Party of One: Unpopular TV Opinions

[SmithW6079]

I'm officially "over" the duo of Tina Fey and Amy Poehler. But I do know this one's unpopular.

I was never "on" them. Tina Fey I found amusing for a few seasons on "30 Rock," but not so much anymore. I've never thought Amy Poehler was funny.

[VanillaBear85]

I like Tina and Amy as friends and people, but I dislike their shows.

[kiddo82]

Amy Poehler has a my lifetime respect for dropping that Sarah Palin rap while approximately 13 months pregnant as a weekend update anchor on SNL.

[Bruinsfan]

Didn't all that jumping around more or less trigger her labor that weekend?

[Chaos Theory]

I enjoyed the 3rd season of Scandal. I like Quinn as a character and I like Quinn and Huck as a pairing. What? They are more interesting then Olivia and Fitz.

[topanga]

 

13 minutes ago

I enjoyed the 3rd season of Scandal. I like Quinn as a character and I like Quinn and Huck as a pairing.

 

I agree that Quinn became more interesting as a character. But Shonda Rhimes became so fixated on creating something crazy and shocking every week that she no longer cared about creating a well-written drama. And Olivia Pope? How many men can she sleep with, claim to love, or allow herself to be controlled by? The only thing still fierce about her is her wardrobe. In Seasons 1 and 2, she was a character I could admire, even with her flaws. it's not the same show I used to love, so I chose to stop watching.

 

Millions of people still watch, Chaos Theory, so you're definitely not alone. Not that you needed my blessing, right? LOL

[Linderhill]

 

Whedon does nothing for me either!  (Maybe this isn't exactly an UO, eh?)

Except that Whedon fans can't seem to accept that he isn't all that and constantly worship at his alter.  

 

That being said, other UO's: I like Spike and he was the only thing that got me to watch Buffy and Angel.  I also like Jonas on StarGate: SG1.  I also cannot see why everyone loves Santana on Glee.  I always thought she was a mean spirited bitch along with Sue.  I dealt enough with those types in high school, I don't find them that entertaining.  or clever. or talented.  Most viewers were appalled when Finn outed Santana as a lesbian in the halls of the high school.  I was appalled at how she kept calling him fat.  No, what he did wasn't right but neither was what she did.  She started it all but somehow that is never mentioned.  Obnoxious, bullying bitch is not something to be admired.

[Cobalt Stargazer]

Except that Whedon fans can't seem to accept that he isn't all that and constantly worship at his alter.  

 

You need to come over here and meet me, then. Buffy was my first fandom, and while I still think Whedon is talented, I also think he's addicted to "Wouldn't it be cool if...." and that the final two seasons of his signature work were some of the most arduous television I've ever subjected myself to. Not in a good way, and mostly because of Spike and his "relationship" with Buffy.

[Chaos Theory]

Except that Whedon fans can't seem to accept that he isn't all that and constantly worship at his alter.

 

 

Worship at his alter, really?  I think Whedon is one of the better show runners out there.  I don't think there was a series he has done that I didn't enjoy but I hardly call it worship.  I just like his work.   

[Minneapple]

I like Spike and he was the only thing that got me to watch Buffy and Angel.

I thought Spike was overused on Buffy (the classic case of "be careful when you wish for your secondary character to become a primary character"), but I loved him on Angel. In fact season five of Angel is my absolute favorite.

[Ambrosefolly]

Spike works better in an ensemble than as a lead, hence why he was better on Angel.

[Chaos Theory]

Spike works better in an ensemble than as a lead, hence why he was better on Angel.

Spike worked better as a villian. He lost something as a character when they defanged him. I don't mean a little bit. I liked the original Innititative storyline I mean when they turned him into a love sick eunuch.

[joelene]

Whedon fan here too and I do think he's a (mostly) great showrunner, writer, feminist, but I'm not worshipping all of his work. I love Buffy and Angel but recognise that both shows have major flaws, Firefly was great but I was never too bothered about it being cancelled and I like Dollhouse more than most seem to. Agents of Shield, however, I couldn't stand past four episodes and his Alien Resurrection script was baaad. Avengers was alright but it's nothing I'm gonna watch again.

