Party of One: Unpopular TV Opinions

[JTMacc99]

Heh, my brother-in-law and young nieces assure me that fart jokes and potty humor are always hilarious! If you could've only seen my eyes rolling when they told me this. ;)

 

A man may break a word with you, sir, and words are but wind

 

Ay, and break it in your face, so he break it not behind.

 

The Comedy of Errors - William Shakespeare

 

Just sayin'... Shakespeare was a fan of the fart joke, so they can't be all bad.

[UYI]

I talked about this in the reboot thread, but I don't know where else this might be appropriate, but the Craig T. Nelson show Coach is getting a reboot:

 

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/craig-t-nelson-star-coach-784791

 

I'm posting about it here but this might very well be a UO:

 

Is it a random idea? Yes, admittedly. But was it one of my favorite shows growing up and am I excited as all get out that it's coming back? HELL YES I AM. As someone who is generally not into sci-fi shows (another UO!), seeing a comfort food sitcom that I loved* and still love being revisited makes me very, very happy, as this is something more to my taste, I get to see Craig T. Nelson as Hayden Fox again (one of my earliest crushes..sigh), I get to see how his son Timothy turned out, and maybe even more of the original cast will turn up! And if it gets me to finally finish the rest of the original series on Netflix as preparation, so much the better. I'm willing to give this a chance and see how it turns out. :)

 

That said, if they don't bring back the theme song, I may have to cut a bitch. :P

 

Also, would anyone be up for a Coach forum, where we can talk about both the original series and the reboot? I'm willing to start it, but I don't want to be by myself. :)

 

*I never watched Boy Meets World, so when GMW came on it didn't really mean much to me.

Edited March 27, 2015 by UYI

[Neurochick]

I would rather have Aaron Sorkin at his dickiest than another minute of Shonda Rimes's cynical, manipulative, "empowered" garbage. Scandal horrifies me, and that adulation that cheap hacks like Rhimes and Ryan Murphy receive fills me with despair for humanity.

 

I liked Aaron Sorkin, but his world was far too white for me.  At least Shonda realizes that black women do exist.

[Sandman]

Well, that's true. (I'm sure Sorkin realized that Anna Deavere Smith exists, but beyond her? He might be stumped.)

[Sandman]

I miss Go On, too. That's gotta be a pretty unpopular opinion among the general viewing audience.

[ganesh]

The Comedy of Errors - William Shakespeare

 

*Two* sets of people look alike. Hilarity ensues. This play is the ultimate sitcom. 

[merylinkid]

Shakespeare is considered "literature" now, but remember he wrote for the common masses.    So fart jokes and sitcoms were right up his alley.  

[Moose135]

I would rather have Aaron Sorkin at his dickiest than another minute of Shonda Rimes's cynical, manipulative, "empowered" garbage. Scandal horrifies me, and that adulation that cheap hacks like Rhimes and Ryan Murphy receive fills me with despair for humanity.

 

I'd take Sorkin at his dickiest over about 99% of anything else on the tube...

Edited March 27, 2015 by Moose135

[Sandman]

Sturgeon's Law, table for four, heh.

[amensisterfriend]

Now I'm depressed that Go On isn't available on DVD...and neither is Jake 2.0 or a bunch of other shows I loved and miss. This is what I get for liking the 'unpopular' :) 

 

Random UO, but I can't stand narration or voiceovers to the point where it severely decreases my enjoyment of acclaimed shows like Arrested Development, Pushing Daisies, Veronica Mars, etc. AD's narration in particular was ridiculously excessive IM(U)O. 

[cynic]

Would you have wanted to see The Sixth Sense if you knew the twist? Sure, some dumb tidbit about black-ish isn't going to hurt, but the "preview-monkeys" often include major revelations that I would prefer to watch in as it happens.

Some of it is my responsibility -- I'll skip threads and websites that talk about episodes I've not seen, and I'll jam the Fast Forward so quick if I see a preview coming on. But sometimes it's hard to avoid, and I hate that.

