Party of One: Unpopular TV Opinions

[Raja]

2 hours ago, proserpina65 said:

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.

But then again it's not advertisers but direct buyers of merchandise from Disney and buying content by subscribing to Disney + that is now important. If you are selling Star Wars merchandise and Star Wars fanatics say no thanks then  you made bad business decisions.

[Anela]

I remember not being sure about the TV show “Hannibal”, with a new person playing Hannibal Lector, just before the show began to air on NBC. Mads Mikkelsen ended up being excellent in the role. 

Edited September 17 by Anela

[Zella]

I actually prefer Brian Cox as Hannibal in Manhunter to either Anthony Hopkins or Mads Mikkelsen. 

[tearknee]

On 9/16/2024 at 10:20 AM, Mabinogia said:

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. 

 

replying to what I have bolded.

I concur though, to me, I would describe it as one end of them is tinfoil hat and the other is knight templar.

 

 

 

[proserpina65]

On 9/16/2024 at 2:35 PM, Raja said:

But then again it's not advertisers but direct buyers of merchandise from Disney and buying content by subscribing to Disney + that is now important. If you are selling Star Wars merchandise and Star Wars fanatics say no thanks then  you made bad business decisions.

It's not as important to Disney as not wasting money on what must be a very expensive show to produce if people are not watching it.  Again, passion does not necessarily equal numbers.  Either numbers of viewers or numbers of people buying merchandise from a show they're not watching.

Disney cares about subscribers and if The Acolyte didn't inspire enough people to become new subscribers, then it's not crazy for them to not renew it.

Edited to note that from what I've read in various places, the Star Wars fanbase as a whole wasn't overly enamored with The Acolyte, so I don't think they all count as its passionate fanbase either.

Edited September 18 by proserpina65

[sistermagpie]

1 hour ago, proserpina65 said:

It's not as important to Disney as not wasting money on what must be a very expensive show to produce if people are not watching it.  Again, passion does not necessarily equal numbers.  Either numbers of viewers or numbers of people buying merchandise from a show they're not watching.

Disney cares about subscribers and if The Acolyte didn't inspire enough people to become new subscribers, then it's not crazy for them to not renew it.

Edited to note that from what I've read in various places, the Star Wars fanbase as a whole wasn't overly enamored with The Acolyte, so I don't think they all count as its passionate fanbase either.

One other reasons a network might stick with something, I believe, is if it brings good attention to it--like a prestige show that has a small but passionate fanbase but gets Emmys or critical attention and makes their network associated with a type of quality.

None of which would apply here either, obviously.

[Ohiopirate02]

18 minutes ago, sistermagpie said:

One other reasons a network might stick with something, I believe, is if it brings good attention to it--like a prestige show that has a small but passionate fanbase but gets Emmys or critical attention and makes their network associated with a type of quality.

None of which would apply here either, obviously.

Even then, the shows the network chooses to save are not the most expensive ones to produce. Though the networks of yore would usually give a struggling show a second season at a reduced budget and not cancel one month after the final episode of the first season drops. Streamers are no longer giving shows a chance to find an audience or if the audience the show finds like Prime's My Lady Jane is not the coveted male 18-49 bracket then the show is immediately on the chopping block. I am assuming that is still the most important bracket of TV watchers in 2024 just like it was in 1984. I would love to be proven wrong here.

[DoctorAtomic]

I thought the whole point of streaming was that smaller, niche shows would have a change to breathe because they're raking it in from subscriptions. So you could still get a final shot at a second season. I mean, D+ ain't hurting for the cash. Come on. 

That's the whole reason I signed up for the streamers. If they're just going with the low tier, ad supported model, and the show isn't selling the ads, then it's no different than the networks. So why am I going to bother checking out a new show? I'm fine just watching movies. 

[Mabinogia]

3 hours ago, DoctorAtomic said:

That's the whole reason I signed up for the streamers. If they're just going with the low tier, ad supported model, and the show isn't selling the ads, then it's no different than the networks. So why am I going to bother checking out a new show? I'm fine just watching movies. 

As so often happens, streamers have become the very structure they were trying to break. I have neither cable nor any streaming services other than free Pluto TV and Amazon Prime because it comes with my Prime membership which I have mostly for the free next day delivery. I might get BritBox at some point because I do love British tele, but I really don't miss cable or the streamers in which I used my friends account but don't care enough about to pay for. 

