Party of One: Unpopular TV Opinions

[kiddo82]

8 hours ago, DearEvette said:

My narrative needs are simple.  A person who is a bad person and does bad things should be punished appropriately.  To make a story satisfying there should be justice meted out.  That is why people disappear into stories because they work out in way RL does not always.

I don't even necessarily need the bad guy to be punished.  Something like the Usual Suspects has one of the best endings ever but that's in part because the movie doesn't try to pull the wool over our eyes.  It doesn't try to convince us that Soze getting away is any kind of win for humanity.

Edited April 3, 2023 by kiddo82

[Spartan Girl]

I have two UO opinions regarding the upcoming Fatal Attraction series:

1) I think it’s awesome that they’re using the original ending where Dan gets set up for Alex’s murder as a framing device. I know Glen Close had very strong feelings about the fact that it was altered.

2) I know it will be probably blasphemy to admit this, but I hope against hope they won’t boil the bunny or have kill off any cute pet. Seriously. The first time was horrific enough, we don’t need a repeat.

[bluegirl147]

2 hours ago, Spartan Girl said:

) I know it will be probably blasphemy to admit this, but I hope against hope they won’t boil the bunny or have kill off any cute pet. Seriously. The first time was horrific enough, we don’t need a repeat.

My granddaughter is 10 and she told me she had to write a story for school.  I asked her what it is about and she said a dog.  I said please tell me the dog doesn't die.  She said no.  I told her you can't kill a dog. Or any animal actually because if you do people will get upset. If I know an animal will die in a movie I won't watch the movie.  Yes I know the animals don't really die but I just cannot watch them die onscreen.  

[Leeds]

On 3/12/2023 at 8:50 PM, kiddo82 said:

Charlotte Nicado deserves an Emmy nomination if not an outright win.

Who?  In what?

[proserpina65]

22 hours ago, Danny Franks said:

why I have no intention of ever watching the spinoff show, which seems to rely completely on people fancying Matt Smith as a charming psychopath.

It doesn't actually rely on that at all.  Despite there being a very vocal segment of fans who do fancy him.  Not me.  (Not saying you have to watch the show, though.)

Edited April 4, 2023 by proserpina65

[kathyk24]

On 4/3/2023 at 2:18 PM, proserpina65 said:

My unpopular Grimm opinion is that I liked Juliette and did not think that actress was particularly bad.  Not great, but not terrible either.  I did think the actress who played Adalind was pretty bad, though.  And I hated that they pushed Nick and Adalind together.  Honestly, it was the supporting characters who kept me watching at that point.

A friend and I just started rewatching Grimm, and I'm reminded of how fun it was in the beginning.

Juliette was one of the few normal characters on Gimm. The only reason the show put Nick and Adalind together was because Clair Coffey was pregnant. The wives and girlfriends of male leads get unfair criticism.

[scarynikki12]

A Friends UO I have is I understand why Emily wasn't comfortable with Ross continuing to be friends with Rachel. Not because he said the wrong name at the wedding as that was all on him but because of the airport. Emily had decided to work on the marriage and go on their honeymoon but she sees Ross is about to go on said honeymoon with Rachel. If it were me I would not assume they were going platonically but starting an affair. Don't forget back in season 1 after Rachel left Barry at the altar she learned he went on their honeymoon with her maid of honor Mindy and she immediately knew what that meant so there's precedent in the show. It was presented as Emily being so unreasonable and how dare she try to tell Ross who he should be friends with but I get it. She didn't ask him to stop being friends with anyone else only the woman who, from what Emily saw, was actively about to have an affair with her husband. And I like Rachel but she did fly to London to break them up, ask another guest if she should go to the altar and replace Emily after Ross said the wrong name, was actively joining him on his honeymoon, and then got upset when he "abandoned her" (ran after Emily) so she really didn't have a leg to stand on when everyone was freaking out about this.

[Irlandesa]

20 minutes ago, scarynikki12 said:

A Friends UO I have is I understand why Emily wasn't comfortable with Ross continuing to be friends with Rachel.