Yeah, if I care about not being spoiled for something, I understand that it's on me to not go to message boards or read review comments about that show. What irritates me is when I'm reading the forum of a completely different show and someone feels the need to say something like, "I hope John doesn't die like how Bill got killed off in Spaceport One last night. Wasn't that shocking!?!" Ugh. Sure, it's not the end of the world, but a little consideration would be nice. I'll still enjoy the episode, but I'll enjoy it more if I remain unspoiled.

[Chaos Theory]

I would rather have Aaron Sorkin at his dickiest than another minute of Shonda Rhimes's cynical, manipulative, "empowered" garbage. Scandal horrifies me, and that adulation that cheap hacks like Rhimes and Ryan Murphy receive fills me with despair for humanity.

I "get" the Shonda Rhines hate to a point. Personally I love that she writes empowered women. There are far too few of them on TV. My issue is with the soapy nature of the empowerment. Her shows tend to be Prine Time soaps and those don't appeal to everyone. I am actual getting tired of them myself but that doesn't mean I don't appriate strong female characters who lead the cast and aren't just the supporting role. As for Ryan Murphy I never understood the hate. As far as I am concerned he has one terrible horrible show under his belt and that is Glee. To base your entire opinion of him off that seems silly to me. American Horror Story is mostly fantastic. The Normal Heart was great and I believe I enjoyed Nip/Tuck.

Edited March 29, 2015 by Chaos Theory

[BabyVegas]

 

I "get" the Shonda Rhines hate to a point. Personally I love that she writes empowered women. There are far too few of them on TV.

I guess my UO here would be that I don't know how empowered her women are. I couldn't even make it through the pilot for HTGAWM and I don't think she's a writer on that one anyway, so I can't really comment, but Olivia's relationship with POTUS was all sorts of messed up and he treated her awfully. I almost threw up when he acted butthurt that she was trying to move on from him when he was still married. He exhibited the traits I most dislike in the people I know who have cheated. He wanted what he wanted, everyone else's lives be damned, but he didn't want to bear the consequences of his actions. And the Owen-Cristina relationship in Grey's Anatomy? I thought Owen marrying Cristina while knowing that she didn't want kids and then getting mad over the fact that she didn't want kids was TV-shootingly stupid. But Cristina stayed with him because true love or some crap.

 

Honestly, I think Shonda Rhimes is fantastic at writing moments. The first season of Grey's Anatomy was so fun and felt really fresh. The first season of Scandal grabbed me. But she doesn't seem to have a sense of pacing in terms of holding up a show long-term and I think sometimes she veers so much towards Big Moments that it's just exhausting to watch her shows. I am thrilled that as a woman, and particularly a woman of color, she has become so powerful. I think she's a fascinating woman and she does have a talent for creating cultural touchstones. I just don't really enjoy watching them for very long.

 

And in general (I think this is a UO?) I loathe tortured relationships. These relationships frequently show two people hurting each other, and typically a lot of people around them, rather than communication and making a decision. In practice it's usually really selfish. I know the reason is because writers and showrunners don't want to break the tension, but what ends up happening is that the reasons to stay apart have to change constantly and at a certain point I just start thinking that these two people are actively bad for each other and are hurting each other and are making each other miserable and they should just declare defeat. But maybe I just have a lower tolerance for dramatics.

[Sandman]

For me, the "soapy nature" contrivances overwhelm (counteract, really) any empowerment that Rhimes's female characters are supposed to have. And I have tried to watch three or four of Murphy's shows, and they're all awful, or he gets bored and then the plots go off the rails, or the characters become parodies. He's rarely interested in anything other than shock value.

Edited March 29, 2015 by Sandman

[DittyDotDot]

I've only watched a handful of Grey's Anatomy episodes and no other Rhines shows, but if Grey's is anything to judge, I agree I don't think the women on them are actually all that empowered or nuanced. I found them fairly cliché and would be why I only watched a handful of episodes. Plus, it was all sorts of soapy and that's just not my thing.