Honestly, I prefer rewatching older shows now than I do bothering with about 95% of the new shows out there. I watch Ghosts and Taskmaster and that's about all I watch that is new. Pretty much anything else I've liked ended up cancelled so I have basically given up. 

[DoctorAtomic]

That's what's ironic. Cable was billed first as 'no ads!' Then there were ads. Then streaming. No ads! Now all the packages have ad tiers and it's full circle. HBO is selling off a lot of their content to ad supported platforms. 

[Anduin]

36 minutes ago, DoctorAtomic said:

That's what's ironic. Cable was billed first as 'no ads!' Then there were ads. Then streaming. No ads! Now all the packages have ad tiers and it's full circle. HBO is selling off a lot of their content to ad supported platforms. 

Revolutions are so named because they come full circle. Sadly, TV is no exception.

[andromeda331]

10 hours ago, DoctorAtomic said:

I thought the whole point of streaming was that smaller, niche shows would have a change to breathe because they're raking it in from subscriptions. So you could still get a final shot at a second season. I mean, D+ ain't hurting for the cash. Come on. 

That's the whole reason I signed up for the streamers. If they're just going with the low tier, ad supported model, and the show isn't selling the ads, then it's no different than the networks. So why am I going to bother checking out a new show? I'm fine just watching movies. 

So did I. When they first started out it was that way. A lot of shows that never would have made it on TV made it on the streaming channels and for a few seasons. It stinks. We were going to have our own niches. Unfortunately that's over. 

[Affogato]

7 hours ago, andromeda331 said:

So did I. When they first started out it was that way. A lot of shows that never would have made it on TV made it on the streaming channels and for a few seasons. It stinks. We were going to have our own niches. Unfortunately that's over. 

Well, what the short season niches allowed was not paying people. Strikes and so on later, a sign of resistance from the creators, and the executives need to adjust their priorities. Also niche’s compete and what wins are the cheaper and realer ones, reality shows and most true crime type of thing. Anyway, things are changing and when that happens you lose a lot of good shows in the shift. 

[ABay]

14 hours ago, Mabinogia said:

I watch Ghosts and Taskmaster and that's about all I watch that is new.

Taskmaster, Only Connect, Mastermind, University Challenge, sometimes new Pointless or Would I Lie to You or 8 Out of 10 Cats Does Countdown are why I pay for YT premium--notYT TV, but no ads.

[Lugal]

21 hours ago, DoctorAtomic said:

I thought the whole point of streaming was that smaller, niche shows would have a change to breathe because they're raking it in from subscriptions. So you could still get a final shot at a second season. I mean, D+ ain't hurting for the cash. Come on. 

That's the whole reason I signed up for the streamers. If they're just going with the low tier, ad supported model, and the show isn't selling the ads, then it's no different than the networks. So why am I going to bother checking out a new show? I'm fine just watching movies.

The streamers, like a lot of online businesses, started out by going for market share, so if something brought in more subscribers they would keep it, even if it was losing money.  Then they realized that they weren't actually making a profit on that business model, so the shift, and that's why we keep seeing prices going up and ads filtering in.

[proserpina65]

23 hours ago, DoctorAtomic said:

I thought the whole point of streaming was that smaller, niche shows would have a change to breathe because they're raking it in from subscriptions.

The whole point of streaming is to make money for the service.  If a niche show encourages enough people to subscribe, that's giving them what they want.  If not, they are more inclined to cancel it, especially if it costs a lot of money to produce.

In other words, the streaming business is a business.

Edited September 19 by proserpina65

[Spartan Girl]

I don’t give a crap about the Menendez brothers, and they don’t need another miniseries about them—especially by Ryan Murphy. I also roll my eyes at this newfound renaissance woobifying him. They were abused? Okay. They’re still murderers. I’ll save my sympathy for child abuse victims that don’t have the options and advantages they did.

[Blergh]

I apologize  in advance to any bona fide abuse survivors and/or victims and by no means am belittling or disbelieving their ordeals and I most certainly believe that each single claim needs to be carefully listened to and evaluated with a fine-toothed comb then acted upon by the authorities without flinching regardless of what others might feel about the accused or alleged victims. The following changes nothing about that.

