Party of One: Unpopular TV Opinions

[Spartan Girl]

I don’t want this strike to last forever. That “deal” (using the term laughably) getting leaked is the eleventh hundredth sign to the studios that they need to renegotiate now. Not a month from now, not three months from now, not next year, NOW. Because if they’re still wanting for public opinion to turn on the unions after they’ve stupidity leaked their own dirty underhanded tactics to break them, that ain’t gonna happen.

[JustHereForFood]

On 7/18/2023 at 1:10 AM, AstridM said:

Doctors?

Unrelated to this strike, just regarding unions and strikes in general. Last year we had a doctors' strike in my country (some unions here are particularly corrupt and obviously on the side of some politicians) and my mother had to wait few months for her mastectomy (not a serios operation, just a "just in case" one, but her doctor told her they had even more serious operations postponed because they did not have enough anesthesiologists as they organized to resign at the same time). All my sympathy for what the doctors had to go through during the pandemic with the long hours and some crazy patients went out the window. (And it wasn't like it was some existential problem they had, it was mostly about the money, where they do comparably much better than average, it's the nurses that are underpaid, but those were thrown under the bus again as a result.)

Also, it's common in several countries here in Europe that people can't get on their vacations in summer due to strikes of airport personnel right in the middle of the season, etc. 

My basic rule with strikes, protests, etc. is do what you want, as long as you don't hurt people that are in no way responsible for your shit. 

[Lugal]

On 7/17/2023 at 4:09 PM, partofme said:

A lot of what is on tv and in the movies may be crap but I support unions and striking in all industries.  You may think the writers and actors are overpaid but look at what the CEO’s make and try not to be sick.  

Like Bob Iger with his $200 million a year telling writers and actors they need to be "realistic."  Fuck you, Bob!

On 7/17/2023 at 4:37 PM, Annber03 said:

I mean, maybe they'd be able to produce better quality product if they were actually getting paid and treated well enough to do so. Besides that, I know a lot of people think that writers have full control over the storylines on shows, but they don't. If a storyline turns out crappy, it isn't automatically the writers' fault, or at least, it's not solely on them much of the time.

Exactly!  That's part of the problem.  There's so much money being thrown around on these things (see the latest Indiana Jones with it's $300 million budget) and the loss of DVD revenue has led to studios becoming very risk-averse.  I'm sure lots of writers and actors want to do different things, but are shackled by the money-men and stick to the money-making formula.  The studios force them to turn out shit and then they get blamed for the shit they're forced to turn out.

[andromeda331]

4 hours ago, JustHereForFood said:

Unrelated to this strike, just regarding unions and strikes in general. Last year we had a doctors' strike in my country (some unions here are particularly corrupt and obviously on the side of some politicians) and my mother had to wait few months for her mastectomy (not a serios operation, just a "just in case" one, but her doctor told her they had even more serious operations postponed because they did not have enough anesthesiologists as they organized to resign at the same time). All my sympathy for what the doctors had to go through during the pandemic with the long hours and some crazy patients went out the window. (And it wasn't like it was some existential problem they had, it was mostly about the money, where they do comparably much better than average, it's the nurses that are underpaid, but those were thrown under the bus again as a result.)

Also, it's common in several countries here in Europe that people can't get on their vacations in summer due to strikes of airport personnel right in the middle of the season, etc. 

My basic rule with strikes, protests, etc. is do what you want, as long as you don't hurt people that are in no way responsible for your shit. 

Yeah but the only way to get any movement when it comes to pay and stuff is to strike when it hurts the employer the most. Whether its hospitals, schools or something else the employer doesn't care and won't do anything unless they are forced too. The only thing that really care about is their own money. This is the perfect time for airline and airport employees to strike because it's summer and so many people are traveling. There were nurses strikes during the pandemic who have always been overworked and underpaid but it was the best time to try and force raises because they were so in need at the time. It sucks that you have to do that just to get better pay and/or benefits. But it's the only way to get it.

[Glitches]

On 7/17/2023 at 3:49 AM, Kel Varnsen said:

Edie Falco plays the character pretty perfectly

She was great as Nurse Jackie also. 

[Bastet]

1 hour ago, andromeda331 said:

Yeah but the only way to get any movement when it comes to pay and stuff is to strike when it hurts the employer the most.

