Party of One: Unpopular TV Opinions

[cpcathy]

Possible UO:  Many shows on TV are dragging on way too long.  I still believe any show older than 7 seasons is essentially phoning it in.

 

I totally agree. The stars of Big Bang Theory do NOT deserve their huge raises, the last episode I watched was horrible and everyone except Parsons looked like they were sleepwalking through it.

[ganesh]

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

 

It's a fun show and I watch regularly. But I'm not gnashing my teeth and tearing my hair out in the streets. People move on. It's life.

 

This may or may not be UO: people who "get their news" from the Daily Show or Real Time are doing a disservice to themselves. They aren't news programs. "They're better than the real news" isn't true. PBS news is the real news. 

 

Edited February 11, 2015 by ganesh

[Snow Apple]

Here's an oldie. I'm someone who don't usually like cast changes but I liked the Rebecca years of Cheers way better than the Diane years.

[Rick Kitchen]

I totally agree. The stars of Big Bang Theory do NOT deserve their huge raises, the last episode I watched was horrible and everyone except Parsons looked like they were sleepwalking through it.

 

The show is the highest rated sitcom on network TV.  As long as it's drawing in big numbers, the actors deserve their money.

[ganesh]

TV is fickle. These actors may conceivably never enjoy this level of success again. If the market bears it, they should be paid their worth. The quality of the show is largely irrelevant to the network, relative to the ratings; i.e., ad dollars.

[callie lee 29]

 

At least viewers know Daily Show is comedy.

That's not entirely true. I know A LOT of people for whom The Daily Show is their only source of news. But my personal opinion is that one should not get their news from any one source be it, Daily Show, CNN, Fox, NPR, NBC, whatever. 

 

I am still enjoying Modern Family and Glee. I got into both a few seasons in so I've binged watch seasons (this was maybe a year ago for Modern Family) and having watched most of the series in a short time, I haven't noticed a decline in quality for Modern Family. Glee, yes (but I still enjoy it). 

[Anna Yolei]

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.

Add me as another that wasn't in Jon Stewart's fan club. I mean, he was okay in years past, but much of his show now seems to be him ranting and dropping F-bombs every two minutes. I work in the Navy, so profanity just isn't that funny anymore.

 

That said, the guy does give some great interviews still.

 

Possible UO:  Many shows on TV are dragging on way too long.  I still believe any show older than 7 seasons is essentially phoning it in.

That goes double for sitcoms. "It's Always Sunny in Philidephia" and "South Park" are maybe the only shows I watch that have been on over a decade (the latter I was sneaking off to watch in grade school FFS!) that are still consistently entertaining. "Sunny" got blasted in season six and seven, but turned it around for the last three seasons. I know of few other shows that pick up a second wind that late in their runs.

[ChaseMCP]

I can't speak for everyone, but for me it's not that The Daily Show is where I got my news from. Instead, when I started watching it, it gave me just enough to make me interested to the point where I'd search for the whole story on my own. Though it did help to watch it when the news was being frustrating, so I definitely will miss it.

[Anna Yolei]

TDS isn't being cancelled, IIRC; It's only Jon Stewart leaving.

[Kel Varnsen]

This may or may not be UO: people who "get their news" from the Daily Show or Real Time are doing a disservice to themselves. They aren't news programs. "They're better than the real news" isn't true. PBS news is the real news. 

Personally I never understood the whole concept of people getting their news from The Daily Show. I mean the show seems to expect its viewers to have a general understanding of most current events if you want to get the jokes. So while sure you could watch it without knowing the news, to me that would be like watching Spaceballs, without ever being exposed to Star Wars. Sure Yogurt is still funny, but you miss out on the bigger joke of what he is making fun of.

[amensisterfriend]

So I always held the UO of not getting the love for Modern Family based on various episodes I caught of the very widely loved first and second seasons. Last week, someone showed me a few episodes from the generally disliked fourth season---and somehow THAT becomes the season I really like. Another Modern Family UO is that I like and 'get' Claire. And I couldn't care less about which actress plays Lily :)

[festivus]

Possible UO:  Many shows on TV are dragging on way too long.  I still believe any show older than 7 seasons is essentially phoning it in.

 

This is something I say all the time. 7 seasons is enough.  With one exception which brings me to my unpopular opinion: I loved the last season of Scrubs. I would have happily continued to watch the show with the cast they had that last year. I didn't care for the new female J.D. much (didn't like the original recipe either), but I loved Drew, Denise and Cole.

[ganesh]

Shows definitely stay on a lot longer than they should overall. I think the staleness is on TPTBs though. Get a new writing team in there to refresh the show if it's been on so long. 