I think the "never in the same room ever" was extreme given that she was roommates with his sister, but I do think her needing his relationship to change with Rachel was understandable.  I don't think that's what made her seem unreasonable, though.  It was her asking him to sell everything that came into contact with Rachel.  It was asking him to give up his apartment and move into a relative's flat simply because he shared memories with Rachel at his place. 

I know it's a controversial storyline that people felt was harsh on Emily, but I liked how it resolved.  Emily was doing what a lot of people do when they're hurt.  She was trying to control external factors because she couldn't control history or feelings.  She kept hoping that some rule she put in place would make it all right with her, and that didn't happen.

 

[scarynikki12]

38 minutes ago, Irlandesa said:

It was asking him to give up his apartment and move into a relative's flat simply because he shared memories with Rachel at his place. 

I agree with this but the show, as it did many times, simplified it into “Emily sucks because she wouldn’t let Ross continue being friends with Rachel” and wanting him to end the friendship to work on the marriage was reasonable given everything that happened.

[Irlandesa]

2 minutes ago, scarynikki12 said:

I agree with this but the show, as it did many times, simplified it into “Emily sucks because she wouldn’t let Ross continue being friends with Rachel” and wanting him to end the friendship to work on the marriage was reasonable given everything that happened.

I don't remember it clearly but isn't that the opinion of his friends?  And Rachel's friends?  I think it's natural they didn't like that Emily tried to break up the friend group even if from a distance, strangers might see it another way. But the show didn't really have many strangers so I get why that wasn't the show's position.

[Wiendish Fitch]

Even if Emily was being irrational or unreasonable, she still had my complete sympathy. Ross was an emotionally stunted twit who bungled the relationship, and Emily was acting out of hurt more than anything else. 

[AgathaC]

I always had sympathy for Emily. I think she took her demands/requests too far, but I understood why. Rachel behaved horribly in the run-up to the wedding and I remember being annoyed at the audience’s “woooooo!” when she announced she was going to London. At least she pulled back at the last minute — but still. And Ross was a moron.

I, too, got why the friends had the reaction they did, as their group was being threatened and they were all — Monica, in particular — being put in a bad position. I appreciated Phoebe (before) and Monica (after the wedding) telling Rachel her plan was an incredibly bad idea. But some sort of acknowledgment that, “yes, we love you both and support you, but you realize you’ve both behaved like idiots/asses who hurt an innocent person through your dysfunction, right?” would have been nice. Unless that happened and I’ve forgotten it.

And that would probably be too much realism/emotional maturity to expect from a sitcom!

i don’t know. Honestly, I was never into Ross and Rachel, even the first time around when I was an impressionable kid. They annoyed me. It’s only as a more mature, experienced adult that I’ve been able to figure out why.

[Wiendish Fitch]

I am sick to my core of origin stories. They're tedious, unnecessary, and just feel cheap. I don't care about any of the characters' ancestors on Game of Thrones, I don't care about Alfred the butler's backstory, and I certainly don't care how the Pink Ladies got started (sorry to be mean, but why would anyone?!?!)!

[bluegirl147]

59 minutes ago, Wiendish Fitch said:

I am sick to my core of origin stories.

It feels like a cheat.  They want to draw fans of the original source material and then hit us with characters we don't care about.

It's like going to a concert wanting to hear all their hits and they only want to play their new stuff.

[Wiendish Fitch]

57 minutes ago, bluegirl147 said:

It feels like a cheat.  They want to draw fans of the original source material and then hit us with characters we don't care about.

It's like going to a concert wanting to hear all their hits and they only want to play their new stuff.

Once in a while it's a cute idea, but now it feels like a manipulative ploy, to pull "original" ideas out of preexisting stories to trick us into thinking they're being clever. 

[proserpina65]

5 hours ago, Wiendish Fitch said:

I am sick to my core of origin stories. They're tedious, unnecessary, and just feel cheap. I don't care about any of the characters' ancestors on Game of Thrones, I don't care about Alfred the butler's backstory, and I certainly don't care how the Pink Ladies got started (sorry to be mean, but why would anyone?!?!)!