Edited February 4, 2015 by joelene

[DittyDotDot]

I can take or leave Whedon too. I loved Firefly, but couldn't get into any of his other shows. I watched the entire first season of Agents of Shield thinking I was missing something or at least it would grow on me--sadly it did not. He seems like a very affable guy though. ::shrugs::

[Chaos Theory]

Whedon fan here too and I do think he's a (mostly) great showrunner, writer, feminist, but I'm not worshipping all of his work. I love Buffy and Angel but recognise that both shows have major flaws, Firefly was great but I was never too bothered about it being cancelled and I like Dollhouse more than most seem to. Agents of Shield, however, I couldn't stand past four episodes and his Alien Resurrection script was baaad. Avengers was alright but it's nothing I'm gonna watch again.

There are certain shows that work in reverse. Most popular shows have amasaaaaazing first seasons and second season slumps. Agents of Shield and another show called Defiance had pretty mediocre first seasons and amaaaaaazing second seasons.

[joelene]

There are certain shows that work in reverse. Most popular shows have amasaaaaazing first seasons and second season slumps. Agents of Shield and another show called Defiance had pretty mediocre first seasons and amaaaaaazing second seasons.

That's pretty much my stance on Dollhouse. First season was hit and miss but the second season was absolutely riveting. I think it helped that they were pretty set on not getting a third season.

I might give Agents of Shield another try in the future, I've heard from several people that it gets significantly better :)

[Shannon L.]

 

I might give Agents of Shield another try in the future, I've heard from several people that it gets significantly better :)

My daughter and I gave up on Agents of Shield after the 3rd episode, but my husband and son kept going.  They and others have claimed that it got so much better that we're giving it another shot.  By episode 5, we both agreed that it was starting to get better. 

 

Other than Shield and Firefly (which I thought was good, but not great), I've never seen his other shows. However, I was very impressed with what he did for the Avengers movie (even though the first half was a bit weaker than the second--well, that's what people say.  My unpopular movie opinion is that I thought the whole thing was great). 

Edited February 4, 2015 by Shannon L.

[Minneapple]

SHIELD is not a Joss show. His brother is the showrunner IIRC.

[amensisterfriend]

Raising Hope was uneven and certainly had its flaws, but I hold the UO of thinking it was one of my very favorite comedies of the past couple of decades overall. And Martha Plimpton's performance as Virginia was sadly underrated.  

[ribboninthesky1]

I think it's fairly easy to avoid TV spoilers, though they don't bother me in general.  I know a couple of people who moderate a TV forum (not this one), and apparently that's a common complaint.  It is pretty rare for a spoiler to ruin my enjoyment of a show, but I've never had a problem avoiding them if I believe they will.  I've never understood the issue.  I mean, you're running a risk just by following the social media about a show anyway, so if it's that sensitive an issue, maybe unplug from the social media?  

[proserpina65]

I think it's fairly easy to avoid TV spoilers, though they don't bother me in general.  I know a couple of people who moderate a TV forum (not this one), and apparently that's a common complaint.  It is pretty rare for a spoiler to ruin my enjoyment of a show, but I've never had a problem avoiding them if I believe they will.  I've never understood the issue.  I mean, you're running a risk just by following the social media about a show anyway, so if it's that sensitive an issue, maybe unplug from the social media?  

My problem with avoiding spoilers is quite specific: EW.com puts spoilers about shows on their home page.  Not on the subpages devoted to the shows, which I don't go to until I've seen the episode in question, but on their main page.  On the freaking main page, so that if I go there to say, read a movie review or a recap of a different show or a general interest enterainment article, I get hit in the face with spoilers about the show I taped last night but have not yet had a chance to watch.  Yes, sometimes they're coy about it, putting a picture of a character up with the headline "the producers talk about last night's shocking death", like anyone who isn't an idiot couldn't figure that one out.  I'm sorry, but it's not unreasonable to ask a major entertainment site to avoid posting spoilers on their main page; it's not the equivalent of asking people not to post comments on a show's twitter feed or facebook site. 

 

Now people who complain when the forum or site devoted to a particular show posts a recap of/discussion about the most recent episode, that's a whole 'nother story.  Obviously if you don't want to be spoiled, don't read the comments about that episode until after you've seen it.