[kiddo82]

I'm not defending Brian Williams and I think NBC is doing what they have to do (you can't have the face of your nightly news caught broadcasting something that didn't happen) but I'm not sitting here clutching my pearls over it. You don't embellish news stories, period, but to act like the vast majority of news broadcasts aren't at best sensationalized and at worst one step away from full on fish story would be disingenuous. So, I find it kinda funny that a network which anchored its news from a "Blizzardmobile" (aka a Ford Explorer) during nothing worse than a dusting in NYC would report on the matter. Williams overstepped a fine line for sure, but it's a line that all the outlets walk.

Edited February 13, 2015 by kiddo82

[ribboninthesky1]

With so much fierce TV competition and production dollars being spread thinner than ever these days, I think it's a challenge to get 2-3 decent seasons from a show, let alone seven.

[Misslindsey]

The last few seasons of ER would rank among my favorites. Also, I enjoyed Abby, Carol, Sam, and Luka far more when they were on the back burner than when the had bigger storylines.

[Mulva]

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?

Not with me! Between the self-pity, hypocrisy, grudge-holding and general dickish behavior, I can't stand Dean. It wouldn't be so bad if the show didn't go out of it's way to marginalize and blame Sam for everything.

[Kel Varnsen]

Possible UO:  Many shows on TV are dragging on way too long.  I still believe any show older than 7 seasons is essentially phoning it in.

It is a weird catch-22 situation though I think. I mean I agree that for most shows 7 seasons is too long. But at the same time, I think even the best TV writers only have maybe a few really good ideas for TV shows that can be good and be successful (and that is not even factoring in that most concepts for shows aren't very good to begin with). So the options are to either have shows run long with good concepts that people like, or risk having more shows with crappy concepts that aren't very good, and the good shows not last as long.

This is something I say all the time. 7 seasons is enough.  With one exception which brings me to my unpopular opinion: I loved the last season of Scrubs. I would have happily continued to watch the show with the cast they had that last year. I didn't care for the new female J.D. much (didn't like the original recipe either), but I loved Drew, Denise and Cole.

I kind of liked it too. It had some potential I think and could have become good with some time. I mean Eliza Coupe is hilarious. Plus I would be curious to have seen what Aziz Ansari could have done on the show if he hadn't left the show for Parks and Recreation. I didn't really care for the JD replacement (it was weird to see the actress on Halt and Catch Fire). But I am the same, JD was the least interesting part of Scrubs for me anyways.

[Bruinsfan]

Agreeing on the Eliza Coup love, Denise was really the one part of AfterScrubs that I liked. I loved when Dr. Cox said “I'm gonna go ahead and give you a pass, because you have murder eyes."

[Wiendish Fitch]

My Scrubs UO is that I grew to loathe Dr. Cox. I thought he was a hateful, despicable, self-righteous bully, and his treatment of Elliot made my skin crawl. 

[Jipijapa]

I'm of the opinion that any show, no matter how old (or even any talented person, no matter how old) can still produce wonderful stuff.  And in fact, that the wonderful stuff brought forth by old shows/people is often some of their most wonderful work.

 

HOWEVER... those wonderful moments are harder and harder to find, fewer and farther between.  There is a lot of dross, retread, and bad uninspired stuff you have to plow through to get to the wonderful moments.  Mainly because the low-hanging creative fruit, the obvious good stuff, has already been plucked in the show's early or middle years.

 

I particularly hate it when older shows introduce new characters to go through the same old character beats that the show's core characters (many of whom have moved on) already went through years ago.  Selling the same stuff in new bottles.  Even worse - when shows force the same character to undergo the same development epiphanies that they really went through years ago, hoping the audience won't notice that it already happened.  For instance, on Fringe when Walter "finally" called Astrid by her correct name in the final episode.  (Erm... he'd actually done that several times in earlier seasons.)  That's a tiny example though - most of the problem is when a character has to "learn to love again" due to some past trauma or "finally pay for their sins" and we've already seen them go through this process at least once a season.

 

And also, the truth is, great characters can actually be used up.  You can take them through all their beats and still have a few seasons left over, and usually the solution is to have them become a parent which... really isn't all that interesting TBH (because little kids are boring and not drama-drivers).

 

So, I think it's good when shows quit while they are ahead.

[Brandi Maxxxx]

I particularly hate it when older shows introduce new characters to go through the same old character beats that the show's core characters (many of whom have moved on) already went through years ago.  Selling the same stuff in new bottles.

Why does this make me think of The Office?