I recall all too well how the Melendez brothers were caught on tape attempting to bribe a potential witness into perjuring herself and bragging that they had "snowed half the jury"so they hoped to snow the other half. IOW, IMO if they were capable of paying someone to perjury herself and to "snow" jury members then I don't put it past them to have slandered their late parents after having their original alibis of having gone to the movies got proven false. 

Please keep in mind ,there are  countless cases of genuine abuse victims who have been denied justice and have been abused all over again by corrupt officials. They are the ones whose stories need to be told so justice can belatedly prevail NOT the Melendez Brothers yet again.IMO rehashing those two's claims needlessly drags genuine victims further down.

 

 

[Mabinogia]

9 hours ago, Blergh said:

Please keep in mind ,there are  countless cases of genuine abuse victims who have been denied justice and have been abused all over again by corrupt officials. They are the ones whose stories need to be told so justice can belatedly prevail NOT the Melendez Brothers yet again.IMO rehashing those two's claims needlessly drags genuine victims further down.

THIS! And given all the other stuff about these murderers, I wouldn't be surprised if the "abuse" amounted to daddy not giving them the car they wanted. That is to say, they have lied and cheated and manipulated far too much for me to believe their allegations when the people they are accusing can't defend themselves because their accusers murdered them. 

Of course, see Ryan Murphy's name attached, the truth really doesn't matter. He's just a tabloid hack with a bigger budget. He uses real people to tell fictional stories. 

[tearknee]

I think Christie Downs--and others such as her--might *loathe* the way these brothers--and those such as the Columbine gunmen--get fucking groupies because it enables the minimization in popular memory of people such as her mother. 


My mom put me (and my brother, but he was always secondary to mom) in a talent and modelling agency when we lived in AZ. Her plan for my childhood and ultimate future was not mine. J McCurdy's book title remains ever-green for me.

[Palimelon]

Quote

Of course, see Ryan Murphy's name attached, the truth really doesn't matter. He's just a tabloid hack with a bigger budget. He uses real people to tell fictional stories. 

Ryan Murphy does seem to ignore the truth more than others when it comes to telling his stories.

[Wiendish Fitch]

I have learned to avoid anything with Ryan Murphy's name attached to it. Even the first installment of Feud left me cold.

[Palimelon]

I liked Feud, but was definitely there more for the acting and set pieces than the story.

American Horror Story has it's moments, but even as an anthology, Murphy and Co. can't sustain a one-and-done season and usually fumble it at the end.

[DearEvette]

On 9/21/2024 at 12:54 PM, Palimelon said:

American Horror Story has it's moments, but even as an anthology, Murphy and Co. can't sustain a one-and-done season and usually fumble it at the end.

This is 100% my opinion about everything Ryan Murphy. From Popular to Nip Tuck and, yes even Glee.  I can't remember when I really liked one of his shows past season one,.   It is like he comes up with interesting idea and hook, gets lucky with great casting, and puts out a good one season story arc. But that is all he is capable of. Anything that requires longer, sustained storytelling seems beyond him.  He doesn't know how to pace so instead he seems to create something outlandish to camouflage the lack of ideas and storytelling.

[Irlandesa]

31 minutes ago, DearEvette said:

I can't remember when I really liked one of his shows past season one,.

That's exactly how I am with his shows.  The only show of his that I've watched past S1 is 9-1-1 and that's only because he has has had next to nothing to do with the show post S1.

[Mabinogia]

1 hour ago, DearEvette said:

This is 100% my opinion about everything Ryan Murphy. From Popular to Nip Tuck and, yes even Glee.  I can't remember when I really liked one of his shows past season one,.  

Yes, he is definitely more of an ideas guy. Comes up with great ideas, has something that makes great actors want to be involved, then either has terrible follow through, or is the type who quickly loses interest. 

Honestly, I relate to option 2 as I tend to come up with great ideas all the time I just can't seem to reach the finish line on any of them.... OMG... I'm Ryan Murphy?!?!?! NOOOOOOO (unless I can have his paycheck in which case, YEEEEESSSSS) 

[DoctorAtomic]

We used to have so much fun with Nip/Tuck over at the other place. I think it was on back to back with Ally McBeal. 