 

While Sorkin's shows might be too "white" I think he does have some rather realistically nuanced and empowered female characters. My issues with Sorkin is his tendency to preach at me. I generally don't put up with anyone sitting in my house and telling me how to feel about anything, but, for some reason, Sorkin gets away with it. What's up with that?

[ganesh]

I hate when people get out of the shower and the mirror is foggy, they wipe it off with their hands. That only makes it streaky! You can't expend the effort to pick up the hand towel?

[callie lee 29]

 

Would you have wanted to see The Sixth Sense if you knew the twist?  Sure, some dumb tidbit about black-ish isn't going to hurt, but the "preview-monkeys" often include major revelations that I would prefer to watch in as it happens.

Actually, I did watch the Sixth Sense knowing the twist. Wasn't an issue for me, I still enjoyed the movie.

 

 

I've only watched a handful of Grey's Anatomy episodes and no other Rhines shows, but if Grey's is anything to judge, I agree I don't think the women on them are actually all that empowered or nuanced. I found them fairly cliché and would be why I only watched a handful of episodes. Plus, it was all sorts of soapy and that's just not my thing.

 

While Sorkin's shows might be too "white" I think he does have some rather realistically nuanced and empowered female characters. My issues with Sorkin is his tendency to preach at me. I generally don't put up with anyone sitting in my house and telling me how to feel about anything, but, for some reason, Sorkin gets away with it. What's up with that?

I agree. And perhaps the soapy nature of them do get in the way, but I've never found her female characters very empowered or well-developed. Sorkin does both well, but he definitely needs to expand his world-view and get off his high-horse on a few issues.

[Cobalt Stargazer]

Yeah, if I care about not being spoiled for something, I understand that it's on me to not go to message boards or read review comments about that show. What irritates me is when I'm reading the forum of a completely different show and someone feels the need to say something like, "I hope John doesn't die like how Bill got killed off in Spaceport One last night. Wasn't that shocking!?!" Ugh. Sure, it's not the end of the world, but a little consideration would be nice. I'll still enjoy the episode, but I'll enjoy it more if I remain unspoiled.

 

But what if it's a show that's been off the air for years? I once drew a comparison between two pairings that were fairly similar in nature because they'd been created by more or less the same writers,  then was chastised for spoiling another poster about the outcome, despite the fact that both shows had ended. I can understand being spoiler-phobic while something is actually on the air, but when does the statute of limitations expire?

 

As for Ryan Murphy I never understood the hate. As far as I am concerned he has one terrible horrible show under his belt and that is Glee. To base your entire opinion of him off that seems silly to me. American Horror Story is mostly fantastic. The Normal Heart was great and I believe I enjoyed Nip/Tuck.

 

Personally, I think Glee is bad enough that it should sour people on Ryan Murphy. It started out as an okay if not fabulous show, then devolved into crap. Anything else he's involved with being good is despite him, not because of him, IMO.

[Enigma X]

I absolutely loved Nip/Tuck, in the beginning, but it went so wrong by the end and that was what soured me on Ryan Murphy (not his other projects). I tried giving some of his other stuff a go, but they, inevitably, followed the exact same trajectory--high and then a quick and epic descent to low.

[Enigma X]

As for Shonda Rhimes, there are lots of shows on today that write women as real people (not one-dimensional caricatures) better. I think many focus on a woman being written as what they consider "strong" these days. I, however, just want to see a variety of women, in general, characters, specifically, that are three-dimensional, meaning strong, weak, tough, funny, in positions of power or not, and, gasp, more realistically, a varied mixture of all that in one character, on my screen. 

 

I give her credit for bringing more women of color to primetime, but I still hate her shows.

[Chaos Theory]

 

Personally, I think Glee is bad enough that it should sour people on Ryan Murphy. It started out as an okay if not fabulous show, then devolved into crap. Anything else he's involved with being good is despite him, not because of him, IMO.

