Jump to content

Type keyword(s) to search

Party of One: Unpopular TV Opinions

mstaken

By mstaken
in Everything Else TV

  • Reply
  • Start Topic

Recommended Posts

Spartan Girl

Spartan Girl

4 hours ago, Cobalt Stargazer said:

I would point out that Xander did not cheat on Cordelia by himself, and I've had this discussion elsewhere so I know all of the arguments. Willow, who was also involved with someone else at the time, tries to badger Oz into talking to her so they can "work things out" until he finally tells her to back off by saying she just wants to talk so that she can feel better about herself, which is not his problem. But when he finally is ready to communicate, they do work things out and then get back together as if nothing happened, since no one ever really mentions it again.

"But, but, but, Willow had feelings for Xander for a long time, and he never even looked at her until she had a boyfriend!" So what? There were several points just off the top of my head when she could have said something, suggested that they try dating instead of "just" being friends, and she never does. There's always the argument that Xander telling Buffy "I guess a guy has to be undead to make time with you" (which is fair) is only different than Willow telling Xander "You'd rather be with someone you hate than with me" (referring to Cordelia) is that Willow isn't expected to cease to exist because things don't turn out the way she wants them to.

Yes, Willow was an equal guilty party in the whole mess. But for all her earlier Nice Girl behavior in season 2, she had at least owned up to her responsibility in the cheating and accepted Cordy’s justified ire without playing the victim. She didn’t rejoin the We Hate Cordelia Club, unlike Xander, who practically turned it into a one man show.

  • Like 3
  • Replies 15.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

MissAlmond
MissAlmond

There is only one Grinch and he was voiced by Boris Karloff.  

Archery
Archery

For many of us, Mr. Rogers Neighborhood was calm, not boring.  We found acceptance for a half hour from a gentle man who did not care that we were brown, or disabled, or just girls.  He addressed issu

Wiendish Fitch
Wiendish Fitch

If a female character is nice? She's "boring". Not nice? "Unlikable". Useful and talented? "Mary Sue". Not useful and talented? "Waste of space". Assertive? "Bitch". Not assertive? "Weak".  I'm n

Posted Images

Affogato

Affogato

17 hours ago, Cobalt Stargazer said:

I would point out that Xander did not cheat on Cordelia by himself, and I've had this discussion elsewhere so I know all of the arguments. Willow, who was also involved with someone else at the time, tries to badger Oz into talking to her so they can "work things out" until he finally tells her to back off by saying she just wants to talk so that she can feel better about herself, which is not his problem. But when he finally is ready to communicate, they do work things out and then get back together as if nothing happened, since no one ever really mentions it again.

"But, but, but, Willow had feelings for Xander for a long time, and he never even looked at her until she had a boyfriend!" So what? There were several points just off the top of my head when she could have said something, suggested that they try dating instead of "just" being friends, and she never does. There's always the argument that Xander telling Buffy "I guess a guy has to be undead to make time with you" (which is fair) is only different than Willow telling Xander "You'd rather be with someone you hate than with me" (referring to Cordelia) is that Willow isn't expected to cease to exist because things don't turn out the way she wants them to.

I'm fully aware that the fandom's favorite thing has always been to treat Xander as if he's some kind of monster and that the other characters (especially Buffy, which is a whole other conversation) never do anything wrong, but that's also how we got Spike as Romantic Hero instead of him filling up a vacuum cleaner bag. If Xander really is Joss' self insert, whose self-insert do we suppose Spike is?

 

15 hours ago, Mabinogia said:

Apparently Spike/Buffy was Marti Noxon's fantasy. I'd still take Spike over Angel any day.

Well Spike a tually chose his soul, while angel had it forced on him. Once you had Angel, the conversation cried out for Spike, and also Darla and Harmony. 

  • Like 1
Palimelon

Palimelon

(edited)
Quote

Well Spike a tually chose his soul, while angel had it forced on him

None of that made any sense. Angel without soul was a very different person. So much so that he would use a similar but different name. Granted, how convenient that he was named Angelus and could rename himself Angel once he got his soul. Thank God his name wasn't originally Jake or whatever.