[Irlandesa]

Oops. I forgot about Nip/Tuck.  I guess I lied.  That I watched longer than I probably should have.  It was a more innocent time and I loved Julian McMahon since Another World.

Edited September 22 by Irlandesa

[Palimelon]

I kept watching Nip/Tuck during the Miami years. I lost interest once they moved the characters to LA.

Edited September 23 by Palimelon

[bluegirl147]

On 9/22/2024 at 4:25 PM, Mabinogia said:

Yes, he is definitely more of an ideas guy. Comes up with great ideas, has something that makes great actors want to be involved,

American Crime Story the People vs OJ Simpson was very good.  But that very well could have been in spite of him rather than because of him. 

[Irlandesa]

1 hour ago, bluegirl147 said:

American Crime Story the People vs OJ Simpson was very good.  But that very well could have been in spite of him rather than because of him. 

That'd be the first season of his American Crime Story series which was the best season.  (So it fits my personal pattern of his first seasons are usually best seasons.)  But what made the People vs. OJ good, I think, is that Murphy was mostly a director only.  The show was developed and largely written by another duo.  Murphy boarded as an EP which probably helped it get made.  That duo left after the first season. 

[DoctorAtomic]

The OJ story basically writes itself too. It's hard to miss with that. 

[Zella]

Yeah I was going to say that I have never watched any Murphy production, except for The People Vs OJ Simpson. And I was pleasantly surprised by how good it was, but it having a separate set of showrunners makes sense. I also agree the material itself may have helped avoid some of his usual pitfalls. I spent the summer reading several books about the OJ case--I eventually had to tap out because that was more OJ than I ever needed--and I was surprised how relatively accurate the miniseries was, all things considered, though I do think Cuba Gooding Jr was miscast as Simpson. Everyone else was excellent. 

[bluegirl147]

9 hours ago, Zella said:

I also agree the material itself may have helped avoid some of his usual pitfalls. I spent the summer reading several books about the OJ case--I eventually had to tap out because that was more OJ than I ever needed--and I was surprised how relatively accurate the miniseries was, all things considered

There was so much source material for this mini series (based on Jeffrey Toobin's book) as well as all the other books about this case. For the later books I wondered if they just used the previous books for their research.  It's been 30 years.  At this point is there anything new we don't know? I mean other than the "real killer".

9 hours ago, Zella said:

though I do think Cuba Gooding Jr was miscast as Simpson.

I've always said he was definitely the weakest link.  I never thought Gooding was that good of an actor and he proved me right with this role.

9 hours ago, Zella said:

Everyone else was excellent

I want to give a shout out to David Schwimmer who played Robert Kardashian.  I thought he was excellent in the role. 

[GHScorpiosRule]

13 hours ago, Zella said:

I have never watched any Murphy production, except for The People Vs OJ Simpson. And I was pleasantly surprised by how good it was, but it having a separate set of showrunners makes sense.

Except for the emphasis on the Kartrashian family-the stoopid whatever cheer that had kid Kim in front of the teevee doing. Because, I didn't care for it or her or her mom, because they weren't supposed to be the focus or have any real part.

3 hours ago, bluegirl147 said:

I want to give a shout out to David Schwimmer who played Robert Kardashian.  I thought he was excellent in the role. 

He really was.

[bluegirl147]

4 minutes ago, GHScorpiosRule said:

Except for the emphasis on the Kartrashian family-the stoopid whatever cheer that had kid Kim in front of the teevee doing. Because, I didn't care for it or her or her mom, because they weren't supposed to be the focus or have any real part.

You could have lifted any mention or appearance of them (minus Robert of course)out of the series and nobody would have cared or noticed.  Having their characters on the show was just IMO a stupid way of trying to appeal to their fans. This show was going to do well without any help from that family.

[scarynikki12]

One way to look at Cuba’s casting is it certainly pissed off OJ. You know he watched just enough to see his portrayal and was furious they didn’t cast a movie star to play him. 

[Zella]

5 hours ago, bluegirl147 said:

For the later books I wondered if they just used the previous books for their research. 