Yeah, a strike has to be widely disruptive to succeed.  Union members don't undertake them lightly, given the cost to them and collateral damage to those who are not the cause of their unfair circumstances, but times come when they have to use that one bit of leverage far too few of us in the U.S. have anymore.

[callie lee 29]

I posted this in another thread but it seems appropriate here with the current discussion. The Bear is a very popular show that is streaming only (and has quite a few Emmy nominations that were just announced).

Writer below poverty line

[Crs97]

8 hours ago, andromeda331 said:

Whether its hospitals, schools or something else the employer doesn't care and won't do anything unless they are forced too.

And their PR is so good that they will convince huge swaths of people that the strikers are the ones being greedy.

[DoctorAtomic]

It's not like their striking every other year over the length of the coffee breaks. The last time it was this major, some guy named Ronald Reagan was in Dreser's position. 

[proserpina65]

On 7/17/2023 at 7:11 PM, tribeca said:

What other jobs does the actor/writers strike effect?

All the other people who work on tv shows and movies in non-acting/writing jobs.  There are a lot of people employed by the entertainment industry.  Plus the businesses in the areas where shows and movies are filmed, such as restaurants.

On 7/17/2023 at 7:37 PM, Annber03 said:

There's also the fact that there's many actors involved in this strike who AREN'T among those getting paid millions of dollars, who actually are working class actors who need to take second jobs (or third jobs) to supplement their income. The media will likely focus most of its attention on the speeches made by the big actors, of course, because they're more prominent and thus will naturally get most of the attention, but most actors in this strike are not among that elite group,

Yep, for every Matt Damon or Harrison Ford the media interviews, there are dozens (probably hundreds) of "Hey, it's that guy"s who have to work side jobs to pay their bills.

On 7/17/2023 at 7:57 PM, Kel Varnsen said:

The big reason I have a hard time caring about the actors strike is that unlike a lot of other unions I am familiar with, actors are allowed to negotiate their own contact above and beyond the collective agreement. So if you are say a teacher, or a nurse an electrician in a factory your employment contract is the collective agreement. But if you are an actor and you want to negotiate more you are allowed to do that. So if an actor wants more pay or better residuals there is nothing stopping them from negotiation those things on their own.

Unless someone is a big name, this is not going to happen.  That's why there are actors' unions, to give the lesser known, less experienced members a chance at decent pay and decent working conditions.  The unions are not just about pay but also about trying to prevent the exploitation of the vast majority of actors who have VERY LITTLE power.

On 7/18/2023 at 12:39 AM, kathyk24 said:

I don't think you can blame the unions regarding streaming. Nobody knew how important streaming was going to be. Disney Plus and Peacock didn't exist five years ago, Netflix used to be a DVD by mail service. You can't blame people for being unable to see into the future.

I think even the studios were taken a bit unawares by how streaming blew up huge during covid.

 

1 hour ago, DoctorAtomic said:

It's not like their striking every other year over the length of the coffee breaks. The last time it was this major, some guy named Ronald Reagan was in Dreser's position. 

The same Ronald Reagan who later fired air traffic controllers for going on strike about wages and working conditions.  Pretty fucking ironic.

[DoctorAtomic]

That wasn't lost on me either. 

[MadyGirl1987]

Here’s an unpopular opinion I have; I don’t like the Rock. I don’t get his appeal, and don’t think he is a very good actor. IMO him getting his start in professional wrestling shows. His persona as a gentle tough guy also comes across to me as try-hard. He strikes me as very egocentric and concerned about his image. Often I can see why something that I don’t like appeals to people, but with him, I just don’t understand why he’s popular.

[AstridM]

On 7/18/2023 at 6:41 PM, DoctorAtomic said:

but using AI to output a spec script is a reasonable argument.

I don’t agree. 

23 hours ago, JustHereForFood said:

Also, it's common in several countries here in Europe that people can't get on their vacations in summer due to strikes of airport personnel right in the middle of the season, etc. 

people aren’t being “hurt” in this case, lol. 

[sistermagpie]

On 7/18/2023 at 6:33 PM, scarynikki12 said:

Hollywood knows they need writers but the fear is they’ll use AI to pump out the initial script and then hire a writer to do a rewrite to make it sound authentic. They wouldn’t have to pay as much for a rewrite as they would for a writers room or an individual’s completed script. 

