Party of One: Unpopular TV Opinions

[Irlandesa]

6 hours 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.

It doesn't affect streaming as much because streamers are often global and they use distribution in those countries to attract new subscribers.

Network and cable shows earn ad revenue but can sell syndication, streaming rights and international distribution.  Selling is where the money is. 

It's why some production companies that pulled their titles from Netflix to have them exclusively stream on the platforms they owned reversed course and started selling to other streamers again.  There was some benefit in streaming exclusively on a streamer they owned but there was more money in not being exclusive.

[Affogato]

30 minutes ago, Mabinogia said:

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. 

Some show runners do have a powerful effect on the show and their would likely not have been a BTVS without Whedon. That said, if a company chooses to break the law or continue to produce something that hurts people, often more than the CEO will suffer the consequences.  It isn’t just show business. Whether the pitcher hits the stone, or the stone hits the pitcher, its going to be bad for the pitcher ( as Sancho Panza used to say). 
People are still figuring out how to react to this sort of thing. I don’t think the playbook is written yet.  Right now a lot of people expect outrage and decisive action. 

[JustHereForFood]

8 hours 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.

I agree in general, but then they should be more transparent about their numbers so that we know what to expect, and if we can do anything about it (like doing most of their promotion as some fans do in some cases). Or just plan the budget so they can make three seasons (and not in span of 6 years) to see how many fans can get around it. Shows I was talking about gather very passionate fanbases and get new fans over time. I just started watching Our Flag Means Death few weeks ago and paid Max membership to watch it. Plus, they will then use that money on new sometimes similar shows that are IMO less likely to get views because as I was saying, people will become vary of trying new shows and it becomes a cursed circle.

On one hand, there are always sequels, prequels, spinoffs and reboots because people understand the power of existing fanbase, on the other hand they don't trust some fanbases to grow and will rather throw money elsewhere.

[andromeda331]

22 hours ago, Palimelon said:

I just want good TV shows. Don't care about who makes up the cast, I just want to be entertained and be excited to see the next episode.

Me too.

[Palimelon]

Quote

on the other hand they don't trust some fanbases to grow and will rather throw money elsewhere.

It is inconsistent, sometimes a show will last longer than it's ratings would indicate if there is enough critical acclaim and award nominations, and/or someone at the network likes it. See St. Elsewhere as an example. Although the ratings would be amazing by today's standards, at the time, it never cracked the top 40 in the Nielsons, but critics loved it, it was always a presence at the Emmy Awards every year it was on (13 wins out of 62 nominations), and liked by enough important people at NBC to keep it on the air for six years.

Some shows get lucky that way, while others do not.

Edited September 11 by Palimelon

[Kel Varnsen]

2 hours ago, Palimelon said:

It is inconsistent, sometimes a show will last longer than it's ratings would indicate if there is enough critical acclaim and award nominations, and/or someone at the network likes it. See St. Elsewhere as an example. Although the ratings would be amazing by today's standards, at the time, it never cracked the top 40 in the Nielsons, but critics loved it, it was always a presence at the Emmy Awards every year it was on (13 wins out of 62 nominations), and liked by enough important people at NBC to keep it on the air for six years.

I remember in the past it was also dependant on if the network was doing well overall or not. Like back when NBC had all those classic Thursday night comedies like 30 Rock or Parks and Rec or Community all of them got crazy low ratings. But the all had loyal viewers and since NBC was doing bad overall it was too much of a risk to cancel them and replace them with something else that might do worse. If NBC was doing better overall and making more money it would have been less of a risk.

[Notabug]

1 hour ago, Kel Varnsen said:

I remember in the past it was also dependant on if the network was doing well overall or not. Like back when NBC had all those classic Thursday night comedies like 30 Rock or Parks and Rec or Community all of them got crazy low ratings. But the all had loyal viewers and since NBC was doing bad overall it was too much of a risk to cancel them and replace them with something else that might do worse. If NBC was doing better overall and making more money it would have been less of a risk.

