Jump to content

Type keyword(s) to search

Party of One: Unpopular TV Opinions


  • Reply
  • Start Topic

Recommended Posts

I generally just like interesting and compelling characters, period. I think a show needs both or else it would be exasperatingly boring to watch. So, I enjoy a good evil bastard (or I love to hate them anyway) just as much as a good heroic angel. As long as they are interesting to watch, I'll watch them. Does that make me easy?

  • Love 4
Link to comment

I'm perfectly happy watching an asshole character, until the show starts trying to tell me it's okay he's an asshole and everyone should just put up with it.

Edited by Bastet
  • Love 11
Link to comment
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.

 

JackShaftoe already more or less said it, but I'm gonna double down because it bears repeating. Someone back on TWOP said that if Pete Campbell did half the stuff that Don Draper did, they'd have put him under a jail, but because Don was the conventionally handsome Alpha male, he got away with stuff a lot. Whether or not I think Pete is a "good person", I like him a lot more than I like Don because I think he has the capacity to realize that he screws up good things because he is so flawed. This same concept applies to characters like Xander Harris who, if he pulled half the shit that losers like Angel and Spike got away with, there wouldn't be an internet anymore because it would have imploded way back after Becoming, Part 2 ended due to the sheer volume of the people clamoring for his head.

  • Love 1
Link to comment

Good or bad, I don't care. Complexity, consistency, and reasonable development is what I look for in characters on my TV. Unfortunately, they tend to be male most of the time. Good for my shallowness, bad for my feminism card.

 

I think it's even more important and at the same time much harder to do than for movies since that needs to be kept for a long time if the show lasts.

 

It is necessary that I can work with a show's or character's basic premise assuming it has one. I couldn't watch Dexter because I couldn't work with the basic premise. Same goes with Breaking Bad. I do adore Hannbal, so I don't have a problem with basically bad guys as main characters. Maybe it's the hair.

Edited by supposebly
  • Love 1
Link to comment

JackShaftoe already more or less said it, but I'm gonna double down because it bears repeating. Someone back on TWOP said that if Pete Campbell did half the stuff that Don Draper did, they'd have put him under a jail, but because Don was the conventionally handsome Alpha male, he got away with stuff a lot. Whether or not I think Pete is a "good person", I like him a lot more than I like Don because I think he has the capacity to realize that he screws up good things because he is so flawed. This same concept applies to characters like Xander Harris who, if he pulled half the shit that losers like Angel and Spike got away with, there wouldn't be an internet anymore because it would have imploded way back after Becoming, Part 2 ended due to the sheer volume of the people clamoring for his head.

 

Idk, I don't think that it's all about looks. Logan Echolls was hideous (uh, no offense?) but he got successfully woobified. I don't actually think that Don is better looking than Pete, especially back in the day. I think it's more about how the lead women or at least the attractive women in the show respond to the male potentially-woobied character. In general, I think that if the show's women like him, the fans will like him and root for him. If they don't, they won't.

 

Personally, I like Pete. He obviously thinks he's a loser, for no known reason, and he's so *bitter* about it. I always want to buy him a drink. Don irritates me because imo he's a patriarchial asswipe.

 

Oh, my Mad Men UO -- I love Betty, hate Peggy. Why is Peggy so lucky all the time? It's bizarre. Plus, she's a snot about it, which irritates me. I respect Betty, too. She knew that she was supposed to be a beautiful ice queen, and she did a bang up job of it. Oh, and I also like Megan pretty well, though she's got this weird gawky thing going on that always makes her seem like an overgrown teenager to me.

 

In terms of hating on relatively "good" characters -- when a character is dealing with out-of-this-world crazy stuff that I can't even wrap my head around dealing with, like stabbing their boyfriend to death in order to save the world or whatever, I can accept basically any choice that character makes. I mean, who am I to say what the right choice even is, that stuff is NUTS. But when a character is dealing with regular-life stuff that I do understand first hand, like about being a good friend or something, I have actual strong opinions about the choices that are being made, so I can be a little tougher on the characters over what they decide to do.

 

On the other hand, I really don't see what the big problem is with criticizing the choices a character makes anyway. I can think the character has done something crummy -- or is even maybe a crummy person in general! -- and still respect and will almost definitely still *like* the character. I'm not Peter at the gates of heaven, I'm just some chick watching a TV show in the middle of the night and mildly tut-tutting something. And just because I'm criticizing one decision doesn't mean that I think it's The Worst Decision EVAR, and just because I'm criticizing a character doesn't mean I think he's The Worst! either.

 

I hate when fans act like criticizing a character or his decisions is a big deal or like you're a traitor to the character for doing so. I can criticize something a character does while *still* liking the character, and *still* understanding that other characters are doing worse things. We contain multitudes etc etc etc.

Edited by rue721
  • Love 3
Link to comment

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.