 

On 7/18/2023 at 6:41 PM, DoctorAtomic said:

I still don't think AI is there, but using AI to output a spec script is a reasonable argument.

 

1 hour ago, AstridM said:

I don’t agree. 

So much this! "Re-writing" a script that was spit out by an AI is just as difficult if not more so than starting from scratch. They'd be writing the script and getting paid as if they just tweaked it. 

All corporations are ready to use technology as a threat or cover for their own greed. And still suggest it's people living hand to mouth and actually producing the product that are unreasonable!

[Ohiopirate02]

11 hours ago, sistermagpie said:

So much this! "Re-writing" a script that was spit out by an AI is just as difficult if not more so than starting from scratch. They'd be writing the script and getting paid as if they just tweaked it. 

I've been reading tweets and watching various writers on Tik-Tok, and if the studios did go the AI route it would be bad long-term for writers.  The work the studios are trying to us AI for is the stuff done by the new writers.  It's part of the learning process and necessary for their craft.  If you use AI for this, then you do not need entry level staff.  And eventually the studios won't have any new writers as the older ones retire, move on to other projects, or die.  

[DrSpaceman73]

I understand the threat of AI to writers and am motivated thrilled about AI written shows. 

But I dont know how you stop Hollywood from using it.  How can you ban it?  How can you prove AI va non AI writing os some combination of the two?

 

With actors it's a bit more straightforward. They own their name, image likeness and can't use it AI generated or not without compensation

For writers though you can't own a writing style. You can copyright a book, poem, story but not a style. If ai comes in and rips off say Aaron sorkin, just using as a prominent example of distinctive writing, you can't say it's his writing if he never actually wrote it yet. 

[Ohiopirate02]

44 minutes ago, DrSpaceman73 said:

For writers though you can't own a writing style. You can copyright a book, poem, story but not a style. If ai comes in and rips off say Aaron sorkin, just using as a prominent example of distinctive writing, you can't say it's his writing if he never actually wrote it yet. 

AI is nowhere near capable of turning out an entire script in Aaron Sorkin's style.  And in order for it to learn his style, his scripts would have to be fed into the AI.  The studios may or may not be able to legally do that.  This is still up in the air at the moment.  

[Kel Varnsen]

1 hour ago, DrSpaceman73 said:

I understand the threat of AI to writers and am motivated thrilled about AI written shows. 

But I dont know how you stop Hollywood from using it.  How can you ban it?  How can you prove AI va non AI writing os some combination of the two?

That is sort of where I am at with AI and writing.  Since it seems like if you could write something super original and creative you probably would have less to worry about than someone who writes something boring and obvious that is a rip off of something else. In which case I am not sure I care if a bad script was written by a computer or a human.

Plus where is the line on what is and what isn't AI? Even email programs like Gmail give me suggestions on how to make an email sound better and more clear. If a script writer uses that, is it considered AI since it is taking a job away from another writer or an editor who might proofread your scripts.

Plus if scripts can be produced with the help of AI doesn't that mean more potential jobs for actors?

[Ohiopirate02]

6 minutes ago, Kel Varnsen said:

Plus if scripts can be produced with the help of AI doesn't that mean more potential jobs for actors?

Given the amount of projects stuck in development limbo and scripts languishing on shelves, no.  

[DoctorAtomic]

I don't think AI is going to be the threat it's being made out to be, but I think you can compromise on its use. For example, no, you can't use AI *alone* to make a spec script, or something like that. 

[Lugal]

59 minutes ago, DoctorAtomic said:

I don't think AI is going to be the threat it's being made out to be, but I think you can compromise on its use. For example, no, you can't use AI *alone* to make a spec script, or something like that. 

I think the key word is yet.  AI is evolving fast (Just a look at midjourney for AI art and assume that the writing apps are evolving at similar pace), so I don't blame the writers and actors for trying to get ahead of it.

[DoctorAtomic]

Yes, yet. However, I also did say previously that I understand why it is a point of contention, and I agree it should be addressed. They got burned on the residuals for the streaming, so I can understand why this issue should be thoroughly discussed. 

In general, I just don't think AI is going to be able to do everything with anything. It's approaching an asymptote already. It's also two issues - what the rules should be for an actor licensing their likeness, and what the rules are as to the role of AI in the writing process. I don't think the likeness issue would cost jobs viz. a writer, although, I just don't think AI will be able to write feature or dense tv scripts solely. 