I think it also has to do with what the network has in the pipeline.  Unless they've got a better show lined up, they're going to hesitate to cancel an underperforming show; especially ones starring popular actors and produced by reliable, experienced teams.

[Affogato]

1 hour ago, Notabug said:

I think it also has to do with what the network has in the pipeline.  Unless they've got a better show lined up, they're going to hesitate to cancel an underperforming show; especially ones starring popular actors and produced by reliable, experienced teams.

Like Evil and Prodigy. I look forward to the better shows that are coming. 

[Kel Varnsen]

4 hours ago, Notabug said:

I think it also has to do with what the network has in the pipeline.  Unless they've got a better show lined up, they're going to hesitate to cancel an underperforming show; especially ones starring popular actors and produced by reliable, experienced teams.

That's probably part of it too. Developing new shows is expensive and risky. 

I keep reading how Late Night with Seth Meyers has low ratings and they fired the band because of budget cuts. But I can't imagine that it being cancelled is a huge risk, since what else is NBC going to put on at 12:35. Plus Lorne Michaels is a producer of the show and he probably isn't someone that NBC wants to annoy.

[Irlandesa]

9 hours ago, Kel Varnsen said:

I keep reading how Late Night with Seth Meyers has low ratings and they fired the band because of budget cuts. But I can't imagine that it being cancelled is a huge risk, since what else is NBC going to put on at 12:35. Plus Lorne Michaels is a producer of the show and he probably isn't someone that NBC wants to annoy.

It wasn't a Meyers thing.  It was a NBC late night thing. Both The Tonight Show and Late Night with Seth Meyers had to reduce their budget. For Meyers, it was the live band.  For Fallon, he's now only doing 4 episodes a week compared to 5.  

I think it's hard for me to read what "good" ratings are, especially since he's the only talk show on at that time, but they did just give him an hour-long Live A Closer Look special tonight. 

That's what makes ratings so hard to read.  There are the live numbers we get.  But then there are the numbers on streaming which we don't.  Then, there are the numbers of streaming segments on YouTube that apparently matter to the networks, too.

And for other shows, ownership matters quite a bit about what survives. 

For instance, 9-1-1 was FOX's most watched drama but they cancelled it.  The production company that made the show used to be under the same company umbrella as the FOX network so that umbrella company got all the money from distribution.  Once the production company was sold to Disney, the show became too expensive to keep.  However, Disney picked up all that backend money which is why 9-1-1 now airs on ABC.

[andromeda331]

That's what makes it hard because anymore shows get cancelled for difference reasons. You never know if your show is safe. 

[tearknee]

I wonder how "Lime Street" would have gone if A) Smith and her father hadn't died and B) the Golden Girls had been a squib?

Another show that didn't get a fair shot was "Christy--Kellie Martin was much more impressive in "Christy" that Gilbert ever was in "LHOTP". Martin could act much better than MG--but then again, Landon chose MG and someone competent chose KM for "Christy".

[proserpina65]

On 9/11/2024 at 4:36 AM, Palimelon said:

It is inconsistent, sometimes a show will last longer than it's ratings would indicate if there is enough critical acclaim and award nominations, and/or someone at the network likes it. See St. Elsewhere as an example. Although the ratings would be amazing by today's standards, at the time, it never cracked the top 40 in the Nielsons, but critics loved it, it was always a presence at the Emmy Awards every year it was on (13 wins out of 62 nominations), and liked by enough important people at NBC to keep it on the air for six years.

Some shows get lucky that way, while others do not.

Streaming has changed the television model so much that I'm not really sure if this is even applicable anymore, but I do think luck is still an element.

Also, passionate fanbases are not necessarily the same thing as lots of viewers.

I've gotten to the point of assuming that anything I like will be cancelled and am happily surprised if it doesn't happen.

[tearknee]

38 minutes ago, proserpina65 said:

Streaming has changed the television model so much that I'm not really sure if this is even applicable anymore, but I do think luck is still an element.