Spike...was he really that different in terms of his character by the time he got his soul? Granted, he wasn't killing people one he got his soul, but still, his character had been really watered down by the end of season 6 anyway, even with his attempt to rape Buffy. At least he wasn't telling people to start calling him Ike or whatever.

I don't know if it was ever discussed in any of the comics, but you'd think the group would have tried to come up with some worldwide spell to activate the souls of all the vampires the way they were able to activate all the slayers in the world.

Edited by Palimelon
  • Like 1
  • Useful 2
  • LOL 1
Affogato

Affogato

29 minutes ago, Palimelon said:

None of that made any sense. Angel without soul was a very different person. So much so that he would use a similar but different name. Granted, how convenient that he was named Angelus and could rename himself Angel once he got his soul. Thank God his name wasn't originally Jake or whatever.

Spike...was he really that different in terms of his character by the time he got his soul? Granted, he wasn't killing people one he got his soul, but still, his character had been really watered down by the end of season 6 anyway, even with his attempt to rape Buffy. At least he wasn't telling people to start calling him Ike or whatever.

I don't know if it was ever discussed in any of the comics, but you'd think the group would have tried to come up with some worldwide spell to activate the souls of all the vampires the way they were able to activate all the slayers in the world.

That would have been hostile. All of those souls, the guilt! Not sure where it would lead, really.  lock your door. I think Spike was not really that different, since he felt that badly about the rape thing. Which considering buffy had been violently using him for sex all season, was somewhat rich. Because how could he tell, even if he had the magical soul? His real fault was he initiated sex and she didn’t want it. Would she have stopped if he said no? 

honestly the world is full of people who behave soulessly, sometimes, and I think the show gravitated in that direction. 
 


 

 

 

  • Like 2
Affogato

Affogato

15 hours ago, Palimelon said:

I mean, they're vampires, so I guess it would be ok being hostile to them in that way and/or for them to feel all that guilt. As for where it would lead, no more people being killed and turned into vampires?

 Feel it would be disruptive to society nd that many vampires would react badly and possibly violently. Some would have been sociopaths to begin with or just  severely traumatized by possibly centuries of vampiring and react with killing sprees and so on. I think overall messy. That is not even considering the greater demons. 

Affogato

Affogato

(edited)
55 minutes ago, Palimelon said:

Spike and Angelus were psychopaths and sociopaths. They seemed to deal with getting their souls back pretty well.

No Liam wasn’t. William was probably a vulnerable narcissist. All the vamps are psychopaths. It is their brand.  It is likely the vulnerable narcissist bit is how Spike managed to be more ‘human’ as a vamp, because he was slightly more vampiric before he was turned.  BUt that is conjecture and I assume you aren’t actually interested, so I will stop. 

Edited by Affogato
Palimelon

Palimelon

I mean, whether all/most/some/none of the vampires were assholes before being turned (or sired or whatever), at the end of the day, re-souling them (as per the Buffy universe lore) wouldn't be a bad thing because at least the ones who were good before would then stop killing people and/or creating more vampires, so there would less of them to fight. I'm not sure why that is considered a bad thing, even if we go by your logic and let's say only 10% of the vampires weren't assholes before, that's still 10% less vampires to fight.

Gharlane

Gharlane

On 8/26/2024 at 10:04 AM, Palimelon said:

I don't know if it was ever discussed in any of the comics, but you'd think the group would have tried to come up with some worldwide spell to activate the souls of all the vampires the way they were able to activate all the slayers in the world.

Wouldn't that be the end of the show? 

On a related note, I remember at some point in the 1970's,  Doctor Strange cast a spell that destroyed all vampires and prevented them from returning to (un)life. 

I have always been skeptical of Joss' claims of BtVS having any deep meaning. 