[supposebly]

46 minutes ago, DoctorAtomic said:

I just don't think AI will be able to write feature or dense tv scripts solely.

I've been hoping but I'm not too sure. There is discussion about AI writing my student's term papers, possibly whole theses, apparently, an AI has written a Beatles song that one of the Beatles (I can't remember which one) deemed quite good.

I can tell you that student essays are already written by AI and they are very very hard to distinguish from work by humans except they are often better than my students' writing 😉.

And considering the templatic and boring output of certain types of TV such as procedurals, I have no problem imagining that they could be written by a bot.

[DoctorAtomic]

44 minutes ago, supposebly said:

I can tell you that student essays are already written by AI and they are very very hard to distinguish from work by humans except they are often better than my students' writing 😉.

That's how you know. Also, the glib alternative is don't make essays that AI can write; however, that's a lot of time most educators don't have. I just don't see it at the praxis level so to speak. 

[Ohiopirate02]

1 hour ago, supposebly said:

And considering the templatic and boring output of certain types of TV such as procedurals, I have no problem imagining that they could be written by a bot.

I imagine a scenario where AI can spit out award winning scripts for prestige dramas far easier than the police procedurals.  The more formulaic the plot does not necessarily mean the easier to write.  

[Mabinogia]

1 hour ago, supposebly said:

And considering the templatic and boring output of certain types of TV such as procedurals, I have no problem imagining that they could be written by a bot.

Based on most of what is on tv right now, basically 80 different versions of the same story, I wouldn't be a bit surprised to find out that AI is already writing at least 75% of it. Wouldn't surprise me a bit to learn that some writers are already using AI to do a lot of the writing for them either if I'm honest. 

There is very little on TV right now that couldn't be written by an advanced AI system. 

I'm not saying that I want AI to replace human writers so much as I just want human writers to be able to write more different things. And I don't blame them, they are writing what sells because it is their job. I just think the whole system is fucked and I'm hoping, if nothing else, the strike shakes Hollywood up a bit. 

I'm tired of everything being a reboot, cheap reality programs, or the millionth version of a worn out franchise. (Honestly, if anything is ruining Hollywood it is their over depenancy on building cinematic worlds rather than just telling good stories and trusting that audiences will embrace unknown characters.)

[DrSpaceman73]

5 hours ago, DoctorAtomic said:

I don't think AI is going to be the threat it's being made out to be, but I think you can compromise on its use. For example, no, you can't use AI *alone* to make a spec script, or something like that. 

But how would you prove it or know how much of a script is written by ai vs human?  How would a such a 'ban' be enforceable or a script be proven to be all AI?  

 

[Blergh]

With AI becoming a factor in writing and even concocting believable-appearing 'puter  performers, I think the striking writers and human performers likely could relate to the the silent movie siren(1905-1965)  Clara Bow's wish when she heard that part of the studio complex caught fire,

"I hope to God it's the sound stages!"

[DrSpaceman73]

I think what you'd have to do is require a certain minimum number of writers per movie/ show. 

Edited July 21, 2023 by DrSpaceman73

[andromeda331]

7 hours ago, Mabinogia said:

Based on most of what is on tv right now, basically 80 different versions of the same story, I wouldn't be a bit surprised to find out that AI is already writing at least 75% of it. Wouldn't surprise me a bit to learn that some writers are already using AI to do a lot of the writing for them either if I'm honest. 

There is very little on TV right now that couldn't be written by an advanced AI system. 

I'm not saying that I want AI to replace human writers so much as I just want human writers to be able to write more different things. And I don't blame them, they are writing what sells because it is their job. I just think the whole system is fucked and I'm hoping, if nothing else, the strike shakes Hollywood up a bit. 

I'm tired of everything being a reboot, cheap reality programs, or the millionth version of a worn out franchise. (Honestly, if anything is ruining Hollywood it is their over depenancy on building cinematic worlds rather than just telling good stories and trusting that audiences will embrace unknown characters.)