Also, passionate fanbases are not necessarily the same thing as lots of viewers.

I've gotten to the point of assuming that anything I like will be cancelled and am happily surprised if it doesn't happen.

Equally nerds (who are most visual and aural media fans) are not average normal ordinary people like John and Jane Q. Public. Most people do not go to college, most of the minority that do are women, and most people do not have the ability or stamina needed to learn the skills needed to get a degree that is worth anything in the job market.

[Affogato]

23 minutes ago, tearknee said:

Equally nerds (who are most visual and aural media fans) are not average normal ordinary people like John and Jane Q. Public. Most people do not go to college, most of the minority that do are women, and most people do not have the ability or stamina needed to learn the skills needed to get a degree that is worth anything in the job market.

You don’t know many nerds. 
 

i realise I may have misunderstood the original comment, due to a missing comma. Many nerds and normal people alike have degrees, good jobs, and stamina. Some watch and read wheel of time and some geek out over dancing with the stars. 

Edited September 12 by Affogato

[tearknee]

Yeah, but media fans--e.g. those of Star Wars--are not the average person of the general public-- who think that a particle accelerator is a type of hoover.

 

Sorry for channelling my inner Appleby there.

[tearknee]

[DoctorAtomic]

1 hour ago, Affogato said:

Many nerds and normal people alike have degrees, good jobs, and stamina. Some watch and read wheel of time and some geek out over dancing with the stars.

Patton Oswalt had a good monologue on this. I had this nerd discussion on another show thread, where I was trying to explain that nerds are not incels and the two were being conflated. Nerd culture *is* basically the culture. This is why shows like Dancing with the Stars or Master Chef, as well as 400 Marvel movies, Wheel of Time, all that. You're not regularly posting on a web site about tv shows if you're not at some level of nerd. 

Yes, back in the 80s, nerd meant something completely and entirely different. *That's* what incel is now. They're the ones screeching about 'woke' or 'the lore' and trying to ruin everything and spewing all over social media about it. 

[Raja]

4 hours ago, proserpina65 said:

Streaming has changed the television model so much that I'm not really sure if this is even applicable anymore, but I do think luck is still an element.

Also, passionate fanbases are not necessarily the same thing as lots of viewers.

I've gotten to the point of assuming that anything I like will be cancelled and am happily surprised if it doesn't happen.

Where passionate fan bases comes in, especially where the streamer owns the merchandise, is their eyeballs and wallets play a bigger role than the proper eyeballs sold to soap advertisers. They are counted on to buy show and the action figures 

[JustHereForFood]

6 hours ago, DoctorAtomic said:

Patton Oswalt had a good monologue on this. I had this nerd discussion on another show thread, where I was trying to explain that nerds are not incels and the two were being conflated. Nerd culture *is* basically the culture. This is why shows like Dancing with the Stars or Master Chef, as well as 400 Marvel movies, Wheel of Time, all that. You're not regularly posting on a web site about tv shows if you're not at some level of nerd. 

Yes, back in the 80s, nerd meant something completely and entirely different. *That's* what incel is now. They're the ones screeching about 'woke' or 'the lore' and trying to ruin everything and spewing all over social media about it. 

First, people are often switching up the terms geek and nerd. Geek is what we mean when we talk about people being very passionate about stuff, often sci-fi or fantasy (proud geek here!). Nerd means more someone into physics, science, etc. (thought meny people can be both). Both are often made fun of, with often using neurodivergent stereotypes, which is even more shitty because many geeks are neurodivergent to some extent. Hopefully we can start treating people as people at some point and let others enjoy the things they like in peace.

As for incels/anti-woke people, ouch that is some nasty stuff, I hope you didn't really mean it. Yes, there are some people like that in fandoms, usually very toxic in debates, but these are minority. In fact, people like to point out that most of the so called "nerdy shit" used to be the most progressive and diverse stories, so seeing people who either completely missed the point of those stories or just jumped on the bandwagon when they became popular now complaining about "wokeness" is hilarious. 