 

  • Like 3
tearknee

tearknee

I loved Small Wonder and still do: although i feel that the ever-rejected proposed scripts which would have shifted the program from "light-hearted fantasy" to a new "social realism" format and tackling such things like guns (remember that SW was only a decade after Brenda Ann Spencer) using Vicki's unique perspective as a gynoid -- would have been good -- and would have done a lot of good for many people.  

0315.jpg

  • Like 2
Mabinogia

Mabinogia

10 hours ago, Palimelon said:

I don't find either version entertaining or engaging.

I feel that way about the UK version of Ghosts. It's... there. I've snickered at a few things, but I don't care about the characters (though I do love several of the cast, just not their characters) so I just if I don't ever see it again I won't miss it. But I am obsessed with US Ghosts. 

I just love the US characters better and can't wait to see them again. 

 

 

  • Like 3
  • Useful 1
  • Love 1
DearEvette

DearEvette

1 hour ago, Mabinogia said:

I feel that way about the UK version of Ghosts. It's... there. I've snickered at a few things, but I don't care about the characters (though I do love several of the cast, just not their characters) so I just if I don't ever see it again I won't miss it. But I am obsessed with US Ghosts. 

I just love the US characters better and can't wait to see them again.

Same.  I love the US version.  Couldn't get into the UK version.

  • Like 1
  • Love 1
ribboninthesky1

ribboninthesky1

On 7/22/2024 at 3:13 PM, bluegirl147 said:

I think what happens with binge watching is we don't have time to forget things.   When watching a show weekly a character doing something might just seem like a quirk but seeing that character do the same thing over multiple episodes in a day looks like a character flaw. 

Good points about binge watching, although I do think some shows are better for it.  With more precedural, episodic TV, watching week to week makes for a better experience for me.  For genre shows, where character arcs or world building is key (which often includes pacing issues), I prefer binging.    

Quote

Also with binge watching you notice inconsistencies. I've mentioned this before.  I don't understand how TV shows don't have someone in charge of continuity. 

Agree, it's much easier to notice it and it is annoying!

  • Like 1
Bastet

Bastet

40 minutes ago, DearEvette said:

Same.  I love the US version.  Couldn't get into the UK version.

I have not seen the UK version in its entirety, just what CBS/Paramount+ showed during the strike (I think just the first two seasons).  I liked it, but like the US version better.  I don't know if that's unpopular, but it is atypical for me -- normally when a show I like has UK and US versions, I prefer the former, as British humor generally appeals to me more than American.  But something about the US version of Ghosts hits the spot.

  • Like 1
Mabinogia

Mabinogia

7 minutes ago, Bastet said:

normally when a show I like has UK and US versions, I prefer the former, as British humor generally appeals to me more than American.  But something about the US version of Ghosts hits the spot.

Same with me. Usually prefer the UK version of any show over the US. I think with Ghosts, for me it is that UK Ghosts tends more towards that "aren't horrible people funny" humour, that's not really my cuppa. I mean, the only character I even remotely liked was Kitty.

US Ghosts has a more warm, cozy feel good vibe that was a breath of fresh air amid TV's current trend towards darker programing, anti-heroes and misery porn. Even when it's not making me laugh out loud, which it does a LOT, it just makes me smile. 

  • Like 2
  • Love 1
bmasters9

bmasters9

I don't think I said this, but I think that, on Emergency!, when the doctors (Brackett, Early and Morton) or the nurse (McCall) have paramedics Gage and DeSoto do whatever it is they do for any patient/victim they're dealing with, it's more in the form of directions than orders (because I don't think of the paramedics as working under the doctors and nurse, but rather working with and alongside them [albeit the doctors and nurse were rarely at any scenes that the paramedics were at]).

  • Like 1
  • Useful 1
Raja

Raja

(edited)
2 hours ago, bmasters9 said:

I don't think I said this, but I think that, on Emergency!, when the doctors (Brackett, Early and Morton) or the nurse (McCall) have paramedics Gage and DeSoto do whatever it is they do for any patient/victim they're dealing with, it's more in the form of directions than orders (because I don't think of the paramedics as working under the doctors and nurse, but rather working with and alongside them [albeit the doctors and nurse were rarely at any scenes that the paramedics were at]).