I agree. I'm tired of everything being rebooted. Most of them are terrible or just plan boring. Same with most reality shows. Crime shows are my favorite but I really wish there were more of a variety of different kinds of shows. One of the reasons I love Bridgerton is because the whole premise is romance. It's not a crime show where partners fall in love or something. It's really nice. I really like seeing POC in lead roles. I miss having a fantesy show to watch like the Librarians or that isn't Star Wars. I love Star Wars and most of their tv shows but I want more fantesy. I miss having a witch show to watch like Charmed or Sabrina or Bewitched. I gave Mayfair Witches a shot but it was too weird for me. I miss having a show to try and figure out like LOST. Alaskan Daily it was fun watching a show about a newsroom set in Alaska and had Native Americans but it got canceled. I'm hoping Dark Winds lasts awhile. Streaming used to have more variety but they also are quick to cancel shows like the Babysitters Club or Becoming Elizabeth. I loved the books and Elizabeth I but they were also something different to watch. I know networks and streaming are all the same they just want instant hits and money while I want a variety.

Edited July 21, 2023 by andromeda331

[supposebly]

I asked ChatGPT to tell people on a message board why NCIS is a terrible show. 

Warning: This is a AI generated text.

Quote

 

My Take on Why NCIS Isn't My Cup of Tea

Hey everyone,

I hope you're all having a great day. I wanted to share my perspective on the popular TV show NCIS. Now, I know it has a massive fan following and many people absolutely love it, but I have to admit that it's just not my cup of tea. Here's why:

Formulaic Plotting: One of the main reasons I can't get into NCIS is that it follows a very predictable formula in most episodes. You have a crime or murder to solve, some witty banter among the team members, and then they invariably solve the case within the hour. It lacks the unpredictability and complexity that I enjoy in other crime dramas.

Stagnant Characters: While the characters have their unique quirks and personalities, they don't seem to grow or develop much over the seasons. Sure, they face various challenges, but their personal arcs often feel repetitive and stale. I prefer shows where characters evolve and face new dilemmas, creating a more immersive and engaging experience.

Lack of Realistic Forensics: I understand that it's a TV show and they need to entertain, but the way NCIS handles forensics can be quite far-fetched at times. It often relies on improbable technology and shortcuts, which may be entertaining to some, but I prefer shows that at least attempt to maintain some level of realism.

Overuse of Humor: Don't get me wrong, humor is essential in any TV show, but NCIS leans heavily on it, sometimes at the expense of maintaining a serious crime-solving atmosphere. The excessive jokes and comedic moments can sometimes undermine the gravity of the cases they're dealing with, making it hard for me to fully invest in the story.

Lack of Diversity: Another aspect that has bothered me is the lack of diversity in the main cast. The show seems to have missed an opportunity to represent a broader range of perspectives and backgrounds, which could have made it more relatable and inclusive.

Of course, this is all just my personal opinion, and I'm not trying to discredit anyone who enjoys the show. Different people have different tastes, and it's great to see that NCIS has found a loyal fanbase. I just wanted to explain why it doesn't resonate with me.

I'm curious to hear what others think about NCIS. Feel free to share your thoughts, whether you love it, dislike it, or fall somewhere in between.

Let's keep the discussion respectful and open-minded.

Cheers!

 

If I read this post, I would think this is a very reasonable person that I wouldn't mind seeing on the "Unpopular Opinions" thread. It's a bit overly cheerful for my tastes but overall, not a problem.

I also asked it to write me a script that would work as a CSI Las Vegas episode. Keep in mind, the free version has limits on length.

Again: what follows is created by ChatGPT.

It's not great, it has Grissom and Langston in the same episode, huge chunks are missing, and Grissom's final sentence is completely awful and out of character. But the scenes themselves could be in any CSI episode.

Quote

Title: "Shadows of the Past"

INT. CRIME LAB - DNA LAB - DAY

[The team is gathered around a microscope as Dr. Sara Sidle analyzes DNA samples.]

SARA SIDLE (looking through the microscope) Guys, you need to see this. The DNA from the crime scene matches a case from ten years ago.

GREG SANDERS (surprised) Wait, are you saying we have a cold case with the same DNA?

INT. CRIME LAB - BREAK ROOM - DAY

[Catherine Willows and Nick Stokes discuss the discovery.]

CATHERINE WILLOWS (pensive) This means we might have a serial killer on the loose who went dormant for a decade.

NICK STOKES (nods) It's time to reopen the old case and see if we missed something back then.