[ganesh]

Part of the problem is that TPTBs feel like they have to make a show exactly the same every single year. Maintaining the status quo is creatively stifling. Not that the show should change for the sake of changing, but you can branch off. If it doesn't work, you can write yourself back to it. 

 

I think this is more of a problem with the broadcast shows though. I don't watch many of them, but H50 is basically the same show every week. The Mentalist started out different but TPTBs didn't have the balls to really tell the story they should have told. 

 

I don't think this is as much of a problem with the cable shows because they are allowed more freedom. Say what you want about The Walking Dead, but I think the show can go on for a while. No one really cares whether whichever Game of Thrones season features more or less of the Khaleesi, for example. 

[Neurochick]

My UO is that I don't get "hate watching."  I don't have that many hours in a day to waste watching shit I don't like, so I guess that's why I don't get it.  

Edited February 13, 2015 by Neurochick

[ChaseMCP]

I don't understand hate-watching either. I admit, I'm guilty of watching shows I've grown to dislike, but only because I'm always hopeful that it'll be as good as it once was. But I don't know why someone would want to watch a show that they either don't like or don't expect to like any time soon.

Recently I've felt that way in the Game of Thrones fandom. I like the books and I like the show and while there have been some disappointments I'm still excited for what the show can bring. However, so many book readers watch the show while complaining that it's not as good as the books and how it'll never be as good. Why you would waste time watching a show that you've decided you're not going to like and then whine about it to people who still enjoy it is beyond me.

[ganesh]

I think the people who complain about any adaptation not being as good as the books are just doing it to give themselves an air of superiority. I can't wait until the show catches up to the books and they diverge. 

 

I read Wheel of Time over the last 20+ years and it is ridiculously not worth it to invest time in a series where a book comes out every year or two and there's not really an ending in sight. Good for GRRM, and I wish him all the success, but whatever. 

 

I think it's good that this kind of show is successful and hope that more genre shows will be taken seriously. I'm not into all the superhero shows, so I'd like to see more of this. I'd actually prefer space opera, but they're in the same family.

[Rick Kitchen]

 

I think the people who complain about any adaptation not being as good as the books are just doing it to give themselves an air of superiority. I can't wait until the show catches up to the books and they diverge.

 

I had to laugh at the uproar over Ned Stark being killed on Game of Thrones the TV series.  Not only was it right there in the first book, but the whole rest of the plot revolves upon that murder.

[Joe]

 

I think the people who complain about any adaptation not being as good as the books are just doing it to give themselves an air of superiority.

I'm not an elitist wanker, I just genuinely don't like the adaptations and don't see the reason for most of them. Is that allowed?

[selkie]

There are times the series is better than the book(s). The first few seasons of Dexter come to mind.

[ganesh]

That's fine. Adaptation aren't normally as good. I have no doubt that the GOT books are better than the show. However, that's irrelevant. The show is pulling in mad numbers and is popular. It's drawing in new fans to this genre. That's great. Gloating about how better the books are while other people are just trying to watch the show is totally just being That Guy. 

 

Anyone who knows anything knew Ned Stark wasn't making it out of the first season, simply because he was Sean Bean.

 

News flash: people making tv shows based on books don't really care too too much about hardcore book readers because they need about 50 million times more than that to watch the show regularly. Whether the book readers are bitching or not, they're watching the show. 

[Enigma X]

I read the Song of Ice and Fire series up until book 4. My UO is that the TV series is better TV than just following the majority of the books.

[callie lee 29]

I guess my current UO's is that: 

1. spoilers don't alter whether I watch a show or not. I read them all the time, never changes if I'll watch or not. 

2. I don't have a problem with show going on for a long time. There has been only two shows that i Stopped watching in their later seasons, and it wasn't due to lack opf original stories or a decline in quality. West Wing and Homicide: Life on the Streets. I stopped them in their last (few) seasons due to cast changes not writing or quality of stories. 

[Cobalt Stargazer]

I'm not an elitist wanker, I just genuinely don't like the adaptations and don't see the reason for most of them. Is that allowed?

 

Of course its allowed. Where it gets annoying for me personally is when you get these purists (my word for them) who get pissed if one letter of the source material gets changed between the page and the screen.

[opus]

I guess my current UO's is that: 

1. spoilers don't alter whether I watch a show or not. I read them all the time, never changes if I'll watch or not. 

Half agree. I definitely try to avoid them, but if I stumble across one, I still watch.

[ganesh]

I avoid spoilers about 97% of the time. I don't even watch previews and trailers, casting announcements (for the most part). I am convinced my viewing experience is more enjoyable. 

 

One of my friends who does read GOT said the tv show was better. 