Does discussing about it at work the next day count too? Half my office watched Sons Of anarchy and I was spoiled about lots of things I didn't want to be. Expecting the world to stay silent about last nights shocking death is unrealistic on public media or just plain public. Edited by Chaos Theory
  • Love 3
Link to comment

Edited:

 

Chaos Theory, sorry! Just joking around. I don't even watch Sons of Anarchy, gave up after maybe episode #2. Too macho and too many douchebag characters for me. YMMV.

 

Anyway, IA that once something airs, it's not a spoiler. The world can't revolve around any given person's DVR schedule.

Edited by rue721
  • Love 1
Link to comment

 

Something about the look of the show just feels sort of cheap to me and just turned me off.

 

It's not my kind of show either, but it is definitely not a cheap-looking show from what I've seen.  Production values are excellent.  (yes, I do watch it)

Link to comment

On the matter of EW and spoilers: They don't have to blurt everything out on the main page. "What did you think of that shocking moment on [insert show here] ?!!!???1?" would still grab eyeballs without spoiling the episode for people who happen to DVR a program to watch later. As it is, I never look at EW since I still carry a grudge from when they were still a print magazine and spoiled a movie. I've learned never to go to TVLine until after I've watched anything I'm interested in because they're assholes who don't know how to write a headline to entice readers without spoiling those who haven't watched yet.

 

On the matter of liking the bad or good guy: Just because I enjoy watching a fictional character on TV does not mean I would like that person in my personal life if he was a real person, or that I condone his actions. It means I enjoy watching that fictional character on TV.

  • Love 2
Link to comment

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.

 

When I watched the preview in the fall, I had exactly this reaction.  Probably a week after the pilot, I was looking for background noise and turned this on.  The next episode I watched the day after airing.  I'm now on must see and must see it live status.  This is pretty rare for me.  The shows I watch live are more to participate in post show discussion on the forums I frequent.  Empire is now one of the rare shows that I watch live because its just that good. 

  • Love 3
Link to comment

Idk, I don't think that it's all about looks. Logan Echolls was hideous (uh, no offense?) but he got successfully woobified.

Totally agree.

I don't actually think that Don is better looking than Pete.

Really??? I think especially "in the day" Don Draper would be the matinee idol type women really went for.

UO: If I never hear any reference to the descriptor "woobie" for a male character in any way I can die a happy woman.

Link to comment
On the other hand, I really don't see what the big problem is with criticizing the choices a character makes anyway. I can think the character has done something crummy -- or is even maybe a crummy person in general! -- and still respect and will almost definitely still *like* the character. I'm not Peter at the gates of heaven, I'm just some chick watching a TV show in the middle of the night and mildly tut-tutting something. And just because I'm criticizing one decision doesn't mean that I think it's The Worst Decision EVAR, and just because I'm criticizing a character doesn't mean I think he's The Worst! either.

 

I hate when fans act like criticizing a character or his decisions is a big deal or like you're a traitor to the character for doing so. I can criticize something a character does while *still* liking the character, and *still* understanding that other characters are doing worse things. We contain multitudes etc etc etc.

 

I agree with this, for fandom is Legion, and as Legion most of us can get along just fine, respect one another's opinions and even - GASP! - agree with one another to a point, even if we don't fully like a certain character's actions. But to me, it seems as if there are way more cases where its the total opposite. Take Supernatural. I went back and re-watched the pilot on Netflix because I caught a couple of episodes on TNT, and someone told me how Sam looks down on his brother, etc. So I was prepared for Sam to be an utter jackass towards Dean, and then.....well, that's not what happened. I mean, you can't judge a show by its pilot because the writers haven't figured out who the characters are yet, firmed things up WRT plot and such. But while I think that Sam's petulance is not a good look, I also think that Dean is not blameless for how their relationship is shaking out. And I'm more inclined to defend Sam just because Dean so often comes off like a jerk to me. Is that a UO?

  • Love 2
Link to comment

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 :) 

 

I think Lauren Graham and Alexis Bledel were perfectly suited for the roles they played.  Alexis got a lot of flack for her acting (which I agreed with at times), but Lauren also got extremely lucky with Lorelai in that it played to all of her strengths.  Thinking back, Alexis had the harder job because we see Rory's growing pains.  I'm not sure Lorelai changed much over the run of the show.   

  • Love 4
Link to comment

I'm not sure how much of UO is it, but I dislike Jack Mccoy from Law&Order. Really dislike! He is such a judgemental prick. Harsh words, I know, but I'm not sorry for saying it... I'm, however, sorry if I offended any of you with my opinion.

  • Love 4
Link to comment
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.