INT. OLD EVIDENCE ROOM - DAY

[Sara, Catherine, and Nick search through dusty evidence boxes, unearthing old clues.]

SARA SIDLE (discovering a forgotten piece of evidence) Guys, look at this! A partial fingerprint that wasn't processed back then.

INT. CRIME LAB - DNA LAB - DAY

[Greg runs the fingerprint through the database.]

GREG SANDERS (excited) I got a hit! The print belongs to Robert Lewis, a petty criminal with a history of violence.

INT. INTERROGATION ROOM - DAY

[Detective Jim Brass and Gil Grissom question Robert Lewis.]

GIL GRISSOM (intense) We know you were involved in that cold case. Tell us everything!

ROBERT LEWIS (defiant) I ain't saying a word without my lawyer.

INT. CRIME LAB - TRACE LAB - DAY

[Dr. Raymond Langston examines trace evidence from the cold case and the recent crime scene.]

RAYMOND LANGSTON (exclaiming) There's a connection between the old and the new crime scene. Both have traces of the same rare paint.

INT. CSI VEHICLE - NIGHT

[Catherine and Nick stake out an art gallery linked to the rare paint.]

CATHERINE WILLOWS (determined) Whoever the killer is, they must have a connection to this gallery.

INT. ART GALLERY - NIGHT

[Catherine and Nick discreetly investigate.]

NICK STOKES (discovering a hidden room) Catherine, over here!

INT. ART GALLERY - HIDDEN ROOM - NIGHT

[A secret room is filled with disturbing paintings and journals.]

CATHERINE WILLOWS (reading from a journal) These writings are filled with rage and hatred. We've got our killer's lair.

INT. CRIME LAB - DAY

[Gil Grissom briefs the team.]

GIL GRISSOM We have enough evidence to bring Robert Lewis to justice for both crimes.

INT. COURTROOM - DAY

[Robert Lewis stands trial.]

JUDGE (addressing the court) The evidence presented by the prosecution is overwhelming. Robert Lewis, you are found guilty on all charges.

INT. CRIME LAB - CSI LAB - DAY

[The team reflects on closing the cold case.]

SARA SIDLE (smiling) Another case closed, and justice served.

GIL GRISSOM (nods) Our commitment to justice never wavers.

[The team exchanges triumphant glances, knowing they've brought closure to the victims' families.]

FADE OUT.

 

[Ohiopirate02]

8 hours ago, supposebly said:

I also asked it to write me a script that would work as a CSI Las Vegas episode. Keep in mind, the free version has limits on length.

Again: what follows is created by ChatGPT.

It's not great, it has Grissom and Langston in the same episode, huge chunks are missing, and Grissom's final sentence is completely awful and out of character. But the scenes themselves could be in any CSI episode.

I do wonder how AI would handle lore-heavy shows and long-running shows.  The tech isn't there yet and may never fully grasp characterization.  I'm thinking about how the different social media algorithms handle me liking specific sports teams.  Yes I like one baseball team/NFL/college team and follow them, that does not mean I want to read about MMA or Formula One or golf (blech) or the Jacksonville Jaguars.  But, the SM algorithms sure do think I do.  

[Blergh]

12 hours ago, DrSpaceman73 said:

I think what you'd have to do is require a certain minimum number of writers per movie/ show. 

Agree but how should the writers convince the producers,etc. that this would be in their better interests than to merely use cutting edge technology to eliminate the middle men (and women)?

[bluegirl147]

1 hour ago, Ohiopirate02 said:

But, the SM algorithms sure do think I do. 

The algorithms on streaming services are always wrong with me.  They never show me something I would like in their you watched this so you might like this category. 

I'm not a browser.  I always know what I'm looking to watch.

16 hours ago, Mabinogia said:

I'm tired of everything being a reboot, cheap reality programs, or the millionth version of a worn out franchise. (Honestly, if anything is ruining Hollywood it is their over depenancy on building cinematic worlds rather than just telling good stories and trusting that audiences will embrace unknown characters.)

Originality is becoming obsolete in Hollywood.  And when someone does come up with an original idea it is then copied and it becomes tired.

The studios can keep trying to shove reality shows and the Marvel universe and whatever universe they are producing down my throat but I'm not biting.  I will continue to rewatch old favorites.  