 

 I am not sure if it unpopular or not but in my opinion one thing should never be what someone is known for no matter how good or bad it is.  A single show does not  determine worth especially when it comes to entertainment.  A person could have a lifetime of crappy shows and then have a single hit.  That does not make them a genius.  A person could have a lifetime a great television and then a show like Glee that does not make them a hack.  

Edited March 29, 2015 by Chaos Theory

[joelene]

Re: Ryan Murphy I'm of the UO that Nip/Tuck is his only show I've liked from beginning to end. Season 5 was pretty epic in its insaneness and I loved it unabashedly. It certainly became more somber in its last two seasons but I still really enjoyed it. And somehow, even though I couldn't stand Julia, Joely Richardson made her oddly compelling. It hurt the show a bit when she all but disappeared. I mean they were all awful people to various degrees (except Liz) but I think it helped that they were awful from the beginning so I didn't expect anything else. I just enjoyed the crazy.

The same can sadly not be said for any other Murphy show but still I look forward to his new projects. At the very least I'm guaranteed a pretty great first season.

[mansonlamps]

I feel sort of like a monster saying this but I don't enjoy Diane on Black-ish.

[Silverglitter]

I feel sort of like a monster saying this but I don't enjoy Diane on Black-ish.

I'm with ya.I guess I just don't enjoy little kids being portrayed as so cynical.

I actually do enjoy the moments when she's allowed to act like the little girl that she is, but those are few and far between.

[ganesh]

Kids on tv are written way too self aware and cynical. The great thing about bobs burgers is that the kids act like kids.

[Sandman]

I think black ...ish is an almost entirely conventional sitcom. The pilot had some sharp points that found their marks (as far as I am able to tell, that is) about the assimilation of black people into mainstream culture, but subsequent episodes felt like standard situations I'd seen many times before. The episode where the dad walks in on his son getting his, er, Onan on was especially cringe-inducing. The whole episode seemed to drag on forever.

Edited March 30, 2015 by Sandman

[cynic]

But what if it's a show that's been off the air for years? I once drew a comparison between two pairings that were fairly similar in nature because they'd been created by more or less the same writers, then was chastised for spoiling another poster about the outcome, despite the fact that both shows had ended. I can understand being spoiler-phobic while something is actually on the air, but when does the statute of limitations expire?

....

Oh for sure, some people take things way too far, but I don't think it's unreasonable to hope that people wouldn't talk about huge plot twists in unrelated forums before the DVR+7 ratings have had a chance to come in. I've run into people talking about major developments on other forums before the show in question even aired on the west coast! And even if it has been a while, it's probably not necessary most of the time to discuss specific plot points of other shows anyway. I mean, I certainly wouldn't get upset with someone who did, but maybe people could ask themselves if mentioning specifics from another show is really necessary to make their point.

Speaking of spoilers, it also irritates me when people are aware of a specific spoiler policy and then try to get all coy about it. I had to stop reading the US forum for Lost Girl on TwoP, because certain Canadian viewers would respond to things like "I don't like so-and-so together. I wish they were with this other person instead." with posts like "Just wait. You'll really like season 3!". Hmm, I think I've cracked your ingenious code. I actually like so-and-so together. Thanks for letting me know they don't last! At least it seems like the mods have a handle on book readers in the GoT and WD forums here.

[ribboninthesky1]

I think black ...ish is an almost entirely conventional sitcom. The pilot had some sharp points that found their marks (as far as I am able to tell, that is) about the assimilation of black people into mainstream culture, but subsequent episode felt like standard situations I'd seen many times before. 

 

That's the problem with the show having that kind of hook - no way is it sustainable.  I remember catching on to that after the first several episodes.  Going broad is fine, but if anyone is watching the show explicitly for what it means to be black middle-class in the USA, they'll be disappointed.   