Edited February 5, 2015 by proserpina65

[DittyDotDot]

My problem with avoiding spoilers is quite specific: EW.com puts spoilers about shows on their home page.  Not on the subpages devoted to the shows, which I don't go to until I've seen the episode in question, but on their main page.  On the freaking main page, so that if I go there to say, read a movie review or a recap of a different show or a general interest enterainment article, I get hit in the face with spoilers about the show I taped last night but have not yet had a chance to watch. 

 

Maybe I'm misunderstanding the term spoiler, but if the episode has already aired, is it actually a spoiler anymore?

[proserpina65]

Maybe I'm misunderstanding the term spoiler, but if the episode has already aired, is it actually a spoiler anymore?

 

 

 

In this day and age of delayed viewing, it is.  Now, I'm not one of those people who think something should remain forever hidden until someday in the future when I may or may not watch it, but a day or two isn't too much to ask.  And, like I said in my post, I'm only talking about sites like EW.com's main page.  Forums and websites devoted to individual shows or places like Previously.tv where people come specifically to talk about episodes are different.  For that, if I haven't seen the episode in question, I've got no business looking.  If I get on the forum for Sleepy Hollow before watching last night's show, I deserve all the spoilers I read.

 

For shows that haven't aired - keep your spoilers to yourself or clearly mark them as spoilers so those wishing to remain unspoiled can avoid them.

Edited February 5, 2015 by proserpina65

[truthaboutluv]

I don't know. I get that there are many people who utilize DVR and don't watch things in real time but I don't think it's fair to get upset at sites or other publications talking about something that's already aired simply because one chose not to watch it at that time. The fact is social media in particular has made it really, really hard for anything to stay a secret or remain a spoiler. So to me, if one wants to remain completely unspoiled when watching a show a day or two later, then the best thing to do is avoid most entertainment sites because the risk of being spoiled is pretty high. 

 

This reminds of some fans who got mad at a celebrity who tweeted about American Idol and expressed being sad about this one contestant being eliminated. Some were outraged and reminded him that some of them were on the West Coast so they hadn't seen it yet. However, my thing was, if you don't want to be spoiled, twitter is probably not the best place to be because right in the corner, in the trending topics was the name of the two contestants who made it to the Final 2. Anyone who saw the names trending would figure out why it was. 

 

I'm pretty whatever about spoilers myself, except for Survivor. That is the one show I absolutely do not want to be spoiled about. Some nights I've worked late so I miss the episode and have to DVR it. When I do, no matter how late when I get home, I watch it and if I was really too tired, I avoid twitter and entertainment sites like the plague the next day until I watch because I know, there will be interviews with the eliminated contestant. Now I will say People is good about just putting in their headline "interview with eliminated contestant" without putting the name but it's just too easy with social media and the internet being what it is to find out something you don't want to.

Edited February 5, 2015 by truthaboutluv

[VanillaBear85]

But if the episode has already aired it is not a spoiler that should be sequestered due to others viewing habits. They are an entertainment website and it is extremely fair for them to post spoilers on their home page once the episode has aired. Delayed viewing concerns the viewer, not the entertainment site.

[DittyDotDot]

In this day and age of delayed viewing, it is.  Now, I'm not one of those people who think something should remain forever hidden until someday in the future when I may or may not watch it, but a day or two isn't too much to ask.  And, like I said in my post, I'm only talking about sites like EW.com's main page.  Forums and websites devoted to individual shows or places like Previously.tv where people come specifically to talk about episodes are different.  For that, if I haven't seen the episode in question, I've got no business looking.  If I get on the forum for Sleepy Hollow before watching last night's show, I deserve all the spoilers I read.

 

But isn't EW's entire existence based on covering TV? Why would they wait two days after something aired? I try to remain mostly spoiler-free myself, but I guess I just figure if it was all that important to me to remain spoiler-free I would've watched it live with the millions of other people or stayed away from the entertainment website til I had a chance to see it. I guess I just never thought about it being a spoiler if the episode had already been seen by millions of people who are probably more likely to spoil me with their talking about it than anything. Interesting different perspective.

[yourpointis]

I've actually gone to another website to read comments about a show I had just viewed and at the same time trying to stay spoiler free about another show that had aired at the same time. I had planned on watching the second show that night but during the repeat showing, and the first comment I read was about the second show and how the person was sad because contestant X had been eliminated when that forum had nothing to do with that show. Argh! Normally I usually always watch shows in real time because I don't want to bother with DVRing (is that a word lol?), but I understand how it is almost next to impossible in this day and age to stay spoiler free if one goes on the internet. 