[proserpina65]

18 hours ago, supposebly said:

And considering the templatic and boring output of certain types of TV such as procedurals, I have no problem imagining that they could be written by a bot.

As long as they make sure everyone TAKES IT PERSONALLY!!!!, I can easily see AI doing scripts for Law & Order: SVU already.

[proserpina65]

44 minutes ago, bluegirl147 said:

The algorithms on streaming services are always wrong with me.  They never show me something I would like in their you watched this so you might like this category. 

I'm not a browser.  I always know what I'm looking to watch.

That's me, too.  They rarely realize that I'm almost always looking to watch specific shows because they feature an actor whom I find attractive.  I know I watched seasons 2-6 of All Saints but I don't want to watch every doctor show known to mankind, thank you very much, HULU, I just wanna look at Erik Thomson being hot.

[Ohiopirate02]

9 minutes ago, proserpina65 said:

That's me, too.  They rarely realize that I'm almost always looking to watch specific shows because they feature an actor whom I find attractive.  I know I watched seasons 2-6 of All Saints but I don't want to watch every doctor show known to mankind, thank you very much, HULU, I just wanna look at Erik Thomson being hot.

I feel like this is a very common thing that the various algorithms should be able to track.  Because I too have watched specific shows and movies based solely on them having the actor I currently find hot.  And if you can currently suggest based on genre or themes, suggesting based on the cast is right there (as long as you include the main cast in the metadata).  I know Netflix will give you extremely specific genres that take in to account the length of episodes, the country of origin, etc.  

[Zella]

10 hours ago, supposebly said:

If I read this post, I would think this is a very reasonable person that I wouldn't mind seeing on the "Unpopular Opinions" thread. It's a bit overly cheerful for my tastes but overall, not a problem.

What stands out to me is the lack of any specific examples. None of these are unreasonable takes on the show, but AI can't point to a specific example of any of these things.

[supposebly]

21 minutes ago, Zella said:

but AI can't point to a specific example of any of these things.

Actually, it can. What I found is that its performance gets better with the quality and specificity of the prompt. If I add "and give examples", it does and the examples are to the point (I quoted the output here). They aren't all that great but they got better when I ask for specific examples from storylines.

Quote

Formulaic Episodes: NCIS tends to follow a repetitive formula in most episodes. The structure usually revolves around a crime, some humorous interactions, and a neatly wrapped-up resolution by the end. This predictable pattern can make the show feel stale and lacking in creativity.

Example: Season after season, it's almost guaranteed that Gibbs will have some memorable head-slapping moments and witty one-liners, which can become monotonous.

Character Stagnation: While the main characters have their unique traits, they rarely undergo significant development or growth. As a result, the show lacks the depth and emotional connection that comes from witnessing characters evolve over time.

Example: Tony DiNozzo, played by Michael Weatherly, remained the lovable, charming goofball throughout his tenure on the show, with limited personal growth or exploration of his character's potential.

Unrealistic Forensics: NCIS often takes creative liberties with forensic techniques and technology, stretching the boundaries of realism for the sake of dramatic storytelling. While entertainment is important, portraying inaccurate forensic procedures can lead to misinformation about real-life investigative practices.

Example: The "enhancing" of images to get crucial evidence, which is highly unrealistic, has become a recurring trope on the show.

Lack of Diversity: One significant criticism is the show's lack of diversity in the main cast. The representation of different backgrounds and perspectives could have added depth and relevance to the cases they solve.

Example: For a show set in a diverse city like Washington, D.C., it's surprising that the core cast remained largely homogenous throughout its run.

Repetitive Storylines: Over time, NCIS has resorted to recycling plotlines and tropes, leading to a sense of déjà vu for long-time viewers. This diminishes the excitement and surprise that comes with fresh, innovative storytelling.

Example: The "traitor within the team" storyline has been used multiple times, becoming predictable and cliché.

But this is getting quite off-topic. I invite everyone to try it out, it's fun, a bit unnerving at times, but overall interesting to get a sense where things might be going, and what the limits are at the moment. Again, keep in mind, this free version doesn't use information more recent than up to 2018, I think, and is limited in length for its output.

[Zella]

12 minutes ago, supposebly said:

Actually, it can. What I found is that its performance gets better with the quality and specificity of the prompt. If I add "and give examples", it does and the examples are to the point (I quoted the output here). They aren't all that great but they got better when I ask for specific examples from storylines.