Consider Jack Webb produced Emergency! as a this is the new thing, the pilot episode even having Governor Reagan sign the authorization for paramedics into law when earlier in the episode they had to pick up RN McCall to administer medications for the up until then a  rescue team. As other shows started showing paramedics, a short lived LA County Sheriff's Deputy/Paramedic show right after Emergency! was cancelled  240-Robert comes to mind, had paramedics operate increasingly independent of the base station ER doctors and nurses.

Edited by Raja
  • Like 3
  • Useful 3
Blergh

Blergh

2 hours ago, tearknee said:

She deserved a lot better. 

I couldn't stomach the show since it virtually spelled out that, apart from her tragic son, there wasn't a single person surrounding her that wasn't trying to milk her for all she was worth- and then some.

I firmly believe that if there had been an adult in Miss Smith's life who'd truly CARED about her, they'd have staged a serious intervention and/or at the very least encouraged her to try to deal with all she was haunted by in a far less self-destructive mode.

I only hope Miss Spears somehow will use the price Miss Smith paid as a 'scholarship' before its too late.

  • Like 1
  • Sad 3
tearknee

tearknee

2 minutes ago, Blergh said:

I couldn't stomach the show since it virtually spelled out that, apart from her tragic son, there wasn't a single person surrounding her that wasn't trying to milk her for all she was worth- and then some.

I firmly believe that if there had been an adult in Miss Smith's life who'd truly CARED about her, they'd have staged a serious intervention and/or at the very least encouraged her to try to deal with all she was haunted by in a far less self-destructive mode.

I only hope Miss Spears somehow will use the price Miss Smith paid as a 'scholarship' before its too late.

Smith deserved to live - she and Spears were and are a lot less vile than Anderson.

(I feel the same about Sir Humphrey in YM/YPM compared to FU in the British version of House of Cards)

  • Like 1
  • Useful 2
JustHereForFood

JustHereForFood

All of this shit with cancelling shows after one or two seasons and leaving people constantly on the edge with cliffhanger endings will just achieve that many folks will tire of it and stop watching new shows and watch them only after they end and they can confirm it had satisfying conclusion (which will probably happen less often, because fewer people watching will just mean that more shows will get cancelled.

 

  • Like 9
Affogato

Affogato

(edited)
59 minutes ago, JustHereForFood said:

All of this shit with cancelling shows after one or two seasons and leaving people constantly on the edge with cliffhanger endings will just achieve that many folks will tire of it and stop watching new shows and watch them only after they end and they can confirm it had satisfying conclusion (which will probably happen less often, because fewer people watching will just mean that more shows will get cancelled.

 

You end up with reality shows and contests. I don’t watch any of those. 

Edited by Affogato
  • Like 6
proserpina65

proserpina65

16 hours ago, JustHereForFood said:

All of this shit with cancelling shows after one or two seasons and leaving people constantly on the edge with cliffhanger endings will just achieve that many folks will tire of it and stop watching new shows and watch them only after they end and they can confirm it had satisfying conclusion (which will probably happen less often, because fewer people watching will just mean that more shows will get cancelled.

 

Conversely, as much as I hate when a show I like gets cancelled, I don't believe any network/streaming service is obligated to keep ordering new seasons of shows which are not getting enough viewership to justify the cost.  Because ultimately it is a business.  And I think that's probably the far more unpopular opinion.

14 hours ago, Anela said:

Like Dead Boy Detectives.  

That one's Neil Gaiman, though, isn't it?  So there are some other issues involved.

  • Like 7
Palimelon

Palimelon

Quote

Conversely, as much as I hate when a show I like gets cancelled, I don't believe any network/streaming service is obligated to keep ordering new seasons of shows which are not getting enough viewership to justify the cost.  Because ultimately it is a business.  And I think that's probably the far more unpopular opinion.