[ribboninthesky1]

I remember on the TWOP Amazing Race thread, you couldn't even talk about previews for the next episode that were aired at the end of the current one.  I totally understand why someone prefers to be unspoiled, but if something has been aired for the general public to see, it's not a spoiler.   

 

But if the episode has already aired it is not a spoiler that should be sequestered due to others viewing habits. They are an entertainment website and it is extremely fair for them to post spoilers on their home page once the episode has aired. Delayed viewing concerns the viewer, not the entertainment site.

 

Or those who discuss the episode on social media during or after it's airing. So to truthaboutluv's point, I've little sympathy for West Coasters.  It's really not that difficult to get off social media for a few hours to a day, is it?  I mean, no one's forcing a person to access Facebook, Twitter, previously.tv, TV specific sites, etc. 

 

I'm a bit more sympathetic to those who visit general entertainment sites like EW.com, because it's not solely TV.  But even then, the reality is that headlines are click bait, so probably better to avoid those to IF you're sensitive about spoilers.  It can be done, it's up to the individual to do so.   

[Jipijapa]

I don't understand, who decides how long you have to wait until something is not a spoiler?  "They could stand to wait for one or two days..." but then what about people who don't watch it for a week?  Or until next year? Where do we draw the line?

 

I watch Empire on a one-day delay... I don't find it hard to stay away from spoilers.

[Rick Kitchen]

But isn't EW's entire existence based on covering TV?

 

EW covers TV, movies, books and music.

[truthaboutluv]

Speaking of Empire and speaking of unpopular opinions, while I'm happy for Fox to have this hit and happy for the cast, I have zero interest in watching that show. Something about the look of the show just feels sort of cheap to me and just turned me off.  It's kind of why I never watched Firefly because just by the costumes and look it seemed like it would be stupid to me. 

[memememe76]

Spoilers are tricky. While I would agree that revealing plot points as soon as the episode airs is generally okay, I do think media outlets should take into account their audience. For instance, EW should be aware that people on the west coast still has to wait another 3 hours for the episode to air. And while I don't expect UK outlets to not reveal plot points in Downton Abbey, I would hope NA outlets would remember that North Americans don't get to see the episodes on PBS til months later. 

 

Forums like this one, twitter, facebook, reddit, imdb, etc. are a different matter. You can control the information that goes to you. 

 

Some UO's I have in the last few months: 

 

I never minded Miss Bunting on Downton Abbey. 

I like Laurel on Arrow. 

I dislike Rafael on Jane the Virgin. I prefer Michael. 

I like Anika on Empire. 

I'm indifferent to Penguin on Gotham, 

Edited February 6, 2015 by memememe76

[Neurochick]

In this day and age of delayed viewing, it is.  Now, I'm not one of those people who think something should remain forever hidden until someday in the future when I may or may not watch it, but a day or two isn't too much to ask.  And, like I said in my post, I'm only talking about sites like EW.com's main page.  Forums and websites devoted to individual shows or places like Previously.tv where people come specifically to talk about episodes are different.  For that, if I haven't seen the episode in question, I've got no business looking.  If I get on the forum for Sleepy Hollow before watching last night's show, I deserve all the spoilers I read.

 

 

 

But how long should a site like EW have to wait?  I mean if the episode has aired on TV it's not a spoiler IMO.  The fact that someone delays watching a show isn't the websites problem.  It's not fair but that's how life is sometimes.

 

My UO is I don't mind liking bad guy characters.  Some people act like if a character on a TV show is bad, they can't watch the show, as if liking a bad character on TV equals liking bad people in real life.  I might like a nasty character on TV and would NEVER associate with someone like that in the real world.  That's why TV is TV, it's not real.

[Cobalt Stargazer]

My UO is I don't mind liking bad guy characters.  Some people act like if a character on a TV show is bad, they can't watch the show, as if liking a bad character on TV equals liking bad people in real life.  I might like a nasty character on TV and would NEVER associate with someone like that in the real world.  That's why TV is TV, it's not real.