[Annber03]

10 hours ago, proserpina65 said:

Streaming has changed the television model so much that I'm not really sure if this is even applicable anymore, but I do think luck is still an element.

Also, passionate fanbases are not necessarily the same thing as lots of viewers.

Yeah, that's another thing - the fandom space has become so fragmented nowadays, and people don't really stay in a fandom for a show much of the time anymore, they move from one show to the next. There's not really the kind of time and opportunity to build longetivity and a deep fandom or viewership when os many shows' seasons are so short and only pop up every couple years (especially streaming shows). Binge watching has killed people's ability to wait for a new episode of a show each week and speculate and theorize about what could happen next, and with streaming shows, the gap between seasons can be so long that people often forget about the show until it returns and there's nothing in that gap to really keep them invested and speculating and theorizing. 

(This is one reason of many why I like "Ghosts", it feels very old-school in terms of how watching TV used to be, and the fandom, while small, is also very loyal and passionate and sticks around. Hence one reason of many why the show is about to start its fourth eason.) 

So yeah, while there are lots of factors as to why some shows take off and others don't (and the biggest two are money and luck), the way people watch shows nowadays, and the level of investment involved, plays a big role as well. 

[bluegirl147]

On 9/10/2024 at 1:54 PM, 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.

One of my best friends loves Harry Potter. Wanted to buy all the books in hardcover recently.  But he didn't want to give JK Rowlings any money so he searched second hand stores and did in fact find all the books.

So many creators have shown themselves to be assholes, and worse, criminals, so I find myself negotiating with myself about which people I will no longer watch/listen to their art. I would watch SATC again but I won't watch anything new that Chris Noth is in.  I will listen to Michael Jackson music because he is dead but I won't listen to R Kelly and now Diddy. 

[Affogato]

37 minutes ago, bluegirl147 said:

One of my best friends loves Harry Potter. Wanted to buy all the books in hardcover recently.  But he didn't want to give JK Rowlings any money so he searched second hand stores and did in fact find all the books.

So many creators have shown themselves to be assholes, and worse, criminals, so I find myself negotiating with myself about which people I will no longer watch/listen to their art. I would watch SATC again but I won't watch anything new that Chris Noth is in.  I will listen to Michael Jackson music because he is dead but I won't listen to R Kelly and now Diddy. 

Sometimes someone just pisses me off. Rowling, for example, I don’t think I would want to read anything of hers at this point. I occasionally watch something Tom Cruise is in, although I consider scientology awful. I have never eaten at Dominos Pizza. A lot of it seems to be whether I think they are deliberately doing things they know are hurting people. But it isn’t an exact science. 

[Kel Varnsen]

23 hours ago, DoctorAtomic said:

Yes, back in the 80s, nerd meant something completely and entirely different. *That's* what incel is now. They're the ones screeching about 'woke' or 'the lore' and trying to ruin everything and spewing all over social media about it. 

I feel like it was/is not entirely that. A big thing is just how much the Internet opened up the world for people. So before like the mid 90's if someone was really really into superheroes/comics or the Simpsons or beer making or indie rock bands, they might be the only person in their friends group or work that like those (nothing against those topics as they are all things I am into). And people they worked with would never ask you about them because they would end up hearing them talking for an hour. But now if you are into pretty much anything it takes a couple of minutes to find a community of people into the exact same thing that you can talk to. So you don't have to talk your co-workers early off.

[DrSpaceman73]

15 hours ago, Annber03 said:

Yeah, that's another thing - the fandom space has become so fragmented nowadays, and people don't really stay in a fandom for a show much of the time anymore, they move from one show to the next. There's not really the kind of time and opportunity to build longetivity and a deep fandom or viewership when os many shows' seasons are so short and only pop up every couple years (especially streaming shows). Binge watching has killed people's ability to wait for a new episode of a show each week and speculate and theorize about what could happen next, and with streaming shows, the gap between seasons can be so long that people often forget about the show until it returns and there's nothing in that gap to really keep them invested and speculating and theorizing. 