For me, it depends on how it's done.  I think House of the Dragon has worked, although I wasn't sure about watching it at first and it took half the first season before I cared about more than one character.  Other times, you're right, it does seem like a cheap way to try and make some money off previous success.

And I absolutely second your wondering why anyone would care how the Pink Ladies started out.

[sistermagpie]

19 hours ago, scarynikki12 said:

A Friends UO I have is I understand why Emily wasn't comfortable with Ross continuing to be friends with Rachel. Not because he said the wrong name at the wedding as that was all on him but because of the airport. Emily had decided to work on the marriage and go on their honeymoon but she sees Ross is about to go on said honeymoon with Rachel. 

For me, my focus was never on her being unreasonable, but on how it was just so obvious she needed to dump him and all those unreasonable requests were just avoiding that obvious fact. He humiliated her at her own wedding and when she showed up at the airport he was going away with the woman whose name he said. That said everything she needed to know, imo. But she hung on briefly thinking that she could erase Rachel from his life, which she never could. 

So I thought her demands were unreasonable, but only because Ross had already proved the marriage wasn't going to work, and I could forgive her for her moment of crazy trying to hang on. 

8 hours ago, Wiendish Fitch said:

I am sick to my core of origin stories. They're tedious, unnecessary, and just feel cheap. I don't care about any of the characters' ancestors on Game of Thrones, I don't care about Alfred the butler's backstory, and I certainly don't care how the Pink Ladies got started (sorry to be mean, but why would anyone?!?!)!

Origin stories always usually seem like a cheat to me too. It seems much harder to write entertaining stories with people that exist than hook people in by claiming you're going to show the origins of the person. 

We basically know how the PInk Ladies got started. they're four girls in high school together who became friends and decided it would be cool to call themselves that. They're not outcasts or misfits any more than the four girls at he next table in the cafeteria who don't smoke or have sex as much are.

[AstridM]

20 hours ago, scarynikki12 said:

A Friends UO I have is I understand why Emily wasn't comfortable with Ross continuing to be friends with Rachel. Not because he said the wrong name at the wedding as that was all on him but because of the airport. Emily had decided to work on the marriage and go on their honeymoon but she sees Ross is about to go on said honeymoon with Rachel. If it were me I would not assume they were going platonically but starting an affair. Don't forget back in season 1 after Rachel left Barry at the altar she learned he went on their honeymoon with her maid of honor Mindy and she immediately knew what that meant so there's precedent in the show. It was presented as Emily being so unreasonable and how dare she try to tell Ross who he should be friends with but I get it. She didn't ask him to stop being friends with anyone else only the woman who, from what Emily saw, was actively about to have an affair with her husband. And I like Rachel but she did fly to London to break them up, ask another guest if she should go to the altar and replace Emily after Ross said the wrong name, was actively joining him on his honeymoon, and then got upset when he "abandoned her" (ran after Emily) so she really didn't have a leg to stand on when everyone was freaking out about this.

I can understand why she thought Rachel wasn’t there to go on the honeymoon platonically, but it turned out that the vacation WAS platonic .

Edited April 6, 2023 by AstridM

[kiddo82]

On 4/4/2023 at 11:31 AM, Leeds said:

Who?  In what?

She plays a character named Poppy in a series on Apple TV called Mythic Quest.  It's about a the staff and creators surrounding a massively popular online role playing game.  Think the Office but even more irreverent.  I think her and the show are massively underrated.

[AstridM]

9 hours ago, Wiendish Fitch said:

I am sick to my core of origin stories. They're tedious, unnecessary, and just feel cheap. I don't care about any of the characters' ancestors on Game of Thrones, I don't care about Alfred the butler's backstory, and I certainly don't care how the Pink Ladies got started (sorry to be mean, but why would anyone?!?!)!

IDK, I absolutely adored Better Call Saul, but some others aren’t necessary.

[Wiendish Fitch]

11 minutes ago, AstridM said:

IDK, I absolutely adored Better Call Saul, but some others aren’t necessary.

Okay, fair, there are exceptions to the rule. But in the case of BSC, it premiered not long after Breaking Bad ended, and I'm fairly certain it was always part of Vince Gilligan's plan. It's not as if, decades after the fact, someone got a hair up their butt about telling Saul Goodman's origin story. 