 

FWIW, I don't have a problem with liking the bad guy characters. Tony Soprano leaps immediately to mind. I thought Tony was a perfect example of a benign monster who, if he liked you, would do what he could to help, but if for whatever reason he didn't like you, you never knew what he was going to do. James Gandolfini's acting made Tony far more bearable than he should have been, and when The Drop comes out on DVD, I'm going to buy a copy because its his final film and I regret that he died so young. He should have had a lot more years to do (IMO) excellent work.

 

Conversely, I can see where the annoyance about the bad guys come from, because sometimes the characters become really popular and then the writers or whoever decides that they should soften them up, or at least have them behave not like utter assholes for five minutes every two months, and there will be a portion of the viewers that will point to that and say, "See? He/she isn't so bad!" As I said before, Tony was borderline, but at no point was I under the impression that he had a heart of gold underneath all the murdering and generally being a criminal. Further, I notice that the more, shall we say, photogenic bad guys tend to get a lot more leeway. Even if I thought that 'hot' is a character trait, it doesn't erase prickishness, particularly when the rare bursts of being kind of nice are usually aimed at the love interest character. If X Character is going to be a bad guy/an asshole, fine, but trying to use the window dressing to convince me they're something else really gets on my nerves.

[amensisterfriend]

I enjoy all kinds of characters as long as they're compelling. My issue is when the 'good' characters are browbeaten mercilessly by fans for every minor perceived slight while the 'bad' characters' grossly sociopathic behavior is justified and even embraced because said character is attractive, snarky and/or secretly hurting. (Because no good human beings ever hurt...?!)  

 

This brings me to the hugely UO that I preferred the admittedly humorless, flawed Jack, who at least tried to be a good person, to bigoted, sleazy, gleefully vicious Sawyer on LOST and couldn't deal with how the latter was automatically excused by fans for even the most egregiously awful words and behavior while Jack was raked over the coals for even the most minor transgressions. It's also why I hold the UOs of disliking Veronica Mars' Logan and Vampire Diaries' Damon. 

 

Re Gilmore Girls: I've come to the surprising and unpopular conclusion that Logan was the best of Rory's boyfriends. (And still can never shake the UO that Lorelai was far, far happier with Christopher than she ever was or would be with Luke!) 

[ribboninthesky1]

Ditto on Jack, Logan, and Christopher.  Oh, and the vilification of inherently decent characters.

 

Lorelai chose to be a single parent, so I just never saw Christopher as the most awful person in the world. She was the one who opted not to marry Chris, and ultimately left town with her child, choosing to struggle.  I respect the choice, but knowing single mothers who never had rich parents, the option of marriage, or who had true deadbeat husbands/exes, I never saw Lorelai as a victim of circumstance. 

 

I actually liked Luke as well, but not in a relationship with Lorelai.   

[amensisterfriend]

Lorelai chose to be a single parent, so I just never saw Christopher as the most awful person in the world. She was the one who opted not to marry Chris, and ultimately left town with her child, choosing to struggle.  I respect the choice, but knowing single mothers who never had rich parents, the option of marriage, or who had true deadbeat husbands/exes, I never saw Lorelai as a victim of circumstance.

 

Thank you! The vilification of Christopher by the vast majority of fellow GG fans is so wildly over the top IMO. 

 

I actually liked Luke as well, but not in a relationship with Lorelai.

 

If ever there was a TV couple who should have realized they just don't work romantically and were better off as friends, IMO it's these two. I really enjoyed their friendship for the most part, but as a couple they're among the most joyless, incompatible and chemistry-deficient I've come across...though I am in a very small minority for feeling that way :) 

[Sweet Tee]

 

Lorelai chose to be a single parent, so I just never saw Christopher as the most awful person in the world. She was the one who opted not to marry Chris, and ultimately left town with her child, choosing to struggle.  I respect the choice, but knowing single mothers who never had rich parents, the option of marriage, or who had true deadbeat husbands/exes, I never saw Lorelai as a victim of circumstance.