Edited February 14, 2015 by ganesh

[Enigma X]

I also have the UO of not minding spoilers. I actively seek them out and really don't think I lose any pleasure in my TV viewing habits by doing so.

[ganesh]

Addendum: No one seems to complain about the Outlander show versus the books. So maybe it's just that people who read GOT *and* bitch about the show are just assholes in general. 

 

The problem with being spoiled v not is in the episode discussions when people spoiled people will bring in "the detective was obviously the killer and he was telegraphing it in the first scene, so if you didn't see that you're stupid, but I was spoiled so I was looking for it." 

 

If you're spoiled and just watching the show, then that isn't really the problem. If you're on a public forum it's different. 

Edited February 14, 2015 by ganesh

[DittyDotDot]

I avoid spoilers about 97% of the time. I don't even watch previews and trailers, casting announcements (for the most part). I am convinced my viewing experience is more enjoyable. 

 

For me, I think it depends on the show. I don't actively seek out spoilers for any show, but if placed in front of me I'll dabble at times. Some shows it's better to be prepared and set your expectations accordingly and others I just go along for the ride and see where it all leads. I think my viewing experience for Supernatural is more enjoyable when I'm properly prepared (I still avoid their annoying promos, though), but feel like I enjoy Game of Thrones and Hannibal more when I'm not so I avoid all spoilers like the plague.

 

I don't have a problem with show going on for a long time. There has been only two shows that i Stopped watching in their later seasons, and it wasn't due to lack opf original stories or a decline in quality. West Wing and Homicide: Life on the Streets. I stopped them in their last (few) seasons due to cast changes not writing or quality of stories. 

 

I think it depends on the show. If it's a highly serialized piece, you can only drag out the story for so long before the story gets warped and convoluted--like say, Justified or Game of Thrones. In that case, I think it best to tell the story and take your bow. But a procedural or plot driven piece that basically does a reset at the end of each episode could go on longer as long as there are cases to be solved--like Law And Order. It's gets a little murkier when procedurals try to also be serialized--like Bones and Supernatural--there's only so many times you can have the same characters learn the same lessons and/or be put in similar situations before it gets stale and repetitive, IMO, best to probably go out on a high.

 

Now, if a show adopted Doctor Who's complete changing of the guard--cast and showrunners--every few years, probably could go on indefinitely. Of course, that would be a hard thing to sell for most shows, but would keep things from getting stale.

[amensisterfriend]

Objectively, Harper's Island was pretty terrible...but after rewatching clips of it recently, my UO is that I kind of loved it anyway and really wish we had more of mystery.thriller/horror miniseries like that...however cheesy and poorly plotted :) Bonus points for it featuring Chris Gorham and remaining the ONLY role in which I ever liked Katie Cassidy. And I also hold the UO of liking the character of Abby. 

[ABay]

I used to seek out and read spoilers for shows I really liked. Then one week I missed the spoilers and was surprised by a twist I didn't know was coming. At that point, I realized that 1. When I knew what was coming, that became the focus of my watching, overwhelming everything else in an episode. 2. I prefer being surprised. So now I avoid spoilers almost as actively as I used to search for them.

[Haleth]

I will agree that the GoT series is better than the books because it will have a conclusion.  The writers won't be insulting us with claims that yeah, maybe next year they'll get around to finishing the next chapter.  Maybe.  If they feel like it.

[DittyDotDot]

Objectively, Harper's Island was pretty terrible...but after rewatching clips of it recently, my UO is that I kind of loved it anyway and really wish we had more of mystery.thriller/horror miniseries like that...however cheesy and poorly plotted :) Bonus points for it featuring Chris Gorham and remaining the ONLY role in which I ever liked Katie Cassidy. And I also hold the UO of liking the character of Abby. 

 

Yeah, I've been lamenting the lack of mini-series for some time now. I think some things are better just as one-and-dones rather than being drug out over multiple years.

 

Oh yeah, and I remember kinda liking Harper's Island. It was what it was--cheesy horror/mystery--and wasn't trying to be anything more.

[scarynikki12]

Harper's Island is one of those shows that I completely enjoyed even though it wasn't good.  That's because I felt that everyone involved was on the same page at how insane it was and were ready to embrace the crazy.  Even with that in mind, I think the characterizations and relationships were generally very well done, which was the biggest surprise for me when I watched it.  I went into it wanting to satisfy mild curiosity as to who the killer would be and came out of it wishing there were more seasons (though it would have needed to be like True Detective and bring in a new cast and mystery each time).  I also loved that this silly murder mystery show, which was derided by critics and watched by few, managed to avoid a lot of the tropes that make me crazy (love triangles, One Special Girl, Draco in Leather Pants to name three) while so many of the popular/critically acclaimed shows that are still on fall down the trope well into dull predictability. 