 

I hate when people get out of the shower and the mirror is foggy, they wipe it off with their hands. That only makes it streaky! You can't expend the effort to pick up the hand towel?

 

And why do you need to gaze into the mirror at that moment anyway? You can't wait five minutes? It's as annoying as a person, usually a woman, sliding down her shower wall in despair.  You can't sob standing up? 

 

And in general (I think this is a UO?) I loathe tortured relationships. These relationships frequently show two people hurting each other, and typically a lot of people around them, rather than communication and making a decision. In practice it's usually really selfish. I know the reason is because writers and showrunners don't want to break the tension, but what ends up happening is that the reasons to stay apart have to change constantly and at a certain point I just start thinking that these two people are actively bad for each other and are hurting each other and are making each other miserable and they should just declare defeat. But maybe I just have a lower tolerance for dramatics.

 

I have watched the first two seasons of Grimm, thanks to Amazon Prime.  Your comment reminds me of the relationship between Nick and Juliette.  From what I understand, not being a Juliette fan is common.  But Nick annoyed me just as much, and together, they are insufferable, precisely because of the tortured relationship BS. The show crawled to a stop for me every time their drama was highlighted. I'm torn about watching more episodes because of them, plus the fact that Nick is the least interesting character on the show.  Also, both actors come from the school of "open your eyes really wide to express all emotion" acting, and it bugs.  A lot.       

Edited March 30, 2015 by ribboninthesky1

[FormerMod-a1]

And why do you need to gaze into the mirror at that moment anyway? You can't wait five minutes? It's as annoying as a person, usually a woman, sliding down her shower wall in despair.  You can't sob standing up?    

 

And why do they need to be naked and wet to sob in despair?  Why does that feeling never hit before or after the shower, or any other time really?

[cynic]

Oh yeah, that sobbing in the shower is so cliche that it bugs, especially when it's clearly just for dramatic purposes. I'm sure the Walking Dead writers thought Shane losing it in the shower was going to be moving, but all I could think during it was, "You're wasting water!"

On a completely different topic, I saw a commercial that reminded me that I never liked Lexie on the Vampire Diaries.

[ChromaKelly]

Oh yeah, that sobbing in the shower is so cliche that it bugs, especially when it's clearly just for dramatic purposes. I'm sure the Walking Dead writers thought Shane losing it in the shower was going to be moving, but all I could think during it was, "You're wasting water!"

 

OMG yes! Especially since they are in the midst of the Zombie Apocalypse, had *just* wormed their way into staying at the farm, and that's what he does? Wastes their water and power running the shower so he can lose it and shave his head? Took me right out of the moment.

[DittyDotDot]

Oh yeah, that sobbing in the shower is so cliche that it bugs, especially when it's clearly just for dramatic purposes. I'm sure the Walking Dead writers thought Shane losing it in the shower was going to be moving, but all I could think during it was, "You're wasting water!"

 

Maybe he wasn't wasting water, but he was the source of it? So don't routinely sob in the shower? I bet it could be cathartic, if you'd just try. ;)

 

I laugh at this all the time because every time I've tried to sit down in my shower, due to an injury or something, I just wanted to sob because the water is running down my face and getting in my eyes and it's damn annoying.

[galax-arena]

I think Evan and Emery on Fresh Off the Boat are hilarious and adorable, but no, I do not want to see a drastic increase in screentime for them. IMO they work as characters precisely because they're peripheral/side roles and we see them in limited doses.

Edited March 30, 2015 by galax-arena

[proserpina65]

But what if it's a show that's been off the air for years? I once drew a comparison between two pairings that were fairly similar in nature because they'd been created by more or less the same writers,  then was chastised for spoiling another poster about the outcome, despite the fact that both shows had ended. I can understand being spoiler-phobic while something is actually on the air, but when does the statute of limitations expire?

 

I'm one of those people who do make an effort to avoid spoilers most of the time, but even I think that once a show has finished its run, I have no business expecting others not to talk about plot points.  I figure that I should've watched it at the time if I was that concerned about being unspoiled.