But this is getting quite off-topic. I invite everyone to try it out, it's fun, a bit unnerving at times, but overall interesting to get a sense where things might be going, and what the limits are at the moment. Again, keep in mind, this free version doesn't use information more recent than up to 2018, I think, and is limited in length for its output.

Interesting. As someone who used to grade writing as a comp instructor, the examples still sound like something a pod person wrote to me. LOL 

[supposebly]

6 minutes ago, Zella said:

something a pod person wrote to me.

Well, it IS a pod person! 😉

[Zella]

3 minutes ago, supposebly said:

Well, it IS a pod person! 😉

I know. That was the joke. 

I've used AI exactly once. It's a Titanic prototype. It and I had a very engaging but incredibly inaccurate conversation about the tea selection on the ship. It got so excited when I snottily told it that I was a tea connoisseur that I didn't have the heart to call it out on its bullshit. It did much better with movie quotes. 😂

[DearEvette]

2 hours ago, Zella said:

What stands out to me is the lack of any specific examples. None of these are unreasonable takes on the show, but AI can't point to a specific example of any of these things.

Agreed.  If I hadn't known that was Ai, I would have thought the person was a trolling.  It is giving "tell me you don't really watch the show.' It 100% reads like an essay prompt.  The writing is too formal for a colloquial chat forum. Something about it is just a little off and doesn't quite pass the smell test. 

Even the given examples are too broad and doesn't make me feel like the 'person' actually watched the show. They honestly read like the person cribbed something from a character bio.

But the biggest tell of all it the lack of 'I feel' throughout the post.  Look on any message board or forum especially when the subject skews toward the negative opinion and you'll see a lot of 'I' in there. That is because to post on something you like, or especially something you dislike,  requires a level of personal engagement and passion.  Also in human nature, especially on public forums and social media, people feel they have to justify why they dislike something so the receipts would be littered all throughout.

[Zella]

10 minutes ago, DearEvette said:

The writing is too formal for a colloquial chat forum. Something about it is just a little off and doesn't quite pass the smell test. 

Yes the relative formality also struck me too. It never provides a personal opinion because it doesn't have one. There's also just a blandness to every AI I've ever read. Even the most boring person on Earth has at least some personal opinions. 

Like I said earlier, the Titanic one I used was actually pretty entertaining. But when I'd ask for more information on tea brands, it would provide me with increasingly more specific suggestions, but they were incorrect. It was actually not a bad list of teas. And when I started asking it leading questions about specific brands that I knew were inaccurate, it doubled down and agreed those brands were on the ship. AI, my friend, that brand didn't exist until 55 years after the sinking. Unless it was loaded via time travel, it was never on the ship. But thanks for agreeing I have good taste. LOL

Edited July 21, 2023 by Zella

[ABay]

My issue with the algorithms on streaming services, in addition to the way off-base suggested shows, is that for some reason they aren't programmed to realize that if I watched 10 minutes of something a year ago and never went back, there's no point in keeping it in the continue watching queue or suggesting it to me again.

[Leeds]

On 7/21/2023 at 11:18 AM, DearEvette said:

Agreed.  If I hadn't known that was Ai, I would have thought the person was a trolling.  It is giving "tell me you don't really watch the show.' It 100% reads like an essay prompt.  The writing is too formal for a colloquial chat forum. Something about it is just a little off and doesn't quite pass the smell test. 

 

All this talk of using AI is reminding me of some of the reasons I dislike autotune.

[bluegirl147]

We always hear about (and I have even been one to say it) that so many movies and tv shows are formulaic  Do we think AI scripts are not going to be that way?

[BlueSkies]

I tried to watch Parks and Recreation more than once.

 

It bored me to tears both times 

[TattleTeeny]

It’s been a long time coming, but I just have to say it: my unpopular opinion is that I feel bad for Raquel Leviss of Vanderpump Rules — or at least for whatever happened in her life or childhood or whatever that would drive her to do the things she’s done recently. And I don’t think she’s a sociopath or a psychopath either. There, I said it, haha!

This should go without saying, but the above opinion doesn’t mean that I think everything she’s done is just great and awesome. I most certainly do not! 

[proserpina65]

Musical episodes suck. All of them.