 

While I've liked Katie Cassidy in many projects, I will say that I think Harper's Island was her best work.  Trish could easily have been a clichéd spoiled rich girl who saw herself as doing Henry a favor by marrying him and never rose above being one dimensional.  But, between the surprisingly decent character writing and Cassidy's acting choices, Trish was a fleshed out character who I completely believe loved Henry, liked his friends and family, and wasn't at all threatened by his BFF being a female.  She felt like a real person rather than the list of horror tropes that I'd feared. 

 

I miss that show. 

[jhlipton]

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.

 

Yes, this.  More than anything else, the "I'm always right" attitude of Jack (and even more, Dick Wolf) put my off L&O for good.  Even more so with the Sadism and Voyeurs Unit.

[decembar13]

Yes, this.  More than anything else, the "I'm always right" attitude of Jack (and even more, Dick Wolf) put my off L&O for good.  Even more so with the Sadism and Voyeurs Unit.

 

Oh, the SVU! The show that got me into hate watch - just so I can yell at Benson and Stabler, and the stupid faces they've got on those times when DAs would criticize them and their righteousness ("but we really care for the victims!" - stfu! all the other detectives do too). Also, rape is bad, awful, degrading, disgusting (and so much more that my limited knowledge of English language is preventing me to describe) and rapists should be put in jails never ever to see the day light,..., but in all honesty how many sexual assaults are done in such sadistic mannerism as shown in SVU?! I stopped watching the show because of that.

[ganesh]

I will agree that the GoT series is better than the books because it will have a conclusion.  The writers won't be insulting us with claims that yeah, maybe next year they'll get around to finishing the next chapter.  Maybe.  If they feel like it.

 

It's a pretty rich enough world that the show could go on for another 5-7 years and still be good. I'm assuming the next phase of the show will be winter and then probably it ends with the next coming summer. But, it's got to end at some point. I don't fault GRRM; it's in his interest to keep writing as long as people are buying. 

Edited February 14, 2015 by ganesh

[ribboninthesky1]

Regarding long-term TV series, I wonder how much the current landscape influences networks and showrunners.  Maybe it's just because I notice it more now vs the past, but it seems like there's a trend of showrunners creating a show, and then quickly moving on to the next project.  Or, even if a project fails, they will pop up on another show.  Thus, there's no genuine investment in cultivating a show, since the guard can and does change often.  I'm not curious enough to do the research, but I do wonder how much this explains sophomore slumps. Once upon a time, there just weren't as many scripted TV options, so perhaps you couldn't just jump ship on a whim?  I don't know, maybe TV has always switched out creative teams with ease. 

 

Not to mention the "Reality TV" trend, of which programs are supposedly cheaper to produce than scripted TV. 

[MaryPatShelby]

I think this counts as a TV UO because commercials and HBO - I am officially over Matthew McConaughey. He probably is a wonderful actor. But I've had enough of his mumbling his way through car commercials (not to mention his way-beyond-cool attitude) and I had to turn the subtitles on during a recent viewing of Dallas Buyers Club, which I hate doing.

[CoderLady]

Regarding long-term TV series, I wonder how much the current landscape influences networks and showrunners.  Maybe it's just because I notice it more now vs the past, but it seems like there's a trend of showrunners creating a show, and then quickly moving on to the next project.  Or, even if a project fails, they will pop up on another show.  Thus, there's no genuine investment in cultivating a show, since the guard can and does change often.  I'm not curious enough to do the research, but I do wonder how much this explains sophomore slumps. Once upon a time, there just weren't as many scripted TV options, so perhaps you couldn't just jump ship on a whim?  I don't know, maybe TV has always switched out creative teams with ease.

 

This is what I suspect is the reason so many shows that start out spectacularly go downhill after a couple of seasons. The more creative showrunners escape to new projects hoping to keep up the momentum and establish themselves as hot properties while they're still popular. The people left behind are the lesser talent who were better at taking direction than being creative. In their hands what used to be interesting, multifaceted characters get reduced to a quirk or two and the plots start getting more generic. Finally, once there's nothing good left the show gets canceled and it all starts up again someplace else.

 

I suppose it's inevitable because everybody has to eat whether you're trying to capitalize on sudden fame or a second-string hack, but it plays hell with shows I like.

[ganesh]

Maybe that's why there should be more limited run tv series and mini series then. Say what you want about Breaking Bad, but there weren't that many episodes and it's a still popular show. 

 

One could argue that the problems with Sleepy Hallow (of which I think are way overblown) is because the season order is stretched out.