[UYI]

I'm one of those people who do make an effort to avoid spoilers most of the time, but even I think that once a show has finished its run, I have no business expecting others not to talk about plot points.  I figure that I should've watched it at the time if I was that concerned about being unspoiled.

 

I agree. That said, I think the one big exception to this rule, and it may be too obvious to even bring this up, should be series finales. For example, I'm curious about what happened at the end of HIMYM that pissed everyone off so much, and since I haven't watched the show at all yet, I don't know what it is and am trying to avoid it. (I think I saw a reference to it once that gave me an idea, though).

 

Of course, there are even exceptions to that rule. I know all about the legendary Newhart finale that turned out to be a dream, and that's perfectly okay with me. :)

[Lady Calypso]

I guess I have a UO about Shonda Rhimes' show HTGAWM and that is I hate the character of Annalise. I know Viola Davis is a wonderful actress and she's had some strong moments in the show as Annalise, but the character just sucks so much. I don't really get how she's somehow this awesome and kickass lawyer, especially when she's blackmailing people and breaking the rules to win at every opportunity. Her character also cries every single goddamn episode and besides that only badass moment of Davis choosing to take off her makeup and wig to make the scene more powerful, it's quite frankly annoying and I stopped caring about Annalise's 'woe is me' attitude, especially after Sam's found dead and she's in 'mourning'. It's not like Annalise cared about Sam much anyway. She's just as despicable as he is! She's even getting her students to do the wrong thing and HIDE THE FACT THAT THEY KILLED SAM. I know what the show is called, but it's ridiculous because these students look up to her and she's letting them down. I need her to go to jail next season and lose her lawyer license for good. Also, bang Wes or confirm that Wes is your son, Annalise. Either way, these Annalise/Wes scenes need to be halted immediately because the vibe is creepy and Wes deserves a better role model than this woman that calls herself the best lawyer. 

[ribboninthesky1]

My general feelings are, if spoilers are so sensitive of an issue for a person, I sincerely question why they frequently access social media, whether it's Facebook, Twitter, forums like these, entertainment websites, etc.  The web is truly global, and I have no idea how spoilers (for shows that have actually aired, where ever that may be) are to be policed to please everyone.     

 

And why do they need to be naked and wet to sob in despair?  Why does that feeling never hit before or after the shower, or any other time really?

 

Maybe the shower activates tear ducts in a way that a sofa or bed cannot.        

[CoderLady]

Speaking of extracurricular shower activities, I keep waiting for the water to run cold which to me would cut short ASAP **double entendre alert** anything people do in the shower besides wash, but apparently there are homes with unlimited hot water.

[proserpina65]

My general feelings are, if spoilers are so sensitive of an issue for a person, I sincerely question why they frequently access social media, whether it's Facebook, Twitter, forums like these, entertainment websites, etc.  The web is truly global, and I have no idea how spoilers (for shows that have actually aired, where ever that may be) are to be policed to please everyone.

 

People shouldn't have to avoid all social media just to avoid seeing major spoilers.  It isn't that hard to not put the details of last night's big reveal on the main page of a general entertainment site, or to not discuss specifics of an unrelated show/movie/book in the forum for an entirely different show/movie/book.  People do go to general sites for info on other topics, and shouldn't have to stay away completely.  For example, if I want to read about the latest hot new movies, or the latest Game of Thrones news, I should be able to go to EW's main page without being spoiled about shows I haven't yet watched.  That said, I've learned over the last year or so which places to avoid, and further, if I go to the actual forum for a particular show without having seen the most recent episode, I deserve what I get.

[Kel Varnsen]

Maybe the shower activates tear ducts in a way that a sofa or bed cannot.        

I always figured it was that kind of production cheat. If an actor is not good at fake crying throw them in a shower while they are crying and it becomes much harder to tell.

[DeLurker]

Maybe the shower activates tear ducts in a way that a sofa or bed cannot.        