[Leeds]

57 minutes ago, kiddo82 said:

She plays a character named Poppy in a series on Apple TV called Mythic Quest.  It's about a the staff and creators surrounding a massively popular online role playing game.  Think the Office but even more irreverent.  I think her and the show are massively underrated.

Thanks for taking the time to reply!

[Irlandesa]

2 hours ago, Wiendish Fitch said:

I'm fairly certain it was always part of Vince Gilligan's plan.

Saul Goodman's origin story wasn't always in the plan.  I think it helped that the same creator and long-time writer on Breaking Bad created the series.  That creator, Vince Gilligan, just happens to do TV better than almost everyone else does TV.  Whether one likes the genre of his series or not, he does have a great ability to take a story from point A to point Z. 

[sistermagpie]

2 hours ago, AstridM said:

I can understand why she thought Rachel wasn’t there to go on the honeymoon platonically, but it turned out that the vacation WAS platonic .

Would that really matter, though? Sure, they weren't going away romantically, but there's feelings enough there that he said her name at the wedding and then wanted to go away with her for 2 weeks. It's exactly the red flag she thought it was. Not that the two of them were having an affair, but that she was always going to be too central to him for him to be marrying somebody else.

15 minutes ago, Irlandesa said:

Saul Goodman's origin story wasn't always in the plan.  I think it helped that the same creator and long-time writer on Breaking Bad created the series.  That creator, Vince Gilligan, just happens to do TV better than almost everyone else does TV.  Whether one likes the genre of his series or not, he does have a great ability to take a story from point A to point Z. 

I remember they said it became a joke about things happening in the sequel, Better Call Saul. But I don't think they had an idea to start with where it would go.

But in that case, I think it was more that Saul was a character who could carry his own show. BB was a character show, and they did a different character based show about Saul--his origin, yes, but also what happened to him after BB. It's a little different than a straight story where it's just "Hey, you like these characters--here they are younger!" when there's not really a story to back it up. If there is a story, great! But too often it never gets much past "The character you love--but ealier, with a story with lots of Easter Eggs that will give simple answers to where everything you know about them comes from!"

Edited April 7, 2023 by sistermagpie

[bluegirl147]

I'm doing a rewatch of Big Bang Theory and I don't know if this is unpopular or not but I cannot stand Amy Farrah Fowler.  I just finished season five and between her giving Penny that creepy giant painting of them and her being Bernadette's maid of honor I just wanted to punch her.  In later seasons I remember her becoming less annoying mostly because she was spending more time with Sheldon and Sheldon was always going to be the annoying one in any pairing. 

[Bethany]

1 hour ago, bluegirl147 said:

In later seasons I remember her becoming less annoying mostly because she was spending more time with Sheldon and Sheldon was always going to be the annoying one in any pairing. 

I liked Amy once they dropped that ridiculous crush she had on Penny.  Why the writers thought that was funny when they were already messing around with blatant hints about Raj and Howard's bromance is beyond me.  

[scarynikki12]

Once the decision was made to stop making Amy the female Sheldon I hated her. She had the creepy crush on Penny and then spent years (literally) begging Sheldon to give her the kind of relationship he said he didn’t want. Instead of finding her a boyfriend who actually wanted to give her romance and intimacy they changed Sheldon. It was awful.

[juno]

1 minute ago, scarynikki12 said:

Once the decision was made to stop making Amy the female Sheldon I hated her. She had the creepy crush on Penny and then spent years (literally) begging Sheldon to give her the kind of relationship he said he didn’t want. Instead of finding her a boyfriend who actually wanted to give her romance and intimacy they changed Sheldon. It was awful.

Not sure what they were doing bringing her in and writing her like a needy teenager. She started off treating the rest of the cast like crap and it evolved to her attaching herself to the rest of the cast. She never seemed to fit in and basically wrecked the later seasons for me. I just fast forward through most of her scenes on re-watch.