Yeah, it was her choice not to marry Chris but Chris was still barely in Rory's life and that's on him.  My parents were split most of my life too but my dad was never more than 25 minutes away from me until I got to college.  He made an effort to see me whenever he could.  Chris dropped in and out willy nilly but still acted like he was entitled to those two.  He had no part in raising Rory.  He liked saying that he was her dad but he never acted like one, in my opinion.  He was more like the cool uncle who popped up a couple of times a year.  He made an effort to be better for GG, and good for him, but that doesn't excuse how he was with Rory.  He never even seemed interested in Rory, to be honest.  She was more of this thing that tied him to Lorelai which was what he really wanted.

[truthaboutluv]

Further, I notice that the more, shall we say, photogenic bad guys tend to get a lot more leeway. Even if I thought that 'hot' is a character trait, it doesn't erase prickishness, particularly when the rare bursts of being kind of nice are usually aimed at the love interest character. If X Character is going to be a bad guy/an asshole, fine, but trying to use the window dressing to convince me they're something else really gets on my nerves.

 

 

This exactly. Like someone else noted, I don't mind someone liking a "bad" character. I'm sure if I think about it, I've liked one or two in my time. What annoys me is when said "bad" character becomes really, really popular and moves from just bad to the bad-boy woobie trope and I'm sure we all know that one. And then we the audience suddenly get brow beaten about how they're not so much bad but "complicated" and a "tragic figure". And the fans, as one noted, tirelessly justify and excuse EVERY SINGLE thing they do because again they're just so tragic and complicated and well, let's be honest, they're hot and they have chemistry with the lead actress. That is what I find annoying. Because I'm sure there were people who liked Walter White (Breaking Bad) in that he was absolutely compelling to watch but I'm sure they certainly didn't defend and try justify his awful actions as his not being so bad but just misunderstood and tragic. 

[amensisterfriend]

Yeah, it was her choice not to marry Chris but Chris was still barely in Rory's life and that's on him

 

Certain episodes would definitely lead us to believe that, but others explicitly state that Chris called weekly, requested visits with Rory that Lorelai was reluctant to grant, etc. They were so inconsistent on this issue that it's hard to form a clear opinion on it, but having known some true deadbeat dads who offer no financial or emotional support whatsoever, I do disagree with the popular characterization of Christopher as a deadbeat. God knows he was a very flawed man and not in the running for any parenting award, but to me he's not a villain. 

Edited February 6, 2015 by amensisterfriend

[ribboninthesky1]

Yes, I agree the show never fully addressed what kind of role Christopher had as a father.  Lorelai chose to move away, and seemed content to parent Rory alone.  They were both very young (16-ish?) when Rory was born, so I can't condemn Chris for not being the most present parent when Lorelai left home.  I'm not saying Christopher was a great father, or even a good one, but certainly not worth the ire he received, either. Rory could have had a financially stable upbringing around family even without Chris, but Lorelai chose to opt out of that.  Again, her choice and she had a right to make it, but none of that is on Chris. 

[DittyDotDot]

My OU about Gilmore Girls....I couldn't make it past the first season. I found Rory and Lorelai's relationship rather annoying and the whole show had a preachy tone to it that never set right with me.

 

Also, I found it slightly unsettling to hear Jared Padalecki call himself Dean. (I didn't start trying to watch Gilmore Girls until after many, many, many years of Supernatural.)

[truthaboutluv]

The impression I always got about the Christopher issue is that the writers initially created the show with the intent that Rory's father would never be a factor but then they cast the actor, who had really great chemistry with Lauren Graham and some viewers responded to that and so they decided to make him more of a presence off and on. However to do that, they couldn't really go the "he pretty much abandoned his child and baby mother and didn't give a shit about them at all" because who would like him then and so they pretty much sort of kept the logistics of that whole situation very vague and kind of hoped I guess that viewers would just go with it.

[ribboninthesky1]

My OU about Gilmore Girls....I couldn't make it past the first season. I found Rory and Lorelai's relationship rather annoying and the whole show had a preachy tone to it that never set right with me.

 

Also, I found it slightly unsettling to hear Jared Padalecki call himself Dean. (I didn't start trying to watch Gilmore Girls until after many, many, many years of Supernatural.)

 

Ha! That's a different perspective.  I wasn't interested in Supernatural, so Padalecki will always be Dean to me, though I'm certain Sam is much more well-known.

 

I really enjoyed Gilmore Girls back in the day, but I can't sit through an episode now.  It's the strummy, "la-la-la" music that's like nails on a chalkboard now, among other things.