(This is one reason of many why I like "Ghosts", it feels very old-school in terms of how watching TV used to be, and the fandom, while small, is also very loyal and passionate and sticks around. Hence one reason of many why the show is about to start its fourth eason.) 

So yeah, while there are lots of factors as to why some shows take off and others don't (and the biggest two are money and luck), the way people watch shows nowadays, and the level of investment involved, plays a big role as well. 

I love ghosts.  Us version at least.  I've only seen a few of the uk version dint have an opinion on it. It's one of the few network prime time shows I watch.  Pretty sure it's the only network sitcom I follow

Edited Friday at 05:46 PM by DrSpaceman73

[DoctorAtomic]

1 hour ago, Kel Varnsen said:

I feel like it was/is not entirely that.

Probably. Chewing someone's ear for an hour over how you're sick of the Logan-Jean-Scott triangle is completely different than screeching all over the internet about 'go woke go broke' because Jean is leading one of the missions to do whatever and actively ruining people's enjoyment of the show. That's really all I meant. I don't think anyone here is like that. I'm just making some social commentary on a topic that came up. 

I'm painting with a broad brush when I'm saying 'incel', and I know it's not a majority of fandom, but I feel like there's disproportionate influence. 'Nerd' back then isn't quite 'incel' now. I was pointing out nerd/geek culture is cool now and has been for a while, probably because it's easy to find likeminded people on the internet. I wish we had that back in the heydey of all those great 80s/90s syndicated shows because I was the only one watching them and had no one to talk about them with. Now, when I'm getting into a new show, I always check here to see who else is watching. Or, when Marge Simpson starts being all Marge, I know exactly who is throwing her Heisenberg hat across the living room going crazy over it. Much more fun. 

That isn't to say a show tanks directly because of incels; some shows just don't make it, but I think it's too loud of a voice that maybe can nudge shows. 

Maybe nerd in the 80s and before isn't exactly equivalent to incel, but if you watch 'Revenge of the Nerds' in the 80s, that's kind of the character traits. I mean, there was sexual assault played for laughs. 

I don't really remember anyone back then being made fun of for being into Star Wars  or Star Trek or reading comic books. Maybe they stayed quiet about it. Now, those are mainstream. I just think it's interesting how pop culture changes. 

Edited Friday at 06:35 PM by DoctorAtomic

[Affogato]

https://www.thefarside.com/2024/09/14/1
 

nerdlings!

[Lugal]

22 hours ago, Kel Varnsen said:

I feel like it was/is not entirely that. A big thing is just how much the Internet opened up the world for people. So before like the mid 90's if someone was really really into superheroes/comics or the Simpsons or beer making or indie rock bands, they might be the only person in their friends group or work that like those (nothing against those topics as they are all things I am into). And people they worked with would never ask you about them because they would end up hearing them talking for an hour. But now if you are into pretty much anything it takes a couple of minutes to find a community of people into the exact same thing that you can talk to. So you don't have to talk your co-workers early off.

I remember someone once explained the difference between a geek, a nerd, and a dork as this:

A geek has the knowledge of a particular subject and the social skills to know that you many not want to hear all about it.  In recent years it has come to mean enthusiast.

A nerd has the knowledge but not the social skills so they will tell you about their interest at length.  This is where a lot of the stereotypes about nerds come from.

A dork has neither the knowledge nor the social skills so they will go on and on about things they have only superficial knowledge about.  These people are just annoying to deal with.

21 hours ago, DoctorAtomic said:

I'm painting with a broad brush when I'm saying 'incel', and I know it's not a majority of fandom, but I feel like there's disproportionate influence. 'Nerd' back then isn't quite 'incel' now. I was pointing out nerd/geek culture is cool now and has been for a while, probably because it's easy to find likeminded people on the internet.

Fandom has always been serious business and the incel contingent is no different (and I agree that incel and nerd not the same, but incels often take up the trappings of Guardians of Nerd Culture).  They are disproportionately loud compared to their numbers (see the Sad Puppies campaigns).  The internet lets fans connect, but it can also create their one very online echo chambers.