[Bethany]

The thing I really dislike in my latest re-watch of Big Bang (I'm on the last season now) is the way they turned Penny into another workplace bully just like Bernadette and dropped hints that she had always been a bully towards Leonard as well.  This was not the Penny that was on the show for 11 years!  It was bad enough they turned sweet little Bernadette into Bernadette the Bitch but why they felt they needed to do it to Penny too is beyond me.  

[juno]

1 hour ago, Elizabeth Anne said:

The thing I really dislike in my latest re-watch of Big Bang (I'm on the last season now) is the way they turned Penny into another workplace bully just like Bernadette and dropped hints that she had always been a bully towards Leonard as well.  This was not the Penny that was on the show for 11 years!  It was bad enough they turned sweet little Bernadette into Bernadette the Bitch but why they felt they needed to do it to Penny too is beyond me.  

they changed a lot of characters. possible to create new stories. Didn't work, just made it unwatchable

[bluegirl147]

If I'm not mistaken the character changes occurred when some of the behind the people left for Young Sheldon. I could be wrong but there was a definite shift in writing.

The show was much more enjoyable IMO when the focus was on the main five characters.  I didn't mind them adding Bernadette and even Amy at first.  They were fine in small doses. But when they became part of the main cast and featured every episode it kinda became a show about couples and not the friendships that were there from the first episode.  

And it is very jarring for me to hear Sheldon reference his father in such a way that doesn't line up with the father I'm seeing on Young Sheldon.  And to make it worse just the other day I watched the episode where Young Sheldon's George's portrayer guested on BBT as Leonards' high school bully. 

Edited April 7, 2023 by bluegirl147

[Zella]

It's been a long time since I watched TBBT and I agree that Amy was insufferable, but they also started Flanderizing Sheldon pretty early when they realized he was a breakout character.

In the early episodes, it was established that Sheldon was weird, but he seemed like a person who'd actually exist and the other characters agreed he was a weird pain in the ass and tolerated him in a way that was believable to me. (My college roommate was a computer science major, and some of her friends in the department were . . . like a very unfunny version of that character in real life. LMAO I avoided them like the plague, and she never has pieced together why, though she and I remain friends years later.)

But he quickly morphed into this sentient meme that I refuse to believe even the most poorly socialized person would continue to be friends with. It completely turned me off the show, but I think the writers started to think his behavior was actually cute and charming. It wasn't. 

[Bethany]

I know every long running sitcom tends to end up making the characters caricatures of themselves but BBT could be the text book example of this happening, most of the characters were annoying as hell by the end of the series. 

Possibly with the exception of Amy!  She got more self assured and less needy.  Same with Howard, he stopped being the skeevy engineer and became a pretty decent father and husband (oh minor lapses but they did let him grow out of the lecherous creep stage). 

For the others though - IMO all became far less likeable by the end of the series.  Which was too bad as despite its flaws BBT at its best was a very funny show.  Even the last few seasons had some standout episodes but it got further and farther between!

Edited April 7, 2023 by Elizabeth Anne

[juno]

15 minutes ago, bluegirl147 said:

If I'm not mistaken the character changes occurred when some of the behind the people left for Young Sheldon. I could be wrong but there was a definite shift in writing.

The show was much more enjoyable IMO when the focus was on the main five characters.  I didn't mind them adding Bernadette and even Amy at first.  They were fine in small doses. But when they became part of the main cast and featured every episode it kinda became a show about couples and not the friendships that were there from the first episode.  

And it is very jarring for me to hear Sheldon reference his father in such a way that doesn't line up with the father I'm seeing on Young Sheldon.  And to make it worse just the other day I watched the episode where Young Sheldon's George's portrayer guested on BBT as Leonards' high school bully. 

This is one of my major pet peeves regarding comedies (and other formats). As the shows become more successful more cast members are brought in and suddenly the main cast members have less scenes and less time on the show in order to fit in all the new cast members.

One example is Resident Alien. Great show. Suddenly in season 2 new cast members show up and minor characters became major ones. The main cast has less scenes and the show starts to crater because as much as the idiots running this show want us to believe, less Alan Tudyk is a more crappy show.