[LydiaMoon1]

My UO is I don't mind liking bad guy characters.  Some people act like if a character on a TV show is bad, they can't watch the show, as if liking a bad character on TV equals liking bad people in real life.

I'm not sure that's a UO though.  I think everybody likes the bad guy sometimes (sometimes a lot of the time).  Mainly because they're usually the most entertaining and they get the best lines.

 

It annoys me is when said "bad" character becomes really, really popular [...] . And then we the audience suddenly get brow beaten about how they're not so much bad but "complicated" and a "tragic figure". And the fans, as one noted, tirelessly justify and excuse EVERY SINGLE thing they do because again they're just so tragic and complicated and well, let's be honest, they're hot..

THIS.

 

Because I'm sure there were people who liked Walter White (Breaking Bad) in that he was absolutely compelling to watch but I'm sure they certainly didn't defend and try justify his awful actions as his not being so bad but just misunderstood and tragic.

I thought Breaking Bad fans did exactly that, for the most part.  They constantly tried to justify WW actions and justify every horrible thing he ever did, while villifying Schuyler for objecting. I loved the show just like everybody else, but I wasn't about to pretend that he was anything other than an arrogant and vicious sociopath.

[amensisterfriend]

I really enjoyed Gilmore Girls back in the day, but I can't sit through an episode now.  It's the strummy, "la-la-la" music that's like nails on a chalkboard now, among other things.

 

Ha---yeah, I'll always love the show (in part for weird sentimental reasons that I won't bore you guys with!), but the majority of the characters bug the hell out of me more often than not. My tremendously unpopular opinion about the series is that overall I loved and related to Rory far more than the often insufferably grating Lorelai and the tiresomely bitter, angry, boring Luke.  And I think Alexis Bledel was a lot better in that role than she's generally given credit for. I'll show myself out :) 

Edited February 6, 2015 by amensisterfriend

[Jack Shaftoe]

 

I enjoy all kinds of characters as long as they're compelling. My issue is when the 'good' characters are browbeaten mercilessly by fans for every minor perceived slight while the 'bad' characters' grossly sociopathic behavior is justified and even embraced because said character is attractive, snarky and/or secretly hurting.

 

Exactly. I guess it is somewhat natural to tolerate more the awful behavior of characters who started that way as opposed to those who started as good guys but still the double standard leads to ridiculous claims along the like of Joe Serial Killer being held to be a better person than Jack Left His Wife-To-Be at the Altar. People like the murderer more? Perfectly fine by me, just don't try to convince me that he is objectively better than the "nice guy" whose worst offense is hurting somebody's feelings.

Another annoying consequences of the bad guys popularity is the insistence of (too) many fans that the characters who do not immediately and fully buy the baddie's redemption are horrible people and are much worse than the "redeemed" bad guy himself.

 

 

The impression I always got about the Christopher issue is that the writers initially created the show with the intent that Rory's father would never be a factor but then they cast the actor, who had really great chemistry with Lauren Graham and some viewers responded to that and so they decided to make him more of a presence off and on.

 

So that would be example 19458458 of "if it doesn't work on the written pages of the script, it won't work when you shoot it either, despite the supposed great chemistry"?

Edited February 6, 2015 by Jack Shaftoe

[amensisterfriend]

but still the double standard leads to ridiculous claims along the like of Joe Serial Killer being held to be a better person than Jack Left His Wife-To-Be at the Altar. People like the murderer more? Perfectly fine by me, just don't try to convince me that he is objectively better than the "nice guy" whose worst offense is hurting somebody's feelings.

Another annoying consequences of the bad guys popularity is the insistence of (too) many fans that the characters who do not immediately and fully buy the baddie's redemption are horrible people and are much worse than the "redeemed" bad guy himself.

 

It;'s so true! Bad Boy Woobie will attempt a host of crimes while spouting grossly racist epitaphs and deliberately trying to ruin the lives of everyone with whom he crosses paths...but if Good Guy X dares to voice any objection to such behavior, he's a self-righteous hypocrite who seems to earn at least twice as much ire from the audience :)  I also hate the popular notion that it's somehow "romantic" when a guy is vicious and awful towards everyone except One Very Special Girl with whom he's fixated. No, it means he's a terrible person and that said girl should stay far, far away. 