Geek/nerd culture is mainstream and has been for a while (I've met models who are Star Trek fans). However some fans are purists who want to go back before it became mainstream ("I was into it before it was cool") or before "girls ruined the fandom" which is stupid because women have always been in the fandom.

And unfortunately like everything else in life, it has become political.  They are threatened by the rise of diversity, but science fiction and fantasy are always about imagination and other perspectives.  It's why so many outgroups are drawn to it in the first place.  There have been more books centering on people who aren't white males and sometimes they aren't as good, (just like some books with white male protagonists aren't as good either) but I think a lot of that has to do with the rise of self-publishing and how publishing houses have cutting back on editorial staff since 2008.

[DoctorAtomic]

I'm baffled by the screeching against diversity when Star Trek was probably the OG of diversity. 

[Ohiopirate02]

4 minutes ago, DoctorAtomic said:

I'm baffled by the screeching against diversity when Star Trek was probably the OG of diversity. 

From what I have encountered online, the fans who screech against diversity tend to be the ones who became fans as kids and all the diversity flew over their heads. They also want any new Star Trek, Star Wars, X-Men, etc. property to hit (wrong verb, but I am blanking on the correct one) the way it did when they were 7 and first saw Episode IV, or the Ghostbusters cartoon, etc. They are looking for the exact same experience as adults which is ludicrous. They are no longer their 7 year old selves and it's been 20, 30, or 40 years. Everything has changed.

[supposebly]

This discussion reminds of the crying about their "ruined childhood!" when the female-led Ghostbusters came out in 2016.

Dude, if you were 10 in 1984 when the first one came out, you're over 40 in 2016. Time to stop crying about your childhood and a movie whose main character was a misogynistic prick and shut the hell up. It's pathetic.

[DoctorAtomic]

Whether you're a geek, nerd, or dork, you can rest assured that Ferris Bueller is cool with you. 

[Annber03]

17 minutes ago, supposebly said:

This discussion reminds of the crying about their "ruined childhood!" when the female-led Ghostbusters came out in 2016.

Dude, if you were 10 in 1984 when the first one came out, you're over 40 in 2016. Time to stop crying about your childhood and a movie whose main character was a misogynistic prick and shut the hell up. It's pathetic.

Amen. Besides that, the existence of a new version of a movie or TV show doesn't magically erase the original. It's still there. You can watch it anytime you want and get all up in your childhood nostalgia again if you want. If the mere existence of a remake of something you loved makes you get that bent out of shape, you've got bigger issues. 

*(General "you", obviously.)

[BlueSkies]

Pre staring in those Housewives shows Lisa Rinna was a pretty good actress.  

Edited Saturday at 09:46 PM by BlueSkies

[Anduin]

1 hour ago, supposebly said:

This discussion reminds of the crying about their "ruined childhood!" when the female-led Ghostbusters came out in 2016.

Dude, if you were 10 in 1984 when the first one came out, you're over 40 in 2016. Time to stop crying about your childhood and a movie whose main character was a misogynistic prick and shut the hell up. It's pathetic.

I saw that Ghostbusters. Good cast, needed better writing and directing. If it was good, a box office success, it would have made the haters look pathetic. But it being bad only encouraged them to lie about why.

[Spartan Girl]

On 9/13/2024 at 2:32 PM, DoctorAtomic said:

Or, when Marge Simpson starts being all Marge, I know exactly who is throwing her Heisenberg hat across the living room going crazy over it. Much more fun. 

 

Uh…I’m…honored? Seriously how did I get dragged into this discussion?! 

14 hours ago, Annber03 said:

Amen. Besides that, the existence of a new version of a movie or TV show doesn't magically erase the original. It's still there. You can watch it anytime you want and get all up in your childhood nostalgia again if you want. If the mere existence of a remake of something you loved makes you get that bent out of shape, you've got bigger issues. 