[bluegirl147]

16 minutes ago, Elizabeth Anne said:

Same with Howard, he stopped being the skeevy engineer and became a pretty decent father and husband (oh minor lapses but they did let him grow out of the lecherous creep stage). 

Upon my rewatch I'm enjoying Howard.  He did evolve and IMO became a better character.  

 

[Bethany]

13 minutes ago, juno said:

This is one of my major pet peeves regarding comedies (and other formats). As the shows become more successful more cast members are brought in and suddenly the main cast members have less scenes and less time on the show in order to fit in all the new cast members.

This is especially bad in a show like BBT that only has about 17 minutes in which to tell each week's story!  And what I noticed in the last year or two in particular was a minute or so of precious airtime was wasted recapping from previous shows in case the viewers somehow forgot what had happened only and episode or two before!

[Zella]

29 minutes ago, Elizabeth Anne said:

For the others though - IMO all became far less likeable by the end of the series.  Which was too bad as despite its flaws BBT at its best was a very funny show. 

Agreed. I thought the first couple of seasons were really funny.

[Wiendish Fitch]

Just now, Elizabeth Anne said:

This is especially bad in a show like BBT that only has about 17 minutes in which to tell each week's story!  And what I noticed in the last year or two in particular was a minute or so of precious airtime was wasted recapping from previous shows in case the viewers somehow forgot what had happened only and episode or two before!

I've said it before, I'll say it again: I don't care how beloved and successful a sitcom is, I think there should be a 5 or 6 year limit, because too often the characters become embarrassing, unwatchable caricatures of themselves. I've ranted a million times before about how nightmarishly stupid Joey Tribbiani and Eric Matthews became, and I can easily rant a million times more about it!

 

[Spartan Girl]

7 minutes ago, Wiendish Fitch said:

I've said it before, I'll say it again: I don't care how beloved and successful a sitcom is, I think there should be a 5 or 6 year limit, because too often the characters become embarrassing, unwatchable caricatures of themselves. I've ranted a million times before about how nightmarishly stupid Joey Tribbiani and Eric Matthews became, and I can easily rant a million times more about it!

 

That can apply to The Simpsons as well. I can rant about what an unbearable Karen twat Marge Simpson has become a million times—especially in this thread—but I really do hate her so much. 

[bluegirl147]

1 hour ago, Wiendish Fitch said:

I've said it before, I'll say it again: I don't care how beloved and successful a sitcom is, I think there should be a 5 or 6 year limit, because too often the characters become embarrassing, unwatchable caricatures of themselves.

Modern Family comes to mind.

Even the very best sitcoms like Cheers and Frasier lost something the longer they stayed on. 

[Crs97]

2 hours ago, bluegirl147 said:

And it is very jarring for me to hear Sheldon reference his father in such a way that doesn't line up with the father I'm seeing on Young Sheldon. 

I guess we are supposed to hand-wave Sheldon as an unreliable narrator, but his mother made very similar comments on BBT.  I don't watch much Young Sheldon, but I basically pretend it is a different show when I stumble across an episode.

[bluegirl147]

11 minutes ago, Crs97 said:

I don't watch much Young Sheldon, but I basically pretend it is a different show when I stumble across an episode.

You almost have to if you want to enjoy YS.  Waiting for George to die not to mention have Sheldon catch him with another woman is not fun.  So I can separate young Sheldon Cooper from adult Sheldon Cooper. And since I'm not crazy about young Sheldon it's not hard to do.  His extended family is so much more enjoyable to watch.

[kiddo82]

On 4/6/2023 at 9:53 AM, Wiendish Fitch said:

I am sick to my core of origin stories. They're tedious, unnecessary, and just feel cheap. I don't care about any of the characters' ancestors on Game of Thrones, I don't care about Alfred the butler's backstory, and I certainly don't care how the Pink Ladies got started (sorry to be mean, but why would anyone?!?!)!