Most of the books I read were written in the 90s, but each had information I'd never read anywhere else. The most interesting one actually ended up being Chris Darden's, and he talked a lot about how he explored the quite likely event that Simpson and Cowlings were planning to flee the country via a boat and that was the true destination right before the infamous Bronco chase, but he never had any actionable evidence he could use on it when he was in charge of Cowlings's case. But Darden traveled to the Caribbean to follow up on some leads on it. 

I do think there's some stuff out there that is still unknown, but I think those people who know it are taking what they know to the grave, including Cowlings. 

1 hour ago, GHScorpiosRule said:

Except for the emphasis on the Kartrashian family-the stoopid whatever cheer that had kid Kim in front of the teevee doing. Because, I didn't care for it or her or her mom, because they weren't supposed to be the focus or have any real part.

Yes I agree that was really stupid and jarring! I am surprised I didn't damage my eyes rolling them during that scene. LOL

I kind of feel bad for Schwimmer that his career is so heavily associated with Ross from Friends because I think he's actually a rather talented actor with more range than he gets credit for. I found him good in both this miniseries and Band of Brothers. I recently watched the bizarre Feed the Beast show he was in about 8 years ago, and I actually thought he was good in that too, though the show was incredibly uneven. But the entire time, I kept thinking "So, Ross is trying to open a restaurant?" and I never even watched Friends. LOLOL

3 minutes ago, scarynikki12 said:

One way to look at Cuba’s casting is it certainly pissed off OJ. You know he watched just enough to see his portrayal and was furious they didn’t cast a movie star to play him. 

This is true! LOLOL 

Edited September 25 by Zella

[Raja]

1 hour ago, scarynikki12 said:

One way to look at Cuba’s casting is it certainly pissed off OJ. You know he watched just enough to see his portrayal and was furious they didn’t cast a movie star to play him. 

An Oscar winner who won for playing a football player. The 50 year old stars bigger than Gooding Jr. are in short supply. Denzel wasn't going to sit in court. TV actors without the star credits being who's left.

[Spartan Girl]

Given what we now know about Cuba and the shit he’s done, maybe he was better casting than we thought. And if it pissed OJ off—may he rot in seven hells—all the better.

Supposedly the Menedezes are upset about their portrayal in the new series.

[Ancaster]

I hated the Harry Potter oeuvre and its author back when it was a philosopher's stone.

[proserpina65]

I've grown to really not like Neville on Death in Paradise and wish PBS would hurry up and air his last season so that I can move on to the next detective.  Also never cared for Richard and was glad when they killed him off.  In the latter case it was the actor but in the former, it's the character.

Edited October 4 by proserpina65

[Palimelon]

I found Jerry Stiller to be more annoying than funny on Seinfeld.

[andromeda331]

7 hours ago, Palimelon said:

I found Jerry Stiller to be more annoying than funny on Seinfeld.

He was annoying on that show and on King of Queens.

[Blergh]

1 hour ago, andromeda331 said:

He was annoying on that show and on King of Queens.

IMO, more annoying on King of Queens- mainly because on Seinfeld, Mr. Costanza's annoying traits were somewhat deflected via clashing with Mrs. Costanza and George (themselves annoying folks).

[Haleth]

14 hours ago, Palimelon said:

I found Jerry Stiller to be more annoying than funny on Seinfeld.

To be fair every character on that show was annoying.

[Palimelon]

Nah, there were times where I found the other characters to be rather funny. Not Frank Costanza.

[Katy M]

I feel like both Jerry Stiller characters were supposed to be annoying, so there is that.  

[bluegirl147]

15 hours ago, Katy M said:

I feel like both Jerry Stiller characters were supposed to be annoying, so there is that.  

I agree with this. And for me that mitigates the annoyance.   But I've been rewatching Brooklyn Nine Nine and regardless of whether Gina was meant to be annoying or not her character is like nails on a chalkboard for me.

[Dimity]

15 hours ago, Katy M said:

I feel like both Jerry Stiller characters were supposed to be annoying, so there is that.  

I found all the characters on Seinfeld and on King of Queens to be annoying.  Hardpressed to say if I even liked one of them!  The thing with the Jerry Stiller characters was he was essentially playing the same person though on both shows.  I half expected George to show up as Carrie's long lost brother.

Edited October 6 by Dimity