff, because there is a lot of inconsistencies.

The logistics behind teaching at the school are so messed up. There's one teacher for every subject, whether it's a subject that everyone has to learn with several lessons in a week or a selective. I guess some teachers take some good drugs to be able to teach all of that, or they use time-turners.

Also, how many students are there? There's 8 of them in Harry's year and house, which means 32 in his year if they are sorted evenly. I give them 40 if there's fewer people in Gryffindor. That means about 280 kids in total, unless Harry's year is unusually small. There were about 600 of us in my school and Hogwarts was made to look much bigger than that.

I also have never been able to wrap my head around the idea that it's a good idea to sort kids by personality into the same house. 

[Mabinogia]

1 hour ago, Zella said:

I also have never been able to wrap my head around the idea that it's a good idea to sort kids by personality into the same house. 

That is the biggest problem I had with Hogwarts. I would be curious to know if the others schools did that, but you are basically dooming the Slytherin kids. It is bad enough that they are probably all from families like the Malfoys, but instead of trying to teach them to be better than their parents, you just throw them all together and let them become bullies and horrible people. Great plan. It seems as though Harry was the only one who ever got to pick what kind of person he wanted to become. The rest are all just predestined to be either smart, loyal, brave of raging assholes. 

[proserpina65]

On 3/3/2023 at 5:18 PM, Grrarrggh said:

Here's an unpopular opinion: I HATE the Harry Potter films. They suck IMO. 1 and 2 were so-so, from then on they were horrible. I do wonder how many fans love and defend them just because they've seen them a bajillion times since they were teenagers or younger. 

I haven't seen them a bajillion times and I wasn't young when I first saw them.  Other than Jason Isaacs and Kenneth Branagh, I think films 1 and 2 are by far the weakest of the series and they improve vastly from the 3rd film.  Primarily because the young actors involved actually become good actors.

On 3/3/2023 at 11:53 PM, kathyk24 said:

An unpopular opinion would be thinking that Michael Gambon was better as Dumbledore. 

Honestly, I barely noticed the difference.

[Zella]

35 minutes ago, proserpina65 said:

Other than Jason Isaacs and Kenneth Branagh,

Branagh is pretty hit or miss for me, but he is fantastic in the movies. Jason Isaacs is always amazing, but he really does hit it out of the park with Lucius Malfoy. 

I was always convinced Game of Thrones should cast him as the Mad King in flashbacks since his work in Harry Potter proved he could rock a Targaryen-style wig without looking like an Afghan hound. 

Edited March 6, 2023 by Zella

[Grrarrggh]

2 hours ago, proserpina65 said:

I haven't seen them a bajillion times and I wasn't young when I first saw them.  Other than Jason Isaacs and Kenneth Branagh, I think films 1 and 2 are by far the weakest of the series and they improve vastly from the 3rd film.  Primarily because the young actors involved actually become good actors.

The children's acting may have improved, but the scripts and storytelling went seriously downhill from the third film onwards. 

[Mabinogia]

2 hours ago, Zella said:

Jason Isaacs is always amazing, but he really does hit it out of the park with Lucius Malfoy. 

I hate myself for fantasizing about Lucious Lucius and 100% blame Jason Isaacs for that. He really was superb, as always. 

I have always thought Kenneth Branagh was overrated, especially in his own mind, so I assume he did Lockhart so well because he was essentially playing a part of himself. 

[Zella]

24 minutes ago, Mabinogia said:

I have always thought Kenneth Branagh was overrated, especially in his own mind, so I assume he did Lockhart so well because he was essentially playing a part of himself. 

That's my take too! I do also tend to find him easier to take when he is acting without directing himself. Movies he directs himself in are absolutely insufferable to me. I've never recovered from the filmed midlife crisis that is his Frankenstein movie. This opinion got me dragged as an English major, but I also hate his version of Hamlet. 

[Mabinogia]

1 minute ago, Zella said:

Movies he directs himself in are absolutely insufferable to me. I've never recovered from the filmed midlife crisis that is his Frankenstein movie. This opinion got me dragged as an English major, but I also hate his version of Hamlet. 

Did you see him as Poirot? That was the hammiest ham since Easter Dinner at a pig farm. 

[Zella]

7 minutes ago, Mabinogia said:

Did you see him as Poirot? That was the hammiest ham since Easter Dinner at a pig farm. 

I love Poirot as a character, but I boycotted the movie as soon as I learned a certain someone was playing him and directing. 

[Mabinogia]

5 minutes ago, Zella said:

I love Poirot as a character, but I boycotted the movie as soon as I learned a certain someone was playing him and directing. 

You were much smarter than I am. 

[sistermagpie]

3 hours ago, Zella said:

That's my take too! I do also tend to find him easier to take when he is acting without directing himself. Movies he directs himself in are absolutely insufferable to me. I've never recovered from the filmed midlife crisis that is his Frankenstein movie. This opinion got me dragged as an English major, but I also hate his version of Hamlet. 

Possible UO: I did love his Henry V, though.

[Grrarrggh]

17 minutes ago, sistermagpie said:

Possible UO: I did love his Henry V, though.

His Much Ado was pretty great as well. 

[Zella]

39 minutes ago, sistermagpie said:

Possible UO: I did love his Henry V, though.

Confession: I was so put off by his Hamlet that I have not watched his other Shakespearean adaptations. I really loved Kate Winslet as Ophelia, but that's about it. 

[OtterMommy]

Just a friendly reminder to keep the discussion based on unpopular television opinions. You can discuss your unpopular opinions about movies over here.

[Haleth]

9 hours ago, Grrarrggh said:

His Much Ado was pretty great as well. 

Again, he was pretty much playing himself.  I do love that movie.  

I was looking forward to Branagh playing the Count in the adaptation of A Gentleman in Moscow, but I read he's been replaced by Ewan McGregor.