 

 

Maybe a couple.  The tide changed as the show moved on and by the end Walter was "the bad guy" and Hank Schrader was the hero everyone wanted to catch him.  In only maybe the first season or so when the show was still pretending Walter was a "good man trying to provide for his family" that Schrader was written as an asshole.  (What he was was a alpha male but a good man).  The two characters had reverse trajectories and most fans of the show saw it as that.   Most did.  Of course there was always going to be those who towed the line of Walter White Good Family Man and those people resented anyone who got in the way of WW and his blue meth  But most saw the show for what it was.  

Edited by Chaos Theory
Link to comment

I'm not surprised at Rosie O'Donnell's [latest] "View"exit.Could doing the same action with a history of disaster and getting disappointed that the most recent attempt wasn't succesful be a definition of insanity or could it be the enjoyment of   hearing oneself complain [and I ask this of Rosie as well as whoever greenlighted this latest attempt]?

  • Love 4
Link to comment
The tide changed as the show moved on and by the end Walter was "the bad guy" and Hank Schrader was the hero everyone wanted to catch him.

 

No, I wanted WW to get away with it. I liked the scene where he basically owned it and said, "I'm the best at this and I like it." In the end, he basically got away with it. I think the show was pretty great. 

 

I'd say Hank was more tragic than hero. He couldn't let go and it got him killed. He had the chance for the promotion and transfer and he couldn't take it. WW didn't need to bait him either, but the 'tread lightly' scene is arguably one of the best scenes of all time. 

 

I think the show is a great example how if you bust the typical tv model, you can do something really special. 

Edited by ganesh
  • Love 1
Link to comment

I'm not surprised at Rosie O'Donnell's [latest] "View"exit.Could doing the same action with a history of disaster and getting disappointed that the most recent attempt wasn't succesful be a definition of insanity or could it be the enjoyment of hearing oneself complain [and I ask this of Rosie as well as whoever greenlighted this latest attempt]?

All of this.

I know TIIC are...well, idiots, but we should all be well versed on the definition of insanity.

Link to comment

I'm not sure how much of UO is it, but I dislike Jack Mccoy from Law&Order. Really dislike! He is such a judgemental prick. Harsh words, I know, but I'm not sorry for saying it... I'm, however, sorry if I offended any of you with my opinion.

You're right. Not just that, but his character growth during his time on the show consisted of gradually becoming less and less concerned with what's right, and more concerned with "winning" at any cost.
  • Love 3
Link to comment

I find most acting is just 90% good hair.

 

I don't agree, but I just upthumbed this because I love the sentiment.  :D

Well thanks guys!  I didn't know what a woobie was, so headed over to TV Tropes... and there went 2 hours of my life!  That site is a rabbit hole.

 

Beware of TV Tropes!  It will suck you in and you will never get out

  • Love 4
Link to comment

My TV UO:  I've never thought Seinfeld was funny.  Same goes for Frazier.

 

I still love Frasier (though the last few seasons leave a lot to be desired), but I agree on Seinfeld. I didn't find that gang of tiresome jerks funny at all. Also, I never liked M.A.S.H.; so dreary, and it annoyed me how it lasted longer than the actual Korean War. 

Edited by Wiendish Fitch
  • Love 2
Link to comment

I'm not sure how much of UO is it, but I dislike Jack Mccoy from Law&Order. Really dislike! He is such a judgemental prick. Harsh words, I know, but I'm not sorry for saying it... I'm, however, sorry if I offended any of you with my opinion.

Oh, my main man on Law & Order was always Ben Stone.  Ben, even if he didn't agree with the law, always strove to uphold it.  Jack just bull-headily pushed for whatever he thought was right, whether the law said so or not.  His best seasons were after he became DA, because in trying to stay elected, he couldn't be so much of a pompous jackass.  

  • Love 8
Link to comment

Oh, my main man on Law & Order was always Ben Stone.  Ben, even if he didn't agree with the law, always strove to uphold it.  Jack just bull-headily pushed for whatever he thought was right, whether the law said so or not.  His best seasons were after he became DA, because in trying to stay elected, he couldn't be so much of a pompous jackass.  

 

I guess I hold the truly UO of liking Jack even when I didn't agree with him.

 

Another UO is that Jimmy Fallon irks me. I am not sure why though.

  • Love 3
Link to comment

That reminds me of one of my UOs:  While I like him very much as a person, I don't care for Sam Waterston as an actor.  He has some mannerisms that bug me to the point of distraction, and I just never connect to his characters the way I expect to given the material.

  • Love 3
Link to comment

Amen to the Seinfeld hate. They are selfish people who aren't funny at all. I don't expect tv characters to behave as people in real life would. This is especially true of police procedurals. I hate scorekeeping between characters as in the hero did something I don't like so they can't be a hero meanwhile the villain does one good thing and everything they did before doesn't matter.

  • Love 1
Link to comment
Another UO is that Jimmy Fallon irks me. I am not sure why though.