[Misslindsey]

I liked both Luke and Christopher on Gilmore Girls. I never cared who Lorelei ended up with, because I did not mind either of them. What I hated was that each of them would be written as flakey, dickish, or unaware of Lorelei's feelings when the situation called for a breakup between one or the other. Luke and Christopher were both able to read Lorelei pretty well, but when it was inevitable breakup time they were completely unaware of sad face Lorelei. 

 

Another possible UO is that I like Iris West on The Flash. I wish they would flesh out her character more. I am indifferent to Caitlyn, but that might be because I was never a big fan of Danielle Panabaker. I do like Caitlyn's chemistry with Cisco as a friendship or possibly more.

[rue721]

Gilmore Girls is one of those shows that I know are good, but I never actually want to watch.

 

I've tried watching the first season a whole bunch of times since it came onto Netflix, but I can't get very far. It's just so boring? None of the characters seem like they have any actual problems, which sometimes makes it pleasant to watch but imo mostly makes it frustrating.

 

This brings me to the hugely UO that I preferred the admittedly humorless, flawed Jack, who at least tried to be a good person, to bigoted, sleazy, gleefully vicious Sawyer on LOST and couldn't deal with how the latter was automatically excused by fans for even the most egregiously awful words and behavior while Jack was raked over the coals for even the most minor transgressions. It's also why I hold the UOs of disliking Veronica Mars' Logan and Vampire Diaries' Damon. 

 

I liked Jack! But mostly in that AU where he was addicted to pills and grew a ridiculous beard. I mean that genuinely, I liked him like that, I wish they would have stayed with that. But I also liked that the poor man had his father's corpse on board that plane and kept thinking that maybe the island had made his dad alive again.

 

Sawyer earned a ton of points with me when he stockpiled all the guns and first aid supplies and then was trying to dole them out in some kind of mock prison economy. I thought that was clever! But then he gradually lost all those points by being incredibly boring. That was possibly the last clever thing he did. Remember that one episode that was just about Kate giving him a haircut and then she barely even cut his hair? I mean wtf. I actually liked Kate, too -- she was so disconcertingly athletic. But with storylines like that, how was anyone going to keep liking either of them over time?

 

My Lost AU is that I just straight up did not like Hurley. He was just so bland. And Charlie wore out his welcome very fast. I was OK with Claire, but if I'm being honest, it's just because Emilie de Ravin is gorgeous and also because I always had this weird schadenfreude about someone with such fair coloring being trapped on a tropical desert island. I mean, she'd burn to a crisp in about five minutes, wouldn't she?

 

My real favorite on Lost was Ben. That's probably going along with the "liking the bad guy" thing you guys are talking about?

 

Further, I notice that the more, shall we say, photogenic bad guys tend to get a lot more leeway. Even if I thought that 'hot' is a character trait, it doesn't erase prickishness, particularly when the rare bursts of being kind of nice are usually aimed at the love interest character. If X Character is going to be a bad guy/an asshole, fine, but trying to use the window dressing to convince me they're something else really gets on my nerves.

 

I usually have the opposite problem, where I know I'm supposed to be able to excuse behavior from a character because he's "part of the gang" now, and since the story has presumably evolved since the current woobie was the show's villain, there's no reason for me to be taking a strong ~moral stance~ about a given character's behavior anyway -- but sometimes I just can't bring myself to accept the woobification. Like with Damon on Vampire Diaries. I know that we're not supposed to always think RAPIST! when he comes on the screen, and it's not like I want him off that show or anything, but...I just can't not think of him as the villain. Or hope for anything to go right for him.

 

I usually like the character better as the asshole/villain than as the woobie anyway. I mean that I legit find them more appealing as an ass. Chuck Bass or Logan Echolls were great imo when they were bizarre and unrepentant. I even liked seeing them get their asses handed to them by their categorically evil fathers, because on the one hand it did make me feel sympathize with them, but on the other hand, it didn't make me sympathize with them so much that I didn't still get pleasure of seeing those jerks get their asses handed to them! Getting rid of their fathers was the worst thing that ever happened to those characters. Same thing w/r/t getting rid of Katherine for Damon, getting rid of Angelus for Spike, getting rid of Livia for Tony Soprano...

Edited February 6, 2015 by rue721