*(General "you", obviously.)

This. Don’t like it? Then don’t watch it! Stop ruining it for the rest of us that just want to enjoy things!

On the subject of toxic fandoms, I feel like that’s the reason the Buffy forum has been all but deserted here, save for the ones that just crap all over Buffy yet defend Xander til their dying breath. And this was supposed to be a “feminist” show…or at least it was until Whedon showed his ass.

Edited Sunday at 12:23 PM by Spartan Girl

[MaryMitch]

I liked the new Ghostbusters better than the original.

[tearknee]

16 hours ago, Anduin said:

I saw that Ghostbusters. Good cast, needed better writing and directing. If it was good, a box office success, it would have made the haters look pathetic. But it being bad only encouraged them to lie about why.

Tina Fey made that broad point with Liz Lemon's adoration of Murphy Brown -- that people in the real world don't act like a female empowerment sitcom -- and I extend that to the reality that you can't shame people into watching a gender flipped film.

 

[Affogato]

53 minutes ago, MaryMitch said:

I liked the new Ghostbusters better than the original.

Me too, especially in retrospect. I hadn’t seen the old one for a while. There are a lot of movies like that. I still carry tremendous nostalgia for Buckaroo Banzai but I will not try to rewatch it again. 

[Lugal]

21 hours ago, Ohiopirate02 said:

From what I have encountered online, the fans who screech against diversity tend to be the ones who became fans as kids and all the diversity flew over their heads. They also want any new Star Trek, Star Wars, X-Men, etc. property to hit (wrong verb, but I am blanking on the correct one) the way it did when they were 7 and first saw Episode IV, or the Ghostbusters cartoon, etc. They are looking for the exact same experience as adults which is ludicrous. They are no longer their 7 year old selves and it's been 20, 30, or 40 years. Everything has changed.

Fanboys (and fangirls) want it to feel exactly like it was (and certain contingents use this to try to push their own agenda), but I think most fans know that some changes have to be made for adaptations and time.  But I think part of it is that Hollywood has been cannibalizing itself for years.  We have a Harry Potter remake coming in 2026 FFS!  Not only are people getting sick of remakes, but fans are sick of seeing studios trying to wring as much money out of a franchise as they can and thinking if they slap the label on it and then the fans to eat it up.  Especially when they miss the point of the original like Ghostbusters, or there's a Witcher situation where the writers actively hate the show their working on (not a remake, but still).

The other thing is that people get attached to things in their childhood, especially 80's kids.  I hated JJ Abrams' Star Trek but it didn't "ruin my childhood" (TNG was more my Star Trek anyway).  I just think Abrams is a hack who didn't get what made Star Trek what it was.  And I also look at the recent Avatar TLA remake.  I came to the original as an adult, but I liked the live action version and thought it was not perfect but pretty good.  And like a review I found said, in this age where anything less than 5 stars is considered a bad review, it's OK for something to be just good, not great.

[Palimelon]

Quote

We have a Harry Potter remake coming in 2026 FFS! 

Wait, what?

[tearknee]

Hopefully it will be Harriet "Hattie" Potter (and played by a much better actor than Hattie Jones was as Madeline in 1998--as with Demolition Man, that film was a waste of Nigel Hawthorne--"If you have Elvis, let him sing!" as the idiom goes).

[Lugal]

33 minutes ago, Palimelon said:

Wait, what?

https://deadline.com/2024/09/harry-potter-tv-series-max-release-date-cast-1235323284/

[Palimelon]

That cow still has a few drops of milk to be squeezed out, it seems.

[tearknee]

albeit, curdled.

[Annber03]

2 hours ago, Lugal said:

I came to the original as an adult, but I liked the live action version and thought it was not perfect but pretty good.  And like a review I found said, in this age where anything less than 5 stars is considered a bad review, it's OK for something to be just good, not great.

Seriously, eerything has to either be the BEST THING EVER or WORST THING EVER nowadays. God forbid anything just be somewhere in the middle. 