I think it's just the time we're in.  Things based off of existing intellectual property are easier to get made than things that aren't due to studios being so chicken shit  risk averse.  Plus, it's less work to try to sell to the masses.  I have a complicated view of fan service (it can run anywhere from great to insulting which is a whole other post) but I hate retro fitting something that no one ever asked about in the first place.  It just seems like a cheap and lazy gimmick to get people excited.  I'll never forget reading a review for Solo: A Star Wars story where they criticized how the movie just had to show us how Han got his blaster.  "Somebody handed it to him."  I'm not that bright and even I saw through that.  

I have no opinion for or against Rise of the Pink Ladies but if they play it more as its own concept than as a vessel that's only purpose is to drop Easter eggs to that thing it already knows we like then it could be a fun high school dramedy.  The problem is that usually these types of shows try to make a meal out of nostalgia when it should really only be the nutmeg.

Edited April 8, 2023 by kiddo82

[Cloud9Shopper]

Mine is about SVU. I’m basing this on arguments I’ve seen in other spaces and haven’t read through the SVU forum here so I don’t know what’s been discussed in full but…my UO is that I don’t really mind having Noah in the show. I think he gets too much hate for a kid character. He’s always been fine to me and in general, yes he’s had a few bratty moments here and there but he seems like a well-adjusted kid who cares about others. 

And I think Olivia is a decent mom, and I hate that some people are still low-key sexist and act like she can’t possibly raise Noah while being high up in the NYPD. She’s not a poor working class single mom but this also isn’t the 50s anymore. She’s done a good job with Noah and seems to be caring and raising him well. I mean this is SVU. There have been way worse parents on the show than Olivia and worse main character parents in other shows. Let’s not act like she’s the worst person ever for having a demanding job and a kid. 

[Egg McMuffin]

On 4/6/2023 at 9:53 AM, Wiendish Fitch said:

I am sick to my core of origin stories. They're tedious, unnecessary, and just feel cheap. I don't care about any of the characters' ancestors on Game of Thrones, I don't care about Alfred the butler's backstory, and I certainly don't care how the Pink Ladies got started (sorry to be mean, but why would anyone?!?!)!

Batman has so many of them: Commissioner Gordon, Alfred, Batgirl, and I think one is coming about the Penguin. They’re all built around the problem, “How can we do TV series about the Batman universe without showing Batman?” 

How long before we get an origin story about Aunt Harriet?

Edited April 8, 2023 by Egg McMuffin

[Wiendish Fitch]

1 hour ago, Egg McMuffin said:

Batman has so many of them: Commissioner Gordon, Alfred, Batgirl, and I think one is coming about the Penguin. They’re all built around the problem, “How can we do TV series about the Batman universe without showing Batman?” 

How long before we get an origin story about Aunt Harriet?

SSSSHHHH! Don't give them ideas!!

[scarynikki12]

The Batman without Batman thing I get as that all comes back to Warner Bros flat out refusing to let him be on live action television. So, instead of getting, let's say, a five season show that lets us dig deep on The Bat, The Bat Family, and his top tier Rogues Gallery they instead do what they can with what WB believes won't threaten their payday from the movies. This applies to the Joker as well which is why Gotham, the show that's come the closest and only because it was set pre-Batman, was never allowed to call Jerome and Jeremiah by that name and only allowed one glimpse of Bruce in the suit in the series finale provided the actor didn't say a word. Once WB is willing to loosen their grip on the character I expect we'll get a proper Batman show on a streaming service.

Along those lines my UO is Gotham was a really fun show and Cameron Monaghan, despite not being allowed to use the name, was an amazing Joker to the point I put him second only to Heath Ledger for live action portrayals. David Mazouz was also great as Bruce and I'd love to see him play him again on a streaming show. He's only 22 so he's the perfect age to play early Batman. We just need WB to get with the game.

[Miss Anne Thrope]

2 hours ago, Egg McMuffin said:

How long before we get an origin story about Aunt Harriet?

 

Now that I would watch!

[Crs97]

I hope this isn’t UO, but I don’t like the origin stories that try to suggest the villain’s backstory is sad enough that it excuses the horrible things they do.

[Egg McMuffin]

8 hours ago, Miss Anne Thrope said:

Now that I would watch!

LOL. I’d write it so that she came from a midwestern town called Mayfield and had a son named Larry.