Then you have the other extreme...shows that keep on going long past their prime but they still keep churning out seasons of that show, despite the drop in viewership and critical acclaim but hey, it's still making a profit right? Granted, that seems to affect network and cable shows more than streaming shows, but still.

  • Like 3
Affogato

Affogato

(edited)
24 minutes ago, proserpina65 said:

Conversely, as much as I hate when a show I like gets cancelled, I don't believe any network/streaming service is obligated to keep ordering new seasons of shows which are not getting enough viewership to justify the cost.  Because ultimately it is a business.  And I think that's probably the far more unpopular opinion.

That one's Neil Gaiman, though, isn't it?  So there are some other issues involved.

I want to say, don’t get angry with me…

Mixed feelings. If you are dead, maybe not reject your artwork for political or moral reasons. Maybe not change it to make it more palatable. I’m okay with Roald Dahl as he is, thanks, and find altering his work somewhat creepy. Whedon was no doubt abusive, but not predatory, and his work indicates to me he was trying to figure that out. If he has a book in him about it, I’d buy it. 
 

that said, as much as Gaiman tried to style himself as socially awkward, he sexually abused people and had them sign ndas. Which says to me that you know what you are doing. He does not need to get more of my money.  Nor does Weinstein, although God may get him sooner rather than later. 
 

i get canceling the shows. I am repelled. The discovery is pretty soon. 
 

so, mixed feelings. 

11 minutes ago, Palimelon said:

Then you have the other extreme...shows that keep on going long past their prime but they still keep churning out seasons of that show, despite the drop in viewership and critical acclaim but hey, it's still making a profit right? Granted, that seems to affect network and cable shows more than streaming shows, but still.

A lot of shows are cancelled because they had to give the people working in them benefits after they run for a length of time. I think some of the changes caused by the strike may mean some won’t get made. 

Edited by Affogato
  • Useful 2
Spartan Girl

Spartan Girl

(edited)
1 hour ago, Affogato said:

Whedon was no doubt abusive, but not predatory, and his work indicates to me he was trying to figure that out. If he has a book in him about it, I’d buy it.

And yet a recent interview where he still acts like he’s the victim in all this proves he hasn’t learned a damn thing.

That being said, I do agree that you shouldn’t dismiss art just because it’s problematic or that the creator is an asshole.

Edited by Spartan Girl
  • Like 2
  • Useful 1
Affogato

Affogato

17 minutes ago, Spartan Girl said:

And yet a recent interview where he still acts like he’s the victim in all this proves he hasn’t learned a damn thing.

That being said, I do agree that you shouldn’t dismiss art just because it’s problematic or that the crestor is an asshole.

I meant that he may not have been aware he was abusive. If, as a probable narcissist, he became self aware, it would be unusual. Be probably was a victim of a use. Since it is often generational.
 

 I haven’t seen any recent interviews. 

it is ‘t simple. 

  • Useful 2
Mabinogia

Mabinogia

5 hours ago, Spartan Girl said:

That being said, I do agree that you shouldn’t dismiss art just because it’s problematic or that the creator is an asshole.

I can't stand Whedon, didn't even like him from the start, but I LOVE Buffy the Vampire Slayer and regardless of what a trash person he is, the cast and crew of that show deserve props for bringing a truly iconic show to life. 

The thing is, with these problematic show runners, they are not the only ones responsible for the show. Yes Gaiman was in charge of Good Omens, but that show would be nothing without the chemistry of Michael Sheen and David Tennant, without the amazing set designers and wardrobe dept, etc. So, boot Gaiman from the project, fine, but cancelling it is denying a lot of people a job and a lot of fans a final chance to be in that amazing universe created partly by the late Terry Pratchett. 

Only really a physical work of art is the product of a single person. Music, movies, television all have many to hundreds of people involved in their making. It seems a shame to punish all of them for one dickheads bad life choices. 

  • Like 9
  • Useful 1

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...