Same principal as turning on the tap to help you go pee.

[Sandman]

"Hydro-catharsis: Cheaper than actual therapy, but not by that much. (Offer currently void in California.)"

[Moose135]

...but apparently there are homes with unlimited hot water.

 

Used to live in a house like that - it was a tankless system, the hot water line ran through the furnace, so you had more or less unlimited hot water.

[cynic]

People shouldn't have to avoid all social media just to avoid seeing major spoilers. It isn't that hard to not put the details of last night's big reveal on the main page of a general entertainment site, or to not discuss specifics of an unrelated show/movie/book in the forum for an entirely different show/movie/book. People do go to general sites for info on other topics, and shouldn't have to stay away completely. For example, if I want to read about the latest hot new movies, or the latest Game of Thrones news, I should be able to go to EW's main page without being spoiled about shows I haven't yet watched. That said, I've learned over the last year or so which places to avoid, and further, if I go to the actual forum for a particular show without having seen the most recent episode, I deserve what I get.

I tend to agree with this. I can't watch Walking Dead in real-time, so I won't be able to see the finale until it shows up on OnDemand, which sometimes takes a few days on my carrier. I know better than to go anywhere in the WD forums or even to IMDB, where plot turns often show up in the thread subject lines. Fortunately, I don't really use Facebook/Twitter that much, because I'll likely have to stay away from there as well. However, it does bum me out when I'm looking at the news and they run a headline like (no spoiler, not an actual headline) "Carl Dies and more shocking twists from last night's season finale!". Really? Does that have to be on your main page? It would also frustrate me to go to the Flash's forum and see people discussing it. That said, I couldn't be upset if I ran into a spoiler here, since this thread is theoretically for all shows, I'm living dangerously though!

Ultimately though, it is just tv and these things are just minor annoyances. The only time I would actually be really irritated at a spoiler is if there poster is flouting a forum rule in posting it. I should be able to read the WD No Book Spoilers thread freely without worrying that someone is going to go, "I'm surprised John is still alive. He's totally dead by now in the comics!".

[ribboninthesky1]

People shouldn't have to avoid all social media just to avoid seeing major spoilers.  It isn't that hard to not put the details of last night's big reveal on the main page of a general entertainment site, or to not discuss specifics of an unrelated show/movie/book in the forum for an entirely different show/movie/book.  People do go to general sites for info on other topics, and shouldn't have to stay away completely.  For example, if I want to read about the latest hot new movies, or the latest Game of Thrones news, I should be able to go to EW's main page without being spoiled about shows I haven't yet watched.  That said, I've learned over the last year or so which places to avoid, and further, if I go to the actual forum for a particular show without having seen the most recent episode, I deserve what I get.

 

Well, I'll agree to disagree.  The game has long changed, and there is discussion about shows not only in real-time, but 24/7 because of the nature of the web.  I don't frequent sites like EW.com, unless I'm specifically interested in something.  As I stated, there seem to be so many rules and caveats to how spoilers are to be treated, there's no way to cover all bases without displeasing someone. Which to me, if it's that serious, the best option is to avoid social media until you can watch the show.  Those who complain seem to be the ones who frequent sites that discuss TV, so it is what it is.  

[truthaboutluv]

I agree and stated this in a previous post. The reality is social media has made the spoilers game very complicated. And sure you shouldn't HAVE to avoid it but don't be upset or surprised when you're inadvertently spoiled no matter how cautious you are about avoiding certain sites. I always use this example of a former American Idol contestant tweeting about his favorite being eliminated and some people following him getting mad because they were on the West Coast.

 

But then at the same time, trending on twitter, was the names of the final two. So one quick glance and one was spoiled. If you're on social media, it's hard to avoid things and it is unfair to get upset at others if something has already aired. I get that not everyone can watch things in real time but ymmv, my unpopular opinion is that once it's aired, it's no longer a spoiler and fair game. 