I do agree with the whole thing of Hollywood cannibalizing itself nowadays - remakes and adaptations have always been a thing in Hollywood, mind, that in and of itself is nothing new. But yes, it does seem like that's virtually all that exists nowadays - it's either remakes/adaptations or continuations of franchises, there's very little out there' that's just a whole new thing not connected to anything else. 

Mind, I'd also note that if people in general are getting tired of all the remakes and adaptations, the best way to make that point to Hollywood is to just ignore them altogether. That's the thing I don't think people who constantly and incessantly bitch about stuff online get - "Why does this thing exist?"/"Why is this show still on TV?" and so on. 

Uhhhhh...'cause you guys are still giving it attention? Even negative attention is still boosting a show or movie or book's profile, and since so many outlets nowadays feed off of outrage and negative feedback for clicks and controversy, the complainers are giving them exactly what they want with all their griping, and they're going to keep the show/movie/book going because they know it's going to get people all pissed off and fighting with those who like said show/movie/book. 

If people really want something to go away, shut up about it. Don't say anything. Ignore it. Move on and focus on something else one actually does enjoy. If the people involved with some piece of media don't get any response at all, positive or negative, that says far more than anything else would. 

And besides that, it just seems exhausting to me, the idea of being out there constantly going on and on and on and on and on about something I didn't like. Like , trust me, everyone got the point the first ten times somebody whined about it. The show/movie/book clearly isn't going anywhere, so let it fucking go already. They need to learn to just go focus on the stuff they do like instead, that seems a far better use of their time and energy and it spares those who are enjoying that piece of media having to listen to the constant griping. 

(That's not to say criique in and of itself shouldn't exist, mind - even with stuff I love, I've got criticisms of it, too. Critique is fine, no property is completely perfect. But there's a big difference between actual critique and people just being whiny babies becase something isn't exactly the way THEY want it, and constantly harping on about that fact, and I think far too many people out there nowadays don't seem to know the difference.)

[DoctorAtomic]

44 minutes ago, Annber03 said:

Seriously, eerything has to either be the BEST THING EVER or WORST THING EVER nowadays. God forbid anything just be somewhere in the middle. 

What's ironic about that is there is actually tons of good shows and movies out there now. Just statistically, the best and worst ever are just over 4% of everything. It's like you have to give the Uber driver 5 stars or they get whacked. 

[DrSpaceman73]

I've written about this before. 

 

It's not just tv.  All of society has to declare everything epic or horrible.  You see ' news articles ' like this all the time.  Such and such mundane observation followed by 'my life will never be the same !' Or 'I just can't deal with this!' Or some such nonsense. There is no nuance or subtlety.  

[Mabinogia]

On 9/14/2024 at 5:03 PM, supposebly said:

This discussion reminds of the crying about their "ruined childhood!" when the female-led Ghostbusters came out in 2016.

I always roll my eyes at the snowflakes who say something new ruined the original. It's not like when the female Ghostbusters came out (which, if you want a real unpopular opinion, I like at least as much if not better than the original. Certainly better than the sequels) and all copies of the original were destroyed. They both still exist and if you don't like one, don't watch it. 

Humans are so hardwired to placing labels on everything, woke, incel, nerd, etc that we will never be truly united. It is impossible as both sides think they are right and cherry pick moments and stories and random comments to support their version of the truth. 

My UO is that media has destroyed the human ability to actually think. It's not that we are more stupid, it's that we are bombarded with so much contradictory "truth" that is is almost impossible to know what to believe anymore. 

 

[proserpina65]

On 9/12/2024 at 3:58 PM, Raja said:

Where passionate fan bases comes in, especially where the streamer owns the merchandise, is their eyeballs and wallets play a bigger role than the proper eyeballs sold to soap advertisers. They are counted on to buy show and the action figures 

The point is that passionate fanbases are not necessarily LARGE fanbases and thus are often not enough to keep a show from being cancelled simply because there are not enough of them actually viewing the show.  Passion does not always equal viewing numbers.