Same here.  He comes across as thinking he's so damn funny and cute and adorable.  I don't hate him, but he really is annoying, which is why I don't watch his show. 

  • Love 1
Link to comment

Same here.  He comes across as thinking he's so damn funny and cute and adorable.  I don't hate him, but he really is annoying, which is why I don't watch his show. 

 

Its hard to tell in an interview when he's genuinely interested and amused vs. when he's faking it and he's got to be faking it 90% of the time.  He goes overboard with the reactions.  Its not that funny.  I do generally enjoy a lot of his running skits and gags, relative to other late night shows.  Other people likely came up with those so he may just have a good staff.

 

I am always amused that he is consistently not as funny as actors when doing lip synch.  He doesn't have the pre-requisite mobility of his face for expressions.  I'm not saying botox or anything, actors must just spend a lot of time honing that skill, relatively speaking.

  • Love 2
Link to comment

I guess I hold the truly UO of liking Jack even when I didn't agree with him.

 

That's my opinion too. Not that there was anything really wrong with Ben Stone, but I just found him bland whereas with Jack even if I didn't agree with some of the things he did I at least found it interesting to watch. 

 

Another Law and Order UO: I don't hate Rey Curtis. Could he be annoying and preachy? Yeah, but I think it worked with his character being young and happy with a family and strong faith, especially with his scenes with Lennie who was almost the complete opposite. 

Link to comment

Here's a possible UO with regards to Sam Waterston:

 

That man is 70-something now, with white hair, but at almost 26, I would STILL pick him over many guys in my own age range. 

  • Love 6
Link to comment

 

I'm perfectly happy watching an asshole character, until the show starts trying to tell me it's okay he's an asshole and everyone should just put up with it.

This is the perfect description of why I hated House.

 

 

That's appropriate, since he was the foremost example in my mind when I wrote it.

Edited by Bastet
  • Love 2
Link to comment
I'm perfectly happy watching an asshole character, until the show starts trying to tell me it's okay he's an asshole and everyone should just put up with it.

 

 

Agreed. I'm learning to be okay with asshole protagonists, but when the show tries to frame them as lovable, awesome, or completely in the right, that's what I take issue with. For me it works best the story isn't in the least bit preachy, is presented in a funny manner, and they still don't lose sight of who the protagonists are (movies like Kind Hearts and Coronets and Trouble in Paradise come to mind), or if the antiheroes are surrounded by people little better than they are (Vanity Fair, The Last Seduction).

 

Hmmm, I've noticed that movies and books seem to do this better. 

  • Love 1
Link to comment

Agreed. I'm learning to be okay with asshole protagonists, but when the show tries to frame them as lovable, awesome, or completely in the right, that's what I take issue with. For me it works best the story isn't in the least bit preachy, is presented in a funny manner, and they still don't lose sight of who the protagonists are (movies like Kind Hearts and Coronets and Trouble in Paradise come to mind), or if the antiheroes are surrounded by people little better than they are (Vanity Fair, The Last Seduction).

 

Hmmm, I've noticed that movies and books seem to do this better. 

 

ITA.  I will say that I've noticed that I do better with this when the antihero protagonist never gets cut any slack or credit when doing a good deed and the hero never gets any flack or blame when they do bad.  If the other characters treat each other as one dimensional entities, I always tend to go the other way to balance things out.  This is why its virtually impossible for me to like an antihero that is presented as loveable or in the right.

 

Overall, I'd like one-dimensional to stay far away from any show I watch.

Link to comment

I completely agree. See my post a few pages back where I pretty much said the same thing. Like I said, no matter how good a show, I don't think it should go beyond 6 seasons, maybe 7 but no more. I just think that at that point, the writers have told all the stories they need to with the characters and it's time to move on. And by that point, there's enough for syndication, so they can still get compensation from it for years to come. 

  • Love 2
Link to comment

Then here's a UO to end all UOs:

 

I actually really love Season 8 and Season 9 of The Facts of Life. Say what you want about the four girls still living together and/or Cloris Leachman living with them, for some reason it works for me just as much as the earlier seasons do.

 

In fact, most of my favorite shows are older sitcoms; The Facts of Life and The Brady Bunch are two of my favorite shows of all time. Which probably doesn't say much about my intelligence, but oh well. :P

 

thirtysomething's theme song is one of the greatest ever. And while I'm still working on it, it's probably my favorite primetime drama series ever (along with the criminally short-lived I'll Fly Away). 

  • Love 1
Link to comment

I just don't care that much about Jon Stewart leaving The Daily Show...or, for that matter, about The Daily Show in general. *ducks* 

I have actually always, always liked The Colbert Report (and by extension, Stephen Colbert) better than The Daily Show and Jon Stewart.  There is something so smug about him that I can't stand.

  • Love 9
Link to comment

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

×
×
  • Create New...