Edited March 30, 2015 by truthaboutluv

[cynic]

The Flash UO's:

I don't care about Cisco, so I remained unmoved during his storyline the last two weeks.

I think Danielle Panabaker is a terrible actress. I don't find the supposed SnowBarry teases cute or think she has much chemistry with Barry, mainly due to her stilted affect. I think the only reason their scenes work at all is Grant Gustin's charm.

The thought of Grood showing up fills me with dread, because this show is already on the goofy side and requires a ridiculous amount of handwaving. I think a talking gorilla will actually tip it into unwatchable territory for me.

I agree that the writing for Iris hasn't been of the good, but I don't hate her character. I also don't see anything wrong with Candice Patton's skills or her chemistry with Gustin. I thought the flirtation between Iris and the Flash during the first half of the season sizzled and I wish the writers had kept that up for a while longer instead of having Barry confess and introduce all the angst.

[kili]

My general feelings are, if spoilers are so sensitive of an issue for a person, I sincerely question why they frequently access social media, whether it's Facebook, Twitter, forums like these, entertainment websites, etc.  The web is truly global, and I have no idea how spoilers (for shows that have actually aired, where ever that may be) are to be policed to please everyone.

 

I tend to agree. When the new Harry Potter books came out, I went on a total media diet. You could be reading a blog about knitting and some jack-a-lope would post "XXX DIES!""". On the radio, some DJ would opine on the latest twist. On TV, there would be a news bulletin about upset Potter fans because of Y.

 

I didn't want to get spoiled, so no media until I read the book myself.  If I don't want to get spoiled, it is up to me. Expecting to go days without hearing somebody chatting about it at the water cooller or discussing it on social media is like yelling at the rain to stop.

 

People who spoil things before they are generally known (i.e. prior to the episode airing) are jerks. Once an episode has aired, it is up to the non-viewers to avoid the spoilers. People want to discuss it. How long must they otherwise wait. One day? Two days? Two months?

 

My UO? I hate those little "local colour pieces" on the news. Some guy goes out and finds some random weirdness to film and gets people to comment on it. The problem is that the random weirdness is rarely that interesting and the people commenting just say nice things about it to get on TV. Stop wasting my time and find something actually interesting. I'm sure with a little more effort they could. We have two local news channels that have two randomly boring guys doing this and I can't switch the channel fast enough. I don't care why there is an ugly sweater on the telephone pole.

Edited March 30, 2015 by kili

[kiddo82]

I don't think it's too much to ask for spoilers to not be posted on the main page of entertainment websites or for talk shows to give a spoiler warning before discussing last night's Scandal*. The way we consume media has evolved so much in just the last five or so years that I don't think it's a stretch for outlets to adapt with the times. As a reformed spolierholic I can tell you, I find TV so much more enjoyable when I don't know what's coming. I get that sometimes merely being on the internet can be playing with fire but there is a fine line between going to EW.com and getting spoiled while seeking something completely different and going into that show's specific thread.

*I'm talking about morning radio talk shows or banter between television talk show hosts. If I haven't seen Scandle yet, and I'm too much of a knuckle head to turn off Kelly and Michael when Kerry Washington walks out, well then I have no one to blame but myself.

[DittyDotDot]

My UO? I hate those little "local colour pieces" on the news. Some guy goes out and finds some random weirdness to film and gets people to comment on it. The problem is that the random weirdness is rarely that interesting and the people commenting just say nice things about it to get on TV. Stop wasting my time and find something actually interesting. I'm sure with a little more effort they could. We have two local news channels that have two randomly boring guys doing this and I can't switch the channel fast enough. I don't care why there is an ugly sweater on the telephone pole.

 

I could get behind it if it was just part of some local news run down..."and now for the local weird," but they make it a thing when it's not. They take a camera crew out and talk to random people walking by on the street and turn it into a five minute piece when it barley deserved 10 seconds. I know some of it is to fill time because average viewers are bored with actual local news--like city/county government--but some of those things are just too much for me too.